Help talk:Citation Style 1
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
![]() | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||
|
The url-access lock icon becomes huge if the linked source is a PDF file[edit]
Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:
Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989). "Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT: American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the mobile theme it looks fine.[1] The template's CSS includes "background-size: contain;" for the Vector themes but not Minerva or Timeless. Toggling that off seems to make it the correct size. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm using the Vector 2010 skin on mobile (using the desktop site), and the icon also looks huge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Toggling
background-size: contain;
made no difference for me, but disablingpadding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) — Jts1882 | talk 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)- Where did you do that?
padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
does not exist in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's from MediaWiki:Common.css, found it while searching if this bug was reported previously. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- You have to toggle the bg-contain rule twice because :not(.skin-minerva):not(.skin-timeless) triggers once for each skin. Removing either this or the padding works. Izno (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Where did you do that?
- Toggling
- I'm using the Vector 2010 skin on mobile (using the desktop site), and the icon also looks huge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Izno who has much more experience with css than I.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've overridden the padding from Common.css in the sandbox, the effects of which can be seen already on this page (since the sandbox styles are presently on the page after the non-sandbox styles). Izno (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still seeing the over large padlock, should it have changed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Probably just caching or something. User:Izno/Sandbox is fine for me. Izno (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! That fixed it, Rjjiii (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still seeing the over large padlock, should it have changed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This larger padlock appears to have gone live in more skins as of today. I couldn't see it on Desktop in Vector 2022 until today. There is a new VPT thread about it. We may want to deploy this change to the live module ASAP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Current format for issues is odd, proposal for additional parameters[edit]
Some magazines don't advertise the issue number as clearly on the front magazine, and it can take a lot of extra effort to find the correct issue if they are cited but missing important information. We may have to buy the magazine itself just to confirm the issue number and sometimes there is no issue number at all and they label the issue by month/date, or they will have it by Holiday. It would be easier to add an additional parameter specifically for the name of the issue.
- Current version
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). No. May 5, 2011. April 21, 2011.
Looks awkward with the No. in front of it.
- Proposed change
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue. April 21, 2011.
^^A proper issue name.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |issue-Num=999|magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue (No.999). April 21, 2011.
^^For both.
This will simplify things and make the citation easier to read.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think
|publication-date=
would probably cover this use case without needing a new parameter:
- I think
- @Forbes72: That solves the last example, but that was merely hypothetical. There is no issue #999 for that magazine. There is no issue numbering that is immediately known to the direct public unless you purchase it and search for the issue number in the magazine, which can make things harder to reference
- Another problem is the example of having an issue name instead of putting an issue number. For example, "Christmas issue" or "Halloween issue". if we put "Issue=Christmas", it will instead say "No.Christmas" or "No.Halloween".
- the proposed change will allow us to say "issue" at the end.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If the issue number is unknown/does not exist, just leave the
|issue=
blank. You can provide equivalent information by filling out|publication-date=
and converting the holiday into a date if necessary: "Christmas 2011" becomes "Dec 25, 2011", "Halloween 2011" becomes "Oct 31, 2011", etc. From what I can tell, Famitsu has the publication dates listed pretty prominently on all their magazine covers, so I think it should be clear at a glance which issue is being referenced. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 01:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)- @Forbes72: Famitsu was just a hypothetical. Don't you consider it original research to assume the publication date based on the name of the issue? Magazines are released monthly/weekly/bi-weekly/bi-monthly. So the publication date can be days, weeks, or even a month apart if we just assume it lands on the holiday. Either way, it's still misinterpreting the name of the issue and going out of our way just to avoid something as simple as citing the name of the issue. Wouldn't it simplify everything by just allowing a "Issue-name" parameter?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The templates already work for certain holidays e.g. A (Christmas 2001). "T". M.
- I otherwise agree, we have sufficient parameters to make this work fine today. Izno (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Blue Pumpkin Pie: I think your concerns would be clearer if you could point out a few specific (non-hypothetical) citations used on Wikipedia that would benefit from the parameter you are proposing. Have you actually run into this problem while editing?〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Forbes72:I had the perfect example a while back but I apologize I can't remember the issue that was giving me a hard time. all I knew was that for research purposes, I had the issue name but nearly impossible to find the issue number. However, I was able to find a similar example. EGM's magazine "Special Holiday issue" of 2007 doesn't provide the issue # immediately on the cover, and I don't own the magazine. Luckily I was able to find the issue number through different means but I had a couple of situations where I wont know the issue number unless I purchase the magazine and look within he first couple of pages. and sometimes its not there at allBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. EGM looks like a fairly popular citation target, 6609 citations across Wikipedia. Searching around for a specific citation, the Holiday 2007 issue was cited in Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings#Reception:
<ref name="EGM">Electronic Gaming Monthly, Issue 223; HOL. 2007</ref>
- @Forbes72:I had the perfect example a while back but I apologize I can't remember the issue that was giving me a hard time. all I knew was that for research purposes, I had the issue name but nearly impossible to find the issue number. However, I was able to find a similar example. EGM's magazine "Special Holiday issue" of 2007 doesn't provide the issue # immediately on the cover, and I don't own the magazine. Luckily I was able to find the issue number through different means but I had a couple of situations where I wont know the issue number unless I purchase the magazine and look within he first couple of pages. and sometimes its not there at allBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Blue Pumpkin Pie: I think your concerns would be clearer if you could point out a few specific (non-hypothetical) citations used on Wikipedia that would benefit from the parameter you are proposing. Have you actually run into this problem while editing?〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the issue number is unknown/does not exist, just leave the
- @Forbes72: That solves the last example, but that was merely hypothetical. There is no issue #999 for that magazine. There is no issue numbering that is immediately known to the direct public unless you purchase it and search for the issue number in the magazine, which can make things harder to reference
- This citation does not currently use a citation template. A scanned copy of the issue is available on Archive.org. Building out the full citation template:
<ref name="EGM">{{cite magazine|title=Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings|magazine=Electronic Gaming Monthly|issue=223|publication-date=Holiday 2007|page=87}}</ref>
- "Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 223. Holiday 2007. p. 87.
{{cite magazine}}
: Check date values in:|publication-date=
(help)- This throws up an error. However, as Izno mentions above, some named dates already work: "Christmas 2007" does not cause any issues:
- "Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 223. Christmas 2007. p. 87.
- Another problem is when the publisher prints a range of issue numbers or dates. Sometimes that is a regular occurence, and sometimes only when an issue is delayed. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
|agency not working in Cite book template?[edit]
Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect that you meant to write:
[[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]
→ here. - Support for
|agency=
in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion.|agency=
is defined for{{cite news}}
,{{cite press release}}
, and{{cite web}}
. Also supported by{{citation}}
when that template has|newspaper=
or|work=
. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have encountered several of these
|agency=
in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been|publisher=
. I have seen no evidence that|agency=
is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- In this particular case I was looking for a way to reflect the Philological Society's contribution to the work.
- Obviously there are two reasons for citing a work, one to identify where the source material can be found and the second to give credit to the creators of the work. The OED is atypical for a book in that there were a myriad of contributing authors and the publisher came into the process 20 years after the start of the work.
- If not
|agency=
would you have another option for crediting the Society within the citation? — Skullcinema (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)- As the work was based on materials they helped collect would
|others=
be appropriate? e.g.
Murray, James A. H.; Bradley, Henry; Craigie, W. A.; Onions, C. T., eds. (1933). The Oxford English Dictionary; being a corrected re-issue with an introduction, supplement and bibliography of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. The Philological Society (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198611013. LCCN a33003399. OCLC 2748467. OL 180268M. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)- Thanks, that will work fine. — ROU Skullcinema (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- As the work was based on materials they helped collect would
- I have encountered several of these
Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{cite report}}
citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If one is to believe the results of this search there are ~355 articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter with
{{cite report}}
templates that have|agency=
and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'. - Some cases, like this from Weather of 2021, the value in
|publisher=
us unnecessarily duplicated in|agency=
:{{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}
- Others, like this one from the same article, appear to use some sort of made-up 'agency' name:
{{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}
- ('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The category CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=
. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=
?.--Auric talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|agency=
is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of|publisher=
. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use|via=
to hold the name of the provider.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thanks.--Auric talk 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it appears to have been frequently misused as an alias or synonym of publisher. That does not mean that there has ever been a time when citations that did so were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- There may have been some confusion when the publisher of a source is a government agency. Rather,
|agency=
has been a shorthand name for a parameter holding the wire agency of a news story, to properly credit that the origin of a news article in a paper was the Associated Press/United Press International/Agence France-Presse/etc. and not the cited newspaper itself, with or without any additional reporter byline. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
As the parameter |agency=
has been removed, how should the entry for it on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData be corrected? Should it just be deleted from the table? — Skullcinema (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relatedly, Citation bot has recently been adding agency= to cite book templates: see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 38#Adds unknown parameter to CS1 and Special:Diff/1221981567. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Please document |article-number= better[edit]
![]() | This edit request to Template:Cite journal/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many electronic journals have switched from page numbers to article numbers, so for example I can cite to the last page of a 5-page article as:
- Jeet, Justin; et al. (23 June 2015). "Results of a Direct Search Using Synchrotron Radiation for the Low-Energy 229Th Nuclear Isomeric Transition". Physical Review Letters. 114 (25) 253001: 5. arXiv:1502.02189. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.114y3001J. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.253001. PMID 26197124. S2CID 1322253.
So the hierarchy is work/journal, (series), volume, issue, article-number, page(s). (Usually issue is redundant, as article numbers are unique at least within volumes, just as many academic journals used to only restart page numbering per volume.) Many, many references in Wikipedia abuse the |page=
parameter to hold the article-number instead, because the editors didn't know about this parameter. This comes out looking okay in the formatting, but produces mangled metadata, and prevents citing to a specific page. (Usually, when editors need to cite to a specific page, they place the article-number in the |issue=
parameter instead.)
It would be easier for readers of the documentation (and less reference-correcting work for me) if volume, issue, article number, and page number were listed in that order, and as close together as possible, so that they appear together in the documentation as they appear together in the rendered output.
Specifically:
- In the "full parameter set" list, place
|article-number=
between|issue=
and|page=
. - Add
|article-number=
to the "most commonly used parameters" lists in the same position. - If you're feeling ambitious, add an example.
- Within the "Description" section:
- In the "Periodical" subsection, move the description of
|article-number=
to just after|issue=
(currently just before) - Also change the current subsection order
- Periodical (describing work, issue, and article-number)
- Publisher
- Edition, series, volume
- In-source locations (describing page)
- In the "Periodical" subsection, move the description of
- to
- Edition, series, volume
- Periodical
- In-source locations
- Publisher
- to
- Although I can't get my preferred global order without splitting the Periodical subsection to insert volume between work and issue, this comes as close as practicable.
Thank you! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: I've done item 1. I have not done item 2: I think this is based on a claim that doesn't have an obvious basis in reality (and from extensive wikignoming I haven't seen it). I am not ambitious enough for 3. I've done 4.1. Regarding 4.2, I think the point is to emulate the order of the parameters as eventually displayed, and the work is in periodical, so it goes first. However, publisher appears before in-source locations (even if it is rare to have a publisher listed in a citation for a few reasons, not all of which are external). In this regard, I've moved publisher after ESV but kept it before in-source location. Izno (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
ISSN link results in error; WorldCat URL changed?[edit]
This is from our testcases page, a bit simplified: Campbell, Lyle (1978). "Chicomuceltec's last throes". International Journal of American Linguistics. 44 (1): 228–230. doi:10.1086/465548. ISSN 0020-7071..
The resulting URL from the ISSN link is https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=n2:0020-7071. I get an error message that says "Oops, something went wrong". When I use the advanced search to search for that ISSN, the URL I get is https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=n2%3A0020-7071. Strangely, when I click on that link from here, I get the "Oops" message. I am puzzled. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also reported at Template talk:ISSN#Kaputt, without response. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's also probably a good opportunity to make ISSN point to the ISSN website, rather than OCLC per POLA. If you want to link to OCLC, use
|oclc=
. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure that readers will benefit much if we switch to use the issn.org site because OCLC can supply a list of libraries that may hold a copy of the referenced source.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's also probably a good opportunity to make ISSN point to the ISSN website, rather than OCLC per POLA. If you want to link to OCLC, use
- All of your ISSN links work for me.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am still getting "Oops, something went wrong" for every ISSN link above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cache issue?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also still get their error message with my regular Firefox browser. However, it works with Chrome and Firefox in "Private Browsing" mode. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am still getting "Oops, something went wrong" for every ISSN link above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Unrecognized languages[edit]
Is there any way to suppress the warning CS1 maint: unrecognized language
(without disabling them) in Philippines citation [21] (Cobo, Juan; which uses |language=[[Philippine Hokkien|Early Manila Hokkien]] & [[Early Modern Spanish]]
). Another editor added the source so I am not sure if I change Early Modern Spanish to simply es
might make the citation less accurate. For Philippine Hokkien, I do not know what to use instead. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Either way they should not be linked. Early Manila Hokkien & Early Modern Spanish for convenience. The former says the correct code is
nan
and the template treats that as expected:- T (in Minnan).
- Early Modern Spanish looks to be more difficult to deal with. Neither it nor its lingual parents in the infobox appear to have a language assigned. Today, there is no way to work around that particularly gracefully. For our purposes though, it would probably be reasonable to mark it as
es-x-early-modern
which the template deals with by trimming to the es:- T (in Spanish).
- Clearing out this category would be aided by some improvement that allows us to add codes with an English name displayed e.g. a similar input to the one just above which would display as the desired language. Izno (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
'Others' parameter for 'Cite magazine' template[edit]
While looking through the parameters of Template:Cite magazine, I noticed that the 'others' parameter is the recommended means by which illustrators should be listed. As the 'authors' parameter was deprecated for not contributing to the citation's metadata, shouldn't a separate, optional 'illustrator' (aliases 'illustrator-last', 'illustrator-surname', 'illustrator1', 'illustrator1-last', 'illustrator1-surname', 'illustrator-last1', 'illustrator-last1'), 'illustrator-first' (aliases 'illustrator-given', 'illustrator1-first', 'illustrator1-given', 'illustrator-first1', 'illustrator-given1'), 'villustrators' (Vancouver style), and 'display-illustrators' (to determine when et al. is added) parameters be added, to ensure documented magazine illustrators are searchable as metadata in a format similar to the ones established for authors and editors?
The 'others' parameter would still be kept, of course, as a catch-all parameter for any additional contributors. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is also photographer. Some books the photography is the main content or the most notable contributor.
- Looking at
{{cite book}}
it says:- others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith
- So I guess if you free form Illustrated by Name, it would be possible to search the metadata. In practice editors might say things like: Illustrator: Name or Name (illustrator) etc.. the main thing is the ability to search on the word "illustrator" or "illustrated" in the others field. This is messy I agree and makes parsing error prone. OTOH how to deal with a couple dozen common occupations without blowing up the complexity of citations. Maybe if the keynames were associative arrays eg.
|others[illustrators]=Joe Smith, Bill Barn
|others[photographers]=Mary Sue
.. -- GreenC 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is access-date not required for "links to published research papers or published books" ?[edit]
The template documentation explicitly says that an access-date is not required for "links to published research papers or published books." That seems to be based on an assumption that "published research papers or published books" do not change after being published, at least not without an explicit identifier such as a new edition. That seems to be problematic because that assumption is not true. In particular, it seems to especially problematic with respect to articles that are changed or withdrawn after publication where the URL and title may not change but the contents do change, sometimes in very important ways. ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because the only reason for an accessdate is to determine which of multiple versions of a web link one accessed. Otherwise who cares when you looked at a web page. The date range might be useful for finding an archived copy, if you need one and have to choose among multiple versions, and it might be useful to readers for determining what date some dynamic information was updated. But published journal papers and books do not vary in the same way. A journal paper might be retracted or have an errata and a book might have multiple editions, but those are indicated in different ways. So the access-date is totally useless and best omitted as a useless distraction. As for your "the contents do change, sometimes in very important ways": [citation needed]. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The statements "Because the only reason for an accessdate is to determine which of multiple versions of a web link one accessed" and "A journal paper might be retracted or have an errata..." seem to contradict one another. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you did not read the rest of the sentence, "but those are indicated in different ways". We cite the edition of the book we are citing, or we cite a separate erratum for a journal article. The access date is a much more imprecise way of specifying this information. If the other information is provided, the access date doesn't help. If the other information is not provided, an access date likely won't help disambiguate. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The statements "Because the only reason for an accessdate is to determine which of multiple versions of a web link one accessed" and "A journal paper might be retracted or have an errata..." seem to contradict one another. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Anything published online can have a problem with revision control. Even a journal article published in print, the online copy can change. This is not a bad thing, it's the promise of the web. Maybe a rule would be if you reasonably believe the content is open to change, use cite web instead, with "web" defined as content that is liable to change and thus requiring an access-date. -- GreenC 04:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Contributors in books that have only a primary editor[edit]
I recently encountered an error when trying to add this citation: <ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |contribution=Oberlin College |contributor-last=Lee |contributor-first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=9781574401226 |pages=93–94}}</ref>
. It produces this:[1]
References
- ^ Kelsey, Paul, ed. (2009). "Oberlin College". Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 9781574401226.
{{cite book}}
:|contributor=
requires|author=
(help)
I am citing a portion of a chapter in a book that has only a primary editor, not a primary author (each chapter is authored by someone different), but using |contributor=
with |editor=
and no |author=
leads to an error message and the contributor not being displayed. What is the proper way to resolve this? Should I be using the parameters differently, or does the template/error detection need adjustment? Sdkb talk 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't they the author of the chapter, if you just use last/first you get:
Lee, Diane (2009). "Oberlin College". In Kelsey, Paul (ed.). Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 9781574401226. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - (edit conflict)
- The
|contributor=
/|contribution=
pair in{{cite book}}
is used when citing a contribution to a primary author's work: Anna Quindlen's introduction to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (permalink). Because your example does not have a primary author but does have content authored by one-or-more contributors, I think you should treat the contributors as you would treat authors of an edited collection of independent chapters. Perhaps you can rewrite like this:{{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |section=Oberlin College |last=Lee |first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=978-1-57440-122-6 |pages=93–94}}
- Lee, Diane (2009). "Oberlin College". In Kelsey, Paul (ed.). Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-1-57440-122-6.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Author has two first names[edit]
Or perhaps she considers her middle name to be a last name but she's not hyphenated.
But look what happens.
Lourgos AL (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune.
Okay, it didn't happen. Let me go check.
Variants of SARS-CoV-2 As of right now, ref 116.
— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- That article appears to use a mix of Vancouver style and spelled-out first names. You see at the top of the source where it says "cs1 config |name-list-style=vanc |display-authors=6"? That's why it abbreviates her first names to AL rather than spelling them out. However not all citations have first and last split in a way that allows the template to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the person's first name, or first and middle name combined, is "Angie Leventis", then "Lourgos AL" is correct. If the person's last name is "Leventis Lourgos" and first name is "Angie", then put "Leventis Lougors" in
|last=
to get "Leventis Lourgos A" in the citation, like this: Leventis Lourgos A (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune. This page uses "Leventis Lourgos" as her last name, as does this page and WorldCat (though WC's site is mostly broken for me, so that link may be a 404 for you too). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - I went to fix it, but I see it's done. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the person's first name, or first and middle name combined, is "Angie Leventis", then "Lourgos AL" is correct. If the person's last name is "Leventis Lourgos" and first name is "Angie", then put "Leventis Lougors" in
|agency=
for {{cite magazine}}?[edit]
![]() | This edit request to Module:Citation/CS1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Special Force (2003 video game), I have a citation for a Reuters wire story reprinted in Wired. It used to be a {{cite web}} and, as with newspaper articles in {{cite news}}, I used |agency=
to denote Reuters as the corporate author that is not the work's publisher. However, Citation bot converts Wired citations to {{cite magazine}}, which does not support |agency=
. While I disagree with the automated conversion, using {{cite magazine}} here generally appears reasonable. Given the situation I outlined above, I think it would be valid for {{cite magazine}} to also support the parameter. The affected line in the Module is 3751. Kind regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I support the proposal. This would fix for an issue that I have also stumbled across from time to time. Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- support addition of
|agency=
to{{cite magazine}}
. Certainly this happens, and it's useful to know about in case someone doesn't have the magazine and wants to search for the story in another outlet. -- GreenC 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Not done: Users may edit the relevant sandboxes if they wish for inclusion in the module. Izno (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
New limit for OCLC.[edit]
I have encountered to use of 10208486403 as an OCLC identifier. Help:CS1 errors says to report this situation here. Why is there a limit on the OCLC number? Seems like superfluous maintenance to me. User-duck (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
text collection of one author in a book[edit]
I had this problem several times before, the actual is the following in Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures: Erwin Panofsky (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6. The link is on the whole collection instead of the chapter, although the link goes to the specific page. It is also confusing for the reader, he does not realize, that the link actually goes to the specific excerpt of the text. With {{cite encyclopedia I could probably solve the link issue. But "encyclopedia" is obviously the false term for this sort of text compilation. "Compilation" would be a good term for it (like in music, or short stories in literature, I suppose), with "title" for the particular text, and "compilation-title" for the book itself. MenkinAlRire 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- A couple options with some best practices:
- Panofsky, Erwin (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". In Lavin, Irving (ed.). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6.
- Panofsky, Erwin (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". In Lavin, Irving (ed.). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6.
- Note the placement of
|last=
as the first argument, which makes it easier to find when citations are in a list. The use of|author-link=
and|editor-link=
. The use of|chapter-url=
in #1 and|page=
for #2 depending which you prefer. I prefer #2 when linking mid-chapter and #1 when linking to a chapter. -- GreenC 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- I missed "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures" has its own Wiki article, it could look like this:
- Panofsky, Erwin (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". In Lavin, Irving (ed.). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6.
- -- GreenC 17:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, you missed, that the reference is in that lemma. It would just redirect to itself. But, ok, for other articles. Thanks again. MenkinAlRire 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know, I did not mention Lavin as editor, if I remember correctly, because of the given example in the article. Since the book is correctly referenced above I thought it's ok.
- The editor is the deciding factor here, or not? I don't see another possible cause for the correct linking now. Cool, that was simple. Thanks. (I hope there are no cases, where it would be still a problem. I wanted to pose a subsequent question, but I can't remember now. I'll come back. Correct citation is a bunch of work, I just began to collect them for later use.) MenkinAlRire 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MenkinAlRire:
|url=
links the title of the whole book.|chapter-url=
,|contribution-url=
, or|section-url=
links the chapter/section/entry/article within it. Rjjiii (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- I knew it, I am a dummmy. I just recently used chapter-url. Thank you for reminding me. I have to better organise myself and create my own 'help pages' with these solutions, instead of each time searching all over again. Thank you. - (I am certainly locked in, on the website, just did an edit, and I have the notification in the app, but the app won't recognise me at the moment. It displays my ID number and can't complete the edit. That's a first. On the website it's totally fine. ?/ ) MenkinAlRire 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MenkinAlRire: Yes, the editor makes the difference: with it,
|first=
and|last=
describe the author of a chapter. Without it, they are taken as the author of the book. It's awkward, but would be hard to change now. Kanguole 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- @Kanguole, at least, there is some logic behind it. Only when the author himself edited his texts, it is kind of redundant. (I don't like the look of |first= and |last= , but you all seem to stress it. I'll contemplate on that.) MenkinAlRire 07:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MenkinAlRire:
- I missed "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures" has its own Wiki article, it could look like this:
Request url-status 'regional' for geographic IP restrictions[edit]
Some government websites have IP range restrictions to prevent international (intergovernmental in particular) spamming. I just came across the official law site for Georgia, which despite being linked on the main government site and having extensive English translations, appears to be at least intermittently down for US IPs and several other countries I tried via VPN. Though that proves nothing itself about this site in particular, I've seen similar behavior in websites of many countries seeking to prevent outside spam, including those of US states. Additionally, for legal reasons, a smaller news outlet might block access outside its key local market (such as happened with with several local US newspapers and GDPR).
For these reasons, a site may be seen as dead when it is just inaccessible for some region. If this region is a significant en.wp market, then it is appropriate to have an archive-url be the main title link. However, it would be inappropriate for a bot or other editor to interpret the original url as dead or otherwise problematic -- the original editor should instead be able to set an explicit parameter that the url has restricted access by IP. (Currently I just use an html comment). Since the main purpose is to prevent a bot from incorrectly flagging a dead link, it should go in |url-status=
, and I suggest the term regional
(or something similar but not identical to limited
so as to not cause confusion with the |url-access=
parameter). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- These kinds of policy-based outages are beyond the ability and control of Wikipedia to maintain. They can change on a whim. As soon we we set the url-status to one thing it will need to be updated to something else. Given the scale of 10s of millions of links and growing, it's not practical and will end up being a perpetually inaccurate mess. Often times these policies are domain-specific eg. Amazon.com works on country X by not country Y. For 3 years, then it works again. Then 2 years later Amazon.com blocks another country. None of this is advertised anywhere. Users report outages and believe it's due to a blockage, but really it's due to their upstream ISP blocking for one reason or another. It goes on like this. Ultimately, all we can do is provide archive URLs, and if users want to use them, if the primary link is not working relative to their location, they have the option to try the archive URL. -- GreenC 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a routine request and as unworkable as prior requests. Izno (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is one solution, but it would require completely changing how we do archives. It's the way they do it on French Wikipedia. Every new link added is "born dead" so to speak, automatically a "[archive]" link appears next to the URL (Example in "Notes" section). Every link has one, regardless if it's dead or alive. No bots, it's built into the MediaWiki software as a module or something (not sure exactly how they do it). This method solves a lot of problems, is clean, simple, comprehensive and efficient. The politics of doing it are daunting to say the least, there are many stake holders. -- GreenC 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
PDF page number parameter[edit]
PDFs often have page numbers printed on each page, but these are offset from the page numbers of the digital PDF file due to title pages, forewords, etc. Normally we only cite the page number printed on the page we're citing. Could we add another page number parameter for the digital page number in such a document? Maybe we could call it "digital page", "PDF page", "digital document page", or "digital version page". Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I frequently add the page number to the URL as described at WP:PAGELINKS. (Further documentation: [2][3]).
- Abate (1998, p. 2)
{{harvtxt|Abate|1998|p=[https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=thd#page=10 2]}}
- I'd be reluctant to add this to the visible citation, since I don't presume that future readers will be looking at the exact same PDF that I am. PDFs may eventually become deprecated and readers will view some other file format. The publisher may use OCR software to detect the printed page numbers and add it to the PDF file. In the latter case, the URL doesn't change, but the way page numbers are displayed to users will change, which could make notes about PDF page numbers to users confusing. Daask (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is another routine request that has fair objections, as above. Izno (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Prioritize publisher URL over third-party repositories[edit]
I propose that we prioritize linking to articles provided by the publisher over third-party repositories when both are open access.
When a citation template doesn't supply |url=
, the URL linked by the title text is supplied instead by identifiers when an open access version is known to be available. My proposal only changes which open access version is linked when multiple options are available.
Consider the following citations of the same work:
When |pmc=
is given, then a link is provided to PubMed Central because all PubMed Central articles are open access.
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072}}
When |doi-access=free
, a link is provided to that DOI.
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239}}
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239 | doi-access=free}}
- Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 30224994.
When both |doi=
and |pmc=
are provided, PubMed Central is linked
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239}}
- Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 6124072. PMID 30224994.
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239 | doi-access=free}}
- Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 6124072. PMID 30224994.
I am proposing a change only for the very last example, when both |pmc=
is given and |doi-access=free
. Currently, it links to PubMed Central. I think we should link to the DOI, since this is more likely provided by the publisher rather than a third-party repository.
My primary reason for this change is that some articles in PubMed Central appear to be preprints rather than the final published version, eg. PMC 6688940. (Note the text change following the mention of Salpiglossis sinuata.) Additionally, I think its worthwhile to encourage traffic to open access publishers.
Minor considerations:
- Both PubMed Central's HTML version and the publisher's HTML version sometimes have formatting issues that the other one does not. eg. In this publisher's version, quotes lack italics or sufficiently different indentation to clearly differentiate from body text. Not an issue in PubMed Central.
- The DOI sometimes, but rarely, links directly to a PDF, whereas PMC always links to an HTML, with a PDF usually available, eg. PMC 5780623
- Are publishers more likely to have supplementary data? A quick glance at some sample articles didn't indicate this, but I suspect it is sometimes true.
Daask (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reason PMC takes precedence over DOI is historical and rooted in PMC autolinking before (free) DOIs did. Possibly because PMC version is lightweight, reduces data consumption (important on mobile and pay-per-GB internet plans) and does not require a PDF reader. Not saying this shouldn't be changed, just why this is currently the case.
- Really we should have a hierarchy of priority for when multiple identifiers are free (like if
|doi-access=free
and|jstor-access=free
) so that autolinking apply to all version of record identifiers (i.e. not arxiv/ssrn/s2cid, etc...), which should be manually overridable i.e.|auto-url=jstor
. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
DOI number[edit]
Hello,
The hyperlink behind the DOI number is DOI (identifier) which should be changed to Digital object identifier since this is the current title of the article. I can't find the source code responsible for the link, would be helpful if someone could change that who knows those templates better. –Tobias (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tobiasi0, the CS1/2 templates deliberately use non-standard internal links for identifiers like DOI and ISBN so Special:WhatLinksHere will still return meaningful results for those articles instead of being flooded with hundreds of thousands of links from template transclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean the replacement of DOI with DOI, that's no flooding in any way. –Tobias (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Folly Mox lays out that this was deliberate. DOI is a disambiguation page so that is no good either. In other words, please establish a consensus for the change you're requesting, and consider that it applies not just to DOIs. Izno (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Did you even read my message? I never mentioned the disambiguation page. –Tobias (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the explanation at {{R from citation identifier}}, and maybe also have a look at Category:Redirects from identifiers. Folly Mox (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Did you even read my message? I never mentioned the disambiguation page. –Tobias (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Folly Mox lays out that this was deliberate. DOI is a disambiguation page so that is no good either. In other words, please establish a consensus for the change you're requesting, and consider that it applies not just to DOIs. Izno (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean the replacement of DOI with DOI, that's no flooding in any way. –Tobias (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Citation issue still broken[edit]
As mentioned, the template continues to be broken, failing to display |issue=
content in most instances. As mentioned by other editors, no, this isn't how it used to work and I wasn't insane/delusional to think so. As mentioned by other editors, no, there is no benefit or reasonable purpose to shutting it off. As mentioned by other editors, yes, it's generally beneficial to add the functionality even if (which wasn't ever the case) I had been delusional and just imagined the template worked better during a fever dream. Anyone who wants fiddlely use-specific coding can already choose between {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{whatever}}. This should be a decent multipurpose default template and there's no reason not to allow it to be.
Now, y'know, go ahead and actually fix it. Please. Thank you. — LlywelynII 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a feature, not a bug. Books have no issues, so they shouldn't support
|issue=
. Same for websites. Journal have issues, so cite journal supports that parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- I believe the template under discussion here is {{Citation}}, which is not exclusively used to cite books. Folly Mox (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the previous discussion said all that needed to be said. Llywelyn bringing it up again as if their point of view had consensus is simply disruptive. Izno (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be a multipurpose template that displays every parameter you feed it, but I'm not upset that there isn't. Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's {{cite magazine}} with
|mode=cs2
, which should meet the OP's need: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. And here's {{citation}} with the same parameters: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. Works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) - There is one, but it's based on what parameters you feed it. If you feed it book parameters then it will format as a book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to put words in LlewellynII's keyboard's mouth, but it seems like that's part of the problem: {{Citation}} overthinks things, and requires editors to learn and remember which parameters it considers "book parameters" and which it considers "serial / periodical parameters", and that it cares if you try to mix and match them.If, for some reason, an editor has a preference for
|contribution=
+|title=
over|title=
+|work=
, and supplies|issue=
, maybe it's not necessary to assume that the|issue=
was unintentional / unimportant / impossible, and just display it anyway.I understand this probably would require rewriting some subroutines and would also probably negate the ability to output clean metadata, but it would flatten the learning curve. My gnoming job security is based on citation templates being fiddly and algorithms doing a bad job at filling them out properly, so maybe I shouldn't be supporting changes like this, but I did want to demonstrate that there's more than one person in favour of an easy to use catchall template that behaves as expected even if the parameter aliases chosen are non-standard. Folly Mox (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't think it's to difficult to understand that using |journal= is required if you citing a journal. The issue I see with displaying any parameter is what formating and placement should be applied to random parameters, and should that vary depending on what other parameters are supplied. The issue is that a certain set of formating / placement is desired but without supplying the information required to do that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to put words in LlewellynII's keyboard's mouth, but it seems like that's part of the problem: {{Citation}} overthinks things, and requires editors to learn and remember which parameters it considers "book parameters" and which it considers "serial / periodical parameters", and that it cares if you try to mix and match them.If, for some reason, an editor has a preference for
- Here's {{cite magazine}} with
- I agree that there should be a multipurpose template that displays every parameter you feed it, but I'm not upset that there isn't. Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the previous discussion said all that needed to be said. Llywelyn bringing it up again as if their point of view had consensus is simply disruptive. Izno (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the template under discussion here is {{Citation}}, which is not exclusively used to cite books. Folly Mox (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Works with multiple volumes[edit]
Used to be simple to handle with |vol=I, II, &c.
. The template currently throws out errors when |vol=
has a URL in it. Surely it isn't necessary to run entire citation template for every volume of a multivolume work. I assume there's a workaround for the reduced functionality, but it's not obvious or clear from the documentation what it is. So... what is it? — LlywelynII 23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and perhaps other guidance, cite the volume that supports the claim you are making in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Displaying the name of the collaboration when the primary authors are not known[edit]
The description of the collaboration parameter says:
collaboration: Name of a group of authors or collaborators; requires author, last, or vauthors listing one or more primary authors; follows author name-list; appends "et al." to author name-list.
When collaboration is supplied, but author is not, the current behavior is to not display the name of the collaboration at all.
The problem is that there are studies for which the primary authors are not known. For example, the following rather important study, referenced in Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian, has 397 authors, none of them marked as primary: "Measurement of e+e− Momentum and Angular Distributions from Linearly Polarized Photon Collisions". Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. The current behavior forces me to use author for the name of the collaboration.
I propose to change the description and the behavior of collaboration so that it only requires supplying the primary authors if they are known, still displaying the name of the collaboration if author is empty. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I have encountered this situation multiple times. In some cases the publication doesn't even list the authors, it merely names the collaboration. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. It is nonetheless standard practice (or was, at least, until fairly recently) to cite as Adam, J. et al. (STAR Collaboration).
- That said, there is no reason for why you can't have a collaboration as a single author. Or two authors + a collaboration, that does not require et al to be displayed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there's no principal investigator named, what's wrong with putting the name of the collaboration into the
|author=
parameter? Corporate authorship is pretty normal in a lot of areas. Unless I'm misunderstanding something – always a strong possibility – it seems like the behaviour requested here would render on the page exactly the same as|author=Collaboration Name
. What probem am I missing here? Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- I just think it would be better to always put the name of the collaboration in the
collaboration
parameter, whether the names of the principal authors are available or not. - A more general solution would be to rename
collaboration
tocollective-author
and require that collective authors (such as corporate authors, commissions, collaborations, etc.) always go there, so that theauthorn
parameters are only used for single humans. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just think it would be better to always put the name of the collaboration in the
FAQ[edit]
I started an FAQ for this page at Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ because of this discussion. IDK if we even actually need a separate page for the FAQ or if we can just put it on Help:CS1 or something. But I do think it would be valuable to have something for recurring comments/requests. Izno (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Placement of ISSN in Citation Style 1[edit]
I'm seeking clarification on the placement of the ISSN parameter in {{cite journal}}. Specifically, what are the arguments for displaying the ISSN after the DOI and other article identifiers, rather than directly after the journal name?
For context, the ISSN is an identifier for the journal as a whole, not the individual article. Here are two examples to illustrate my point:
- Example 1 - ISSN as Part of Article Identifiers
- Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal''. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, ISSN 1234-5678.
- Example 2 - ISSN as Part of Journal Identifier
- Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678.
In Example 1, the ISSN is listed after the DOI, suggesting it is an identifier for the article. In Example 2, the ISSN is placed after the journal name, clearly indicating it is an identifier for the journal.
I believe that if we display the ISSN, it should be positioned to reflect that it identifies the journal. This would avoid confusion and provide a clearer reference structure. Alternatively, we could consider not displaying the ISSN at all in citations.
What are the current reasons for the existing placement of the ISSN, and would it be possible to revise the format for better clarity?
Thank you for your input. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Identifiers are rendered as a group that is alpha ascending sorted by down-cased identifier names. So, 'ISSN', down-cased to 'issn' follows 'doi' in the rendering. It used to be that the identifiers were rendered in random order because of how Lua deals with associative tables. There were complaints about the randomness so we sort the identifiers; no more randomness.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification on the current sorting mechanism for identifiers. While I understand the rationale behind grouping identifiers and sorting them alphabetically to avoid randomness, I believe this approach conflates two fundamentally different types of identifiers. The ISSN identifies the journal, while identifiers like DOI are specific to individual articles. This distinction is crucial for accurate citation and reference clarity. Consider the following points:
- Clear Distinction of Identifiers
- Placing the ISSN with the DOI and other article-specific identifiers can mislead readers into thinking the ISSN is also specific to the article. However, the ISSN is a unique identifier for the journal itself, not the article. Separating these would enhance clarity:
Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678.
Here, the journal identifier (ISSN) is clearly linked to the journal name, and the article identifier (DOI) follows as part of the article-specific details.- Enhanced Citation Accuracy
- Academic standards and citation guidelines typically differentiate between journal and article identifiers. Aligning Wikipedia’s citation style with these standards would improve the accuracy and professionalism of our citations. For example, many style guides (e.g., APA, MLA) do not group ISSN with article identifiers.
- Improved Reader Experience
- For readers and editors, a clear and structured citation format is easier to read and understand. Grouping identifiers by their type (journal vs. article) can prevent confusion and ensure that the citation components are immediately recognizable:
Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, PMID 12345678.
- Consistent Identifier Grouping
- If the goal is to avoid randomness and ensure consistent ordering, we can achieve this while still distinguishing between journal and article identifiers. We could establish a format where journal identifiers (e.g., ISSN) always appear directly after the journal title, followed by article identifiers (e.g., DOI, PMID) in alphabetical order.
- By acknowledging the inherent differences between these types of identifiers and reflecting this distinction in our citation templates, we can provide clearer, more accurate citations. I propose revisiting the grouping strategy to separate journal identifiers from article-specific identifiers, ensuring each is clearly defined and appropriately placed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ISSN is best omitted because it is rarely a relevant identifier. You cite the article, not the journal as a whole. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is unfortunately added as default if you use the VisualEditor's cite tool "Citoid", as well as e.g. "ProveIt", to generate the reference code. So I doubt many (at least not me) takes the time to actively remove the ISSN when included in the generated reference. Do we have a count of how many articles/references cite ISSNs currently (and how many of these are really needed to e.g. disambiguate the journal)? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 95%+ of the time, it's automated garbage. Same type of garbage that will add |publisher=Elsevier BV to journal citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe these tools no longer adds publisher to journals though (only e.g. web and book). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 95%+ of the time, it's automated garbage. Same type of garbage that will add |publisher=Elsevier BV to journal citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is unfortunately added as default if you use the VisualEditor's cite tool "Citoid", as well as e.g. "ProveIt", to generate the reference code. So I doubt many (at least not me) takes the time to actively remove the ISSN when included in the generated reference. Do we have a count of how many articles/references cite ISSNs currently (and how many of these are really needed to e.g. disambiguate the journal)? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ISSN is best omitted because it is rarely a relevant identifier. You cite the article, not the journal as a whole. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification on the current sorting mechanism for identifiers. While I understand the rationale behind grouping identifiers and sorting them alphabetically to avoid randomness, I believe this approach conflates two fundamentally different types of identifiers. The ISSN identifies the journal, while identifiers like DOI are specific to individual articles. This distinction is crucial for accurate citation and reference clarity. Consider the following points:
Unflagged free DOI, add a time component to some DOIs[edit]
DOI prefix 10.1155's registrant is Hindawi, an open access publisher. However, Hindawi became open access in 2007, and some (rare) DOIs from prior to 2007 are not free, e.g.
- Booker, A. R.; Strombergsson, A.; Venkatesh, A. (2006). "Effective computation of Maass cusp forms". International Mathematics Research Notices. 2006: 71281. doi:10.1155/IMRN/2006/71281.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
There should be a way to specify that for 10.1155, the template should only flag those from year 2007 and up, and not all of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- De-archived. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Archival website question[edit]
Hello, re this section: Template:Cite_web#Using_"archive-url"_and_"archive-date"_(and_optionally_"url-status")_for_webpages_that_have_been_archived. I realize I can just test this if mechanically possible, but are we allowed as policy to use archival sites beyond archive.org, such as for public records of the US Federal government, for redunant or backup citation functionality? Such as archive.is or to put such collateral on Wikimedia Commons, and thus use it as that secondary link reference? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- The field is meant for web archives which are large general purpose archives of the web. The web archives in use on Enwiki include those listed at Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia. The type of site you refer to for the Federal Government is not a web archive, its a site-specific archival collection. In general you want to stick with archive.org, archive.today and a couple other smaller ones. If you want to include a non-archive link + the federal government archive link in the same citation, you could do something like:
- "Example site". Archived from the original on 2024-05-01. Alt Archive URL
- ..But I would need to see the actual URLs to say for sure, it might be the Federal Govt archive link is the primary URL. -- GreenC 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've got the basic web cite template narrowed down, but I was thinking about like this on the government site here vs the archive.org link here for the same. I was especially curious about putting copies of such PDFs onto Commons, so as to have a backup to the backup, or to simply place them on 'our' servers to help preserve them in tandem with the article(s) that may use them. Basically, to make sure that even if the source .gov/.mil sites remove the content or archive.org does/goes down, we'd have redundancy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Generally those links (nro.gov and Commons) would be considered the primary link within the citation template ie.
|url=
and not the|archive-url=
. The way you can tell: if the link has a web archive URL, such as at archive.org, we would prefer that web archive URL to be in the|archive-url=
field. If there is a third layer, like a primary to the primary, then use something like I did above, or create a second citation. The concept is that every link is paired with a web archive link, no matter where the primary link is hosted. -- GreenC 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- Ah--I think I got that nailed down, like if you look at Invention_Secrecy_Act#References.
- Sorry if I was being unclear. I was asking about using non-archive.org options like Commons for Federal stuff, putting an extra copy there, and also using that in the citation, or as an alternative to archive.org, to close the loop and keep the assets on our servers entirely, with no external reliance. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- What citation(s) at Invention_Secrecy_Act#References are you referring to? -- GreenC 20:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Like if you control-f on DMA RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM there. That's a government PDF--while it's on the government site and archive, I had wondered if a copy of that can (or should) go on Commons, citing there where it was gotten from, and then we use it from Commons as a source or as the archival link itself. Essentially, archive it ourselves? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You could upload to commons, no
|url=
or|archive-url=
, instead|title=Document title
. Normally there is no|archive-url=
for content hosted at Commons, so just link to the File: in the|title=
. -- GreenC 22:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You could upload to commons, no
- Like if you control-f on DMA RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM there. That's a government PDF--while it's on the government site and archive, I had wondered if a copy of that can (or should) go on Commons, citing there where it was gotten from, and then we use it from Commons as a source or as the archival link itself. Essentially, archive it ourselves? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- What citation(s) at Invention_Secrecy_Act#References are you referring to? -- GreenC 20:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Generally those links (nro.gov and Commons) would be considered the primary link within the citation template ie.
- I've got the basic web cite template narrowed down, but I was thinking about like this on the government site here vs the archive.org link here for the same. I was especially curious about putting copies of such PDFs onto Commons, so as to have a backup to the backup, or to simply place them on 'our' servers to help preserve them in tandem with the article(s) that may use them. Basically, to make sure that even if the source .gov/.mil sites remove the content or archive.org does/goes down, we'd have redundancy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)