Help talk:Citation Style 1
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The solution is via= but[edit]
- Lybarger, Donald F., ed. (August 1942). "Angier House (1854–1866), Kennard House (1866–c. 1940); Lincoln Hotel (1940—)". Historic Sites of Cleveland: Hotels and Taverns (Report). Columbus: Ohio Historical Records Survey Project. pp. 366–437 – via Ohio Works Progress Administration Publications, University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
- {{cite report |title=Historic Sites of Cleveland: Hotels and Taverns |location=Columbus |publisher=Ohio Historical Records Survey Project |editor-last=Lybarger |editor-first=Donald F. |date=August 1942 |pages=366–437 |chapter=Angier House (1854–1866), Kennard House (1866–{{circa|1940}}); Lincoln Hotel (1940—) |author-link=Historical Records Survey |url=https://exploreuk.uky.edu/catalog/xt7vt43j1895 |ref={{harvid|Historical Records Survey|1942}} |via=Ohio Works Progress Administration Publications, University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections}} {{PD-inline}}
So. This is a fairly obscure government report. The only place it's online is this university library. As part of wikiloving our friends the librarians and archivists, I like to include as much "repository" credit as I can jam into citations. If it was just an inaccessible box I would use {{cite archive}} but I think it's appropriate to treat this as a book/report/website etc.
Anyway, I would've loved to steal the institution= and collection= attributes from {{cite archive}} for this ref, except it says that publisher and institution can't be used simultaneously, and collection is not a supported attribute. *So* via= is doing a fine job handling this task, but I would love if there were archive attributes like repository= and/or collection= attribute in the main cite template.
Another example where I would have used this is on Chicano Liberation Front. I think I emailed three libraries before someone had a copy of this obscure local underground paper; once I found it they were so cool and scanned it and sent it right over. So definitely wanted to give credit. But the citation for the *article* doesn't really accommodate the additional archival detail that sometimes I would like to include.
- Blake, Michael (1971-08-13). "Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front)". Los Angeles Free Press. Vol. 8, no. 33. pp. 1–2. ISSN 0024-6573. Issue 369 – via Center for Southwest Research at University of New Mexico - Underground Newspaper Collection, MSS 514 BC, Box 48.
- {{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Michael |date=1971-08-13 |title=Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front) |volume=8 |pages=1–2 |work=[[Los Angeles Free Press]] |issue=33 |issn=0024-6573 |id=Issue 369 |via=Center for Southwest Research at [[University of New Mexico]] - Underground Newspaper Collection, MSS 514 BC, Box 48}}
To make a long story long, in a perfect world designed around me me me (LOL), the "main" cite template would also allow more "physical location" attributes like are included in cite archive, like so:
- {{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Michael |date=1971-08-13 |title=Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front) |volume=8 |pages=1–2 |work=[[Los Angeles Free Press]] |issue=33 |issn=0024-6573 |id=Issue 369 |repository=Center for Southwest Research |institution=University of New Mexico |location=Albuquerque, N.M. |collection=Underground Newspaper Collection |series=MSS 514 BC |box=48 |collection-url=https://nmarchives.unm.edu/repositories/22/archival_objects/196279 }}
I guess another way to do it would be to have a {{cite book}} and a {{cite archive}} side by side within the ref tags, but that might...break something?
I'm probably writing this all out as procrastination from the transcription I need to do for this Kennard House draft but I wanted to float this idea and see if anyone else had asked about this before or if there were any recommended workarounds. THANK YOU! jengod (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- jengod, See {{Cite archive}}. Param
|via=
is definitely not the place for it. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
tcommon
assignment cleanup[edit]
In this discussion (permalink) an editor asked: Is there a way to get "type" (or a similar parameter) to render after the contribution title instead of after the journal name?
That question got me wondering about cleaning up the mess that is tcommon
assignment. tcommon
is an internal variable in Module:Citation/CS1 that is used when assembling a cs1|2 citation rendering. For example, the tcommon
assignment for the standard {{cite book}}
template looks like this:
tcommon = safe_join( {Title, TitleNote, Conference, Periodical, Format, TitleType, Series, Language, Volume, Others, Edition, Publisher, Agency}, sepc );
where Title
, TitleNote
, Conference
, etc are metaparameters associated with |title=
, |department=
(or |title-note=
), |conference=
etc. – this is how cs1|2 deals with aliases.
In the above assignment, Conference
, Periodical
, and probably Agency
do not apply to book citations so there is no real reason for those metaparameters to be in the tcommon
assignment.
Since I am thinking about these assignments, now would be a good time to revisit parameter positioning in the citation renderings. I guess my gut feel is that |type=
should not be moved closer to |title=
in journal citations but I suppose that I might be convinced otherwise. Are there other parameters that ought to be repositioned?
Current live-module renderings can be seen in my sandbox (permalink).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- In {{cite map}}, a map that is a stand-alone document has its title rendered in italics, using
|title=
to hold that title. That title is then followed by the "(Map)" type. If the map is contained within another work, such as citing a map within an atlas, the title of the map is held in|map=
, rendered in quotation marks and has the type following it. To wit:- Bureau of Public Roads; American Association of State Highway Officials (November 11, 1926). United States System of Highways Adopted for Uniform Marking by the American Association of State Highway Officials (Map). 1:7,000,000. Washington, DC: United States Geological Survey. OCLC 32889555.
- Rand McNally (2023). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas 2024: United States, Canada Mexico (100th Anniversary Special Collector's ed.). c. 1:1,267,200. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. § Q9. ISBN 978-0-528-02718-5.
- Having that type indication shift positions like that makes sense to me. The atlas isn't the map, the map within it is the map. In another context, take a look at:
- The implication there is that the newspaper itself is the editorial, as the type in parentheses is qualifying or describing the paper instead of describing the cited content within. If instead it renders as:
- then we'd be clearing stating that the article cited is an editorial. The same could be said for any number of common descriptors of journal articles. Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! As part of this discussion, can we move source generation to a separate page and break it down into types/variants? To make it easier to edit the sources display in other wiki projects? Iniquity (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what it is that you are asking. cs1|2 doesn't do
source generation
whatever that is. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm mostly talking about the code that starts at line 3951. We talked to you a few months ago that it would be cool to be able to customize the display of sources to local standarts. You advised to use local templates, but it seems to me that this does not make sense since this module provides too many useful functions. Iniquity (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Another render of the source template? That is outside of the scope of this discussion but briefly, the code beginning at line 3951 is only part of the final rendering. If I understand what it is that you are asking, we must scour the code for anything that does any part of the rendering and somehow move those pieces to a new submodule without breaking the current renderings. If you want to discuss that, start a new discussion.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm mostly talking about the code that starts at line 3951. We talked to you a few months ago that it would be cool to be able to customize the display of sources to local standarts. You advised to use local templates, but it seems to me that this does not make sense since this module provides too many useful functions. Iniquity (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what it is that you are asking. cs1|2 doesn't do
- I have removed
Conference
,Periodical
, andAgency
metaparameters from the book and journaltcommon
assignments. I have also removedFormat
from alltcommon
assignments because by the time execution reaches that point,Format
(if it had been set) has been unset to empty string so inserting an empty string in thetcommon
assignment is pointless. - I wonder about how
{{cite journal}}
handles|others=
. When the author and editor name-lists are empty,|others=
is the first element of the rendered citation; when either or both author and editor name-list present, they immediately precede|others=
:{{cite journal |author=Author-name-list |editor=Editor-name-list |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
- Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). Other-name-list. "Title". Journal.
{{cite journal}}
:|author=
has generic name (help)
- Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). Other-name-list. "Title". Journal.
{{cite journal |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
- Other-name-list. "Title". Journal.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: others (link)
- Other-name-list. "Title". Journal.
- Compare to
{{cite magazine}}
:{{cite magazine |author=Author-name-list |editor=Editor-name-list |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |magazine=Magazine}}
- Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list.
{{cite magazine}}
:|author=
has generic name (help)
- Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list.
{{cite magazine |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |magazine=Magazine}}
- "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list.
{{cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: others (link)
- "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list.
- For consistency it seems to me that
{{cite journal}}
should render|others=
in the same way as all other cs1 templates (same as{{cite magazine}}
). - —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
archive-date mismatch error[edit]
In footnote #3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asin_Road&oldid=1175617230
There is a date mismatch between the archive URL and archive-date - the error was not being displayed or reported in the tracking category. I fixed the timestamp Special:Diff/1207477051/1208956488 and then it was reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asin_Road&oldid=1208956488
This variation of timestamp for archive.today was in about 4,000 articles, and there were date mistmatch errors in about 100 of them not showing up in the tracking category. It should be cleaned up for now on enwiki, but likely exists in higher volume on other wikis. This variation is copy-pasted by users because archive.today uses it when clicking the "share" button. -- GreenC 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | Depasupil, William. "DPWH opens new road to Baguio". The Manila Times. Manila Times Publishing Corp. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved December 17, 2018. |
Sandbox | Depasupil, William. "DPWH opens new road to Baguio". The Manila Times. Manila Times Publishing Corp. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved December 17, 2018. {{cite news}} : |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 16, 2018 suggested (help)
|
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Refactoring the code for the final rendering[edit]
Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.
I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.
I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.
In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.
Source | {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
|
APA/CMS | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
GOST | Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
DIN | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
Iniquity (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- These templates are not CMS or APA but instead a mix of a few, and include other qualities that differ from either that we have added, so a bit of a false premise there.
- Ignoring that, I have thought a few times about making more of the components of this system into 'libraries' that could be used from other citation styles. Maybe all the subpages can be today? I don't know and am pretty sure not based on some of the opinionated choices CS1 makes (mostly around "missing" information) which I'm pretty sure is in the subpages and not the primary module. If all the subpages were CS1 agnostic, that would get you most of the way there with potentially some duplication in the primary module. Izno (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Typo in headline[edit]
What do I do if the headline for a source appears to contradict the information in that source?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee, can you give a specific example? Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I could ask CBS to correct it, but after a year ...
- Text used as a source: "'Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades' will allow fans to vote on their favorite ads of the last 40+ years."
- James, Derek (February 7, 2023). "'Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades' to reflect on best ads of the last 4+ years". CBS News. Retrieved February 19, 2024.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:TYPOFIX
However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically).
. That said,4+
is not obviously a typo for40+
without seeing the lineSuper Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades" will allow fans to vote on their favorite ads of the last 40+ years.
from the article itself, so it might be worth adding a comment clarifying what the text actually says in the citation. Umimmak (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)- It's still a draft and I haven't found enough for a comprehensive article, but it might become part of a larger article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't use the template, though this is what I was advised to do in a similar situation. That was recommended by someone here. I also contacted WCCO-TV (not sure whether they or CBS News is the "work") to see if they will correct it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- When I click through to that CBS article, it says "40+ years", which appears to match the article content. If, hypothetically, the headline had said "4+ years", as it does at archive.org, and I were confident that "40+ years" was intended, I would probably write "[40+] years" in my citation, maybe with a note after the cite template explaining the notation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently after I reported the problem it was corrected.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- When I click through to that CBS article, it says "40+ years", which appears to match the article content. If, hypothetically, the headline had said "4+ years", as it does at archive.org, and I were confident that "40+ years" was intended, I would probably write "[40+] years" in my citation, maybe with a note after the cite template explaining the notation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't use the template, though this is what I was advised to do in a similar situation. That was recommended by someone here. I also contacted WCCO-TV (not sure whether they or CBS News is the "work") to see if they will correct it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's still a draft and I haven't found enough for a comprehensive article, but it might become part of a larger article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:TYPOFIX
- James, Derek (February 7, 2023). "'Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades' to reflect on best ads of the last 4+ years". CBS News. Retrieved February 19, 2024.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Web citation (RefToolbar) - asking for Additional fill-in[edit]
Asking for change to Web citation (RefToolbar) popup box.
At the URL box, when the magnify glass is clicked, and it fills in additional (such as Title and Website name), can it also fill the Access date? This will be a time-saver as one-less thing to click on.
Asking here, but wondering if I should request at VPT instead? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the correct venue for that request. Try WT:RefToolbar. Don't expect much of a response.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Questions about Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI[edit]
The documentation at Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI states that this issue can be resolved by adding |doi-access=free
, but "Exception are pages with {{Academic peer reviewed}} or {{Cite Q}} on them, where the update needs to be done in Wikidata."
- What specifically is the update that needs to be done in Wikidata?
- Is it OK to simply add
|doi-access=free
to {{Cite Q}} templates? (e.g. this edit and this edit)
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- no idea. See this discussion.
- yes, but ideally we would do something in Wikidata instead
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Cite book problem where "work" is not allowed[edit]
I'm not sure what was intended. I went to the archived source and it seems to be part of a book. Pearl Milling Company#cite note-BIA-1— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a junk citation to me:
{{cite book|last=Kern-Foxworth|first=Marilyn|title=Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus: Blacks in advertising, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow|publisher=Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press|year=1994|url=http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books/greenwood|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192836/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books%2Fgreenwood|archive-date=April 24, 2014|work=Public Relations Review|volume=16 (Fall):59}}
- template uses
{{cite book}}
but seems to be citing something (a review?) in Public Relations Review - template links to what appears to be the book publisher: Greenwood Press
- at the bottom of the archive snapshot of the chapter(?) the publisher provides MLA and CMOS citations; neither mention Public Relations Review though the author does have an article in that journal that is used as a source for the 'cited' article/chapter/whatever. Note that the referenced article is is from the same journal issue as is mentioned in the junk citation:
- —— (Autumn 1990). "Plantation kitchen to American icon: Aunt Jemima". Public Relations Review. 16 (3): 55–67. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(05)80069-4.
- template uses
- Have you discussed this with the editor who created the junk citation? (perhaps this edit at Aunt Jemima?) What is it that they are really trying to cite? A chapter in a book? A book review? A journal article?
- Regardless, the citation is junk so the error message is correct and not the fault of
{{cite book}}
. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- They've combined two refs that are for different works. One is for a book called "Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" and the other is an article titled "Plantation kitchen to American icon: Aunt Jemima". The article ref was being used to support a quote that is no longer used in either article, so the
|work=
and|volume=
details can just be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)- I forgot I had even asked this question. So what should be done with the ref?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Figure out which of the two sources best supports the en.wiki article text and then adjust the the template accordingly.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- So far the source that was linked to seems to support the content but there are six places it is used. "Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" by Marilyn Kern-Foxworth but I can't tell what the publisher or work might be.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find "rice flour and corn sugar" in the source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot I had even asked this question. So what should be done with the ref?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- They've combined two refs that are for different works. One is for a book called "Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" and the other is an article titled "Plantation kitchen to American icon: Aunt Jemima". The article ref was being used to support a quote that is no longer used in either article, so the
Exclude errors in citations at AfD[edit]
I'm going through Category:CS1 errors: generic title and a decent chunk of them are in old, closed AfDs, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiavision news. I can't think of any case where I'd want to actually edit these. Is there a way to exclude them from display in the tracking category? It isn't actually a big deal, there's a grand total of 11 out of almost 3,000 pages, but as someone with vague aspirations to clear the category it itches. Rusalkii (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Add
|no-tracking=yes
to the offending template(s). Error messaging will remain but the page will not included in tracking categories. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- To the individual AfD pages, or the AfD template as a whole? If the former, I don't see where I would add it. Rusalkii (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
to the offending template(s).
So, in your example case, change:{{cite web|url=http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/indiavision.com|title=wayback machine}}
- to:
{{cite web|url=http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/indiavision.com|title=wayback machine |no-tracking=yes}}
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- To the individual AfD pages, or the AfD template as a whole? If the former, I don't see where I would add it. Rusalkii (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Module access[edit]
Is there a reason why Module:Citation/CS1 does not accept access from modules that pass "frame.args" and insists on requiring "frame:getParent().args" ? Are you open to allowing others to add such an feature ? Snævar (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- In cs1|2, each template
{{#invoke}}
s Module:Citation/CS1 with at least one parameter needed by the module to identify the calling template:{{cite book}}
,{{cite journal}}
,{{cite news}}
,{{cite web}}
,{{citation}}
, etc. For example,{{cite book}}
has this:{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=book }}
|CitationClass=
is passed to the module in the frame object. To get the parameters from this{{cite book}}
:{{cite book |title=Title |date=2024 |publisher=Publisher}}
- the module must consult the parent frame object.
- This was how the module has worked more-or-less from its inception. The primary and overriding purpose of the module is to support the cs1|2 templates. To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed expanding that purpose to other modules. Why do you want to do it?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is quite common for modules to have access for other modules, both here on the English Wikipedia and on other sites like Wikimedia Commons. Citation/CS1 is going against the wind on this one. One module, or a set of them in this case, does not set the norms, the majority of the modules do. As for usecases, they are allready here, there are a lot of modules and templates due to this module access not being in place. These modules and templates are: Module:Cite arXiv, Module:Cite bioRxiv, Module:Cite book, Module:Cite conference, Module:Cite document, Module:Cite encyclopedia, Module:Cite episode, Module:Cite interview, Module:Cite journal, Module:Cite magazine, Module:Cite mailing list, Module:Cite map, Module:Cite medRxiv, Module:Cite news, Module:Cite newsgroup, Module:Cite podcast, Module:Cite press release, Module:Cite report, Module:Cite serial, Module:Cite sign, Module:Cite speech, Module:Cite tech report, Module:Cite thesis and Module:Cite web. As for the templates it is a bunch of substitution templates with similar names, although I do know the reason for their existance is a bit different and unlike the modules might be justified. I am not trying to offend anyone by saying this, but this list of modules feels like an garbage dump. The only difference between these modules is the CitationClass and what title they return.
- @User:Pppery: I think you are going to like this. Is it not worth getting rid of 24 nearly identical modules, by merging them into one? Snævar (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
"The only difference between these modules is the CitationClass and what title they return." There's a lot more differences than class and 'title', whatever you mean by that. The different modules accept different parameters, and format them differently. {{cite arxiv}} for instance, does not support |journal/volume/issue/isbn=
etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Two-part news article[edit]
Hello! I'm trying to optimize and thought I would consult w you guys. I do a lot of citations from newspaper archives. In some case the article starts on one page and then is "continued on page 35" or whatever. I like to include links to both clipping URLs in one reference because they're one entity in my mind. I usually end up with something like this:
<ref name="Kathman-1990">{{Cite news |last=Kathman |first=Janice |date=1990-04-26 |title=Popularity of Bottled Water Can Be Traced Back to Alhambra Valley Springs [part 1 of 2] |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/martinez-news-gazette-popularity-of-bott/142039526/ |work=Martinez News-Gazette |location=Martinez, California |page=1 |volume=132 |issue=82}} & {{Cite news |title=Alhambra Water [part 2 of 2] |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/martinez-news-gazette-alhambra-water/142039410/ |page=2}}</ref>
Is there any more refined way to do this, other than continuing to put [part X of Y] in brackets manually?
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. best, jengod (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jengod: what I usually do, using your example, is something like:
- <ref name="Kathman-1990">{{Cite news |last=Kathman |first=Janice |date=1990-04-26 |title=Popularity of Bottled Water Can Be Traced Back to Alhambra Valley Springs |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/martinez-news-gazette-popularity-of-bott/142039526/ |work=Martinez News-Gazette |location=Martinez, California |pages=1, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/martinez-news-gazette-alhambra-water/142039410/ 2] |volume=132 |issue=82}}</ref>
- One citation for what is really one source, and yet both pages' clippings are linked. Imzadi 1979 → 05:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979 ooh I like that--very clean! TY!! jengod (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistent handling of ref=sfnref on desktop v mobile[edit]
If a citation uses a quoted name in sfnref (e.g., |ref={{sfnref|"Technical Report"|2021}}
, it works fine and looks fine in desktop view. But viewed on mobile, it generates a harv error: the citations see no target source and the source sees no incoming citations. For a real world example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Rail&oldid=1210714109 . Removing the quotes fixes the problem. (In case it matters, "mobile" means Android+Chrome, "desktop" means ChromeBook+Chrome.)
Presumably this needs reporting somewhere, but where? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's bizarre. For convenience, here's a link that shows the offending behaviour via "Mobile view" on a desktop. I notice however, that the click-function 'References -> Sources' works as expected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any error on desktop or mobile, but I'm only using the basic error messages rather than using a acript. This could be an issue with script your using, I suggest reporting the error at User talk:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Unlikely that this a cs1|2 or Module:Footnotes issue because neither distinguish mobile view from desktop view. I suspect that this is the same problem described at phab:T348928 where MediaWiki is incorrectly url-encoding the short-form link when it should be anchor-encoding the link:
{{urlencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF%22Technical+Report%222021{{anchorencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF"Technical_Report"2021
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
PMID limit increase[edit]
Please see the page 2024 in arthropod paleontology - the PMID limit should be increase, as it gives false positives on PMID values that are over 38400000, such as 38401545. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Edition ordinals[edit]
This is a repeat of a proposal that has been made twice before:
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 11 § Suggestion for edition= parameter to treat raw numbers
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 64 § Proposal to enhance edition= parameter to support special numerical symbols
I quote Matthiaspaul:
This would help to further decouple semantics (which edition?) from presentation (f.e. "3rd ed."). It would not only make it easier to add common edition information, but also improve readability, maintainability and translatability, and it would allow to centrally change the rendering in the future, would this become necessary ("3rd ed.", "third ed.", "third edition" etc.), depending on the output device (f.e., display the abbreviated form "3rd ed." on the small display of a mobile device, but "third edition" on a desktop or printout), or target language (e.g. "third edition", "dritte Ausgabe", etc.).
Jc3s5h suggests that sometimes, particularly for software, there is a "3 edition" which is distinct from a "3rd edition". As a native English speaker I don't perceive a difference between "3rd edition" or "edition 3". They are essentially interchangeable. "3 edition" is just wrong. If the edition name is "3", then it should be displayed as "3rd ed.".
Trappist the monk raised concerns about "other languages where the cs1|2 module suite is used". While I want to respect the challenge of maintainability of the CS1 suite across Wikipedia sites in various languages, and am wholly unaware of the systems in place for this, I don't think this needs to hold us back here. Changing this could be as simple as adding the following to Template:Cite book when it invokes the module, without even modifying the module to be English-specific.
{{Ifnumber|{{{edition|}}}|{{Ordinal|{{{edition}}}}}|{{{edition|}}}}}
I find Matthiaspaul's description of the benefits to be compelling, and don't understand the downsides to this feature. Daask (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know the context of the line of code provided by Daask, or what programming language it is in. But if "Ifnumber" does what I think it does it would be unacceptable. Here is an example of a citation that would be a problem:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | NFPA 70: National Electrical code (2011 ed.). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2010. ISBN 978 1 11 154223 8. |
Problem with Template:Haber kaynağı[edit]
Was helping a user with Draft:Halkalı-Bahçeşehir Rail System and noticed that the bot didn't exactly subst the template properly. Is this an issue with the wrapper or with the original placement of the template? Primefac (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Oneida is missing from the recognized languages[edit]
Oneida has the ISO 639-3 code one.[1] Can this be added so Oneida sources no longer show up under Category:CS1_maint:unrecognized language?
References
Snowman304|talk 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not recognized by MediaWiki:
- one ←
{{#language:one|en}}
- one ←
- so you'll have to spell it out:
|language=Oneida
. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Trappist, thanks for the quick response. I'm looking at Morris Swadesh, and I can't figure out what the unrecognized language would be except for Oneida, which is spelled out. Snowman304|talk 19:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's the one (pun not really intended). cs1|2 emits the maintenance message because Oneida is not a language name recognized by MediaWiki. The whole list of MediaWiki-recognized languages and their tags is at Template:Citation Style documentation/language/doc.
- See Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display to show the cs1|2 maintenance messages.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Trappist, thanks for the quick response. I'm looking at Morris Swadesh, and I can't figure out what the unrecognized language would be except for Oneida, which is spelled out. Snowman304|talk 19:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
OCLC limit hit[edit]
See for example OCLC 10146270069, which exceeds the current limit of 10100000000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Same for PMC limits, which now exceed 10900000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Nonsensical error when title=none is set[edit]
The following gives a "CS1 maint: untitled periodical" maintenance message, but clearly the periodical is named here.
- Torrence, Eve (October 2019). Journal of Mathematics and the Arts. 14 (3): 283–284. doi:10.1080/17513472.2019.1666459. S2CID 209985329.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The warning message is unfortunately worded. What it should say is "article title missing in periodical" or something similar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
S2CID still needs an update[edit]
Looks like someone last mentioned this a few months ago. The S2CID limit is still too low. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pry_(novel) has a working article with an ID of 268071715. Can we maybe bump it up to 269000000 (or 270000000, if we're feeling cheeky)? Snowman304|talk 07:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
url-status when archive-url is also dead[edit]
When you set url-status to "dead", it signals to use the archive-url by default. But what do you do when the archive-url is also dead, and you can't immediately find a working archive? Mokadoshi (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The best solution would be to find a new source, but otherwise I would suggest removing the archive parameters (
|archive-url=
,|archive-date=
and|url-status=
), and adding {{dead link}} with the|fix-attempted=yes
parameter after the cite. Defunct archive URLs are pretty worthless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
extended definitions for Latn character set[edit]
This template fails because the character 'ạ' (U+1EA1 ạ LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH DOT BELOW) is not recognized by the Vancouver tests (Vancouver allows only Latin characters):
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Đại Lê Cao (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. {{cite book}} : Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (help)
|
Sandbox | Đại LC (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. |
The fix supports characters from Latin Extended Additional (U+1E00–U+1EFF).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
module suite update 23–24 March 2024[edit]
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:
- removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization; discussion
- combine extra-text tests for
|volume=
and|issue=
; discussion - fix bug related to hyphenated given names when reducing to initials for vancouver style; discussion
- add
|script-encyclopedia=
and|trans-encyclopedia=
; discussion - allow
|mode=cs1
and|postscript=none
in{{citation}}
; discussion - fix long-term-sleeping bibcode/postscript interaction bug; discussion
- fix archive.today timestamp check; discussion
- cleanup
tcommon
assignments; discussion - extend latn char definition; discussion
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
- add doi free registrants: 1045 - D-Lib Magazine; 1074 and 1194 - American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; 1096 - FASEB; 4249 - Scholarpedia; 5210 - University of Illinois Libraries; 7759 - Cureus; 14256 - Croatian Association of Civil Engineers; 15347 - Wikijournals; 22323 - SISSA
- removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization
- combine extra-text tests for
|volume=
and|issue=
- add
|script-encyclopedia=
and|trans-encyclopedia=
- use tabular data file at commons for identifier limit values; discussion
- removed doi free registrant 3410 - F1000; discussion
- extend latn char definition;
- add
|script-encyclopedia=
and|trans-encyclopedia=
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
- removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
- revise access and wikisource icon css; discussion
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've specified that 3410 is F1000 for future discussion. It's still a free registrant, it's just doing some fuckery with its access pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 93#Limits: the way to incorporate this into Wikidata for each identifier would be to use property constraint (P2302) > range constraint (Q21510860) > maximum value (P2312) & minimum value (P2313), per d:Help:Property constraints portal/Range#Example 1. Regarding fragility & vandalism, I think using Wikidata would be superior to c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab, if only for the # of people already watching, for example, OCLC control number (P243), etc. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. If I understand (not saying that I do), OCLC control number (P243) would get a new constraint as a Qid to be used on only seven identifier properties. The new Qid might be something like 'cs1 limit constraint'. Each of the seven identifier properties would get the new Qid constraint with a maximum value (P2312) constraint property. That would require us to go on bended knee to the Masters of Wikidata to plead for the new Qid. Pleading for a new Qid is the 'politics' to which I referred in the original discussion; politics that I would prefer to avoid. Tabular data at commons doesn't require a plea to the Masters of Commons; it is one file and it works.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- No new Qid and no pleading required! I can add all the appropriate min/max constraints to Wikidata. I just need to know the minimum values allowed for all of the identifiers @ c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've added the appropriate maximum value (P2312) to OCLC control number (P243), OSTI article ID (P3894), PMCID (P932), PubMed ID (P698), RfC ID (P892), SSRN article ID (P893), & Semantic Scholar paper ID (P4011), effectively duplicating c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab in Wikidata. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that was a wise thing to do. I don't think that we should apply a constraint that isn't qualified to be a cs1|2-only constraint. What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties. That is why I said that I think to use wikidata we must have a cs1|2 Qid and to do that we must petition the Masters of Wikidata on bended knee.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties.
- correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- I'm still not convinced but that may be a moot point. Unless I'm missing something, Wikibase does not provide a mechanism for getting a property of a property that isn't part of an entity (Qid). See Wikibase Lua doc. Yeah, if you know the title of the work and it matches the label used in Wikidata, you can get a Qid (
mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron')
→Q16438
but the name in Italian:mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone')
→nil
). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced but that may be a moot point. Unless I'm missing something, Wikibase does not provide a mechanism for getting a property of a property that isn't part of an entity (Qid). See Wikibase Lua doc. Yeah, if you know the title of the work and it matches the label used in Wikidata, you can get a Qid (
- @Izno: Whatever it is that you did to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css has broken the css for minerva (icons too big), monobook (icons clipped), and timeless (icons too big) skins. See these testcases at my sandbox (permalink):
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Best practice for when to use "n.d." vs. leaving blank[edit]
The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use
. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.
|date=n.d.
I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- (I see in the archives that there has also been discussion about possibly using "undated" instead of "n.d." or adding a tooltip. If folks want to pick that up, please open a subthread so that we can keep everything organized. Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC))
- Blank is definitely common, but blank can mean, "there was a date, but I didn't fill it in" or "it is undated". An "n.d." clarifies, so is better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen
|date=<!--no date-->
, which at least clarifies it for editors. Sdkb talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)- I guess the thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that we don't call out the absence of any other element in CS1 citations that I know of. If there's no DOI, or issue number, or second author, we don't designate that, but rather just leave the space blank. I'm open to being persuaded, but my intuition is that it'd be most consistent to adopt the same stance here (or at least to specify something like that "n.d." should only be used in situations where readers might normally expect there to be a date). Sdkb talk 23:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- In principle, everything that is published is published on some date (except maybe something like search results that are generated on a certain date, but if we're talking that, the access date is identical), but virtually any other field is something that could not be there (not URI for a web page, of course). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Indagate: Please undo your edit to the template and participate here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't see this before reverting you there, seems best to leave the status quo for now until consensus is established for its inclusion. It's far from standard practice for web pages without a date to include n.d., pages are updated without any date being updated so the access-date in WP articles should be the latest date the information was updated if updated properly by editors. Including n.d. doesn't give readers any more information so seems redundant. Indagate (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Did you see the instructions at Template:Cite web? There is nothing redundant here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the parts about date there, but don't think I've seen any cite web using date=n.d. for websites without a date like Rotten Tomatoes so it doesn't reflect standard practice so doesn't seem to have consensus already Indagate (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are a lot of rules that are broken or ignored: that doesn't justify breaking or ignoring them further. If there is some reason why we should not use "n.d.", then that should be incorporated into the template instructions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- When there is a conflict between what the rules appear to say and what general practice is, as here, it's reasonable to keep the status quo while we work to resolve the underlying issue and figure out what guidance should say. This discussion is for figuring that out; let's stay focused on that. Sdkb talk 15:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are a lot of rules that are broken or ignored: that doesn't justify breaking or ignoring them further. If there is some reason why we should not use "n.d.", then that should be incorporated into the template instructions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the parts about date there, but don't think I've seen any cite web using date=n.d. for websites without a date like Rotten Tomatoes so it doesn't reflect standard practice so doesn't seem to have consensus already Indagate (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Did you see the instructions at Template:Cite web? There is nothing redundant here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't see this before reverting you there, seems best to leave the status quo for now until consensus is established for its inclusion. It's far from standard practice for web pages without a date to include n.d., pages are updated without any date being updated so the access-date in WP articles should be the latest date the information was updated if updated properly by editors. Including n.d. doesn't give readers any more information so seems redundant. Indagate (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Indagate: Please undo your edit to the template and participate here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- In principle, everything that is published is published on some date (except maybe something like search results that are generated on a certain date, but if we're talking that, the access date is identical), but virtually any other field is something that could not be there (not URI for a web page, of course). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that we don't call out the absence of any other element in CS1 citations that I know of. If there's no DOI, or issue number, or second author, we don't designate that, but rather just leave the space blank. I'm open to being persuaded, but my intuition is that it'd be most consistent to adopt the same stance here (or at least to specify something like that "n.d." should only be used in situations where readers might normally expect there to be a date). Sdkb talk 23:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen
Don't forget that {{sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI[edit]
This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does the documentation at Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI not answer your question?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Only the technical purpose, not why there is a maintenance category instead of automatically flagging all free DOIs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)