Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 2

Oh my, no, not {{

harv}} above are just different ways of implementing this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 23:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

{{

WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk

) 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

{{rp}} puts some of the bibliography data in the reference section and some of it (the page numbers) in the text of an article. So, using this style, it is not possible to see the whole citation in one place and it becomes difficult to determine which pages of a source are actually referred to. It also adds to the reference-clutter in the main texts of articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first off, I very much appreciate that their is some way to do it. Having said that, it appears to be a bit complicated, based on the variety of opinions in the discussion above. Nevertheless, I think it is a problem worth the effort for me to figure out how to do it, and do it well, so I will probably invest the time to figure out the way these things work, sometime. Thanks again! Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

—Okay, I did a bit of research on {{sfn}} and {{sfnp}} to learn how to use them and was able to eliminate a number of "<!-- p. nnn -->" hidden comments in an article I had previously reused a <ref name=smith1995/>-type references in. It is better.

But it would seem to me to be much better if this multiple-reuse-of-a-single-book-<ref name=smith1995/>-ref were integrated with the <ref name=smith1995/> reference. That way, if any future editor eliminated the first use of the book citation (<ref name=smith1995/>), then the bots would pick it up and fix it. Also, it would be possible for the bots to keep the first use of the <ref name=smith1995/> ref "on top", where it is higher up in the References list than the repeat instances of {{sfn}} and {{sfnp}}. YMMV, but that is my take. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:References and page numbers#Feature requests --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not integrated; segregated! The problems you touch on are inherent in the use of "named refs" ("<ref> name=..."). That's why I put only the specific short cite in the endnote (the <ref> tags or sfn template), and put the "reused" part — the full citation/reference that is common to all the short cites — in a separate section (not in a note). Which is the way you have to do it if you want to order the reference list (alphabetically, chronologically, whatever). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that also works. Didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I am clarifying my comment. The main point is to not trap the full citation in a "named ref". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't believe the amount of reading this template makes you sift through to tell you how to use it. I would suggest someone go through and collapse some of the more "so what" parts of it, like most of the Examples section that seems to go on forever—old format, new format, old format, new format—is this really necessary? Would someone using this template for the first time actually care?

Then there's a Deprecated sub-section that means nothing to people like me who don't care about what you used to be able to do. In addition, the Deprecated sub-section forgets to mention the other deprecated parameters, which are still (for some reason) listed in the Usage section (where you copy/paste the code); these parameters are listed as deprecated in their respective areas, but that seems really disorganized to me. Again, they shouldn't even be given as an option to use, if they're not going to work in the end.

In the end, I basically ended up with the most simplest example: Title of the show, season, episode, boom, done. But I had to spend 20 minutes trying to figure all of that out. While I'm not "new" at Wikipedia, I found the information on this template to be massive and almost intimidating. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, does the time parameter include commercials or not? That'd be nice to know. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't chapter rather be documented in the Template:Cite book/doc#In-source locations section? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No. When chapter is used, it is usually an article, essay, short story manual section or the like in an edited collection, thus it is the primary source. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include the accessdate date when a publication date is available? I only use accessdate when a given webpage does not have a visible publication date, and almost never use accessdate when it does have one, since I think it's redundant, and can conceivably clutter up the citation. Is there any guideline or consensus on this? Nightscream (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion, mainly at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I use the Chicago 16 guidance:

14.7 ACCESS DATES An access date--that is, the self-reported date on which an author consulted a source--is of limited value: previous versions will often be unavailable to readers; authors typically consult a source any number of times over the course of days or months; and the accuracy of such dates, once recorded, cannot readily be verified by editors or publishers. Chicago does not therefore require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date of publication or revision can be determined from the source (see 14.8). For such undated sources--or for any source that seems likely to change without notice--authors are encouraged, as an additional safeguard, to archive dated copies, either as hard copy or in electronic form.

If you check the documentation for accessdate, you will find that you can hide it as desired. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. Archive dates are useful if not essential in the case of archived links, but I find access dates next to useless. Most pages are there or are later removed; some pages are dynamic and updated on a daily basis. Accessdates will not help finding the 'consulted' versions of these in either case once they are gone, unless they have been pre-emptively archived, yet Reflinks insert them systematically. I then have to remove them manually, which is a drain on productivity. Maybe I don't properly understand their uses, but as far as I'm concerned they potentially take up Gigabytes of disk space, and perhaps someone could make a case for their whole-scale removal. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  The value I see in access dates is that they can be used for an editor to find an archived page, when an archive-url and date is not provided, the special case of which is when the original page url no longer works and it is desired to link to an archive to ensure verifiability. Without an access date in the special case, we need to guess at when the page may have been archived. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never understood Wikipedia's obsession with access dates. They rarely serve any purpose. Sadly, many editors apparently think that, if they put in an access date, they don't have to bother with the publication date. News references in particular should always show the exact publication date, which is much more important than the accessdate. I wish this could be spelled out more clearly. -- Alarics (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Access dates serve a valuable purpose when citing undated web pages that might be subject to future changes. For newspaper or scientific journal references, though, I agree that the pub date is what we should be using. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• As said above, for sites or pages that are frequently modified (such as home pages that are cited), the only solution is pre-emptive archiving, because you can never be quite sure which is the version is cited otherwise. Merely having the access date could be helpful, but in practice it's pot luck. When a page has an archive link, the access date is redundant. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To whomever made the recent change to the template so that the words "season" and "episode" both appear in the saved info: THANK YOU! It looks MUCH more clear now!

Just one suggested tweak, though: Could we flip them so that the season is given first, and then the episode? For one thing, hierarchically-arranged information tends to be displayed from the general to the specific. For another, the widespread convention is for seasons to be given first. For example, among both sources and informal vernacular, "4.17" often used to denote Season 4, Episode 14 of a TV series. Lastly, putting the season first would emphasize, at a glance, that the episode given is not the overall episode number of the series, but only of that season.

I don't have a lot of experience in changing templates, so how do we go about implementing this? Do we need a consensus discussion? Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to {{cite episode}}. It was updated in April, and I used the same order as before the update. Season/episode does make sense to me, but lets see if there is any discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I can get on board with the switch. It just follows what is customary practice to specify the larger unit before the smaller one in citations. Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So how do we go about doing it? Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is on my todo list. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Now in sandbox. Please review and comment. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Current

• {{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=October 8, 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |last=Lipton |first=James (host)}}

Lipton, James (host) (October 8, 2007). "Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit". Inside the Actors Studio. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.

Sandbox

• {{cite episode/sandbox |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=October 8, 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |last=Lipton |first=James (host)}}

Lipton, James (host) (October 8, 2007). "Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit". Inside the Actors Studio. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo. http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit. 

I think it looks good. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

At Template:Cite book, the period should be after the quotation mark where it says: "Translated by John Smith." --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed to use proper emphasis. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you use the dropdown to insert a "cite web" template, the vaguely titled "Work" field provides a "?" over which you can hover, which then says "What larger work this is part of?". Every time I see that, I ask myself "What the hell do they mean?". Then, buried in documentation, I see that it means "Title of website". Which explanation is short, sweet, and readily understandable. Can we please make the hint match the documentation? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Request that at Wikipedia:RefToolbar. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot. I've placed a request on the talk page there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I updated {{cite additional archived pages}}. It now supports multiple archives with different dates as well as an archived series of pages with the same archive date. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone say if they think I've cited correctly in this edit. My concern is that I accessed the book via the URL and not the physical book, and that perhaps this is not made clear enough from the cite. Either way, I think some wording should be added to the intro of Template:Cite book confirming how on-line book cites should be dealt with. Eldumpo (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the |isbn= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume the format was OK and that there's no requirement to note that you haven't viewed the physical book, although I think the template intro should clarify matters. Eldumpo (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is one single answer that is always best. If the book is readily available and there is a fair risk that the website may disappear, it's probably better to do as you did. If the book is rare and the website is by a stable organization that seems prepared to make the website available for a long time, it might be better to treat the organization that runs the website as a republisher, the same way one might cite Dover Publications if one had read one of their paper editions if that is the edition you read. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

the existence of the hyperlinked title and retrieval date sufficiently indicate (and imply preference, imo) that the citation is verifiable online, irrespective of the source medium you consulted. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In the previous item, note that I cited the paper as the

''[[Toronto Star|Toronto Daily Star]]''

This makes sense to me because I believe it is correct practice to refer to a periodical by its title contemporary with the cited article, with a Wikipedia link provided if possible so people can connect that title to the current newspaper. If there isn't a Wikipedia article, I believe it would be correct to write

''Toronto Daily Star'' (now the ''Toronto Star'')

The {{cite news}} template does not support either of these styles. I think it should, using an added field called something like moderntitle=. For publications no longer in print but better known under a later title, it could be latertitle=, which would expand to "(later the...)".

In the case when there are multiple references in an article to the same former title (again see the previous item), it would be nice if all the cites could be provided by the contributor in the same style and any repetitiousness could be suppressed automatically; but that'd just be an extra bonus feature, not a requirement.

--69.158.92.109 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

you can add info about the work (newspaper) in the |postscript= field (displays last). escape the vertical bar in the wikilink by using the {{!}} template:

[[Toronto Star{{!}}''Toronto Daily Star'']]

65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

also, postscript does not appear in the mislabeled "full parameter list" (it's not the full list, there are other params not listed). you have to go through the detailed doc. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Where there is an article, there should be redirects from older names. For example,

Toronto Daily Star redirects to Toronto Star. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

to indicate that this is a renamed publication maybe series could be used, if it was available (it's not). as in |work=Toronto Star |series=Toronto Daily Star. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Give the name of the publication as it was at the time. If there is potential for confusion, wikilink it to the article on the present name. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose on this point. The citation should list the source with its contemporary information. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to let you indicate the copyright holder. I'm sure Disney would not be amused, but actually I'm looking at Egyptian Grammar by Alan Gardiner where the Griffith Institute holds the copyright. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be, but the purpose of a citation is to allow someone to locate a copy of the source, specifically the same edition consulted where necessary. I'm not sure that indicating the copyright holder, or lack of one, would assist someone in locating a book in a library. Imzadi 1979 → 10:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Citations are not intended to include every snippet of information about a source. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The copyright holder is often the same as the author or publisher. In the rare cases that it's not, it isn't relevant. That said, some websites don't name a publisher but do name a copyright holder, so I put that information into |publisher= --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But that defeats the object of this tagged citation system! Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Aarghdvaark, how does indicating the copyright holder benefit a reader looking to locate a copy of, or evaluate the reliability of, a source used in an article? Imzadi 1979 → 15:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is more information to track it down. For example the

Gardiner book (1957) is listed on the Griffith Institute web site (as a 1996 reprint) [1]. Some places in Wikipedia say the Griffith Institute (part of Oxford University) are the publishers. I'm looking at my copy (mine's a 2007 reprint) and it says the Griffith Institute are the (c) holders, but UP, Cambridge are the printers. Confused? So am I. Are printers also publishers? Griffith Institute is on the binding - does that make them the publishers? So regardless of the actual publisher of Gardiner (although it does need clearing up), take it as an example where someone (i.e. me) looked inside at the place where publisher normally goes (although in small print it actually says 'printed by', not 'published by') and saw UP, Cambridge - a reputable publisher. And possibly that is wrong. So the reader then does not have the real publisher to help track down the book - or assess the reputation. Aarghdvaark (talk

) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you want a field for "published on behalf of". That is very different from the copyright holder. (For instance, most fiction and poetry has its copyright held by the author despite being published commercially.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Printers are not necessarily publishers; they are contractors engaged by the publisher. Some publishers carry out most of their own printing, but may also engage a contract printer if the demand for a particular title cannot be met in-house. One printer may handle work for more than one publisher; conversely, one publisher might use more than one printer.

If a book is libellous, it is the publisher that you sue, not the printer. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the publisher of the book is not obvious from looking inside the cover, but the (c) holder is clearly marked. Hence a knowing the (c) holder could help a reader track this book down (although this is a famous book, so it wouldn't actually be hard to find). I could put the (c) holder instead of the publisher, as RedRose64 recommends, but these tags are supposed to be accurate. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Decided that where the publisher is not stated, but the printer and the (c) holder are, then the (c) holder should go into the publisher tag and the actual printer should be ignored, as Redrose64 suggested. But yes, as David Eppstein said above, what I was really looking for was a "published on behalf of" tag. Interestingly, I found out later the book I was trying to reference has its own wiki article:

Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Aarghdvaark (talk

) 03:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

7. The Toronto Subway Referendum" (editorial), Toronto Daily Star, December 1, 1945, p. 6

8. "Rapid Transit for Toronto" (TTC advertisement), Toronto Daily Star, December 12, 1945, p. 26

I had to do it "by hand":

 <ref name="editorial">"The Toronto Subway Referendum" (editorial), ''[[Toronto Star|Toronto Daily Star]]'', December 1, 1945, p. 6</ref><ref name="referendum-ad">"Rapid Transit for Toronto" (TTC advertisement), Toronto Daily Star, December 12, 1945, p. 26</ref>

I suggest that {{cite news}} should take an additional parameter or parameters to allow these types of items to be properly cited. The minimal change would be a "type=" parameter, consistent with {{cite}}, so that "type=foo" would expand as "(foo)" after the title. Alternatively, something like "type=advertisement|advertiser=TTC" might be preferred.

Or if there is already a way to do this with {{cite news}}, perhaps it needs to be explained somewhere. I tried doing it with {{cite}} but this produced a different format, with the title in italics instead of quotes. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

as a[n] (unsatisfactory) stop-gap, use the undocumented parameter |department= in {{cite news}}. it displays after the title item. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To enable type in {{cite news}}, a fix will have to be made to {{citation/core}}, as type is disabled when one of the periodical parameters is defined.

department in {{cite news}} is documented under the periodical parameters. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

you are right, it is(/was?) undocumented in {{cite journal}}. the doc is wrong, it does not display after work, but after title, which i think is the correct format. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed: department displays after title. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh. Who knew that the none of the lists of parameters at the top of the documentation, including the one titled "Full parameter set", actually include all the valid parameters? Thanks for the suggestion, but "department" is documented as being for another purpose and I'm reluctant to use it in this way unless the documentation is changed. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

the doc is non-intuitive because a single doc template is used to document citation templates used for widely different types of sources, media, and purposes. so in any given citation template doc you have a lot of stuff that are irrelevant to the medium/source type/purpose of the citation, while more pertinent stuff, parameters, and parameter explanations are ommitted. personally, i ignore anything that 1. does not help readers understand and verify the citation 2. (distant second) does not clarify the citation, including my treatment of it, for other editors. i am mainly concerned with imparting proper info to readers, and complying with template usage is a non-issue when it conflicts. i use templates, it's not the other way around. but that's just me. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work on documentation, but really have not touched those full document sets. You truly can not include each and every parameter in those sets since they are intended to be copied and pasted. For example, you cannot use author and last in the same citation template, as only one can work. The full parameter list for {{cite book}} was updated fairly recently, with parameters like last[n] that will not work if copy/pasted, so it needs to be changed or a note added to explain it.

"the doc is non-intuitive..." Documentation was all over the place, which lead to my creation of {{Citation Style documentation}}. If anything should have the hobgoblin of consistency, it is citation templates and their documentation. I have been considering a mini-doc section where the most-used parameters are explained. I am always open to suggestions, so if there are documentation issues, please start a new discussion with pertinent suggestions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

how many times is the obvious going to be pointed out? and what for? to bulk up discussion archives while nothing is done?

i think that this constant talk and all the bureaucratic procedures are there to actually avoid doing something. after all, what is "controversial" or "disputed" or vague about the following:

1. wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia whose vast majority of readers are nonexperts/nonspecialists
2. it is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". how can it be taken seriously? that's like the "novel that anyone can write" or the "bridge that anyone can build" or the "medicine that anyone can practice".
3. the only way for it to be taken seriously is to make obvious that the information is correct + pertinent. this is done by making content easy to verify.
4. so a citation system to aid verification can be desirable and vital.
5. the wikipedia citation system: throw out everything you know about previous citation systems, because this is supposed to be a citation system for, and edited by, nonexperts (see point 1). this is the first time (afaik) any such citation system has been attempted. all previous citation systems were targeted to specialists, experts, researchers, or committed students of their fields.
6. it follows the main design principles should revolve around ease of understanding+verification (for readers) and ease of use+existence of expansive options (for editors). these are not the design principles other citation systems use.
7. once these design principles are firmly established, you can use any helpful element/procedure from other citation systems to speed implementation

assuming you see the validity of the above, you'll just design the proper system for it. imo, asking for the clarification of minutiae or procedure-talk such as "bring it to the right forum", is proof that the fundamental errors (imo again) of the current system are not obvious to you. i am not taking anything away from the work you've done so far and your willingness to do it, which is to be commended. however "fixing" or "enhancing" a system that is fundamentally wrong, is making it more so.

fine, i'll adjust. but when i point out what i think are flaws to the occasional bewildered user, i'd rather NOT have another "discussion" about it. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out why this chapterurl isn't linking?

Siwek, Magdalena; Henseler, Christina; Broich, Karl; Papazoglou, Anna; Weiergräber, Marco (2012). "Voltage-Gated Ca²⁺ Channel Mediated Ca²⁺ Influx in Epileptogenesis". In Islam, Md. Shahidul (ed.). Calcium Signaling. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Vol. 740. pp. 1219–47.

PMID 22453990. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help

)

thanks  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki needs the

• books.google.com/books?id=8h-2oG-lsGoC&pg=PA1219
• http://books.google.com/books?id=8h-2oG-lsGoC&pg=PA1219

See

oh!!! doh!. thanks. i should have realized that  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As of this writing, the Cite news template has the location field follow the agency field, rather than the newspaper/work field (see the "No author but sourced to a news agency" example in the documentation), which is confusing, since per the documentation the location field refers to the location of the newspaper ("[g]eographical place of publication"), not that of the news agency.

This has been discussed twice before (Archive 5: Agency, newspaper, and location and Archive 5: "Location" of newspaper vs. "Location" of byline), but no conclusion/consensus was reached. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this?—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this has needed fixing for a long time. The present situation is obviously illogical and wrong. (One of a number of such things often mentioned but never fixed.) -- Alarics (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide examples of current format and how you think it should be. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See Singapore, footnote 62, which says "AsiaOne. Agence France-Presse (Singapore)." when it obviously should be "AsiaOne (Singapore). Agence France-Presse." -- Alarics (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Another: The No author but sourced to a news agency example I referenced above, taken from the template's documentation:

• As it is: "Drugs: Chips trader gets 15 years, 10 strokes". Daily Express. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. Bernama. 29 March 2007.
• As it should be: "Drugs: Chips trader gets 15 years, 10 strokes". Daily Express (Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia). Bernama. 29 March 2007.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Punting to

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but why doesn't this template provide a 'notes=' parameter? For an example: {{cite book |last=Sykes |first=Bryan |year=2001 |title=[[The Seven Daughters of Eve]] |publisher=W. W. Norton |isbn=0-393-02018-5 |pages=291-92 |notes=Sykes discusses the difficulty in genealogically tracing a maternal lineage, due to the lack of matrilineal surnames (or matrinames)}}. Or, is there another way to add notes to a reference? Note that this "note" is not the same as "quotes", where the quotes would be quoting something from within the reference and "notes" would be noting something about the reference. --Thorwald (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing notes in a citation. Why do you need notes to identify the source? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my question. Look at my example above. It has nothing to do with "identify[ing] the source"; it is about noting something about the reference/source. --Thorwald (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the question, but question your assumption that citations should be annotated. The citation identifies the source material ins such a manner that the source can be located for verification. As best I see it, the note in your example should be in the content with the citation to support it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the note is about the text and the source supports it, then I place the note within the footnote in front of the Citation, if the note is about the edition, then I place it in parentheses within the footnote, after the Citation.

Examples:

• <ref>2011 Census Village code = 621105, {{Cite web|title=Reports of National Panchayat Directory: List of Census Villages mapped for: Hoskera Gram Panchayat, Shahapur, Yadgir, Karnataka|publisher=Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India|url=http://panchayatdirectory.gov.in/adminreps/viewGPmapcvills.asp?gpcode=221153&rlbtype=V}}</ref>
  yields
  1. 2011 Census Village code = 621105, "Reports of National Panchayat Directory: List of Census Villages mapped for: Hoskera Gram Panchayat, Shahapur, Yadgir, Karnataka". Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India.
• <ref>{{Cite book|author=Kamath, Suryanath U.|year=1980|title=Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present|location=Bangalore|publisher=Archana Prakashana|page=106|oclc=7796041}} (revised English version of his (1973) ''Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa'')</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Kamath, Suryanath U.|year=1980|title=Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present|location=Bangalore|publisher=Archana Prakashana|page=106|oclc=7796041}} (revised English version of his (1973) ''Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa'')</ref>
  yields
  2. Kamath, Suryanath U. (1980). Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present. Bangalore: Archana Prakashana. p. 106.
  OCLC 7796041
  . (revised English version of his (1973) Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa)
  

--Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

for the 2nd example, assuming the 1973 version is the original, and guessing the language to be Hindi, i would do this: Kamath, Suryanath U. (1980) [originally published 1973 in

OCLC 7796041. 70.19.122.39 (talk

) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Module:Citation - originally planned to handle all cite templates
• Module:Citation/sandbox - to test Lua changes which might derail cite templates
• Module:Citation/CS1 - Lua module with Citation Style 1 format
• Template:Cite_encyclopedia/lua
  - proposed Lua-based template, for comparison
• Template:Cite_web/lua
  - the proposed Lua-based template, for comparison
• Template:Cite_web/markup - the current markup-based template, for comparison
• Template:Cite_book/markup - the current markup-based template, for comparison
• Template:Cite_journal/markup - the current markup-based template

As Lua-based templates are installed, the current template names will be reused: the original Template:Cite_encyclopedia would be rewritten to simply #invoke the Lua Module:Citation, and an old Template:Cite_encyclopedia/markup could contain the prior markup-based template, to compare if new Lua features failed to support the same parameters. Another issue: the Lua-based cite templates have been implemented to again include the COinS metadata, but the overall size and speed of the Lua-based templates will be much smaller and faster than when COinS data was added by markup-based templates. As format differences are fixed, then more cite templates can be switched to use the Lua-based variations. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:03, 16 February, 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Working on Lua to show same cite format: There have been some differences in the format of the Lua-based cite templates. Currently, {Cite_web/Lua} shows the equivalent for {Cite_web}:

• Cite: {{cite web | title=My Page | last1=Doe | first=John | publisher=Acme |location=London | url=http://www.google.com |date=5 May 2009 |volume=II | issue=3 |page=6 |accessdate=8 Febrary 2013}}
• Cite_journal: Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". II (3). London: Acme: 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cite_web now: Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". London: Acme. p. 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Cite_web/lua : Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". London: Acme. p. 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

To get parameters to match the same format, then lines of

Lua script must be moved around into the same order. -Wikid77 (talk

) 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar issue with handling of the "origyear" parameter as shown by:

• Cite_web now: Cookridge, E. H. (1972) [©1967]. "The Baron of Arizona". New York: Ballantine Books.
  OCLC 32333347. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help
  )
• Cite_web/lua : Cookridge, E. H. (1972) [©1967]. "The Baron of Arizona". New York: Ballantine Books.
  OCLC 32333347. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help
  )

--Allen3 ^talk 11:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have switched us to Lua Module:Citation/CS1 to adjust for CS1 format, because other editors perhaps want the initial Module:Citation to show another style for origyear and such. Formerly, page numbers listed near the end, so I have shifted them back near the end, to match CS1. Values for volume=II and issue=3 are shown now, although {cite_web} had ignored those parameters. The results in Lua are very close now. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54/17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that seemingly all the "cite" templates have two instances of {{{seperator}}} when {{{separator}}} is clearly intended. I haven't tested what effect fixing the typo would have, so I won't implement it – I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the templates.

Seperately Separately, it might be nice to wrap all the templates in <includeonly>; right now it looks like the documentation on most template pages is preceded by a stray period (except template:cite web, which does have an includeonly wrapper: [2]).--Father Goose (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What you are seeing is {{{separator|{{{seperator}}}, which means if there is a parameter named separator, then use it else if there is a parameter named seperator, then use it. The latter is a common mispelling; it was added before I got into these templates, but I am sure there was a reason, and it doesn't really hurt anything. These duplicated parameters are known as aliases, and are heavily used in the citation templates for a variety of reasons. Most are documented, but this one is for a spelling error and I did not see any reason to tell editors they can use it.

I hate wrapping a template in <noinclude> when there isn't a real reason. If someone makes a mistake, it is not at all obvious when the template doesn't show. {{Cite web}} has it because there is a check for title and it shows a red error message. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations using cite web may have a date or an accessdate, or both, specified within each entry. The date may appear near the beginning of the citation if author details are present, or near the end of the citation if no author details are shown. In many cases there may be a mix of date styles such as February 27, 2013 and 27 February 2013 within a list of citations.

When citation lists are presented as two or more columns, and the text of each citation therefore wraps to multiple lines, I don't find it easy to look through the list. I am sometimes looking for an entry with a particular date, or looking for entries before, or after, a particular date. I often find I am looking at the "retrieved" date rather than the article date, or vice versa. The accessdate is dependant on the editor adding the entry, and is not a part of the data created by the author or publisher of the original article.

I notice that several non-English Wikis have already overcome this difficulty in a very simple manner. They present the "retrieved" date (and the preceding word) in a slightly smaller typeface than the rest of the citation text (but still quite a bit larger than the "subscription required" or "registration required" text that appears on some entries).

Could this simple change be considered here in the English Wiki?-- 86.136.109.181 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We do wrap the accessdate text in a span with a CSS class attached, which you could use your browser (or a login plus your personal CSS) to even hide if you wanted. I don't think for IPs that this will change otherwise, however. (No comment on whether it should or should not.) --Izno (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I updated Help:Citation Style 1/accessdate to show how to make it show smaller if you have an account. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lua versions of CS1 templates are available for {{

• Also {cite book/lua} but timeout problems: I have also added {{
  Cite book/lua}}; however, there have been some serious problems with the Lua-based cites hitting the 10-second Lua timeout error (and showing cites as "Script error"), so they are not yet reliable for use in large articles. Others have reported Lua problems with many templates per page. We need to re-focus on faster markup-based templates, in case Lua cites cannot be used in large articles. -Wikid77 (talk
  ) 22:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! At Template:Cite web I noticed that the "Full parameter set" (either horizontal or vertical format) does not include parameters regarding the editor(s), but it does discuss the issue in detail (Template:Cite_web#Editors). I tried to use editor-first and last - and they actually did work. Shouldn't they be included in the full set? Sorry, if I asked something stupid here! Zoli79 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have updated a lot of the CS1 documentation, but I have done only minor work on the copy/paste parameters sets. Please update as desired. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Zoli79 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In the {{cite episode}} template, there are several deprecated parameters, such as "serieslink" and "episodelink" which are listed under "Parameters" as deprecated; however, they are still used in the copy & paste example at the top of the /doc page, under "Usage: Full parameter set in horizontal format". They really shouldn't be listed there, if they are deprecated. This needs to be updated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is very common these days that articles are published online before the printed version, often in the year before the printed version is published. In such cases, an article may be cited using only the year and the digital object identifier, e.g.

Doe J (2010). "Article title". Journal name. DOI: 00000000000

Then the printed version may be published in the following year (2011), and Vol., No. and pp. become available to be used in citations. Also after the printed version has been published, it's common to continue citing the article using the original (first) year of publication.

How can this problem be solved when using this template? In such cases, the citation should ideally include both original year of publication (ahead of print) and the citation of the printed article. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

origyear: Original publication year; displays after the date or year. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You should give information pertaining to the edition which you actually consulted. There may be differences between the editions. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are seldom any differences between a version published online before print and the printed version of the same article. It is sometimes useful to have the actual full, correct citation, e.g. in a list of publications. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always taken "original year of publication" to be that of something that was subsequently republished. The cases referred to here are actually prepublication. And it seems to me that (in the sciences at least) the "real" date of publication is that of the printed item. I think we ought to give this some consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The plan is to switch {cite_encyclopedia}, soon, to use the Lua-based template, as a first phase, to ensure proper handling of parameters. The output has been tested for the Lua version to match the basic functionality:

• Parameters: {{...| |last=Doe |first=J.B. |authorlink=John Doe|editor-first=Edie |editor-last=Tor |editor-link=Editor |encyclopedia=My Encyclopaedia |title=Mein Artikel |trans_title=My Article |url=http://www.aeiou.com |accessdate=5 March 2013 |language=German |edition=2012 |date=1 December 2012 |year= |month= |publisher=AEIOU Staff |volume=IV |location=Vienna |id= |isbn=1234567890 |oclc=Oclc 45 |doi=10.DOI_number |pages=77 |quote=This is a direct quote |ref=harv}}
• Cite encyclopedia/old:
  ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. OCLC 45 Oclc 45. http://www.aeiou.com
  . Retrieved 5 March 2013. "This is a direct quote" 
• Cite encyclopedia/lua:
  OCLC Oclc 45. Retrieved 5 March 2013. This is a direct quote {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check |oclc= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help
  )

Among the slight differences, the option "trans_title" seems more applicable to follow the article title in an encyclopedia, but either way, a user can enter the title of the encyclopedia with an appended translation in square brackets "[__]". The parentheses around the publisher name should probably be removed, as too many items in the curved brackets. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am deleting format=PDF from the examples (four instances) in Template:Cite journal/doc. This specification is rarely used and should not be encouraged, as it clutters up the endnote with a "(PDF)" that is wholly unnecessary; the  symbol provides the relevant information. Besides being a distraction for the reader, this usage often leads to inconsistent citation style, since other .pdf references in the same article seldom use this parameter. Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The pdf icon isn't displayed when the url does not include the .pdf extension and not all urls do even though they address a pdf document.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that. Nevertheless, the use of format=PDF should be discouraged when the .pdf extension is present, as in the Template:Cite journal/doc examples:

• Aries, Myriam B. C.; and Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858–1866.
  doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved September 1, 2009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  )

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001). "The Continuum Hypothesis, Part I" (PDF). Notices of the AMS. 48 (6). Providence, RI, USA: American Mathematical Society: 567–576.
  OCLC 34550461
  .

Perhaps Trappist the monk or someone else can update the documentation with an example without the .pdf, making clear that format=PDF is only appropriate in such cases. Peter Brown (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Format=PDF is also useful for installations that don't load images and for

WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. I think Format=PDF should be compulsory for all pdf files. -- Magioladitis (talk

) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See Help:External link icons for details. The link icons have no alt text, thus do not meet accessibility standards. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

External link icons are surely not what

WP:ACCESSIBILITY since they don't have alt text. Peter Brown (talk

) 21:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have for a long time been routinely deleting format=PDF from references when the URL ends in .pdf, but not when it doesn't. Although, I must say I don't really see why people need to be warned anyway that a document is in that format. Surely all browsers nowadays have a PDF reader built in? -- Alarics (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Only Firefox and Chrome have PDF readers built in. Not every computer or tablet can read PDFs out of the box. Not everybody needs to have a PDF reader installed. Also, not all PDFs can be "read" via a screen reader. While many PDFs will work fine, only PDFs that are PDF/UA complaint will be guaranteed to work with screen readers. Only a few non-free products can create PDF/UA and not by default. Anything scanned and turned into a PDF will not work with screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a tablet can read PDFs, (PDF) and  are redundant. If the user doesn't have the PDF software, either indicates that the source is not directly available. Deleting format=PDF when the URL ends in .pdf still makes sense.

Screen readers are another matter, and many of us are not familiar with the technology. Bgwhite, would you explain further? Can screen-reader users follow external links at all? If not,  and (PDF) are equally useless, so including format=PDF is of no help. Suppose, though, that they can follow links. Do the icons register the presence of an external link that might be followed? If they don't, some text indication should be provided in connection with  as well as with . Peter Brown (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain that screen readers can follow external links; but I don't know what happens when the target is a PDF file. I shall invite Graham87 (talk · contribs) here, who probably knows more than most people about the capabilities and limitations of screen reader software. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. Yes, screen readers work with many, but not all PDF documents, as Bgwhite said above. I've always been a stickler for adding format=pdf or similar to links to any PDF files, because I do appreciate a warning that a link is in PDF format (the Adobe PDF plugins are slower than browsers with my screen reader JAWS, and the layout is obviously different). Until I read this conversation, I had no idea that a PDF icon came up automatically when a PDF file is directly linked. Alt text should be added to these icons, which would benefit not just screen reader users but also people who don't use images. Once the alt text is added, the format parameter can be depricated for all direct links to file formats with automatically generated icons, and a bot should go through and clean up all the redundant format parameters. Graham87 09:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

T47891 - External link icons should have alt text. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if the link icons gained alt text and that rendered the parameter largely redundant, we'd still have the visual inconsistency that some links have an icon and other links will have the text. I'm sorry, but I'll stick to consistently adding |format=PDF to all citations to PDFs (or any other non-HTML-based source). Imzadi 1979 → 10:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That suggests a larger problem with pdfs. We'd serve users better by distinguishing the purely scanned-image pdfs from those that have accompanying text. This applies not just to users of screen readers, but also to bandwidth-limited and mobile users. A scanned-image pdf of a book can be tens of megabytes.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, your response is puzzling. There is currently an inconsistency in that format= is sometimes used for  but never for . Graham87's proposal, providing alt text for both and using a bot to eliminate format=PDF where it is redundant, would get rid of the inconsistency. Are you opposed? Peter Brown (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. |format=PDF is telling the reader that the link is to a PDF, just as |format=MrSid tells a reader that a map is in the MrSid format. Both are potential warnings that additional software may be required to access the link. The fact that the MediaWiki software includes an icon for PDFs is irrelevant to that notice. My point is that if half of the links in an article's references have the PDF icon without "(PDF)" appearing, and the other half lack the icon but contain "(PDF)", there is still an inconsistency in visual display, and I'll err on the side of always including the format notation regardless if the link generates a graphic or not. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that view is accepted we should surely abolish the PDF icon altogether since there is no need for both, and it just becomes more irrelevant clutter. -- Alarics (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

abolish ALL such icons, not just the PDF. the |format= and its output provide more exacting and understandable information. in the doc, suggest to editors, that the "format" field's data should be linked, at least in first use. i do not understand the argument about "citation style inconsistencies". surely this is an article-style problem that should be fixed at the article, not at the citation system level. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the appropriate use of accessdate when a page is archived or dead? My initial feeling was that the accessdate applies to the archival page (if it exists) and otherwise to the "main" page which has been archived or is dead. Is there guidance somewhere? --Izno (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Access date is simply the date the link was accessed, usually the date it was added. There is no requirement to include it, and it can be hidden by registered users. It is mainly useful for a web page that changes frequently, or when there is no discernible publication date. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If the page is dead, and there is an access date, the latter apparently can serve to locate an archive version that most closely matches the date the citation was placed, but such utility is IMHO debatable. If there is an online archive of the article, I think it makes little sense to leave an access date that serves a purpose no longer. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who argued that, in fact, and applied just that logic today in cleaning up some citations. :) I might agree with the latter sentence, but I'd like thoughts on the below question before I do so. --Izno (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but for which link? The archive link or the archived link? I suppose it seems a little incredulous to expect the archive link to go down... --Izno (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

however, it does happen (at least temporarily). i always archive online sources (when allowed), preferably at WebCite, and have encountered service disruptions several times. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion: when the original link is dead, then there is no need for an access date, as the archive has an archive date that will normally not change. Where the original link is still live then the access date is useful if there is no publication date, regardless of whether it is preemptively archive. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are adding an |accessdate=, it pertains to the original |url=. The |archivedate= (although being the date that the archiving service grabbed the page and not the date when you viewed it) does a similar job for |archiveurl= - we know that the archived page isn't going to change further. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but our ability to access the archived page might [change]. That's the only Pandora's box I'm opening here. :) If the lesser consensus here disagrees with me, that's fine, and I'll remove (or at least, not add) accessdates when the cited pages are archived. To that end, I'm not sure the below proposal captures the point I'm making. --Izno (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Documentation

This has come up before, so we should tweak the documentation. Current:

accessdate: Full date when URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; do not wikilink. Can be hidden by registered editors.

Proposed:

accessdate: Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations;^[1] do not wikilink. Not required for web pages that do not change; mainly of use for web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden by registered editors.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

the reflink ^[1] doesn't link to a ref here, do you mean the note at the template page? other than that i agree. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant to leave that out for this. It links to an explanatory note on date formats. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we maybe add a bit stronger guidance, something along the lines of "use of accessdate is [weakly] discouraged where the page has an archive and associated archive date, but is allowed where desired", per the above discussion? --Izno (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, {{cite web}} is the only citation template that requires title= not be blank, e.g.

{{cite web | title= | url=http://www.foo.com/ | first=James | Last = Ford }} = Ford, James. http://www.foo.com/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

{{cite news | title= | url=http://www.foo.com/ | first=James | Last = Ford }} = Ford, James. http://www.foo.com/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

while at the same time cite web, for some reason, allows the URL to be omitted:

{{cite web | title=Bob | url= | first=James | Last = Ford }} = Ford, James. "Bob". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

{{cite news | title=Bob | url= | first=James | Last = Ford }} = Ford, James. "Bob".

This situation makes no particular sense to me. Shouldn't something called "cite web" require a URL? Also, isn't the lack of a title generally a problematic omission in all cases? For example, using {{cite book}} without naming the book seems silly.

In working on the Lua migration of the citation templates, I'm wondering what to do about the error conditions. We can, of course, enforce a rule that {{cite web}} must have a title but not the other templates, if that is what's needed. But that seems rather arbitrary. Do people here have suggestions for what error checks you would like to see? Dragons flight (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it sensible that when a URL is produced, there should be a forced title for all of the templates. cite web might be the special case where the title is expected to be an online one (not sure that's relevant).

Forcing a URL though? Not sure about that. Even if it is cite web. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Cite encyclopedia}} now uses the Lua version. Please report any issues. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Cite Nuttall}}, which relies on this template, is broken (editorlink param). Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, but it was never a Lua issue. That template was broken due to an erroneous edit last June. Dragons flight (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

the replacement of the modular {{cite encyclopedia}} application/{{citation/core}} backend with the present iteration of the monolithic citation/cs citation/cs1 script is a mixed bag.

i didn't test enough to see if there are coding bugs (this should be done by the developers prior to deployment. syntax flaws are UNACCEPTABLE). several glaring logic bugs (the nonsensical dependencies among parameters) have been happily removed. some design bugs, namely the equally nonsensical unavailability of the full parameter set to the citation class have also been fixed. unfortunately other, equally glaring and potentially show-stopping design bugs remain. the most serious is the fact that the porting retains the parameter ambiguity of the previous system when it comes to args.title. this may mean either (a) title a work fragment (eg periodicals) or (b) title of the whole work (eg book). this also unacceptable ambiguity leads to uneccessary and inefficient workarounds of the args.booktitle kind.

as with all bugs it can lead to unexpected results such as below:

*{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Author|date=2013|editor-last=Editor|article=Article|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|type=Type}}

cf. {{cite book}}:

*{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|date=2013|editor-last=Editor|contribution=Article|title=Encyclopedia|type=Type}}

as you see, the positioning and punctuation of type in the encyclopedia citation is wrong. this is because type is coded to come after (work) title. but in the encyclopedia/periodical case it instead appears after (fragment) title. the software has no routine to distinguish between the two. such a routine shouldn't be written; instead the parameters should be renamed and the relevant doc be rewritten so there is no semantic ambiguity.

my current evaluation of the lua-based citation implementation is neutral. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Re title: I think you are referring to the title issue described in

Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Weird_link_formatting_for_encyclopedia_class this discussion, where the old version used title in an odd manner that caused odd output. This has been fixed. I have reported the issue with type (which was not supported in the old version). I will work on the documentation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

i'm referring to the fact that title may mean either a work title (args.BookTitle=args.Title) or a fragment title (see section "-- Account for the oddity that is {{cite conference}}, before generation of COinS data."). this messes type up, as evident in the local tcommon routines of Module:Citation/CS1. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "title" has an ambiguous meaning that usually translates as "article title", but sometimes translates as "encyclopedia title" or similar. We can't standardize that without breaking the existing base of citations, so it won't be fixed. Regarding "type", it has never been on the list of parameters expected by "cite encyclopedia", so it isn't something we test against (same with "series" and "issue" and "agency", and other options that aren't even supposed to be used for cite encyclopedias). We don't currently check whether the user submitted an invalid parameter set with extra options, though we might in the future. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If people want to add additional options, like type=, to classes that don't currently use them then we can work on making sure that they will look right; however, it would be up to users to define what parameters they want to support. Dragons flight (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

nope, this is wrong. it is much more important to fix meaning ambiguous to humans than to guarantee compatibility for software. first, find a way to correct the ambiguity even if it takes all your time and resources. THEN you can proceed with deployment of the new system without the old bugs. this is a unique opportunity to make the citation system understandable and logical. your way consigns a vitally important function of wikipedia to continuing confusion.

what set of parameters had been "expected" by {{cite encyclopedia}} is irrelevant. expected by whom? and when? if adding the full set of params to citation classes will not unduly break performance, then they should be there, period. and the code should properly present any and all parameters to readers. let the editors decide what to use, don't dictate to them. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Title" is accepted as an ambiguous word in the printed style manuals that inspired the cite templates. For example, Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. p. 661 states "titles of larger works (e.g., books and journals) are italicized; and titles of smaller works (e.g., chapters, articles) are presented in roman and enclosed in quotation marks." If you want to change the parameter names now, it is up to you to think of a way to automatically change all the existing instances of the templates in the encyclopedia, and change all the software that helps people create citation templates. If you can't do that, or you can't find a way to live with the ambiguity, you will have to abandon your project. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lets look at what is going on here with title:

The old version of cite encyclopedia included:

|Title={{{encyclopedia|{{{title|}}}}}}
|TransTitle={{{trans_chapter|}}}
|TransItalic={{{trans_title|}}}
|IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|{{{article|}}}}}}

So, if you defined title but not encyclopedia then title would be displayed twice:

The old method is just plain wrong. I discussed this before with little response and let it go. I should have fixed it then and there and we would not be here. I think we should treat title as the quote marked included title and fix uses as they come up. I also think we should do the same with the old template, which may be reused on other wikis. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gadget850, are you suggesting that within the "cite encyclopedia" template, the parameter "title" means the title of an article, but within other types of cite template, such as "cite book", it could mean something else? Because it seemed to me that 70.19.122.39 wanted "title" to always mean the same thing for all citation style 1 templates.

But it already doesn't always mean the same thing, and I think it's too late to change. E.g. in {{cite book}} it's the title of a book while in {{cite conference}} it's the title of an article within a book (and the book title is given by the |booktitle= parameter). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

and in {{cite news}} or {{cite journal}} it's the title of the article within the work. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, title varies among templates. The problem is that these templates were developed separately and then updated to use core. When I updated cite conference, I had to use the parameters that were already in use. For encyclopedia, it should mean the article within the encyclopedia and nothing else. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

the limitations of the old setup are known. just see the logical + linguistic hoops in the posts above. if in {{cite conference}} title means "paper title" why not rename the param paper? it is unambiguous and exactly describes the cited item. similarly in {{cite news}} etc. why not just use article instead of title? an article is what is being cited, and i challenge anybody to prove that editors will understand article to mean something other that "article title". this is/was a unique opportunity to design a citation system that is logical and accessible from the ground up. as well as establish an ancillary manual of style (the doc) for editors and readers that is simple and readily understandable by non-experts, so let's forget the expert-based systems for the moment. a parallel citation system based on lua or whatever could be designed correctly to coexist with the present, and editors should be given guidance to use it for new citations, while (with some automation) the older style is gradually replaced. or, and to continue with title in a very rough example: define eg book as an additional alias for work/title in {{citation/core}} and {{cite book}} (<- the main offender). replace all instances of title in the {{cite book}} code with book. automate the replacement of |title= with |book= in article space {{cite book}} citations. then at least you will be left with title unambiguously meaning title of fragment-of-work. and even that should be phased out because we don't cite "titles". we cite works that may be articles, books, films, signs, etc. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If we were starting from scratch, I would write a specification to work from. But, we have 23 base templates that were independently created. They have been kludged to fit the CS1 style and work pretty well considering.

3Es: engineering, education, enforcement. {{Cite conference}} has been mentioned. It uses title for the included work and booktitle for the main work. It has just under 5000 uses. We could update the parameters, make booktitle throw an error message and use a bot to fix all the uses. But trying to educate all the editors in the new use is going to involve pain and heartache. Or; we could just keep it as is and use the Lua technology to make it work transparently. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

i too, enjoy a good joke, but this is not very funny. in this very thread i show how handling of at least one error by the present lua implementation is anything but transparent. now whether the "klutzes" that make up the markup-based CS1 performed well is surely a matter of opinion. discussions in several talk pages about problem after problem (real or perceived) seem to suggest otherwise. the point is that the lua implementation is starting from scratch. it completely does away with the previous setup, using (at this point) templates only as wrappers for calling modules and passing them parameters+data. it could (should) have been designed intelligently to do away with all the bugs plaguing the previous system whether these are bugs in code, logic, process, or design. but right now the implementation, and comments on this thread, show that this is not the case, and it may be hopeless. so much for "lua technology" (?) fixing the citation system, solving the eurozone crisis, and brewing everybody a nice cup of tea. as a sidenote, it is interesting how the first reaction of yourself and others is finding an explanation to deny change requests by editors, instead of finding a way to actually implement them. and most of the editor requests imo are legitimate: that is why many are submitted again and again by different editors through weeks, months, and years. the explanations on the other hand, seem trivial: (a) well, that's how it's been done... (b) some irrelevant manual says so (as if we're publishing for a university press, specialist house, or the new york times) (c) can't do it because some editor might disagree about some vaguely defined item and then what are we going to do... (d) let's have an rfc! no, make that a hundred (e) there have been lots and lots of discussions that had no conclusion, so there (this actually is a nice example of recursion or self-reference, as most of the negative comments in these discussions are by those who then bring this up as an argument) (f) i have a toothache (ok the last is probably original research). fun in la-la land. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. The Lua implementation of citations is not starting from scratch. One of the design requirements is to fully support the existing parameter set so that existing templates can be migrated to Lua without losing the content of the preexisting citations throughout Wikipedia. That means working around any number of stupid historical choices for parameter naming and function. We can still fix many formatting and logic bugs (and we are working on that; it is still early), but we need to support all of the historical use cases which limits the set of changes that are possible. It was never the plan to make Lua citations completely independent of the currently existing template scheme. While there could be some value in reengineering everything from scratch, and rethinking parameter specifications and such, that is not what we are doing here. Dragons flight (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I prefer {{citation}}: one set of params to remember instead of 23 subtly-different sets. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the CS1 standard, the options the page=, pages=, and at= can all be used to provide page information, but no more than one of these is ever displayed, with page= overriding pages= and both overriding at=. As part of the Lua migration, we have added the hidden category Category:References with multiple page specifications to any page where a reference tries to simultaneously use more than one of these options. This will allow these conflicting parameters sets to be identified and cleaned up. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to throw a red error message in such cases, rather than just using a category, that way, the editor adding the superfluous detail is alerted to it. Otherwise, a subsequent editor nay not know which of the values given is correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I had been considering that as well. I think that both page and pages are added when the editor is including the number of pages in the work, which we don't need. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I would agree with you, but not during the Lua migration. To simply turn on an error message that is likely to hit some few thousand pages (once all citation modes are migrated) seems unnecessarily disruptive. If after the migration the backlog gets cleared, then I think it would make sense to convert this to a visible error. Dragons flight (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur, though not for the reasons Editor Andy Mabbett suggests. I've been plodding through the articles listed at Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. Finding the broken citations is relatively easy when there is a red error message. You'd think that editors would see the red error text and fix their citations. Apparently not.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

pertinent examples are emphasized. i suspect whitespace is the prob.

{{harvnb|Author|2000}}
{{harvnb|Author|2001}}
{{strong|{{harvnb|Author|2002}}}}
{{strong|{{harvnb|Author|2003}}}}
{{harvnb|Author|2004}}

(Bibliography)
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|date=1 January 2000|title=Title}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|publication-date=2001}}
* {{strong|{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|publication-date=January 2002}}}}
* {{strong|{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|publication-date=1 January 2003}}}}
* {{cite book|ref={{harvid|Author|2004}}|last=Author|title=Title|publication-date=1 January 2004}}
{{refend}}

70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The five {{

harvnb

}} are generating links to, in order, href="#CITEREFAuthor2000" href="#CITEREFAuthor2001" href="#CITEREFAuthor2002" href="#CITEREFAuthor2003" href="#CITEREFAuthor2004" whereas the generated anchors are id="CITEREFAuthor2000" id="CITEREFAuthor2001" id="CITEREFAuthorJanuary_2002" id="CITEREFAuthor1_January_2003" id="CITEREFAuthor2004" But the |harv=ref code only uses |publication-date= as a fallback, when both |year= and |date= are absent:

{{harvnb|Author|2010}}
{{harvnb|Author|2011}}
{{strong|{{harvnb|Author|2012}}}}
{{strong|{{harvnb|Author|2013}}}}
{{harvnb|Author|2014}}

(Bibliography)
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|date=1 January 2010|title=Title}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|date=2011-01-01}}
* {{strong|{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|date=January 2012}}}}
* {{strong|{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author|title=Title|date=1 January 2013}}}}
* {{cite book|ref={{harvid|Author|2014}}|last=Author|title=Title|date=1 January 2014}}
{{refend}}

|publication-date= is intended for use in addition to, not instead of, |date=, so when you only have one, it's best to use |date=. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct: It is the date of publication when different from the date the work was written. A real example:

White, T.H. (1941). The Book of Merlyn. University of Texas Press (published 1977). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

i think you guys misunderstood.

|publication-date= passes data to hrefs when (a) only the year is given (b) the href is input with date formated exactly as the data in the "publication-date" field, or (c) {{

harvid

}} is used

(a){{harvnb|Author3|2012}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author3|publication-date=2012|title=Title}}
(b){{harvnb|Author4|Jan 1, 2012}}
* {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author4|publication-date=Jan 1, 2012|title=Title}}
 (c){{harvnb|Author5|2012}}
* {{cite book|ref={{harvid|Author5|2012}}|last=Author5|publication-date=Jan 1, 2012|title=Title}}

when a citation is formatted with a verbose date (eg Jan 1, 2012) template code tries to extract year from |date=, and this is passed to |ref=harv.

{{harvnb|Author1|2012}}
*{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author1|date=Jan 1, 2012|title=Title}}

but this does not happen with |publication-date=.

{{harvnb|Author2|2012}}
*{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Author2|publication-date=Jan 1, 2012|title=Title}}

this is a bug. pls fix.

the suggestion to use |date= when only the publication date is known presents several problems.

what happens in online sources (eg {{cite web}}) when neither work date nor pub. date are known? do we input the access date in |date=?

if not, there's an inconsistency. [when no other date is known, and for verification purposes (the reason citations exist) the access date is the defacto "publication date", which should then subst into |date= per your argument].

on the other hand, if the access date should become the variable data for |date= then the dependency between |accessdate= and |url= should be undone to avoid errors.

and what about archival dates when |deadurl=yes? another clarification should be provided.

secondly, |publication-date= has obvious semantic significance for editors/citation providers. substitution with |date= should not be encouraged. instead |publication-date= should be promoted to the same status as |date= within the template when |date= is absent. similarly for online sources |accessdate= should be promoted when |date= and |publication-date= is absent. and so on for |archivedate=.

or, just do the lazy thing and remove |publication-date= altogether from CS1.