Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 25

We should add |ismn= to support

• |ismn=979-0-2600-0043-8 → ISMN 979-0-2600-0043-8

Already supported:

{{cite book |title=Title |ismn=979-0-2600-0043-8}}

Title.

ISMN

 979-0-2600-0043-8.

I notice that the rendering has stripped the hyphens. I'll fix that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We should update the doc then, because ISMN isn't mentioned. Also, is there a way to auto-hyphen the ISBN/ISMN? That would be really, really nice.

books

} 15:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

csdoc}}, defines ISMN; has done since this edit

. If you are thinking of that abomination TemplateData, perhaps it doesn't. If you want to fix that, go ahead; I will not touch it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of

books

} 22:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

More flexibility in the date parameter of {{

• Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8 & 15, 2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The New Yorker web page says that the article appeared in the "June 8 & 15, 2015 Issue", so the date is correct. There should be a way of suppressing the error message. — Anomalocaris (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker just has to be different, don't they? You could put that information in |issue= as a workaround, with |date=2015 as a placeholder for the date. Or you could just call it June 8, 2015, which is what they do in their own URL: the URL for the article contains the string "/2015/06/08/", not "/2015/06/08&15/" – this is a tip-off that they know they are just being precious. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Closed ranges are allowed in |date=, so you could use "June 8–15, 2015":

• Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8–15, 2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker.

Not quite right, I know, but possibly acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonesey's suggestion renders like so, for comparison:

Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker. No. June 8 & 15, 2015.

Not much better. Edition might also work:

Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker (June 8 & 15, 2015 ed.).

--Izno (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a new parameter could tell the module to output a different character separate a date range, e.g. |date=June 8–15, 2015|range-symbol=& – so an ampersand could be displayed for the above above, or a / could be used when the source uses it (as in "June/July") - Evad37 [talk] 14:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. The double issue can be uniquely identified by the date of publication, which is June 8, 2016. This is when it became generally available, and that is sufficient for purposes of discovery. To remove any doubts or to be completist, |issue= can also be used; however that is not imo strictly needed for verification. I usually do this:

Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8, 2016). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker. No. [n1–n2] (double issue).

72.43.99.138 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

To add, if the issue numbers are not available, the mysterious everyman-parameter |type= can be used:

Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8–15, 2016). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker (double issue).

72.43.99.138 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

To reply to Evad37 above, but "June/July" would not be in keeping with our MOS, and it should be switched to an en dash. That's the sort of minimal change traditionally allowed. We don't have to faithfully copy every exact detail from a source into a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Various workarounds have been suggested, but none of them recognize the fundamental issue. Sometimes articles are published in parts, with each part in a separate issue. It's possible, but less common, for the parts to not be in consecutive issues. So just it is possible to list pages as 18–9, 25, 36–9, it should be possible to list several publication dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of articles that are part of multi-part series published periodically, I would cite each part of the series as a separate article instead of trying to collapse them into a single citation. The overall title of the series can be noted in |department=. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: That would be way too cumbersome, as a single citation would have to denote: several dates, several issue numbers, and several page numbers. This is hampering discovery of the source and verification of the cited claims. One citation per issue, please. If the parameter |series= is available then it could be set as |series=part x [of y] or similar. Then all the related citations can occupy a sublist within the "References" listing. 184.75.21.30 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the bug report at Template talk:Sfn#Fault when date is "n.d." Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For the readers here, the problem has been identified as a feature request to modify Module:Footnotes. The CS1 citations appear to be blameless (this time!). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This TfD discussion could do with input from the citation experts crowd. The question seems to revolve around whether there is a need for a template that formats multiple locations/quotes from within a single source. Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

With an arrogance all too customary of wikipedia, User:Huntster reverted

keep discussion on the centralised page. Explanation has been given there.  

Truly sublime! Currently that/this page runs to over 26,000 words. There are 23 pages shown of its archive.

This is the comment that s/he reverted on the redirect's Talk page:

== WHY?!?!?! ==
I want to raise an issue with this page.  So wt* is the purpose of a redirect to a general Talk page that covers ...... ALL the citation1 pages ?!?!?!?!!!  Words fail. Sincerely. If you need more explanation I can't imagine any could ever suffice. LookingGlass (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Irony^2 ??

Needless (?) to say (see above) I am not watching this page, but, if relevant .. address me? Thanks. I haven't troubled Hunster with this, again, for reasons that should be self-explanatory (to anyone who stumbles across this message in a bottle).

LookingGlass (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As the above notice indicates, and to which you have been pointed prior by Pigsonthewing: To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions. It seems quite self-explanatory why you were reverted as a result. If you would like to change the practice of centralizing these talk pages, you should start a discussion, since you have been reverted. Be forewarned that I doubt anyone else will support your position in a change request discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

LookingGlass, adding text to a redirect page will always be reverted if it is noticed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95 (and Izno), the sublime pointlessness of attempting to engage with wiki's Kafkaesque controllers doesn't escape me, yet nonetheless sometimes I succumb. Dialogues of the deaf. Messages in bottles. Peace out LookingGlass (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been discussed all over the place, but I can't find any effort to actually implement it. We should have add the |citeseerx= parameter giving

• |citeseerx=10.1.1.220.7880 → CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.220.7880

This edit was made; while I am agreeable to the lower-cased version, I could find nothing to indicate that CiteSeerX is every uppercased in its entirety. I would possibly support |CiteSeerX=. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Parameters are traditionally all lowercase, but they display 'normally', hence why |arxiv=1001.1234 yields

books

} 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're referring to the parameter name itself? There's been some movement to support ALLCAPS version of those for a while. It's annoying, but I guess this is just consistency with the other parameters.

books

} 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It should work now.

• Simpson, Alex (2012). "Measure, Randomness and Sublocales". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 163 (11): 1642–1659.
  doi:10.1016/j.apal.2011.12.014
  .

Let me add support for |CiteSeerX=. − Pintoch (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All caps for not-all-caps identifiers

Hum, actually |arXiv= is not supported, and it seems to me that identifiers tend to be lowercase or ALLCAPS only, so maybe it would be better to keep only |citeseerx= and |CITESEERX= for uniformity. − Pintoch (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The parameters with all caps variants are only all caps because they are abbreviations. CiteSeerX is not. I suppose CSX is, but does that occur in the wild? --Izno (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed CITESEERX (leaving citeseerx) from the Whitelist sandbox page because the name is not an initialism or acronym. DOI, ISBN, and others are allowed in all caps because they are initialisms or acronyms. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The caps are there for pretty much all identifiers though, even those that aren't initialisms or acronyms (e.g. |ARXIV=, |BIBCODE=), etc... I've restored it for consistency with the current behaviour. We should, however, add |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=.

books

} 06:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

When adding or removing parameters, don't forget to update both the configuration and whitelist. − Pintoch (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So, consistency is not necessarily desirable here. Even if it were, let's talk about having all-caps versions of identifiers which are never used as acronyms. You point out that there are presently identifiers which shouldn't be all caps, because they aren't so outside Wikipedia I presume. As it happens, BIBCODE isn't used in the wiki-wild. I haven't checked the others, but we should deprecate that. --Izno (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ARXIV is used some 1k times, but almost all of those are empty. Let's deprecate that also. It looks to me like ARXIV is being trans-wikied from somewhere, probably German Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with deprecating those, but right now the sandbox is inconsistent in its logic, and that is not acceptable. Either update the sandbox version to deprecate those parameter names, or allow |CITESEERX=, but a bastardized version shouldn't be there. The caps versions should be likely replaced by |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=.

That being said, if the germans use all caps versions like ARXIV and CITESEERX, we should keep ours too for compatibility.

books

} 15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the ones I saw from German were using {{citation/core}}, which was odd; it's probable that if we updated our module, we'd be fine on any transwiki points. Even if we weren't, we can add a property suggestion for those all-caps variants. Do we want to replace those all-caps versions with the properly-capitalized versions? You seem to want that. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

All caps should be reserved for parameters that are pure initialisms, like |DOI= and |ISBN=. I recommend removing support for |BIBCODE=. I am fine with supporting mixed caps for parameters whose canonical versions use mixed caps, like |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=. All parameters should also support pure lower case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I don't get why you keep removing |CITESEERX= from the whitelist. Either we decide to remove capitalized versions of identifiers which are not acronyms, or we decide to keep them. In the former case, there are many other changes to do, for instance |BIORXIV= should also be removed as this parameter will be introduced in the next update of the live module (so, no deprecation needed). In any case, let's try to keep the sandbox in a consistent state, which should ideally reflect a consensus here. And let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, this is about a capitalized version of a parameter in a Wikipedia template… − Pintoch (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't edited in that region since the above date (24 September). No one since has voiced disagreement that we should perhaps deprecate (or remove before release) the all-caps versions of the parameters which are not acronyms, so I was planning to implement that apparent consensus at some point in the near future (today?). Feel free to implement that consensus yourself if you would like. --Izno (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw your edits today, so I did not respond earlier. Please go ahead with the rest of the parameters, it would be great to have a consistent sandbox. − Pintoch (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Pintoch, and Jonesey95: please review configuration edit and whitelist edit. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy with this, but should we replace the (rare) occurences of |ARXIV= in the wild by |arxiv= before the change is effective? (Could someone with AWB rights do it?) − Pintoch (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the parameter is now marked as false, pages including templates with the deprecated parameter will be added to the deprecated parameters category. We should indeed remove the parameter from usage prior to removing the parameter from the whitelist completely, but we do not need to remove the parameter from use prior to release of the changeset. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen TTM regularly work on deprecation of attributes in the wild using AWB, so yes, that is possible. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

At least part of the edit to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox should be reverted. Deprecated parameters should still display as if they weren't deprecated. For example, |coauthor= is deprecated (still) but the module displays its assigned value:

{{cite book/new |author=Author |coauthor=Coauthor |ARXIV=1001.1234 |title=Title}}

Author. Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |ARXIV= ignored (|arxiv= suggested) (help)

While not a hill on which I'd care to die, I think that we should avoid mixed case parameter names even to replicate the identifier's canonical name. This is the camel's nose to supporting capitalized parameter names. We deprecated and removed |Author= and a few other similarly capitalized parameters. Let us not return to that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made the requested edit. I personally would prefer not to have mixed case as well. Aside: Why doesn't coauthor= display an error? --Izno (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is more than one deprecated parameter in a template, the module displays an error for the first one it encounters. If I remove |ARCHIVE=, then there is an error for |coauthor=:

Author. Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not introduce mixed case. − Pintoch (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Headbomb: What do you think about leaving out the mixed-case versions? --Izno (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

OK with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't personally care, and would personally get rid of all caps versions as well. But if the logic is that DOI/ISBN need to stay because some people will use caps for these acronyms instead of doi/isbn, the same argument can be made for mixed cases since some people will use 'correct' casing when writing arXiv/bioRxiv/CiteSeerX/Zbl. So while my personal

books

} 07:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Casing for compound parameters

Now appears |URL-access= purportedly for consistency. I'm not so sure about that. |URL-access=, if retained, will be the only compound parameter name that has different case on either side of the hyphen. The other 'acronym' compound parameter names, |ignore-isbn-error=, |doi-broken-date=, |dead-url=, etc, are all lower case. I think that compound parameter names should be lower case – which means that we should deprecate |ASIN-TLD= and revert the |URL-access= change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet more intrigue. The edit was bold on my part, so I'm not attached to it here. :D --Izno (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Trappist, I also prefer the fully lowercase version. Otherwise, if we support |URL-access=, we should also support |DOI-access=, |HDL-access= and so on… Let's keep things simple. − Pintoch (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion proposes merging Template:Cite DVD notes into Template:Cite AV media notes. Both are existing CS1 templates. Please discuss at the TfD page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that when a PMC is embargoed, we render a colon after "PMC", but when it is available, there is no colon. I poked through the module code and was unable to find where that happened. Here are examples of {{cite journal}} with no embargo date, an expired embargo date, and a future embargo date.

Author (2006). "Title". Journal.

Author (2006). "Title". Journal.

Author (2006). "Title". Journal.

Can someone please find that code and remove the colon from the "future date" example? I'm assuming this will be uncontroversial. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

it was in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox:

Author (2006). "Title". Journal.

PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (help

)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I found it, but I'm about to open a can of worms. It appears to be in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox at "local id_handlers". The can of worms has two parts:

1. Some identifier names (e.g. arXiv and doi) are followed by a colon, and some are not (e.g. PMC and PMID).
2. Identifier capitalization is inconsistent (e.g. ASIN and DOI).

At the risk of having to eat a bunch of worms, I propose removing all colons following identifier names (using nbsp for consistency) and changing "doi" and "hdl" to all caps, per the web sites that "own" these identifiers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not just yet. doi, with the colon preceding the identifier I think is to be lower case. It was originally intended to be like a url scheme if memory serves.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. So much for consistency. Thanks for fixing the PMC colon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

books

} 07:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The arXiv: formatting, with the colon, is what arXiv uses on its own site to format these things. It is how their identifiers are shown, in pages that list preprints like http://arxiv.org/list/cs.DS/recent, on the abstract page headers for the individual papers, in their recommeded citations, and even embedded into the margin on the first page of the pdfs there. It also is our internal wikilink format (e.g. [[arXiv:YYYY.NNNNN]] does what you might expect it to). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a few valid PMCs being flagged in Category:CS1 errors: PMC, so in this edit I bumped the validation limit from 5000000 to 5100000. I don't know what the rate of increase is, so I went for what seemed to be a minimal fix, having noted that the flagged PMCs were in the 5020000 range. Would it be worth raising the limit further? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fixed in the sandbox. See

books

} 14:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru has edited the Help:CS1 errors page to note that |pmc= values higher than 5000000 are being issued by PubMed. See, for example:

S. Klotz; et al. (26 Aug 2016). "Ice VII from aqueous salt solutions: From a glass to a crystal with broken H-bonds". Sci Rep. 6: 32040.

Questions or comments are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't need debate, just fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless I made a coding error, it is fixed and will be put into production at the next module update. The last module update was on 30 July 2016. We have done about eight updates per year for the last two years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a bug fix, not a feature improvement, and therefore should be expedited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can convince a template editor/admin to make the change (hint: you shouldn't be able to based solely on Jonesey's comment, and I wouldn't implement it either), then sure, it should be expedited. But any template editor worth his salt is going to check for consensus first for this module and that you will not find. Wait, just like everyone else ever has. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You think there's no consensus to fix an obvious and demonstrated error? I'd have done it myself already, were the module not fully protected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think there's no consensus to fix an obvious and demonstrated error in this module. It's a subtle but distinct point. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this upper bound on the PMC identifier really worth all this trouble? Four editors have been involved in fixing it already! If such a constant needs to be updated manually that often (and generate meta discussions at the same time), it should not be treated as a constant. I would either remove the check or put a really high value like 10-15 million. I believe such a tight check brings more hassle to template maintainers than it helps editors spot wrong PMC IDs. − Pintoch (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The check was implemented in this change from March 2014 based on Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#PMC error check needed. About 2.5 years ago, the need was for 4 million (and only 5 million due to need for space). A maintenance-free implementation might increment the return value at 1 million/2.5 years ~= an increase of 1100 per day. Otherwise, we should just leave ourselves a note to check every 2 years or so to further increment the value. --Izno (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be valuable to keep in mind that there are currently zero articles in Category:CS1 errors: PMC. This means that there are no articles citing PMC IDs over 5000000 at this time. We do not typically expedite bug fixes to this widely used template unless they are causing havoc in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: As of this writing, there are four article with PMC values over 5000000. All are showing red error messages. I know we are still making changes to the sandbox, but it may be time to put at least some of those changes into production. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Without seeing this discussion, I bumped the limit to 5100000 as a stopgap. That'll prevent false positives for a while, and hopefully the sandbox changes can make it out in time. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to review the briefing on the Template Parameters tool in the Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-09-29/Technology report#See how template parameters are used. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice tool; I've just made {{

Wikipedia:Template data. Do any CS1 templates use that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that all CS1 templates have TemplateData definitions. I don't use Visual Editor, so I don't know how it works, but putting "cite web" into the tool leads to some fascinating results. Very useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Of sorts. I think that it was a fair assumption that (a) few read the doc (b) even fewer can make sense of it. This tool confirms that assumption, imo. Btw, as indicated, it applies only when any parameters are used. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This search finds templates whose names begin "Template:Cite...", that do not wrap one of the standard CS1 citation templates (currently finding 144 results). I've already upgraded all those that were straightforward, to do so. This give all the usual advantages, such as error trapping and embedded COinS.

I invite anyone interested and capable to look at upgrading the rest (or to consider whether they should be deleted, or merged - I nominated several such templates at TfD in recent days). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You may be overreaching here. CS1 is a citation style. It is not a "standard". Just because a template attempts to cite something, does not mean it has to follow CS1, an unfinished spec to be sure. A more pertinent approach would be to fix meta- and specific-source templates that purport to be based on CS1 but either are not, or do so out of spec. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Same thoughts here. If there are non-standard citation templates, it's probably for a reason. For example, some templates may reflect country-specific legal requirements for citing legal documents. At the very least, such changes should be first discussed on talk pages of the templates in question. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[reply to both] Well, I didn't ask anyone to immediately "upgrade", I said "look at upgrading". And CS1 templates are more configurable in their presentation, thanks to |mode=, than anything hard-coded to a single presentation. After that,

Editing is not the issue. Editing just to comply with a specific style is. Especially when the style is wrongly claimed a "standard". Write similar templates that apply your preferred style. Then let editors choose which iteration to use. There has been previous discussion here about CS1-based templates that need attention or de-categorizing. The relevant categories include several examples. 64.134.65.76 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I don't find it compelling; not least because you wrongly refer to "editing just to comply with a specific style"; and misquote me. And if you/ the other editor (or are you the same?) want me to work on something else, I expect you to provide the link, not to send me to search for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well your heading is "Non-standard citation templates". And this is a talk page for some citation templates (CS1), that you obviously exclude from the ones referred to in the heading, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think I misquoted. You mention "mode" but this is a CS1 parameter, and therefore not style-neutral. Also, I was not asking/telling you to work on anything, but laying out how things should be properly handled, imo. There are several subcategories in Category:Citation Style 1 templates. There are templates in them that don't belong. To me that is a better approach, but I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do anything about it. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Times

It looks as though {{Cite newspaper The Times}} could be made a wrapper for {{Cite news}}. The former's |column= appears to be unused, while the rather unnecessary |day_of_week= is used only once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been some lag in applying the tracking categories'; but those parameters still appear to be used on fewer than ten articles each. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the documentation for {{Cite news}} it appears that |department= could be used for the name of a column; it could also be used for other areas within a newspaper, such as editorials. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now updated to max. 59 pages using |column=; max. 85 pages using |day_of_week=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently 118 page and 154 pages respectively.

Iridescent: who I know has strong views on how this template should be used. Carcharoth (talk

) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now 136 pages and 194 pages respectively. It is clear that populating these tracking categories is going to take a long time. The transclusion count is 3017. Those that know how this template works and why it has 'column' and 'day of the week' parameters (The Times was published in a chapbook format for most of its history, hence this different citation style) know that most of the transclusions of this template will include use of these parameters, hence what Andy said above about the parameters being unused (or almost unused) makes no sense at all. I am going to ask at the technical village pump for advice here. Reversing the edits will just re-add to the job queue. Currently the issue is readers being served up with nonsensical category names as red-links (e.g. at Beckton Gas Works). I checked logged out, and readers are seeing those category names. I think we will need to create the categories and mark them as hidden, unless there is a way to 'hide' red-linked categories. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: no there isn't. Redlinked cats can never be hidden. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have asked for advice here at the technical village pump. I wouldn't normally do this, but I think the issue needs some wider attention and I'll not be around for the next day or so. I'll add a similar note over at the template talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: No. When asked:

what is the purpose of these uncreated categories? The are appearing on all articles and lists that use this template.

My reply, was:

As the name indicates, they are TEMPORARY. One tracks TEMPORARY Cite newspaper The Times using the 'column' parameter; the other tracks TEMPORARY Cite newspaper The Times using the 'day of week' parameter.

There was no "misdirection" - borderline or otherwise - whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully understood what they did, but I asked what the purpose of the categories was. If there is to be a proposal to do away with {{cite newspaper The Times}}, I for one will be opposing it. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy, your reply to Mjroots lacked information. You gave a literal reply (explaining what 'temporary' means) rather than pointing to this discussion. I think that omission of a link to this discussion is far from ideal. I apologise for saying it verged on misdirection. I think we should now focus on trying to work out when the 'temporary' categories will be fully populated. Currently the numbers are 260 and 356 respectively. I think we need the numbers to be stable for at least a full day before being confident that the categories have fully populated. On the wider question of the use of the parameters, I think they are only really useful before a certain date. After that date, The Times became a 'normal' newspaper. Not sure when that was though. Hopefully someone else will be able to provide that information. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the comments above from

Iridescent

13:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My quick thoughts: keep the column indication as is, but drop the day of the week. I can't find it in the MOS now, but I recall reading that we don't include the day of the week in giving dates unless it's significant to the mention of the date in prose. As for including it in citations, I don't know of any style guide that includes it either.

→

17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Imzadi1979's proposal is acceptable to me. It'd be a bit less work for editors using the template, and a bot run could do the removal of the parameter from existing uses of the template. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I suspect that "day of the week" field stems from the fact that the Sunday Times and Times have always had different editors and different editorial lines (and in some periods, different proprietors) yet are usually archived as a single entity. The other idiosyncratic field I'd be reluctant to lose from this template is "section", because the Times is both a general newspaper and an official gazette, it's sometimes important to make it clear if we're citing general editorial content or the formal paper-of-record stuff like the Law Reports or the Court Circular. ‑ 

Iridescent

20:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The |section= could probably be mapped to the |department= of {{

Iridescent said above: should the uses with dates that are Sundays give |work=The Sunday Times instead of |work=The Times? If so, that would retain the distinction while dropping the day of the week from date. Imzadi 1979 →

22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In late 2014, I made {{Cite newspaper The Times/sandbox}} that pretty much adheres to Editor Imzadi1979's suggestion:

"The Queen Mary Back In Port". The Times. No. 51269. London. 3 January 1949. col E, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – live

"The Queen Mary Back In Port". The Times. No. 51269. London. 3 January 1949. col E, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – sandbox

There are differences: period after the article title; |day_of_week= is ignored; |location= (not a parameter in {{Cite newspaper The Times}}) is in a different location as is |issue=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This all sounds good. Can anyone identify the uses of this template that are not using the day of the week parameter? Those will have to be checked to see if they are Sundays or not. Might also be worth looking around for other 'Sunday Times' citations elsewhere in Wikipedia and seeing if they are made distinct from 'The Times'. I am sure 'cite newspaper' has had this problem in the past with other newspapers with weekend editions. PS. I think the numbers are stable now - 1,274 for the column parameter and 2,935 for the day of the week parameter. Another check in a day or so should confirm that. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Re the Sunday Times, wouldn't it be simpler to create a separate template for that newspaper? Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We can do something like this addition to the sandbox:

|newspaper={{#ifeq:{{{day_of_week|}}}|Sunday|Sunday Times|Times}}

which would do this:

"Steamer lost off The Lizard". The Times. No. 40718. London. 6 December 1914. col E, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – live

"Steamer lost off The Lizard". The Times. No. 40718. London. 6 December 1914. col E, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – sandbox

If this is not a good way to distinguish the Sunday edition, then yeah, a separate template will answer.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Undone per this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is leaning towards the abolition of the day parameter, so a separate template would seem to be the way to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No need for a separate template. It's what |newspaper= is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

Do we have consensus to make {{Cite newspaper The Times}} a wrapper for {{Cite news}}? We could need to add |column= to the latter, and deprecate |day of the week=, unless it is set to "Sunday", in which case it would change the value of |newspaper=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if and only if {{

Iridescent

18:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

See the suggestion to use |department=, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer the creation of a separate template for the Sunday Times, as there were occasions when The Times was published under that title on a Sunday. Agree that we can do away with the day of the week, but the column must stay. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the change to the sandbox that used |day_of_week=Sunday to modify the paper's name. We can attend to a separate template when and if this template change is put to bed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A separate template would still leave us with more, not less, to maintain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox vs live with |section=Section Name:

"Article Title". Section Name. The Times. No. 12345. London. 3 January 1949. col N, p. 2. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – live

"Article Title". Section Name. The Times. No. 12345. London. 3 January 1949. col N, p. 2. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) – sandbox

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: and Trappist the monk - it would appear that there is consensus. Can these changes be enacted and the temp categories be deleted please? Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated above, we should not have a separate template for the Sunday Times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as I write this, the counts of pages in the two temporary categories were:

Category:TEMPORARY Cite newspaper The Times using 'column' parameter – 1,287

Category:TEMPORARY Cite newspaper The Times using 'day of week' parameter – 2,990

I have replaced the live version of {{cite newspaper The Times}} with the sandbox version. The new live version also supports these standard cs1|2 parameter names as aliases:

|page= for |page_number=

|pages= for |page_numbers=

|department= for |section=

I have deleted the categories.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation templates for Archival holdings and Manuscripts

A template for manuscript doesn't exist. There is the nice template {{Cite archive}}, which may be used also for manuscripts, but it is not integrated in the CS1. Is it possible to integrate it under the CS1?A ntv (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

CS1 is a style, so I assume that by "integration" you mean style-conformance. This can be done without a common code base, or ever touching any of the CS1 modules. All that is needed to render output in CS1 is to follow the CS1 guideline regarding displayed order of parameters, type of separators, and text styling. To render input in CS1 (a lesser concern), common parameter names, dependencies between parameters and style-wide required parameters must also conform to CS1. Obviously, any archive-specific parameters are extras. By all means ignore the opening sentence in Help:Citation Style 1; it is self-contradictory, erroneous and badly written.

Citation Style 1 (CS1) is a collection of reference citation templates that can be modified to create different styles for different referenced materials. Its purpose is to provide a set of default formats for references on Wikipedia. It includes a series of templates that in turn use Module:Citation/CS1.

Whatever.

I don't think that the links you posted re:citing archives/manuscripts are pertinent here, except in the most general sense. They are obviously intended for a much more specialized audience. In the same vein, although {{cite archive}} seems like a decent template, it may be too detailed when it comes to the archival service's internal filing particulars. Do we really need to know the accession date of a manuscript in order to provide Wikipedia readers with a way to get at the manuscript and verify the claims of the citing article? I don't know, but my guess is "no". 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we would be able to come up with a template for archival material, due to the wide variety of types of archives and varied methods of accessing them. For example, a manuscript that has been imaged and then put behind a paywall, so a URL can't be given directly to the page of interest; rather, brief instructions on how to search once inside the paywall would have to be provided. In such a case, if the rest of the article uses CS1 or CS2, I would suggest writing a free form citation in a way that resembles CS1 or CS2 as much as possible, and enclosing it with {{Wikicite}}.

A particular issue with archives, and which I view as a flaw in {{cite archive}}, is that many archive items will not have a title, so the editor writing the citation will have to create a brief description instead of a title. Outside style manuals usually call for such a description to be normal upright text with no enclosing quotation marks. CS1 and CS2 do not provide a mechanism to use descriptions in place of titles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The conversations that led to {{cite archive}} begin here and continue here. That latter place, or the template's talk page are the places to raise concerns with {{cite archive}}, not here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)