Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 18

So every statement and assertion in The Economist is absolutely true? And to the extent that any journal vouches for reliability of what they publish, would they do so if the did not who the authors are? What if someone responds that the original assertion is in error – do you have to wait for The Economist to sort out who is right? Would it make any difference to you if you knew who was making the several statements? Perhaps you should take a little more time to think this out. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, at this point you're clearly not interested in having a dialogue. Go troll elsewhere.

books

} 00:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. I am trying (and I think very patiently) to address every objection, concern, and misunderstanding you (and others) may have so that we might resolve these matters. If you can no longer support your views you should consider whether they ought to be modified. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

My opposition is not due to a misunderstandings, but rooted in the fact that author ids DO NOT BELONG IN CITATIONS AND ARE COMPLETELY POINTLESS INFORMATION THAT SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER IN HELPING READERS TO

books

} 02:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your example of a citation that omits specifying the authors is a misunderstanding of my hypothetical of totally anonymous works.

If shouting makes you feel better, fine, but it's not persuasive, and does not advance any dialogue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

'Author-id' proposal - break

@J. Johnson: to return to the question you asked me. If I look at UCERF3, I have no idea who any of the authors of the sources given are, and I don't care. I do care that the sources are papers in reputable scientific journals; they might just as well be anonymous. I work regularly with secondary sources such as the World Spider Catalog or the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, where authorship is irrelevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You are less concerned with authorship because you are relying on the journal editors at both the primary (original publication) and secondary levels, who have already passed on the authors' qualifications, etc. But make no mistake about this: the authority of all scholarship, scientific study, and persuasive speech of any kind ultimately rests on the authority or credibility of the original author(s). If an editor receives (say) a paper with much arcane formulae and difficult to follow argumentation that asserts a modification to some physical constant, it makes a big difference whether the author is some reclusive but brilliant mathematician, a thousand-member team at CERN, or the self-styled King of Bosnia. If the paper is entirely anonymous - that is, the editor knows absolutely nothing about the author - then it will most likely, and most rightly, not be published.

Authorship is never irrelevant, even you if don't have to deal with it directly. But what you refer to is where something has become so well established and generally accepted that acceptance is no longer contingent on the original author. Where WP editors cite recent sources, the claims are not yet well established, so it is often helpful to know more about the authors. More journals are coming around to providing ORCID links as a service for their readers. It would be service for our readers (and editors) to be able to do the same. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Authorship is always irrelevant, except in the cases where it serves to dismiss the writings outright as the ramblings of quacks (and those won't have ORCIDs). I have never ONCE relied on the name on top of a paper to tell me if it was a good one or not. The quality of a paper, or of a book, or a blog piece depends on the quality of the arguments made, not the person who makes them, e.g.

books

} 22:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Authorship is not only relevant, but necessary, to determine whether a self-published source passes the "established expert" exception to

WP:SPS, part of Wikipedia's core policies. —David Eppstein (talk

) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That might be the only exception, but the author's name and the source itself will be plenty sufficient to establish if this is an expert or not. No need for an author ID in that case either.

books

} 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

But you will accept that as an exception? Good. Now consider that author's names often come in different forms, and not every article or book is listed by Google Scholar. Consider also that experts often modify their opinions, which you might have difficulty finding without access to a fairly complete bibliography. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We simply shouldn't normally be doing this kind of investigation into authors' credentials. It's completely against the spirit of

WP:SPS

fails to meet the required criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia; it should never be the key source.

In any case, however interesting to some of us, this part of the debate is irrelevant. The choice is between (1) adding an id for every author (2) adding an id for the citation as a whole which then links to the authors. I've seen no convincing argument as to why (1) is best. There are lots of disadvantages to (1), including clutter, avoiding repeated links – it would be tricky to make sure that an author is only linked once, as well as the inappropriate suggestion that Wikipedia evaluates the importance of authors. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

An argument that has been presented for (1) is that Wikidata is not ready, so we should create the links in Wikipedia. This seems very weak: Wikidata is surely much better suited to this sort of linkage. Kanguole 08:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree; there's no reason to mess up citation formatting here just because Wikidata isn't ready yet. It's not a vital or urgent issue. Let's wait until it can be handled there. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that normally we don't investigate author's credentials. But by the same argument we should dispense with citations because normally our readers don't investigate the sources. Cases do arise (such as determining reliability) where an author's credentials are relevant, and making such an assessment is no different than assessing the relevance or notability of any source material. That is not prohibited by WP:NOR; it is part of the ordinary discretion expected of editors. Note that I do not maintain that an author ids must be added in all cases, only that there be some means of adding an id when one is needed.

Your description of alternative (1) is incorrect: this is not about "adding an id for every author", it is about adding links to authors (may be only one) individually. As to "clutter" (as I have previously noted): having a single, superscripted small-letter appended after half-a-dozen author names is a third less clutter (and less blue) than the twenty characters of Headbomb's "Wikidata:Q123456798" example. Your objection of "clutter" really should run against the provided Wikidata example.

As for "avoiding repeated links": what are you talking about? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the same problem there is with |author-link=. A given author should only have one id link in the article (more definitely is clutter). But this is difficult to ensure when refs get added incrementally and change position as the text changes.

We're not persuading one another. No more on this subject from me. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Multifaceted issues take more time and work, but I am willing to stay the course.

The sub-issue you raise here seems to be a variant of the

MOS:OVERLINK

issue, where an article is deemed to contain an "excessive" number of links. In regards of |author-links=, and also in wikilinking publishers and cities of publication, there is a broader issue: where a wiki-notable author (or publisher) appears more than once in a bibliography, it does seem excessive to have that name highlighted multiple times. E.g. (to strip matters to the essentials), something like:

• Std. "blue" links: John Smith ...; John Smith ...; John Smith ...; John Smith ...;

certainly seems excessive. But that is more of an issue with author-links. As an alternative (such as with {{authorid}}) consider:

• Superscripted: John Smith^o ...; John Smith^o ...; John Smith^o ...; John Smith^o ...;

Massively "less blue". So, yes, repeated links can be a problem, even amounting to overlinking, but that is a general problem, and more of problem with author-links (but not deemed a show-stopper!). It is actually less of a problem with the author id links shown here. And I can see other uses of an |authorid= parameter that could reduce the flood of blue created by author-links. In the issue raised here |authorid= is less of the problem, and more of an opportunity for a solution. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose—at this time, I'm not in favor of adding author ID numbers to citations. Maybe in the future we can use Wikidata as a sort of intermediary repository for them, but we're far from that point. In the interim, adding these would add visual clutter without an immediate tangible benefit. (If there were such a benefit, other style guides would have determined a way to add such ID numbers to citations, but they have yet to do so.) ID numbers for the actual sources (ISBN, ISSN, OCLC, DOI, etc), yes, but not for authors. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Other style guides" would be CMS, APA, MLA, etc., which is to say: the traditional guides to print media. And as print media lack a linking function, they would have to use the raw ID numbers, which definitely would "add visual clutter". But that is not what is proposed here. What I have proposed is a way to allow (among other possibilities) use simple, single-character hyper-links. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, my statement is not quite accurate. The print media concept of a raised (super-scripted) asterisk (^*) is essentially a directive to self-mediate "linking" to a note, typically at the foot of the page. That is basically what the {{authorid}} template implements, a single-character superscript, except for having a different target. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that multiple authors in the author field is classed now as an error. However this is my preferred way of coding, as, in my opinion, attempts to break down authorship field more granularly are not the province of citation templates.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC).

I don't understand. You approve of citation templates listing different authors (granularity) but you disapprove of the formatting of such granularity. (a) Why? (b) isn't this contradictory? 65.88.88.69 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the primary purposes of citation is to identify the authors of a source. And not as as mass of confused text, but clearly and even individually. How is this not in "the province of citation templates"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lumping all the authors together is contrary to the cite template documentation. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Piling on, |ref=harv doesn't work and can't work unless the authors are separated. (Attempts to do the separation automatically in software are doomed because of the too-great variety of names and of ways that template users might try to format them.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And let us not forget COinS, or any other function that depends on correct metadata. Though I will say one thing in favor of copy-pasting entire author lists (often including footnote numbers or symbols) into |authors=: it is an up-front indication that the rest of the article may suffer from the same lack of care and diligence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree that multiple authors should be split up, for all the reasons noted above. However, it seems that the many of those participating in

WP:CITEVAR, which they regard as preventing changes in coding without first obtaining consensus. Peter coxhead (talk

) 22:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant. The OP is complaining because he is using a single-person parameter (|author=) where he should clearly have used the multiple-person version (|authors=). And then makes the contradictory statement that "granularity" regarding authors is not the province of CS1. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Because of its free-form nature, we should be discouraging the use of |authors=. The content of |authors= is not made part of the citation's metadata because we can't necessarily parse the parameter's contents into the appropriate metadata keywords rft.au, rft.aufirst, rft.aulast.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

For sure. Did we not deprecate |authors= along with |coauthors=? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not deprecated, nor imo should it be. Neither should |editors= or |people=. Although I've rarely used them, not everything can be put in a straightjacket. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Straightjacket" is hardly a neutral, dispassionate characterization; I reckon that just slipped out. As to any difficulties, problems, or special cases for which stuffing multiple authors into an |authors= parameter is a reasonable solution: could you offer any examples? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's spelled "straitjacket". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that the meaning was understood despite the spelling. But I disagree that "straitjacket" is not apt. Because deprecating these parameters is forcing a narrower set of useful options. Pointing this out is neutral. If there is a problem with the metadata, then (a) change the coding, not editor's behavior (b) deprecate the metadata, not a parameter that helps editors present sources. These parameters can be useful, with authors that are known by different names or by pen-names. Such names can be abandoned, then the same work can be republished listing the same author with a diferrent name. This could impact verifiability, as at first glance, the author (of the earlier edition) doesn't exist. And there is no |orig-name=. Putting all such names into |author= or |authorn= is semantically incorrect – there are many names, not many authors. |authors= is not correct either, but it is better (author-separation is not explicit). Also the parameters can be useful when roles may have to be designated, for example with authors of creative works such as (director), (producer), (scriptwriter) etc. Using |first= to add these roles is also semantically incorrect. If and when an |author-id= is established, then these free-form parameters can be revisited – assuming that |author-link= or |author-id= are filled-in, and correctly so. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The history of the jacket is certainly in the sense of "confining to a narrow space". But I tend to be ambiguous, even tolerant, on whether it might equally well mean "to make straight".

It is not clear just what you mean. (Specific examples might help.) In cases where an author is known by various names, there are various ways of handling that. (And perhaps with author-ids, but that's a different discussion.) But question is not about putting all such names into |author=, but of putting multiple authors into |authors=. So like I asked before: do we have any examples of where stuffing multiple authors into an |authors= parameter is a reasonable solution? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A single option for anything, is a situation 100% made straight. But some situations are not reducible to that. There can conceivably be situations where a source is cited with a no-longer used author name. If one tries to verify that source, a different author name will pop-up and this may lead to unnecessary discussion in the article's talk page, and then here. Especially if there is no way of immediately getting the particulars of an author through following |author-link= or |author-id=. The temporary solution for me would be to use |authors= for the reasons stated above, to hold both author names. And as also stated above, there is the other situation, where author roles may be indicated. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read more attentively, as you seem to be missing the essential difference between authors, and names of authors. E.g., when you say that |authors= can "hold both author names", it is evident you are talking about multiple names for a single author. But!! 1) All of that, being applicable to a single author, could be done in the singular |author1=. (Or even better in |first1= and |last1=.) 2) what we are discussing here is not a single author with multiple names, but the use of the plural |authors= parameter for multiple authors. E.g.: |authors=Smith, M.; Jones, Jim, Jr.; Miller, Richard. Do you understand that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding more than one anything in a single-attribute parameter is both semantically and programmatically incorrect. Conflating 2 names/identities in that field falls under this error. Using "authorn" is also wrong, as the explicit author separation is similarly incorrect. But |authors= is free-form. By definition more flexible, and though not perfect, can handle such situations better. Here's some pseudocode: {{cite book|authors=Penname [pen-name of Author]|title=Title}}. 64.134.69.85 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your example, of the attributes of a single author, illustrates some confusion. Please note: the "s" in |authors= is the plural form, not the possessive form. (|author's=??)

I have no idea what you mean by "the explicit author separation" you infer to "authorn". Perhaps another example would help. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The term "authors" despite the plural form may include only a single author (any author over 0). "Author" indicates a singular value: just 1 author. When singular authors are used, such as "author1", "author2", etc. the emphasis is on their uniqueness. However "authors" can be used to indicate commonality. We are talking about the best option in a batch of bad ones. 184.75.21.30 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you are talking nonsense. "Authors" is plural, and neither the term nor the so-named parameter suggest any element of commonality. Indeed, neither does your example (did you perhaps mis-take "commonality" for "property"?), and I suspect your grasp of the concept is weak. Your comments have demonstrated nothing but your own non-understanding. As that seems innate it would be a waste of time to continue this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not so crazy. Lumping all the authors together is required by |vauthors= ;-) Boghog (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The |vauthors= parameter does not require "[l]umping all the authors together", it is the means by which that is achieved in accordance with the

Vancouver style

of citation, and which is done on the expectaton of a specific structuring that is not expected with |authors=. Aside from that, "vauthors" is entirely parallel with "authors" in that the "s" means the plural form, not the possessive form. Nor whatever fantastical form this anonymous IP has in mind.

And now that has been clarified perhpas someone would hat this entire digression, from the first "straightjacket" comment of 23:48, 25 April.

Whoops! That is my unsigned edit of 00:47, 2 May 2016‎ ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

If people wish to see multiple authors listed in an "authors" parameter, then I can understand that. I think, though, that cite templates should be easy to use. It is really cool that people can rip data from WP in structured ways, but what I primarily care about is making the encyclopaedia easy to read and write. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

CS1 templates are not mandatory. Another thing that is not mandatory is that they should be easy to use. It would be nice if they were, but there is no design mandate that they absolutely must be. The main defining element of style is consistency, not ease of use. And in any case, all that is irrelevant, because that is not the matter you raised in your OP. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect many editors want an "authors" parameter because they don't want to go to the trouble (as in "it's too hard!!!!") to parse out individual authors. Which gets into an interesting consideration: anything really easy to do would already be done, just by the natural course of things. (Like gravity concentrating hydrogen to make stars happen.) But any thing desirable that is not yet done will require some effort to achieve. If "easy to write" was our primary criterion then all kinds of pap would result, of little interest or worth to read. As encyclopediasts our primary goal is to inform. As a secondary criterion we hope this won't be any harder than necessary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not object if we'd deprecate |authors= for as long as we don't delete it. It is convenient to have in the first run of a conversion job of free-flow citations to use the citation templates (or when translating citations from other Wikipedias), in particular in articles outside one's own interest or when in a hurry. Deprecating the parameter would not be in conflict with this usage, we could even track its usage in some maintenance category. Perhaps someone will write a tool to semi-automate the process of splitting |authors= into separate parameters. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No, "authors" should not be deprecated, for reasons given above. This goes beyond presentation, which is the province of style (and of this page), and into the substance of citing sources. Any discussion of deprecation should happen there, not here. Style-wise, "authors" can present the citation exactly as another person-related parameter, assuming the doc gives proper guidance. The real problem here is that the doc is not up to par. 207.237.37.100 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If |authors= presents the citation in exactly the same way as splitting up the information into |last1=, |first1=, etc., where's the problem in deprecating |authors=? Anyone can use this short form and then other editors can tidy up behind them. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine, let's deprecate the individual params then. But let's get serious. There's place for both. 160.79.53.242 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

With careful hand-crafting one can use |authors= in way that appears the same as using |last/first=. But why go to that much trouble instead of just using last/first? Not to mention that CITEREFs, COinS, and any other current and futuristic uses of the metadata are broken. In the long run last/first is indeed easier than using |authors=, which is little more than a means of shifting some necessary work on to someone else. I see no place for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is useless discussion. If anyone feels that "authors" should be deprecated, start a proper discussion with proper reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Since the presence or absence of any person parameter can be presentation-neutral, this is not a matter of presentation, and therefore not a question of style. Which is what CS1 is all about. If and when "authors" is consensus-decided that has no useful function, then the implementation of the new consensus will be discussed. That discussion belongs here. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Citing sources is an overview of citation, is neutral regarding whether one uses cs1 style or cs2 style templates, or, for that matter, any templates at all, and says nothing about the use of template parameters. On the other hand, this page details how to use the cs1 templates generally, covering specific parameters in detail. And while this topic is termed "Citation Style 1", the use of these templates and their parameters goes beyond mere presentation, it also goes to the integrity of the information contained. If you can show us a better place to discuss how to use these parameters, please do. And of course, if you find this discussion to be totally useless, you are free to ignore it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Where was it agreed that all instances of |author= should be replaced with |authors=?

WP:BOT despite not being a bot account. I left a talk page message, but they continue unabated. --Redrose64 (talk

) 08:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There has been no such agreement and that kind of fix is wrong because it fixes nothing and, because the content of |authors= is not made part of a cs1|2 template's metadata, single name |author= which were correct and were creating author metadata are no longer doing so.

For whatever it's worth, I've added text to Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list so that, on the off chance that other editors read it, this kind of brute-force change might in future be avoided.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. I reverted Trappist's copyedit for reasons given in that page. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As a possible summary: are we generally in accord that (aside from the structured vauthors parameter), it is preferable to not put multiple authors into a single |authors= parameter? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I found citation 5 in this revision of "Cushnoc Archeological Site" misuses |postscript=. Should there be a test for the use of a punctuation character? I would suggest that the module output 1) an error if this parameter is set to anything more than one character in length, and 2) a maintenance notification if the character is not a punctuation mark (in English). --Izno (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For previous discussions (with no change in the documentation or the template's behavior), see this previous discussion from December 2014 and the end of this discussion from July–October 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just counting on my hands, it looks like there is consensus for this idea, but there may need to be work done post-implementation into the module (StoryOfWikipedia). --Izno (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Arguably, this and similar problems may be avoided by using correct nomenclature. In its current iteration it is obvious that |postscript= does not stand for postscript, but for terminal punctuation. Renaming the parameter according to its purpose would be the first (and perhaps the only necessary) step. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I have not used |postscript= for this purpose myself (although I was tempted to do so many times), a lot of editors use it to store visible notes related to the citation. I would therefore oppose enforcing stricter checks for the |postscript= parameter for as long as we don't have a |comment= or |note= parameter as was repeatedly proposed by various editors already and is supported by the citation templates in some other Wikipedias. The contents of that optional parameter would be shown following the optional output of the |quote= (and the proposed |script-quote= and |trans-quote=) parameter(s), and ideally it would be framed in parenthesis (like: "(<text>)" or "(Note: <text>)" or "(NB. <text>)"), so that the |postscript= parameter can still be used to define the leadout character in order to blend it in with the text surrounding the template. Keeping the various texts in separate parameters (and spans) would allow us to bidir-protect the contents of the script parameter, possibly add language metadata, dynamically filter specific contents based on output media (monitor, screen, printer, data stream), style (CSS) and user preferences, and let the template adjust the leadout semi-automatically. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a showing of community consensus to support |comment= or equivalent. I have seen a number of users advocate such a parameter but no

WP:OTHERSTUFF bucket of issues). --Izno (talk

) 14:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was unduly confrontational. If a parameter is often abused as a workaround for missing functionality, it is reasonable to decide whether we want that feature, and if so to implement it so that the message can provide editors with a way forward, rather than just telling them they're wrong. Kanguole 16:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm simply not going to reply, as I've already made the points I think I need to make to support a test for this parameter. The "new section" button awaits you, for your |comment= RFC. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where a parameter is being misused it is likely useful to determine why. And if there is some need that is not being met then by all means some thing might be proposed. But a problem somewhere else does not justify misuse of this parameter. I support a restriction (and test) on the values supplied to |ps=. And I wonder if anything other than a comma or a period is valid. I think we should also consider whether the name should be changed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"postscript": better name?

Following up on the suggestion by 72.43.99.146: anyone have any ideas for a better name for this parameter, that would avoid the association with PostScript, and better communicate that this is about choice of punctuation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion in Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions for Italian parameter names are all wrong (except for "volume" and "titolo"). I have prepared an updated file with the name used in it.wiki, can I upload in the sandbox Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox ? --Moroboshi (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's what the sandbox is for.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

...and with a typical bad move I clicked the wrong link and updated the live suggestions module - I reverted my change and uploaded the change for Italian suggestions in the sandbox.--Moroboshi (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Asking this here b/c I don't see it addressed on Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style (so I was forced to guess).

The module prefers |vauthors=Gower Jr WR, Carr MC over |vauthors=Gower WR Jr, Carr MC (my emphasis) (see here and here). The latter emits an error and fails to render the r in Jr. However, I've seen that the latter is more common than the former (only anecdotally; I haven't done any research into their relative frequency). Are there any plans to allow this? If not, it should be stated somewhere on the error category.   ~ 

See here. cs1|2 doesn't understand generational suffixes. To render them properly, use the doubled parentheses to inhibit error checking for that name:

|vauthors=((Gower WR Jr)), Carr MC

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the purpose of the doubled parentheses is to allow for non-standard text. It's common to come across Jr & Sr, though, and it seems relatively straight-forward to unambiguously identify it in the author-string, i.e. it must exist either before or after first/middle initials ([JS]r\s)?[A-Z]+(\s[JS]r)?, which must exist after a last name [A-Z][a-z]+ to not emit an error. I can't speak to the difficulty/ease of implententation, however.   ~ 

dgaf

)  19:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Vancouver style even allow Sr./Jr./etc.? It seems strange to care only for the first and middle initials, but then want to know whether that is WR Jr. or WR Sr. I don't know what the rules for Vancouver are, but wouldn't it be just as well to just leave that stuff of? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently, |vauthors=Last Sr. FM is allowed (period is removed prior to rendering) but |vauthors=Last RM Sr isn't.   ~ 

dgaf

)  13:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed

dgaf

)  13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

|vauthors=Last Sr. FM is malformed. Vancouver style requires that the suffix to be placed at the end after the initials. Module:Citation/CS1 treats 'Sr.' as part of the last name. The disappearance of the dot in rendering is part of the reason I want to rewrite the name handling code. At the next update, a dot appearing in any |vauthors= parameter will cause an error message:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=Last Sr. FM}}

Last Sr FM. Title. {{cite book}}: Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 1 (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the obstacles to adopting |vauthors= usage on pages using Vancouver style authors seems to be no option for

I'm not sure what it is that you are asking. Puntuation in the rendered citation is the responsibility of the cs1|2 templates. {{cite book}} and the other cs1 templates will terminate the author name list with a period regardless of the punctuation that separates the individual names. Likewise, {{citation}} (or cs1 templates with |mode=cs2) will terminate the name list with a comma:

cs1:

{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}

Last FM, Last FM. Title.

cs2:

{{citation |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}

Last FM, Last FM, Title

|mode=cs2:

{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM |mode=cs2}}

Last FM, Last FM, Title

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what is desired (though not by me):

Mushrooms of North America in Color. 1995. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Which unfortunately has to use |authors= to get the job done, since |vauthors= emits an error when a trailing period is present. If this were doable via |vauthors= (or some other parameter (|postscript= comes to mind)) that would solve the problem (removing the desire to have a trailing author period when |date=/|year= is listed would solve it too, but that doesn't seem possible given the adamance of the above linked discussion).   ~ 

dgaf

)  19:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Examples:

{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM|year=1999}}

Last FM, Last FM (1999). Title.

{{cite book |title=Title |last=Last|first= FM|last2= Last|first2= FM|year=1999}}

Last, FM; Last, FM (1999). Title.

{{cite book |title=Title |authors=Last FM, Last FM|year=1999}}

Title. 1999. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

|authors=, |last1= etc., and |vauthors= are handled the same. Adding a period to the list of authors will make it inconsistent with the CS1 style, such as it is. An editor who wants a period after the author list and before the year may need to use hand-rendered citations.– Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) great minds?

An issue raised in the linked discussion appears to be consistency. So, checking the four flavors of author parameter to make sure that they are consistent with each other; first without a date:

Last FM, Last FM. vauthors.

Last FM, Last FM. "author". Work. – {{cite news}} just as a check

authors. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Last, FM; Last, FM. last/first.

and with date:

Last FM, Last FM (1995). vauthors.

Last FM, Last FM (1995). "author". Work. – again {{cite news}}

authors. 1995. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Last, FM; Last, FM (1995). last/first.

it appears to me that the templates are consistent in the application of terminal punctuation

The same using {{citation}}; first without date:

Last FM, Last FM, vauthors

Last FM, Last FM, author

authors {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Last, FM; Last, FM, last/first

and with date:

Last FM, Last FM (1995), vauthors

Last FM, Last FM (1995), author

authors, 1995 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Last, FM; Last, FM (1995), last/first

again, these are consistent with each other. But, this test does reveal a CITEREF anchor bug, so this discussion isn't for naught.

If consistency is the issue, that suggests that an article is using more than one kind of citing mechanism. If cs1 is chosen, then all references must use the cs1 templates. It is the same for cs2. If the desired formatting is not directly supported by cs1|2, then use an appropriate alternate template or free-form citations are in order.

cs1|2 have their roots in a variety of published style guides, one of which is APA style from which they get their parenthetical dates following after the author list. At some point in the development of cs1|2, a decision was taken to omit author list terminal punctuation when the template has a date. Without significant discussion that reaches a determination to change all author, editor, translator, and contributor list parameter processing, it seems improper to change only |vauthors=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but are hand-rendered citations that

dgaf

)  13:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is meant: citations that do not use templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that DOIs are rendered as:

 https://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2009JD012104
 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F31543

These links are from Lowest temperature recorded on Earth, using {{cite journal}}, and Nikolaus Pevsner, using {{cite ODNB}}. In both, a slash (/) is rendered as %2F, and in the second a colon (:) is rendered as %3A. Both use the unencoded form (10.1029/2009JD012104 & 10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F3154) in the wikitext. It seems, as far as I can tell, to affect anything in the CS1 family.

Is there a particular reason for doing this? URLs, etc, that come through CS1 seem to be unencoded. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Because a DOI can use pretty-much any character. The same is not true for urls so those characters not allowed in a url must be

percent encoded

.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Aha, thanks - should have realised this, I had horrible problems writing a script which interpreted DOIs some months back :-). There's an unexpected fringe benefit of this - potentially makes it easy to identify DOIs used directly rather than called through a template, without having to parse the wikitext. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:Citation/CS1 is not supposed to create a CITEREF anchor id from |authors=:

{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors''</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>

authors {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000053-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">&#124;ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>

authors. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

But, there is a bug that causes it to do so when the template has a date:

{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000057-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>

authors, 1995 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">&#124;ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>

authors. 1995. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I have fixed the bug in the sandbox:

{{citation/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>

authors, 1995 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

{{cite book/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000063-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">&#124;ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">&#124;authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>

authors. 1995. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I checked the documentation to see if |authors= was mentioned in the harv/CITEREF section, and I did not find it, so I don't think this will introduce any changes that contravene the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

An observation:

* |ref=harv: Creates an anchor of the format CITEREFauthorslastnameyear suitable for a {{

H:CS1#Anchors

Change CITEREFauthorslastnameyear to CITEREFauthorlastnameyear or CITEREFauthor(s)lastnameyear

65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)