User talk:Citation bot

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 33 as User talk:Citation bot/Archive 32 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

List of archives Archive 0 (Early bug reports) Archive 1 (May 2008 – Jun 2011) Archive 2 (Jun 2011 – Nov 2015) Archive 3 (Nov 2015 – Jul 2016) Archive 4 (Jul 2016 – Oct 2016) Archive 5 (Oct 2016 – Sep 2017) Archive 6 (Sep 2017 – Oct 2017) Archive 7 (Oct 2017 – Jul 2018) Archive 8 (Jul 2018 – Aug 2018) Archive 9 (Aug 2018 – Aug 2018) Archive 10 (Sep 2018 – Oct 2018) Archive 11 (Oct 2018 – Nov 2018) Archive 12 (Nov 2018 – Jan 2019) Archive 13 (Jan 2019 – Feb 2019) Archive 14 (Feb 2019 – Mar 2019) Archive 15 (Mar 2019 – Jun 2019) Archive 16 (Jun 2019 – Jul 2019) Archive 17 (Jul 2019 – Aug 2019) Archive 18 (Aug 2019 – Oct 2019) Archive 19 (Oct 2019 – Mar 2020) Archive 20 (Mar 2020 – May 2020) Archive 21 (May 2020 – Jul 2020) Archive 22 (Jul 2020 – Sep 2020) Archive 23 (Sep 2020 – Dec 2020) Archive 24 (Dec 2020 – Apr 2021) Archive 25 (Apr 2021 – Jun 2021) Archive 26 (Jun 2021 – Aug 2021) Archive 27 (Aug 2021 – Sep 2021) Archive 28 (Oct 2021 – Dec 2021) Archive 29 (Dec 2021 – Dec 2021) Archive 30 (Dec 2021 – Mar 2022) Archive 31 (Mar 2022 – May 2022) Archive 32 (May 2022 – present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot. Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx= to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least an hour.

Please click here to report an error.

Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.

Break

Holy jeez is this thing still going on. I'll transclude the CS1 documentation here.

Note in particular: {{

No, you don't get to decide to just end the discussion because you don't like what half of the participants are saying. There is no consensus that web articles associated to magazines are the same thing as online magazines and the fact that you lot have still, nearly a full month later, failed to provide any proof that these two things are the same suggests that there is none. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is editing in line with the CS1 documentation and inline with common sense. You're the one claiming that a blue car isn't a car because it's blue. Online magazines are magazines. So they are covered by cite magazine.

b} 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Half-a-dozen noisy (and sometimes nasty) editors don't get to redefine the purpose of the cite templates just because they refuse to read long-standing documentation and refuse to understand the distinctions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As neither position in this disagreement seems able to convince the other of the strengths of their respective position, and consensus does seem to be evenly split between the two positions, do we need an RfC to settle this?

If so, then can we at least come to an agreement on what the question for it will be? And where would be the most suitable venue for such a discussion? Here? Village Pump technical? Somewhere else? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl and Sideswipe9th: You two said it yourselves, half-a-dozen editors believe the use of {{Cite magazine}} is incorrect, which means there is no consensus on which template to use. Thus far, still no one has provided a reason why Citation Bot should be taking sides and enforcing the preferred template of only half the editors here when consensus is evenly split between the two positions. Again, since there is a dispute, the bot should leave it up to editors of individual articles on deciding whether to use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite magazine}}. So please get rid of this function. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Sideswipe9th, to answer can we at least come to an agreement on what the question for [an RfC] will be?, it's simple:

Should Citation Bot be making changes to citation templates when there is no consensus to do so?

If someone in this thread thinks the answer is "yes", then there's a problem, because we're not using common sense here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the right question, or perhaps not the whole question. At least some of the disagreement here is over whether or not content that is exclusively published on a magazine's website, like the EW article you linked yesterday, is considered to be published as part of the magazine. And I think that's what our question, or one of our questions should focus upon. We need to establish what the consensus is surrounding that type of content. As otherwise the RfC you've suggested is focused upon blocking a specific action of Citation Bot with no follow up to unblocking that action at a future date.

Also I would be very cautious against basing an argument on common sense. Common sense is exclusively subjective, and not in any way an objective measure. As the article on it suggests, it is coloured by many different aspects of your individual perceptions and world view, and a definition of it has illuded philosophers for centuries. It should be quite clear by now that what I believe to be the common sense way for the bot to handle this type of content is entirely at odds with what you believe to be the common sense way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong here, but based on the results of this discussion, I suspect an RfC will just yield an equally divided response. If no consensus indeed emerges from a hypothetical RfC, would you (and the maintainers of this bot) support removing this function? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely far too small a number of editors to extrapolate a broader consensus from. I think however that understanding of, to paraphrase, no consensus means the bot stops doing these edits, can be either inherent to the question we ask or explicitly stated as one of the outcomes. So if we ask the right question, then yes I would support disabling this feature at least for this particular subset. There are of course non-controversial uses of the same function; converting an erroneous {{Cite web}} to {{Cite journal}} for example. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the proposed question is thoroughly loaded: I agree with Swipe that it presumes a small group of noisy editors on this page are the basis of determining a consensus.

If there is to be an RFC, the it needs to address the substantive issue: which pages on EW's website should be treated as part of a magazine? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: not trying to start another squabble with you, but I would advise not using the word "noisy" to describe editors who are simply trying to express their opinions. Doing so makes it seem like you're degrading us and unwilling to hear what others have to say. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: I used that word because it was milder than the phrase "aggressive and abusive" which first came to mind in respect of two of the six. If you prefer, I can edit the post to use that longer phrase.

I think that "noisy" is a fair and quite mild (probably excessively mild) term to describe the conduct of the group as a whole, many of whom have behaved very disruptively, by posting repeatedly whilst showing no evidence of effort to grasp the explanations offered to them.

You have mostly been quite civil, but overall the arrival of this six has been a very unpleasant experience. Most editors who post on this page are highly experienced and knowledgeable. That has not been the case with these six, who have generated more heat than light. I note that even after one of the six outrageously accused the bot of vandalism (a v serious allegation), none of the other five reproached them, and one of the six even accused me of being a bully for objecting to the smear. So the reality is that you have degraded yourselves. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on other editors' behavior above, but #3, 4, and 6 of Wikipedia:Civility § Dealing with incivility state that editors should respond to incivil statements calmly, specifically warning editors against snapping back. Sure, it was a fair request to ask Darkwarriorblake to retract their claim about vandalism. But did you really need to add a snarky statement at the end? (If you make utterly bogus allegations, no wonder you get laughed at.) Sure, you were understandably upset when Adamstom.97 called you a bully. But then you did the exact same thing and called him a nasty bully. And you could have easily made your point about Indagate without having to comb through their edit history and presenting actual statistics to support your claim. Again, this is neither an endorsement or condemnation of the aforementioned editors' actions, but I would think a self-proclaimed highly experienced and knowledgeable editor like you (and a former admin too, I see) could have handled the situation better. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [I] have mostly been quite civil? Mostly? Kindly point out when and where I have ever been incivil during this discussion, because I choose my words carefully. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. InfiniteNexus explicitly refuses to condemn Darkwarriorblake's bogus accusation of vandalism, but instead picks up the game of attacking for alleged imperfections in my response to the smear.

Whether deliberately or otherwise, InfiniteNexus is playing a partisan game: do nothing at all to disparage or denounce the blatant abuse by those on whose support he relies ... but instead join the tag-team attacks on me for challenging the abuse.

That is civil conduct only insofar as it refrains from using rude words. But in its substance, it's gang logic : a nastily partisan form of conduct in which a polite veneer is used to poison the atmosphere by partisan application of standards.

Also, in the last few day, my en.wp user account has been subject to a failed hacking attempt. That is the 4th such failed-hack saga in the last few years, either to my en.wp user account and/or my wp-only email account. Each of those occasions has coincided with a discussion in which aggressively partisan editors are slinging muck, as the outriders to other editors who are formally polite but whose conduct is calibrated to not offend the wild ones. Coincidence? Hmm. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I will remain neutral regarding Darkwarrior, Adamstom, and Indagate's comments. Why must I pick a side? I was not trying to attack you above, rather I was giving constructive criticism in the hope you would see the error of your ways. Clearly that didn't go down so well. I also don't understand why you say I join[ed] the tag-team attacks on [you] for challenging the abuse when I clearly said that your request for Darkwarrior to retract his vandalism claim was fair. I have been trying to assume good faith with you, but your latest comment indicates to me that you are not doing the same. I'm not sure what you were trying to suggest in that last paragraph, but if you're implying that I may have something to do with said hacking attempt, I vehemently deny such a baseless (or should I say, bogus) allegation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: you chose to remain neutral about the editor who made a bogus allegation of allegation, and repeated it when challenged. Even now you don't actually directly reject that, and instead you insist of remaining "neutral" about a bogus allegation of vandalism.

Why the neutrality?

But you chose to attack me, repeatedly, for objecting to that. And you also chose to attack me for actually providing the evidence to support a critique I made of Indagate's claims ... as if an unevidenced assertion is somehow better.

So, no, I do not believe that you are acting in good faith.

And note that I did not accuse you of the hacking attempts. I just noted that yet again, hacking attempts coincided with a drama. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. When you give detailed evidence to prove your point about an editor's perceived inexperience, it's totally acceptable. But when I give detailed evidence to prove my point that you chould have been more calm and civil in your responses, it's an outrageous attack? This is about as hypocritical as you calling Adamstom a bully for calling you a bully.

All that being said, this is veering more and more off-topic, so please let us refocus our attention on the actual issue at hand and leave this behind. I could go on forever with this, and I'm sure you could too, but since this is going nowhere we need to get past this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the examples were specific to EW and Rolling Stone, the question itself seems as though it's best asked in the broader format. It's late so forgive me if this is too leading, but something like Citation Bot has a feature that automatically converts {{Cite web}} citations to {{Cite news}} and {{Cite magazine}}. For the purposes of this feature, are articles that are published exclusively on the websites of hybrid-print/digital publications considered to be published in a newspaper or magazine? We can then include a couple of examples, ideally from edits that the bot has made that have either been implicitly accepted or rejected by editors at the article level which I'm sure editors here should be able to provide, and presented like of Should Citation Bot transform {{cite web...}} to A) {{cite news...}} or B) leave it as is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sideswipe, I would be fine with this phrasing, unless someone objects to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question is, in my opinion, simple.

Is the rolling stone a magazine? Then use cite magazine.

Is the rolling stone not a magazine? Then don't use cite magazine.

Is Entertainment Weekly a magazine? Then use cite magazine.

Is Entertainment Weekly not a magazine? Then don't use cite magazine.

As for cite web, the documentation literally says This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. The bot is just working with what was put there, if you think it should change then that's a bigger question that could warrant an RFC.

Again i am looking at this at a purely neutral standpoint: I have not taken a side as of yet. Rlink2 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: I wish it were as simple as that, but right now editors are not divided over whether Rolling Stone and EW are magazines. Consensus is split over the question of whether the websites owned by Rolling Stones and EW are considered magazines even though the web articles do not appear in the print magazines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out as well, that though some editors are saying "online magazines = magazine", as far as I can tell, no where in the documentation of either {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite web}} is this defined. All Cite magazine says on the matter for anything online is two instances of how to cite an online magazine article that has been archived. And the opening of that documentation states: This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters. No where to me does that indicate that publications that create content in print (or in an explicit online publication or online version of an in print publication) as well as separate articles appearing on their website (of which EW and Rolling Stone both do or did), that Cite magazine is the proper citation template for both. To me, the first example of material in a print or online magazine (one that has a table of contents, individual pages, etc.) would use Cite magazine, and any article that is completely separate from what is in "print" appearing on their website, should use Cite web (or I guess Cite new too). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that most users believe that "cite news" refers to any news media source, not just newspapers. Therefore the notion that this debate that cite news needs to work out some sort of rule between print and non-print sources is misguided. Abductive (reasoning) 00:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why Template:Cite news#Choosing_between_{{Cite_web}}_and_{{Cite_news}} (can't figure out a way to directly link here due to technical reasons) exists. Because it's saying that both templates are correct! Before 2014, editors needed to decide whether to use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} based on their features, it says, which implies that this is no longer the case and editors are now free to choose between the two templates at their discretion. The only two differences between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, according to the documentation, do not apply to online newspaper articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Sample Question workshop

RfC Question: Citation Bot has a feature that automatically converts {{Cite web}} citations to {{Cite news}} and {{Cite magazine}}. For the purposes of this feature, are articles that are published exclusively on the websites of hybrid-print/digital publications considered to be published in a newspaper or magazine?

Alrighty, making this a bit more structured. InfiniteNexus and others, you've said that there are a number of edits that the bot has made that you've reverted. Could you please provide diffs to a selection of those edits, so that we can provide some actual examples of this in action? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The EW article above is the first citation in the diff provided by Adamstom in his initial report, so that is an actual example. More examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! I'll get those into the example list now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we can limit this to one or two examples for {{Cite magazine}} and one or two for {{Cite news}} we can convey the locus of the dispute, without bombarding everyone else with technical details. Are there any {{Cite news}} examples we can use for this, cause it seems like that too would be a source that would be getting changed in this manner? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's one that I partially reverted a few weeks ago. Basically it converted everything from The Washington Post (which again, do not appear on the actual print newspaper) to {{Cite news}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I've copied two examples from that diff. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I think including example edits the bot could make are important for editors who may be unfamiliar with what Citation Bot is doing, I'm not happy with the format I've used to present this. Can anyone think of a better way to present these examples? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only one calling for an RFC as of this moment is Sideswipe, if everyone thinks an RFC is good then RFC it is. But we shouldn't start an RFC because one person thinks so. I would first make sure there is consensus for an RFC before drafting the RFC question. I think Sideswipes intentions to cool tensions is good, but at the same time an RFC can make them even larger so we have to be careful.. Rlink2 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think RfC is probably best way to get a consensus, current discussion is lengthy and doesn't seem to be reaching a conclusion Indagate (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey, I tried convincing the editors in charge to block the bot from making these changes since no consensus has emerged from this discussion, but they refused to do so. If we can avoid an RfC I'm all for that, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated at one or two editors' refusal to honor the fact there is no consensus for the bot to make these changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true! I'd like to note that I'm mooting the idea of an RfC not only because of the tensions here, but also because it seems as though discussion is by and large unable to reach a conclusion. Without additional eyes on this discussion, we're likely to remain at the current deadlock between those who are in favour of the bots edits, and those who are opposed to them as neither position seems able to convince the other. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few comments since I last looked so just adding my general comments down here. The RfC question we should be asking is Should articles on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal always be treated as if they are an article in that publication? The main reason I think we should not is because I learned at the start of this issue (and provided evidence about this above) that an online magazine is actually a separate thing from a magazine's website, so the assumption being made by the editors who think we should treat magazine websites as online magazines is incorrect. For example, Entertainment Weekly recently covered the new series

Obi-Wan Kenobi for their final print magazine. They put a version of the cover story on their website, here, as well as in the physical magazine and the digital version of the magazine (which is a digital document, like a pdf, that is formatted just like a magazine with a cover and pages, etc., and available through digital magazine subscription services separate from ew.com). They also released supplemental interviews for the series on their website, such as this one, which do not appear in their physical or digital magazines at all. So to me I think it is clear that the physical/digital magazine and the website are separate things and we should not be automatically treating them the same. The only argument that has been given in response to this is that other editors don't agree, but I have seen no evidence to support why the website and digital magazine should be treated like the same thing. I'm not sure if an RfC is the best way to handle this situation, but surely anything is better than the toxic mess that this discussion has become. Newspapers is a lot less clear of an issue to me because I have never seen a "digital newspaper" that is literally a digital version of a newspaper, in my experience newspapers with websites do just stick news articles on the website. I'm guessing that journals are likely closer to magazines though. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There are, in fact, PDF-style "digital newspapers" out there, for example here is The Washington Post's. Not all articles published online appear in the print version (due to space and cost issues), and I even found an article talking about this. Since there is no way for the bot (or anyone, unless you're actively subscribed to every newspaper out there) to determine whether an article that appears online also appears in the print/digital version, in my opinion Citation Bot should not be changing {{Cite web}} to {{Cite news}} either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both of your perspectives on how you'll answer the question, but can we save that for the RfC if we decide to have one? I'd rather keep us focused on what we can agree on here, eg what question to ask, rather than rehashing discussions that we've already done to death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the current wording or Adamstom's version. What's the hold up the RfC? Are you just waiting for more users to chime in? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC it is then.

I think that the question should be about cite web -> cite magazine in general and not just citation bot. Since i think this issue is larger than citation bot. Other than that it looks good. Rlink2 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if the RfC needs to start more general to gauge editor's inclinations on using citation templates to gather that consensus (which may be what is being considered). I'm thinking asking what citation template would an editor use in three examples: 1) an EW article only online; 2) an EW article only published in its magazine; and 3) an EW article published both in its magazine and online. A large portion of this discussion was between editors who felt print magazine that also publish online are not "online magazines" while others think they are. Seeing the response to these three scenarios might prove helpful and insightful where the community's consensus is at. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good way to frame it, as you're both right that this doesn't just cover whether or not the edits by Citation Bot are acceptable, but how the community in general cites articles like this in absence of the bot. We do at some stage need to link it back to the various cite templates, as well as Citation Bot though. Is there a good format for multi-question RfCs?

If we were to go with the more generalised question per Adamstom's wording, how would we present the examples? Would something like "Here's an article in EW that only appears on their website. If you were using CS1/2 templates, would you A) use {{Cite web}} B) use {{Cite magazine}}" be the way to do that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: I think even more general than that: "What CS1/2 template or templates would you use in the following examples?" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're still somewhat hashing out the format, what question to ask and how to present the examples supporting it.

The other important question that we need to decide is where to hold the RfC. Do we do it on this talk page?

Help:CS1? Or somewhere else? If we're holding it here, where do we want to list it anywhere? Or notify any particularly relevant WikiProjects? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sideswipe9th We can do it here, then announce on the feedback request service, notify relevant Wikiprojects, and village pump about the discussion. That's what I've seen being done from other RFCs. Rlink2 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: sounds good! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think location depends on the question, as I brought up above. If it's specifically about the edits by the bot, then here. If it's about generally when citation template are used in certain instances, to then inform how this bot is functioning to editor's current practices/consensus, this isn't the right spot.

WT:CS1 likely would be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that somewhere more general would make sense, and once there is consensus we can come back here and make sure the bot aligns with it. If we were to use Favre's wording (an EW article only online; an EW article only published in its magazine; and an EW article published both in its magazine and online) we would just need to make it clear that when we say "online" we are referring to EW's website and not the digital version of their magazine which is also online. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following-up on this, here is a suggestion of what the question could be based on Favre's wording: There is a disagreement over how best to format references for certain publications. An example is Entertainment Weekly, which used to publish a physical magazine and still publishes a digital version of the magazine online. They also publish articles on their website (ew.com). The dispute is regarding whether the generic website citation template, {{cite web}}, can be used for some of these articles or if {{cite magazine}} (which has magazine-specific parameters such as |magazine=, |issue=, and |page=) should be used instead. Which citation template do you think should be used for each of the following situations? A) an EW article that is on the website but not in the physical or digital magazine; B) an EW article that is in the physical or digital magazine but not on the website; and C) an EW article that is on the website and in the physical or digital magazine. What do we think of that? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately per

WP:RFCBRIEF

that is far too long a question. The question needs to be short and neutral, ideally no more than a sentence or two. We also don't need to explain the background of the dispute within the question, because that can be implied from the question itself if well written, and is by and large not relevant to most editors who may opine on it.

I also don't like restricting this to just {{Cite web}} -> {{Cite magazine}} transformations, as we have examples where {{Cite news}} were also disputed. There's also two reports below this section for a similar transformation involving {{Cite book}} that seems on some level to be related. Ideally our example list should reflect this, and we too can keep that brief by including one example for each transformation.

If we're going for a more generalised RfC on how to handle this content type in general, then I think some variation of your earlier question Should articles on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal always be treated as if they are an article in that publication?, with the exact text of magazine, newspaper, or journal reflecting the examples we chose, or the proposal by Favre1fan93 What CS1/2 template or templates would you use in the following examples? better fits both brevity and neutrality. Of those two, I prefer your earlier wording as it more accurately reflects the locus of this dispute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned that there is a lot of necessary context that can't be implied with such a simple question. If we don't make the digital magazine vs. website part clear then we are just going to be back where we started with this discussion, with editors claiming that "online magazines = magazines" and not addressing the actual issue. If we were to remove the specific example, we could have something like this: There is a disagreement over how best to format references for certain publications, such as magazines, newspapers, journals, and books, and the websites that are associated with their publishers. In the following situations, do you think the generic website citation template, {{cite web}}, can be used or should a more specific template ({{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite book}} all has parameters specific to those publication types) be required? A) an article or excerpt that is on the publisher's website but not in a physical or digital version of the publication; B) an article or excerpt that is in a physical or digital version of the publication but not on the publisher's website; C) an article or excerpt that is on the publisher's website and in a physical or digital version of the publication. That is just two sentences plus our three short scenarios, so it isn't too long. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the point you're making, to do that would inherently make the question non-neutral. Remember that part of this disagreement also covers whether there is a distinction between the website of a publication, and what you're referring to as the digital magazine. For some editors like myself, there is no such distinction. The locus of the dispute is in how we fully define what is covered under a specialisation template like {{Cite magazine}} versus the much more generalised {{Cite web}}. However the question as you've phrased it pre-supposes that everyone will agree that there is a distinction between a publication's website, the print edition, and what you're referring to as the digital edition, whereas we already know that is not an agreed upon thing.

I think arguments on this distinction are best served within the discussion/survey section. They are not something that we can pre-suppose in the question itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not non-neutral to make it clear what we are arguing about, but it is non-neutral to word the question in such a way that everyone will agree with you. The whole point of this discussion is that digital magazines and websites are two separate things but some editors want to treat them the same way. If that is not somehow made clear in the RfC then we will not be making any progress and might as well not have the RfC at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this discussion is that digital magazines and websites are two separate things but some editors want to treat them the same way. No. This is what we cannot find consensus on. Half of the editors present believe the publication's website is separate from the editions of the publication, print or digital. The other half believe all are the same thing. Accordingly we have no consensus on whether these are separate things or the same thing. That is what we need to ask in our question, and that is why I believe a variation on your original proposed question Should articles on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal always be treated as if they are an article in that publication? better fits both the brevity and neutrality concerns.

It better fits brevity because, well it's shorter. If reworded slightly, it will better fit neutrality because it does not presuppose for either side whether or not there is a distinction between a publication and its website. Arguments on whether or not there is a distinction are best served in the survey/discussion section of an RfC, because that is where arguments are put forward to support an answer to the question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an RFC, put as much background information as possible, but don't reword it (or else you run into neutrality issues). Do not omit this discussion or any previous discussions, any voters should be clear that we had this discussion. Rlink2 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, by removing all of the background information and not even including the actual issue (digital magazines vs. websites) in the wording you are making it very unclear what we have discussed and what the issue is. That wording is brief, yes, but it also makes it sound like "are digital magazines the same as physical magazines" when the question we actually want to ask is "are digital magazines the same as websites". - adamstom97 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The initial question for the RFC still needs to be brief, much like the one I proposed earlier today. And then give examples, and a "Background" section as Rlink2 said to cover all the information editors would need on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, because I think I've accidentally left things unsaid. Per

WP:RFCBRIEF

the question must be short and neutrally worded. Ideally this is in the form of one or two sentences. In part this is because of a technical limitation with Legobot and how it transcludes the question to the the various list pages for notification.

However what I've failed to convey, because I've been focusing entirely upon the question and hadn't even realised until now, is that we can include the background behind the dispute, but we must do so separately from the question. There are a number of sample RfC formats provided at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting, and I think a variation on the Pro and con sample may suit us best here, as it would allow us to convey both sides of the background side by side. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Should articles on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal always be treated as if they are an article in that publication? is not succinct enough. We should be more direct and specifically mention the different CS1/2 templates, i.e. something like For magazine, newspaper, and journal articles that are published exclusively on their associated websites, should {{Cite web}} be used in lieu of {{Cite magazine}}, {{Cite news}}, and {{Cite journal}}?. We can then give additional background info and examples below. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting a little heated there Sideswipe9th, that all makes sense to me. InfiniteNexus, I think "For magazine, newspaper, and journal articles that are published exclusively on their associated websites" is a bit leading, it suggests that we have already decided that they are magazine, newspaper, or journal articles. We should mention in the background section that this discussion is specifically about the cite templates so I don't think we need to worry about that being missed. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the proposed wording was a little confusing/ambiguous because I myself had to re-read it a couple times before I fully understood it. How about If an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should {{Cite web}} be used in lieu of {{Cite magazine}}, {{Cite news}}, and {{Cite journal}}? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is any editor who encounters a ref to a URL on e.g. theguardian.com or irishtimes.com supposed to identify whether the article also appeared in the print edition?

Unless that unless this question can plausibly be answered, then an RFC based on such identification is in effect a wrecking amendment which would make those templates unusable.

And note that this wording would also bar use of {{Cite magazine}} on those EW articles which the objectors claim are part of the online magazine. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated repeatedly above, {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} should only be used for print articles. So yes, you're right that this would make them unusable online. But they won't be unusable for print articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexusThanks for clarifying your intent. But as printed newspaper sales plummet, most major newspapers are now giving the digital platform at least as high a priority. I can't think of any newspapers which maintain a rigid separation between online and offline content: can you identify any?

So what is the actual purpose of applying this distinction between print and web, when the papers themselves don't follow it? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as print newspapers exist (which they will for at least a decade longer), I don't see this as an issue. When print newspapers do actually die out 20 years later, then we'll talk. But contrary to what you may believe, print newspapers (and their digital PDF-style replicas) continue to be published separately from the web articles. There is still a distinction.

Also, as a side note, you can stop pinging me in every message as I am watching this page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'm breaking with my intention to keep discussion here focused on the RfC question and format. However what you've said about {{cite news}} is definitely not common practice. Common practice, at least insofar as the articles I am familiar with, with {{cite news}} is to use it for any news organisation. This includes hybrid print/digital publications like The Times or The Guardian, online only publications like HuffPost or The Independent, as well as TV broadcasters like BBC and CNN.

However I do recognise that this also seems to be an important part of the dispute here, and so should be reflected in the question, examples, and any other supporting materials for an RfC if we do go ahead with one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. If {{Cite news}} should be used for all news organizations, then 90% of all citations on articles ought to be using that template. This is not the case on any of the articles I usually edit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that question is maybe still a bit leading. What about If an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, newspaper, or journal, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{Cite web}} or one of {{Cite magazine}}, {{Cite news}}, and {{Cite journal}}? This is closer to the actual dispute, which seems to be over what template should you use, and not is {{cite web}} a suitable alternative to the specialised templates.

We could then break down the arguments for and against the more specialised cite templates similar to the pro and con sample I linked earlier, and include examples of what the wikisource for each citation would look like. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an RFC?

In the section above, huge amounts of work are being put into drafting an RFC. If there is an RFC, lots more editor time will be put into the responses, and then into weighing a close. But why? What is the problem to be resolved?

Some editors disagree with some instances of the conversion of {{cite web}} to {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}. They make a distinction between the publication and its website. I don't share that view, and think that any distinction is pointless ... but clearly, some want to maintain a distinction.

But after all this debate, I don't see why they want to maintain a distinction, and why they object to {{cite magazine}} being used in e.g. some articles on the EW website. Sorry if I have missed some statement of this, but it would help to have a clear answer to the question: What is the harm done by these conversions?

For example, does the change cause an unwanted alteration in the display of the citation? Do the objectors dislike the five extra character used by "cite magazine"? Or is this just about the name of the template? Or is it something else?

Pinging @InfiniteNexus, who is one of the objectors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Because it is a wholly unnecessary change. Because it disregards a long-standing convention on many articles. Because it breaks consistency with the rest of the article which uses {{Cite web}} templates. Because {{Cite magazine}} is not intended for non-magazine articles. Because this change was made without consensus in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: that doesn't try answer my question: What is the harm done by these conversions?.

Noting in that response identifies anyway in which the change damages the reference.

Your points are unpersuasive:

1. unnecessary change: The bot always converts {{cite web}} to a more specific template if one is available. That is a significant part of its work.
2. disregards a long-standing convention on many articles: any convention on which template to use should not be set at article level. A
   WP:LOCALCON
   on each page or on each web domain is a recipe for madness when trying to maintain the citations on over 6 million articles -- these matters need to be decided centrally.
3. breaks consistency with the rest of the article which uses {{Cite web}} templates: most articles use a variety of citation templates, for different types of source. Unless you are asserting that these articles must use {{Cite web}} for all refs to all sources, then there is no consistency to break ... and when the bot processes a page it makes the needed conversions to all refs.
4. {{Cite magazine}} is not intended for non-magazine articles: that does not address the question of what harm is done to the citation.
5. this change was made without consensus: not so. Converting cite templates to a more specific type is long-established practice.

As far as I can see, this is all about the name of the template {{cite magazine}}. It seems that these sensitivities over nomenclature could be resolved by creating a redirect to {{cite magazine}} called something like {{cite article in a magazine or on the magazine's eponymous website}}, and using that redirect for EW.com and rollingstone.com.

Unless someone can identify actual harm being done, then this whole drama looks like an attempt to resolve a non-problem, i,e. a complete waste of lots of the tie of lots of people. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if you didn't find my reasons compelling, but those are my reasons for opposing the bot's changes. I'm not sure why you only pinged me specifically when I am not the only objector, so pinging @Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93 for their take on BHG's question. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, you can comment and call IN's points unpersuasive once the RfC is running. They don't need your approval to start the RfC and this sub-section of yours is very condescending. Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: of course, no approval is needed to start an RFC.

But an RFC does consume a lot of the time of other editors, so it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to challenge the idea that a proposed RFC is a good use of editorial energies. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why? What is the problem to be resolved? While my answer as to which template is the appropriate one to use is the same as yours BHG, I can answer why I think an RfC is a good idea here.

We have here a dispute, between editors who are opposed to {{cite web}} being transformed into a more specialised {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}, and those who are in favour of it. The discussion has been lengthy, and I completely agree it has been uncivil at times. Of the editors who have contributed recently, 50% are in favour of the bot making the transformation and 50% are opposed. Those who are in favour seem unable to convince those who are opposed, and vice versa. The underlying issue however seems to be spilling over into main space. Adamstom.97 linked a discussion on 21 May where the members of at least one WikiProject taskforce are considering banning Citation Bot from all pages under the scope of that task force, over this feature, even though it will block the other features that CB performs that they do find acceptable. I say at least one, as I've not done a search to find out if there are similar discussions on other WikiProjects or taskforces.

That is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it's clear that we seem unable to do so here with the editors present. So what is the next step?

DRN would be able to handle a discussion like this. So that pretty much leaves an RfC as the only option to resolve the dispute. As Rlink2 said on 29 May my intention here is to cool tensions, and resolve a dispute that seems to be spilling over or about to spill over into the article space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sideswipe9th: yes, I get all that. The lack of resolution does propel us to an RFC, and I thank you for your hard work in trying to refine the question.

However, the persistence of the objectors does not alter that fact that they have failed to identify any actual problem that they seek to fix. That is why I wanted to try to nail down that down before the RFC ... but so far, without success.

Unless that changes, we are going to have a big RFC about a non-problem, where the goal sought by the 6 objectors will be to effectively ban the use of {{cite news}} in the vast majority of cases because some editors make a distinction between newspapers in different media (print, web, app, PDF) which has long since been abandoned by the newspapers themselves. InfiniteNexus has explicitly stated that that is their goal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in my eyes, which I've felt I've been trying to convey, is there is no statement as far as I can find in official citation documentation that says "online magazines = magazines". Thus, if an editor is explicitly choosing to add reference material with {{cite web}} for a site like EW.com, because as far as I was aware that was a fine and correct thing do to, only to have a change to this bot's classification code go through on its runs and adjust to a template which in my view does not support an online source from such publication based on given documentation, and the bot continually is making such changes opposed to "leave if its cite web, fix if it's completely not this or a bare ref etc.", I think that needs to be clarified within the community. Because clearly there had to be some sort of "understanding" or "status quo" for lack of better terms to how editors were approaching this publication until the bot coding change. I never felt there was or was aware of any "issue" or opposition with citing online material from EW, Rolling Stone etc. with cite web until this discussion. So my hope with the RfC would be to clarify where the community stands on, frankly, is an online article from "traditional print" magazines, "a magazine". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't see the template name, only the formatting it produces, which is largely unchanged. Your answer makes it sound like the only issue is cognitive dissonance caused by your feeling that you had been using the right template name only to have bots come along to correct you. Am I misreading and there's more to it than that? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: that is also my view on the objections, i.e. that the objections are to the name of the template. That's why I started this section: to ask if there's more to it than that. And so far, there isn't more. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if (emphasis on if) that is the case, consensus has already formed for an RfC. And don't you both want to get this over with? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not deny that the RfC you want to push forward with is completely pointless? You certainly do not have my consensus to waste our time with pointless RfCs. Maybe you should instead ask for a RfC on a different question: should we switch all citations from Citation Style 1 to Citation Style 2? Because in Citation Style 2, there is only one template {{citation}} so there is no reason for getting hurt feelings by having your chosen template name changed. (Hint: You will not get consensus to switch all citation styles.) You could at least start using CS2 on any new articles you create (as I usually do); then the bot won't change the names of your templates when it cleans up your citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was pointless, the reasons for my view are clearly listed above. I can't speak for other editors, but I am not advocating a switch to CS2, nor is this RfC about me getting hurt feelings. There is indeed consensus for an RfC, you and BHG appear to be the only one opposing one, and I must say I'm not swayed by your arguments either. An RfC is neither pointless nor a waste of time; this subsection is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the work I've put into drafting it, I would like to point out that I'm still somewhat on the fence about whether or not an RfC is necessary. I would/will likely do a quick go/no-go check prior to opening it, just to assess the consensus for an RfC at that time based on the question being asked and the way it and the supporting material is being presented. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate what I previously wrote. Of course I would be content if this matter is resolved quickly within this thread. But after no consensus emerged in the discussion above on which template should be used, the maintainers of this bot refused to honor this fact and stop the bot from favoring one side's viewpoint, for reasons I am still unsure of. Some editors indicated that they would only be willing to change the bot's behavior following an RfC, so I voiced my support for that if that's what it takes. Not to mention that I and others have been repeatedly assailed and accused of being petty or time-wasting. We are long past debating whether {{Cite web}} and {{Cite magazine}} are incorrect or not, and I again pose the following question that I have repeated multiple times (but received no response other than "because it's wrong"): why should Citation Bot make these changes if there is no consensus to do so? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response after four days. Why am I not surprised? Since you folks are unwilling to cooperate with the consensus (or lack thereof), an RfC is the only way out in my eyes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel an RfC will be helpful in gathering consensus on how editors approach these sources and which citation templates they use. That in turn will inform the bot's coding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: no response because there was nothing new to respond to. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Nothing new? No one has made it clear why the bot should not abide by the lack of consensus, and you still can't answer it. Either honor the results of this discussion and stop the bot from making the contested changes, or start an RfC to gather more opinions. There is no third option. What do you say? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still just a bunch of angry people making a mountain out of a molehill. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a lack of consensus that the bot needs to honor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A small number of people going on and on about how mad they are about nothing and then arguing that their point of view is unopposed because everyone else has gotten tired about them yelling about nothing and stopped responding is not the same thing as a lack of consensus. It is more accurately described by

WP:FILIBUSTER. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You're mistaken. The lack of consensus is not because you stopped responding, it's because editors are divided 50/50 over this issue. I never argued that our point of view is unopposed, not sure where you got that idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that editors are divided 50/50 over this issue is an absurd sampling error.

The bots makes hundreds of such edits every day (maybe thousands of them), but the objections come only from a group of about a dozen editors who worked themselves into a frenzy on some other page.

Other editors, who don't frequent either that other page or CBtalk, can be assumed not to object. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair assumption, they might not want to get involved in this discussion, not notice the change, not care either way, etc. Hundreds seem like hyperbole for the specific edits in question. Indagate (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's quite fair to assume that only dissenters will come to complain.

The specific sites EW & RS which started this discussion probably account for only a few dozen edits per day.

But the draft RFC question includes all changes of template to cite news/cite magazine, and that is part of the hundreds or thousands of CB edits per day. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a quick check on this. Yesterday, 12 June 2022 Citation bot made somewhere in the region of 2900 edits. 413 edits contain "Alter: template type" in the edit summary, which indicate the bot making converting at least one CS1 template to another. Unfortunately there does not seem to be finer logging in the edit summary indicating what sort of CS1 template conversion occurred.

Of the ~2900 total edits, only 6 were reverted. Three of these reverts were to a test account. Of the other three, 1 appears to have been reverted in error, 1 appears to have been reverted as part of a content dispute not involving the bot, and 1 was reverted as part of this dispute.

So no, BrownHairedGirl is not being hyperbolic when she said the bot makes hundreds of such edits every day. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that analysis, @Sideswipe9th.

So the EW/RS edits which the angry group disputes are about 0.03% of all bot edits, and about 0.24% of all template changes.

Yet we are headed towards an RFC which to allow InfinteNexus and his angry friends to demand the end of a set of changes which are 99.76% uncontested.

It seems that when I called this crusade a bunch of angry people making a mountain out of a molehill, I was being too generous to the objectors. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because more data is always good, I've pulled together a table of the same analysis for all of Citation bot's edits over the seven day period 6-12 June. Collapsing it because it's a big table, but I want to include it here so you all can check my working.

In summary, Citation bot made approximately 36,415 edits over this period. 6,784 edits contained "Alter: template type" in the edit summary. As before, "Alter: template type" only indicates a conversion from one CS1 template to another. 88 total edits were reverted over the period: 35 were to test accounts, 53 were to non test accounts, and 5 were part of this dispute. After doing this analysis, I'm very heavily leaning towards what BrownHairedGirl has said; that a small number of editors are making a mountain out of a molehill, as not only is the total number of reverts for any reason tiny, the total number of reverts as part of this dispute is even smaller. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Sideswipe9th, for taking the time to skilfully gather and present that data. It clearly involved a lot of work, but the results are very valuable.

The result clearly demonstrates that the bot's changes of template type are overwhelmingly uncontroversial. That probably won't deter the small angry brigade from pushing for an RFC, but it does give a good indication that the wider community views these changes as unproblematic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to prejudge any responses either way, but even if we do proceed to an RfC this data will be very useful in it. I do agree however that it does seem to give a good indication that outside of an extremely small minority, alter template edits by the bot are pretty much accepted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate the data, but my mindset is less that no one else is reverting these edits, but that this all started because one editor back in April came here and said "EW should be a magazine" and then that was just implemented in the bot's code, and there wasn't any consideration to use the "ARE_MANY_THINGS" part (which I've seemed to gather probably isn't even that correct to use?). Editors here have said "online magazines are magazine", which ok, maybe they are, but where's the support for that? The template documentation sure doesn't suggest that. I think the RfC will help bring clarity to that distinction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Where's the support for that?" Online magazines are magazines. Do you see the big word that says magazines? Because that's where the revolutionary idea that magazines are magazines stems from. Kinda like the revolutionary idea that blue cars are cars.

b} 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You can make the text as big, bold or any different color, the template documentation still does not support this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It

b} 17:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No it doesn't. I don't see "online magazine" anywhere there or at Template:Cite magazine/doc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because documentation is written expecting that people understand that words meant what words are normally understood to mean. Online magazines are magazines. If there was a distinction, the template would be called cite print magazine and another one would be cite online magazine. Both are magazines, and both are covered by cite magazines. You should also look harder, because "online magazine" appears twice in

b} 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

We'll just circle back to the argument then, which does not need to keep being rehashed, if an online article is strictly there, not available in a "magazine", this template still doesn't feel right, and in my view, support using such template for such an article. Hence, feeling an RfC is appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be referring to User talk:Citation bot/Archive 31#Some cite magazine conversions. From the comments made by Izno it's not that one editor (Lightlowemon said EW should be a magazine, it's that at one point {{cite magazine}} was a redirect to {{cite journal}}, and at that time {{cite journal}} was used for magazine citations. What happened after April is a correction to code that was erroneously transforming non journal {{cite web}} to {{cite journal}} was made, so that those would instead be transformed into the appropriate {{cite magazine}}. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But again, why wasn't the "ARE_MANY_THINGS" part of the code used? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the underlying bot code, so I do not want to make any comments on why or why not a certain code path was used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been a lot of new comments since I last checked up on this. Sideswipe9th, thank you for compiling this data, but how can we assume that most editors are fine with this just because they don't bother to revert? Adamstom mentioned in his initial report that he had been ignoring these changes for a while before reporting this issue, and I know I did the same too. That doesn't necessarily mean I or Adamstom agreed with those changes. If you truly want an accurate view of the community's opinion, start an RFC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is the weakest form of consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Most deletion and move discussions only involve a small batch of participants. Consensus is then determined based on comments in that discussion, and that consensus determines what to do and what not to do. Does that mean the rest of the Wikipedia community approves of that final decision? Not necessarily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making any progress if we're just sitting around and neither side is willing to concede. @Sideswipe9th: is the RfC moving forward or what? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the RFC

I hope that this proposed RFC will not happen, because I think it's a waste of time.

However, if the RFC goes ahead, it would be helpful if while the RFC is open, Citation bot linked to the RFC in relevant edit summaries. For eaxmple, instead of "Alter: template type" in the edit summary, there could be "Alter: template type (see [[WP:somepage#CBALTERTEMPLATE|RFC]])".

@AManWithNoPlan, would that be doable without too much work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should not be hard. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be bad. Spamming article histories with a link that will get archived within a month or so. We don't need that.

b} 22:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see how including any potential RfC link in the bot's edits will be beneficial, especially if all relevant areas of the site are properly notified. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: adding 10 extra characters to verbose edit summaries is not spam. The archiving issue can be dealt with simply by linking to a redirect (e.g. WP:2022CBALTERTEMPLATERFC), which can be re-targetted when the RFC is archived.

@Favre1fan93: the purpose of the link would be to ensure that the RFC is notified to editors who focus on content and pay little attention to the various drama forums. By including the link in the edit summaries, they are likely to see it in their watchlists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Question second draft and format

If an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, or newspaper, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{Cite web}}, or {{Cite magazine}}, or {{Cite news}}?

So format is based on the

Also just wanted to point out, the summary of both sides of the dispute in the first table is far from final. I'm fairly certain I've missed a point or two somewhere and the wording itself I'm not entirely happy with. But I wanted to get this out to see what you all think, and what needs adjusting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with the use of "generic" and "specialized". One is not more specific than the other, they're just different. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I didn't call them Specific-source templates because that has a specific set of templates within it that exclude {{cite magazine}} and the others in this discussion. This is also true for Wrapper templates.

The documentation text for {{cite web}} says This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. To me, that means that it is a generic catch all template, to be used when there is not a more appropriate template to use. The text for the other templates like {{cite news}} have specific criteria describing what they should be used for. For {{cite news}} this is This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web. To me, this means they are a specialist template to be used for a specific content type.

In light of this distinction which is already made at the templates regarding the circumstances for their use, how then would you describe the differences between {{cite web}} and the other CS1 cite variants? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would simply avoid attaching any adjectives to the templates. This wording implies that {{Cite web}} is a fallback that should be replaced by the more specific ("specialized") templates, which is not what some editors believe. I will also note that the word "generic" has a slightly negative connotation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Not sure if I agree on that, at least based on what the documentation text at each template says. However, how about Reasoning to use {{cite web}} and Reasoning to use {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite journal}}? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was suggesting, delete "generic" and "specialized". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good to me. Make sure that this discussion is linked though. If there is even one piece of missing information the RFC discussion will be dominated by that instead of the real issue. Rlink2 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll insert a permalink to the state of this section at the time of opening the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an example for a controversial {{cite web}} -> {{cite journal}} transformation? I've rechecked the discussion we've had on this, and it wasn't even mentioned as being controversial until two days ago. I think we should maybe omit {{cite journal}} transformations from this RfC as they do not appear to be controversial unlike the other two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never objected to {{Cite web}} being converted to {{Cite journal}}, so I'm fine if it's removed. In fact I don't think anyone has explicitly expressed dissatisfaction with this, so I'm not sure who brought it up in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to someone checking if I've summarised the points for each side, and haven't missed anything, I'd appreciate it if someone could list the relevant Wikiprojects, and topic areas for the initial notifications please. I've had a quick look at Template:Rfc, and I think at least "tech" and "proj" should be included. But I'm not sure what others should be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the pro or con reasons address whether the choice makes any visible difference at all to readers. If it does not make a visible difference, why are we arguing about the very important choice we must all make correctly or the world will end about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Just let the bot rationalize the citations and don't worry about legislating the way citations must be identically coded by everyone who uses them. Or, alternatively, argue by

The reasons list isn't complete yet. I've only done a first pass of this discussion, and would appreciate it if someone else could check to see if what I've missed. I also did mention in my reply on 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC) that the output of the two citations is identical to someone who reads a Wikipedia article through a web browser. But there are differences in metadata output for folks who consume Wiki articles through COinS, as mentioned in the table. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, is there data on exactly how many Wikipedia readers use this kind of software? And do you? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used it in the past yes, when I was a researcher. While Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, its citations quite often are. As for how many use it, because the metadata is embedded into the HTML output of all pages using CS1/2 templates, I do not think it is tracked or able to be tracked in any way beyond how many pages use those templates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major differences between {{

WP:COSMETICBOT can be made in this case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

{{cite web}} is NOT a generic citation template. The generic citation template is {{citation}} (which by default produces Citation Style 2 can be used generically in Citation Style 1 with |mode=cs1). Cite web is often misused, but it should be used only for content published directly on the web rather than through the sort of editorial process used by books, journals, magazines, or newspapers. Using cite web for a reference is a red flag that the reference is likely not to be a reliable independent secondary source; they are generally either primary and non-independent, or unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, cite web is the citation template of last resort for online sources. Per

b} 16:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

the first statement of the argument to use cite magazine or cite news is a fallacy. There is no way to confirm that articles on a website are also in print, a list of facts or top 100 sci fi films is unlikely to feature in print for instance. As we move ever onwards to a digital world and print continues the slow death initially prophesized by professor Spengler, how will cite magazine apply when the magazine no longer exists? Do we then go alter all those cite magazines? And how is it a valid use to cite a magazine when clicking the title will take the user to a website? It is an unreasonable statement arguing for the use of cite magazine and cite news. Cite web is not a generic template either, it's heavily used because we are not in 1982. There's a reason cite web is used nearly 5 million times and cite magazine less than 200K. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely irrelevant. Online magazines are magazines. That there is a print version or not is irrelevant.

b} 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As has been pointed out way too many times by this point, "online magazines are magazines" is not what we are talking about here. We are debating whether websites related to magazines are the same thing as online magazines. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue the same thing the other way around: online magazines are online. Online, as in the Internet, as in websites. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to confirm that articles on a website are also in print – which is why it is safer to just leave all magazine websites citations as {{Cite web}}. A bot has no business messing around with this when it cannot possibly verify whether an online article also appears in the print edition. {{Cite magazine}} can still stick around, even if and when print magazines fully die out, as it is the appropriate template for citations to print magazines that cannot be found online. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{

b} 00:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The arguments being made right now are best served for when the RfC goes live, as they are arguments for/against one of the two options. The purpose of this section is to resolve what question the RfC will ask, and in what format it will be asked. Save arguments on the merits of each point for the RfC please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to clarify, the purpose of the table above is to summarise the key talking points from the prior discussion on this in favour of either position. It is not to pass judgement on the merits of those talking points, it is there so that new readers can get up to speed on the key arguments for each position/choice quickly, without needing to go into the full detail of the past lengthy discussions that lead to this impasse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a couple editors' hesitancy over an RfC, I'm pretty sure there's a rough consensus in support of the proposed format. Editors are only making these comments because the RfC still hasn't started after a month. At this point, I feel like some editors are just trying to stall the RfC from happening. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is one question currently outstanding per a request on my own talk page, over one of the bullet points from the summary. Once that's resolved, then I don't see any other blockers per-say. Only reason I hadn't made it happen yet, was that I've been waiting since 3 June for someone to confirm I've summarised the points fairly and accurately. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've summarized the points fairly and accurately. If any clarification is needed they can just be added after the RfC goes live. Obviously I wasn't aware of that discussion, I agree it makes sense to wait for that matter to be resolved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are good to go per the latest comments at Sideswipe9th's talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll get it started shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, if not book, and if no existing |date=, and id year matches any existing |year=. Now to right the code, and unit tests. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make this work only with the |volume= parameter, and not |title=.

A date in the title may be genuinely part of the title, e.g. "Hospital opening delayed to August 2023". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure how to distinguish dates and Issue numbers/names that are dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is for issue number, not the issue date/issue name.

• Smith, J. (2007). "Title". Magazine. No. Summer 2007. p. 23.

should be converted to

• Smith, J. (Summer 2007). "Title". Magazine. p. 23.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Same in cite journal, etc.

b} 04:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please remove |year= if you add |date= in this case. Izno (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It we take time to get these right, so I will program in tests before implementing it.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Bot adds page publication dates that are stated in the page's HTML metadata but not on the page itself.

For instance, the publication dates for just about every page on LeatherLicensePlates.com:

• http://leatherlicenseplates.com/old-delaware-license-plates-vintage-delaware-license-plates/ (published August 27, 2015 according to the metadata)
• http://leatherlicenseplates.com/old-nebraska-license-plates-vintage-nebraska-license-plates/ (also published August 27, 2015 according to the metadata)
• http://leatherlicenseplates.com/old-washington-license-plates-washington-state-vintage-license-plates/ (published August 28, 2015 according to the metadata)

Is it legit to add these dates when they're not actually stated on the page itself, even if they *are* correct?

Klondike53226 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

b} 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Uh... anyone going to back Headbomb up here?

Thanks, Klondike53226 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not acceptable in cases like this where there is a range of dates between when the web site was first published and when it was last modified. The bot has no way of knowing which date is applicable to the version of the site used as a source. That's what access dates are for, but even if an access date is provided, and lands within that publication-modification range, it is impossible to infer the correct date of the cited version of the source, because it could have been modified multiple times within that range. The only reasonable thing to do with web sites with this sort of date issue is to flag them for human attention so that a human can check that the current version still sources the content and update the access-date. But even if you did that, you'd be very likely to run into "helpful" gnomes (bot-like humans) who run through lists of these flags, check only that the web page exists and not that it is still accurate, and set a bad access-date. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Well, I was already far from 110% sure that it was acceptable to add publication dates in cases such as this one with LeatherLicensePlates.com, when the discussion two below this one popped up - and now I'm as far from 110% sure as one can get. That is, 0% sure.

I find myself agreeing with you that it's better to leave a source undated when the corresponding page/site does not display a visible publication date, even if the publication and modification dates stated in the metadata are correct.

I've already put the "deny Citation Bot" comment in the date parameter for some of the LeatherLicensePlates.com sources used, and I shall waste no time in tackling the rest of these sources. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree that the date should be shown on the displayed page or there is no easy way to verify that you are looking at the source that it is claiming to be. You should not add just from the HTML code. Keith D (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's still doing this - compare this edit to this source. That date being in the HTML isn't ironclad proof that that's truly the proper publishing date. I'm seeing that I'm the fourth person here to question this - is there a consensus somewhere that pulling these dates from the HTML is proper? Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason why the bot never adds |access-date= and it never adds a |date= that is newer than the |access-date=. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bug. See the template documentation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What TMK is referring to is the statement "Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher". Using the work parameter presents in italics while publisher does not. I wonder why the indifference. I suggest we use the publisher parameter (again, for consistency with "agency" styling). Dawnseeker2000 23:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trappist. In these cases, the news agency is acting as a publisher rather than as an agency. Neutral on whether to use |work= or |publisher=. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When the publisher and work are the same, publisher is not usually used. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press and Reuters are not works though. They are agencies/publishers, and should not be converted to works.

b} 15:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Review the template documentation. Realize accordingly that your comment here is in direct contradiction to your comments above about Cite magazine. Yes, these are the same exact issue. Izno (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was directed at me... which contradiction? Dawnseeker2000 00:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP and Reuters are both news agencies, and news works in their own right. When citing the AP or Reuters website directly they are works. When citing a story on another news organisation's website that says that the reporting is from AP or Reuters, then they are acting as an agency. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When used as the name of a work (for an article directly from the AP web site), it should have |work=AP News or |work=Associated Press News. That is the name they give to that part of their site, that is, the work. It is incorrect to list |work=AP or |work=Associated Press. That is the name of the organization, not the name of their web site, and should appear in |publisher= or |agency= instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. News outlets (regardless of media type) are considered publishers Dawnseeker2000 01:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]