Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Identifiers should be listed in alphabetical order. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The identifier labels are sorted with a case sensitive sort. 'B' has an ascii numerical value of 66 (0x42) and 'a' has an ascii numerical value of 97 (0x61). Proof for that is here, where I've added |eissn=1365-2966 and |issn=0035-8711 from the journal's wikipedia article:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Well, that ought to be fixed then, either with case-insensitive sorting, or by putting the sortkey in a {{lc:IDENTIFIERNAME}} type of thing. Because it wasn't like that before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I distinctly remember those to be sorted correctly as late as this spring. But even if my memory somehow fails me, those should be sorted alphabetically, regardless of casing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
De-archived as unresolved and still in need of a fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I see you made good progress on the identifier check below. Any word on identifier sorting? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
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)
It makes sense to me to have allegedly broken DOIs linked, since the doi-broken-date is checked by a bot and (a) could have been wrongly applied or (b) could have been a temporary problem or (c) both. There are plenty of links that don't work and are not flagged as such. That's just the state of the web, and always has been. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
De-archived as unresolved and still in need of a fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: any updates on this? I know you did some work related to deprecation, but the doi link should still appear when doi-broken-date is set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
MR error checking
MR come in two formats, old (which I can't find documentation for, but the structure seems to be \d+([a-z]|#)?:\d+ [case-sensitive]) and new (\d+). The canonical identifier is a 0-padded 7-digit string (see [1], scroll to "New format for primary item identifier" section), but the zeros are optional, and are stripped for non-subscribers [2], and will therefore be common. The template should simply automatically zero-pad to 7 digits.
The old style should be put in a maintenance category so they can be updated. Anything else should be flagged as errors (e.g. |mr=mr01234, found in [3]).
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
JFM error checking
JFM seems to come in only one format (\d{2}.\d{4}.\d{2}). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
But that's are not really JFM identifiers, those are ERAM identifiers, which happen to resolve to the same database. Not quite sure how to handle that one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've updated them to use |id={{ERAM|foobar}} instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
JFM could be abused to put a Zbl identifier. If the Zbl structure is found, it should throw an error and tell users to user |zbl= instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Unarchived as unresolved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Zbl error checking
ZBL come in two formats, old [temporary?] format which consists of pure digits (\d+, possibly 8 digits \d{8}) and new (\d{4}\.\d{5}). Catching errors would mean having a way of catching mistakes such at |zbl=t0303.10056, e.g. [4].Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
\d{3}\.\d{5} will resolve (e.g Template:Zbl), but the correct identifier has a \d{4}\.\d{5} structure (e.g Template:Zbl). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll also point out that I found quite a few (pre\d+) that would resolve only once the (pre) part was striped [e.g. [5], which I've updated to the new style]. I think those are temporary Zbl identifiers. Compare Template:Zbl (which doesn't resolve) to Template:Zbl (which resolves to Template:Zbl). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Zbl will often be abused to put a JfM identifier [6]. If the JFM structure is found, it should throw an error and tell users to user |jfm= instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This page describes the coding for the \d{4}\.\d{5} format, but I could not find anything for the other formats or temporary IDs. If the first four digits are a volume number, it makes sense that one could remove the zero padding with no loss of info. --Mark viking (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If the \d{8} format isn't desired, that could be shown as an error too. There's only a handful of (around 41, last I checked). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've updated them all, except [7]Template:Zbl in Superpermutation. This is either the temporary assignment, or an oversight in the Zbl database, or it's just a legit but undocumented code. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've confirmed those are temporary assignments. They should be put in a maintenance category so they can be updated to the canonical Zbl identifier once they get assigned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bug when using script-title ISO 639-1 prefix and url-access together?
Hey I think I found a bug that I figured I should point out. Right now the code:
{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Tianqi|last2=Liang|first2=Geqiu|title=Zhōngguó tángláng mù xīn jìlù shǔ jí yī xīn zhǒng jìshù|journal=Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni|date=1995|volume=34|issue=2|pages=84–86|script-title=zh:中国螳螂目新记录属及一新种记述|trans-title=New Record of ''Choeradodis'' and One New Species of Mantodea from China|url=http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZSDZ502.014.htm|url-access=subscription|via=[[CNKI]]}}
produces:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Don't have time to look at the code right now, but looks like the culprit could be a missing closing html tag. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's not an easy fix in the sense that a simple tweak will fix it. The problem lies in the creation of the external link. The code is at Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (which fixes other problems with the live module's handling of kerning). Editors whined and complained when the access signal wrapped to another line so we tried adding a non-breaking thin space between the end of the link and the access icon. The results of that experiment were disappointing; it did not work. So we opted for adding <span class="nowrap">...</span> around the last word and the icon. The last word is separated from the other words in the label by a space character. If you look at the whole rendering (simplified from the original) you can see that the code found the last space character in the <bdi lang="zh" > tag and inserted the <span class="nowrap"> tag there:
[[:Template:Cite journal/new]]
Closing that space doesn't fix the problem because the code will simply find the required space between 'bdi' and 'class'.
The solution to this particular problem is not easy for another reason: interleaving html tags is not permitted. What the code is trying to do is this:
<span class="plainlinks">[http://www.example.com "Transcribed Latin text title" <bdi lang="zh">Original language script <span class="nowrap">title</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|...]]</span></span>]</span>
MediaWiki will rewrite that and put the closing </bdi> some probably-inappropriate place (especially if |script-title= holds a right-to-left script – Arabic, Hebrew, etc).
Were the language something other than Chinese where there were spaces between words we might do this:
<span class="plainlinks">[http://www.example.com "Transcribed Latin text title" <bdi lang="zh">Original language script</bdi> <span class="nowrap"><bdi lang="zh">title</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|...]]</span></span>]</span>
Yeah, not so simple and not merely a matter of an omitted tag.
Why are we not inserting our own closing tags into the proper places, instead of letting Tidy (or whatever) have a guess at it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We do insert our own closing tags. Nothing that I have written here suggests that we aren't writing complete markup. But, I have said that the markup that we are writing is malformed. It is malformed because of the way the code is written. At the particular place where we assemble the title, the script title, the url and the access signal, the code does not know about <bdi>...</bdi> tags. Because of that for most scripts, English will do here for an example, it places the <span class="nowrap"> between <bdi lang="en"> and </bdi>:
{{cite journal/new |title=Transcription title |journal=Journal |script-title=en:A title in some other script |url=http://www.example.com |url-access=subscription}}
The output for that looks like this (coloring added and metadata removed for clarity):
<cite class="citation journal"><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.example.com "Transcription title" <bdi lang="en" >A title in some other <span class="nowrap">script</bdi><span style="padding-left:0.15em">[[File:Lock-red-alt.svg|9px|link=|alt=Paid subscription required|Paid subscription required]]</span></span>]</span>. Journal.</cite>
You can see in the above that the tags are interleaved as I described and that closing tags are present.
From this page's source for the example template we get this (coloring added for clarity):
<span class="plainlinks"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.example.com">"Transcription title" <bdi lang="en">A title in some other <span class="nowrap">script</span><span style="padding-left:0.15em"><img alt="Paid subscription required" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Lock-red-alt.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt.svg.png" title="Paid subscription required" width="9" height="14" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Lock-red-alt.svg/14px-Lock-red-alt.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Lock-red-alt.svg/18px-Lock-red-alt.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813" /></span></bdi></a></span>
In the above, mediawiki has closed the <span class="nowrap"> tag prematurely and the <bdi>...</bdi> tags enclose not only the script title but also the lock image markup. This latter might have detrimental effects. Or not; but the markup is still wrong in part because we gave it malformed markup in the first place even though that markup had all of its closing tags.
Since this seems to require careful code re-write, shouldn't editors be discouraged from using the ISO codes in |script-title= until a solution emerges? There is |language= as an interim fix. (Unless that too presents a problem). 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. I suspect that this particular problem is relatively rare. |language= is not a 'fix' because all that it does is categorize the source as a non-English language source and render the language in the final citation.
That's not it at all. |language= and all other parameters are there to give information to readers about the cited source. In this case, to identify a strange-looking script and provide an important detail about the original source. It is a "fix" only in that sense. The ISO option in |script-title= is a technicality concerning browser rendering. If it breaks the display of the citation for humans. as it does in this case, it has no business there. The focus of CS1 seems hopelessly off. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Because I do not have a solution to this problem and because I would like to update the live modules, I have removed support for nowrapping url access signal icons. The template at the top of this discussion will now render correctly:
Template:Cite compare
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This change also removes code that was added to support this issue. With nowrap gone, the additional code became superfluous.
One of the first two (if the second, with {{abbr}} or similar), or with a tiny icon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Template:User So I take it we need to declare this via |wikidata=Q21706380. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
For my part, I don't see overwhelming support for this. Some support, yes, but also some opposition. When asked how this new parameter would be useful, Editor Pigsonthewing replied, in part:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory which seems contrary to the opinion expressed by Editor Headbomb and seconded by Editor J. Johnson:
I didn't say it would be used to fetch the metadata by the template; but any reader can do so once they know the Wikidata ID; either manually, or by using a tool of their own preference (e.g. this page on Scholia). I don't think either Headbomb (who proposed and supports the addition of the parameter) or J. Johnson objected to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Nothing is proposed about drawing information from Wikidata, this would be treated no differently than |doi= or |mr=. Could it be used to fetch stuff from Wikidata? It could, in theory. We might even decide this is desirable in the future. But for now it's simply about given a link to Wikidata, and there was no objection on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
We did have some objections on the simple addition of a new identifier, and I subscribe to Template:U's comments on that. I do not think all unique identifiers are worth displaying to our readers in citations : we should only include well-established bibliographical identifiers that readers will find useful. I suspect many readers would be annoyed to see yet another unique id they do not care about popping up in citations. Just to be clear, I personally love Qids, but I am just not sure this is the right place for them. As a random reader, what does it bring to me? I can click on that identifier, and see a page with the metadata of that citation on a Wikidata. Fine, but I already had the metadata in the citation. Not everybody is a Linked Open Data enthusiast who will experience a warm and fuzzy feeling only at the sight of a Qid… − Pintoch (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The relevant question is "is this useful in relation to the purpose of a citation?" Citations are cluttered already with IDs and potential IDs (review Help:Citation Style 1#Identifiers). I haven't yet seen a strong case in relation to the purpose of a citation, as opposed to information that might be useful to someone. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A Wikidata ID might constitute an opportunity to move all of those IDs elsewhere and either a) leave users to investigate themselves or b) pull the identifiers from Wikidata automatically with each invocation (even if you don't want to pull an entire citation from Wikidata). --Izno (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Using a Wikidata ID to replace many of the others might be useful, I agree, although there would need to be discussion on which ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory: that's also easy to include in the citation template,
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory: CS1/2 templates are already inter-operable with many tools thanks to COinS… Again I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think people are just very likely to reject this change. We should be very careful not to foster the skepticism that already exists around Wikidata among some Wikipedia editors. Changes bringing more Wikidata integration to Wikipedia should bring real value to the community (e.g. better integration in infoboxes) instead of splashing our Wikidata ids all over the place for no apparent benefit. − Pintoch (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory What? cs1|2 does not support 'loading' any data from anywhere any other than the template's wikisource. What is it that you really mean?
The opportunity, it seems to me, for integration of cs1|2 and wikidata is best begun by making {{cite Q}} a sterling exemplar of correct use of that resource. Alas, I fear that the opportunity is slipping away. {{cite Q}} could be written to enforce best practices to ensure that the underlying data at wikidata are properly curated. Unfortunately, data deficiencies are being 'fixed' by tweaks to the template code rather than the correct fix to the data source. If {{cite Q}} becomes recognized as a quality tool, then perhaps there is a future for wikidata in cs1|2. But, if slipshod craftsmanship of {{cite Q}} is allowed to continue, I don't hold out much hope for wikidata in cs1|2.
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory, I meant "CS1/2 already supports loads of identifiers" (it has support for a lot of identifiers). Sorry about that! − Pintoch (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory but you did not say that the identifier would be a link only; you did not say that the identifier would not be used by the templates to fetch metadata from wikidata. Because this discussion is about modifying cs1|2 to support a wikidata identifier, don't you know that editors might understand your statement to mean: "once implemented, the templates will be able to fetch metadata from wikidata"? Without a statement to the contrary, why shouldn't they draw that conclusion?
What could the purpose of such a parameter be but to set up future fetches from wikidata? The link itself is not something that would be of much use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata contains a lot more metadata than what we include in our citations. ORCIDs for authors for instance. We also typically leave out ISSNs, publishers, etc... when citing journal articles. There are lots of benefits beyond data fetching. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure − so Qids could be useful in COinS, for instance (or even just in wikicode, maybe). But is it really worth displaying that to human readers? − Pintoch (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ec Now there's a novel idea: emit all of the identifiers as metadata in COinS, but potentially leave (some of) them out of the displayed version of the citation. Imzadi 1979→ 15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No, hiding data isn't a novel idea, it's often been suggested, and rejected as harmful, because errors are hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directoryAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Andy, I think we got your point, repeating it verbatim will not make it more convincing. Do you want me to repeat why I think the use cases you are talking about are not useful to the average reader? I can rephrase if that was unclear. But let's avoid being too assertive and have a constructive discussion together! − Pintoch (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if people could stop acting as though no such argument had been presented... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Another reason to include Wikidata IDs is that bots can compare what's in the templates to what's on Wikidata, and alert humans to discrepancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, again I'm not sure that is very useful: many citations already have some id, so we can compare the metadata in the template and the data associated to that id. In the vast majority of cases, the data that is on Wikidata was created from one of these sources by a tool (such as fatameh), so it's not like we are getting access to a new data source. Granted, in some cases, a human editor might have added some information (such as disambiguating an author), but that seems to be very rare for now. There would also be the possibility to transfer authorlinks from Wikipedia citations to Wikidata items (to disambiguate authors there), but again that is something we can already do based on the existing identifiers. In any case, as you point out, these use cases would be for bots, so I do not see the point of displaying the id to human readers.
Another idea: if Scholia is the tool you want to access from Wikipedia, what about putting directly a link to that tool? Instead of adding something like "WD: Q38197781", it would add "Scholia: Q38197781"?
Anyway, I think there is a simple way to trial your idea and show that the community is not going to reject it. Just create an id template, say {{Scholia}}, along the lines of {{doi}} or {{arXiv}}, and add it to citations in the |id= field:
{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.11.007| issn = 0163-8343| volume = 36| issue = 3| pages = 310–317| last1 = Dobscha| first1 = Steven K.| last2 = Denneson| first2 = Lauren M.| last3 = Kovas| first3 = Anne E.| last4 = Corson| first4 = Kathryn| last5 = Helmer| first5 = Drew A.| last6 = Bair| first6 = Matthew J.| title = Primary care clinician responses to positive suicidal ideation risk assessments in veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan| journal = General Hospital Psychiatry| accessdate = 2017-09-01| date = 2014-05-01| url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834313003447 | id={{Scholia|Q38197781}} }}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directoryScholia: Q38197781
If there is wide adoption for this, it will be easy to create the id in CS1/2 and migrate the ids to native parameters. This is what has happened to {{CiteSeerX}}, for instance. CiteSeerX was already used a lot in |id= before it became natively supported, and I migrated the |id={{citeseerx}} to |citeseerx= with a simple regular expression. − Pintoch (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've knocked something up as {{Scholia}}. It lacks error trapping, which will be needed before widespread use, and I'd probably replace the text "Wikidata" with a tiny icon (and maybe do the same for "Scholia", once an icon is avilable). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please don't display any IDs from unreliable sites (whether Wikidata, Scholia, Quora, Findagrave, or whatever else you can come up with). Cite should be used to link to reliable sources and repositories, not user-generated or otherwise unreliable ones. Fram (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Not in favor per Fram. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
All citations are user-generated and no more reliable or unreliable than the person who types them in, whether that be on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Making use of a central repository for sources (such as Wikidata) helps keep citations consistent and reduces typos and transcription errors. We should be very much in favour of efforts to stop typing in a hundred versions of the same cite when one is sufficient. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I also support the idea of a parameter like |wikidata= to specify Wikidata nodes. Since these IDs don't have any established meaning outside WP's context, we would not even have to display the numbers in the citations, a small "Wikidata" icon to click on would be enough. Optionally, the ID could be displayed when hovering over the link. And using CSS it should be possible to hide the links depending on user preferences. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Truthful publication dates
In Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_10#Date_metadataTemplate:U indicates that metadata is emitted for publication dates, and the metadata is meant to be in the COinS format, and a series of references leads to this date format description. That document in turn refers to ISO 8601, which only allows the use of the Gregorian calendar and Proleptic Gregorian calendar. I voiced the concern in the original discussion that any date before Thurday 1 March 1923 should not be emitted as metadata, because that is the date that the last country (Greece) switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.
Citation Style 1 adopts the date formats from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. That manual clearly allows Julian calendar dates: "A date can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as it is (at the minimum) given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar or both, as described below." Quite a few articles about events between 1582 and 1923 contain footnotes stating which calendar is used in the article; automatically putting (without date conversion) dates into the metadata is likely to contradict these footnotes.
All the documentation that any reasonably diligent editor will read indicates Julian calendar publication dates between 1583 and 1923 may be, and in some case should be, in the Julian calendar. The templates at present silently change the meaning of what the editor has written.
Thus I call for the citation templates to not emit metadata for publication dates before 1 March 1923 of the Gregorian calendar, or at the very least, only give the year. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Fixed first link 07:12 29 August 2017 (UT)
Article on multiple pages, continues under a different title
Hi, guys! I would like to cite the material on page 10 of an article that appears on page 1 as "Girl Kisses Boy", but is continued on page 10 as "Boy Cries After Being Kissed". Normally I would use the first title and note "pp. 1, 10" to indicate that the article covers multiple pages. Should I be using the second title and just "p. 10"? Thanks! -Location (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Or treat the 2nd as a subtitle ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean |title=Girl Kisses Boy; Boy Cries After Being Kissed with |page=10? -Location (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
|title= should be the title of the work as it appears in the contents/title page. That is the way most works are indexed and that is the way they can be found. You can use |at="§ Boy Cries After Being Kissed". p. 10. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're talking about a newspaper article, they typically use a shorter or different title for the continuation. At the bottom of the section on page 1, it would say "See 'Boy Cries After Being Kissed', p. 10" or similar and then at the top of the section on page 10, it would say "'Boy Cries After Being Kissed' from p. 10" or similar. Personally, I cite it under the main title on page one and cite the two pages together. Unless the article is especially long, the information being cited should be easily located whether it is on either page. Imzadi 1979→ 16:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. On multiple occasions I have had cited material reverted because someone didn't pay attention to the fact that the cited material within the linked newspaper article was continued on a second page. I guess that not really my fault, but I was hoping to cite in a way to prevent that from happening. Thanks again! -Location (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Language parameter
Hello! There's an apparent oversight with the "language" parameter. There are many journals, proceeding, collective works, etc. that have content in various languages, and the language cited should refer to a specific entry. Currently, when one uses Template:Template or Template:Template with the "chapter" parameter, the "language" parameter appears next to the journal or book title, respectively, whereas it should appear next to the article title or chapter title, because that is where it is relevant. Constantine ✍ 14:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
|language= is not attached to any particular title-holding parameter; readers are, I guess, expected to infer that it applies to the most specific title. For example, if |type= or |series= is included in a {{cite journal}} template:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
There are a bazillion cs1|2 parameters. Figuring out how to render each parameter in its optimal position according to which of the other bazillion parameters are selected for the particular citation is an onerous task; one that will likely never be accomplished.
Granted that there are many parameters, but presumably the order of appearance is related to the order in which the parameter is defined. So why not define it right after title and/or chapter? Alternatively, or in addition, why introduce a "chapter-languange" parameter, analogous to "chapter-url"? Constantine ✍ 18:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Order of appearance and order of definition are wholly unrelated. Parameters are rendered in an order that somewhat resembles the order established by external style guides like Chicago, ALA, etc.
There appears to be no flagging of a date error when {{cite web}} is called from {{Kilde www}}
As an example {{Kilde www|dato=26.-28. April 2002|publisher=Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002}} renders as Template:Kilde www
This should give a date error for the dots in the date and another for the dash. Keith D (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
If one is to believe the 'Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page' list at the bottom of this page, the cs1|2 module suite is not used by that template. This is confirmed by looking at your example this way:
[[:Template:Kilde www]]
and comparing that to this rendering which does use {{cite web}}:
<strong class="error"><span class="scribunto-error" id="mw-scribunto-error-885a3e58">Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory</span></strong>
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
If one looks into the source for {{kilde www}}, there are two mentions of cite web one of which is in a comment but the other is not. That code is sufficiently complex that, without I take time that I haven't got right now, I cannot explain. I would have suggested that a conversation with Editor Jimp (who authored the cite web section of that code would be in order but that editor has not edited since March).
There are relatively few instances of this template so perhaps the right thing to do is to upgrade those instance to use the correct cs1|2 template (the example here might want to be {{cite conference}}).
Template:Ec It appears that cite web is involved only when the template is substed. That template, and other foreign-language citation-translation templates, should be set up to auto-substitute, like {{Internetquelle}}, but the date substitution is broken. I have posted on the template's talk page to see if anyone is willing to fix the date substitution bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, could not work out the code. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Dragon magazine mess
Dragon has a somewhat nonstandard scheme, whereas it has an issue number, a volume number, a number number, and then pages.
E.g.
Dobson, Michael (March 1986). "The Forum" Dragon. #107 Vol. 10 no. 10. p. 6.
Now in the wild, this is often cited as
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Add a hack, so that for |magazine=/|work=/|journal= = The Dragon / Dragon / Dragon Magazine, that we allow both |issue= and |number=
Add |num-issue=yes, letting the template know that those are distinct fields.
Shove both issue/number in |issue= or |number=, i.e. |number=3, #111 to create
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
What should be done? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a template programmer and don't have a strong opinion on the API. But for Dragon and Dragon+ magazines, looking at bibliographic resources such as DragonDex suggests that the issue number and page are what readers really use when locating articles; volume and number aren't even mentioned. So putting the issue number first, as in your 'in the wild" examples, seems the way to go. As a reader, I'm not bothered by the issue number being in the journal field, but understand for database purposes, it is better to have the issue number as a separate field. --Mark viking (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree not one [really] cares about vol/num for Dragon magazine. I suppose we could just purge volume/number from those citation, and do something like
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
But the output is a bit misleading on some of them (if using {{cite magazine}}). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea of permitting both issue and number as separate parameters when both appear (and with prescribed uses for each). This isn't difficult, and I've encountered many circumstances where this would be useful, even going back to periodicals from the late Victorian era. This would also solve the common problem of issues having designations like "Winter" and "Beatles Commemorative Edition" and whatnot. These could go in |issue=, with |number= used for the number within the |volume=, when both |number= and |issue= are used, but |issue= otherwise being treated as an alias of |number=.
Failing that, I guess one can overload the current number/issue parameter: |volume=XI|issue=3 (Summer). Or, to use the first Dragon example: |volume=10|issue=10 (#107); it just seems a little messy and potentially confusing, even at the source level. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I also support that idea, and, like you, have run into many examples in the past, where both an issue and a number were given (and variously used in citations, so it isn't a particularly smart idea for us to ignore one of the parameters). However, in the examples I saw, number was used for a running number (typically counting up from the start of the journal), and issue was a number relative to the current volume. I'm open how to render this in the output, but suggest to use # for the number.
Propose merging {{Cite techreport}} and {{Cite press release}} to {{Cite report}}, and adding a |type= parameter that sets the descriptive wording, e.g. to "report", "technical report", "press release", "whitepaper", "standard", "specification", "form", etc. This would provide for easier and more precise citation of a wide range of governmental and NGO output, without polluting the metadata output of |title=, |work=, or wherever people are trying to randomly insert such things. Also, these descriptive terms should not be capitalized per MOS:CAPS; they're being overcapitalized in the [at least] three redundant templates, with output of "(Technical report)", "(Press release)", and "(Report)", respectively. And the title needs to be either in italics or quotation marks; I would suggest italics (at least as a default), since this is for stand-alone items, though perhaps there could be a switching parameter; some citation styles may demand quotation marks for works under a certain length. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with merging press releases in; those are short-form works that shouldn't be in italics, while reports are typically longer-form works that would have italicized titles. (Personally, I gave up on using cite report and just use {{cite book}} with |type=Report.) As for the descriptive terms, those should remain capitalized. It's quite common for those to be capitalized in the citation styles. Imzadi 1979→ 23:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how long it has been there or what the error means. Here's a direct call to cite interview/new, showing that the problem is in cite interview, not in cite compare:
Template:Ref info
Hi, I originally posted this at the Help Desk but realised here is probably a better venue. I was taking a look at Railways in Melbourne with the intent of cleaning up its citations, and given that there's a fair few CS1 templates I thought that might as well be the eventual style. However, this article cites quite a few pieces of Victorian legislation, and I wasn't sure about the best way to provide a CS1 citation for these sources. There's a template, {{Cite Legislation AU}}, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Happy to do it manually too but I'll need some guidance on the correct style. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that {{Cite Legislation AU}} is not a good fit because it is a source-specific template that is locked to the Austlii website. cs1|2 are not really good at legislative citations because they are general purpose tools that are pretty good at rendering citations for the most commonly cited stuff: books, magazines, newspapers, journals. It can be done, though. Rewriting this one:
{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt3.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/742548D962C75039CA257761002C52FD/$FILE/96-79a050.pdf |title=Rail Management Act 1996 |website=Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents |publisher=Victoria State Government |version=0.50 |date=1 July 2010}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Note that these two citations, while purporting to cite the same thing, do not. The former cites the version of the legislation dated 1 July 2010 while the latter cites the presumably current version dated 12 April 2017. I suspect that {{Cite Legislation AU}} will always do that so important bits of a source might get legislated away in future making the source useless for Wikipedia's purposes.
Similar to the above, ref 33, ref 34, ref 36, ref 38, ref 39, and ref 41 can all use {{cite web}} as I did above. Ref 35 is referencing a Wikipedia article which it should not do so you might want to find a better source.
Template:Re Thanks for all that. I think that's a good point about the dynamic nature of the Austlii citation. (I hadn't even noticed the internal link in 35!) I'll get around to using CW for all of them. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
high risk
So there's this template at the top of several of the various cs1|2 template documentation pages. Except for {{cite web}}, they look more or less like this from {{cite book}}:
{{high-risk| 846000+ }}
Recently Editor Mr. Guye changed the template at {{cite web}} to look like this:
{{High-risk|2622800+ pages, which is ≈ {{#expr:(262280100/{{NUMBEROFPAGES:R}}) round 0}}% of all}}
I reverted because the percentage-use is not really necessary to convey the fact that {{cite web}} is widely used but also because the calculation used to arrive at that percentage is misleading so the result is mostly meaningless. Between then and now Editor Mr. Guye has reverted me with this edit summary: "This is what they do on many "High-risk" templates. It's not just something I decided to invent."
To set the record straight, I have not accused Editor Mr. Guye of inventing anything. I do not know who 'they' are so cannot speak to that part of the argument.
While it is possible, I suppose, to use {{cite web}} in all namespaces, counting all pages in all namespaces misleads editors by artificially reducing the apparent usage in the few namespaces where it matters and foremost among them is article space.
Were Editor Mr. Guye to have chosen a more appropriate base for the calculation I might not have reverted (even though I still think that the statistic is not necessary). For example:
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} → 248
instead of
{{NUMBEROFPAGES}} → 4,355
Rewriting the calculation to use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} gives a better representation of {{cite web}} use where it matters most:
Pretty sure there was a discussion last year about the {{high risk}} template, where it was decided that two significant figures was quite sufficient; so 2600000 is no more precise than necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Edit conflict @Trappist the monk: No comment on the base of the calculations as I just followed the format I saw before, but adding "which is X% of all pages" to certain high-risk templates is done on templates such as {{Class}}, {{Yesno}}, {{WPBannerMeta}} (for that one I updated the calculation, but did not originate its inclusion), {{Portal}}, {{Navbar}} and more. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
But isn't that just the 'because other stuff exists' argument? Further, the cs1|2 templates that are truly 'high-risk' are protected so that the least of them require template editor user rights to edit. so really the {{high-risk}} template doesn't have much value except as a rough indicator of the number of pages transcluding the template.
I agree that the percentage is misleading and the precision excessive (and a recipe for churn). Kanguole 20:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, 2 significant figures seems fine, and a percentage of all articles doesn't seem useful (e.g. if it's a high use biography template the % of all articles isn't meaningful, it's the % of biographies, but we've no certain way to measure that, as the presence of the template itself may be the best measure). Rjwilmsi 07:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Trappist. We don't care that "X% of all pages" is relevant for some templates, which have general applicability (like {{em}}); it's not relevant here and people will abuse the bogus statistic in "citation-warring" arguments. This context should obviously use "X% of all articles" figure (however worded). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Self-published works?
What's best practice for |publisher= if a work is self-published? Do we have a standard form of words to use? In particular, this is for a historian whose first works were self-published, then later reprinted (as distinct, expanded works) by commercial publishers. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:ReTemplate:Tqqi. I hope this helps (if not, it would be nice to improve the documentation page). —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This isn't as a source, this is for a bio about an author and a list of their published works. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Lewis Cozens? Reading that bibliography, the 'author' text at the end doesn't seem to mean anything – almost like an error has occurred; especially since it's not capitalized. Maybe if |location= were included and 'Author' capitalized it would be better. 'Self-published', I think is better because it clearly states that the author is the publisher and doesn't leave the reader guessing.
Agreed, either the word "author" needs to be capitalized in that context, or it should be replaced with "Self-published". Imzadi 1979→ 03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I use "self-published" (or "Self-published", depending on the template output), for pretty much exactly the reason Trappist identifies. There are lots of things that various external citation styles do that we do not (except when some WP:CITEVAR nut is trying desperately to mimic an external style down to the character, which borders on a WP:NOTHERE pastime and generally leads to repeated WP:OWN-style disputes). Most of those quirks are based on saving space to cut down printing cost, and are also conventions for a very narrow audience who all cite exactly the same way following the same rulebook. Neither of these apply here. We should use plain and unambiguous English, especially when doing so interfaces directly with one of the core content policies. WP is actually special, and it's fine for us to do special things, within our own context.
Using "author" in this position doesn't signal what it's intended to; it tells the reader that the person is the author, versus editor, illustrator, or whatever; not that they're self-publishing. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Quotation language
When the quotation is not in English, should the argument to the quote parameter be in the original language or translated? The title parameter has a trans-title counterpart and so perhaps quote should have a trans-quote equivalent. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I have always believed that when a quote is important enough to be considered for |quote= it is important enough to have its own end note and that end note cited. So, from that, I would say: quote in the original language and provide a reliably sourced translation in the same end note then cite both. Last time I was paying any attention to the topic of translations, the consensus was that machine translations are not considered reliable. Others will likely disagree with me.
A long while back someone told me that |quote= was a convenience for providing the exact text of the source that is being paraphrased (here, translated) in the article. I have two problems with that. First, as Trappist says, if it's that important then it should be presented (perhaps even discussed) in the note. (As to "
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory", I guess you're thinking of the original and the translation. But both sources can be, and should be, handled in the same note. See below.) But quotations of text should not be in the full citation, because that is about the source, not whatever part is being used in the article. In that sense, |quote= is an unuseful parameter, and ought to be deprecated. It derives from this deep confusion and confounding of "note" with "citation".
(In contrast, we do have |trans-title= because a title does identify a source, and either the original foreign language title of an English translation, or an English translation of the foreign language title, is important for identifying a source.)
I think what we agree on is that something like " ... class<ref> {cite|...|quote=Klass}</ref>" is better handled as " ... class<ref> {cite|...} "Klass".</ref>". Or for citing both a translation and the original, where short cites are being used: " ... class<ref>{Harv|Smith|2000|p=84}. "Klass" in the original.{Harv|Ivanoff|1988|p=76}.</ref>" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to mention that analogous to the situation described here (citing original text and its translation) is the citation of a primary source that is the original and well-known source of some important item, along with a secondary source that attests that the primary source is the original, etc., and perhaps explains it or provides context. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In contrast to what has been broadbrought forward above, I think that it is not our business to decide if a quote should be given as part of a citation, separately or not at all. It is a frequently used feature, so obviously editors find it convenient, useful and suitable.
For those cases, where the article editors use the |quote= parameter, we should also provide optional parameters |script-quote= and |trans-quote= in order to support editors in the best possible way.
When I use the |quote= parameter and want to give both the original text as well as a translation, I am at present forced to put both into the |quote= parameter. My personal style is to append the translation to the original text and put it in [square brackets] - similar to how |title= and |trans-title= are rendered. However, I am not happy with this solution as it lumps together two distinct pieces of information, and since the formatting is left to the editor rather than the template, it does not follow the fundamental principle of keeping content and presentation separate, and it makes it impossible for machines to properly parse the contents (and possibly process the original and the translation differently) later on. (Some reasons for why it might be useful to process strings differently might be down to future user preferences to mute translations if the reader is able to read the original language, to support screen readers, or to ease the reuse of quotes in external databases.)
Since the solution to this problem (which hasn't been broadbrought forward for the first time) is to just provide another parameter and concat the strings internally in the template (instead of letting the editors do it), it would be trivially easy to implement.
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory I do not think that these same editors have ever really thought about it; it is there, they use it, and I would guess that they do this in the belief that we have thought about it.
The purpose of a citation is to identify the source that supports Wikipedia-article content. It is not the purpose of a citation to be a surrogate for that source. If you require content and presentation to be separate, why do you not also require source-content to be separate from source-identification?
Just as an experiment at kn:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation in the debug console I wrote:
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+%a+%s+%d%d%d%d')
that should have matched but didn't. The %a+ should match one or more unicode letters so apparently ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ (U+0CB8 U+0CC6 U+0CAA U+0CCD U+0C9F U+0CC6 U+0C82 U+0CAC U+0CB0 U+0CCD) has stuff that isn't letters in it. This worked:
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+[%D%S]+%s+%d%d%d%d')
where [%D%S]+ matches one or more of anything that isn't digits and spaces.
elseif 'access-date'==k then -- if the parameter is |date=
-- good_date = check_date (v, nil, true); -- go test the date; nil is a placeholder; true is the test_accessdate flag
leaves good_datefalse which causes the access-date test to fail even if |access-date=2017-09-26 is used. So, fix that first.
Then, the challenge is going to be to rewrite portions of the module to understand Kannada months and then see what other changes are needed.
For {{cite journal}} and friends, should we use |pages=2041–2043 or |pages=2041–43? Last year, MOS:DATERANGE determined that full years should (almost) always be used for the end of year-ranges, but MOS:NUM is silent about the more general idea of ranges and I can't find any statement in the docs for the various citation templates about it. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably mute on the subject because there is little need to micromanage. If one were in need of saving ink or were attempting to squeeze the citation into the last available space on a crowded page, then truncation would be an option to accomplish those goals. But, we don't use ink, and space is not a problem. And, for some, reading anything that's truncated causes a stutter in the flow.
I think there is no one citation style for page ranges, and it probably depends on the conventions of the field. The Chicago manual of style has one such set of rules about page range style. As Trappist says, publishers cared about good compression for printing, but we don't have the problem here. Use what you think is best. --Mark viking (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above, consistency within the same article is probably more important. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The same logic applies to page number ranges, obviously. The problem with things like "2943–76" is they are not immediately parseable for what they're intended to be, and worse yet, they can often coincide with numeric dates, e.g. "1902–11" (remember that many fonts do not clearly distinguish - and –). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Also, they are neither used nor understood everywhere. Since our MOS advises against using abbreviations unless they can be expected to be understood by anyone, and also because "Wikipedia is not paper", I replace such abbreviated page ranges by their expanded form when I run into them - and so far noone ever complained. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Spacing
Is it just me, or is the spacing in citations suddenly broken? It seems to be adding multiple spaces after the title. Although now that I look around, it seems to be doing it in templated external links as well. --tronvillain (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not extra spacing, it's spacing that was always there for the external link icon to be dropped into - but at the moment, there is a problem with the external link icons, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disappearing icons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks. --tronvillain (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sections with cite web
OK, this has been gone over before. {{cite web}} does not recognise either |chapter= or |section=. Here's an article, with a ref as follows:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
The person adding that ref has stuffed three distinct pieces of information into the |title= parameter. Clearly, I can move the page number to the |page= parameter; what I also want to do is move the heading "Ding-ding and away" (which is not part of the document title) into a separate parameter - but both |chapter= and |section= are unrecognised by {{cite web}}. I also do not wish to pollute |page= - which incidentally should be |pages=5–6 as it's not all on one page. So I rearranged it as:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Please can we avoid enforcing these arbitrary restrictions which create inconveniences. There is a similar issue with most of the other refs in that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The easiest solution (and one which works in some other cases where "cite X" templates impose restrictions) is to use {{citation |mode=cs1 ...}}:
{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=Things that make us stupid |contribution=Ding-ding and away |page=5 |url=https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/stupid.pdf |accessdate=2017-01-10}} → Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
There's always a trade-off between flexibility and error-checking; the "cite X" templates can be better at error-checking and enforcing consistency because they "know" the kind of citation being handled, whereas the "citation" template is more generic, but in a very few cases doesn't have enough information to work correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting to me that you choose to damn cs1|2, and {{cite web}} in particular, for what would appear to be a fundamental citation failure in that article. The article cites Guttmann's power-point slides from a talk given at the AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference held 18–23 May 2008 in Gold Coast, Australia. Australia. Surely a Wikipedia-notable slang term that refers to English train and station personnel would be documented in English sources, most notably the English press – especially when, in 1979, seven people died.
If Guttmann is the only source, use of a different cs1 template might be in order, perhaps this:
{{cite conference |last=Guttmann |first=Peter |title=Things that Make us Stupid |section-url=https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/stupid.pdf#page=5 |access-date=2017-01-10 |pages=5–6 |section=Ding-ding, and Away! |conference=AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference |date=18–23 May 2008 |location=Gold Coast, Australia |via=University of Auckland}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
I generally favor {citation} as handier and avoiding some of these pettifogging gotchas. But many, many editors use {cite web}, so it is pertinent to ask: why does {cite web} ignore |chapter= and |section=? (Are those too "book-like"??) It is quite common for web pages to have sections (which should be citeable), and not a few also have chapters. (E.g., here.) That kind of data facilitates verification, so why are they ignored? Alternately: why do they require extra treatment with obscure parameters? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think citation and cite x are set up pretty much backward. The convention outside Wikipedia when citations are in endnotes is to separate the elements with commas. When parenthetical referencing is used, the usual convention is to use a period as a separator in the full bibliography items. If were using templates, and all citations are in endnotes, we done need ref = harv as the default. If we're using parenthetical referencing, we do want ref = harv as the default. So the default of ref = harv should be associated with cite x and not citation, but the reverse is how it's actually set up. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory doesn't appear to actually work reliably:
{{Citation | title = Debate club |mode=cs1 |contribution= Broken windows | url = http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_brokenwindows1005.msp | newspaper = Legal Affairs}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Generates the same red error with or without |mode=cs1. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: that's a different case. Now you're trying to have a 'three level' citation: contribution/chapter, title and newspaper. This only works when the top level is "encyclopedia", not when it's newspaper/work/website. (Try changing |newspaper= to |encyclopedia=.) The underlying reason is the way |title= is treated: e.g. it's the 'top level' for a book, but the 'second level' for a journal article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet we frequently need three-level citations. I guess I'll just go back to using |at= to get the desired result. I report this one because I was trying to fix a red template error I encountered in an article. I forget where it was. I guess it will just remain there forever, unless these templates are adjusted to do what people need them to do instead of what some confused and palimpsestuous flowchart is forcing them to do. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Debate club appears to be a regular part of the Legal Affairs magazine, in which case, perhaps |department= applies:
{{Citation |department=Debate club |mode=cs1 |title=Broken windows |url=http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_brokenwindows1005.msp |magazine=Legal Affairs}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
I agree that lack of support for these parameters in {{Cite web}} and some other templates is annoying and is directly causing problems; I, too, have to spend an inordinate amount of time fixing mal-citatations that try to shoe-horn non-title information into |title=. Since hardly anyone ever looks for and fixes these things, that means that there's an order of magnitude or two or three more such errors than people like me and RedRose64 take the time to repair. It behooves those insistent on metadata output that most of us just DGaF about or at most consider a very back-seat purpose of these templates, to set the templates up so that we can actually use them easily. For myself, I sometimes fix this with |at= (depends on what non-title info is being inserted into |title=), but there's not a consistent approach. Just letting people use |section= and |chapter= makes the most sense and enhances inter-template conversion/correction. (See also thread below about |work= in {{Cite book}}). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've long wanted to be able to create 'three level' citations more freely using the templates, but the consensus here has been against it. You can, of course, always use plain text, which is necessary in other cases (e.g. date formats recommended by the source but not supported by the templates, like "2010 onwards"). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Said something about this above [8]. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Cite book: Treat |work as synonym of |title in absence of the latter
It's good that we can do something like
{{cite book |title=International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature |edition=3rd |last1=Weber |first1=H. E |last2=Moravec |first2=J. |last3=Theurillat |first3=J.-P. |work=Journal of Vegetation Science |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=739–768 |date=October 2000 |publisher=International Association for Vegetation Science / Opulus Press |location=Uppsala |doi=10.2307/3236580 |url= http://www.geobotany.org/library/pubs/WeberHE2000_jvs_739-768.pdf}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
to handle cases where a stand-alone work exists as a book but has also been published in a journal and we're citing that version of it.
However, it's annoying that I can't fix a mal-citation of the form:
{{cite journal |title=Actually a Chapter |work=Actually a Book |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2017}}
by simply changing "journal" to "book" and "title" to "chapter".
The |work= parameter should be aliased by default to the main work title, in every template in this family, even if we permit it to do other things if |title= is also specified in some cases. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Pointless whitespace error
The error "line feed character in |publisher= at position 26" is not cool. Templates are supposed to be whitespace-agnostic, and if the template can detect the presence of an LF it can also strip it out for metadata purposes. This is an impediment to copy-pasting source details. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Line feeds create many more issues than just those concerning metadata, and they should be fixed at the wikitext level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Somehow WP has failed to fall apart as the result of LFs being present, which they often can be. This is not a citation issue, and the citation template should not be barfing on cite data or metadata to try to force people to fix something they can't even see. The averaged editor probably doesn't even know what an LF is. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
WP also has also failed to fall apart as the result of vandalism. Doesn't mean vandalism shouldn't be fixed. Likewise for stray line feeds which can cause both rendering accessibility issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a WP:GREATWRONGS argument. Cite templates are not the place to try to do anti-LF enforcement. Way, way out of scope. It's abusing a core function and necessity of the encyclopedia (citing sources) to try to arm-twist people into doing geek work for which many of them are not competent. Don't insert work- or behavior-coercion "riders" into basic functionality templates. Have a bot look for LFs and remove them. This is what we have bots for. Also, your analogy is false; WP has failed to fall apart at the hands of vandals because and only because of the constant work a large number of anti-vandals. There is no huge cadre of anti-LF editors, and WP works just fine without one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Must say that this is a very useful feature of the templates as it catches many vandal edits as does the date error messages. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bots can certainly assist in cleanup, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be flagged in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
As an average editor who learned what an LF was precisely because of this error, I agree that it's beyond the fixing capacity of many. That said, it is an error that ought to be identified because an invisible character in a URL is still a character and is contaminating the usefulness of the information. I see it as similar to date errors: while potentially difficult/unintuitive to fix, it causes problems, and so it needs to be identified. Leave the error message and get the bot to do its work. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It has been but, alas, there is a related problem for which I have not yet found a solution. And because real-life has been in the way these past months.
missing error handlers for cite bioRxiv and cite citeseerx
It somehow escaped us to include the error handlers for the cases where {{cite bioRxiv}} and {{cite citeseerx}} are missing their respective parameters |biorxiv= and |citeseerx=. That oversight has been remedied in the sandbox:
Can |collaboration-link= be made, analogous to |author-link=, etc.? Example @ K2K experiment. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Why? The purpose of |author-link= is to provide a way of linking a |last=, |first= pair because the two cannot be wikilinked. But, |collaboration= can be wikilinked:
{{cite journal
|author = M. H. Ahn
|collaboration=[[K2K experiment#Collaboration|K2K Collaboration]]
|date = 2006
|title = Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment
|journal = [[Physical Review D]]
|volume = 74|pages = 072003
|doi = 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003
|id =
|arxiv=hep-ex/0606032
|bibcode = 2006PhRvD..74g2003A
|issue = 7 }}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Ahh, my force of habit. Thanks! ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Only in plain text
I need to add the <ref></ref> myself afterwards?! — fortunavelut luna 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want your reference to be in a footnote, yes. There are many cases where citations should not be in footnotes (for instance, when they are part of a separate list of references at the end of an article and the footnotes only give short links to them), so it would be a bad idea to bundle the footnoting code into the citation templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Reply Right, thanks a lot; I wanted to use the {{cite thesis}} ref within the article (that would explain why it doesn't have a parameter for page nos, perhaps?), but as I said, it didn't like it! — fortunavelut luna 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
It appears to need a three digit absolute magnitude value or greater. This is clearly an error in the processor.
-- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This topic is related to this citation? Forgive my skepticism, but I suspect that you are not directly citing a first century CE copy of Metamorphoses, but are citing a rather more recent edition. That being the case, then the appropriate date for the citation would be the date of the source that you consulted. At en.wiki, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies.
Photographs of published Latin works do exist, and there have been digitization efforts as well. So, accessing such, would the date the work was digitized or photographed be your "source date" ? This is a generalized query, since I've used old Latin sources for other things in the past (though with triple or quadruple digit years) I would expect that the citation template should work for older dates as well. Some Wikipedian editors can read Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Chinese, so ancient documents are accessible to some of the general population of editors here at Wikipedia, thus the citation template should be able to support this editor population. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless you're literally at a museum looking at manuscripts/tablets/whatever dating from antiquity, I don't see how there would be an issue. Can you give an example where the date of publication (not the date of authorship) of a source you cite would be in the double digits?
Edit: Personally for a well known text such at the Metamorphoses you can probably just do
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
That's generally how I've works like the CMoS say to cite classical works unless it really matters which edition you're using, e.g., if there's some debate as to the original text. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not deny that facsimiles of sources exist nor that there are editors here who can read them. Facsimiles abound on the internet:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
But apparently, there are no surviving first-century manuscripts of Metamorphoses (so says the en.wiki article). The lack of surviving first-century manuscripts and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT suggest that citing Metamorphoses and using |year=8 AD is inappropriate. Cite the source that you read.
When the cs1|2 templates were first written, there were technical reasons for limiting minimum |year= values to three digits. While the technical limitation no-longer applies because of new technology, the constraint was left in and, but for the occasional case like the one in hand, there has been little call to extend date-handling support to cover all time. When the scholars of ancient texts take up their pitchforks and torches and clamber for ancient-date support in cs1|2, we can certainly consider it.
Since Chinese over the last 2000 years is readable to modern Chinese readership, if they've been trained to read Classical Chinese (ie. 19th century Chinese and before) I would say that such sourcing would be expected for some topics. Or if you're a Brahmin and quoting Sanskrit sources of the past 3000 years. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, the year something was originally written is distinct from the year of publication of the source the editor got the text from. Umimmak (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There are still good reasons to mark three-digit years as an error. Most three-digit years, like "year=207", are typos for four-digit years, like "year=2017". The error check finds these frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be able to be specified with an override of some sort, like providing "BCE" or "AD" in the parameter ? Or a plus or a minus sign? (ie. French-style dates with minus-signs for BC dates) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
|orig-year= works well for citing the original publication dates of older works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directoryUmimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ cite book |orig-year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
{{ cite book |orig-year= 8|year= AD 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
That "|orig-year=" indeed does not provide the year unless "|year=" is specified per Umimask. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
cite collection
Would it be possible to get a sub-class of cite encyclopedia for citing collections that are not encyclopedias? Perhaps "cite collection"? I realize there is no technical reason for this, but the semantic context is currently being obscured and that is a Bad Thing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Rather than everyone imagining what it is that they think that you mean, perhaps you could supplement your request with a real-life (not contrived) example?
Just use a redirect like {{Cite contribution}} if you are uncomfortable with the template name. Or make a new redirect at {{Cite collection}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Special formatting for lists of works by an author.
This is a feature request. In lists of works by the subject of an article, eg. Andrea Gallo#Works, I tend to use author-mask=1 so the date comes first. In works with more than one author, I wish there was a parameter for {{cite}} which would show the date first and then list secondary authors prefixed by "with" after the date. Thank you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
May I point out that the first entry in any masked list should have the full citation reference, including the name of the author. Otherwise it is unclear what exactly you are masking. This holds for works by an article's subject as well, even when it is obvious who the author is. Secondly, in most citation applications, works are universally indexed by author(s) first (though some specialized systems may index by title/date rather than author/date). Since you decided to use CS1 to populate this list (a good idea, imo), the style should be followed. If this style doesn't suit your needs, I suggest formatting the list differently, without the strictures of CS1. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Cite book problem
Does anyone know what is wrong with this?
{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End|chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}
which produces two errors:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
I don't know, but retyping the chapter title (without changing the chapter URL) seems to have fixed it:
{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End|chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Template:U, thank you! I wonder whether there was an invisible character in the chapter title. SarahSV(talk) 00:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
U+200B zero-width space. With your cursor highlight the 'E' in 'End'. Walk the highlight one character at a time to the right. You will notice that it takes an extra step to get from the 'd' in 'End' to the chapter's closing double quote character. And, interestingly enough, that is position 49 in the |chapter= parameter value, just as the error message said. Isn't that amazing?
Template:Re (EC) There was one yes End<INVISIBLECHARACTER>|chapter-url. You can find it by counting 49 character positions in |chapter=. Put your cursor there, hit delete. Nothing will apparently happen, but you've deleted the invisible character. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. SarahSV(talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
5-Digit volume numbers not rendered in boldface by ((cite book))
Some would like volume bolding to go away; some would like to extend it to all characters; some would like another parameter that controls bolding. We have not been able to reach a consensus to change its current rendering.
Through the years, this has been remarked on by normal people. There is no reasoning (that makes any sense logically, visually, or programmatically), for the font weight to depend on the variable's length. It runs counter to guidelines for consistency and uniformity, and keeps bringing people here to ask the same questions. I would withhold any thanks in advance. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that bolding should be consistently enforced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't care much if volumes are displayed in bold or not, but I do think that the output style should be consistent regardless of the data entered. Since shorter volume numbers are the common case, I think, longer volumes should follow that style as well. If that would create bad looking citations somewhere, people will start to complain sooner or later. This might lead to a discussion to remove boldface. Regardless of its outcome, we'd have achieved consistency at least. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Were it up to me, I'd drop the boldfacing and prefix "Vol." or "vol." ahead of volume numbers. A single boldface number in the middle of a citation without any other clue as to its meaning isn't very helpful to readers who come from outside of the segment of academia that uses boldface numbers. (Ditto the formatting in {{cite journal}}; a little verbosity so that things are very clear for our readers is a good thing.) On that basis, when I use |volume= in {{cite book}}, I manually insert "vol.", which bypasses the boldfacing. Since that's 5 characters, plus the numbers, if we switched the default to bold up to 5 and drop the bold on 6+, my desired template behavior would still work properly. Imzadi 1979→ 21:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
automatic |format=pdf
In the wild I discovered a reference that rendered with the (PDF) annotation but the url did not point to a pdf file. Module:Citation/CS1 is confused by a url that ends '.pdf.html'.
Template:Cite compare
Fixed in the sandbox.
Example of book with journal-like properties, chapter authors and issue plus number indicators
Interesting example of a (hardcopy) book (with ISBN), which is part of a book series (with ISSN) and has volume, issue and number indicators (similar to a journal). Also, it contains at least one chapter by a pair of authors completely different from those authors responsible for the remainder of the book (and listed on the front cover) and the series editor. The volume number (V) is incremented every year, the issue number (I) is incremented for each book published in that year in the series (just like in a journal, except for that the number of issues in a year seems to be variable), and the number (N) is apparently a running number counting up from the first book in that publisher's series (the publisher publishes multiple series of books). So, I need either or both the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} template to support something like this:
Steinbach, Bernd; Posthoff, Christian. Chapter 3: Boolean Differential Calculus. In: Sasao, Tsutomu; Butler, Jon T. (2010-01-15). Thornton, Mitchell A., ed. "Progress in Applications of Boolean Functions". Synthesis Lectures on Digital Circuits and Systems. 4 (1) #26 (1st ed.). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers: 55–78. ISBN 978-1-60845-181-4. ISSN 1932-3166.
Issues with the current template implementation:
The {{cite journal}} template does not support the |chapter= parameter. This is an artificial restriction based on the invalid assumption that there are no chapters in journal articles. Over the years, a lot of examples have been brought forward in older discussions showing that some longer journal articles do have chapters, and that it can be necessary to cite them individually. Let's fix this.
Also, it is necessary to support either |series= or |work= in parallel to |chapter=.
Since chapter author(s) are not always the same as the author(s) listed as article or book author(s) on the front, it is necessary to support a set of optional |chapter-author*= parameters when |chapter= is given as well. In some cases this can be worked around by abusing the |editor*= parameters to specify the book authors but the given example even has a series editor, so the |editor*= parameters are needed for him.
The {{cite book}} template currently ignores the |issue= and |number= parameters - but it should support them.
The {{cite journal}} template supports them, but handles both of them the same and does not allow both to be specified at the same time. Instead, it should allow both to be specified at the same time and (only) then use |issue= as a parameter for volume-specific numbers and |number= for independent numbers. I suggest to render this as:
V (I) #N
(If both issue and number cannot be put into meta-data at the same time, the number should be ignored in the meta-data (at least for the time being) but still be shown in the visual output.)
This would be a fully-backward compatible extension to the currently supported forms
Yeah I agree, it'd be nice to have issue number for books; right now a workaround is just to do {{citation|mode=cs1|...}}, which seems to allow more options. I've also been using "contribution" if the author of a chapter isn't the author (not editor) of the rest of the book. Umimmak (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I would just do this and move on:
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
That certainly gives readers enough information to be able to definitively locate the source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Concur. cs1|2 is a general purpose citation tool that is adequate to the needs of most citation requirements. It works quite well in that role. Being a general purpose tool prevents it from being a specialized, handle-all-citation-needs tool.
An editor at kn.wiki desires to fix the cs1|2 modules there; the original post about that is here.
Some months ago I tweaked the module suite at ht.wiki so that it worked correctly and as part of that added support for simple replacement of English month names with the appropriate Haitian Creole month names. Because date support at kn.wiki will have similar problems and because I would prefer to not have multiple variations of the base code at each different wiki (if it can be avoided) I have implemented the ht.wiki tweaks in the en.wiki sandbox. These changes should make it easier for other wikis to maintain currency with the en.wiki module suite.
I think EDTF is a good idea, but in order to not confuse bots trying to make sense of the |date= parameter, perhaps it should be implemented as a new parameter like |edtf-date= or similar. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
If a bot is able to find and properly evaluate |edtf-date= it can find and properly evaluate |date= else it has no business being a bot.
;-) Yes, of course. I didn't see much opposition against this format (after all, it's optional), but since you mentioned a lack of support, it was my assumption that the only possible reason not to support such an extension would be that it would somehow interfere with existing functionality here or elsewhere. Hence the idea of putting it into a separate parameter (for now), so we can be sure that it will be interpreted only by bots, spyders (and humans) who know how to interpret it, thereby eliminating the risk that these strings would end up in databases uninterpreted or even interpreted incorrectly. Well, that happens with other unknown date formats as well, so this is not a strong argument. Personally, I'm not against supporting EDTF in the |date= parameter. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't like having unused code lying about in the module suite. If we need it sometime in future, we can troll through the old versions and get it back. Because Citoid doesn't now, and as far as I can see from recent posts at Template:Phab, may never support edtf, I don't see a need at present to support it.
edtf is now part of ISO DIS 8601 2016. Because of that, and because we may someday return to this topic, I have changed the season numbering that Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox uses to internally represent seasons. This change does not mean that suddenly |date=2017-23 is an acceptable numeric date that means Autumn 2017. We could do that but this change does not consider that.
This change does remove the season-order checking because there are cases like this double issue where |date=Spring–Winter 1971 is appropriate.
In Nancy Temkin I have a source whose authors are "National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on Sports-Related Concussions in Youth", which I have placed into the |author= parameter. This puts the article into an inappropriate maintenance category, Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. It is not a multiple-name author list; it is a single institutional author name that happens to have commas in it. How do I avoid the maintenance category and the inevitable bot mangling of this name? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You might consider rewriting the citation in the form that the publisher recommends on this page:
{{citation |page=2037 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DBafAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2037 |title=Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture |author=Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2014 |isbn=9780309288033}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
The publisher's recommendation seems to match the attribution stated on the cover image of the Google books facsimile except that it leaves off 'of the National Academies'.
Were it me, I'd write |author=Institute of Medicine|author2=National Research Council because they are separate entities.
The display of |script-title= and |title= is partially mixed up.
What defines and therefore what should be displayed as the title of the work is always what is printed on the book or article itself (this holds true in general, even if the title is written in a foreign script). If known and necessary, it is helpful to also display transliterations and translations, however, since neither of them is without ambiguities (several transliteration systems existed and continue to exist, and translations are even more subject to interpretation) and they are therefore only weak identifiers, this is only auxiliary information, not authorative.
If only one of the two parameters is given, the {{cite journal}} template displays them as title, which is fine. However, if both are given at the same time, the template displays the actual title (then given in |script-title=) only as secondary information (after the transliteration in quotes) thereby creating the invalid impression that the transliterated title would be the actual title. Example:
{{cite journal |author-first=А. Д. |author-last=Таланцев |script-title=ru:б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов |title=Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov |language=Russian |trans-title=On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators |journal=Автоматика и телемеханика |volume=20 |number=7 |date=1959 |pages=898–907}}
erroneously renders as:
Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov" б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.
but should instead render as (round brackets added by me as another suggestion):
Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов" (Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov) [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.
There's another (only remotely related) issue: If only a |trans-title= is given, but neither |script-title= nor |title=, the template does not display a title at all. While this is not a hard error, I think it would be beneficial if the translation gets displayed anyway (in [brackets], of course), perhaps with an edit-time warning "Missing title parameter!" or similar. This would make it easier for editors to identify the actual source and retrofit the actual title.
Your view on the presentation of titles is not shared by The Chicago Manual of Style, which suggests that original titles in Chinese or Japanese characters be placed after the romanized title. (It does not suggest original titles for other non-Latin scripts.) Nor is it plausible that anyone would mistake a romanized title placed before a script title for the original title – the only reason to include a title in a non-Latin script would be if it were the original title. Kanguole 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out CMOS' suggestions for Chinese and Japanese titles, I wasn't aware of them.
While I still find it somewhat counter-intuitive to not put the most authorative title first, and, according to the old thread, I'm not alone with that opinion, following an established standard is more important (unless there were strong reasons to not follow it). So, I agree with you that the order of titles should remain:
What I did not find addressed in the other thread is the transliterated title to be put in "quotes". Somehow, I associate those quotes with the original title. So, with both |script-title= and |title= given, wouldn't it be better if the quotes were moved to the Cyrillic title? Like in:
Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov "б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов" [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.
In some Asian scripts, the quotes could be replaced by corner brackets etc.
Only in absence of |script-title= the quotes should fall back to the "next-best" title representation in |title=.
In the Chinese and Japanese examples given in CMOS, the romanized titles are surrounded by quote marks, and the original titles are unadorned. Kanguole 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
And that is how {{cite journal}} renders titles that include |script-title=:
{{cite journal |title=Romanized Title |script-title=Script Title |trans-title=Trans Title}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
And also how {{cite book}} renders chapter titles that include |script-chapter=:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Romanized Chapter |script-chapter=Script Chapter |trans-chapter=Trans Chapter}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Similarly, for titles that would be italicized:
{{cite book |title=Romanized Title |script-title=Script Title |trans-title=Trans Chapter}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Yes indeed, many thanks! Using virtual editor- and trying to use the short notation. If it's used by inserting as a template, then the result is ----->
No idea. Except that the {{sfn}} template is on its own line (shouldn't be), I don't see what you are seeing in the current article. That makes me suspect VE (an abomination in my opinion – full disclosure here) or possibly, though unlikely, your browser. Perhaps raise this issue at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.
Many thanks Trappist the monk. Yes, I'l be returning to BASIC model at least in order to finish the blooming thing off. The annoying thing about VE (well one of them perhaps) is that it lures one in with how easy certain things are... and then does something like this to waste an hour of one's ******* editing time: FFS. Thanks for your advice, anyway! Take care. — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Volume, issue, article, and page numbers
Some academic journals, especially on-line ones, maintain a volume/issue numbering, but no longer assign sequential page numbers within issues. Rather, each article has a number, and its page numbers start at 1.
For example, consider
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
It's volume 95, issue 8, article number 082002, pages 1 through 17. This journal actually numbers the pages 082002-1 through 082002-17, but there are others which do not. Normally, I abuse the "page number" parameter for the article number, but it becomes awkward if I'd like to cite a particular page of an article. Is there a suggested way to deal with this? (One is to take the page number out of the citation template and use {{Rp}}.) 104.153.72.218 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Do it the usual way. If you want to cite page 15 specifically, do
See p. 082002-15 in Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Or Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikify journal based on ISSN
Have we reached the point with Wikidata where we can have the citation template auto-magically link the publication's dedicated WP article (if one exists) based on the citation's ISSN parameter? (E.g., if the publication param is not already wikified, lookup ISSN at Wikidata; if affiliated with a publication that has an enwp page, link said enwp page.) This would save writers like me a whole lot of lookup time. czar 20:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favor of automatically linking them because if I cite the same publication multiple times, only the first footnote would/should be linked, and the others would not/should not be linked in keeping with the idea behind WP:OVERLINK. Additionally, not everyone likes to wikilink parts of a footnote, and those wishes should be accommodated. Imzadi 1979→ 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't being favour of it because that means cluttering our articles with virtually pointless ISSNs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the ISSNs are pointless, quite to the contrary. Linking to an ISSN allows a reader to easily search WorldCat for a library that contains the journal or newspaper, whether it is in print or on microfilm. I honestly wish more libraries would link into WorldCat fore precisely that reason: discoverability, hopefully of local physical copies. Imzadi 1979→ 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. ISSNs are often quite useful. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I wrote virtually pointless, not absolutely pointless. The vast majority of people go to their local library to find this stuff. If the library doesn't have it, the librarians track it down and make arrangements to get a copy of the journal article. If you want to call a library in Sweden yourself to get a copy of Filosofisk Tidskrift, I suppose you're always free to do so. But I don't know who would bother doing that.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The documentation for Cite journal seems incorrect. It describes the possibility of wikilinking the title parameter, but not the journal parameter. But Wikipedia is far more likely to have an article about a journal than an individual article from a journal. I would think the same would apply to Wikidata items. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
work: Name of the source periodical; may be wikilinked if relevant. Displays in italics. Aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website. (emphasis added)
Yep, more likely to be Wikipedia articles about a journal than about a journal article. Documentation can always be made better. Perhaps you could do something about that?
Not related to cite templates, but Czar's question reminds me of an old project idea to create redirects in the form "ISSN nnnn-nnnn" for all articles about journals for which we know the corresponding ISSNs. Likewise, for all articles about books, we could create redirects in the form "ISBN n"* (in the various established formats with and without hyphens) for all known ISBN numbers associated with the corresponding book. This would allow users to enter an ISSN or ISBN into the search box and be redirected to the corresponding article. Obviously, this task would have to be bot-assisted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Above suggestion up your alley regarding ISSNs?
@Matthiaspaul: You probably could do that, but it seems like filling out Wikidata with ISBN linkage would be better than filling in Wikipedia use. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That said, there are some feature requests related to Booksources on Phabricator that might also be relevant; notably phab:T5663. --Izno (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
ISSNs are not limited to journals. Several other types of serial works may use the identifier. Also, journals may have different ISSNs depending on media (print/digital etc.); different Series of the same journal (or other work, but journals are more likely to have distinct Series) may have different ISSNs. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this publisher produces books that have both an ISBN and an ISSN, for example
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
The idea is that since the book is updated annually, and the ISBN must necessarily change for each new edition, the ISSN is a constant which may be used to order the current edition without knowing the ISBN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Imzadi, above. Also: wikilinking a publication every time it is cited would surely be over-linking, right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not overlinking. Overlinking applies to article text, not references. If you click on reference [129], citing Physical Review Letters, you don't care that Physical Review Letters was already linked in reference 26. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
If "overlinking" applies only to article text, why is it so stiffly opposed in "See also" sections? How is it that replication of a link is a problem in the article text but not in the sources? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not overlinking in the sense of WP:OVERLINK. The "see also" section is to cover things that haven't been covered by the main article. See WP:SEEALSO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I have always considered "See also" as a convenience for the reader in collecting all of the principal related topics in one spot, not just the ones not buried in the text somewhere. But never mind that.
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory", without quantifying "excessive". At the bottom – at MOS:DUPLINK – it says that "
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory" (emphasis in the original), then makes exceptions for footnotes (etc.), but not bibliographies. (Nor "references".) So how is having to hunt through a bibliography for the first mention of a publication any different than having to hunt through the entire article for the first mention of a related topic? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I would read the footnote exception as applying more broadly to reference sections in general. A lot of Wikipedia editors equate the two. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The ambiguity of "reference" is such we should avoid it. But even equating it with a footnote, does not, as I see it, admit bibliographic sections, even when they are labeled "References". At any rate, that is more stretching of the text than is allowed for "See also" sections. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
If overlinking isn't a problem in Bibliograpic sections, then presumably something like Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory is ok?Nigel Ish (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is the kind of situation I have in mind. A right proper sea of blue. And not treating the work of Corbett's arch-rival in the same would be a violation of using linking for unequal emphasis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think WP:OVERLINK "names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar" applies to the link on London, at least. I prefer to link authors and journal names whenever possible, but I'm not convinced of the value of links on publisher names. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Back to the original request, I think the social norms of the default CS1 implementation can be worked out by those concerned, but either way I'd like to see something along the lines of the proposal implemented at least for use at the editor's discretion, pulling the relevant journal name and/or wikilink (if available) when the citation's ISSN and a switch parameter are both set, perhaps such as |auto=y or |wikidata=y. Hell, it'd be really nice to even pull the ISSN if there are no conflicting publications by that name on Wikidata: |journal=Your Sinclair |auto=y => Your Sinclair (wikilinked). ISSN 0269-6983. czar 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly against any "auto" replacement of parameter values from "the official database". As an option that would be a lot more palatable. But it seems to me that I've seen journals changing their name without changing their ISSN. That could raise a question of whether to use the current name, or the one (possibly abbreviated) found in the article itself. For this reason I think no replacement should be made unless the editor confirms it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If the editor doesn't specify the parameter and explicitly chooses "auto", the implication is that the editor (such as myself) wants to supplement with the most current information. No one is being forced to use Wikidata, but given that it's built for this kind of usage, we should at least provide the option for those who want it. czar 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with an option to see the wikidata, in part as a check on spelling errors. I do have a problem with automatic insertion of that data without review. (Sure, I know how to Preview, but I fear many insufficiently experienced editors will not take the effort, or will even assume that the wikidata version is correct and/or better.) There is also the problem with predatory journals that use names very similar to authentic journals. If any discrepancy between the wikidata and what an editor has entered is clearly a typing error by the editor, fine, fix the error. But if the discrepancy is with what appears in the article, then a closer look should be taken.
Which reminds me: I think we should be consulting Beall's List of predatory journals. And while we might assume that ISSN's are authoritative (that is, not "stolen" by imitators), that needs to be checked. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors= and wikilinks
I have tweaked the code that supports |vauthors= and |veditors= so that wikilinked names are correctly handled and so that the metadata author information is not corrupted by the wikilink markup:
Template:Cite compareTemplate:Cite compareTemplate:Cite compare
Compare the values assigned to the keywords &rft.aufirst and &rft.aulast:
Live (corrupted):
<strong class="error"><span class="scribunto-error" id="mw-scribunto-error-885a3e58">Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory</span></strong>
Module:Citation/CS1 detects invisible characters and when it does, it emits an error message. Among the detected characters is zero width joiner, ZWJ (U+200D). This character should not appear in normal Latin scripts but is extensively used in Indic scripts. I have added code that mutes the error message if the parameter value containing a ZWJ character has at least one character from any of these Unicode character sets:
Conveniently, with the exception of Devanagari extended, all of the above are sequential so it is easy to write a Lua pattern for mw.ustring.find() that will find characters in the set 0900–0D7F.
Template:Cite compare
Here, Latin script with ZWJ should show an error.
Template:Cite compare
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
In the former, I have used {{Cite compare2}} and an invocation to the template in my user space.
I would like advice on whether I'm headed in the right direction in setting up an environment where I can test, and potentially improve, the templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory, you mean to improve the current cs1|2 templates, perhaps not. {{cite arxiv}} uses wikitext markup to invoke a bot to fill in citation details; {{citation}} uses wikitext markup for making the determination to render cs2 version of {{cite patent}} which both use {{citation/core}} but are not part of the cs1|2 suite of templates. With those exceptions, all cs1|2 templates use the module suite. A list of all of the modules used by cs1|2 is at the top of Module:Citation/CS1. If you wish a more complete understanding of the cs1|2 templates, start there.
Certainly your User:Jc3s5h/Citation testcases can be tweaked to allow you to test the differences that exist between the live and sandbox versions of the templates (they are very unlikely to change) and between the live and sandbox versions of the modules (which change quite often).
I support this continued standardization. Do we have an approved bot that can rename deprecated parameters in these templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
We might add them to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters. I don't know how effective that will be but if that is part of AWB's general fixes (which I never use, so I don't know) then a start could be made now. If that works, then perhaps no need for a bot (and the attendant headaches and delays that are BRFAs).
I don't see BRFAs being very problematic here. The question is mostly why deprecate trans_title/trans_chapter since they are clearly used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Standardization. At one time or another, all of the 50ish no-longer-supported parameters listed at the top of Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist were used. Some have gone away because their functionality has been replaced, some have gone away because they had non-standard form – capitalized, camelCase, ... This group is (I think) the last of the non-standard-form parameter names.
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory problematic. One of my requests was speedily approved seven or so days after the request. In the mean time another editor had added some code to AWB general fixes so by the time I got my approval, there was no need to run that bot task so it never did. This, I think, is a similar case; add the five parameter names to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters and let all of those editors who run AWB with general fixes turned on, do the fix for us.
I support the removal of these five non-standard aliases as well.
However, after going through the whitelist, shouldn't we add support for hyphenated aliases of at least some of these parameters to fully adhere to the RfC?
|network=
|newsgroup=
|newspaper=
|inset=
|postscript=
|vauthors=
|veditors=
|website=
Alternatively, their hyphenated aliases should at least be added to the auto-suggestion list, I think.
Network, Newsgroup, Newspaper, Inset, and Postscript are unhyphenated words, not two words jammed together. I would support |web-site=, but I am from the olden times when "website" was a newfangled concoction, and I don't think I have ever seen editors try to use |web-site= on WP. I have no opinion about vauthors and veditors, but I see your point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you in regard to the first three params. Postscript and website exists in both forms (although the versions without hyphen are much more common). Ironically, I have occasionally tried to enter the last two forms, not because I'd like them, but just because I did remember that RfC and was too lazy to look up the help for these rarely used parameters... ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Update to the live cs1|2 modules weekend of 4–5 November 2017
I expect to update the live cs1|2 modules some time 4–5 November with these changes:
On removing the nowrap for the accesslocks, why don't we just it instead rather than use a non-breaking thin space? We could do this for all identifiers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ec – mediawiki still fails to correctly identify edit conflicts
Because it doesn't work. Probably because the css in <cite class="citation"> which applies to all cs1|2 template renderings, includes word-wrap: break-word; and because the locks are images and not words. This is all in the archives of this page.
I'd just like to say here that I'm really happy to see the "allow wikilinks in vauthors" change. This one has been occasionally but regularly biting me. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikilinks in author parameters are permissible (even in this perculiar usage):
{{cite book |title=Title |last=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] |first=[[Abraham Lincoln|Abraham]]}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
<strong class="error"><span class="scribunto-error" id="mw-scribunto-error-885a3e58">Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory</span></strong>
Permissible in the code, but the documentation has proscribed them since before January 2009. Should we remove the prohibition from the documentation if wikilinks in author/editor/contributor parameters do no harm? The prohibition may have been there due to code that was not sophisticated enough to handle wikilinks. A separate discussion section may be best. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Contributor not with editor instead of author?
There appears to be a bug in the {{cite book}} implementation, which throws an error message "contributor not without author" if no author, but an editor is defined. I think it should work with editors as well, at least I can't think of any valid reason why it shouldn't...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
For clarity, what would be an example of such a reference? I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't be able to use chapter and author instread of contribution and contributor if it's in an edited collection. The contributor is for when the author of a work isn't the author of a part of it, but in an edited collection there is no overall author, so the author field won't be confused with an overall author but rather correctly thought of as the chapter author. Umimmak (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Still, from the viewpoint of contributors there should be no difference between authors and editors. The actual example was:
{{cite book |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |contribution=Introduction |contributor-first1=Peter C. |contributor-last1=Bunnell |contributor-first2=Robert A. |contributor-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974}}
The problem could be worked around by changing the editor into author parameters, by I do not consider this a proper solution. It should be sufficient if at least one author or editor is specified.
To clarify, I wasn't suggesting to change the |editor= to |author= since that makes the citation incorrect by saying Jones is the author of the book, not its editor:
{{cite book |author-first=Bernhard |author-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |contribution=Introduction |contributor-first1=Peter C. |contributor-last1=Bunnell |contributor-first2=Robert A. |contributor-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Rather, I was proposing changing |contributor= to |author= and |contribution= to |chapter=, i.e.:
{{cite book |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |chapter=Introduction |author-first1=Peter C. |author-last1=Bunnell |author-first2=Robert A. |author-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Although I suppose it's inconsistent with the lack of quotation marks for contributions in authored works as opposed to edited works... Umimmak (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I see, but my intend wasn't to cite from a chapter named Introduction specifically, but just to name the contributors as contributors (because, IIRC, the book made some fuzz about it on the sleve). Just like I would indicate the contribution of an artist for his sketches included in a book. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well if you're not actually citing the Introduction, just saying the book has an introduction and you think that's important to specify or whatever, that's what |other= is for, so something like:
{{cite book |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |others=Introduction by Peter C. Bunnell & Robert A. Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
Although I don't think it's necessary to specify the book has an introduction by someone else in most cases if you're not actually citing the introduction itself. Umimmak (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of a citation is to identify the source that supports text in Wikipedia articles. In this case particularly to attribute the source of the quote that is part of the citation. I think that the quote can be found in Cassell's 1911 at Sensitometry so that would indicate that the reprint has little or no relevance in this particular reference; all the more so because it is not the purpose of Wikipedia in general, and citations in particular, to promote any source no matter how much
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory the publisher put on the sleeve.
I might rewrite Cassell's 1911 like this:
{{cite book |editor-first=Bernhard Edward |editor-last=Jones |section=Sensitometry |title=Cassell's Cyclopaedia of Photography |publisher=Cassell |location=London |date=1911 |section-url=https://archive.org/stream/cassellscyclopae00jone#page/472/mode/2up |pages=472 et seq}}
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory
For the reprint, I agree with Editor Umimmak. It is not necessary to name an introduction's authors if you are not citing the introduction. To me, it is not necessary to include the 1974 reprint at all. But, if it is to be included, it should specifically include the in-source location (page, section title, etc) of the text that supports the article's text (or quotation).
|message-id= doesn't have < > characters. I'm not sure what "make sure that it contains @ between left and right identifiers" mean however, but |message-id=@bnews.uw-beave.451@ doesn't work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Template:Replyto I think it means that the parameter should be of the form |message-id=foo@bar, rather like an email address - foo being the left identifier, and bar being the right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Template:Re so how do we fix the above? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No idea. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone here is unaware, the format for message-id parameters comes from RFC 822. According to that format, the given message-ID is definitely invalid (it should look like an email address with a string of non-special characters (or a quoted string), an @, and a domain name). But on the other hand, it is the actual message-ID of an actual message. So maybe we shouldn't be so strict about what we demand for this field? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. It is important that the source should be easily and unambiguously verified. The error message creates unnecessary confusion, as this is not a citation formatting error. The validation parameters for this field may be too strict. We shouldn't expect that all of the thousands of RFCs that IETF publishes are followed or applied in all situations. Relax the validation to reflect the real world, and perhaps add in the doc that the format specified in RFC 822 is the preferred one. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the error being flagged by default, all that needs to be done is have a |ignore-message-ID-error=yes or like we do in case of ISBN errors that are nonetheless the ones that feature on book covers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Cite book
I am missing the possibility of naming an illustrator. bkb (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Lua error: Cannot create process: proc_open(/log/lua.error): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
|via= – for URLs that do not go to the reporter but to somewhere less official
|id= – for reporters that don't fit the US pattern (volume order, etc.); e.g., India uses two reporters, with a different format, which can be done with |id=Something_here; Something2_here (or, see below, we could have a switch for specifying the format)
|judge= – to use with a judge name or "majority" or whatever, to attribute whatever is in |quote=
|at= – make the current, weird |poinpoint= an alias to this, and stop "advertising" pinpoint in the doc
|lang= – we cite cases that are not in English
|title= – make the current, weird |litigants= an alias to this, and list both in the doc
|work= – make the current, weird |reporter= an alias to this or vice versa, and list both in the doc
|page=, |pages= – alias to |at= / |pinpoint=
|volume= – template presently only supports |vol=
Ensure that |reporter= / |work= will work properly and not generate a bogus URL if people use this as freeform text, e.g. post an entire Indian reporter citation (or both of them) into it. Not ideal, but our templates are here to serve editors and readers, not make them serve our templates.
Re-doc |vol= and |opinion= as only pertaining to US case citations (and those that follow the same format); optionally, just code in various differ formats and provide a switch for them, thought that would be a lot of work (e.g. the two India don't use the same order of citation parts).
I think there's some code in this thing that auto-builds URLs to US case archives if all the right bits are filled in. That's convenient for US cases, but broken otherwise.
Various other parameters we don't use constantly might also be desirable to add; the above are the ones I care about.
— SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
To be part of CS1, it has to follow established style elements for common/related parameters. It seems that the template cites a court opinion. What are the correct mappings between the parameters that CS1 uses and this template's parameters?
I'm of two thoughts on this topic. The first is that we could just cite court opinions in the established CS1 style as if they're articles published in a specific volume of a journal (the reporter). However, this would mean that the titles of cases would be rendered in quotation marks, and not italics. CMOS doesn't convert court citations in that way; it parrots the established Bluebook style to cite cases, so there's precedent for us to do so as well. I agree with the basic premise that we should upgrade the template to bring it up to modern citation standards (access dates, archive-url/archive-date, etc) and use the standard parameter names. Imzadi 1979→ 22:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 34#Bug when title ends with single quote
