Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There seems to be an issue at

Not a cs1|2 problem. There is a stray invisible character after the last Mark Cuban reference: a delete character U+007F (you can 'not' see it between these arrows: →?← in the wiki source for this comment). Delete that stray character at

United States presidential election, 2020

and no question mark.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The site www.heritage-history.com in July was promoting fake tech support. That problem seems to have gone away, but now the https version of the site has an invalid security certificate. Whether heritage-history has been taken over by bad guys forever, or they are somehow able to resolve their problem, this point up a need to be able to cite an archive of a site without having the citation contain a link to the original site, so as to minimize the risk that readers will click the link and arrive at a malicious site.

See Military history of Italy for an example of an offending link. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

|dead-url=usurped or |dead-url=unfit

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The parameters values |dead-url=usurped or |dead-url=unfit are not described on the help page. I don't use undocumented parameter values. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I see partial documentation at Template:Cite web/doc#URL, but it does not make clear if the value of the url parameter should be the link to the malicious site, or should just be url= Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If a parameter is documented at any of the cs1|2 template pages, it is documented. You are free to improve the cs1|2 documentation so please do. The documentation does say "setting |dead-url=usurped or |dead-url=unfit suppresses display of the original URL (but |url= is still required).' You will discover that omitting |url= or leaving |url= blank will get the |archive-url= requires |url=. Again, you are free to make the documentation better. Please do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to test this on a live article. What if the malicious site has already been added to the spam blacklist before the attempt to add the deadurl=unfit parameter. Wouldn't it be impossible to perform the edit with the offending URL still present? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If blacklist will prevent page-save, there is no problem, right? And even if blacklist does not prevent the page-save, undo is your friend. For those cases where blacklist prevents page-save, |url= can be set to an innocuous site, perhaps https://www.example.com with |dead-url=unfit, and |archive-url= & |archive-date= as appropriate for the archive copy and then <!--original url blacklisted--> added at the end of the cite.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The current "Usage" subdocument currently reads, "Copy a blank version to use. All parameter names must be in lowercase. Use the "|" (pipe) character between each parameter. Delete unused parameters to avoid clutter in the edit window. Some samples may include the current date. If the date is not current, then purge the page."

I would like to change this to, "You may copy a blank version to use. All parameters are optional except the |title= parameter. Parameter names must be in lowercase or will not be recognized. A "|" (pipe) character must be placed between each parameter. You should delete unused parameters to avoid clutter in the edit window. Some samples may include the current date. If the date is not current, then purge the page."

Thoughts? Objections? KDS4444 (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"All parameters are optional except the |title= parameter" is not true. For example, |url= is required if |access-date= is used, and |last2= is required if |last1= |last1= is required if |last2= is used. Look at the "Prerequisites" section of the {{cite journal}} documentation for more requirements, and also read the explanation of title parameter requirements at Category:Pages with citations lacking titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be |last1= is required if |last2= is used, right?

Perhaps that text in Category:Pages with citations lacking titles (and so Help:CS1 errors) needs revisiting. Certainly |title= is a requirement except in {{cite conference}} where |book-title= can be used. Otherwise, |chapter=, |article=, |contribution=, |entry=, and |section= cannot stand alone as titles. It was once true that they could but that has long since been changed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

i have two connected problems on Cite news on cywiki: 1. When I copy this most recent version to our older module on cywiki, it causes an error which I'm unable to correct and 2. The date format on cywiki is always dd name of month yyyy (eg 19 Gorffennaf 2017), but as you can see on cy:Alfred Russel Wallace we can only use yyy-mm-dd (eg 2017-07-19). Any help would be warmly received! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: What is "an error which I'm unable to correct"?

Does the date format problem only happen with cy:Template:Cite news, or does it affect cy:Template:Cite web as well? Is it only the |access-date= parameter, or |date= as well? What happens if you use English-language dates like 19 July 2017 - does the problem disappear? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed. You said this most recent version by which I would expect the 28 May 2017 version of the module suite. But, at cy.wiki, the date there looks to be 26 May 2016.

The |access-date= validation at cy.wiki does not work because the MediaWiki time parser does not understand non-English month names. Try this in your sandbox at cy.wiki:

{{#time:U|5 Ebrill 2007}}

then try this:

{{#time:U|5 April 2007}}

you should get:

{{#time:U|5 April 2007}} → 1175731200

Because this problem exists in all non-English wikis, all versions of the module suite since 30 July 2016 have a fix for the problem.

What is your intent? Do you want to just fix your version of your older fork of the module suite? Do you want to the cy.wiki module suite to track the en.wiki modules?

I can see that someone has copied en:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox to cy:Modiwl:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox, changed the month names to Welsh and then reverted. I would not recommend ever taking the en.wiki sandbox versions of the module suite; they are never guaranteed to be working. You should, instead, take the current live version into your sandboxen and make sure that whatever changes are required to suit your particular language are made first there before upgrading the live versions.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. I've reproduced the problem here. I managed to translate the months, so we're partly there! @Redrose64: - I've also added your bits; the Welsh one doesn't work. Intent - to enable any form of input to produce our usual format (27 Mai 2017). Thanks again! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The dates rendered in the citation at test 1 are (for me): 2017-07-19 and Adalwyd 2017-07-19. I see no 19/07/2017 in that page except where you write that the dd/mm/yyyy style is not used on cy.wiki. Test 1 apparently shows that the module suite is working correctly; can't fix it if it ain't broke.

The reason for the failure of test 2 is described above and confirmed by the results of test 3.

Intent - to enable any form of input to produce our usual format (27 Mai 2017). Do you mean that you want the module suite to automatically reformat dates in mdy and ymd formats to dmy format?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making myself clear! Sorry, i'll try again:

Test 1 - should produce '19 Gorffennaf 2017'; as you say, the module should reformat to our accepted format

Test 2 - should not have that error at the end (Check date values in: |access-date= (help))

Test 3 - should allow the input to be in Welsh (5 Ebrill 2007); at the monment it creates an error 'Gwall: Amser annilys'.

Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

At test 1 you write this: If we input the date as 2017-07-19... what we get is 19/07/2017. I don't see that. Here is a copy paste of the rendered citation I see:

"Gwerthu llythyrau’r Cymro oedd yng nghysgod Charles Darwin". Golwg 360. 2017-07-19. Adalwyd 2017-07-19.

19/07/2017 is not part of that rendering. I don't know how you can be seeing a dd/mm/yyyy date format; that is not something that the modules produce.

Test 3 does not test the cs1|2 modules; it tests the MediaWiki {{#time}} parser function. It is not possible for us to fix that here. See phab:T21412.

Test 2 fails because of the problem illustrated in test 3. I have explained that newer versions of the cs1|2 module suite have overcome that problem. My recommendation to you is to do these things:

1. import the current version of the live modules (all of them) from en.wiki into their appropriate sandboxen at cy.wiki
2. modify the sandboxen as appropriate to suit the Welsh language (most will not require modifications I think)
3. test to make sure that the sandbox suite works
4. overwrite the current live version with the sandbox version

Automatic date reformatting is not something that the cs1|2 modules have ever done. At en.wiki |df= allows us to do date reformatting on a citation-by-citation basis. And that works at cy.wiki, but not correctly (it renders English month names). I believe that I know a solution to that which would enable automatic date reformatting and, as a side benefit, enable automatic translation of English month names into the local language month names. I'm interested in exploring that but am not interested in retrofitting it into older versions of the module suite. Cy.wiki would be a good test-bed but it must be upgraded first.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The rendered reference for test 1 is wholly italicized. It should not be. This is because user agents (browsers) apply default italic styling to the <cite>...</cite> tag that wraps the citation. Wherever it is that cy.wiki handles site-wide styling, you can add this:

/* Reset italic styling set by user agent */
cite, dfn {
    font-style: inherit;
}

(may require some consensus). Alternately, we can edit

WP:VPT

who can help.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: - Many thanks for your work on this! I have a lot of work to do! I'll get back to you in a millennium or two! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The village pump discussion about modifying <references /> into columns is still ongoing. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

According to https://peerj.com/preprints/3119v1/ , nearly 50 % of the papers people look for (usually more recent publications) are available in some form of open access, even without counting academic social networks. Perhaps we should point all DOI links to https://oadoi.org/ instead of https://doi.org ? It's clearly a better service if people get to an URL where they can actually access the resource, and oadoi.org (used by hundreds of libraries already) redirects to doi.org if it doesn't know a better destination URL than the publisher-provided one. Alternatively, we could keep a double link, but I think we already provide too many overlapping links. --Nemo 05:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The situation evolved in the latest few months though, to the point oaDOI is becoming the de facto main DOI resolver for many institutions (being also included in

Web of Knowledge: [1]

). If we wanted to be standard-compliant we would (only) display the "doi:" pseudo-protocol, instead we prefer to provide links which are useful (as CrossRef rightly recommends for its own dx.doi.org/doi.org).

Automatically linking the best PDF available is better than requiring users to edit articles and hardcode URLs or identifiers. --Nemo 22:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:ELNEVER (see the discussion here

). Switching the DOI resolver to oadoi.org would do that at a much larger scale and is therefore likely to face the same backlash. As I wrote earlier, I think this policy is out of touch with the current practices, but it seems quite hard to change it.

But there are even practical reasons why switching the DOI resolver would be a problem. Consider the following citation:

Selinger, P. (2010). "A Survey of Graphical Languages for Monoidal Categories". New Structures for Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 289–355.

ISBN 978-3-642-12820-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help

)

If we decide that the DOI is resolved by oadoi.org like this, then the two links will likely point to the arXiv: that is redundant. What if the reader actually wants to access the publisher's website instead? (Sometimes the documents are slightly different, for instance.) So we would need to have two links, one for doi.org and one for oadoi.org, but I agree that would be quite heavy (and useless in many cases, if not most).

− Pintoch (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that we could still have something like |auto-url=oadoi that would provide that functionality. But first we need to get that autolinking feature implemented, so when we have |doi-access=free, we get the doi link on the title.

b

} 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Unresolved

This edit request to Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please create Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments/doc with {{Improve documentation|date=August 2017}} (or better) for maintenance category tracking. I've already created Module talk:Citation/CS1/Arguments/doc and redirected here. The documentation page to be created will appear at Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments and will categorize into Category:Templates with missing or incorrect documentation.

It is not semi-protected per se, but anonymous contributors can't create new pages to module namespace. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Amending the request: Please do the same for
  Module talk:Citation/doc are a bit unclear to me.) 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk
  ) 20:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Why, regarding Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments? The submodule is unused. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  And, in fact, is documented at Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Would {{Documentation|Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/doc}} do better then? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know these modules very well. I noticed it has a lot of Lua code, doesn't have documentation and hasn't been marked as deprecated or unused. If it's really unused, should it be nominated for MfD? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. (Seeking wider consensus first.) 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to cite a particular episode of a podcast using {{cite podcast}} but I am having trouble getting the episode number to come out:

• {{Cite podcast|url=http://badboyrunningpodcast.com/ep50-special-john-kelly-on-finishing-barkley-marathons |series=The Bad Boy Running Podcast|volume=50 |title =SPECIAL - John Kelly on finishing Barkley Marathons |website=badboyrunningpodcast.com |access-date=2017-04-15}}

comes out as

• "SPECIAL - John Kelly on finishing Barkley Marathons". badboyrunningpodcast.com (Podcast). The Bad Boy Running Podcast. Retrieved 2017-04-15.

The obvious solution from the documentation is to use |volume=50 but that isn't showing up in the output: where am I going wrong? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 13:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

At Help:Citation Style 1#Pages there is a table that shows that {{cite podcast}} does not support |volume=, |issue=, or |page(s)=. The discussion that created that table is here. There was no discussion of {{cite podcast}}.

Were it me, I would write the title of your podcast as it actually appears on the podcast's website:

{{cite podcast |url=http://badboyrunningpodcast.com/ep50-special-john-kelly-on-finishing-barkley-marathons |title=Ep50 - SPECIAL - John Kelly on finishing Barkley Marathons |website=The Bad Boy Running Podcast |publisher= |host= |date= |time= |access-date=2017-04-15}}

"Ep50 - SPECIAL - John Kelly on finishing Barkley Marathons". The Bad Boy Running Podcast (Podcast). Retrieved 2017-04-15.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Trappist. As far as I can tell, podcasts are numbered by episode only in their titles. When I look at a podcast's metadata in my feed, there is no "episode" attribute or field. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I recently asked this question in the (very helpful) Teahouse: In a website citation, if the web page title is in ALL CAPS, should we keep it that way? The answer: No, change it to title case.

I had searched for the answer prior to asking it in the Teahouse, including reading the template documentation for {{cite web}}. The {{cite web}} template documentation, under 3. Parameters > 3.4 Description > 3.4.2 Title, explains:

title: Title of source page on website. Displays in quotes.

My suggestion is to add this sentence:

• Also see: Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters

I defer to your collective wisdom if this is a worthwhile addition. It would have helped me, and I did find the answer via the Teahouse.

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but doesn't 3. Parameters > 3.4 Description > 3.4.2 Title already have a hatnote just above the line you quoted, directing readers to the passage you're suggesting? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The parameter url-access=subscription isn't displaying properly in {{cite encyclopedia}}. I've had to switch to {{cite web}} when citing limited access sources. The template talk page redirects here for some reason. Pariah24 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the talk pages for the templates like {{cite book}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} etc. redirect here, because they share a lot of code, and problems in one almost always mean problems in some or all of the others. So to avoid pointless duplicated change requests, we have centralised them here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

|url-access= doesn't work with {{cite episode}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite conference}}, or {{cite book}} because there is no |chapter-url-access= (and aliases). {{cite encyclopedia}} and the others, except {{cite book}}, internally promote |title= and |url= to |chapter= and |chapter-url= so that the title may be rendered in quotes. Because there is no |chapter-url-access=, |url-access= cannot be similarly promoted.

I have hacked the module sandbox to add |chapter-url-access= so that |url-access= is also promoted.

{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=Ångström (unit), n. |encyclopedia=OED Online |date=June 2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=23 August 2017 |url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7627 |url-access=subscription}}

"Ångström (unit), n.". OED Online. Oxford University Press. June 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2017.

|chapter-url-access= has the same rules as |url-access=.

The new |chapter-url-access= allows works with {{cite book}}:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=//example.com |chapter-url-access=subscription}}

"Chapter". Title.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest changing "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working..." to "Note that access-date is the date that the URL given in |url= (or |archive-url=, if real URL is dead) was checked to not just be working...". This is because several months ago, I asked someone whether access date can refer to the archive-url or no, and the answer was (as I remember) no – but this is weird because case when there is no access date parameter at all and someone updates article or its references by adding access dates and checking URLs to fix dead ones is possible (so added accessdate can apply for accessing archived version of original URL, which [archived one] can be considered completely valid and generally same [relative to the original one], especially if from web.archive.org). Proof that there are such cases is that access date is chronologically after archive date (i.e. date URL became dead) in many cases already; even tracking cat for such cases might be introduced but it wouldn't be for URLs accessed after they became dead (because we cannot know this) but only to know for cases where access dates is after archive date. --Obsuser (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Access date clearly conveys now and should continue to clearly convey that it is associated with the main URL of the citation, not any other URL. Links can and are archived before they become dead. --Izno (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: what exactly do you mean by the main URL? Citations to chapters, encyclopedia contributions, etc. often only contain |chapter-url=, since the URL to the work as a whole is not useful to readers; indeed quite often there isn't a URL for the whole work: authors of chapters/contributions regularly upload their part when the work as a whole isn't online. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The url specified in |url=, as the documentation currently states. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the documentation at Help:Citation Style 1#Access date is incorrect or out-of-date: it doesn't reflect the way that that the citation templates now behave. |accessdate= without |url= is ignored:

• {{citation |chapter=Some chapter |title=Some title |accessdate=2017-08-25}} → "Some chapter", Some title {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

whereas adding |chapter-url= correctly produces:

• {{citation |chapter=Some chapter |title=Some title |chapter-url=http://something.com |accessdate=2017-08-25}} → "Some chapter", Some title, retrieved 2017-08-25

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Why do you want to say that it must refer only to the |url=? That is the point of this discussion: proposal to clarify that it can refer to the |archive-url=, |chapter-url= etc. also (and it is not true that it clearly conveys now only to |url=, there are already many cases – as I said – where access date refers to archive url [it is after URL became dead], or chapter url). If I'm wrong, than it would be useful to track cases where accessdate refers to other URL (if possible).

@Peter coxhead: I agree. --Obsuser (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why does "{{cite book|title=Title|publisher=Publisher before date|date=July 1 – August 1, 2008|df=mdy}}" give "Title. Publisher before date. July 1 – August 1, 2008."?

Date should remain same.

Same happens with "{{cite book|title=Title|publisher=Publisher before date|date=July 1 – August 1, 2008|df=dmy}}" which gives "Title. Publisher before date. 1 July – 1 August 2008." even if date should be 1 July – 1 August 2008 i.e. first part of range should not vanish. --Obsuser (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

reformat_dates() does not support date ranges. Never has.

I see that you've made and unmade several changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox. Why? To what purpose?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Can it then be disabled for that function, so that if range is present |df= parameter is ignored?

Regarding changes in that module, complete diff is this. Purpose was first to enable three-digit years, and after that when I saw about metadata using captured year I generally gave up on this to be sure because I guess that metadata is ISO so year must be four-digit. At the end of my changes, three-digit years have been enabled for "month day, year" and "day month year" formats – because there is no reason to restrict |date= to four-digit years (this does not affect |accessdate= params), maybe not even to restrict two- or one-digit years, as something might be published e.g. June 854 or even June 54 etc. Also, in "month day – month day, year" and "day month year - day month year" there were minor inconsistencies: in first case, three-digit year was allowed in if match but not in real match for extraction; in second case, vice-versa.

--Obsuser (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that you are confusing CS1 with a bibliographic system? CS1 exists only to verify claims in articles (and elsewhere) by pointing to sources. The bibliographic history of a source is only pertinent when it affects reliability and verification. Sources should be cited by the date most relevant to the reader who wants to retrieve them. Whether a work was produced in 854 by some publisher means nothing in this context. A reliable (preferably easily retrievable) edition of the work published in 2014 by a certain publisher is [an example of] what should be cited, and there is always |orig-year= if specific older information is deemed relevant. 300 years from now the 2014 edition would probably no longer be accessible; if the source is still used, a contemporary edition/reprint should be used instead. Access dates are a totally different issue and should always be more or less current [at the time the citation is originally inserted]. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the interpolations above, for clarity. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not support the change to allow three-digit years. Almost all three-digit years that I have found are typo errors, things like date= November 3, 214 or date= November 3, 204. In each case, "2014" is meant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to three-digit years. They have their place. I suspect that the need for day and even possibly month precision in a first millennium date is rare. We could limit three-digit years to year-only dates which will allow cs1|2 to handle almost all references and bibliographies.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not rare to cite a source published when the Julian calendar was in effect at the time and place of publication. But

Chicago Manual of Style, to avoid publishing false information. Jc3s5h (talk

) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What? Where in this discussion has anyone suggested date conversions between the Julian and Gregorian calendars? Just to be clear, |df= does not do calendar conversion. All it does is format conversion (hence its name).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Obsuser indicated his or her belief that the Cite Q template (and hence, the Citation template) emits ISO dates as metadata. Everyone who mentions "dates" and "ISO" in Wikipedia (with no qualification of which of the many ISO standards is meant) is advocating that all dates be stated in the Gregorian calendar, whether they realize that's what they're advocating or not. I am warning Obsuser about the probably unintended implications of his or her post. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Again: What? No one here has mentioned {{cite Q}} except you just now. The first instance of the letter 'q' (or 'Q') occurs with your mention of {{cite Q}}. The reformatting applied by |df= applies to the rendered visual format of the original date but not to the metadata. It is not possible to have |df=ymd with |date=23 June 1254:

{{cite journal|title= Title |date=23 June 1254 |df=ymd}}

"Title". 23 June 1254. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Dates in the COinS metadata are in a format that looks like that standard's format because that standard's mechanism for date ranges (yyyy-mm-dd/yyyy-mm-dd) is terse and to the point. For dates outside of the Gregorian calendar, only the year is made part of the metadata so that we avoid any need for calendar conversion. YMD dates in cs1|2 look like that standard's format and are Gregorian like that standard but otherwise do not conform to that standard.

In the comments that I wrote in the function make_COinS_date() in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation I did suggest that these dates conform to that standard. Perhaps I should revise those to say that the COinS date format resembles the standard's format.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned Cite Q in this context. I looked on the main page for metadata information. It does mention that metadata exists, but does not say what standard the metadata follows. I'm unable to understand from your comments above what standard is being followed. Could you please provide a link to the standard? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Can reformatting then be disabled for that function, so that if range is present |df= parameter is ignored?

@72.43.99.138: No, CS1 is a sort of bibliographic system. Yes, newer version is desirable but not neccessary (854 one can still be used), and I thing |orig-year= is also date i.e. part of verification system.

@Jonesey95 and Trappist the monk: I agree to limit three-digit years to year-only dates (maybe to allow also month-and-year-only dates).

@Jc3s5h: No need for warning each other; when I said I guess that metadata is ISO so year must be four-digit I meant that if 874 is captured possible ISO date would be "874-06-01" and I guess it is incorrect because it must be "yyyy-mm-dd"; so that's why I gave up on three-digit years wherever there was something like "for metadata" next to year (maybe I'm wrong about this, Trappist the monk knows better what is this metadata actually and would allowing three-digit years there corrupt it). --Obsuser (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet one would think that most citable sources produced during the Julian (or any other) calendar period would have contemporary editions in the current calendar. Works that survive centuries usually do. And I don't think CS1 is anything other than what is explicitly stated: a more-or-less standardized, custom collection of guidelines for providing a measure of reliability to an anonymously produced encyclopedia. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The custom that has emerged in Wikipedia is to cite the date of a paper publication, even if what the editor actually viewed was a verbatim image of it on microfilm, or a verbatim digital image from a source like Google Books. On the other hand, if the editor viewed a newer edition, which was re-typeset and re-paginated, then the date of the newer edition would be cited. There are many publications from the time when the Julian calendar was used that are readily available as digital images. Whether a newer edition would be more reliable than an older edition depends on the nature of the claim being supported. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is a custom of citing the print publication without crediting of the actual media consulted, such custom should be retired. It contradicts

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and may prevent readers who want to verify the sources from accessing the claimed source. There are several parameters that can be used (|type=, |via= etc.) or templates ({{cite web}} being an obvious candidate). Apart from that, it seems that dating the source needs additional clarity. There appears to be some confusion regarding work date and publication date, and their respective usage in the |date= field. 72.43.99.130 (talk

) 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So the custom of citing the date of the print publication rather than the date of the publication that faithfully reproduces the images of the print publication is in absolute conformity to WP:SAYWHERYOUGOTIT. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If I'm consulting a scanned copy of a source, say a book scanned into Google Books, I probably won't know when the scanned copy was created to credit a different date of "publication". Since it is a faithful reproduction of the original, I cite it as the original print book that was scanned, and add the Google Books like with |via=Google Books. The "say where you got it" is satisfied by the URL and |via= attribution. Even if I'm consulting a document that was scanned and uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons (like commons:File:AASHTO USRN 1985-06-26.pdf) where I do know when the document was scanned, that date doesn't change the publication details of the source I'm consulting. Instead, I'd argue that giving a 2014 date for a 1985 document would confuse matters in the citation. Imzadi 1979 → 21:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two different aspects here. The first is attribution: a copy of a source should be declared as such. What is cited is the copy, not the original (this applies to later print editions of books as well). If this is how the editor cites the source, then that is how the citation can be verified by a reader. There are parameters in CS1 that make such declarations plain, as discussed above. The second aspect is the fact that work date and publication date have different meanings and serve different purposes. Work date in the present context serves to identify a source whereas publication date, in addition to discovery of the source, offers a means to retrieve it. However either can be used in the |date= field, and this may lead readers to believe that an editor consulted a source from say, 1492. This is improbable, and perhaps not what the average Wikipedia reader (who likely has very little knowledge of the technicalities of citation systems) would expect as proof of an article claim. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

code tweaks

I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox so that date-holding parameters that hold date ranges are skipped.

I have also restored the date checking to 4-digit years for dates with month or with month and day. Simple year, year ranges, and circa year dates continue to support 3- and 4-digit years.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a non-breaking space should be placed before the access-level icon. It seems odd for the icon to be separated from its link, especially if the icon winds up on a line of its own.

Additionally, is there any reason that registration and limited are not acceptable values for the doi-access and jstor-access parameters (and perhaps bibcode-access, hdl-access, ol-access, and osti-access, though I'm not particularly familiar with them)? Of course subscription isn't accepted since it's assumed that content that has a DOI or that is on JSTOR requires a subscription unless otherwise indicated, but what about, for example, the occaisional paper that is accessible for free on JSTOR provided one registers for a free account?

Any thoughts? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

1. There should be a non-breaking space yes. Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) has been working on this, but I don't know what came out of it.
2. Those should be supported per the RFC we held, but they haven't been rolled out yet. The main reason to not support them was that doi/jstor are usually closed access, and thus "flagging what is normal" was seen as undesirable. The RFC did conclude that they should at least be allowed, and then editors can chose to flag this or not.
3. |bibcode-access=free/|doi-access=free/|osti-access=free/|jstor-access=free etc all work already

b

} 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to this template:

{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=I. D. |last2=Wichmann |first2=B. A. |last3=Woodall |first3=D. R. |year=1987 |title=Algorithm 123: Single Transferable Vote by Meek's Method |journal=The Computer Journal |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=277–281 |issn=1460-2067 |doi=10.1093/comjnl/30.3.277 |doi-access=free |ref=harv }}

If you look at the code produced from that you will see this bit:

<span class="plainlinks">[//doi.org/10.1093%2Fcomjnl%2F30.3.277 10.1093/comjnl/30.3.277]&#8239;[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]]</span>

In the midst of that you will find this:

 

which is a narrow no-break space. As you have discovered, it does not work. I suspect that it doesn't work because the access signal is an image and not a letter or number.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That's precisely the citation I had in mind. Do you know if there is any way of getting it to work with the image? (Despite the fact I was citing The Computer Journal, I'm afraid that my background is definitely not in computer science.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I can see how "flagging what is normal" might be considered undesirable, but the case I'm discussing isn't "flagging what is normal". JSTOR, for instance, requires a subscription for most content (that I've seen, at least), so I'm just hoping to be able to tag those less common cases where registration or limited are appropriate. And nothing I was referring to should affect the free value. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces - and the white-space:nowrap; declaration - are intended for use when there are two pieces of text which should not be divided. Access icons are images, and images are not text. Some browsers may prevent wrapping when text is "joined" to an image in this manner, but this behaviour is not documented and must not be relied upon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, although "registration" means "a free registration is required to access the source" I'm not sure it gives the right impression for the JSTOR links you refer to, since, since you both need to make an account and you can only read three articles within a 14 day period and you can't download the article like you'd be able to do with the truly free ones / if you paid for it, just see one page at a time. It's a lot more jumping through hoops than something where you make an account and you access it for free. To me "registration" means you have normal unlimited access, you just need to make an account once. Umimmak (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

E.g. "

Please provide a sample template. I believe that some periods are already ignored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's this one, I think.

There is a function in Module:Citation/CS1 called safe_join() that is supposed to remove duplicate punctuation when that punctuation matches the template's separator character (in this case a dot). But, safe_join() apparently doesn't have a case for ."]. So I added one:

But, that doesn't look quite right to me. Compare the above to a simple example without the separator character inside the quotes (this is the norm):

"Title". Example.

So, perhaps when |title= has a trailing separator character, we should remove the title's trailing character rather than remove the template's separator character.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be no flagging of a date error when {{

As an example {{Kilde www|dato=26.-28. April 2002|publisher=Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002}} renders as . Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. Error: Invalid time.. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

This should give a date error for the dots in the date and another for the dash. Keith D (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If one is to believe the 'Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page' list at the bottom of this page, the cs1|2 module suite is not used by that template. This is confirmed by looking at your example this way:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000053-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">. Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. <strong class="error">Error: Invalid time.[[Category:Pages with parser function time errors]]</strong>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.pub=Second+MIT+Conference+on+Technology%2C+Archaeology%2C+and+the+Deep+Sea%2C+Bosten%2C+MA+Presented+at+MIT%2C+Cambridge%2C+Mass.+26%E2%80%9328+April+2002&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+36" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">&#124;date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">&#124;title=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#citation_missing_title|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">&#124;url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#cite_web_url|help]])</span>

and comparing that to this rendering which does use {{cite web}}:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000055-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">. Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. 26.-28. April 2002.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.pub=Second+MIT+Conference+on+Technology%2C+Archaeology%2C+and+the+Deep+Sea%2C+Bosten%2C+MA+Presented+at+MIT%2C+Cambridge%2C+Mass.+26%E2%80%9328+April+2002&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+36" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">&#124;date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">&#124;title=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#citation_missing_title|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">&#124;url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#cite_web_url|help]])</span>

. Second MIT Conference on Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea, Bosten, MA Presented at MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 26–28 April 2002. 26.-28. April 2002. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

If one looks into the source for {{

kilde www}}, there are two mentions of cite web one of which is in a comment but the other is not. That code is sufficiently complex that, without I take time that I haven't got right now, I cannot explain. I would have suggested that a conversation with Editor Jimp

(who authored the cite web section of that code would be in order but that editor has not edited since March).

There are relatively few instances of this template so perhaps the right thing to do is to upgrade those instance to use the correct cs1|2 template (the example here might want to be {{cite conference}}).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(

Internetquelle}}, but the date substitution is broken. I have posted on the template's talk page to see if anyone is willing to fix the date substitution bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, could not work out the code. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)