Help talk:CS1 errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bimonthly published magazines[edit]

Some magazines are published bimonthly and give their publication date as e.g., "August/September" - how to handle this? Currently this creates an error message. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP: Search for "Slash in date range (use en dash)" on the help page; August–September should work, using an ndash. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks FOARP (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Check |url= value error for o.bike[edit]

I noticed that there are some references on OBike generates the Check |url= error, with the links generally being starting with https://www.o.bike/. The domain is dead for a while, but had been cited when the startup was still in operation. From this help page, it seems that single-character second level domains are generally being flagged with some exception. What's the remedy for this? 1. report to somewhere to add o.bike as an exception? If so, where? 2. delete/replace reference (but also not sure which other pages have o.bike as reference)? robertsky (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to add support for a specific url without there are a lot of them used in cs1|2 templates; there are not. Because o.bike is dead, one might set |dead-url=unfit or |dead-url=usurped. That will hide the original url and its error message.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I have updated the refs to |dead-url=unfit. robertsky (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

deprecated dead-url[edit]

At Toyota RAV4 I am getting a lot of Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= messages. The help link merely says "use a supported parameter". {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} say that dead-url is still supported. Even other parts of this error help page say the dead-url is still supported (with limited values, which are used). What gives?  Stepho  talk  11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the same problem with many articles I've worked on. What am I supposed to replace it with? And taking it out doesn't seem to be a good option, as doing so automatically causes the archived url to appear first; as if the link is dead, even though that isn't the case. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems url-status is the new term, according to Help:CS1_errors#deprecated_params. Might wait for a bit to see what kind of bot cleanup happens. Quuux (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you all have figured it out. See also Help talk:CS1#update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019. --Izno (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Sheesh, I don't want to be ungrateful for your hard work (which I do appreciate). But releasing the documentation only after complaints came rolling in is a recipe for confusion. Even better if a bot had been let loose to make this simple and mechanical change before making it mandatory and leaving practically every article with a sea of red references. My recommedation is to turn off then error reporting for a month or so while a bot makes the changes for us. Then turn the warnign back on when the bot has done the bulk of the work for us. Why make people do the simple and boring work when the machines can do it for us.  Stepho  talk  12:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
A bot could not have been run before the change because then you would have been complaining about unrecognized parameter errors (because the previous version of the module suite did not know about |url-status=).
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Was this something that really needed changing? I've never heard of url-status, is it mass used? Get a bot on this please. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Was it sensible to make this change without at least a transitional period when the module will recognise either the old or new parameter? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the transition period. The deprecated parameter error message is there to educate editors that the deprecated parameter is going to go away. Both |dead-url= (and |deadurl=) and |url-status= are both functional. This process is not new and has been how we have handled deprecated parameter for several years.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?. 114.159.158.244 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have only just become aware of the death of deadurl. I have used this parameter absolutely everywhere on Wikipedia articles. Is there a bot going around fixing these? Because there is no way I or anyone else is going to go back and manually re-edit literally thousands of articles to comply with this surprise change. Cnbrb (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
yes, link above.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I suggest maybe you post a notice about it on the main help page to avoid confusion (and so you don't have to answer the same question again tomorrow!). Cnbrb (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Help pages need to be updated. WP:LINKROT says to use "dead-url", for example. I found myself confused by contradictory information on "dead-url" vs "url-status" as I was trying to fix some references in an article I was updating a few days ago (Anontune) and had to figure out which worked by trial and error. Just today, I ran across another article with a lot of error messages due to "dead-url" no longer working (ARPANET). Documentation needs to be correct and consistent when changes like this are implemented. I'd correct WP:LINKROT myself, if I was sure that this change was going to stick. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the LINKROT page. Thanks for the note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cite letter[edit]

I've come across a Template:Cite_letter template that's getting flagged with the error "Cite news requires |newspaper=" (see Machine_Identification_Code#References for the actual error). The error references this help page, but the advice to add a periodical doesn't make a ton of sense in this context. I think Template:Cite_letter should be exempted from this error, since a letters are often standalone entities and not part of a larger body of work. It seems like this is probably happening because Template:Cite letter says it is descended from Template:Cite newspaper - GretLomborg (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I addressed that at Template talk:Cite letter#use template wrapper. Anyone can make the fix.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Problematic change[edit]

Suddenly italic or bold wikimarkup is not allowed in publisher and periodical parameters including publisher=, journal=, magazine=, newspaper=, periodical=, website=, work=. There are times when such markup is needed. For example the publisher of Vulture.com is New York magazine. Without being able to italicize that in the publisher field, we wind up with a grammatical error — a non-italicized magazine title.

The MOS says that not all rules fit every single case exactly, and that we're to use common sense. I could give other examples, but the point is that there are going to be future examples that we can't envision yet. This stricture needs to be loosened so that we can make common-sense adjustments as the MOS allows. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you New York is the publisher (e.g. for an 'About Us' page), then you put it in the publisher field, where it shouldn't be italicized, as per rules for publishers. If it's the publication (e.g. you are citing an article written for the magazine New York), then New York is italicized, as per rules for magazines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

CS1 errors: missing periodical[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

Several days ago, when I checked our WikiProject's [to-do-list], suddenly hundreds of new articles that need to be solved occurred and I confused by these things. Usually, it gives us some task every some period. But this time, the CS1 errors flocked the list, especially CS1 errors: deprecated parameters and CS1 errors: missing periodical. The first one seems OK because there's a way how to solve it, but I don't know about the second one. Therefore, any help from you will be appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely, Samuelsp15 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samuelsp15: null edit the pages. this should clear the missing periodical category from the pages. robertsky (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See Help Talk:CS1 for long discussions about these error messages. Almost all of the deprecated parameter errors are being fixed by a bot; since there are so many of them, it will take a month or more for the bot to traverse the category, but there is no need to fix the errors yourself. Most of the missing periodical errors will also disappear by themselves.
The missing periodical errors, if they are still present in an article when you look at it, can be fixed by looking at the help text linked from the error message. As a short example, {{cite journal}} requires the parameter |journal= to have something in it. You'll have to use judgement to determine the best solution. In Bank of America Tower (Manhattan), for example, there is a citation to a document by Richard A. Cook that uses {{cite journal}} without |journal=. Looking at the PDF document, I see that it is a paper from a conference presentation, so {{cite conference}}, with appropriate parameters, is probably a better template to use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)