Help talk:Citation Style 1

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

the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feature request: "total_pages"[edit]

Could this optional parameter be added, especially to the "cite book" template? Editors sometimes want to indicate the total number of pages in a reference work, since this allows readers to distinguish short pamphlets from weightier tomes. This is particularly the case when the template is used in "Further reading" sections of Wikipedia articles.

The ambiguous "pages" parameter sometimes gets filled in with total page counts instead of page number references, as intended. I initially made this error myself, and I see other editors doing this fairly often, when adding reference works without specific page references. The "total_pages" parameter would divert editors away from making this error, and would also be helpful to interested readers trying to evaluate the size of reference works.

While I don't know how to program templates myself, I hope that adding this feature would be straightforward to an experienced template editor. Reify-tech (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Mild support: I, too, am tired of total page counts showing up in |pages=, but I'm skeptical that this would curtail that problem, since people would have to read the documentation anyway to know about this new |total_pages= parameter, and if they were doing that they'd already know not to use |pages= for that purpose. So, I think the only real case for this is that being able to list the total pages might be useful. I think 99% of the time it's not. If we did implement it, I'd want to see it labeled as something to not use except in the circumstance you illustrate, or people will add it all over the place. Wikipedia:Is not a bibliographic database. The only helpful uses I can think of right off-hand are, like you say, identifying unusually large or unusually small sources. For the average 150–350 page book, it's useless trivia. Even for those two cases of usefulness, this information can simply be added manually after the citation template, though, so ....  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I'd kind of like this, too, if only so I could do something useful with page counts improperly given as |pages=. Another thing to do might be to rename pages to something less confusing, and add a tracking category for pages that still use it. Of course, it'd take forever to sort it all out if we tried to actually go through the category page-by-page, but at least it'd clue in those editors who happen to glance at the hidden categories when a specific page could use a look. —SamB (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this should be added, as this is not the sort of information usually found in a reference, and goes beyond the function of identifying the source. It will encourage people to copy cruft from Google books and the like into citations. As for misuse of pages, perhaps we could flag as an error cases where the value of pages contains only digits. Kanguole 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Format parameter[edit]

For whatever reason, the "format" parameter capitalizes its value, and in some cases it creates red links. I recently met two of them, e.g., RealMedia was converted into REALMEDIA and it was redlink. I created redirects for the ones I saw, but it there may be more. Also, potentially it may create disamigiation problem. Did anybody give this a thought? -M.Altenmann >t 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This bug is fixed in the sandbox version of the Citation Style 1 module. See this discussion. Example:
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | title=Title | url= | format=RealMedia | author=Author }}
Live Author. Title (RealMedia). 
Sandbox Author. Title (RealMedia). 

The sandbox code has typically been migrated to the production module code every few months. It has been two months since the last update. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose trans-work parameter[edit]

The name of the cited work may not be in English. It may even be rendered in a non-roman alphabet. We have trans-title and script-title when the title of the article (for periodicals) is not in English. We could use corressponding trans-work and script-work parameters. See Japan Chernobyl Foundation for a recent example where this would be helpful. DES (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Date span[edit]

Sometimes two dates are provided. For example "Nov. - Dec., 1969" here: Darekk2 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darekk2: That's not a problem. Use |date=November–December 1969 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
yes, maybe I used wrong "-" characterDarekk2 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Please see Emi Takei, footnote #2, where it says that there is no "title" parameter, even though it does exist. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

From the help

{{cite episode}} will show this error if |series= is blank (even if a |title= is provided).

Keith D (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That should be fixed then to read "Missing or empty |series=" instead of "Missing or empty |title=" Debresser (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Chapter ignored message[edit]

Where is the problem with chapter=ignored message, like in Apricot oil ? Following are the parameters given (striped away one { and } to freeze template from interpreting):

{cite web
|title=A Modern Herbal
|author=Mrs. M. Grieve
|archivedate= 9 August 2008 
|deadurl= no}

What is wrong ? I see here that there are more than 4700 ... --Robertiki (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Try using:
Mrs. M. Grieve. "Apricot". A Modern Herbal. Archived from the original on 9 August 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-20. 
I don't think |chapter= is valid for {{cite web}}. What is the |chapter= in your citation is the |title= of an individual web page, and what is the |title= is the name of a |work= hosted on that web site. Imzadi 1979  05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, since this is a book hosted online, use {{cite book |...}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I am non interested about the article Apricot oil, I could also have made the Aval example or any other of the 4,700 articles that unexpectedly now signal this error. The problem is that in the example I don't see any chapter parameter, so what ? --Robertiki (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, now I see it. --Robertiki (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Let us change example, in article Aval:
{Cite journal 
| last =Badr 
| first = Gamal Moursi 
| contribution =Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems 
| journal= American Journal of Comparative Law 
| volume=26 
| issue=2 
| title = Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, UT, February 24–25, 1977] 
| date=Spring 1978 
| pages=187–98 
| doi = 10.2307/839667 
| ref=harv 
| jstor= 839667}

Where is the "chapter" parameter ? Sorry for the false start. Maybe I don't understand how it works. --Robertiki (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong here is the reference itself. Either this is a journal article, in which case the required parameters are |title= and |journal=, or it's a book in which the proceedings of a conference were published, in which case the required parameters are |chapter= and |title=. If the proceedings of the conference were published as a journal volume, then it should be treated as a set of journal articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong is that we have no parameter to indicate that this issue of the journal is a special issue with its own title. The closest one can get is to pretend that, instead of a journal, it's a book series (and then italicize it manually):
  • {{Cite book | last =Badr | first = Gamal Moursi | contribution =Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems | series= ''[[American Journal of Comparative Law]]'' | volume=26 | issue=2 | title = Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, [[Utah|UT]], February 24–25, 1977 | date=Spring 1978 | pages=187–98 | doi = 10.2307/839667 | ref=harv | jstor= 839667}}
  • Badr, Gamal Moursi (Spring 1978). "Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems". Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, UT, February 24–25, 1977. American Journal of Comparative Law 26 (2). pp. 187–98. doi:10.2307/839667. JSTOR 839667. 
David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|contribution= is an alias of |chapter=. {{cite journal}} does not support |chapter= and so does not support |contribution=. The thing that throws the spanner in the works is the conference information. If you rewrite the citation as {{cite conference}} you get this:
  • {{Cite conference | last =Badr | first = Gamal Moursi | title=Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems | journal= [[American Journal of Comparative Law]] | volume=26 | issue=2 | conference= Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, [[Utah|UT]], February 24–25, 1977 | date=Spring 1978 | pages=187–98 | doi = 10.2307/839667 | ref=harv | jstor= 839667}}
  • Badr, Gamal Moursi (Spring 1978). Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems. Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, UT, February 24–25, 1977. American Journal of Comparative Law 26 (2): 187–98. doi:10.2307/839667. JSTOR 839667. 
The code supporting {{cite conference}} should probably be tweaked so that the article title is rendered quoted and not italicized when |journal= (or an alias) is part of the template.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With the fix to quote the article title, I guess this is ok, but the question remains: why do editors want to include the conference information in this case? The purpose of a citation is not to tell you all about the source (if it was, why not include the number of pages in a book, the number of illustrations, and so on?), but to give sufficient information to locate the source. The title of the published entity (here the journal) is sufficient. {{Cite conference}} should be used when the proceedings are published as an independent entity, i.e. a book. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In the case of some leading computer science cconferences (some of which are indeed published in journals in this way) the journal part of the citation tells you where to find the publication but the conference part tells you something about how important the paper was regarded at the time of publication, since the good conferences are typically much more selective than the journals. So both pieces are important parts of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

accessdate when url changes[edit]

When a Wikipedia editor discovers that a URL has changed, I think it is good for the editor to update the url parameter. If there is an existing accessdate parameter, and the editor does not wish to take the time to verify that the reference supports the article text, that leaves a dilemma. Leaving accessdate unchanged falsely implies to most users that the displayed URL worked on that date. Removing the accessdate parameter removes the fact that some other editor claimed to have verified that the linked page supported the article text on that date. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What use is the new URL if it does not support the text that it claims it support. When changing a URL it should obviously be checked to verify that it still supports the text that it is attached to. Keith D (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me. Several newspaper websites, including The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and The Guardian have recently changed their URLs of existing articles. In some cases old URLs automatically redirect to new URLs; in other cases the old URL redirects to the home page, but the new URL can often be located by using the website's search feature and searching for the original article title. There is no doubt that it is the same article, because it has the same author, title, date, and publication. I should not have to re-verify that the article still supports the text, especially if the article is quite long and the subject abstruse. But I should update the link, as the new URL is more likely to be supported in the future. For example, when The Jerusalem Post changed from URLs of the form with numeric article names to URLs of the form with friendly names, for awhile, the old URLs redirected to the new ones, but they don't any more. I believe that editors who update URLs are helping Wikipedia, and I don't believe they should be required to reread each external article so affected to assure that it still supports the text. Furthermore, there is the point in the next thread that a given reference may be cited many times in one article. Is the editor required to verify that each point used for a given reference is supported by the reference? And what if some are and some are not?—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

accessdate and named references used multiple times[edit]

A specific named reference may be used many times in the text of an article. Some points in the article may be supported by the reference and others not. If a fact checker finds a named reference, with an accessdate, used multiple times, with some uses supported by the reference and others not, what then? What if someone starts an article like this:

The Sun is pretty big.<ref name="Miller"/>
== References ==
<ref name="Miller">{{cite journal |author=Miller |title=The sun's size |url= |journal=Sun Journal |year=2005 |accessdate=January 1, 2015}}</ref>

Which would display as

The Sun is pretty big.[1]

  1. ^ Miller (2005). "The sun's size". Sun Journal. Retrieved January 1, 2015. 

After a few edits the article says:

The Sun is pretty big.<ref name="Miller"/> The Sun is mostly boron.<ref name="Miller"/> The Sun is also quite hot.<ref name="Miller"/>
== References ==
<ref name="Miller">{{cite journal |author=Miller |title=The sun's size |url= |journal=Sun Journal |year=2005 |accessdate=January 1, 2015}}</ref>

Which would display as

The Sun is pretty big.[1] The Sun is mostly boron.[1] The Sun is also quite hot.[1]

  1. ^ a b c Miller (2005). "The sun's size". Sun Journal. Retrieved January 1, 2015. 

Then a fact checker comes along and notices that the Miller article doesn't say anything about the Sun's composition or temperature. The fact checker can insert a {{failed verification}} after the second and third <ref>s, but what about the accessdate? From this thought experiment it should be apparent that it is illogical for accessdates, which can be associated with named references used multiple times, to signify anything more than "The referenced article really existed at this URL on this date."—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why we have |archive-url= and the Internet Archive. Check to see if there is a version of the page from close to the access date. If that version verifies the text, insert the archive-url and archive-date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That might apply in cases where the URL points to a page that changes over time, and the external article at different times supported various different points in the Wikipedia article. But I'm thinking about journal and newspaper articles (which typically do not change), where a Wikipedia editor used an existing named reference to support a something the reference doesn't support. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not this is the right approach, if a source has a date associated with it, like a newspaper article, I do not enter access-date; rather, I reserve use of access-date to those sources which lack any date associated with their publication (most cite-web references). In this case, the access-date should apply to both existence and support. I was told at one time a few years back that if you review/update/check a citation, you should verify whether or not all uses of the reference are valid in the context of the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

cite book: author vs. first/last[edit]

Hi there,

regularly I edit in deWP. There, in deWP, it is prefered to use de:Vorlage:Literatur instead of de:Vorlage:Cite book. So I am firm with Vorlage:Literatur but not with Template:Cite book.

I'd like to transfer some Vorlage:Literatur-Refs to Vorlage:Cite book-Refs. Problem: Vorlage:Literatur just uses "autor" where the author is placed like "autor=Peter Pan" ... an on the other side I do not really get through the descriptions provided on Template:Cite book:

  • Given example1: "To cite a book with a credited author" -> just "first" / "last"
  • Given example2: "To cite a book with no credited author" -> just "author"
  • In the "Full parameter set in vertical format" there is no parameter "author" described ...


  1. What is the difference between a "credited" and a "no credited" author?
  2. Does the parameter "author" really exist? Even if its not described within "Full parameter set in vertical format"?
  3. Why is there such a strict separation between the different authors (first1, first2, and so on)?

I am asking this (beside the fact that i'd like to understand it ;-), because I'm thinking about using JavaScript to do the transformation-work automatically.

thx for your help

AKor4711 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Try {{Literatur}}. It maps the Vorlage:Literatur parameters to {{citation}} parameters using {{citation/core}}. No JavaScript required. There is a caveat: {{citation}} is Citation Style 2 so citation elements are separated with commas rather than the periods used by {{cite book}} and other Citation Style 1 templates.
  1. the "no credited author" example is probably inappropriate in {{cite book}} (it is appropriate for a newspaper where an author's name may not be provided)
  2. |author= is a legitimate parameter that is an alias of |last=; see Template:Cite_book#Authors
  3. because the code isn't smart enough to separate given names from surnames for use in the citation's COinS metadata
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Notice that in the no credited author example, the author parameter is set to an HTML comment, so it does not appear in the rendered citation. The author parameter is best used for corporate authors. The documentation page says "For corporate authors, simply use last to include the same format as the source." I disagree with that instruction; whoever wrote that was thinking too much like a template coder and too little like an editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help ... the {{Literatur}} shocks me: A german template within enWP? Wow ^^ ... anyway: that template does exactly what I wanted to do via JavaScript -> saves some work ... :-))) --AKor4711 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Add column and day of week parameters?[edit]

Hello. Over at Template talk:Cite newspaper The Times I've been asking why that template can't redirect to {{cite news}}. The key reasons seem to be the lack of a column parameter, as well as a 'day of week' parameter, in this template. Reasons for why these parameters are useful are given there. Would it be possible to add those parameters to cite news, or are there good reasons for not doing so? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Allow "Quarter" dates in Date parameter?[edit]

To my recollection, reference templates such as {{cite journal}} used to allow entries such as "First Quarter 2005" in the 'date' parameter up until several months back. Now I realize that "Winter 2005"- and "January–March 2005"-type entries are still allowed, but I was wondering if "First Quarter"-type entries in the 'date' parameter were ever likely to be allowed again? There are definitely journals that publish by "First Quarter" dates rather than "Winter" or "January–March" dates, so it would be desirable if "Quarterly" dates would be allowed in these reference templates' 'date' parameters again. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before. cs1|2 take date format guidance from MOS:DATEFORMAT which is mute on quarterly dates (there is a brief mention at WP:SEASON but that date style is not listed in the Acceptable date formats table).
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
In that previous discussion, I commented that this should be allowed. The MOS might be silent on this, but we cannot while still providing the facilities to faithfully render the publication information for sources in CS1/CS2. We already override the MOS to capitalize season names when used in citation dates, and I agree with that as it promotes consistency between "January 2005" and "Winter 2005". Since my comments last October, I think that the word "quarter" should also be capitalized in citations for the same consistency reasons. I would also whitelist "Q1 2005" as a standard abbreviation analogous to the abbreviations for month names. This abbreviation convention is already quite common in corporate financial documents, among other places. Imzadi 1979  22:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Quarter"-type publication dates are definitely common in some of the official documents I run across from organizations and businesses when looking for references. I absolutely agree that the by "Quarter" dates should probably be included in the 'date' parameters again, esp. as the MOS is actually silent on "disallowing" their use. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen conversion in cite book[edit]

At Template:Cite book#In-source locations, it states, "Hyphens are automatically converted to en dashes;...". This apparently is not working. See here and search for "15-52" Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: is misreading the documentation; |page= is not |pages=. Hyphens are converted in the later. See further debate at User talk:Bgwhite#hypenated pages. Glrx (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Author’s initials only[edit]

This news article is credited only to “C.R.”. How should this be handled? (I note that author is deprecated.)

  • |author=<!-- C.R. -->?
  • |author=C.R.?
  • |first=C. |last=R.? (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Until you discover who C.R. is, and can provide a complete name, |author=C.R. works. Can you show where it is written that |author= is deprecated? That assertion is not true so anyplace saying otherwise needs to be corrected.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I misread: it's |coauthor= that's deprecated, not |author=. — (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: |note= parameter[edit]

It'd be nice to have a |note= parameter, so that things like "Source is a blog, but published by a project of the city government; primary but not self-published.", kept with (inside) the citation instead of external to it in an HTML comment. It's pretty common to to use a pseudo-parameter like |note=, or (in other contexts, like cleanup/dispute templates) |reason=, for this purpose, but CS1's auto-detection and red-flagging of unrecognized parameters makes this impossible at present.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be nicer still to have a |null= to work around the red-flagging because there are time when as SMcCandlish unrecognized parameters are convenient. -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with the example above is that all of the other parameters in CS1 are for bibliographic data that theoretically at least is understandable to readers and meaningful outside Wikipedia. Whereas that comment would be understandable to maybe 1 or 2 out of every 1,000 Wikipedia readers – the ones who are familiar with what WP editors usually mean when they call a source "primary". For that sort of thing, an HTML comment embedded in the wikitext seems like exactly the right way to handle it. Let's keep meta comments and WP-specific issues separate from the data. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish is not proposing a display variable, but one to be used in place of <!-- a hidden comment --> as the parameter |reason= is used in the template {{Clarify}}. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I can see the advantage of a |note= parameter. I find the |others= parameter very useful - today I've used it to flag "(published anonymously)". Library catalogs sometimes use square brackets for this. Aa77zz (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Like this from Finch?:
{{ cite book | last=Leach | first=William Elford | author-link=William Elford Leach | year=1820 | chapter=Eleventh Room | title= Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum | place=London | publisher=British Museum | edition=17th| pages=65-70 | others=(published anonymously) }}
Specifically these bits:
| publisher=British Museum and | others=(published anonymously)
One contradicts the other. And, from the template documentation at Authors:
  • others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators and translators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith or Translated by John Smith.
I think that your use of |others= as you have done is an improper use of the parameter.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I was well aware that my use was "improper" but I had wanted to say that the author wasn't specified rather than the publisher wasn't specified. I've now deleted the parameter.Aa77zz (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
At Finch it now says: "The name of the author is not specified in the document." If that is so, then who is | last=Leach | first=William Elford?
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify as this isn't an important reference. In the Finch article I've actually cited two sources - the other is Bock 1994. It is Bock who gives the information about the publication: "All the parts of this public guide to the British Museum are unsigned, however, this part was clearly written by Leach as indicated by the fact that he was Keeper of Zoology at the time and by the numerous references to Leach's list of family-group names by his contemporaries." I'm reluctant to add a notelist with this info. It is not uncommon to have "unsigned" articles. I've met them in 19th century book reviews. Sometimes there is a RS giving the authors name. I've seen square brackets used in references when the information isn't present on the title page - such as the author or the year of publication. Aa77zz (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If Synopsis ... doesn't identify the authors then | last=Leach | first=William Elford | author-link=William Elford Leach should be removed from that citation. You might then change the note to read: "Attributed to Leach in Both 1994." I'm not at all sure that this is even important. Will knowing that Both thinks that Leach wrote "Eleventh Room" help readers find a copy of Synopsis ...?
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 25–26 July 2015[edit]

On the weekend of 25–26 July I propose to update the live CS1 module files from the sandbox counterparts:

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1 are:

  1. in {{cite arxiv}}, concatenate |version= onto |arxiv= or |eprint=; emit deprecated parameter error when |version is used in {{cite arxiv}}; discussion
  2. bug fix in style_format(); discussion
  3. bug fix in language_parameter(); discussion
  4. remove Editors# from EditorList-Last - |editorsn= not an alias of |editor-last=; discussion
  5. bug fix in list_people(); discussion
  6. add extra text maint category; discussion
  7. improve handling of |authors= containing "et al." or combined with |display-authors=etal discussion
  8. enhanced internal category handling;
  9. add support for |vauthors= and |veditors=; discussion
  10. Add ismn support; discussion

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration are:

  1. add extra text maint category;
  2. remove Editors# from EditorList-Last - |editorsn= not an alias of |editor-last=;
  3. add support for |vauthors= and |veditors=;
  4. Add ismn support;

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are:

  1. add support for |vauthors= and |veditors=;
  2. Add ismn support;

It has been a while since I worked on any of this. Have I missed something that should be in these lists?

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No support for |collaboration= (see discussion)? That is disappointing. I've been waiting for it for a while now.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This group of changes, with the exception of ISMN support, were made before I went on wikibreak in May. Raise this topic again after I do the update. We can think about it then.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In Template:Cite episode, network = publisher?[edit]

Shouldn't |network= be documented as an alias of |publisher=?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

{{cite episode |title=Title |series=Series |network=Network |publisher=Publisher}}
"Title". Series. Publisher. Network. 
As can be seen in my crude example, |network= is not an alias of |publisher=, so in answer to your question, no, |network= should not be documented as a strict alias of |publisher=. But that raises the question: should |publisher= be valid for use in {{cite episode}}?
Trappist the monk (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess it could be in some cases, when the production is attributed to one entity, and it retains rights to it, syndicates it later on other networks, reissues it on DVD, etc., all without involvement of the original network. Will definitely need documentation clarification.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definite error in same template[edit]

No idea how this is happening: |series= is not italicizing, but it's clearly intended as a replacement for |work= (which is absent from this template's documentation). The only way to get a properly italicized series name with this template is to use |work=, which suggests that it's not actually coded as an alias of |work= for some reason, but as a separate parameter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Series is italicised in Trappist's example above... - Evad37 [talk] 08:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the |series= parameter is being repurposed. When I started six years ago, it was used in {{cite journal}} to resolve duplication when the same volume/issue numbers were used for two different issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, as with |title= doing something different in different templates, this one needs to as well.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal has had |series= since 26 October 2008 [1]. Template:Cite episode has had it since its creation on 4 March 2006 [2]. It may have been around in some other template even longer; not sure. Was added to {{Cite book}} in 2007, for example. Anyway, it's highly desirable that it italicize in {{Cite episode}}. I would just go fix it, but I can't due to full protection on the module. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv. Of particular relevance to CS1 is the template's overlap with |arXiv=, and prior deprecation of all identifier-based citation templates.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

extra text in |edition= detection bug[edit]

There is a bug in the extra text detector. The current detector was intended to find |edition=2nd ed. which would render as

Title (2nd ed. ed.). 

But, it also finds the 'ed' at the end of illustrated, revised, etc:

Title (revised ed.). 

So, I've adjusted the test:

Title (2nd ed. ed.).  – should find 'ed.'
Title (revised ed.).  – should not find 'ed'

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

|vauthors= bug[edit]

A bug exists in the |vauthors= code. The bug also exists in {{vcite2 journal}}. If the assigned value is |vauthors=Alberts AW, Majerus PW and Vagelos PR then the 'and' is not detected.

vcite2 journal:
Alberts AW, Majerus PW and Vagelos PR (1969). "Acetyl-CoA acyl carrier protein transacylase". Methods Enzymol. Methods in Enzymology 14: 50–53. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(69)14009-4. ISBN 978-0-12-181871-5. 
cite journal:
Alberts AW, Majerus PW and Vagelos PR (1969). "Acetyl-CoA acyl carrier protein transacylase". Methods Enzymol. Methods in Enzymology 14: 50–53. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(69)14009-4. ISBN 978-0-12-181871-5. 

Here is the COinS for the second and third authors as a single author:


Trappist the monk (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

parse_vauthors_veditors() splits the value in |vauthors= at each comma. Each component of the split should be one or more 'last' names and one or two uppercase initials: Last FM

When a comma is missing, then (in the example above) the last-name string is: Majerus PW and Vagelos. We can look at that string of characters and see if there is a pattern: mixed case letters then spaces then uppercase letters then spaces then mixed case. If we find such a pattern then can we not surmise that a comma is missing? I've tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:

Alberts AW, Majerus PW and Vagelos PR (1969). "Acetyl-CoA acyl carrier protein transacylase". Methods Enzymol. Methods in Enzymology 14: 50–53. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(69)14009-4. ISBN 978-0-12-181871-5.  Vancouver style error (help)

This tweak seems to work. If Majerus PW and Vagelos PR is really a corporate name, then wrapping it in the doubled parentheses (|vauthors=Alberts AW, ((Majerus PW and Vagelos PR)) syntax skips the error check.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about CS1 maint: Extra text[edit]

I have submitted Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 46 to fix articles in Category:CS1 maint: Extra text. The category page states "This is a tracking category for CS1 citation parameters that have parameters that contain text that duplicates static text provided by the template. For example, |edition=2nd ed will be rendered as (2nd ed ed.)." However, there are articles in this category that do not meet this criteria.

Reference #72 in 1956 Winter Olympics is presumably in this category because of the |pages=:

{{cite journal |title=IOC and OCOG Abbreviations for NOCs |last=Mallon |first=Bill |author2=[[Ove Karlsson (sports journalist)|Ove Karlsson]] |journal=[[Journal of Olympic History]] |volume=12 |issue=2 |date=May 2004 |pages=pp. 25–28 |url= |format=PDF |accessdate=2 March 2010}}

However, if we remove "pp." from the parameter value, we see that "pp." is not static text provided by {{cite journal}}:

{{cite journal |title=IOC and OCOG Abbreviations for NOCs |last=Mallon |first=Bill |author2=[[Ove Karlsson (sports journalist)|Ove Karlsson]] |journal=[[Journal of Olympic History]] |volume=12 |issue=2 |date=May 2004 |pages=25–28 |url= |format=PDF |accessdate=2 March 2010}}

How should we resolve this discrepancy?

  1. Change {{cite journal}} so that it always displays "pp."?
  2. Change {{cite journal}} so the maintenance category is not populated in this case?
  3. Change the category description to explain why it is inappropriate to put "pp." in |pages= in this case?
  4. Something else?

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. There has been discussion on these pages before about making {{cite journal}} render the 'p.' and 'pp.' prefixes when the citation does not use |volume= and |issue=
  2. No
  3. In the case of {{cite journal}}, the 'p.' and 'pp.' prefixes duplicate the colon (which for this template is the static text):
    {{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |page=100}}
    "Title". Journal: 100. 
  4. perhaps. such as?
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

and others is a synonym of et al.[edit]

There aren't that many but editors have used |author=and others (some of these are the result of Monkbot making author parameters from |coauthors=). These author parameters aren't currently detected by name_has_etal () in Module:Citation/CS1. I have tweaked the sand box so that they are:

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | title=Title | author2=and others | author=First author }}
Live First author; and others. Title. 
Sandbox First author et al. Title. 

Such citations will be added to Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al..

Editors have also used |author=others but there were (according to an insource: search) only a dozen of them so I just fixed them instead of adding a test to the module.

Trappist the monk (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revised" in edition parameter is triggering maintenance[edit]

This is confusing for editors: The cite templates have "Revised" as example for good edition information in their documentation, however that parameter triggers "CS1 maint: Extra text" (examples: 1638 in literature and [3]). I have added a short note to Category:CS1 maint: Extra text for now. But not really sure, what's the correct solution to improve this: Change the template documentation or change the trigger behaviour? Either way, it would be helpful to add a new section to Help:CS1 errors about the cause and possible solutions for this maintenance case in general. GermanJoe (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)\

This is a bug that is fixed in the sandbox (see §extra text in |edition= detection bug). For those citations with false detection it is probably best to do nothing with the false positives in the category; they will go away when the module is next updated.
I've been wondering about this whole test anyway and will have more to say about it later.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I have removed the category note for now (as the error will be fixed, it's kind of pointless). GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm also seeing similarly unnecessary maintenance categorization for citations with parameters like |journal=Journal of Combinatorial Theory |series=Series A. FWIW, many journals and journal cites have separate series parameters (although maybe in this particular case you could argue that "Series A" is really part of the journal name), and omitting the "Series" text from the parameter causes them to be formatted in a very cryptic way that most readers are unlikely to understand, so I think spelling it out is preferable and should not be tagged as an error. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand this. I took this citation from Graph theory:
{{Citation|author=Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R.|title=The four color theorem|journal=Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B|volume=70|year=1997|pages=2–44|doi=10.1006/jctb.1997.1750|postscript=.}}
Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R. (1997), "The four color theorem", Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B 70: 2–44, doi:10.1006/jctb.1997.1750. 
Adding |series=:
{{Citation|author=Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R.|title=The four color theorem|journal=Journal of Combinatorial Theory |series=Series B|volume=70|year=1997|pages=2–44|doi=10.1006/jctb.1997.1750|postscript=.}}
Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R. (1997), "The four color theorem", Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 70: 2–44, doi:10.1006/jctb.1997.1750. 
Changing to {{cite journal}}:
{{cite journal|author=Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R.|title=The four color theorem|journal=Journal of Combinatorial Theory |series=Series B|volume=70|year=1997|pages=2–44|doi=10.1006/jctb.1997.1750|postscript=.}}
Robertson, N.; Sanders, D.; Seymour, P. and Thomas, R. (1997). "The four color theorem". Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B 70: 2–44. doi:10.1006/jctb.1997.1750. 
I'm not seeing any maintenance categorization in any of these. What am I not understanding about what it is that you wrote?
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If series isn't generating this maintenance categorization, then there is no problem; sorry for the false alarm. I was seeing this maintenance category on an article that I couldn't find a different explanation for, and thought it was this parameter, but didn't do the experimentation needed to nail it down exactly, and now I don't remember which article it was. It must have been one of the other parameters causing the issue, quite likely legitimately. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)