Help talk:Citation Style 1

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

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

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

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

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

De-archived because discussion is ongoing/unresolved. @Trappist the monk:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Access lock RFC follow up:[edit]

The visual design RFC for the access locks concluded with an essentially 50-50 split community on the colour of the "free with conditions" lock (yellow vs blue). This RFC is to investigate support for a third option (grey). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


The paste options were 1&2

1) Green/Yellow/Red: Lock-green.svg / Lock-yellow-alt-2.svg / Lock-red-alt.svg

People who supported this cited the intuitiveness of the traffic light colour scheme, people who opposed it mostly cited the yellow not being very yellow, and the colourblind-friendlier blue.

2) Green/Blue/Red: Lock-green.svg / Lock-blue-alt-2.svg / Lock-red-alt.svg

People who supported this cited the yellow not being very yellow in the previous scheme, and the colourblind-friendlier blue. People who opposed this cited the lack of a recognizable colour scheme of any sort. It also tends to get lost in a sea of blue. This had marginally more support (1 more !vote out of 22 or so).

However, late in the RFC, an alternate colour scheme was proposed as an alternative and garnered some support, but it was too late in the RFC to be introduced an option. Let's consider it now.

3) Green/Grey/Red: Lock-green.svg / Lock-gray-alt-2.svg / Lock-red-alt.svg

This has neither drawback of schemes 1 & 2. Green/Grey/Red is an intuitive colour scheme, is just as colourblind friendly as Green/Blue/Red, and doesn't get as lost in the sea of blue as the blue one does. I'd have included arguments against grey, but I know of none.

Basically, how this would look is something like

  1. Romaine, M.; Zatz, S.; Brown, K.; Lundberg, G.D. (2009). "So long but not farewell: The Medscape Journal of Medicine (1999-2009)"Free registration required. Medscape Journal of Medicine. 11 (1): 33. Retrieved 21 February 2009.
  2. Romaine, M.; Zatz, S.; Brown, K.; Lundberg, G.D. (2009). "So long but not farewell: The Medscape Journal of Medicine (1999-2009)"Free registration required. Medscape Journal of Medicine. 11 (1): 33. Retrieved 21 February 2009.
  3. Romaine, M.; Zatz, S.; Brown, K.; Lundberg, G.D. (2009). "So long but not farewell: The Medscape Journal of Medicine (1999-2009)"Free registration required. Medscape Journal of Medicine. 11 (1): 33. Retrieved 21 February 2009.


Support #3 as proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose all. See below. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A pointless !vote, given that's not one of the options at the moment, which will mostly means blue will stay for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


I do not know whether this is the proper procedure, considering that the referenced RFC was submitted at a much better attended forum. At best, imo whatever discussion results here, should be used to stage a proper RFC at the proper forum. Especially since the original RFC seems inconclusive on the related issues. (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The former RFC also had a much wider scope. This is listed and advertised at both Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming, as well as through the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Feel free to post neutrally worded notices in other places you deem relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Notifying WP:FRS isn't necessary, the presence of {{rfc}} attracts the attention of Legobot (talk · contribs) which (based upon its table of open RfCs) sends out the FRS messages to user talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence why I said advertised through, not at. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
My opinion: Regardless of which color you use for it, the middle symbol is unrecognizable as a lock or as anything else. Maybe it is a fountain with a two-tone base? Maybe it is a spray bottle? Maybe it is a necklace with a big pendant? It is just visual clutter rather than useful information. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's the appearance that got settled on in that RFC. Personally I would have gone with this shape. But let's focus on the color for now, shall we? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The choices are puke, lost-in-a-sea-of-blue, or blander-than-bland. None are worth advocating. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Lack of choice likely means keeping blue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with David Eppstein. None of these designs do their job particularly well and all are eyesores. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't actively followed the original discussions, but if those locks are difficult to distinguish or even to recognize as locks, have other possible lock shapes been investigated already? For example a more squarish shape for the body of the lock? Or differently styled keys instead of locks? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Matthiaspaul: Square locks can be confused with secure html locks. In my experience, no one I talked to IRL (about 6 people,including 2 color blind) finds the shape of the locks confusing, although the non-colorblind nearly always got confused by the blue because it doesn't convey "intermediate" as yellow does (the colorblind were conditioned to ignore color). Yellow was unanimously preferred by the non-colourblind, but they thought grey also worked. The colorblind didn't care either way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

|title=Archived copy[edit]

Can a new maintenance category be created (and coded into Module:citation/CS1) for when Archived copy is used as a title in a cite-template? Currently we have 38 000+ articles (insource:/\|title\=Archived copy/), and I bet that not a single one of them should use that as a title. (tJosve05a (c) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And another could be finding |work=Wayback Machine & |work=Wayback Machine --(tJosve05a (c) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This looks like it was caused by IABot. @Cyberpower678: Can you let us know whether it's still occurring, whether it's a bug in the bot or something wrong in the IA API, and whether it might be possible to get IABot re-run on these articles? --Izno (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is IABot that is the culprit in this case. The reason here though is deeper: IABot changed the citation format of the references in question from free-form to scripted (templated). Since the "title" in free-form citations is not easily parsed by machines, it made the default substitution |title=Archived copy. (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

metadata bug[edit]

There is a metadata bug. Somehow, some of the multiple bytes of unicode characters outside of the ascii character set are not all included in the metadata:

{{cite book |title=Я}}

produces this metadata for the title:

&rft.btitle=%D0%AF – correct


{{cite book |title=ש}}
&rft.btitle=%D7%A9 – correct


{{cite book |title=魂}}
&rft.btitle=%E9%82 – should be: %E9%AD%82


{{cite book |title=–}}
&rft.btitle=%93 – should be: %E2%80%93

From these simple examples, it would appear that something is buggering up three-byte unicode percent encoding. This problem was apparently noticed just after the 29–30 April 2017 update to the live module suite. I am at a loss to explain this problem as a result of the changes that were incorporated in the update. So, I have reverted the sandboxen to the last live version before the update. Let me repeat that:

the current sandboxen DO NOT currently contain the next version of the live CS1 modules. Except in search of an answer to this issue, changes should not be made to the CS1 modules.

After reverting to the last live version, the simple tests above produce the same results.

The modules use the function mw.uri.encode() to percent-encode metadata and also to encode identifiers like |doi=. If I make up a doi with a character that doesn't work in the metadata, the doi link is encoded correctly:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |doi=10.1234/.魂}}

From all of this, I know that the problem has been with us for some time and that the problem appears to be confined to the metadata. Now it is just a matter of locating it.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

fixed. This line:
value = value:gsub ('[\226\128\141\226\128\139\194\173]', '')
changed to this:
value = mw.ustring.gsub (value, '[\226\128\141\226\128\139\194\173]', '');
The purpose of this line is to remove invisible characters zero-width joiner and zero-width space, and the soft hyphen because these characters are pointless in the metadata. Because these characters are invisible, the code writes out their individual decimal byte values: \226\128\141 for zero-width joiner, etc.
The problem arises because value:gsub() operates on bytes, not characters. When value is an en dash, its byte values are \226\128\93. In the original version, value:gsub() finds both the \226 and the \128 bytes and removes them leaving the \147 which is later percent encoded to %93. Similarly, 魂 has byte values of \233\173\130, value:gsub() finds and removes the \173 leaving behind \233\130 which percent encodes to %E9%82.
The new version treats the characters as characters.
I have fixed this bug in the live version and restored the sandboxen.
{{cite book |title=魂}}
<cite class="citation book">''魂''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span>
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. Checking the modules for other unicode-related possible ommissions/incompatibilities might be a good idea. (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Two things. The first, boxes is the plural of box, not boxen. You may enjoy using non-standard plurals, but this is confusing to people, especially those that wouldn't know oxen is the plural of ox. The second, there are lots of 'value:gsub' around that line of code you've updated. Should those be updated as well? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The lines of code most similar to the offending line are:
  1. value = value:gsub ('\226\128\138', ' ');
  2. value = value:gsub ('[\009\010\013]', ' ');
In the first of these the pattern is a string of bytes so value must match exactly. In the second, like regex, the pattern is a set of three individual bytes so will match with any of the three single-byte characters horizontal tab, line feed, or carriage return.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Boxen is a harmless and amusing hacker in-joke; I have no problem with it here (on a talk page) although I wouldn't use it in article-space of course. And thanks, Trappist the monk, for catching and fixing this! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Credit for the discovery of this error belongs to Editor Silas S. Brown who reported it here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: "boxen". Yes, a hacker in-joke, but it has appeared in a headline in a reliable source at least once. It appears in article space with an explanation in a few places, and there's Pizza boxen (a redirect); I agree with David Eppstein that it should not be used casually in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Table overflow bug[edit]

When User:SpikeToronto recently made this edit and many similar ones, trying to improve the table format for iPads, it actually broke the format for an ordinary Chrome browser on a Windows laptop. For example, unless the browser window is extremely wide, the right side of the table in Template:Cite book/doc#TemplateData gets truncated, cutting off words and the column-sort arrows, with no horizontal scrollbar to reach the truncated content. Is there a way to make these tables work properly on both types of devices? —Patrug (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not a cs1|2 bug. That TemplateData table is imposed on us by the developers of Visual editor. If Editor SpikeToronto's edit doesn't work here then likely it doesn't work elsewhere. You might try discussing this issue with Editor Bermicourt who is apparently the author of {{TemplateData}} which, I gather has the job of rendering the TemplateData table.
Trappist the monk (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Good info, thanks. Let's see if SpikeToronto can shed any light on the situation, and why these edits were "required" for iPads. —Patrug (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not so good info, actually. {{TemplateData}} doesn't have the job of rendering the TemplateData table.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
One observation: there is a wider problem with the rendering of tables on mobile devices, so this may not even be strictly a <templatedata> issue. My past experience has been that you have to tap/drag at the screen edge to see the hidden info. Other than that, as Trappist mentioned, this is not the right forum. (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Patrug, WP:VPT is probably a better forum for this question. I get the same results on Chrome for Windows, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I do multiple quotes[edit]

I recently had a FAR where a user pointed out I was using a Japanese book and that I needed to provide both the original Japanese prose of the book's information and the English translation. Would it be "quote=Japanese and trans_quote=English"? Regards,Tintor2 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the method that you suggest is inconsistent with how cs1|2 handle translations in titles and chapters. Perhaps:
|quote=Japanese quote</q> <q>[English quote] – the </q> <q> are used here because the quotation marks around |quote= are formed that way
"Title" [Trans title]. Japanese quote. [English quote.] 
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm giving it my first try here. Is it correct?Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Mostly. The transition between the original language and the English translation should be:
... ています</q> <q>[Hoshino: Guess ...
The </q> following the original language quote closes the opening <q> provided by the template. Similarly, the <q> preceding the English translation matches the closing </q> provided by the template. And thus, all is in balance.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's quirky... Such tags should be dealt with by the template internally.
I too suggest(ed) to add a |trans-quote= parameter (some while ago). This would be following the basic principle to keep different types of contents in different parameters.
With two parameters |quote= and |trans-quote= we'd be free to change the output format whenever this might become necessary in the future, even depending on settings or target devices. We might even suppress the translation if it would not be desired in a certain context. Example:
... |quote=Japanese quote |trans-quote=English quote ...
for either
"Title" [Trans title]. "Japanese quote" "[English quote]"
"Title" [Trans title]. "Japanese quote [English quote]"
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither the original text nor the translation really bear on the citation of the source. Where there is a comment on a source that should follow the citation. E..g.:
<ref>{{citation|...}}. "ています" is translated [by whom?] as "Hoshino: ...".</ref>
There's no need to introduce entirely extraneous material into the citation template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I gave it a try but trans-quote is not working.Tintor2 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There is not |trans-quote= parameter which explains why it did not work.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that Editor J. Johnson and I may actually be in agreement (at least partially) for once. I have never believed that source quotations belong in a citation. If it is appropriate to quote the source, then put the quote in the article and cite it. Additionally to this particular question, where does the translation come from? If it is from the cited source then there is no need for the Japanese version of the quotation. If it not from the cited source, then the questions of accuracy and reliability and verification come into play. I am minded of this because I recall that these translation questions were recently discussed, in particular about machine translation, but I don't remember where that discussion occurred.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree putting a quotation inside a citation template is probably a bad idea. One reason it's a bad idea is quotations might need all kinds of special stuff to reproduce what's in the source, like a table for instance. Such complex markup would be very likely to break the citation template.

However, I disagree that a quote from a source should either be placed in the running text of the article, or omitted. Most citations in Wikipedia are in the form of an endnote. Endnotes are for details that distract from the point being made in the running text of the article. Such detailed digressions might very well need quotations from the source. Thus, there's nothing wrong with including quotes from the source in a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not write that a source should either be placed in the running text of the article, or omitted; I made no mention of running text. Do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken. By put the quote in the article and cite it, I simply meant that the quotation, if required, should be placed somewhere other than in the citation itself.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I got this comment here. The third opinion agreed.Tintor2 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear to me just what you mean by third opinion. Clarify?
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I was not sure about using both the Japanese original quote and English at the same time so I went to Wikipedia:Third opinion and asked the third opinion.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing recently suggested a use for |quote= at WT:Verifiability#How does one transparently cite more than one part of an e-book in a single citation?: to provide a short piece of text that can be searched for to locate the section referenced in media such as certain e-books that do not have pagination or other in-source indices. But even that can be handled outside of the template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. If possible ping me whatver happens. I still think the article I withdrew, Yu Kanda, could become a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


I can't see a field for a subtitle. Is this a deliberate policy decision or an omission? --Pfold (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no |subtitle= parameter. Most often, if a subtitle is required, it is included in |title= set off from the main title with a colon:
|title=Main Title: Subtitle
I don't know if the lack of |subtitle= is a policy decision or an omission. You might troll through the archives of this page, the talk page archives of the individual templates before they were merged into this page, and the talk page archives for {{citation}}.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I would consider it an omission as other Wikipedias do support a |sub-title= (or similar) parameter. I would welcome its introduction in the English Wikipedia as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It would have several advantages:
  • While sub-titles are informative and therefore desirable to be included, sometimes they are very long and some editors hesitate to include them in the title because long titles create a "sea of blue" when the title gets linked. Splitting the long part off into a sub-title and linking only the title would reduce this and therefore improve readability.
  • Letting the template rather than the editor concat title and sub-title for display would help to create a consistent output format. Right now, all sorts of separators are used: ". ", ", ", ": ", " - ", "—", " > ", etc. If a separator is actually used in the publication and for some reason is important to reproduce, a |title-separator= parameter could be used to specify it, otherwise the template would default to some internal default like " - ".
  • In some cases, there are multiple title links available through |title-link= and |url=. In this case, our templates throw an error message, as there is only one string to attach the link to. |sub-title= could help remedy this situation, as the second link could be attached to the sub-title then - not a perfect solution, but still better than having to append raw links after the citation.
  • On small devices, sub-titles could be excluded from normal display in order to make better use of the available display space. Sub-titles could still be displayed in a smaller font or in a pop-up help bubble etc. On larger PCs monitors with enough display space available sub-titles could be displayed with the title as usual. There might be other reasons why only titles should be given in some situations (narrow tables, merging); in such scenarios it's good to have a well-defined break in the title instead of having to cut the title string at some arbitrary fixed position.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Volume and page parameters being separated in cite encyclopedia[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why the volume and page numbers were separated so much in Template:Cite encyclopedia? Right now the volume separated from the pages by the edition, publishing location, and publishing house. Should I be using |at= instead so that the volume of the encyclopedia immediately precedes the page numbers, as in Chicago or APA?

Because right now I think it's unclear to have the volume so far from the pages as in:

Author, A. (2017). "Entry". In Editor, E. Title of Encyclopedia. 3 (2nd ed.). City: Publishing House. pp. 100–102. 

I would expect it to be something like:

Author, A. (2017). "Entry". In Editor, E. Title of Encyclopedia (2nd ed.). City: Publishing House. Vol. 3, pp. 100–102. 

Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A primary goal when we integrated all of the old wikitext cs1|2 templates into the new Lua Module:Citation/CS1, was to make the new look like the old. Apparently we were successful with the |volume= / |page(s)= aspect of that integration for {{cite encyclopedia}}:

Cite encyclopedia compare
{{ cite encyclopedia | encyclopedia=Title of Encyclopedia | date=2017 | location=City | last1=Author | editor-last=Editor | title=Entry | publisher=Publishing House | first1=A. | volume=3 | editor-first=E. | pages=100–102 | edition=2nd }}
Old Author, A. (2017). "Entry". In Editor, E.. Title of Encyclopedia. 3 (2nd ed.). City: Publishing House. pp. 100–102. 
Live Author, A. (2017). "Entry". In Editor, E. Title of Encyclopedia. 3 (2nd ed.). City: Publishing House. pp. 100–102. 

The rendering of {{cite encyclopedia}} looks much like the rendering of {{cite book}} given similar parameters:

{{cite book |last1=Author|first1=A.|date=2017|chapter=Chapter |title=Title of Book |edition=2nd|editor-last=Editor|editor-first=E.|volume=3|pages=100–102|publisher=Publishing House|location=City}}
Author, A. (2017). "Chapter". In Editor, E. Title of Book. 3 (2nd ed.). City: Publishing House. pp. 100–102. 

If you are concerned, you might research the issue in the archives of this talk page and the archives of the {{cite encyclopedia}} talk page. There may be something there that will explain why the original authors of {{cite encyclopedia}} did what they did. Or not.

Contructs like this:

|at=Vol.&nbsp;3, {{pp.|100|102}}

are discouraged because it introduces volume information into an in-source element of the metadata.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by that last line, Trappist the monk? What's an "in-source element of the metadata," and why can't you have the volume information there? Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
These points:
  1. it is the job of the cs1|2 templates to render citations in a consistent manner; cs1|2 have the responsibility for 'under the bonnet' formatting
  2. cs1|2 templates produce COinS metadata so that readers may import citations from Wikipedia via special software
  3. in-source means inside the source: page, paragraph number, etc
It is almost always unnecessary to add special formatting to a templated citation; if special formatting is needed, then the general purpose templates (as cs1|2 templates are) may not be appropriate to the circumstances, in which case, they should not be used and other solutions applied.
The cs1|2 parameters map to similarly named metadata keys. In this particular case, |page=, |pages=, and |at= are in-source location parameters; all map to a key called &rft.pages; volume information does not belong there. There is a cs1|2 parameter specially intended to hold volume information: |volume= which feeds &rft.volume.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say Trappist the monk's comment about in-source location is rooted in the code used to implement the cite templates; the degree to which this applies to actual sources depend on the nature of the source. A particular edition of an encyclopedia is one source, just as all the CDs in a multi-CD music album constitute one source. Ordinarily, these things are all purchased and used together. A volume number is a means of finding the location in the single source, just like the page number. On the other hand, the seven volumes in the Harry Potter series are separate sources, because they were published at different times and are not usually purchased as a set. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it seems like that volume number is sort of where it would be if it refers to the number within a book series, but as the volume number of a multi-volume work like an encyclopedia is necessary to figure out the location, I'd expect it to be with the other "in-source" parameter like |page=. Umimmak (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ISBNs in mw:Citoid[edit]

Hey All; at the WMF we have been working with OCLC to make ISBN generated citations available, through using their ISBN database. We have deployed the feature on all language Wikipedias: you can learn more about it on the Wikimedia blog. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How do we downtrammeled logged-in editors use this without switching to VE? EEng 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: You are unable presently. If you don't want to visually edit, but are willing to stomach the same kinds of interfaces (and associated Javascript heaviness on edit), you should try the New wikitext mode--you can access the citation tools there. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@EEng: The mw:2017_wikitext_editor supports this feature as well (I am editing in that editor right now, and use it for most of my non-content editing in my volunteer capacity. I am not sure if there are other gadgets/tools that support Citoid in the older Wikitext editor. @Whatamidoing (WMF): might know. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Why can't you give us a {ISBN-to-citebook} template, so we can code something like {subst:ISBN-to-citebook|978-0399594496} and get the same result, without demeaning ourselves by using these toolbars and visual editing and other paraphernalia of the Wikiediting welfare state? This would often require a second edit to clean up what the subst returns, but I for one would be most happy to use facility like that. EEng 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
How about me, Astinson (WMF)? Can I have a bug report too? EEng 01:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): I note that the WikiEditor icw Reftoolbar (enabled by default for everyone on English Wikipedia) has supported using ISBNs to import reference information for years already now. However that is specific to English Wikipedia editors of course. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The what? Where would I find that? EEng 23:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC) (Repinging TheDJ EEng 13:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC))
If, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, you have checked Enable enhanced editing toolbar, in the source editor choose the Cite dropdown. From the Templates dropdown choose cite book and enter an isbn in the ISBN field and click the magnifying glass. Here's an isbn to try it with: 9783161484100
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): The example citation on your blog post uses YYYY-MM-DD format for the publication date, while most citations on Wikipedia use Month DD, YYYY or DD Month YYYY depending on US/UK variations. To me this suggests that some of us are going to be forced by your change to spend a lot of time making the dates of references added by users of this tool more consistent with the other dates in our articles. Is there any way that you could detect the date format used by an article and use that, please? Also, it appears that for many books, you are using dates like 1993-01-01 where the "01-01" part has no actual meaning (the book was not actually published on January 1) but is instead just a default value for when the date is unknown. Is there some way of preventing your tool from inserting this fake data into our citations? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: You can use |df= for the first problem, if you don't simply want to use a script such as the one that Ohconfucius provides. The WMF developer team is unwilling to let us get the dates in the format we wish. As for the second problem, using ISO dates allows for ambiguity in the form of 1993-00-00 to indicate that the year is known but not the month nor day, as well as 1993-01-00 to indicate that year and month are known, but not the day--I do not know why they use 01 instead. (It impacts Wikidata too, but I haven't thought to comment there yet.) --Izno (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
(Erm, not quite right regarding the 0s, but the intent is similar: review ISO 8601#Calendar dates.) --Izno (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
1993-00-00 is clearly a nonsense date. But can we not instead use a |year= field, where only the 4-figure year is inserted? -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius, Izno, and David Eppstein: We filled at bug at phabricator:T165116. I agree: their are going to be very rare occasions when the precision of something tracked via an ISBN has a publication date more precise than a year. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
In the examples given at the blog, is ISBN 9783161484100. Follow that link through Special:BookSources to WorldCat. Several different titles apparently use that isbn. I would guess that sometimes WorldCat is correct and that this tool may return correct information. But I'm not holding my breath; I've seen a lot of strange stuff in WorldCat listings.
I also notice, as others have pointed out, that the date format is rather incorrect for books which, for the most part are year-only. Further, WorldCat and citoid don't seem to care about extraneous punctuation; Gallery has an extra trailing comma. The Boris citation left out |location=Ljubljana; the Gallery Citation left out both |location= and |publisher=.
Like so many 'magic' tools, I fear that editors will assume that whatever is returned by the tool, because it's a tool, must be correct. It came from a database, right? The machine got the data for me, right? It therefore must be correct, right? I think that there is too much weirdness in WorldCat (akin to the weirdness in Google Books metadata) to make this tool very reliable. Handy perhaps, for those who will massage what the tool returns, but detrimental to the project in the hands of lazy editors.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate, then, that it is deployed only to the VE users and not to the users who can actually see the template coding to massage it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Change unfortunate to incompetent and I'll agree with you. I can't think of one thing WMF has done in the 9 years I've been editing that's actually made editing easier. Honestly and truly, the one best thing that's happened is the Thank feature. EEng 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: The comms tech team and Cyberpower put together the magical archive every URL on a single page tool that just rolled out. You should try it. This diff was cathartic, to be honest. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried it, but I can't get it to do anything other than produce some statistics on various articles. Is there some magic button that makes it do something. EEng 02:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that this functionality has been available in Reftoolbar for years now (also using worldcat). So it's not exactly that it wasn't available to users before (maybe a lot more hidden, but its there). And I find irony in the fact that we keep setting so much higher bars than we set for our own project. Apparently we are the only website in the world that should be allowed to have the occasional error in it's data. No. I see this as an opportunity to make sure data quality of worldcat and ourselves improves, so that better crossover knowledge and insight can be generated, be it within (meta:WikiCite) or outside of our movement. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That tool is just as bad as the new tool because it relies on what WorldCat has in its database which doesn't appear to be curated very well. Here is what the old tool retrieved when given the same isbn as the blog's Gallery example:
{{cite book|last1=Maps|first1=Peekaboo|title=Berkeley, Oakland : Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, Kensington|date=2009|publisher=Peek A Boo Maps|location=[Berkeley?]|isbn=9783161484100|edition=1st ed.}}
Maps, Peekaboo (2009). Berkeley, Oakland : Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, Kensington (1st ed. ed.). [Berkeley?]: Peek A Boo Maps. ISBN 9783161484100. 
Here we have: publisher as author, uncertain location (but we did get that), malformed edition; but, date is in the proper form. Looking at the dates in the entries on that WorldCat page, there are a variety of year styles; some are plain years: 2013; some are bracketed: [2016]; some include the copyright mark: ©2016, some have combinations of these three, which to choose?
Certainly, both tools cannot fix bad data. Maybe they can be made to be more clever in how they handle multiple different author, and multiple different title returns from the data base using the same isbn key. Still the basic and enduring problem is dubious data fetched by the 'magic', officially sanctioned, tool so it must be right, right?
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a new parameter for Citoid to spit out when it is run on a reference (spitball name: |citoid=) which when equal to oclc, creates a green maintenance category message with some text of the sort: "CS1 maintenance: Citations imported from OCLC", if we believe that OCLC is so poor a quality of reference and that no-one will go back to fiddle with parameters. For reference, I know I use Citoid now for other websites and its hit-or-miss-enough in general such that I always check the imported citation, so I'm not sure if such a parameter is even necessary, since I would guess most others who use the service have a similar workflow. --Izno (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So let's see:
Badly implemented (the date issue), also limiting editor choice
Contravenes established Wikipedia content guidelines (WP:CITEVAR) by limiting the citations to Style 1, also misleading by not pointing this out. This is a problem with Citoid documentation, and examples, in general.
May possibly result in ambiguous citations that editors may accept at face value as correct.
Conclusion: at present, nothing to see here. (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

On a related issue, Mediawiki's refusal to use any date format other than YYYY-MM-DD in their cites (because they don't want to go through the hassle of full internationalization): in response to this, we could always be passive-aggressive about it and modify the cite templates to put up big red edit-time warnings when they see dates in this format in the date field (not the accessdate where they are ok): "Warning: Numeric date format detected. Please convert all dates to the prevailing style of the article." Because unless the users of the citoid template see it as not properly working, they won't notice the work it causes the rest of us and won't be motivated to do anything about the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This silly date bug is tracked at T132308. The bug above has been closed as a duplicate of T132308, which was the same bug submitted earlier. It's hard to understand why this tool was rolled out with this bug unfixed; the results of the bug are even prominently featured in step 6 of the demonstration in the blog post linked above. The explanation for why it hasn't been fixed is unpersuasive at best. I do not understand why WMF puts its credibility on the line by being in the business of automating the addition of untrue data to Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, brief update: User:Mvolz (WMF) has pushed a fixed for the polluted year-level accurate-date issue in the ISBN generator, and is looking into a way to generate better human-readable dates via Citoid: . Thank you for all the feedback on the bug, and it is helping generate ways to deliver a better date format to each Wiki. Continue giving feedback on phabricator as patches get published. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Convert some refbegin lists from : to * lists[edit]

Please see/join this discussion about a bot conversion of some existing reference lists making use of unordered lists (*) instead of definition lists (:). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ISSN check fails on apparently valid ISSN?[edit]

  • Gatialová, Eva (27 February 2016). "Ženská národná rada" [Women's National Council]. ASPEKTin (in Slovak). Bratislava, Slovakia: Záujmové združenie žien Aspekt. ISSN 1225-8982 Check |issn= value (help). Archived from the original on 4 May 2017. Retrieved 4 May 2017. 

That ISSN resolves to the correct title, yet the template flags it as problematic. What gives? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The error message is correct. The issn uses an invalid check-digit:
1 × 8 + 2 × 7 + 2 × 6 + 5 × 5 + 8 × 4 + 9 × 3 + 8 × 2 =
8 + 14 + 12 + 25 + 32 + 27 + 16 = 134
134 ÷ 11 = 12 remainder 2
check digit = 11 − 2 = 9
ISSN 1225-8989 (uses the same check code as cs1|2)
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yet it's been assigned, and resolves... How do we suppress the error display then? Because ISSN 1225-8989 is an entirely different publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Use OCLC 643237586 instead?
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not a solution to the issue though. How do we handle invalid checksum ISBNs that are nonetheless those actually assigned? We should handle invalid ISSNs the same way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

edtf date formats as cs1|2 date parameter values[edit]

Related to the discussions at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#ISBNs_in_mw:Citoid and T132308.

Because WP:DATE does not allow year initial numeric dates in the form YYYY-MM but does allow YYYY–YY (with an en dash), and because cs1|2 emits an error when the MM or YY portion of those dates is in the range 00–12 inclusive, and because citoid needs to be able to transfer dates to all of the different language wikis, it has been suggested that citoid use the Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF). A draft of the standard is here.

For us, the immediate issue is the YYYY-xx date form. EDTF provides an alternate way to encode that kind of date. Similar in form to YYYY-MM-DD, EDTF allows for portions of the date string to be declared as 'unspecified'. When citoid needs to send a month and year date, it can take the form |date=YYYY-MM-uu. That date format would surely violate WP:DATE so needs to be transformed into a more appropriate form. I have hacked the module sandbox to accept and transform dates that are provided in this style:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2000-06-uu}}
Title. June 2000. 

Similar to the transformations preformed for |df= and for auto-changing hypens to dashes, if there are any date errors in the citation, even in unrelated parameters, the module will not do any transformations. Here, using the same format for |access-date=, causes an error because |access-date= requires a day:

{{cite web/new |url=// |title=Title |date=2000-06-uu |access-date=2017-05-uu}}
"Title". 2000-06-uu. Retrieved 2017-05-uu.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That's all well & good, but I don't think the problem here is WP:DATE. After all, that is just a style guideline, so theoretically any hack is acceptable if the result conforms to the style. I think there should be an effort to integrate EDTF as a native format in MW. If this is to be a universal biblio standard, surely WMF should take a proactive role. (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
EDTF isn't meant to be a "universal biblio standard". It is meant to trim out the less useful features of ISO 8601 (in that sense it's a profile) and to provide some extensions for things like uncertainty and seasons. One thing that hasn't been extended is the calendar; like ISO 8601, EDTF only supports the Gregorian calendar. That makes it ok for recently published works, but it isn't suitable for older works with publication dates stated in the Julian calendar. Nor would it be suitable for works with publication dates stated in some other calendar, which wouldn't even have the same names for months. This would be especially true if the dates can't be precisely converted, as happens with religious calendars whose dates depend on religious officials making an actual observation of the new moon. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Relevant: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

License information[edit]

For some reason I was under the impression that the "cite journal" would accept a "license" parameter where one could indicate, e.g., "CC BY". I do not see it. Is there any (other?) way to indicate this? — fnielsen (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussion on the topic of a license parameter is here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Drawing citation metadata from Wikidata[edit]

In preparation for the WikiCite event, currently taking place in Vienna, I have built a demonstrator template, {{Cite Q}}. Much work remains to be done, to deal with more complex use cases, and to resolve the issues listed there. Hopefully that will be addressed during the WikiCite hackathon, on Thursday (CET time, GMT +2). Your comments and remote participation will be welcome. Please use the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The documentation for this prototype states
  • Eventually, each signed-in reader should be able to set, under their "Preferences", the style in which they wish to see citations rendered. No more CiteVar wars!
This is the same concept that date linking tried to accomplish for dates. There was a huge battle over this (if I recall correctly a few editors were banned by the community). The biggest issue that would apply to this proposal is that most people who read Wikipedia are not editors and are not logged in. So the people maintaining articles, if they are foolish enough to log in and set a citation preference, will be seeing something different than the majority of readers, and may fail to see problems with the way the citations are presented to the majority of readers. I think a well-advertised RfC at WT:CITE would be appropriate before going in this direction. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please use the template's talk page.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Is it even possible for a template to know a logged-in user's preferences? Not possible, so far as I know. Were it possible, no doubt, there would have been discussion here suggesting, or perhaps demanding, that cs1|2 be modified to accommodate user preferences.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Since this will allow data reuse without dealing directly with the source, the quality of the underlying citations is more important AFAIC. Isn't reliability an issue here? How does this reflect/impact on citation reuse? People have a tendency to conflate automation & reliability. (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is. That is exactly the argument I was trying to make in the ISBNs in mw:Citoid discussion. It is perhaps more insidious because WikiData can be edited by anyone whereas WorldCat, as I understand it, is a rather more closed system.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Templates shouldn't pull from Wikidata, and {tl|cite Q}} templates would be even more problematic and editor-unfriendly than the now-killed {{cite doi}}. A |wikidata=Q15625490 parameter however, would be pretty great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me the biggest problem with reusing cited data is the lack of consensus that the editor who copies a claim, with a citation, from one article to another must look at the source to see if it really supports the claim. Without such a consensus, all is lost. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 May 2017[edit]

I would like to make an edit request adding a new lastnamefirst parameter. It changes the name order in citations, defaulting to yes. Change it to no for Icelandic names. Numberguy6 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This may be a valuable discussion to have but it certainly does not have a consensus at this time. What reason do you propose to make this change? Izno (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)