Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Cite speech)
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.
 

AWB volunteer to clean up Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language?[edit]

Now that multiple languages are recognized in |language=, do we have an AWB-savvy volunteer who can fix up articles in Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language?

There are many articles that have multiple valid languages that just need some cleanup, converting usages like "English & German" and "English / German" to comma-delimited format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the code in the module already handles the examples you give above - many of the articles in that maintenance category don't show the green text maintenance tag, and a WP:NULLEDIT clears the article from populating the category. And in the case of usages with English as one of multiple languages, I've found that using a comma-delimited list actually puts it back into another maintenance category.
Consider the following edits of 3D pose estimation (reference #1 in each case) - an article originally with |language=English / German [1] doesn't show a green text tag. If you try to use comma, |language=English, German [2] causes the reference to then receive a green maintenance tag and it goes into Category:CS1 maint: English language specified. Changing to |language=English & German [3] clears the maintenance tag again. Stamptrader (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I got the impression from the discussion above that only comma-separated values would be accepted. Two languages (or non-languages) separated by an ampersand or a slash seems to render without emitting an error message, however:
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=foo & bar | title=Book title }}
Live Book title (in foo & bar). 
Sandbox Book title (in foo & bar). 


Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=foo / bar | title=Book title }}
Live Book title (in foo / bar). 
Sandbox Book title (in foo / bar). 


Something is not quite right here.
And an article in "Latvian and English" should not be placed in Category:CS1 maint: English language specified, in my opinion. A bilingual or mixed-language article should be able to be described as such, even if one of the languages is English. I don't feel strongly about it, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The failure to categorize the two above examples is caused by a bug that I introduced when I moved static text out of Module:Citation/CS1 into Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Fixed in the sandbox.
Without some opinion either way I left the English language detector code alone. I think it's relatively simple to limit English language categorization to the single language case.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Over the past few days I ran an AWB script that changed |language= parameters with multiple languages to the comma delimited form on about 1750 pages. I have come to believe that multiple language sources that include English as one of the languages should not add the category Category:CS1 maint: English language specified. I have tweaked the sandbox accordingly.

|language= used to categorize into the same categories as those used by {{icon xx}} templates (Category:Articles with xx-language external links). The {{icon xx}} templates only categorize from article space. As I think about it, this constraint ought not apply to CS1/2. We have a defined set of name spaces that we don't categorize, I see no real reason to treat |language= in a special manner. That being the case, I have adjusted the code so that the |language= uses the same categorization rules as every other parameter.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en,fr | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English and French). 
Sandbox Title (in English and French). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English). 
Sandbox Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm going through this list and I'm not seeing the CS1 maintenance message on some of the pages. For example, Anton incident (last edited 2014) contains |language=English ([http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/05/stubb_puolustaa_antonin_isaa_ja_konsulaatin_tyontekijaa_740524.html Finnish]) and is currently on the 1st page of Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language, yet I fail to see an unknown language error anywhere on the page. My common.css has the appropriate line of code to see maintenance messages, and I've null-edited the page. Is this a bug, a feature, or my fault?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The bug that I introduced fails to categorize unrecognized languages. That whole long string is considered to be one language name because there isn't a comma separator.
{{Cite web/new | title = Stubb Defends Father and Consulate in Custody Battle | url = http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/05/stubb_defends_father_and_consulate_in_custody_battle_740836.html | publisher = [[YLE]] | date = 15 May 2008 | accessdate = 2009-05-16 | language = English ([http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/05/stubb_puolustaa_antonin_isaa_ja_konsulaatin_tyontekijaa_740524.html Finnish])}}
"Stubb Defends Father and Consulate in Custody Battle" (in English (Finnish)). YLE. 15 May 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-16. 
The bug is fixed in the sandbox.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion at Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter has me wondering if we should adopt something similar to what is done at fr:WP. There, when |language=français or |language=fr, they simply don't display the language annotation. We could do the same thing here when |language=English or |language=en.

Should we?

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If we do this, it has been proposed at Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter that the practice of deleting |language=en and |language=English be stopped. If we are to hide English language annotation and leave |language= in the templates then use of Category:CS1 maint: English language specified should be discontinued and instead, we should create a new subcategory of Category:CS1 properties that is not a subcategory of Category:CS1 foreign language sources. Perhaps Category:CS1 English language sources. I don't know to what purpose we could put such a category because use of |language=English will not be universal and it would be inappropriate for the module to assume that a source is English unless specified otherwise.

Without someone speaks up and tells me unequivocally not to, I think that I shall proceed.

Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is a category necessary? It should be a simple matter to test for either |language=en or |language=English, and do nothing - no output, no category. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it's there if someone thinks of a use for such incomplete information? Of course if that happens, it is easy enough to add the category later.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, English is not displayed when used alone but is displayed when listed with other languages. The middle example to show that I didn't break single language rendering. No categories.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=fr, en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in French and English). 
Sandbox Title (in French and English). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=fr | title=Title }}
Live Title (in French). 
Sandbox Title (in French). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English). 
Sandbox Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That last bit seems reasonable. If there's an odd case where you really need people to know it's in English (e.g. because there are two different-language editions with precisely the same, untranslated title), you can do |Eng<nowiki />lish=, right?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems with "cite episode" template?[edit]

I've been editing on Wikipedia for a while, but I'm new to attempting to clean-up CS1 errors that appear. Lately, dozens of "cite episode" templates appear to be generating a CS1 error because the editor included a "writers" parameter. Is this a parameter that used to appear in the template? Has it been eliminated? And can someone suggest an alternate method for including the information (which is critical in television and radio episodes), especially when other parameters are being used for the episode's director(s).JimVC3 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I had this same question, so I looked in the history of the documentation for {{cite episode}}.
It looks like the |writers= parameter was added to the template on 7 March 2006 and then marked as deprecated on 12 June 2006. It was officially deprecated but displayed in the template from that point until 25 May 2009, when it began to be silently ignored (and not displayed) with this major change to the template code. I found no discussion in the {{cite episode}} talk page archives about this |writers= parameter.
On 18 April 2015, with the change of the template to use the CS1 Lua module, the parameter's presence started to generate an error message, as do all unsupported (and deprecated) parameters.
The previous documentation recommended using |credits= for all credited people associated with the episode, so I would write something like |credits=Joe Smith (producer); Ellen Brown (director); Jane Doe (writer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspected this is what happened. Thanks so much for your research and verifying the situation. Eliminating the parameter probably deserved more discussion. Anyway, your work-around looks like a very good alternative. Thanks again. JimVC3 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Far better to have separate parameters for each role, for improved data granularity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Also, it wasn't a process failure to remove an undiscussed parameter 3 months after someone slapped it in, back in 2006. And 9 years is plenty of time for someone to have objected (and for the deprecated parameter to have been cleaned up after). Sometimes the only way thing get fixed is when they start throwing errors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cite episode - bogus error[edit]

The instance of {{Cite episode}} in Lisa Lynch is giving a "missing title" error, even though the title parameter has content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not bogus, but yeah, confusing. As {{cite journal}} uses |title= to name an article, so {{cite episode}} uses |title= to name an episode. What is missing from that citation is |series=.
"The C Word". <series name goes here>. 3 May 2015. BBC. Retrieved 3 May 2015. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Confusing indeed. I modified the help documentation a couple of weeks ago after figuring out this quirk. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Should have used {{Cite serial}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Why, given that, it's not a serial? And why have you removed the date of first transmission from that reference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Saying there is no title, when there is a title, is bogus. The error should presumably say "Missing series name". However, there is no series name, as the programme was a one-off. I note that its documentation says "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for television or radio programs and episodes." Why is the parameter required? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk and AManWithNoPlan:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's a one-off, then the title should be in |work=, since it's a single work, not an episode (|title=) is a series. I agree the error message needs fixing, as it's misleading.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing newspaper insert[edit]

I think I've asked this one previously, but I cannot find the old discussion. I would like to cite a weekly insert (i.e. Time Out) that appears in a newspaper (i.e. The Ledger). Which parameter should I use for the insert? Unlike Parade, the insert is published by and only for the main newspaper it appears in. Thanks! - Location (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you want |department=. Documentation here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what I would use, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to ISBN[edit]

I noticed an inconsistency in display when ISBN is given via |isbn= and when given in plain text. For example:

  • A Whited, Lana (2004). The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9. 
  • A Whited, Lana (2004). The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9

The first one (use of |isbn=) contains an extra link to ISBN. The second one is given in plain text. I think this link is unnecessary. Moreover, it's overlinking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All of the identifier parameters, PMC, doi, zbl, issn are linked to their Wikipedia articles. Why should ISBN render differently?
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9 in plaintext is just autoformatted by the wiki (one of those legacys; RFC 1918 is another that is similar) to provide the link in question, whereas we override that functionality by deliberately inserting a link in the template, per Trappist. --Izno (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk I mean we could just unlink all of PMC, doi, zbl, issn as common links and instead of having a wikilink followed by an (almost) external link just inherit the behaviour of ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9 (plaintext, autoformatted by mediawki). I am just saying my opinion and underlying an inconsistency for viewers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree it's overlinking. If it only did it with the first citation on the page that used it, maybe not, but it seems like "ISBN" (or whatever) may appear linked 100 times in the same long article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it is overlinking. The internal link serves a useful purpose (it answers the question of what the heck is a doi, isbn, pmid, etc.). Boghog (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that having a link to ISBN or the others in overlinking. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have no idea what "zb", PMC", etc. mean. Even if you believe it to be in contradiction with WP:OVERLINK, it is irrelevant in that having such links does aid readers, and there always comes a time when guidelines are not actually helpful. If a guideline causes problems, it can be overlooked in certain specific situations. Dustin (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Linking to the article "ISBN" breaks the consistency of formatting of ISBN links between different methods of displaying and ISBN, and should never have been introduced. The ISBN special page provides sufficient information, directly or indirectly, about what an ISBN is. Readers reasonably expect that clicking on any part of ISBN 978-0-471-21495-3 to talk them to the special page. If we want to change the behaviour we should propose a change to the MediaWiki software. Otherwise we should maintain consistency. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC).

Journal article titles[edit]

I've always assumed that the titles of both journal articles and book chapters should be in 'sentence case' (rather than in 'title case') but I cannot find any guidance on the wiki MOS pages. Have I missed it? If there is a recommended style, perhaps it would be useful to include guidelines in the cite journal documentation. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Title case, I think. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of works.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept that CS1 follows the MOS. Only certain specific guidance has been adopted; the only guidance I know of adopted from MOS was date format, and that was a problem, because MOSNUM date guidance was being changed faster than the templates could be edited to keep up. As far as I know, there is no guidance whether to use sentence case or title case for journal article titles in citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Absent any declaration of specific style to the contrary, it is appropriate to fall back on MOS: for style guidance. Style for titles is not defined for cs1|2 templates because there is no provision to detect deviation from a defined style and so enforce adherence to that style. As an aside, I have been wondering of late, about detecting and categorizing templates that have titles and other information in all capital letters.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the whole concept that only style matters that can be checked by programming language in a template are defined for CS1. If CS1 is a citation style in its own right, then style matters can be prescribed in the documentation even though they are not enforceable with software. Likewise, style prescriptions can be made in the documentation that, for the time being, are incorrectly implemented in the software (February 29, 1700, Julian calendar). In such cases it is the software that is faulty, not the editor who filled out the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, but cs1|2, if it is a style, does not have documentation that defines that style. You will recall that I have previously asked both you and the community if we aught not create a style guide for cs1|2. Those suggestions have been met with ambivalence. So that leaves the cs1|2 'style definition' in the code or, as in the case for dates, a mention that dates for the most part comply with WP:DATESNO. Template documentation describes what the tempate parameters mean and how the contents are rendered, but that is not a style guide.
At present, cs1|2 has no defined title style except that, de facto, it accords with MOS:TITLE: chapter titles and article titles are quoted; book, journal, encyclopedia titles are italicized. cs1|2 does, to an extent, check certain components of style: dates, of course, but also Vancouver system author and editor names (when |name-list-format=vanc and in future with |vauthors=).
The documentation for cs1|2 dates says "Module:Citation/CS1 cannot know if a date is Julian or Gregorian; assumes Gregorian" which is both correct and incorrect. In fact, dates before 1582 are Julian and dates from 1582 are Gregorian and the module knows this:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=29 February 1500}}
Title. 29 February 1500. 
I'll tweak that documentation.
I did a quick search for Julian leap day dates in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 using these insource: search strings:
insource:/February *29 *, *1[7-9]00/ – 3 results, none of which were dates in references (all about Microsoft Excel)
insource:/29 *February *1[7-9]00/ – 3 results, one is a free-form reference where the date 29 February 1900 is mentioned
insource:/1[7-9]00-02-29/ – this search produced nothing
It would seem then that there is not much call for cs1|2 to support Julian leap days in the overlap period of 1582 – c. 1923. To do so would require some sort of mechanism to specifically identify those three dates as Julian dates; which can be done if there is ever a need.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I usually tend to sentence case for journal entry/article titles since these seem to have uncommon capitalization (Or Use Capital Letters For Obvious Emphasis, something which is on the Do Not Do list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis; WP:BADEMPHASIS is also relevant).

Regardless, I would recommend asking this question at WT:MOS with a note to that discussion from WT:Citing sources or similar (or vice versa as desired), since I don't think this is a question particularly specific to CS1. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I've taken Izno's advice and asked the question at WT:MOS. Aa77zz (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone is missing the point here. MOS applies to text, not citations. MOS is irrelevant to this discussion. Journal article titles and journal names typically use title case, not sentence case. We should follow the case that is used in the original sources, not the MOS. Boghog (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, citations to journal article titles generally use sentence case, regardless of how the journal formatted the title. This is also how the titles are represented in some databases, for example MathSciNet. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I agee that MOS applies to text, not citations. WP:CITE applies; it allows the style to be determined on an article-by-article basis, but "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." This consistency requirement agrees with every printed style guide and every university instructor I have ever encountered. So it would be wrong to change from sentence case to title case from one entry to the next, depending on how the title was printed in the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
APA says use sentence case.I think that is stupid, but that is what they say. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole "ignore MOS for citations because ... no real reason" stuff is causing more problems than it solves. As far as I can tell the only "problem" it "solves" at all is "I like to do citations my way, so to Hell with the MOS." This seems to be worse than useless. It's leading to some really wretched stuff, like more and more articles littered with citations like: Cordell, Ann S. (1993). "CHRONOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CERAMIC PASTE: A COMPARISON OF DEPTFORD AND SAVANNAH PERIOD POTTERY IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER REGION OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA AND SOUTHEAST GEORGIA". Southeastern Archaeology 12 (1): 33–58. . And worse - I at least used {{cite journal}} for that, when many do not, and thus do all kinds of other crap like leave the title unitalicized. I'm also seeing an increasing amount of "Chronological Variability ..." which is not much better than ALLCAPS. Something detrimental has happened, presumably on one of my wikibreaks, so I didn't notice it until after the fact. WP:CITEVAR went from a reasonable "don't change an existing, acceptable citation style in an article" idea, to being aggressively interpreted as meaning "every citation style you can imagine is acceptable, so no matter how awful it is for readers, it will be set in stone forever by whoever makes the first major edit". This really needs to be undone. I have no problem at all with people pasting in citations in weird formats – at least they're working on citing sources for content at all. But the backward notion that no one is ever permitted to clean them up any more is unacceptable.

    To move back toward the earlier gist of the thread: There's no defensible rationale for WP's own internal styles, e.g. CS1/2, to diverge from MOS, our own internal style guide, on anything. It's like supposing that some random class of citizens, e.g., dog catchers or plumbers, are exempt from their country's laws other than the ones they write themselves. I fully agree with Jc3s5h's point, "style matters can be prescribed in the documentation even though they are not enforceable with software". I simply add that there's no reason to deviate from MOS when it already prescribes a relevant style. NB: This also means WP doesn't care if APA says to use sentence case for titles. It's weird enough that WP does this for its own titles, for a technical reason that should have been fixed a long time ago, but we don't do that for titles in the encyclopedia content.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreign author name[edit]

If the author's name uses a non-Latin script, should it be romanized? Where should the original form and romanization go? --Djadjko (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be preferable to use the Latin-alphabet spellings plus the other language in parentheses brackets, perhaps as in "author=Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn)" but ideally, we wanted translation parameters to hold the translated author name, similar to trans_title for the title parameter.
      • Example: {cite book |title=Demos |trans_title=People |author=Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn) |year=370 BCE}}
      • Result: Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn) (370 BCE). Demos [People].  Check date values in: |date= (help)
The idea is to focus on the English-speaking readership. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've manage to do it the following way for Russian:
И. И. Иванов [I. I. Ivanov] (2010). Книжка [Book] (in Russian). Moscow: Издательство. ISBN 000 Check |isbn= value (help). 
({{Cite book|ref={{sfnref|Ivanov|2010}}|title=Книжка|trans-title=Book|language=ru|authors=И. И. Иванов [I. I. Ivanov]|date=2010|publisher=Издательство|place=Moscow|isbn=000}}). --Djadjko (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Citation Style 1 is based on APA style with a dose of The Chicago Manual of Style thrown in along with our own innovations. So looking at the APA style for advice, they say to transliterate the names in the source to produce the final citation. CMOS says that for sources with titles in non-Latin alphabets to use the transliterated names/titles first and optionally follow them with the non-Latin versions second.
Wikid77's example, using our existing template parameters would be:
  • Plato (370 BCE). Demos [People].  Check date values in: |date= (help)
Note, there's really no reason to give the Greek translation of an author so well known in English.
For Djadjko's example:
  • Ivanov, I. I. (2010). Kniga Книжка [Book] (in Russian). Moscow: Izdatelystvo. ISBN 000 Check |isbn= value (help). 
|script-title=ru:Книжка will add the non-transliterated title, and where necessary, it handles right-to-left coding (Hebrew, Arabic, etc). Imzadi 1979  03:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

|script-chapter= ?[edit]

We have |script-title=, but not |script-chapter=. Can we get it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Parameter order for cite conference[edit]

Hi. I'm using Template: Cite conference in the Gateway Protection Programme article. The template documentation states "If authors: Authors are first, followed by the included work, then "In" and the editors, then the main work", but the order it's displaying in is author name, editor name, title, main work (see footnote 17, for instance). Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's that reference, so you don't have to look for it in the article:
Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it's because I didn't use the "book-title" parameter. Any ideas what I should do when the book title is the same as the conference title? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Date error[edit]

I was surprised to get a date error when I copy and pasted a Date from a New York Times article

I believe the problem is that it doesn't like all caps for the month. Given the ubiquity of the New York Times (surely one of the most cited sources) I am surprised this issue hasn't arisen before, in fact, so surprised, I wonder if I am missing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not with the templates but with the Wikipedia manual of style. All-caps is not one of the date styles listed as acceptable in MOS:DATEFORMAT. The citation templates check for that, and prevent you from using dates that are not in compliance with the MOS. The solution is to properly capitalize the date. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The help link in the date error leads directly to a list of common errors, including "improper capitalization".
If you are patient, BattyBot's task 25 will fix this kind of error (along with dozens of other bot-fixable formats) during its periodic sweep of the date error category (roughly once a month). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: condense archive-date and access-date when they are identical[edit]

Where any citation has been both retrieved and archived on the same day (i.e. accessdate = archivedate), the footnote in the References section and the pop-up footnote display should be customized for that circumstance.  Rather than the cumbersome:

Archived from the original on June 2, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2015.

a more succinct version should automatically be used; perhaps:

… Retrieved and archived on June 2, 2015.

which would become something like:

… Retrieved and archived from the original on June 2, 2015.

once |deadurl=yes was true.

This would make the References section, on pages where all the external articles are archived and properly defined in the ‘Cite’ templates, much cleaner looking and easier for users to read. — Who R you? Talk 17:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Who R you?, I have retitled this section and removed the protected edit request template, because you have not specifically provided code changes for the code that generates {{cite web}} and other templates. This means that a specification would have to be developed here first.
Thank you for starting this conversation about a feature request. Some thoughts:
  • Interesting idea. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement, though I am not a programmer.
  • Right now, we have "Archived" before "Retrieved". You have "Retrieved" before "Archived". Is that change intentional? If so, is there a reason for it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Putting "Retrieved" before "Archived" would actually be useful for references using {{cite archives}} after a cite template, so that all the archives are grouped together at the end of the reference - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. I like it when our templates do smart things. I'm working on something very similar to this (for a non-citation context). If there are more than two things to test for and possibly combine, the complexity becomes multiplicatively, not additively, greater for each test you add, due to wikitemplate and parser function language being so crude. It would be much more efficient in Lua, but I'm building it for infoboxes that aren't in Lua (yet?) If I'm pinged, I'll point you to the code when I'm done with it; should be easy to adapt if you have a use for it (though I think these cite templates are also in Lua, so it won't help with this particular feature request).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thanks for the rename.  The sequence change was simply focusing on improving user experience; presumably the average reader is primarily concerned with how current the link is (or isn't); the wikipedian is typically more concerned with link rot, so it seems appropriate that archive information be provided second.
In contemplation on your second question, I came up with an alternative: Instead of using "Archived" text at all, should archiving just be reduced to an icon in the citation line (incorporated into the {{ cite web}} template), such that:
"CBC reports…". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2015-06-16. Retrieved 2015-06-16.    “|deadurl=no”
and
"CBC reports…". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2015-06-16. Retrieved 2015-06-16.    “|deadurl=yes”
become
"CBC reports…". CBC News. Retrieved 2015-06-16. Source was archived! 2015-06-16   “|deadurl=no”
"CBC reports…". CBC News. Retrieved 2015-06-16. Source was archived! 2015-06-16   “|deadurl=yes”
Only problem is that this version really needs more advanced programming to use a pop-up window (like footnotes within articles) to list links to multiple archives; otherwise it wouldn't look proper if something like “Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!Source was archived!” appeared at the end of a reference where many pages were individually archived.
Thoughts?
Cheers — Who R you? Talk 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Quote translation[edit]

How should we use quote when it is displayed in a foreign language? Copy text in foreign language or translate it? SLBedit (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would provide the foreign text with a translation in [brackets] following it if you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what I did days ago. :) SLBedit (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the template inserts its own opening and closing quotation marks around the value provided in the parameter, the best approach is:
  |quote=''{{lang|es|Mi casa es su casa.}}''" English: "My house is your house.
(or whatever in place of "English:", like "Tr.:" or "Approximate translation:", yadda yadda. This is used to good effect at, e.g., Van cat, with some Armenia quotations.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: It's a pretty ugly kluge though, and we should probably have a real parameter for this. It's going to come up more and more as we (oh so) slowly narrow the WP:BIAS chasm.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing a section of a newspaper[edit]

I would like to use this article from the Chicago Tribune. This far I have this...

{{cite news |last=Clark |first=William |date=September 17, 1960 |title=Rome's Trade Center—How It Came to Be |url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1960/09/17/page/25/article/romes-trade-center-how-it-came-to-be |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |volume=CXIX |issue=224 |page=5 |location=Chicago |access-date=June 9, 2015}}

...which gives this...

Clark, William (September 17, 1960). "Rome's Trade Center—How It Came to Be". Chicago Tribune CXIX (224) (Chicago). p. 5. Retrieved June 9, 2015. 

Unfortunately for me, there is a "page 5" for each of the five sections of the paper. I would like to cite page 5 in "Part 2" or "Sports/Finance", also abbreviated "SPTS—BUS" at the top of each page. I was going to use |at= to note the section, however, Template:Cite news states that I cannot use |at= AND |page= together. Ideas? Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with |department=Sports/Finance |page=5? If you don't like that, you could use |at=part 2, p. 5 or |at=Sports/Finance, p. 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've used the latter of Redrose64's two suggestions a number of times. As another suggestion, you can drop the volume and issue number; the date is the key item for finding an issue of a newspaper on microfilm or in bound volumes. Also, the location of "Chicago" is superfluous when the city name is contained within the newspaper name.
Clark, William (September 17, 1960). "Rome's Trade Center—How It Came to Be". Chicago Tribune. part 2, p. 5. Retrieved June 9, 2015. 
should be sufficient to cite the article. Imzadi 1979  12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel silly for not even trying to put the section and page in the same parameter. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed either of those are acceptable solutions. So is |page=5 (Sports/Finance). I'd keep the volume and issue. More information is better than less (as long as it's not directly redundant, as with "Chicago" in that case) and consistent formatting is a virtue. Omission of vol. & issue for one kind of periodical inspires omission of it for all. We can't depend on editors already having memorized citation "etiquette" and necessarily knowing it should always be included for academic journals. I think it should also always be included for magazines not likely to be found in digitized or microfiche form. Frequently, if I want to verify something from an old magazine, I have to find it on eBay, and I can't depend on sellers to use both dates and vol./no. in their listings. Taken to an extreme, the "don't include parameters not absolutely required to identify the source" would mean citing nothing but an ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cite report – type[edit]

I am attempting to cite a report which contains the word "report" in its title. Is there any way of removing the word "(Report)" from {{cite report}}? Using the type parameter, I seem to be able to replace the word but not to remove it. Graham (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{{cite report|title=Title of Big Report}}Title of Big Report (Report). 
{{cite report|title=Title of Big Report|type=none}}Title of Big Report. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed |Vol & |Vol. aliases for |volume, etc.[edit]

It would greatly speed up formatting of copy-pasted citation details, and reduce error rates, if |volume= had two added aliases, |Vol= and |Vol.=, while |issue= had corresponding |No= and |No.= aliases. A bot could swap them out for the canonical versions at its robotic leisure. I would really, really love to have back all the time I've had waste meticulously futzing with these parameters when there's no real need for it. Same goes for |ISBN= and |ISSN= aliases; no one should have to manually lower-case those. Ergonomic/efficiency/pain-in-the-ass problems like this are why many editors are resistant to using our citation templates.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Vol / Vol. and No / No.[edit]

All of our parameters except those that are initialisms (e.g. ISBN) start with lower-case letters, for consistency. See Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist. So |vol=. I'm skeptical of |no= because it is ambiguous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that "all of our parameters except those that are initialisms (e.g. ISBN) start with lower-case letters"; I'm obviously objecting to lack of initial-upper-case alternatives in two particular cases. I'm not suggesting that these should be the real, main names of the parameters, or even necessarily advertised. They should just silently work so we can get on with building an encyclopedia instead of being mired in pointless template-formatting nit-picks that make people want to abandon the templates. "No" isn't ambiguous in this context, as a parameter name. There are probably 1000+ templates on WP that have parameter names that, in other contexts and treated as stand-alone words, could be taken to mean something else. It's not an issue. The lack of these aliases definitely is approaching a WP:IAR / WP:JUSTFIXIT problem in my view, but these templates are easily broken, so I'm taking the long way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
We have been actively deprecating and removing versions of citation template parameters that start with upper-case letters. All parameters, as far as I can tell by looking manually at the whitelist, are available in all-lower-case. This makes the citation templates consistent from one to the other and makes it very easy to remember the parameters' name styling.
I support |vol=. It is clear and unambiguous, and editors often use it, thinking that it is a valid parameter.
I object to |no= because it is confusing. We already have |number= as an alias for |issue=. |no= is confusing because it leads to the question "no what?" Also, many multi-word parameters already exist in this template, and the words used in these multi-word parameters, like "last" and "date" mean the same thing in each parameter. In the case of "no", we already have |no-pp= and |no-tracking=, so it is clear that in the context of citation template parameters, "no" means "no" (i.e. "negation"), not "number". Introducing another meaning for a word that is already used in parameter names is not good design. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't lead to that question if it's documented. Do you mean that |Vol=12|No=7 won't be understood? I give our editors more intelligence-credit. It's something that can be replaced by bot. The point is making it faster and easier to input citations from pasted text so people actually use the templates more. It's not a parameter to advertise, just to silently work if it's used.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As someone who spends considerable time fixing "unsupported parameter" and other types of citation errors, all of which are documented and produce red error messages, the argument that something will work fine because it is documented holds no water with me. Here are some example edits where I have fixed citations that were broken despite the documentation being clear: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I fix a dozen or two of these on a typical day. You are welcome to look through my contributions for thousands of examples of edits in which I fixed citation errors that could have been avoided by editors' following existing documentation.
You also appear to say that this parameter would be documented but that it would not be advertised. I don't understand the nuance there.
I am open to other lines of reasoning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ISBN / ISSN[edit]

Resolved: Moot
@SMcCandlish: You don't need to manually lowercase either |ISBN= or |ISSN=.
{{cite book |last=Marles |first=R.J. |title=Collectors Coins Great Britain 1995 |edition=22nd |year=1995 |publisher=Rotographic |location=Torquay |ISBN=0-948964-22-7 |ISSN=0262-9712 }}Marles, R.J. (1995). Collectors Coins Great Britain 1995 (22nd ed.). Torquay: Rotographic. ISBN 0-948964-22-7. ISSN 0262-9712. 
As shown here, you can use them uppercase, and no error is thrown; at some point, I expect that a bot will lowercase them. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Good. Not sure when that was introduced, but I like it. Is it also the case for the rest of them (DOI, OCLC, etc.)?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Look at the Whitelist, linked above. All parameters marked as "true" work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Any interest in checking for "edition" in |edition=?[edit]

|edition= automatically adds "ed.", but many citations contain text like |edition=2nd ed..

Is there any interest in having the citation module check for and flag redundant text of this sort? It could look for edition/ed/ed. and possibly other variants. I expect that a bot or a script would be able to clean up these errors readily.

Is there a potential for false positives? I can't think of any, but they crop up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a potential problem for the template as it is, because "ed." is automatically added. Sometimes it may be necessary to provide a more complete description of the edition, and the work or abbreviation for "edition" should appear in the middle of the description. Example:
  • {{cite book| title = Astronomical Algorithms | first = Jean | last = Meeus | date = August 10, 2009 | orid-date = 1998 | edition = 2nd ed., corrected printing}}
  • Meeus, Jean (August 10, 2009) [1998]. Astronomical Algorithms (2nd ed, corrected printing ed.). 
Maybe the solution is to have a parameter such as |ed-no-abbr= which will not append "ed." and it will be up to the Wikipedia editor to describe the edition in a suitable way. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but I've also recast things slightly so that the "ed." fits at the end because of this, and if we didn't add a parameter, |edition=Corrected printing of 2nd would resolve the issue. P.S., please don't use {{para}} or similar in the heading as it breaks the automatic link to the section in the edit summary. Imzadi 1979  04:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

archive-url requires archive-date[edit]

archive-date is a pre-requisite for archive-url, but is not listed as such in the table. This should be fixed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which page does this table appear on? I'll be happy to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Cite web, "Usage" section, "Full parameter set in vertical format" table. Sorry, I didn't realize that page's talk link came here, even though this is obviously where I ended up, and it says right at the top "This talk page is a centralized discussion for many other talk pages. When starting a new discussion, please note the exact page in question." Just not paying attention today. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Italization of publications that are neither magazines nor newspapers or books[edit]

Websites are not italicized (see for example Facebook, Wikipedia or Amazon.com), yet if you insert the title of a website in the "website" parameter of {{Cite web}} or the "work" parameter of {{Cite news}}, it is automatically italicized. The same goes for radio stations and possibly other types of sources as well. Shouldn't this be fixed? Littlecarmen (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Radio and TV stations are publishers, so they should be in the |publisher= parameter. Some TV stations' websites may have their own names; the site for WLUC-TV is named Upper Michigan's Source, while the other local stations, lack names for their websites. Wikipedia, if being cited, should be italicized. It's an online encyclopedia, and encyclopedia titles are italicized. As for your other two examples. since those are both the names of the websites and their respective companies, you can put them in |publisher= as well. Imzadi 1979  10:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For context, the question relates to a Featured List candidate and whether the name of a website should be placed in the "publisher" parameter if it is not a newspaper or magazine so that it is not displayed in italics. Websites are not among the works that should be italicized per MOS:ITALICS. This would mean, for example, that "BBC News" in the "website" parameter would need to be moved to the "publisher" parameter so that it doesn't display in italics (although, in this case, the correct publisher would be "British Broadcasting Corporation"). My reasoning against the requested move is that there is no consensus on style to apply to all articles (WP:CITEVAR) and per WP:CITECONSENSUS, "If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style)." A couple days ago, I spent a couple hours going through the article to make sure that all of the references used the appropriate CS1 template (News, Web, Journal), but I don't think adjusting the references to ensure that only major works (eg. newspapers & magazines) are italicized is necessary. Italicization of works in CS1 references has been discussed numerous times:

The article is internally consistent in that it uses the CS1 formatting style and that it what I believe is relevant to the FL review, not changing the way CS1 style templates display paramaters or adjusting which parameters are included so that a particular style is created. AHeneen (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've also started a discussion here to propose amending the MOS to except citation templates. AHeneen (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
In the context of a reference citation, a website is the title of a published major work, so should be italicized. When you refer to a website more generally ("I like using Facebook", "I'm the webmaster of foobarbazzketball.com") you're referring to an entity of another kind, a service (or a piece of advertising or a digital business card). Also, keep in mind that many websites have formal titles, and we only use the hostname when they don't, since our only evidence is that the hostname is in fact the title (this can often be confirmed by other text on the site). If I publish a book, through a reputable publisher, Juggling Cats, and it has an online version/adjunct called JugglingCatsOnline (in camelcase), at jugglingcats.houghton-mifflin.com or whatever, the proper parameter for the site is |work=JugglingCatsOnline, and it should be italicized in the reference citation. I would also italicize it in running prose if it was referred to as a published work, but not if it was referred to as a service, server, business, etc. (but that's an MOS matter, and I don't even remember if we make that distinction.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple way to resolve MOS and citation discrepancies[edit]

When CS1/CS2 are used in their default "native" Wikipedia citation style mode (i.e., not being used to generate an externally-derived citation style like Vancouver), they should entirely comply with MOS (but that doesn't mean what it sounds like). If there is some way in which they do not, then either they need to change, or a variance needs to be accounted for in the fine print over at MOS:TEXT, and it will probably be the latter (though there have been some exceptions, I think).

What would be undesirable is addition of a rule exception for citation templates across the board at MOS:TEXT, because that would allow later divergence of CS1/CS2 in "native" mode from MOS for no reason (raising WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues, people fighting about it). Our own internal citation styles should always be in agreement with our own internal style guide (even that mostly means MOS makes a variance for CS1/CS2). As long as we only add a rule in MOS:TEXT saying "does not apply to externally-derived citation styles like Vancouver, ..." or something to this effect (to keep people from stripping smallcaps or whatever), this should basically mean that MOS and the internal citation style are never out of synch for more than a brief time in which a simple discussion will resolve the newly arisen discrepancy. Easy-peasy. Certainly would resolve my MOS "vs." CS1/CS2 concerns in earlier threads.

In some cases this conflict is actually illusory anyway: As mentioned above (I think; I'm forgetting which page I posted on about it earlier), we do not italicize the names of websites. But they are being italicized in {{Cite web}}. It's not because it's an error or because CS1 is recalcitrant, it's because a different rule is being applied secondarily. The website name is being added without italics because it's a website (a default rule for that medium, as with application software). Then italicization is being added after the fact by a rule (italicize titles of major works) that is general and applies regardless of medium. So, in the specific context of a reference citation where the site is the |work=, then it would be italicized, because it's being contextualized as a major published work, not as an online service, business enterprise, or any other kind of "thing". Illusory or not, it's liable to be confusing without clarification, so we should account for it as a variance (because the usage in the cite templates is correct), rather than de-italicize in the template, and certainly rather than declaring MOS and CS1 to be in some kind of conflict. I would strongly suggest that this same kind of analysis be applied to any other apparent conflicts between the cite templates (in native mode) and MOS. We just fix them.

With externally-derived citation styles, I guess it's just a lost cause. We do need to allow for the fact that some externally-derived citation styles do things not conscionable under MOS normally.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I proposed the following at WT:MOSTEXT, following on a first draft by AHeneen:

A specific rewording, addressing several needs at once, might run like this:

Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system (see WP:CITEVAR). The formatting applied by citation templates should not be evaded.[fn] Parameters should be accurate, and should not be omitted if the formatting applied by the template is not in agreement with the text formatting guidelines above. Those guidelines do not apply to any non-Wikipedia citation style, which should not be changed to conform to them. ...

fn. In unusual cases the default formatting may need to be adjusted to conform to some other guideline, e.g. italicization of a non-English term in a title that would otherwise not be italicized.

[What footnote system is used doesn't matter, of course, or it could be done not as a footnote at all. Any way you like.]

This provides more information and links, reinforces consistency within the article, distinguishes between WP and off-WP cite styles, permits necessary adjustments, and warns against alteration of non-MOS styles in externally-derived cite styles (important because some of them are quite jarring and frequently inspire "correction", especially to remove smallcaps).

I think that should cover it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Print ISSN and Online ISSN[edit]

Sometimes two issn numbers are given - Print ISSN and Online ISSN. Darekk2 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Give the ISSN for the edition which you used as a source. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra checking of URL[edit]

Hi, as suggested by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) I raise this here from original on Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests.

I think that there should be some additional checking on the |url= field and setting up a tracking category so that they can be looked at and fixed appropriately.

For the |url= check if there is text in the field other than the URL, easiest way to do this would be to check for mid-string white space. This would pick up things such as this.

Keith D (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra checking of Title[edit]

Hi, as suggested by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) I raise this here from original on Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests.

I think that there should be some additional checking on the |title= field and setting up a tracking category so that they can be looked at and fixed appropriately.

A converse of the previous section would be to check for a URL in the |title= field as you should not get URLs in the title. This would pick up the inclusion of unnecessary details such as this.

Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) indicated that this had been discussed previously but that nothing had been done about it so I am raising it again.

Keith D (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"reprint" editions[edit]

*{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|year=1928 (1967 reprint)|publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}

versus

*{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|year=1928|publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}

are reprint editions identical?96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@96.52.0.249: cite the edition you've actually consulted. If you used the reprint, then that's what heeds to be cited, which can be done as:
His, Rudoulf (1967) [1928]. Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina (Reprint ed.). Oldenbourg. ASIN B0000BRMK3. 
using:
{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|orig-year=1928 |year=1967 |edition= Reprint |publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}
In this case, the publisher and place of publication should be for the reprint, not the original. I hope that helps. Imzadi 1979  05:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, well I made the section Talk:Impalement#"reprint" editions in regards to the citation.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:20, 21 June 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=http://www.example.com | 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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459036?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 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)

Bug[edit]

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
|url=http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/apric050.html
|title=A Modern Herbal
|chapter=Apricot
|publisher=Botanical.com
|author=Mrs. M. Grieve
|accessdate=2008-08-20
|archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20080809232203/http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/apric050.html
|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. Botanical.com. 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 fr.jpost.com with numeric article names to URLs of the form www.jpost.com 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 ==
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="Miller">{{cite journal |author=Miller |title=The sun's size |url=http://sunjournal.com/MillerSunArticle.html |journal=Sun Journal |year=2005 |accessdate=January 1, 2015}}</ref>
}}

Which would display as

The Sun is pretty big.[1]

References
  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 ==
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="Miller">{{cite journal |author=Miller |title=The sun's size |url=http://sunjournal.com/MillerSunArticle.html |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]

References
  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)