Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Cite journal)
Jump to: navigation, search

{{cite bioRxiv}}[edit]

Could someone help create this?

Basically, it should be very similar to {{cite arXiv}}, except without the "fill this with a bot" code. That is, the supported parameters should be

  • |authors= and variants
  • |date= and variants
  • |title=
  • |biorxiv=
  • |doi= should throw an error, telling people to use |biorxiv= without the '10.1011' part of the doi. If a valid doi that doesn't start with 10.1011 is used, the message should invite users to instead use {{cite journal}}.
  • All other identifiers and parameters should be unsupported.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, I'm not sure I understand the added value of these specific templates… Isn't it enough to use the |biorxiv= parameter with an existing CS1 template? The same holds for citeseerx below. − Pintoch (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This, like {{cite arxiv}} would do two things. It specifically identifies the publication as a preprint, and which would facilitate the bot-maintenance of these templates and general cleanup of the citations. Right now, there's a lot of people doing citations to biorxiv preprints like this (the first is done by putting the URL in the reftoolbar and letting the gadget complete it
Which is not how bioRxiv preprints should be cited. They should be cited as
  • Navarrete, Israel; Panchi, Nancy; Kromann, Peter; Forbes, Gregory; Andrade-Piedra, Jorge (15 February 2017). "Health quality of seed potato and yield losses in Ecuador". bioRxiv 108712Freely accessible. 
You might argue that this can be already be achieved with existing templates like {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}}, but using those templates misleads people into filling unnecessary and undesired parameters.
And if you try letting citation bot expand the doi in a cite journal, you get
  • . doi:10.1101/108712 (inactive 2017-02-16).  Missing or empty |title= (help)
This seems to be generalized to all biorxiv dois, but might be a temporary database issue. However, I have no faith that the crossref information would not polute the citation with extraneous and unecessary information, like putting CSHL as the publisher, biorxiv as the journal, and similar. It would also highjack the doi parameter which should be used for the official version, once published. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the explanation! − Pintoch (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Trappist the monk, and Jonesey95: can any of you code this? I would, but I know nothing of LUA. I could hack something via an invocation of cite web, but I'd rather not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course, but is there consensus to add yet two more cs1 templates with attendant error messages and categories, documentation, etc?
If the decision is taken to create these templates as cs1 templates, there is a side benefit in that it will force me to finally do the unsupported arXiv parameter test properly because these two templates will require the same sort of error detection.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The only argument against them really is "but that's more templates to deal with", and I think I've shown pretty conclusively that using the existing ones create lots of issues in the long term, while lots of benefits would come from a dedicated template like {{cite arxiv}}. We might need a {{cite SSRN}} too, but I haven't looked into them much. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to add this template to cs1? Of all the editors who monitor this talk page (234 at this writing) only three have had anything to say here. If I read this topic correctly, you are the only editor who has expressed support for it.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
{{cite arxiv}} exists, this one (as well as {{cite citeseerx}}) is no different. I have shown a need for it, and no one objects. We don't need RFCs for every single incremental upgrade to the CS1 suite of templates. The only reason I haven't created it myself is because I can't write in LUA. I could have half-assed a {{cite journal}} wrapper for it, and only allow a few basic parameters, but I'd much rather have proper support from the start go. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Access locks on paywalled links: lock color and hover text[edit]

We have some access-lock images which are occasionally used to indicate whether a source is paywalled or not. One of them is File:Lock-red.svg. It's bright red (Lock-red.svg), with a transparent background. The {{cite journal}} source code uses it to indicate paywalled sources.

I don't like the bright red. Why? Because, as Mark viking pointed out six months ago,[1] many paywalled sources let you read the abstract for free, or a page or two for free. Please correct Mark and I if we're wrong, but we think that bright red may imply "you can't read any of this for free". This may mislead our readers, and dissuade them from clicking through and reading abstracts for free.

I think that we should use some color other than bright red.

We could use dark red (like this). And then we could add a white background or white border, to make sure that users reading Wikipedia on a black background would get sufficient contrast. In fact, if you look through the file history of Lock-red.svg, you'll see that it used to be dark red, until it changed to light red this past September.

Or we could use gray (on a transparent background), or black (on a white background), or any other color.


Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The dark red fails one of the criteria we established for the icon designs, to wit: contrast against both white and black backgrounds. This is important for the visually impaired and for those who invert their colors (light text on a dark or black background).
As part of the initial discussions I proposed a series of icons that were all blue; access indicated by the lock shape only. That idea was shot down because others believed that multiple indications of access (shape and color) are better than the single (shape alone).
Before continuing this conversation, might I recommend that you spend some time in the archives of this page reading the discussions that got us to where we are today? I think that the bulk of it begins in Archive 22.
Trappist the monk (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Trappist: The problem with the old dark-red access lock icon is that it had a transparent background. This made it nearly invisible when the icon was superimposed upon a black webpage. I see four possible workarounds: A) Underlay a white rectangle beneath the dark-red lock. B) Or a white rounded rectangle. C) Or a white oval. D) Or add a thick white outline to the dark-red lock. Even three or four pixels thick, if you want. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, those are work-arounds. But, neither you nor I have the power to change that which was decided by RFC, do we? Without another RFC that overrides the current consensus, the access signals shall have the forms and colors that were determined by the visual design RFC.
Trappist the monk (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
In that RFC, Headbomb offered a choice of multiple colors for the free-access lock and the partial-access lock. But the only color choice he offered for the paywall lock was bright red. (In other words, bright red was the only choice available on the ballot.) Because the ballot offered no choice in the matter, I believe it might be inaccurate to say that the RFC participants agreed to make it bright red. I believe it'd be more accurate to say that the lock ended up bright red by default. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Only one color was offered for the free access lock, green. The only one where there was a choice was the partial access lock, yellow vs blue which left very few people happy. I personally believe Green/Grey/Red will gain support the next time we ask, but it's possibly Green/Grey/Grey will get it too. Green/Blue/Red is a a truly ridiculous scheme that makes zero sense, and people only went for it because the yellow was felt 'not yellow enough' or WP:ACCESS unfriendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Look also at the post timestamped at "22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)" on this page for possible alternatives, some of which include gray. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That gray is fine, though I still suspect that I prefer dark red. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The dark red would still violate WP:ACCESS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I've thought of some possible workarounds, and described them, in a comment which you probably haven't read yet. Search through this page for the phrase [ four possible workarounds ] if you'd like to learn about them. I believe that, with the workarounds, dark red is a viable option. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Those aren't viable workarounds. A white rectangle underneath the lock for instance, would look downright awful and be very distracting. Likewise for the other choices. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
A) How about a thin white outline, perhaps one pixel thick or a few pixels thick? B) What percent of our readers view Wikipedia on a black background? I suspect that it's a tiny percentage. Shouldn't we care more about making things look nice for the majority than for the minority? —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The colors and shapes of the access signals lock was decided by the visual design RFC. Must I repeat myself? Neither you nor I have the authority to arbitrarily overturn such a decision. The number of readers who use an inverted color scheme is irrelevant; those who do deserve to be accommodated if it is possible to do so.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
One thing we could possibly add to the hover text is "Paid subscription required, abstract or excerpt may be available" instead of just "Paid subscription required". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Headbomb: Good idea. In fact, maybe we could provide even more alt text than that. Perhaps this: "A summary or excerpt may be available for free. However, to read the full text, you must either buy access or visit a library with a paid subscription. Try phoning your nearest university library." In addition, perhaps we could even add a dotted underline and a fancy cursor. border-bottom: 1px dotted #000; cursor: help; This would help readers realize that there's useful alt text, and that they should wait a second for it to appear. You can see a live preview of the full package at this link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That is a ridiculously long message. 'Paid subscription required, abstract or excerpt may be available' covers all of that. I'm not against the cursor/underlining though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Both you and I have been to university. Also, both you and I both know that we can get free online access to many papers at a university library. But many laypeople don't know this. In fact, even some university graduates don't know this. For those in the know, we're wasting their time by writing so much hover text. But these people can quickly learn what the paywall lock means. They can read the hover text once, understand it, and never feel a need to hover their mouse over a paywall lock ever again. But, for high-school students and other individuals not in the know, we may be opening their eyes (maybe for the first time ever) to vast trove of scholarly knowledge. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of having been to university or not, it's a matter of the message being exceedingly long. This is a message that will need to be read by screen readers several times per article, and thus needs to be short. This is why all the messages are short and to the point, e.g. "Free registration required" instead of "You are required to register to read this article, but it does not cost money to do so. Websites will typically asks for your email and some personal information. You could also ask a friend to register for you, or register with a dummy email if you do not trust the website with your personal information, however this may violate their terms of service. Your password and login information might be stored in a cookie. That being said, an excerpt might still be available to unregistered users."
"Paid subscription required" implies a subscription is required to have access to the full version; it doesn't matter if it's yours, your supervisor's, your friend's or the library's institutional subscription. If you have short wordings, those could be suitable however. But they need to be short, e.g. "Paid or library subscription required, free abstract or excerpt may be available". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah OK fair. Your point about screen readers is a good one. Indeed, I looked into the matter just now; and it turns out that screen readers will indeed read out the image's title text in this case. (Source.) And your little speech discussing dummy emails and cookies made me laugh. :) How's this?: "Paid or library access required; but a summary may be available for free. Click for help." —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Locks aren't currently clickable and aren't linked to anything. Where would clicking on the lock take people? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There need not be anything clickable for a title= attribute to be used; it is valid on most HTML elements since HTML 4.00, and all elements from HTML5 onward. From the HTML 4.01 spec:

Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tooltip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context.

Try hovering your mouse here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Re "There need not be anything clickable". The proposed message has "click for help". That's what I'm referring to. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Clicking on the paywall lock could take readers to Wikipedia:Find your source. Would this work? —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki copies the image's alt= attribute text into the title= attribute. No need to muck with title= attributes and no need for the image to be clickable.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Not true: consider the twelve images in Headbomb's post of 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC) beginning "No, we unrestrict their use on identifiers and urls" in the section #Whatever happened to the access lock RFCs? - here, all twelve images have the alt= attribute, and none of them have a title= attribute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that we are both mistaken. Your mistake: none of those twelve images have alt= attributes – though some have 'alt' in their name:
My mistake: MediaWiki does not copy alt= into title=. Rather, it is done in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration where the lock images are defined like this:
[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]]Freely accessible
where the text to the right of the pipe is assigned to the title= attribute.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
They do have alt= attributes. Use your browser's "View page source" feature. Search for the text <img alt="Lock-green.svg" src="//" You should find six instances, other than the one in this post. All six are identical: the <img /> tag has seven attributes, being (some values replaced with an ellipsis for clarity) alt="Lock-green.svg" src=... width="9" height="14" srcset=... data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813". There is an alt= attribute; there is not a title= attribute. The enclosing <a href="/wiki/File:Lock-green.svg" class="image">...</a> element doesn't have a title= either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So they do. MediaWiki copies the image file name into the alt= attribute. Better that than nothing I suppose.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The documentation implies that Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi= are not expected to offer a free full text by default So I am expecting the subscription will be set to yes by default if one of these is set. But it isn't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you mean that the template sets |subscription=yes if |doi= or other identifier is set, then no, that does not happen. The problem with |subscription= is that it doesn't specify which external link, |url= or one of the identifiers – there can be multiples – requires the subscription. As the code stands now, it assumes, correctly, that most identifiers (like |doi=) rarely offer free access to the source. We do not highlight the norm. When |doi= refers to a source that is free-to-read, editors may add |doi-access=free to highlight that identifier. There are exceptions: a couple of identifiers are automatically flagged because it is known that these identifiers are always free-to-read (|arxiv=, |rfc=, etc). In the same sense, |url= and |chapter-url= and their aliases are assumed to be free-to-read. Again, we don't hightlight the norm but when these are not free-to-read, editors may set |url-access=subscription, etc.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
But a |doi= card does not trigger a "subscription required" note, nor does a |jstor= card; so |doi-access=free is the default. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
What is card?
No, |doi-access=free is not the default because we do not highlight the normal state, either with an icon or with text. For most identifiers the links normally link to sources behind a registration or subscription wall. Because of this, there is no need to clutter the rendered citation with extraneous access signals.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for a new bot to update journal citations that BECOME open access.[edit]

Hi! I'm a newbie, but have apparently stumbled upon something bot developers might be interested in. At the teahouse I asked a longer question, which I restate here in part. There are many scientific research journals that, after 6 or 12 months post-publication, have "open archives" available from the same doi number that was originally "closed". However, general wp readers have no way of knowing that now, because the open padlock symbol doesn't ever appear (unless someone was to add it manually). I have no ability to actually develop a bot, but, in general, a bot could be instructed to search articles for references citing journals from a list of journals known to have such open access archives, determine if the reference is more than 12 months old, and then automatically add the "|doi-access=free" to the citation after the doi number. If anybody is interested in developing the bot, good luck, but I'd be useless, because my programming skills basically stopped with punch cards and COBAL in the late 70's! DennisPietras (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @Finnusertop:

Hi DennisPietras. This is something User:OAbot can do (see for instance this edit). However, as it is not clear whether these locks are desired or not by the community, this feature is currently disabled: OAbot no longer adds locks. It is straightforward to restore this functionality however. − Pintoch (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: Wouldn't a {{free after|year|month|day}} template solve this neatly, with no need to run a bot? It would work similarly to {{Update after}}. Or maybe something more generic like {{change effective|subscription|free|year|month|day}}. (A bot could clean out expired templates, but there's no rush.) (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Cite interview: "Interview with" is annoyingly ambiguous.[edit]

{{Cite interview}} identifies the interviewer with the words "Interview with...". But those words commonly introduce the interviewee, e.g. Interview with the vampire. I ran into this when I saw:

and thought it was an error that the first name displayed didn't match the byline. Then I went to fix it and saw the "interviewer" parameter was set correctly. Could we use a word other than "with"? Perhaps something like:

That uses the much clearer "by" and gets rid of a duplicate word. (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this change changing "with" to "by". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would not support the change regarding the parentheses--we already have a problem with parentheses that I documented in archive 24--but I personally have no issue with "by" rather than "with". --Izno (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm not attached to that specific replacement; I just wanted to make some concrete suggestion to get the discussion rolling. and that was the easiest thing for me to create using the existing template. I'm quite aware that the interactions between all of the possible optional parameters are quite intricate and something else may be required. Hopefully Trappist the monk will have some ideas. (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I'm looking at what you suggested again, yes, I see what you meant to do with the verbiage. I considered doing the same thing when I looked at the module last--I might take a second look. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If we change the static text, shouldn't it be changed so that it is similar to other similar static text? For |translator= the static text is 'Translated by'; for |cartography= the static text is 'Cartography by'. So, if we make this change, shouldn't the static text be 'Interviewed by'?
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Interviewed by is unambiguous and clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: My main request is to replace "with". The replacement "by" seems to be winning by acclamation. I don't care if we use the noun form (cartography by, interview by) or the past participle (translated by, interviewed by); they're basically synonymous, and current practice isn't consistent. For what it's worth, the noun form is two letters shorter, while the noun form "translation" is one letter longer.
A secondary issue, which is less important but might be worth addressing as long as we're working on {{cite interview}}, is the repetition of the word "Interview". Currently it appears in the |type= and to identify the |interviewer=. It would be nice to get rid of one copy, but this could be a separate revision if that's easier. (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple years and seasons in a date[edit]

How should a date that uses both multiple seasons and multiple years be entered? An issue of a certain journal ("Medieval Life," used on the Pioneer Helmet page) is dated "Autumn/Winter 1997/8." I've changed the years in the citation to "1997–98," but can't find a workaround for the seasons (e.g., "Autumn–Winter," "Autumn-Winter," or "Autumn to Winter") that doesn't tell me to "Check date values in: |date=." Entering "Autumn–Winter 1997" or "Autumn–Winter 1998" works, but isn't fully consistent with the journal's dating format. Thanks in advance for any suggestions! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

cs1|2 follows the 'rules' set by MOS:DATEFORMAT. This particular date format is not contemplated there so not supported here.
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997 works and is sufficiently correct enough to allow readers to find the source. The other date that you suggest, |date=Autumn–Winter 1998, is obviously wrong unless it is the publisher's intention that this particular date also applies to Autumn (nominally September into December) of 1998. I suspect that that is not the intent so using this second date would mislead readers looking for the source.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
What about |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998? EEng 19:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
And why is a seasonal date like this any different than how we'd handle a double issue for a weekly magazine that was of the form "December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017" or a bimonthly double issue "December 2016 – January 2017"? Imzadi 1979  19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
One has to wonder just what this journal was thinking when they dreamed up an issue date like |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998. For them, is Winter 1998 only January–March? What about December 1998? What season is that in their way of calculating things? Yeah, I know, these are rhetorical questions that don't deserve an answer.
From an implementation perspective, there are some differences between |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998 and either of |date=December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017 or |date=December 2016 – January 2017:
  1. the former is two ranges whereas the latter two are single ranges; no other MOS-accepted date format is composed of more than one range
  2. were we to implement this format, the code must ensure that the second year in the year-range is the immediately following year: 1997–1999
  3. were we to implement this format, there is a southern hemisphere version: |date=Spring–Summer 1997–1998
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I propose that the original date should be disambiguated for clarity: "Title". Magazine. Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998.  If that is aesthetically displeasing, some have recommended using |issue= for oddball dates like this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I'm using |date=Autumn–Winter 1997 as suggested. I'd happily switch over to |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–98 if implemented, although I agree that it's it's an unwieldy date as issued by the journal. @Jonesey95:, your suggestion is I think less clear, as the journal date is approximately August 1997 to March 1998, whereas |date=Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998 would be likely read as approximately August 1997 to March 1999 (or December 1998, but that's still significantly broader).
@Trappist the monk: In furtherance of your rhetorical questions, I see the date as being essentially "Autumn 1997 to Winter 1997–98." Thus December 1997 (which is I think what you mean when you speak of December 1998) is considered to be part of Winter 1997–98. But yeah, the fact that we're having this discussion is only because the journal's dating failed at being clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the southern hemisphere, Autumn and Winter are six months out of step with the northern hemisphere. Seasons are a poor way to identify time. (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the date in a citation is to help you find the work cited. We can't do anything about the north-south problem. If the periodical uses seasons in identifying their issues, we have to follow that. Also, to the extent we use date ranges, the new fashion (per a recent RfC) is e.g. xxxx-xxxx, not xxxx-xx. EEng 00:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; but we should show the cover date of the publication just as it is printed, so that a reader can go into a library and ask for that issue. We must not translate "Autumn/Winter 1997/8" to "September 1997–March 1998" since no librarian would be able to find the issue using that information. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of the quote parameter[edit]

I tried looking through the archives to see if this was discussed before and couldn't find anything. If it was, please excuse me.

Anyways, the quote parameter as described on the help page only indicates that it should be used for "relevant text". This is vague and doesn't really tell you when the parameter should be used. On most articles, I don't see it used at all. On some articles I see it used with every citation. Which is it?

If it is supposed to be used more often doesn't that raise the problem of WP:QUOTEFARMs? --Majora (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: WP:V suggests using such quotes for non-English sources, while WP:OFFLINE does the same for offline sources. Limited use of the parameter in these cases is unlikely to be problematic per WP:COPYQUOTE, although of course it can be overused. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense Nikkimaria. Thank you for the explanation. I'm more concerned with the instances that turn out the be quote farms. Articles like James Matthews (racing driver) and Lupton family that make extensive use of the quote parameter outside of the prescribed uses listed in V and OFFLINE. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Majora: It's never seemed terribly unclear to me, because a |quote= is simply optional, and whether to include it is an editorial decision more than formatting one. I certainly use it much more with offline sources for the benefit of future editors, but the main reason is if there's some subtlety of meaning or nuanced phrasing that is difficult to paraphrase accurately. Quite a few of the quotes in Lupton family seem to fall into that category.
As an example of my judgement, see the three uses in CJPL § References.
One interesting example is the Cardarelli reference in Metre § References, where the cited source cites another source (Giacomo). I couldn't find the original source to cite it directly, but I'd like to give credit, so a quote comes to the rescue.
Regarding WP:QUOTEFARM. I tend to apply that mostly to the body of an article; it's a pain to read a section that's all quotes. In the footnotes, I'm a lot less worried as long as we stay out of WP:COPYQUOTE problems. (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal. There is a reason that direct quotes need to be severely limited and that is because Wikipedia strives to be a "freely licensed" service. There is a carve out in copyright law for the fair use of limited numbers of quotes but too many of them borders on copyright infringement as you are putting copyrighted material on a page that is supposed to be released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. That is my concern with the numerous quotes being used on those pages. Nothing more. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal – Sorry, but that's nonsense; if that were true then Wikiquote would have no entries from anyone born within the last 100 years. Mr. IP 71 is correct. EEng 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use. See wikiquote:WQ:COPY#Copyrights and quotations for an explanation as to why. Long and numerous quotations in references is debatable at best as to whether or not it meets the standards for fair use. --Majora (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use. – Yes, and they still would if they were incorporated as a tiresome ==Quotes== section in the author's WP article. QUOTEFARM (a style choice) not QUOTECOPY (a legal issue) is the reason we don't do that. And if we decided, as a style matter, to incorporate a similar body of quotes in references instead of a section, it would still be fair use. EEng 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be comparing apples to oranges and missing the point (unless I am missing something). You are comparing a series of quotes from a notable person to a series of quotes in references that have zero bearing on the educational quality of the text. Our fair use policy is far more strict than the actual US law for a reason. To limit the use of non-free material in a free encyclopedia. Our policy requires a minimal use standard as well as a "contextual significance" standard. A list of quotes in references that can otherwise be easily accessed does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and therefore does not meet our standards for fair use (in my opinion). I agreed with the original response to my question. That the quote parameter is useful in offline or non-English references to help the reader more precisely pinpoint where the material is coming from (therefore helping to meet WP:V). Putting it in for every (or almost every) reference and for references that are otherwise accessible to an English reading audience (our main customers) does not meet our fair use policy. Hence the question and hence the desire for verification as the purpose of the quote parameter. --Majora (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of that, but it has nothing to do with my original comment in this thread, which is all we're talking about. All I said is that your statement that The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal is incorrect, and it is. All you have to do is look at QUOTEFARM (and compare it to QUOTECOPY) to see that. That's it. EEng 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Majora: Wow, I disagree with almost everything here.

  1. Like EEng, I don't read WP:QUOTEFARM as legal advice at all, but as style advice.
  2. I don't see how a collection of individually fairly used quotes from different sources becomes non-fair through aggregation. The legal issue applies on a per-source basis. Although there is some fuzziness in the legal definition of "source" (e.g. related works by the same author, parts of a serialized work), the cases we're discussing here are from clearly independent sources. I'm not a legal expert, and I could imagine a contrary precedent, but I'd like some evidence for the contrary claim before believing it. E.g. does Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, one of the world's most famous quote farms, pay royalties? Search engines produce results comprised mostly of snippets of the linked materials. Are they required to pay royalties because they put 50 on a page with little else?
  3. I utterly fail to see how the accessibility of the original (for offline or language reasons) affects the legal analysis of quoting. This is an editorial factor militating in favour of quoting, not a legal one.

I recommend quotes when there's a useful intermediate level of reading effort between the statement in the WP article and ploughing through the source. Just like it's helpful to specify the page which is relied on, sometimes it's helpful to cite the exact words. (And sometimes I can't resist entertaining text like "Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate." Doesn't belong in the article, but directs the interested reader to a fun read.) (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no legal advice whatsoever on Wikipedia. Only recommendations. As for your second point, you are completely misunderstanding our fair use policy. Look at it from a different, yet comparable, example. We limit the number of fair use images in a single article because too many of them violates our policy on fair use content. The same can be said for text. We already don't allow the copy and pasting of text into articles. We only allow quotes if they are directly related to context, are properly sourced, and cannot be restated in any other way without detracting from the context. References are also not supposed to be used to direct people to "interesting reads". They are designed to satisfy verifability requirements and to link material back to where we got it from. Nothing more.

There are clear alternatives to using direct quotes in everything besides offline sources (I grant the use of it in non-English sources is also helpful). If the source is a 300 page document the best course of action would be to put the page number where you got it from. Not the quote. If there are multiple different pages numbers the {{rp}} template was designed for that very purpose. Citing the exact words in readily available sources is not only unnecessary it can run afoul of our fair use policy if abused and overused. That is fact. --Majora (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: "References are also not supposed to be used to direct people to "interesting reads". They are designed to satisfy verifability requirements and to link material back to where we got it from. Nothing more." Rubbish. That's the primary purpose, certainly, but references also serve as "External links" and "Further reading". And those sections exist because a significant secondary purpose of Wikipedia is to direct people to additional sources of information.
While the policy on non-free images is of some interest, it's much stricter because an image is almost always used entirely, or a slightly cropped version. One sentence or paragraph from a much longer article or book is a completely different matter, and makes it vastly more difficult for quotation to rise to the level of copyright infringement. This is why images always require a fair use justification, and quotations don't. Even in the extreme case of Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the quotation was 400 words long, far longer than most quotes in Wikipedia.
The most significant factor which made that case so extreme is that it was an unpublished book, and the quotation damaged its sales by revealing a noteworthy "scoop". WP addresses that legal issue by not quoting from unpublished sources.
The result is that it would take extraordinary quantities of quoting to constitute a legal threat, so it's not necessary to fret over the issue and people don't.
MOS:QUOTE is clearly addressed to in-article quotations, and focuses almost exclusively on stylistic issues. For quotations specifically in references, WP:Citing sources § Additional annotation is very brief: "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible."
This is notably non-prescriptive, and defers to editorial judgement, "may" meaning "use them if you like."
Yes, there are alternatives. Use them if you like, too. I'm just saying that neither choice is wrong and in need of correction. (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Note especially that the suggestion is to add quotes to make it easier to find the right sentences in a page of other stuff, regardless of any distinction between online and offline sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The advice for using the quote parameter is vague, so it leave interpretation up to the editor. Our fair use page (WP:F) (talking about quotes within articles, but I suppose would also apply to footnotes) says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". It doesn't define "brief" exactly. It would be hard to define it exactly; it could say "generally 20 words or less" or whatever, but that's maybe overly rigid and micromanaging. So it's going to have to be vague somewhat.
I've certainly come across paragraph-long quotes in articles and trimmed or deleted them on the grounds of being too long for fair use. We should do the same if I came across them in a footnote. I don't think I have, though; I don't think its an actual problem, or anyway not a common problem.
I do use use the quote field sometimes to pick out the relevant part of a long article or something. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context" would seem to allow this. If its a service to the reader, why not?
The OP is raising this point: suppose we have a 400-word quote in an article. That's too long for fair use, and must go. But then suppose we have 20 20-word quotes (all from different sources) in an article -- still 400 words, though. Is this a fair use problem? OP is saying it is, using images as an analogy. I don't know... I don't think I agree, though; I think it's probably different when you're using different sources like that. (But if you quoted 20 different 20-word sections from one work... hmmm... I guess that would violate fair use.)
'Course, you wouldn't have 20 20-word quotes in an article, on style grounds. But you might in refs. I haven't seen it much (or ever?) so I don't know as its a practical problem, but as a matte of guidance... it's an interesting question, but IMO it's probably OK. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: "suppose we have a 400-word quote in an article. That's too long for fair use, and must go."
A single 400-word-long quote would be questionable, but quotes totalling 400 words would not be too long, and the court case I cited above is the authority for that claim. That was an exceptional and unusual case, and normally 400 words from a book would be well below the threshold. What made it exceptional was that the book was not yet published and contained some valuable, previously unpublished information which was disclosed in toto by the "spoiler" article.
If, per WP policy, you don't consider unpublished manuscripts reliable sources, you can't hit this exception and you'd have to quote far more than 400 words to be an issue. Your 20 × 20-word quotes from a single source would be just fine. (The editor from The Nation who got in trouble applied the normal standards under which fair use would have clearly applied.)
The reason that "brief" is awkward to quantify is that it depends on many factors, including the size of the source. Quoting the interesting paragraph from a two-paragraph news story might be problematic. Quoting two whole pages (in total, not contiguous) from a long book would not be.
IANAL, but the basic question considered by copyright law is "are you quoting so much from the original that people are no longer interested in reading it?"
Since it's perfectly legal to summarize the original to the point that people are no longer interested in reading it (tl;dr), that's how small sources like my two-paragraph hypothetical are generally dealt with. This is also why text sources aren't particularly litigious and the whole issue has been a non-problem for Wikipedia in general.
It takes serious effort to contrive a situation where you run into a legal problem before you run into the problem of Just Plain Bad Writing. Which is why I'm advising people to focus their attention on editorial concerns. (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the claim 'references also serve as "External links" and "Further reading"' - not true. If a source is provided for the purpose of directing people to additional sources of information, such sources belong in the Further reading or External links sections, where they are not references. References verify the article content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: So you're saying that a source which is used for both purposes should appear in both sections? This contradicts the MoS (WP:LAYOUTEL#External links: "nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section"), which is why I hold a contrary opinion. (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S Re-reading your statement, perhaps our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding. Nobody is disputing that if a source is used only for additional information, it doesn't belong in the "References" section. I'm just saying that a source which does appear in References for legitimate reasons is an ex officio "Further reading" source, and it's reasonable to tailor the presentation of the reference to serve both purposes. For example, I will sometimes append a few words of description to a footnote to describe other information available in the same source, or to explain that this source is not reliable for fact X because it predates the discovery of Y. (Example: CJPL#cite_note-Progress2015-22) This is disagreeing with Majora's "Nothing more" statement. (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It should not be necessary to annotate references in that manner. References are used to support claims made in the article. If the reference does not of itself direct people to the source of a claim made in the article text, it's lacking some detail; but adding too much detail is distracting. Identify the publication, and the point within that publication. Don't seek to justify why that publication was chosen, this can imply that the claim is weak. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: "adding too much detail is distracting." Agreed, and indeed most "Further reading" sources are not annotated. But a brief comment explaining e.g. that the reference is from a different point of view than most is not, IMHO, "too much detail".
"Don't seek to justify why that publication was chosen" While it's usually not necessary, I disagree. For example, see Russell Oberlin#cite note-2. There are numerous conflicting reports of his date of death as November 25th or 26th, and we had a long discussion on the talk page trying to sort it all out. Since it was so non-obvious, we added a brief note to the reference explaining the conflict.
Significant conflicts between sources may deserve discussion in the body of the article (e.g. the casualties at the Battle of Agincourt). But sometimes it's minutiae like "this source uses the variant spelling YYYY" or "although published on date C, this source appears to have been written before announcement B" that are properly placed in footnotes.
More broadly, assessing the reliability of sources is an important part of a Wikipedia editor's job (it's a form of research, but explicitly exempted from WP:NOR), and occasionally a source has to be considered partially reliable, i.e. reliable for some statements and not for others. This deserves a note.
This both un-confuses readers and prevents mis-corrections by alerting future editors to the issue. Not everyone reads the talk page archives before correcting an "obvious typo". (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
But that's annotating the ref, outside the template but inside the ref tags, and fine. We're talking here about the "|quote=" parameter inside some templates. Those are used only for direct quotes from the source. Herostratus (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I rarely use the |quote= parameter; but when I do, I keep it short, less than one sentence wherever possible. I can't find any examples - which indicates just how rarely I use it. It's another case of "if you feel that you need to justify a ref by including a quote, it's on shaky ground". IIRC there were about two cases where somebody insisted on knowing the exact wording in my source, so only then did I add a quote - and no more than necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Thus my edit comment "We're really wandering into the weeds here." Yeah, the topic is drifting. Thanks for dragging it back.
@Redrose64: I perhaps use |quote= a bit more (as described previously), but all I'm saying is that there's a wide range of acceptable usage, and you're not wrong, nor is someone who uses it extensively. Someone doesn't have to write exactly like me to be correct, or good. The point I've been writing so extensively on is that including quotes is an editorial issue; concerns about copyright infringement are wildly overblown. Modern journals ruthlessly abbreviate journal names and usually omit article titles entirely for page-count reasons. WP:NOTPAPER, so I always include a full article title, and don't mind quotations as well.
If you look at Majora's original example of Lupton family, the quotes seem quite reasonable and in a consistent style. I might not have done it that way, but that doesn't mean it needs to be corrected. Also, they tend to be fuzzier qualitative descriptions rather than specific numerical values, so there's more room for dispute over the correct paraphrase, and having the original words there is quite nice. (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary text in {citation}[edit]

Don't ask why, but I want to know if there's a way to code something like

{{citation | ref=Smith | foo=Smith, W. (1987). ''American History''. p. 123 }}

where foo is some parameter name i.e. I want to manually hard-code the entire citation, but wrap it in {citation} so that citation's ref= feature is available. There are ways to hack this but I want something legal. In other words, is there some way to insert arbitrary text into {citation}'s output, in particular with there being no other output than the arbitrary text? EEng —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

{{wikicite}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
My goodness, if only I'd known... Thanks! EEng 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Date formats in Template:Cite_web documentation[edit]

In the "Examples" section of the documentation for Template:Cite web, all of the examples use the DMY date format. I suspect that this may lead new users into believing that DMY is Wikipedia's house style for dates in citations. I've seen a number of edits to articles on American subjects where the editor uses the American MDY format for dates within the article text, but DMY in citations—particularly when using the template.

To remove this possible source of confusion, I'd suggest that the template documentation be changed so that the examples use a variety of date formats: DMY, MDY, and YYYY-MM-DD among them. However, before I tweak a page that gets so much use, I'd like to moot the idea here and see if there are any good objections. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Ammodramus. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with using a variety of date formats. It would encourage people to follow MOS:DATETIES in both citations and article text (it seems rather odd to find dmy dates on an American person's article). Canuck89 (converse with me) 22:21, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

False error message when using sfn for same page in same book[edit]

See a version of "Anno Domini" for an example of the problem. The footnote {{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} is used twice in the article because the text on those pages of the book supports two different claims in the article. This results in the error message Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778.E2.80.939" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)., which is a false error.

I don't want to hear that the editor should have written <ref name = "painInTheNeck">{{harvnb|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} for the first footnote and <ref name="painInTheNeck"/> for the second footnote. This puts an unreasonable burden on the editor's concentration. First, the editor's mind must descend from the level of thinking about the article text and the source text to the level of the internal workings of the template. Second, the editor must be aware of every page number that has ever been cited in the article, even if some of the cites are in a different section and/or added by a different editor.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems to me the central question is why the machinery is detecting "with different content" -- is there some subtle difference to the content emitted by the two forms? EEng 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Because you'd given the different instances different outputs, so it was trying to create two different references with the same name—now fixed. If you're using {{sfn}} or its kin to any great extent, I strongly recommend pasting rather than manually entering them to prevent this kind of thing happening. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)



Both produce:

<ref name="FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778&ndash;9">

but the content of the <ref>...</ref> tags are different:

[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], p. 778–9.
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], pp. 778–9.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I fixed the p vs pp parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
...he said meekly. EEng 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been tolerant, even accepting, of {sfn}, but "named refs" are an abomination. In this instance the saving of not having to type in the <ref>...</ref> tags seems not worth the trouble. Even where the editors on a page accept named refs, this kind of "gotcha" is not what I would like to spend time explaining to a new editor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Chapterurl and archive links[edit]

Given this:

{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl= |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}

Is there another way to handle the link, or keep in |chapterurl=? -- GreenC 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Do it correctly by using |archive-url= and |archive-date= (and, since we're mucking about with it, {{cite encyclopedia}})?
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]] |year=1999 |title=v. Spy v. Spy |url= |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archive-url= |archive-date=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "v. Spy v. Spy". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Archived from the original on 2004-08-03. Retrieved 10 November 2008. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, CS1 accepts a URL in |url= or Template:Chapterurl but not both. That makes it easy, just move it into |archiveurl=. Is that right? -- GreenC 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Not true. cs1|2 accept simultaneous |url= and |chapter-url= (or alias). When there are both |url= and |chapter-url= (or alias) and |archive-url=, the title in |chapter= (or alias) gets the url from |archive-url=:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |url=// |chapter-url=// |archive-url= |archive-date=2014-03-17}}
"Chapter". Title. Archived from the original on 2014-03-17. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Archived from the original on 2004-08-03. Retrieved 10 November 2008. 

This is a bot question. Normally when it finds an archive URL in the |url= field it moves to |archiveurl=, but in this case it would break the cite unless did the other things like the change to {{cite encyclopedia}}, |title= etc.. which a bot can't do safely given all the possibilities. Without |archiveurl= and |archivedate= the link rot bots won't be able to maintain the links. What about keeping it as is, with the addition of the |archiveurl= and |archivedate=:
{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl= |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archiveurl= |archivedate=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Archived from the original on 2004-08-03. Retrieved 10 November 2008. 
It might be possible to use {{webarchive}}'s |addlarchives= feature like this, which has the advantage if the |url= has content it can retains its own |archiveurl= and |archivedate= as normal:
{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl= |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}{{webarchive|format=addlarchives|url= |date=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Retrieved 10 November 2008. Additional archives: 2004-08-03.
-- GreenC 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Your original question made no mention of bots. The answer I gave suggests how that particular citation would be better if written as I illustrated. There is no reason why a bot couldn't (shouldn't) move an url from |chapter-url= to |archive-url= as long as the original url is left behind in |chapter-url=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok.. there are multiple url placeholders but only 1 archiveurl placeholder. I guess it can fall back to using {{webarchive}} |addlarchives= if |archive-url= is taken. Seems like 8 possibilities it might come across:
1. url (empty) / chapter-url (full)
2. url (empty) / chapter-url (empty)
3. url (full) / chapter-url (empty)
4. url (full) / chapter-url (full)
5-6. archive-url full (for the url) + #3 .. #4
7-8. archive-url full (for the chapterurl) + #1 .. #4
-- GreenC 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding a license parameter[edit]

Issues around indicating the accessibility of a cited reference have been discussed repeatedly here (example 1; example 2), usually with a focus on free availability rather than open licensing. However, with more and more scholarly journals — including many megajournals — now using CC BY and other Creative Commons licenses (not only open ones), perhaps adding a |license= parameter to the citation template would be a good way to go.

Initially, it would probably make sense to restrict this to standard copyright licenses, say the seven regularly used Creative Commons licenses (in which CC0 — technically a license waiver — was included) plus public domain. In order to display the information, the respective license icon could be used, which could link to the license text:

-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation (any, not just cs1|2) is to identify the source material that supports article text in accordance with WP:V. The purpose of the access signalling icons is to make it easier for readers to know of the linked sources in a citation are free-to-read or which lie behind registration or paywall. The licensing of the source does not aid the reader who seeks to read the source. Wikipedia should not be responsible for labeling citations with license status when that is the responsibility of the source's publisher. If readers and editors wish to reuse source material, they should consult the source's publisher and not rely on an icon attached to a Wikipedia citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Trappist said basically what I was going to say, but more eloquently. The copyright or copyleft status of an on-line source has no effect on whether the reader will be able to find or read it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Template date error messages[edit]

@Redrose64: When I made recent edits (last reversion) I did not notice |template doc demo=true. Is this supposed to stop the error messages or otherwise change how the template show the values? – Allen4names (contributions) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It prevents that page from being added to the relevant error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No reply from Redrose64 and the error messages still there looking like graffiti. I'll leave it to you two (Jonesey95) to fix this. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:CS1 errors: SSRN[edit]

I'm a bit surprised we don't have that one. The SSRN identifier is pure numbers (at least 3, no more than 7). Let's have some error detection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there documentation that specifies the length and format of SSRN identifiers? Making it up based on observation is less that optimal.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Never found anything official, but I tried everything below 100 and SSRN 100 was the first match. And nothing (google or otherwise) has more than 7 digits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Enable error tracking in draft space?[edit]

What's the reason for excluding that namespace from error tracking? It would be quite beneficial to bots and others doing semi-automated editing to be able to cleanup drafts before they're sent to mainspace. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this only for those errors which are kept at/around 0 errors (which requires additional non-trivial coding). Some categories of errors are in the 30k range still in mainspace and should be prioritized as such. --Izno (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't really see what is being lost by the error count jumping from 30K to 35K or whatever, other than perhaps the psychological despair of maintainers looking at those numbers as a "score". Prioritizing mainspace is pretty easy. You just filter out the draft space. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone looks at them as a score (so that's a red herring). You just filter out the draft space. How? An awfully odd turn of phrase. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Categorization of Draft and Draft talk namespaces was removed with this edit by Editor Jonesey95. I am unable to find a talk-page comment that explains why the change was made.
If anything is to change with regard to the draft namespace, I would make it so that all of the error messages display all the time; even those that are (still) muted by that long-ago RFC.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Links to previous discussions: excluding User space (April 2013); and excluding other namespaces from categories (Sep 2013). The Draft space did not exist at the time of the latter discussion; it was created in December 2013.
I also looked for discussion about excluding the Draft space, which happened in February 2014. I was unable to find any, and I don't remember now why I excluded it. I am open to showing Categories in Draft space as long as there are editors willing to fix the errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)