Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Cite interview)
Jump to: navigation, search
Citation templates (conception)
Citation templates (reality)


Identifier order messed up.[edit]

Why is bibcode displaying before arxiv in?

Identifiers should be listed in alphabetical order. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The identifier labels are sorted with a case sensitive sort. 'B' has an ascii numerical value of 66 (0x42) and 'a' has an ascii numerical value of 97 (0x61). Proof for that is here, where I've added |eissn=1365-2966 and |issn=0035-8711 from the journal's wikipedia article:
Corbelli, E. & Salucci, P. (2000). "The extended rotation curve and the dark matter halo of M33". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 311 (2): 441–447. Bibcode:2000MNRAS.311..441C. ISSN 0035-8711. arXiv:astro-ph/9909252Freely accessible. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03075.x. eISSN 1365-2966. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that ought to be fixed then, either with case-insensitive sorting, or by putting the sortkey in a {{lc:IDENTIFIERNAME}} type of thing. Because it wasn't like that before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been no changes to the identifier sorting since at least this version (April 2013) of Module:Citation/CS1.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I distinctly remember those to be sorted correctly as late as this spring. But even if my memory somehow fails me, those should be sorted alphabetically, regardless of casing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
De-archived as unresolved and still in need of a fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
De-archived again. @Trappist the monk and Jonesey95:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Any update on doi-broken-date?[edit]

If anything, the doi should at the very least still link. Other improvements can wait/get more discussion, but the linking part should be easy to fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Any way we can get this bundled in the weekend's update? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of this interstitial period is to have a last chance to find and fix bugs; to create or modify supporting documentation, categories, templates, etc. – housekeeping preparatory to the update. It is not the time for new development or new features.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah well this has been requested a long while ago, is an easy fix, and we have over half a week left. WP:BURO applies here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we now implement this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

De-archived because discussion is ongoing/unresolved. @Trappist the monk:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk and Jonesey95: pinging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to me to have allegedly broken DOIs linked, since the doi-broken-date is checked by a bot and (a) could have been wrongly applied or (b) could have been a temporary problem or (c) both. There are plenty of links that don't work and are not flagged as such. That's just the state of the web, and always has been. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
De-archived as unresolved and still in need of a fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
De-archived again. @Trappist the monk and Jonesey95:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

MR error checking[edit]

MR come in two formats, old (which I can't find documentation for, but the structure seems to be \d+([a-z]|#)?:\d+ [case-sensitive]) and new (\d+). The canonical identifier is a 0-padded 7-digit string (see [1], scroll to "New format for primary item identifier" section), but the zeros are optional, and are stripped for non-subscribers [2], and will therefore be common. The template should simply automatically zero-pad to 7 digits.

The old style should be put in a maintenance category so they can be updated. Anything else should be flagged as errors (e.g. |mr=mr01234, found in [3]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

JFM error checking[edit]

JFM seems to come in only one format (\d{2}.\d{4}.\d{2}). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


But that's are not really JFM identifiers, those are ERAM identifiers, which happen to resolve to the same database. Not quite sure how to handle that one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've updated them to use |id={{ERAM|foobar}} instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
JFM could be abused to put a Zbl identifier. If the Zbl structure is found, it should throw an error and tell users to user |zbl= instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Unarchived as unresolved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Zbl error checking[edit]

ZBL come in two formats, old [temporary?] format which consists of pure digits (\d+, possibly 8 digits \d{8}) and new (\d{4}\.\d{5}). Catching errors would mean having a way of catching mistakes such at |zbl=t0303.10056, e.g. [4].Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

\d{3}\.\d{5} will resolve (e.g Zbl 607.73009), but the correct identifier has a \d{4}\.\d{5} structure (e.g Zbl 0607.73009). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll also point out that I found quite a few (pre\d+) that would resolve only once the (pre) part was striped [e.g. [5], which I've updated to the new style]. I think those are temporary Zbl identifiers. Compare Zbl pre06066616 (which doesn't resolve) to Zbl 06066616 (which resolves to Zbl 1260.11001). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Zbl will often be abused to put a JfM identifier [6]. If the JFM structure is found, it should throw an error and tell users to user |jfm= instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This page describes the coding for the \d{4}\.\d{5} format, but I could not find anything for the other formats or temporary IDs. If the first four digits are a volume number, it makes sense that one could remove the zero padding with no loss of info. --Mark viking (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If the \d{8} format isn't desired, that could be shown as an error too. There's only a handful of (around 41, last I checked). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've updated them all, except [7] Zbl 06247765 in Superpermutation. This is either the temporary assignment, or an oversight in the Zbl database, or it's just a legit but undocumented code. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've confirmed those are temporary assignments. They should be put in a maintenance category so they can be updated to the canonical Zbl identifier once they get assigned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion - Add one sentence to the Cite web template documentation[edit]

I recently asked this question in the (very helpful) Teahouse: In a website citation, if the web page title is in ALL CAPS, should we keep it that way? The answer: No, change it to title case.

I had searched for the answer prior to asking it in the Teahouse, including reading the template documentation for {{cite web}}. The {{cite web}} template documentation, under 3. Parameters > 3.4 Description > 3.4.2 Title, explains:

title: Title of source page on website. Displays in quotes.

My suggestion is to add this sentence:

I defer to your collective wisdom if this is a worthwhile addition. It would have helped me, and I did find the answer via the Teahouse.

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but doesn't 3. Parameters > 3.4 Description > 3.4.2 Title already have a hatnote just above the line you quoted, directing readers to the passage you're suggesting? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Date formats for ranges[edit]

Why does "{{cite book|title=Title|publisher=Publisher before date|date=July 1 – August 1, 2008|df=mdy}}" give "Title. Publisher before date. August 1, 2008. "?

Date should remain same.

Same happens with "{{cite book|title=Title|publisher=Publisher before date|date=July 1 – August 1, 2008|df=dmy}}" which gives "Title. Publisher before date. 1 August 2008. " even if date should be 1 July – 1 August 2008 i.e. first part of range should not vanish. --Obsuser (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

reformat_dates() does not support date ranges. Never has.
I see that you've made and unmade several changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox. Why? To what purpose?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can it then be disabled for that function, so that if range is present |df= parameter is ignored?
Regarding changes in that module, complete diff is this. Purpose was first to enable three-digit years, and after that when I saw about metadata using captured year I generally gave up on this to be sure because I guess that metadata is ISO so year must be four-digit. At the end of my changes, three-digit years have been enabled for "month day, year" and "day month year" formats – because there is no reason to restrict |date= to four-digit years (this does not affect |accessdate= params), maybe not even to restrict two- or one-digit years, as something might be published e.g. June 854 or even June 54 etc. Also, in "month day – month day, year" and "day month year - day month year" there were minor inconsistencies: in first case, three-digit year was allowed in if match but not in real match for extraction; in second case, vice-versa.
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | accessdate=1 June 854 | publisher=Publisher before date | title=Title | date=1 June 854 | url= }}
Live Title. Publisher before date. 1 June 854. Retrieved 1 June 854.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
Sandbox Title. Publisher before date. 1 June 854. Retrieved 1 June 854.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
--Obsuser (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible that you are confusing CS1 with a bibliographic system? CS1 exists only to verify claims in articles (and elsewhere) by pointing to sources. The bibliographic history of a source is only pertinent when it affects reliability and verification. Sources should be cited by the date most relevant to the reader who wants to retrieve them. Whether a work was produced in 854 by some publisher means nothing in this context. A reliable (preferably easily retrievable) edition of the work published in 2014 by a certain publisher is [an example of] what should be cited, and there is always |orig-year= if specific older information is deemed relevant. 300 years from now the 2014 edition would probably no longer be accessible; if the source is still used, a contemporary edition/reprint should be used instead. Access dates are a totally different issue and should always be more or less current [at the time the citation is originally inserted]. (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I made the interpolations above, for clarity. (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not support the change to allow three-digit years. Almost all three-digit years that I have found are typo errors, things like date= November 3, 214 or date= November 3, 204. In each case, "2014" is meant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to three-digit years. They have their place. I suspect that the need for day and even possibly month precision in a first millennium date is rare. We could limit three-digit years to year-only dates which will allow cs1|2 to handle almost all references and bibliographies.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not rare to cite a source published when the Julian calendar was in effect at the time and place of publication. But ISO 8601 does not allow Julian calendar dates. Converting the publication date from Julian to Gregorian would go against long-standing citation traditions outside Wikipedia, and would be hopelessly confusing. Thus citation templates should not emit metadata that asserts publication dates conform to ISO 8601. If that were to be done, an editor encountering an article that cites articles with Julian publication dates would be justified converting all the citations in the article to some other citation format, such as Chicago Manual of Style, to avoid publishing false information. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
What? Where in this discussion has anyone suggested date conversions between the Julian and Gregorian calendars? Just to be clear, |df= does not do calendar conversion. All it does is format conversion (hence its name).
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Obsuser indicated his or her belief that the Cite Q template (and hence, the Citation template) emits ISO dates as metadata. Everyone who mentions "dates" and "ISO" in Wikipedia (with no qualification of which of the many ISO standards is meant) is advocating that all dates be stated in the Gregorian calendar, whether they realize that's what they're advocating or not. I am warning Obsuser about the probably unintended implications of his or her post. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Again: What? No one here has mentioned {{cite Q}} except you just now. The first instance of the letter 'q' (or 'Q') occurs with your mention of {{cite Q}}. The reformatting applied by |df= applies to the rendered visual format of the original date but not to the metadata. It is not possible to have |df=ymd with |date=23 June 1254:
{{cite journal|title= Title |date=23 June 1254 |df=ymd}}
"Title". 23 June 1254. 
Dates in the COinS metadata are in a format that looks like that standard's format because that standard's mechanism for date ranges (yyyy-mm-dd/yyyy-mm-dd) is terse and to the point. For dates outside of the Gregorian calendar, only the year is made part of the metadata so that we avoid any need for calendar conversion. YMD dates in cs1|2 look like that standard's format and are Gregorian like that standard but otherwise do not conform to that standard.
In the comments that I wrote in the function make_COinS_date() in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation I did suggest that these dates conform to that standard. Perhaps I should revise those to say that the COinS date format resembles the standard's format.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned Cite Q in this context. I looked on the main page for metadata information. It does mention that metadata exists, but does not say what standard the metadata follows. I'm unable to understand from your comments above what standard is being followed. Could you please provide a link to the standard? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
See this discussion.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Can reformatting then be disabled for that function, so that if range is present |df= parameter is ignored?
@ No, CS1 is a sort of bibliographic system. Yes, newer version is desirable but not neccessary (854 one can still be used), and I thing |orig-year= is also date i.e. part of verification system.
@Jonesey95 and Trappist the monk: I agree to limit three-digit years to year-only dates (maybe to allow also month-and-year-only dates).
@Jc3s5h: No need for warning each other; when I said I guess that metadata is ISO so year must be four-digit I meant that if 874 is captured possible ISO date would be "874-06-01" and I guess it is incorrect because it must be "yyyy-mm-dd"; so that's why I gave up on three-digit years wherever there was something like "for metadata" next to year (maybe I'm wrong about this, Trappist the monk knows better what is this metadata actually and would allowing three-digit years there corrupt it). --Obsuser (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yet one would think that most citable sources produced during the Julian (or any other) calendar period would have contemporary editions in the current calendar. Works that survive centuries usually do. And I don't think CS1 is anything other than what is explicitly stated: a more-or-less standardized, custom collection of guidelines for providing a measure of reliability to an anonymously produced encyclopedia. (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The custom that has emerged in Wikipedia is to cite the date of a paper publication, even if what the editor actually viewed was a verbatim image of it on microfilm, or a verbatim digital image from a source like Google Books. On the other hand, if the editor viewed a newer edition, which was re-typeset and re-paginated, then the date of the newer edition would be cited. There are many publications from the time when the Julian calendar was used that are readily available as digital images. Whether a newer edition would be more reliable than an older edition depends on the nature of the claim being supported. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If there is a custom of citing the print publication without crediting of the actual media consulted, such custom should be retired. It contradicts WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and may prevent readers who want to verify the sources from accessing the claimed source. There are several parameters that can be used (|type=, |via= etc.) or templates ({{cite web}} being an obvious candidate). Apart from that, it seems that dating the source needs additional clarity. There appears to be some confusion regarding work date and publication date, and their respective usage in the |date= field. (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT states

So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the book using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method.

So the custom of citing the date of the print publication rather than the date of the publication that faithfully reproduces the images of the print publication is in absolute conformity to WP:SAYWHERYOUGOTIT. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If I'm consulting a scanned copy of a source, say a book scanned into Google Books, I probably won't know when the scanned copy was created to credit a different date of "publication". Since it is a faithful reproduction of the original, I cite it as the original print book that was scanned, and add the Google Books like with |via=Google Books. The "say where you got it" is satisfied by the URL and |via= attribution. Even if I'm consulting a document that was scanned and uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons (like commons:File:AASHTO USRN 1985-06-26.pdf) where I do know when the document was scanned, that date doesn't change the publication details of the source I'm consulting. Instead, I'd argue that giving a 2014 date for a 1985 document would confuse matters in the citation. Imzadi 1979  21:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two different aspects here. The first is attribution: a copy of a source should be declared as such. What is cited is the copy, not the original (this applies to later print editions of books as well). If this is how the editor cites the source, then that is how the citation can be verified by a reader. There are parameters in CS1 that make such declarations plain, as discussed above. The second aspect is the fact that work date and publication date have different meanings and serve different purposes. Work date in the present context serves to identify a source whereas publication date, in addition to discovery of the source, offers a means to retrieve it. However either can be used in the |date= field, and this may lead readers to believe that an editor consulted a source from say, 1492. This is improbable, and perhaps not what the average Wikipedia reader (who likely has very little knowledge of the technicalities of citation systems) would expect as proof of an article claim. (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

code tweaks[edit]

I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox so that date-holding parameters that hold date ranges are skipped.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | date=July 1 – August 1, 2008 | archive-date=2017-08-29 | publisher=Publisher before date | title=Title | df=dmy-all | archive-url=// | url=// }}
Live Title. Publisher before date. 1 August 2008. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. 
Sandbox Title. Publisher before date. July 1 – August 1, 2008. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. 

I have also restored the date checking to 4-digit years for dates with month or with month and day. Simple year, year ranges, and circa year dates continue to support 3- and 4-digit years.

Trappist the monk (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Change for Help:Citation Style 1#Access date[edit]

I suggest changing "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working..." to "Note that access-date is the date that the URL given in |url= (or |archive-url=, if real URL is dead) was checked to not just be working...". This is because several months ago, I asked someone whether access date can refer to the archive-url or no, and the answer was (as I remember) no – but this is weird because case when there is no access date parameter at all and someone updates article or its references by adding access dates and checking URLs to fix dead ones is possible (so added accessdate can apply for accessing archived version of original URL, which [archived one] can be considered completely valid and generally same [relative to the original one], especially if from Proof that there are such cases is that access date is chronologically after archive date (i.e. date URL became dead) in many cases already; even tracking cat for such cases might be introduced but it wouldn't be for URLs accessed after they became dead (because we cannot know this) but only to know for cases where access dates is after archive date. --Obsuser (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Access date clearly conveys now and should continue to clearly convey that it is associated with the main URL of the citation, not any other URL. Links can and are archived before they become dead. --Izno (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: what exactly do you mean by the main URL? Citations to chapters, encyclopedia contributions, etc. often only contain |chapter-url=, since the URL to the work as a whole is not useful to readers; indeed quite often there isn't a URL for the whole work: authors of chapters/contributions regularly upload their part when the work as a whole isn't online. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The url specified in |url=, as the documentation currently states. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the documentation at Help:Citation Style 1#Access date is incorrect or out-of-date: it doesn't reflect the way that that the citation templates now behave. |accessdate= without |url= is ignored:
  • {{citation |chapter=Some chapter |title=Some title |accessdate=2017-08-25}} → "Some chapter", Some title 
whereas adding |chapter-url= correctly produces:
  • {{citation |chapter=Some chapter |title=Some title |chapter-url= |accessdate=2017-08-25}} → "Some chapter", Some title, retrieved 2017-08-25 
Peter coxhead (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Why do you want to say that it must refer only to the |url=? That is the point of this discussion: proposal to clarify that it can refer to the |archive-url=, |chapter-url= etc. also (and it is not true that it clearly conveys now only to |url=, there are already many cases – as I said – where access date refers to archive url [it is after URL became dead], or chapter url). If I'm wrong, than it would be useful to track cases where accessdate refers to other URL (if possible).
@Peter coxhead: I agree. --Obsuser (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

template:cite encyclopedia[edit]

The parameter url-access=subscription isn't displaying properly in {{cite encyclopedia}}. I've had to switch to {{cite web}} when citing limited access sources. The template talk page redirects here for some reason. Pariah24 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the talk pages for the templates like {{cite book}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} etc. redirect here, because they share a lot of code, and problems in one almost always mean problems in some or all of the others. So to avoid pointless duplicated change requests, we have centralised them here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
|url-access= doesn't work with {{cite episode}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite conference}}, or {{cite book}} because there is no |chapter-url-access= (and aliases). {{cite encyclopedia}} and the others, except {{cite book}}, internally promote |title= and |url= to |chapter= and |chapter-url= so that the title may be rendered in quotes. Because there is no |chapter-url-access=, |url-access= cannot be similarly promoted.
I have hacked the module sandbox to add |chapter-url-access= so that |url-access= is also promoted.
{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=Ångström (unit), n. |encyclopedia=OED Online |date=June 2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=23 August 2017 |url= |url-access=subscription}}
"Ångström (unit), n."Paid subscription required. OED Online. Oxford University Press. June 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2017. 
|chapter-url-access= has the same rules as |url-access=.
The new |chapter-url-access= allows works with {{cite book}}:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=// |chapter-url-access=subscription}}
"Chapter"Paid subscription required. Title. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bug when using script-title ISO 639-1 prefix and url-access together?[edit]

Hey I think I found a bug that I figured I should point out. Right now the code:

{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Tianqi|last2=Liang|first2=Geqiu|title=Zhōngguó tángláng mù xīn jìlù shǔ jí yī xīn zhǒng jìshù|journal=Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni|date=1995|volume=34|issue=2|pages=84–86|script-title=zh:中国螳螂目新记录属及一新种记述|trans-title=New Record of ''Choeradodis'' and One New Species of Mantodea from China|url=|url-access=subscription|via=[[CNKI]]}}


Wang, Tianqi; Liang, Geqiu (1995). "Zhōngguó tángláng mù xīn jìlù shǔ jí yī xīn zhǒng jìshù" <bdi lang="zh" >中国螳螂目新记录属及一新种记述Paid subscription required [New Record of Choeradodis and One New Species of Mantodea from China]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni. 34 (2): 84–86 – via CNKI. 

Specifically the link reads:

["Zhōngguó tángláng mù xīn jìlù shǔ jí yī xīn zhǒng jìshù" <bdi lang="zh" >中国螳螂目新记录属及一新种记述]

You'll see the <bdi lang="zh" > hanging out in the middle there.

If you remove the url-access or the script-title ISO 639-1 prefix it works, but they don't seem to like each other.

I imagine this is an easy fix so I'd bring it to people's attention. Thanks :)

Umimmak (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't have time to look at the code right now, but looks like the culprit could be a missing closing html tag. (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's not an easy fix in the sense that a simple tweak will fix it. The problem lies in the creation of the external link. The code is at Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (which fixes other problems with the live module's handling of kerning). Editors whined and complained when the access signal wrapped to another line so we tried adding a non-breaking thin space between the end of the link and the access icon. The results of that experiment were disappointing; it did not work. So we opted for adding <span class="nowrap">...</span> around the last word and the icon. The last word is separated from the other words in the label by a space character. If you look at the whole rendering (simplified from the original) you can see that the code found the last space character in the <bdi lang="zh" > tag and inserted the <span class="nowrap"> tag there:

<cite class="citation journal"><span class="plainlinks">[ "Zhōngguó tángláng mù xīn jìlù shǔ jí yī xīn zhǒng jìshù" <bdi lang="zh" <span class="nowrap">>中国螳螂目新记录属及一新种记述</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|9px|link=|alt=Paid subscription required|Paid subscription required]]</span></span>]</span>. ''Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Acta+Scientiarum+Naturalium+Universitatis+Sunyatseni&rft.atitle=Zh%C5%8Dnggu%C3%B3+t%C3%A1ngl%C3%A1ng+m%C3%B9+x%C4%ABn+j%C3%ACl%C3%B9+sh%C7%94+j%C3%AD+y%C4%AB+x%C4%ABn+zh%C7%92ng+j%C3%ACsh%C3%B9+%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E8%9E%B3%E8%9E%82%E7%9B%AE%E6%96%B0%E8%AE%B0%E5%BD%95%E5%B1%9E%E5%8F%8A%E4%B8%80%E6%96%B0%E7%A7%8D%E8%AE%B0%E8%BF%B0&" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span>

Closing that space doesn't fix the problem because the code will simply find the required space between 'bdi' and 'class'.

The solution to this particular problem is not easy for another reason: interleaving html tags is not permitted. What the code is trying to do is this:

<span class="plainlinks">[ "Transcribed Latin text title" <bdi lang="zh">Original language script <span class="nowrap">title</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|...]]</span></span>]</span>

MediaWiki will rewrite that and put the closing </bdi> some probably-inappropriate place (especially if |script-title= holds a right-to-left script – Arabic, Hebrew, etc).

Were the language something other than Chinese where there were spaces between words we might do this:

<span class="plainlinks">[ "Transcribed Latin text title" <bdi lang="zh">Original language script</bdi> <span class="nowrap"><bdi lang="zh">title</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|...]]</span></span>]</span>

Yeah, not so simple and not merely a matter of an omitted tag.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are we not inserting our own closing tags into the proper places, instead of letting Tidy (or whatever) have a guess at it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We do insert our own closing tags. Nothing that I have written here suggests that we aren't writing complete markup. But, I have said that the markup that we are writing is malformed. It is malformed because of the way the code is written. At the particular place where we assemble the title, the script title, the url and the access signal, the code does not know about <bdi>...</bdi> tags. Because of that for most scripts, English will do here for an example, it places the <span class="nowrap"> between <bdi lang="en"> and </bdi>:
{{cite journal/new |title=Transcription title |journal=Journal |script-title=en:A title in some other script |url= |url-access=subscription}}
"Transcription title" A title in some other scriptPaid subscription required. Journal. 
The output for that looks like this (coloring added and metadata removed for clarity):
<cite class="citation journal"><span class="plainlinks">[ "Transcription title" <bdi lang="en" >A title in some other <span class="nowrap">script</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|9px|link=|alt=Paid subscription required|Paid subscription required]]</span></span>]</span>. Journal.</cite>
You can see in the above that the tags are interleaved as I described and that closing tags are present.
From this page's source for the example template we get this (coloring added for clarity):
<span class="plainlinks"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"Transcription title" <bdi lang="en">A title in some other <span class="nowrap">script</span><span style="padding-left:0.15em"><img alt="Paid subscription required" src="//" title="Paid subscription required" width="9" height="14" srcset="// 1.5x, // 2x" data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813" /></span></bdi></a></span>
In the above, mediawiki has closed the <span class="nowrap"> tag prematurely and the <bdi>...</bdi> tags enclose not only the script title but also the lock image markup. This latter might have detrimental effects. Or not; but the markup is still wrong in part because we gave it malformed markup in the first place even though that markup had all of its closing tags.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Since this seems to require careful code re-write, shouldn't editors be discouraged from using the ISO codes in |script-title= until a solution emerges? There is |language= as an interim fix. (Unless that too presents a problem). (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. I suspect that this particular problem is relatively rare. |language= is not a 'fix' because all that it does is categorize the source as a non-English language source and render the language in the final citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not it at all. |language= and all other parameters are there to give information to readers about the cited source. In this case, to identify a strange-looking script and provide an important detail about the original source. It is a "fix" only in that sense. The ISO option in |script-title= is a technicality concerning browser rendering. If it breaks the display of the citation for humans. as it does in this case, it has no business there. The focus of CS1 seems hopelessly off. (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Parameter for Wikidata ID, redux[edit]

User:Headbomb and I suggested a parameter for a work's Wikidata ID; there was support, but discussion has been archived. What's happening about this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I still support this. But how should the link be presented? WikidataQ21706380? WDQ21706380? WDQID21706380? Q-ID21706380? Something else? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
One of the first two (if the second, with {{abbr}} or similar), or with a tiny icon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) So I take it we need to declare this via |wikidata=Q21706380. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
For my part, I don't see overwhelming support for this. Some support, yes, but also some opposition. When asked how this new parameter would be useful, Editor Pigsonthewing replied, in part: Furthermore, that identifier can in turn be used to fetch identifiers and other metadata for the publication, the author, publisher et al. which seems contrary to the opinion expressed by Editor Headbomb and seconded by Editor J. Johnson: We should most definitely not draw citation data from wikidata.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it would be used to fetch the metadata by the template; but any reader can do so once they know the Wikidata ID; either manually, or by using a tool of their own preference (e.g. this page on Scholia). I don't think either Headbomb (who proposed and supports the addition of the parameter) or J. Johnson objected to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Nothing is proposed about drawing information from Wikidata, this would be treated no differently than |doi= or |mr=. Could it be used to fetch stuff from Wikidata? It could, in theory. We might even decide this is desirable in the future. But for now it's simply about given a link to Wikidata, and there was no objection on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
We did have some objections on the simple addition of a new identifier, and I subscribe to Jc3s5h's comments on that. I do not think all unique identifiers are worth displaying to our readers in citations : we should only include well-established bibliographical identifiers that readers will find useful. I suspect many readers would be annoyed to see yet another unique id they do not care about popping up in citations. Just to be clear, I personally love Qids, but I am just not sure this is the right place for them. As a random reader, what does it bring to me? I can click on that identifier, and see a page with the metadata of that citation on a Wikidata. Fine, but I already had the metadata in the citation. Not everybody is a Linked Open Data enthusiast who will experience a warm and fuzzy feeling only at the sight of a Qid… − Pintoch (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The relevant question is "is this useful in relation to the purpose of a citation?" Citations are cluttered already with IDs and potential IDs (review Help:Citation Style 1#Identifiers). I haven't yet seen a strong case in relation to the purpose of a citation, as opposed to information that might be useful to someone. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A Wikidata ID might constitute an opportunity to move all of those IDs elsewhere and either a) leave users to investigate themselves or b) pull the identifiers from Wikidata automatically with each invocation (even if you don't want to pull an entire citation from Wikidata). --Izno (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Using a Wikidata ID to replace many of the others might be useful, I agree, although there would need to be discussion on which ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You ask "As a random reader, what does it bring to me?"; just above your question, I wrote "any reader can do so [fetch identifiers and other metadata for the publication, the author, publisher et al] once they know the Wikidata ID; either manually, or by using a tool of their own preference (e.g. this page on Scholia)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
fetch identifiers: CS1/2 already supports loads, the author, publisher et al: that's also easy to include in the citation template, either manually, or by using a tool of their own preference: CS1/2 templates are already inter-operable with many tools thanks to COinS… Again I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think people are just very likely to reject this change. We should be very careful not to foster the skepticism that already exists around Wikidata among some Wikipedia editors. Changes bringing more Wikidata integration to Wikipedia should bring real value to the community (e.g. better integration in infoboxes) instead of splashing our Wikidata ids all over the place for no apparent benefit. − Pintoch (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
CS1/2 already supports loads, the author, publisher et al... What? cs1|2 does not support 'loading' any data from anywhere any other than the template's wikisource. What is it that you really mean?
The opportunity, it seems to me, for integration of cs1|2 and wikidata is best begun by making {{cite Q}} a sterling exemplar of correct use of that resource. Alas, I fear that the opportunity is slipping away. {{cite Q}} could be written to enforce best practices to ensure that the underlying data at wikidata are properly curated. Unfortunately, data deficiencies are being 'fixed' by tweaks to the template code rather than the correct fix to the data source. If {{cite Q}} becomes recognized as a quality tool, then perhaps there is a future for wikidata in cs1|2. But, if slipshod craftsmanship of {{cite Q}} is allowed to continue, I don't hold out much hope for wikidata in cs1|2.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
By already supports loads, I meant "CS1/2 already supports loads of identifiers" (it has support for a lot of identifiers). Sorry about that! − Pintoch (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
True, you didn't say it would be used to fetch the metadata by the template but you did not say that the identifier would be a link only; you did not say that the identifier would not be used by the templates to fetch metadata from wikidata. Because this discussion is about modifying cs1|2 to support a wikidata identifier, don't you know that editors might understand your statement to mean: "once implemented, the templates will be able to fetch metadata from wikidata"? Without a statement to the contrary, why shouldn't they draw that conclusion?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
What could the purpose of such a parameter be but to set up future fetches from wikidata? The link itself is not something that would be of much use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata contains a lot more metadata than what we include in our citations. ORCIDs for authors for instance. We also typically leave out ISSNs, publishers, etc... when citing journal articles. There are lots of benefits beyond data fetching. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure − so Qids could be useful in COinS, for instance (or even just in wikicode, maybe). But is it really worth displaying that to human readers? − Pintoch (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now there's a novel idea: emit all of the identifiers as metadata in COinS, but potentially leave (some of) them out of the displayed version of the citation. Imzadi 1979  15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No, hiding data isn't a novel idea, it's often been suggested, and rejected as harmful, because errors are hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
For the third time: "any reader can do so [fetch identifiers and other metadata for the publication, the author, publisher et al] once they know the Wikidata ID; either manually, or by using a tool of their own preference (e.g. this page on Scholia)" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Andy, I think we got your point, repeating it verbatim will not make it more convincing. Do you want me to repeat why I think the use cases you are talking about are not useful to the average reader? I can rephrase if that was unclear. But let's avoid being too assertive and have a constructive discussion together! − Pintoch (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if people could stop acting as though no such argument had been presented... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Another reason to include Wikidata IDs is that bots can compare what's in the templates to what's on Wikidata, and alert humans to discrepancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, again I'm not sure that is very useful: many citations already have some id, so we can compare the metadata in the template and the data associated to that id. In the vast majority of cases, the data that is on Wikidata was created from one of these sources by a tool (such as fatameh), so it's not like we are getting access to a new data source. Granted, in some cases, a human editor might have added some information (such as disambiguating an author), but that seems to be very rare for now. There would also be the possibility to transfer authorlinks from Wikipedia citations to Wikidata items (to disambiguate authors there), but again that is something we can already do based on the existing identifiers. In any case, as you point out, these use cases would be for bots, so I do not see the point of displaying the id to human readers.
Another idea: if Scholia is the tool you want to access from Wikipedia, what about putting directly a link to that tool? Instead of adding something like "WD: Q38197781", it would add "ScholiaQ38197781"?
Anyway, I think there is a simple way to trial your idea and show that the community is not going to reject it. Just create an id template, say {{Scholia}}, along the lines of {{doi}} or {{arXiv}}, and add it to citations in the |id= field:
{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.11.007| issn = 0163-8343| volume = 36| issue = 3| pages = 310–317| last1 = Dobscha| first1 = Steven K.| last2 = Denneson| first2 = Lauren M.| last3 = Kovas| first3 = Anne E.| last4 = Corson| first4 = Kathryn| last5 = Helmer| first5 = Drew A.| last6 = Bair| first6 = Matthew J.| title = Primary care clinician responses to positive suicidal ideation risk assessments in veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan| journal = General Hospital Psychiatry| accessdate = 2017-09-01| date = 2014-05-01| url = | id={{Scholia|Q38197781}} }}
Dobscha, Steven K.; Denneson, Lauren M.; Kovas, Anne E.; Corson, Kathryn; Helmer, Drew A.; Bair, Matthew J. (2014-05-01). "Primary care clinician responses to positive suicidal ideation risk assessments in veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan". General Hospital Psychiatry. 36 (3): 310–317. ISSN 0163-8343. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.11.007.  ScholiaQ38197781
If there is wide adoption for this, it will be easy to create the id in CS1/2 and migrate the ids to native parameters. This is what has happened to {{CiteSeerX}}, for instance. CiteSeerX was already used a lot in |id= before it became natively supported, and I migrated the |id={{citeseerx}} to |citeseerx= with a simple regular expression. − Pintoch (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've knocked something up as {{Scholia}}. It lacks error trapping, which will be needed before widespread use, and I'd probably replace the text "Wikidata" with a tiny icon (and maybe do the same for "Scholia", once an icon is avilable). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't display any IDs from unreliable sites (whether Wikidata, Scholia, Quora, Findagrave, or whatever else you can come up with). Cite should be used to link to reliable sources and repositories, not user-generated or otherwise unreliable ones. Fram (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not in favor per Fram. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
All citations are user-generated and no more reliable or unreliable than the person who types them in, whether that be on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Making use of a central repository for sources (such as Wikidata) helps keep citations consistent and reduces typos and transcription errors. We should be very much in favour of efforts to stop typing in a hundred versions of the same cite when one is sufficient. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Truthful publication dates[edit]

In Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_10#Date_metadata Trappist the monk indicates that metadata is emitted for publication dates, and the metadata is meant to be in the COinS format, and a series of references leads to this date format description. That document in turn refers to ISO 8601, which only allows the use of the Gregorian calendar and Proleptic Gregorian calendar. I voiced the concern in the original discussion that any date before Thurday 1 March 1923 should not be emitted as metadata, because that is the date that the last country (Greece) switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.

Citation Style 1 adopts the date formats from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. That manual clearly allows Julian calendar dates: "A date can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as it is (at the minimum) given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar or both, as described below." Quite a few articles about events between 1582 and 1923 contain footnotes stating which calendar is used in the article; automatically putting (without date conversion) dates into the metadata is likely to contradict these footnotes.

All the documentation that any reasonably diligent editor will read indicates Julian calendar publication dates between 1583 and 1923 may be, and in some case should be, in the Julian calendar. The templates at present silently change the meaning of what the editor has written.

Thus I call for the citation templates to not emit metadata for publication dates before 1 March 1923 of the Gregorian calendar, or at the very least, only give the year. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Fixed first link 07:12 29 August 2017 (UT)

I think that the real link that Editor Jc3s5h meant to provide is this one: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_10#Date_metadata.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Access-level parameters[edit]

I'm wondering if a non-breaking space should be placed before the access-level icon. It seems odd for the icon to be separated from its link, especially if the icon winds up on a line of its own.

Additionally, is there any reason that registration and limited are not acceptable values for the doi-access and jstor-access parameters (and perhaps bibcode-access, hdl-access, ol-access, and osti-access, though I'm not particularly familiar with them)? Of course subscription isn't accepted since it's assumed that content that has a DOI or that is on JSTOR requires a subscription unless otherwise indicated, but what about, for example, the occaisional paper that is accessible for free on JSTOR provided one registers for a free account?

Any thoughts? (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. There should be a non-breaking space yes. Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) has been working on this, but I don't know what came out of it.
  2. Those should be supported per the RFC we held, but they haven't been rolled out yet. The main reason to not support them was that doi/jstor are usually closed access, and thus "flagging what is normal" was seen as undesirable. The RFC did conclude that they should at least be allowed, and then editors can chose to flag this or not.
  3. |bibcode-access=free/|doi-access=free/|osti-access=free/|jstor-access=free etc all work already
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I presume that you are referring to this template:
{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=I. D. |last2=Wichmann |first2=B. A. |last3=Woodall |first3=D. R. |year=1987 |title=Algorithm 123: Single Transferable Vote by Meek's Method |journal=The Computer Journal |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=277–281 |issn=1460-2067 |doi=10.1093/comjnl/30.3.277 |doi-access=free |ref=harv }}
If you look at the code produced from that you will see this bit:
<span class="plainlinks">[// 10.1093/comjnl/30.3.277]&#8239;[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]]</span>
In the midst of that you will find this:
which is a narrow no-break space. As you have discovered, it does not work. I suspect that it doesn't work because the access signal is an image and not a letter or number.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That's precisely the citation I had in mind. Do you know if there is any way of getting it to work with the image? (Despite the fact I was citing The Computer Journal, I'm afraid that my background is definitely not in computer science.) (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I can see how "flagging what is normal" might be considered undesirable, but the case I'm discussing isn't "flagging what is normal". JSTOR, for instance, requires a subscription for most content (that I've seen, at least), so I'm just hoping to be able to tag those less common cases where registration or limited are appropriate. And nothing I was referring to should affect the free value. (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-breaking spaces - and the white-space:nowrap; declaration - are intended for use when there are two pieces of text which should not be divided. Access icons are images, and images are not text. Some browsers may prevent wrapping when text is "joined" to an image in this manner, but this behaviour is not documented and must not be relied upon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, although "registration" means "a free registration is required to access the source" I'm not sure it gives the right impression for the JSTOR links you refer to, since, since you both need to make an account and you can only read three articles within a 14 day period and you can't download the article like you'd be able to do with the truly free ones / if you paid for it, just see one page at a time. It's a lot more jumping through hoops than something where you make an account and you access it for free. To me "registration" means you have normal unlimited access, you just need to make an account once. Umimmak (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the template remove redundant periods?[edit]

E.g. "Torvalds, Linus (May 9, 1996). "Re: Linux Logo prototype.". Archived".. I believe the MOS allows the latter removed, not the former), is there an exception for refs? I had no luck with postscript=none (strangly did nothing?!) and mode is for other. Any alternative? Best would be if the template did it in agreement with the MOS(?). comp.arch (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a sample template. I believe that some periods are already ignored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It's this one, I think.
There is a function in Module:Citation/CS1 called safe_join() that is supposed to remove duplicate punctuation when that punctuation matches the template's separator character (in this case a dot). But, safe_join() apparently doesn't have a case for ."]. So I added one:
Cite web compare
{{ cite web | last=Torvalds | deadurl=yes | date=May 9, 1996 | first=Linus | df=mdy-all | title=Re: Linux Logo prototype. | archivedate=May 30, 2012 | url= | archiveurl= }}
Live Torvalds, Linus (May 9, 1996). "Re: Linux Logo prototype.". Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. 
Sandbox Torvalds, Linus (May 9, 1996). "Re: Linux Logo prototype". Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. 
But, that doesn't look quite right to me. Compare the above to a simple example without the separator character inside the quotes (this is the norm):
"Title". Example. 
So, perhaps when |title= has a trailing separator character, we should remove the title's trailing character rather than remove the template's separator character.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Article on multiple pages, continues under a different title[edit]

Hi, guys! I would like to cite the material on page 10 of an article that appears on page 1 as "Girl Kisses Boy", but is continued on page 10 as "Boy Cries After Being Kissed". Normally I would use the first title and note "pp. 1, 10" to indicate that the article covers multiple pages. Should I be using the second title and just "p. 10"? Thanks! -Location (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Or treat the 2nd as a subtitle ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean |title=Girl Kisses Boy; Boy Cries After Being Kissed with |page=10? -Location (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
|title= should be the title of the work as it appears in the contents/title page. That is the way most works are indexed and that is the way they can be found. You can use |at="§ Boy Cries After Being Kissed". p. 10. (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're talking about a newspaper article, they typically use a shorter or different title for the continuation. At the bottom of the section on page 1, it would say "See 'Boy Cries After Being Kissed', p. 10" or similar and then at the top of the section on page 10, it would say "'Boy Cries After Being Kissed' from p. 10" or similar. Personally, I cite it under the main title on page one and cite the two pages together. Unless the article is especially long, the information being cited should be easily located whether it is on either page. Imzadi 1979  16:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. On multiple occasions I have had cited material reverted because someone didn't pay attention to the fact that the cited material within the linked newspaper article was continued on a second page. I guess that not really my fault, but I was hoping to cite in a way to prevent that from happening. Thanks again! -Location (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Language parameter[edit]

Hello! There's an apparent oversight with the "language" parameter. There are many journals, proceeding, collective works, etc. that have content in various languages, and the language cited should refer to a specific entry. Currently, when one uses {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} with the "chapter" parameter, the "language" parameter appears next to the journal or book title, respectively, whereas it should appear next to the article title or chapter title, because that is where it is relevant. Constantine 14:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

|language= is not attached to any particular title-holding parameter; readers are, I guess, expected to infer that it applies to the most specific title. For example, if |type= or |series= is included in a {{cite journal}} template:
{{cite journal |title=Teitl |journal=Journal |type=Type |series=Series |language=cy}}
"Teitl". Journal (Type). Series (in Welsh). 
There are a bazillion cs1|2 parameters. Figuring out how to render each parameter in its optimal position according to which of the other bazillion parameters are selected for the particular citation is an onerous task; one that will likely never be accomplished.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Granted that there are many parameters, but presumably the order of appearance is related to the order in which the parameter is defined. So why not define it right after title and/or chapter? Alternatively, or in addition, why introduce a "chapter-languange" parameter, analogous to "chapter-url"? Constantine 18:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Order of appearance and order of definition are wholly unrelated. Parameters are rendered in an order that somewhat resembles the order established by external style guides like Chicago, ALA, etc.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Date error not flagged[edit]

There appears to be no flagging of a date error when {{cite web}} is called from {{Kilde www}}

As an example {{Kilde www|dato=26.-28. April 2002|publisher=Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002}} renders as "[no title]". Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002 (26.-28. April 2002).

This should give a date error for the dots in the date and another for the dash. Keith D (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If one is to believe the 'Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page' list at the bottom of this page, the cs1|2 module suite is not used by that template. This is confirmed by looking at your example this way:
"[no title]". Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002&#32;(26.-28. April 2002).
and comparing that to this rendering which does use {{cite web}}:
<cite class="citation web">. Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. 26.-28. April 2002.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span> <span style="font-size:100%" class="error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">&#124;date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]]); </span><span style="font-size:100%" class="error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">&#124;title=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#citation_missing_title|help]]); </span><span style="display:none;font-size:100%" class="error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">&#124;url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#cite_web_url|help]])</span>
. Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. 26.-28. April 2002.  Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help);
If one looks into the source for {{kilde www}}, there are two mentions of cite web one of which is in a comment but the other is not. That code is sufficiently complex that, without I take time that I haven't got right now, I cannot explain. I would have suggested that a conversation with Editor Jimp (who authored the cite web section of that code would be in order but that editor has not edited since March).
There are relatively few instances of this template so perhaps the right thing to do is to upgrade those instance to use the correct cs1|2 template (the example here might want to be {{cite conference}}).
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It appears that cite web is involved only when the template is substed. That template, and other foreign-language citation-translation templates, should be set up to auto-substitute, like {{Internetquelle}}, but the date substitution is broken. I have posted on the template's talk page to see if anyone is willing to fix the date substitution bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, could not work out the code. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Dragon magazine mess[edit]

Dragon has a somewhat nonstandard scheme, whereas it has an issue number, a volume number, a number number, and then pages.


  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum" Dragon. #107 Vol. 10 no. 10. p. 6.

Now in the wild, this is often cited as

  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon #107. Vol. 10 no. 10. p. 6. 
  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon #107. 10 (10): 6. 
  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986), "The Forum", Dragon #107, 10 (10): 6 

which has the annoying tendency to put the issue number in the journal field. How do we fix this?

Three options exist, IMO

  • Add a hack, so that for |magazine=/|work=/|journal= = The Dragon / Dragon / Dragon Magazine, that we allow both |issue= and |number=
  • Add |num-issue=yes, letting the template know that those are distinct fields.
  • Shove both issue/number in |issue= or |number=, i.e. |number=3, #111 to create
    • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon. Vol. 10 no. 10 #107. p. 6. 
    • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon. 10 (10 #107): 6. 
    • Dobson, Michael (March 1986), "The Forum", Dragon, 10 (10 #107): 6 

What should be done? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a template programmer and don't have a strong opinion on the API. But for Dragon and Dragon+ magazines, looking at bibliographic resources such as DragonDex suggests that the issue number and page are what readers really use when locating articles; volume and number aren't even mentioned. So putting the issue number first, as in your 'in the wild" examples, seems the way to go. As a reader, I'm not bothered by the issue number being in the journal field, but understand for database purposes, it is better to have the issue number as a separate field. --Mark viking (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree not one [really] cares about vol/num for Dragon magazine. I suppose we could just purge volume/number from those citation, and do something like
  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon. No. #107. p. 6. 
  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum". Dragon (#107): 6. 
  • Dobson, Michael (March 1986), "The Forum", Dragon (#107): 6 
But the output is a bit misleading on some of them (if using {{cite magazine}}). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea of permitting both issue and number as separate parameters when both appear (and with prescribed uses for each). This isn't difficult, and I've encountered many circumstances where this would be useful, even going back to periodicals from the late Victorian era. This would also solve the common problem of issues having designations like "Winter" and "Beatles Commemorative Edition" and whatnot. These could go in |issue=, with |number= used for the number within the |volume=, when both |number= and |issue= are used, but |issue= otherwise being treated as an alias of |number=.

Failing that, I guess one can overload the current number/issue parameter: |volume=XI|issue=3 (Summer). Or, to use the first Dragon example: |volume=10|issue=10 (#107); it just seems a little messy and potentially confusing, even at the source level.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Generalize Template:Cite report[edit]

Propose merging {{Cite techreport}} and {{Cite press release}} to {{Cite report}}, and adding a |type= parameter that sets the descriptive wording, e.g. to "report", "technical report", "press release", "whitepaper", "standard", "specification", "form", etc. This would provide for easier and more precise citation of a wide range of governmental and NGO output, without polluting the metadata output of |title=, |work=, or wherever people are trying to randomly insert such things. Also, these descriptive terms should not be capitalized per MOS:CAPS; they're being overcapitalized in the [at least] three redundant templates, with output of "(Technical report)", "(Press release)", and "(Report)", respectively. And the title needs to be either in italics or quotation marks; I would suggest italics (at least as a default), since this is for stand-alone items, though perhaps there could be a switching parameter; some citation styles may demand quotation marks for works under a certain length.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with merging press releases in; those are short-form works that shouldn't be in italics, while reports are typically longer-form works that would have italicized titles. (Personally, I gave up on using cite report and just use {{cite book}} with |type=Report.) As for the descriptive terms, those should remain capitalized. It's quite common for those to be capitalized in the citation styles. Imzadi 1979  23:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible sandbox bug with cite interview[edit]

I stumbled across this Lua error on Template:Cite interview/testcases:

Cite interview compare
{{ cite interview | date=August 23, 2005 | publisher=Україна Молода | subject=Milla Jovovich's mother | title=Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована | url= | language=Ukrainian | accessdate=May 15, 2013 }}
Live Milla Jovovich's mother (August 23, 2005). "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (Interview) (in Ukrainian). Україна Молода. Retrieved May 15, 2013. 
Sandbox Milla Jovovich's mother (August 23, 2005). "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (Interview) (in Ukrainian). Україна Молода. Retrieved May 15, 2013. 
in Module:Citation/CS1 |language= follows title

I don't know how long it has been there or what the error means. Here's a direct call to cite interview/new, showing that the problem is in cite interview, not in cite compare:

And here is the citation with only |title=:

Cite interview compare
{{ cite interview | title=Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована }}
Live "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (Interview). 
Sandbox "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (Interview). 
just |title=

Any ideas? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This occurs in cite web as well:

Cite web compare
{{ cite web | date=August 23, 2005 | author=Milla Jovovich's mother | publisher=Україна Молода | title=Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована | url= | language=Ukrainian | accessdate=May 15, 2013 }}
Live Milla Jovovich's mother (August 23, 2005). "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (in Ukrainian). Україна Молода. Retrieved May 15, 2013. 
Sandbox Milla Jovovich's mother (August 23, 2005). "Галина Логінова: Сьогодні Київ, наче весела дiвчина, гарно вбрана i нафарбована" (in Ukrainian). Україна Молода. Retrieved May 15, 2013. 
in Module:Citation/CS1 |language= follows title

--Izno (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

TfD notification about Template:Cite Q[edit]

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to editors of this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that this is about Template:Cite Q. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Legislation template[edit]

reference info for Railways in Melbourne
unnamed refs 37
named refs 5
self closed 2
bare url refs 1
bare ext link refs 1
cs1 refs 22
cs1 templates 22
cleanup templates 1
dead link templates 1

Hi, I originally posted this at the Help Desk but realised here is probably a better venue. I was taking a look at Railways in Melbourne with the intent of cleaning up its citations, and given that there's a fair few CS1 templates I thought that might as well be the eventual style. However, this article cites quite a few pieces of Victorian legislation, and I wasn't sure about the best way to provide a CS1 citation for these sources. There's a template, {{Cite Legislation AU}}, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Happy to do it manually too but I'll need some guidance on the correct style. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that {{Cite Legislation AU}} is not a good fit because it is a source-specific template that is locked to the Austlii website. cs1|2 are not really good at legislative citations because they are general purpose tools that are pretty good at rendering citations for the most commonly cited stuff: books, magazines, newspapers, journals. It can be done, though. Rewriting this one:
{{cite web |url=$FILE/96-79a050.pdf |title=Rail Management Act 1996 |website=Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents |publisher=Victoria State Government |version=0.50 |date=1 July 2010}}
"Rail Management Act 1996" (PDF). Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents. 0.50. Victoria State Government. 1 July 2010. 
compared to:
{{Cite Legislation AU|Vic|act|rma1996140|Rail Management Act 1996}}
Rail Management Act 1996 (Vic)
Note that these two citations, while purporting to cite the same thing, do not. The former cites the version of the legislation dated 1 July 2010 while the latter cites the presumably current version dated 12 April 2017. I suspect that {{Cite Legislation AU}} will always do that so important bits of a source might get legislated away in future making the source useless for Wikipedia's purposes.
Similar to the above, ref 33, ref 34, ref 36, ref 38, ref 39, and ref 41 can all use {{cite web}} as I did above. Ref 35 is referencing a Wikipedia article which it should not do so you might want to find a better source.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Thanks for all that. I think that's a good point about the dynamic nature of the Austlii citation. (I hadn't even noticed the internal link in 35!) I'll get around to using CW for all of them. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

high risk[edit]

So there's this template at the top of several of the various cs1|2 template documentation pages. Except for {{cite web}}, they look more or less like this from {{cite book}}:

{{high-risk| 846000+ }}

Recently Editor Mr. Guye changed the template at {{cite web}} to look like this:

{{High-risk|2622800+ pages, which is ≈ {{#expr:(262280100/{{NUMBEROFPAGES:R}}) round 0}}% of all}}

I reverted because the percentage-use is not really necessary to convey the fact that {{cite web}} is widely used but also because the calculation used to arrive at that percentage is misleading so the result is mostly meaningless. Between then and now Editor Mr. Guye has reverted me with this edit summary: "This is what they do on many "High-risk" templates. It's not just something I decided to invent."

To set the record straight, I have not accused Editor Mr. Guye of inventing anything. I do not know who 'they' are so cannot speak to that part of the argument.

While it is possible, I suppose, to use {{cite web}} in all namespaces, counting all pages in all namespaces misleads editors by artificially reducing the apparent usage in the few namespaces where it matters and foremost among them is article space.

Were Editor Mr. Guye to have chosen a more appropriate base for the calculation I might not have reverted (even though I still think that the statistic is not necessary). For example:

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} → 5,496,265

instead of

{{NUMBEROFPAGES}} → 43,367,003

Rewriting the calculation to use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} gives a better representation of {{cite web}} use where it matters most:

{{#expr:(262280100/{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}) round 0}}% → 48%

I've written all of this because WP:BRD

Trappist the monk (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure there was a discussion last year about the {{high risk}} template, where it was decided that two significant figures was quite sufficient; so 2600000 is no more precise than necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Trappist the monk: No comment on the base of the calculations as I just followed the format I saw before, but adding "which is X% of all pages" to certain high-risk templates is done on templates such as {{Class}}, {{Yesno}}, {{WPBannerMeta}} (for that one I updated the calculation, but did not originate its inclusion), {{Portal}}, {{Navbar}} and more.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
But isn't that just the 'because other stuff exists' argument? Further, the cs1|2 templates that are truly 'high-risk' are protected so that the least of them require template editor user rights to edit. so really the {{high-risk}} template doesn't have much value except as a rough indicator of the number of pages transcluding the template.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the percentage is misleading and the precision excessive (and a recipe for churn). Kanguole 20:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, 2 significant figures seems fine, and a percentage of all articles doesn't seem useful (e.g. if it's a high use biography template the % of all articles isn't meaningful, it's the % of biographies, but we've no certain way to measure that, as the presence of the template itself may be the best measure). Rjwilmsi 07:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Trappist. We don't care that "X% of all pages" is relevant for some templates, which have general applicability (like {{em}}); it's not relevant here and people will abuse the bogus statistic in "citation-warring" arguments. This context should obviously use "X% of all articles" figure (however worded).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Self-published works?[edit]

What's best practice for |publisher= if a work is self-published? Do we have a standard form of words to use? In particular, this is for a historian whose first works were self-published, then later reprinted (as distinct, expanded works) by commercial publishers. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: "If the work is self-published, this is a very important fact about potential reliability of the source, and needs to be specified; no consensus exists for the exact value of |publisher=, but some printed style guides suggest "author"". I hope this helps (if not, it would be nice to improve the documentation page). —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This isn't as a source, this is for a bio about an author and a list of their published works. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Lewis Cozens? Reading that bibliography, the 'author' text at the end doesn't seem to mean anything – almost like an error has occurred; especially since it's not capitalized. Maybe if |location= were included and 'Author' capitalized it would be better. 'Self-published', I think is better because it clearly states that the author is the publisher and doesn't leave the reader guessing.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, either the word "author" needs to be capitalized in that context, or it should be replaced with "Self-published". Imzadi 1979  03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I use "self-published" (or "Self-published", depending on the template output), for pretty much exactly the reason Trappist identifies. There are lots of things that various external citation styles do that we do not (except when some WP:CITEVAR nut is trying desperately to mimic an external style down to the character, which borders on a WP:NOTHERE pastime and generally leads to repeated WP:OWN-style disputes). Most of those quirks are based on saving space to cut down printing cost, and are also conventions for a very narrow audience who all cite exactly the same way following the same rulebook. Neither of these apply here. We should use plain and unambiguous English, especially when doing so interfaces directly with one of the core content policies. WP is actually special, and it's fine for us to do special things, within our own context.

Using "author" in this position doesn't signal what it's intended to; it tells the reader that the person is the author, versus editor, illustrator, or whatever; not that they're self-publishing.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotation language[edit]

When the quotation is not in English, should the argument to the quote parameter be in the original language or translated? The title parameter has a trans-title counterpart and so perhaps quote should have a trans-quote equivalent. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have always believed that when a quote is important enough to be considered for |quote= it is important enough to have its own end note and that end note cited. So, from that, I would say: quote in the original language and provide a reliably sourced translation in the same end note then cite both. Last time I was paying any attention to the topic of translations, the consensus was that machine translations are not considered reliable. Others will likely disagree with me.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
A long while back someone told me that |quote= was a convenience for providing the exact text of the source that is being paraphrased (here, translated) in the article. I have two problems with that. First, as Trappist says, if it's that important then it should be presented (perhaps even discussed) in the note. (As to "its own end note", I guess you're thinking of the original and the translation. But both sources can be, and should be, handled in the same note. See below.) But quotations of text should not be in the full citation, because that is about the source, not whatever part is being used in the article. In that sense, |quote= is an unuseful parameter, and ought to be deprecated. It derives from this deep confusion and confounding of "note" with "citation".
(In contrast, we do have |trans-title= because a title does identify a source, and either the original foreign language title of an English translation, or an English translation of the foreign language title, is important for identifying a source.)
I think what we agree on is that something like " ... class<ref> {cite|...|quote=Klass}</ref>" is better handled as " ... class<ref> {cite|...} "Klass".</ref>". Or for citing both a translation and the original, where short cites are being used: " ... class<ref>{Harv|Smith|2000|p=84}. "Klass" in the original.{Harv|Ivanoff|1988|p=76}.</ref>" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to mention that analogous to the situation described here (citing original text and its translation) is the citation of a primary source that is the original and well-known source of some important item, along with a secondary source that attests that the primary source is the original, etc., and perhaps explains it or provides context. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Access date error on kannada wikipedia[edit]

Citation error of access date seen on following help pages on English wikipedia Template:Cite_web & kannada wikipedia kn:Template:Cite_web, in reference we get Check date values in: |access-date= (help) , we getting error on kn:Category:CS1_errors:_dates at kannada wikipedia, does some one know how to fix it. this issue with access date only. ★ Anoop / ಅನೂಪ್ © 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any errors on en:Template:Cite web. At kn:Template:Cite_web, there is this:
which at produces a date that looks like this:
೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭ (google translate thinks that is 22 Sepṭembar 2017)
As written, kn:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation does not support month names in Kannada and may not support Kannada numerals in all cases.
Just as an experiment at kn:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation in the debug console I wrote:
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+%a+%s+%d%d%d%d')
that should have matched but didn't. The %a+ should match one or more unicode letters so apparently ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ (U+0CB8 U+0CC6 U+0CAA U+0CCD U+0C9F U+0CC6 U+0C82 U+0CAC U+0CB0 U+0CCD) has stuff that isn't letters in it. This worked:
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+[%D%S]+%s+%d%d%d%d')
where [%D%S]+ matches one or more of anything that isn't digits and spaces.
You might want to ask Editor kn:User:Omshivaprakash what the purpose of this edit was. I think that that this change:
elseif 'access-date'==k then                                    -- if the parameter is |date=
--      good_date = check_date (v, nil, true);                  -- go test the date; nil is a placeholder; true is the test_accessdate flag
leaves good_date false which causes the access-date test to fail even if |access-date=2017-09-26 is used. So, fix that first.
Then, the challenge is going to be to rewrite portions of the module to understand Kannada months and then see what other changes are needed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Full vs truncated number for end of page-range[edit]

For {{cite journal}} and friends, should we use |pages=2041–2043 or |pages=2041–43? Last year, MOS:DATERANGE determined that full years should (almost) always be used for the end of year-ranges, but MOS:NUM is silent about the more general idea of ranges and I can't find any statement in the docs for the various citation templates about it. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably mute on the subject because there is little need to micromanage. If one were in need of saving ink or were attempting to squeeze the citation into the last available space on a crowded page, then truncation would be an option to accomplish those goals. But, we don't use ink, and space is not a problem. And, for some, reading anything that's truncated causes a stutter in the flow.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is no one citation style for page ranges, and it probably depends on the conventions of the field. The Chicago manual of style has one such set of rules about page range style. As Trappist says, publishers cared about good compression for printing, but we don't have the problem here. Use what you think is best. --Mark viking (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above, consistency within the same article is probably more important. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The same logic applies to page number ranges, obviously. The problem with things like "2943–76" is they are not immediately parseable for what they're intended to be, and worse yet, they can often coincide with numeric dates, e.g. "1902–11" (remember that many fonts do not clearly distinguish - and –).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is the spacing in citations suddenly broken? It seems to be adding multiple spaces after the title. Although now that I look around, it seems to be doing it in templated external links as well. --tronvillain (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not extra spacing, it's spacing that was always there for the external link icon to be dropped into - but at the moment, there is a problem with the external link icons, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disappearing icons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks. --tronvillain (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sections with cite web[edit]

OK, this has been gone over before. {{cite web}} does not recognise either |chapter= or |section=. Here's an article, with a ref as follows:

The person adding that ref has stuffed three distinct pieces of information into the |title= parameter. Clearly, I can move the page number to the |page= parameter; what I also want to do is move the heading "Ding-ding and away" (which is not part of the document title) into a separate parameter - but both |chapter= and |section= are unrecognised by {{cite web}}. I also do not wish to pollute |page= - which incidentally should be |pages=5–6 as it's not all on one page. So I rearranged it as:

Please can we avoid enforcing these arbitrary restrictions which create inconveniences. There is a similar issue with most of the other refs in that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The easiest solution (and one which works in some other cases where "cite X" templates impose restrictions) is to use {{citation |mode=cs1 ...}}:
{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=Things that make us stupid |contribution=Ding-ding and away |page=5 |url= |accessdate=2017-01-10}} → "Ding-ding and away". Things that make us stupid (PDF). p. 5. Retrieved 2017-01-10. 
There's always a trade-off between flexibility and error-checking; the "cite X" templates can be better at error-checking and enforcing consistency because they "know" the kind of citation being handled, whereas the "citation" template is more generic, but in a very few cases doesn't have enough information to work correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting to me that you choose to damn cs1|2, and {{cite web}} in particular, for what would appear to be a fundamental citation failure in that article. The article cites Guttmann's power-point slides from a talk given at the AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference held 18–23 May 2008 in Gold Coast, Australia. Australia. Surely a Wikipedia-notable slang term that refers to English train and station personnel would be documented in English sources, most notably the English press – especially when, in 1979, seven people died.
If Guttmann is the only source, use of a different cs1 template might be in order, perhaps this:
{{cite conference |last=Guttmann |first=Peter |title=Things that Make us Stupid |section-url= |access-date=2017-01-10 |pages=5–6 |section=Ding-ding, and Away! |conference=AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference |date=18–23 May 2008 |location=Gold Coast, Australia |via=University of Auckland}}
Guttmann, Peter (18–23 May 2008). "Ding-ding, and Away!" (PDF). Things that Make us Stupid. AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference. Gold Coast, Australia. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 2017-01-10 – via University of Auckland. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I generally favor {citation} as handier and avoiding some of these pettifogging gotchas. But many, many editors use {cite web}, so it is pertinent to ask: why does {cite web} ignore |chapter= and |section=? (Are those too "book-like"??) It is quite common for web pages to have sections (which should be citeable), and not a few also have chapters. (E.g., here.) That kind of data facilitates verification, so why are they ignored? Alternately: why do they require extra treatment with obscure parameters? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think citation and cite x are set up pretty much backward. The convention outside Wikipedia when citations are in endnotes is to separate the elements with commas. When parenthetical referencing is used, the usual convention is to use a period as a separator in the full bibliography items. If were using templates, and all citations are in endnotes, we done need ref = harv as the default. If we're using parenthetical referencing, we do want ref = harv as the default. So the default of ref = harv should be associated with cite x and not citation, but the reverse is how it's actually set up. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This advice, The easiest solution (and one which works in some other cases where "cite X" templates impose restrictions) is to use {{citation |mode=cs1 ...}} doesn't appear to actually work reliably:
  • {{Citation | title = Debate club |mode=cs1 |contribution= Broken windows | url = | newspaper = Legal Affairs}}
  • "Debate club". Legal Affairs.  |contribution= ignored (help)
Generates the same red error with or without |mode=cs1.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: that's a different case. Now you're trying to have a 'three level' citation: contribution/chapter, title and newspaper. This only works when the top level is "encyclopedia", not when it's newspaper/work/website. (Try changing |newspaper= to |encyclopedia=.) The underlying reason is the way |title= is treated: e.g. it's the 'top level' for a book, but the 'second level' for a journal article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet we frequently need three-level citations. I guess I'll just go back to using |at= to get the desired result. I report this one because I was trying to fix a red template error I encountered in an article. I forget where it was. I guess it will just remain there forever, unless these templates are adjusted to do what people need them to do instead of what some confused and palimpsestuous flowchart is forcing them to do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Debate club appears to be a regular part of the Legal Affairs magazine, in which case, perhaps |department= applies:
{{Citation |department=Debate club |mode=cs1 |title=Broken windows |url= |magazine=Legal Affairs}}
"Broken windows". Debate club. Legal Affairs. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that lack of support for these parameters in {{Cite web}} and some other templates is annoying and is directly causing problems; I, too, have to spend an inordinate amount of time fixing mal-citatations that try to shoe-horn non-title information into |title=. Since hardly anyone ever looks for and fixes these things, that means that there's an order of magnitude or two or three more such errors than people like me and RedRose64 take the time to repair. It behooves those insistent on metadata output that most of us just DGaF about or at most consider a very back-seat purpose of these templates, to set the templates up so that we can actually use them easily. For myself, I sometimes fix this with |at= (depends on what non-title info is being inserted into |title=), but there's not a consistent approach. Just letting people use |section= and |chapter= makes the most sense and enhances inter-template conversion/correction. (See also thread below about |work= in {{Cite book}}).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've long wanted to be able to create 'three level' citations more freely using the templates, but the consensus here has been against it. You can, of course, always use plain text, which is necessary in other cases (e.g. date formats recommended by the source but not supported by the templates, like "2010 onwards"). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Said something about this above [8].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite book: Treat |work as synonym of |title in absence of the latter[edit]

It's good that we can do something like

  • {{cite book |title=International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature |edition=3rd |last1=Weber |first1=H. E |last2=Moravec |first2=J. |last3=Theurillat |first3=J.-P. |work=Journal of Vegetation Science |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=739–768 |date=October 2000 |publisher=International Association for Vegetation Science / Opulus Press |location=Uppsala |doi=10.2307/3236580 |url=}}
  • Weber, H. E; Moravec, J.; Theurillat, J.-P. (October 2000). International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (PDF). Journal of Vegetation Science. 11 (3rd ed.). Uppsala: International Association for Vegetation Science / Opulus Press. pp. 739–768. doi:10.2307/3236580. 

to handle cases where a stand-alone work exists as a book but has also been published in a journal and we're citing that version of it.

However, it's annoying that I can't fix a mal-citation of the form:

  • {{cite journal |title=Actually a Chapter |work=Actually a Book |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2017}}

by simply changing "journal" to "book" and "title" to "chapter".

The |work= parameter should be aliased by default to the main work title, in every template in this family, even if we permit it to do other things if |title= is also specified in some cases.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Pointless whitespace error[edit]

The error "line feed character in |publisher= at position 26" is not cool. Templates are supposed to be whitespace-agnostic, and if the template can detect the presence of an LF it can also strip it out for metadata purposes. This is an impediment to copy-pasting source details.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Line feeds create many more issues than just those concerning metadata, and they should be fixed at the wikitext level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Somehow WP has failed to fall apart as the result of LFs being present, which they often can be. This is not a citation issue, and the citation template should not be barfing on cite data or metadata to try to force people to fix something they can't even see. The averaged editor probably doesn't even know what an LF is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
WP also has also failed to fall apart as the result of vandalism. Doesn't mean vandalism shouldn't be fixed. Likewise for stray line feeds which can cause both rendering accessibility issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a WP:GREATWRONGS argument. Cite templates are not the place to try to do anti-LF enforcement. Way, way out of scope. It's abusing a core function and necessity of the encyclopedia (citing sources) to try to arm-twist people into doing geek work for which many of them are not competent. Don't insert work- or behavior-coercion "riders" into basic functionality templates. Have a bot look for LFs and remove them. This is what we have bots for. Also, your analogy is false; WP has failed to fall apart at the hands of vandals because and only because of the constant work a large number of anti-vandals. There is no huge cadre of anti-LF editors, and WP works just fine without one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've set up the bot request for you, at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Linefeed "hunter-killer". Feel free to make it more specific or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Must say that this is a very useful feature of the templates as it catches many vandal edits as does the date error messages. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bots can certainly assist in cleanup, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be flagged in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
As an average editor who learned what an LF was precisely because of this error, I agree that it's beyond the fixing capacity of many. That said, it is an error that ought to be identified because an invisible character in a URL is still a character and is contaminating the usefulness of the information. I see it as similar to date errors: while potentially difficult/unintuitive to fix, it causes problems, and so it needs to be identified. Leave the error message and get the bot to do its work. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Bug when title ends with single quote, revisited[edit]

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 34#Bug when title ends with single quote

I thought this bug was addressed but perhaps it wasn't pushed live? (@Trappist the monk) I'm still getting the same error:

Shea, Christopher (April 19, 2013). "A Radical Anthropologist Finds Himself in Academic 'Exile<span style="padding-right:0.2em;">'"Paid subscription required. Chronicle of Higher Education. 59 (32): A14–A15. ISSN 0009-5982. 

czar 05:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been but, alas, there is a related problem for which I have not yet found a solution. And because real-life has been in the way these past months.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

missing error handlers for cite bioRxiv and cite citeseerx[edit]

It somehow escaped us to include the error handlers for the cases where {{cite bioRxiv}} and {{cite citeseerx}} are missing their respective parameters |biorxiv= and |citeseerx=. That oversight has been remedied in the sandbox:

Cite bioRxiv compare
{{ cite bioRxiv | title=Title }}
Live Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities at line 82: Called with an undefined error condition.
Sandbox "Title".  |biorxiv= required (help)
Cite citeseerx compare
{{ cite citeseerx | title=Title }}
Live Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities at line 82: Called with an undefined error condition.
Sandbox "Title".  |citeseerx= required (help)

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


Can |collaboration-link= be made, analogous to |author-link=, etc.? Example @ K2K experiment.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? The purpose of |author-link= is to provide a way of linking a |last=, |first= pair because the two cannot be wikilinked. But, |collaboration= can be wikilinked:
{{cite journal
|author = M. H. Ahn
|collaboration=[[K2K experiment#Collaboration|K2K Collaboration]]
|date = 2006
|title = Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment
|journal = [[Physical Review D]]
|volume = 74|pages = 072003
|doi = 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003
|id = 
|bibcode = 2006PhRvD..74g2003A
|issue = 7 }}
M. H. Ahn; et al. (K2K Collaboration) (2006). "Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment". Physical Review D. 74 (7): 072003. Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74g2003A. arXiv:hep-ex/0606032Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, my force of habit. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in plain text[edit]

I need to add the <ref></ref> myself afterwards?! — fortunavelut luna 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want your reference to be in a footnote, yes. There are many cases where citations should not be in footnotes (for instance, when they are part of a separate list of references at the end of an article and the footnotes only give short links to them), so it would be a bad idea to bundle the footnoting code into the citation templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Right, thanks a lot; I wanted to use the {{cite thesis}} ref within the article (that would explain why it doesn't have a parameter for page nos, perhaps?), but as I said, it didn't like it! — fortunavelut luna 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
{{cite thesis}} supports page numbers:
{{cite thesis |title=Title |pages=3–9}}
Title (Thesis). pp. 3–9. 
Why would you say that it doesn't. Can you provide an example showing that it doesn't?
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your good faith there, Trappist. Was going by [9]. — fortunavelut luna 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's a direct link to the documentation for |page= in {{cite thesis}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much Jonesey95, I'll remember that. — fortunavelut luna 14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Years and Classical publications from Antiquity[edit]

This seems to throw an error when using dates of Classics

{{ cite book |year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= 8 AD|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8 AD). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= 56 CE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56 CE). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= 56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= 267|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (267). ABC. 

{{ cite book |year= 124 BCE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (124 BCE). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= -56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (-56). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

{{ cite book |year= 3 BC|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (3 BC). ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

It appears to need a three digit absolute magnitude value or greater. This is clearly an error in the processor. -- (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This topic is related to this citation? Forgive my skepticism, but I suspect that you are not directly citing a first century CE copy of Metamorphoses, but are citing a rather more recent edition. That being the case, then the appropriate date for the citation would be the date of the source that you consulted. At, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies.
Also, your post here is a duplicate of a post you made at Help talk:CS1 errors#Years and Classical publications from Antiquity. One conversation in one place only, please.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Photographs of published Latin works do exist, and there have been digitization efforts as well. So, accessing such, would the date the work was digitized or photographed be your "source date" ? This is a generalized query, since I've used old Latin sources for other things in the past (though with triple or quadruple digit years) I would expect that the citation template should work for older dates as well. Some Wikipedian editors can read Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Chinese, so ancient documents are accessible to some of the general population of editors here at Wikipedia, thus the citation template should be able to support this editor population. -- (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless you're literally at a museum looking at manuscripts/tablets/whatever dating from antiquity, I don't see how there would be an issue. Can you give an example where the date of publication (not the date of authorship) of a source you cite would be in the double digits?
Edit: Personally for a well known text such at the Metamorphoses you can probably just do
{{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153}}
Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153. 
That's generally how I've works like the CMoS say to cite classical works unless it really matters which edition you're using, e.g., if there's some debate as to the original text. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not deny that facsimiles of sources exist nor that there are editors here who can read them. Facsimiles abound on the internet:
Ovid (1889). "Book the Second: Fable I". In Riley, Henry T. Metamorphoses. Translated by Riley. London: George Bell & Sons. p. 51. 
But apparently, there are no surviving first-century manuscripts of Metamorphoses (so says the article). The lack of surviving first-century manuscripts and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT suggest that citing Metamorphoses and using |year=8 AD is inappropriate. Cite the source that you read.
When the cs1|2 templates were first written, there were technical reasons for limiting minimum |year= values to three digits. While the technical limitation no-longer applies because of new technology, the constraint was left in and, but for the occasional case like the one in hand, there has been little call to extend date-handling support to cover all time. When the scholars of ancient texts take up their pitchforks and torches and clamber for ancient-date support in cs1|2, we can certainly consider it.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Since Chinese over the last 2000 years is readable to modern Chinese readership, if they've been trained to read Classical Chinese (ie. 19th century Chinese and before) I would say that such sourcing would be expected for some topics. Or if you're a Brahmin and quoting Sanskrit sources of the past 3000 years. -- (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, the year something was originally written is distinct from the year of publication of the source the editor got the text from. Umimmak (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There are still good reasons to mark three-digit years as an error. Most three-digit years, like "year=207", are typos for four-digit years, like "year=2017". The error check finds these frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be able to be specified with an override of some sort, like providing "BCE" or "AD" in the parameter ? Or a plus or a minus sign? (ie. French-style dates with minus-signs for BC dates) -- (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
|orig-year= works well for citing the original publication dates of older works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you need a |date= as well though, see: {{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153|orig-year=8 AD}} which produces Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153.  Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ cite book |orig-year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}


{{ cite book |orig-year= 8|year= AD 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (AD 8) [8]. ABC.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

That "|orig-year=" indeed does not provide the year unless "|year=" is specified per Umimask. -- (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

cite collection[edit]

Would it be possible to get a sub-class of cite encyclopedia for citing collections that are not encyclopedias? Perhaps "cite collection"? I realize there is no technical reason for this, but the semantic context is currently being obscured and that is a Bad Thing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than everyone imagining what it is that they think that you mean, perhaps you could supplement your request with a real-life (not contrived) example?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just use a redirect like {{Cite contribution}} if you are uncomfortable with the template name. Or make a new redirect at {{Cite collection}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Special formatting for lists of works by an author.[edit]

This is a feature request. In lists of works by the subject of an article, eg. Andrea Gallo#Works, I tend to use author-mask=1 so the date comes first. In works with more than one author, I wish there was a parameter for {{cite}} which would show the date first and then list secondary authors prefixed by "with" after the date. Thank you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

May I point out that the first entry in any masked list should have the full citation reference, including the name of the author. Otherwise it is unclear what exactly you are masking. This holds for works by an article's subject as well, even when it is obvious who the author is. Secondly, in most citation applications, works are universally indexed by author(s) first (though some specialized systems may index by title/date rather than author/date). Since you decided to use CS1 to populate this list (a good idea, imo), the style should be followed. If this style doesn't suit your needs, I suggest formatting the list differently, without the strictures of CS1. (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite book problem[edit]

Does anyone know what is wrong with this?

{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​|​chapter-url=|ref=harv}}

which produces two errors:

Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​". In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva. Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.  Unknown parameter |​chapter-url= ignored (help); zero width space character in |chapter= at position 49 (help)

SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but retyping the chapter title (without changing the chapter URL) seems to have fixed it:
{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End|chapter-url=|ref=harv}}
Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End" (PDF). In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva. Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 
David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
David, thank you! I wonder whether there was an invisible character in the chapter title. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
U+200B zero-width space. With your cursor highlight the 'E' in 'End'. Walk the highlight one character at a time to the right. You will notice that it takes an extra step to get from the 'd' in 'End' to the chapter's closing double quote character. And, interestingly enough, that is position 49 in the |chapter= parameter value, just as the error message said. Isn't that amazing?
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: (EC) There was one yes End​<INVISIBLECHARACTER>|chapter-url. You can find it by counting 49 character positions in |chapter=. Put your cursor there, hit delete. Nothing will apparently happen, but you've deleted the invisible character. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. SarahSV (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

5-Digit volume numbers not rendered in boldface by ((cite book))[edit]

The Springer book series Lecture Notes in Computer Science has meanwhile reached volumes >10000. Such 5-digit volume numbers aren't rendered in boldface, while shorter numbers are. See the 2017 entry at Conference on Artificial General Intelligence#References for an example. Maybe somebody can fix this. Thanks in advance! - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that this the most recent conversation that we've had on the topic.
Some would like volume bolding to go away; some would like to extend it to all characters; some would like another parameter that controls bolding. We have not been able to reach a consensus to change its current rendering.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Through the years, this has been remarked on by normal people. There is no reasoning (that makes any sense logically, visually, or programmatically), for the font weight to depend on the variable's length. It runs counter to guidelines for consistency and uniformity, and keeps bringing people here to ask the same questions. I would withhold any thanks in advance. (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that bolding should be consistently enforced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

automatic |format=pdf[edit]

In the wild I discovered a reference that rendered with the (PDF) annotation but the url did not point to a pdf file. Module:Citation/CS1 is confused by a url that ends '.pdf.html'.

Cite web compare
{{ cite web | url=//example.pdf.html | title=Title }}
Live "Title" (PDF). 
Sandbox "Title". 

Fixed in the sandbox.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Example of book with journal-like properties, chapter authors and issue plus number indicators[edit]

Interesting example of a (hardcopy) book (with ISBN), which is part of a book series (with ISSN) and has volume, issue and number indicators (similar to a journal). Also, it contains at least one chapter by a pair of authors completely different from those authors responsible for the remainder of the book (and listed on the front cover) and the series editor. The volume number (V) is incremented every year, the issue number (I) is incremented for each book published in that year in the series (just like in a journal, except for that the number of issues in a year seems to be variable), and the number (N) is apparently a running number counting up from the first book in that publisher's series (the publisher publishes multiple series of books). So, I need either or both the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} template to support something like this:

Steinbach, Bernd; Posthoff, Christian. Chapter 3: Boolean Differential Calculus. In: Sasao, Tsutomu; Butler, Jon T. (2010-01-15). Thornton, Mitchell A., ed. "Progress in Applications of Boolean Functions". Synthesis Lectures on Digital Circuits and Systems. 4 (1) #26 (1st ed.). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers: 55–78. ISBN 978-1-60845-181-4. ISSN 1932-3166.

Issues with the current template implementation:

  • The {{cite journal}} template does not support the |chapter= parameter. This is an artificial restriction based on the invalid assumption that there are no chapters in journal articles. Over the years, a lot of examples have been broad forward in older discussions showing that some longer journal articles do have chapters, and that it can be necessary to cite them individually. Let's fix this.
  • Also, it is necessary to support either |series= or |work= in parallel to |chapter=.
  • Since chapter author(s) are not always the same as the author(s) listed as article or book author(s) on the front, it is necessary to support a set of optional |chapter-author*= parameters when |chapter= is given as well. In some cases this can be worked around by abusing the |editor*= parameters to specify the book authors but the given example even has a series editor, so the |editor*= parameters are needed for him.
  • The {{cite book}} template currently ignores the |issue= and |number= parameters - but it should support them.
  • The {{cite journal}} template supports them, but handles both of them the same and does not allow both to be specified at the same time. Instead, it should allow both to be specified at the same time and (only) then use |issue= as a parameter for volume-specific numbers and |number= for independent numbers. I suggest to render this as:
V (I) #N
(If both issue and number cannot be put into meta-data at the same time, the number should be ignored in the meta-data (at least for the time being) but still be shown in the visual output.)
This would be a fully-backward compatible extension to the currently supported forms
V (I)
V (N)
if only one out of |issue= and |number= is given.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it'd be nice to have issue number for books; right now a workaround is just to do {{citation|mode=cs1|...}}, which seems to allow more options. I've also been using "contribution" if the author of a chapter isn't the author (not editor) of the rest of the book. Umimmak (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I would just do this and move on:
Steinbach, Bernd; Posthoff, Christian (2010-01-15). "Chapter 3: Boolean Differential Calculus". Progress in Applications of Boolean Functions. By Sasao, Tsutomu; Butler, Jon T. Thornton, Mitchell A., ed. Synthesis Lectures on Digital Circuits and Systems. 4:1 (#26) (1st ed.). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. pp. 55–78. ISBN 978-1-60845-181-4. ISSN 1932-3166. 
That certainly gives readers enough information to be able to definitively locate the source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Concur. cs1|2 is a general purpose citation tool that is adequate to the needs of most citation requirements. It works quite well in that role. Being a general purpose tool prevents it from being a specialized, handle-all-citation-needs tool.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


An editor at desires to fix the cs1|2 modules there; the original post about that is here.

Some months ago I tweaked the module suite at so that it worked correctly and as part of that added support for simple replacement of English month names with the appropriate Haitian Creole month names. Because date support at will have similar problems and because I would prefer to not have multiple variations of the base code at each different wiki (if it can be avoided) I have implemented the tweaks in the sandbox. These changes should make it easier for other wikis to maintain currency with the module suite.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | accessdate=15 September 2017 | title=Title | publication-date=Christmas 2013 | date=Fall 2013 | url=// }}
Live Title (published Christmas 2013). Fall 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2017. 
Sandbox Title (published Christmas 2013). Fall 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2017. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

edtf experiment removed[edit]

See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 33#edtf date formats as cs1|2 date parameter values. Because there is apparently no support for this 'solution', I have removed the experimental code that supported it.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think EDTF is a good idea, but in order to not confuse bots trying to make sense of the |date= parameter, perhaps it should be implemented as a new parameter like |edtf-date= or similar. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Long institutional author name with commas in it.[edit]

In Nancy Temkin I have a source whose authors are "National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on Sports-Related Concussions in Youth", which I have placed into the |author= parameter. This puts the article into an inappropriate maintenance category, Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. It is not a multiple-name author list; it is a single institutional author name that happens to have commas in it. How do I avoid the maintenance category and the inevitable bot mangling of this name? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You might consider rewriting the citation in the form that the publisher recommends on this page:
{{citation |page=2037 |url= |title=Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture |author=Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2014 |isbn=9780309288033}}
Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) (2014), Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture, Washington DC: National Academies Press, p. 2037, ISBN 9780309288033 
The publisher's recommendation seems to match the attribution stated on the cover image of the Google books facsimile except that it leaves off 'of the National Academies'.
Were it me, I'd write |author=Institute of Medicine |author2=National Research Council because they are separate entities.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on whether/how to add citations to papers on university repositories[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open#OA repository links

Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Partial script-title and title mixup[edit]

The display of |script-title= and |title= is partially mixed up. What defines and therefore what should be displayed as the title of the work is always what is printed on the book or article itself (this holds true in general, even if the title is written in a foreign script). If known and necessary, it is helpful to also display transliterations and translations, however, since neither of them is without ambiguities (several transliteration systems existed and continue to exist, and translations are even more subject to interpretation) and they are therefore only weak identifiers, this is only auxiliary information, not authorative. If only one of the two parameters is given, the {{cite journal}} template displays them as title, which is fine. However, if both are given at the same time, the template displays the actual title (then given in |script-title=) only as secondary information (after the transliteration in quotes) thereby creating the invalid impression that the transliterated title would be the actual title. Example:

{{cite journal |author-first=А. Д. |author-last=Таланцев |script-title=ru:б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов |title=Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov |language=Russian |trans-title=On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators |journal=Автоматика и телемеханика |volume=20 |number=7 |date=1959 |pages=898–907}}

erroneously renders as:

Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov" б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.

but should instead render as (round brackets added by me as another suggestion):

Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов" (Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov) [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.

There's another (only remotely related) issue: If only a |trans-title= is given, but neither |script-title= nor |title=, the template does not display a title at all. While this is not a hard error, I think it would be beneficial if the translation gets displayed anyway (in [brackets], of course), perhaps with an edit-time warning "Missing title parameter!" or similar. This would make it easier for editors to identify the actual source and retrofit the actual title.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

On the only remotely related issue, yep, broken, now fixed in the sandbox:
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | publisher=Publisher | date=2017 | trans-title=Trans Title }}
Live . Publisher. 2017. 
Sandbox [Trans Title] |trans-title= requires |title= (help). Publisher. 2017. 
And on the other, I think that the styling decision comes from this conversation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Your view on the presentation of titles is not shared by The Chicago Manual of Style, which suggests that original titles in Chinese or Japanese characters be placed after the romanized title. (It does not suggest original titles for other non-Latin scripts.) Nor is it plausible that anyone would mistake a romanized title placed before a script title for the original title – the only reason to include a title in a non-Latin script would be if it were the original title. Kanguole 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)