Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

cite arxiv unsupported parameters

It has just occurred to me that we can, with slight modifications, reuse the main parameter validation code to validate the limited list of parameters for {{cite arxiv}}. This method could also carry-over to the newly proposed {{cite bioRxiv}} and {{cite citeseerx}}.

I have created a lists of parameters for {{cite arxiv}} in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox that are subsets of the basic parameter lists used by all of the other cs1|2 templates. When the module is called, it uses the CitationClass parameter passed to it by the template (in this case arxiv) to determine which of the lists it uses to validate parameters:

Cite arxiv comparison
Wikitext {{cite arxiv|arxiv=0910.5294|author2=Gelev V|author3=Bishop AR|author4=Usheva A|author5=Rasmunssen KØ|author=Alexandrov BS|date=October 2010|doi=10.1016/j.physleta.2009.12.077|issue=10|journal=Physics Letters A/Physics-Bio PH.|title=DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field|version=v1|volume=374}}
Live Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field". arXiv:0910.5294. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (help)
Sandbox Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field". arXiv:0910.5294. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (help)

One thing that I think that we should add to {{cite arxiv}} is support for |vauthors=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

|vauthors= should definitely be supported (as should all other |author= variants). I thought it was, but I guess not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It turns out that |vauthors= is supported by the live template but it was not supported by {{cite arxiv/new}} which is used by {{cite compare}} and which is the version of the template that calls Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. Fixed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support multiple DOI, ISBN, MR, OCLC

I was doing some |id={{foobar}} to |foobar= conversions last night, and there's quite a few cases that I couldn't handle for a lack of support for some cornercase.

Specifically, if you have |id=ISBN 978-1-1234-4567-x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character, ISBN 978-1-4567-1234-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, you can't convert that to |isbn1=978-1-1234-4567-x |isbn2=978-1-4567-1234-9. These also happens when articles have |id=MR12345, MR54321, MR9876543 or |id=OCLC 012345, 12345, 654321.

Here's an example, taken from Ring (mathematics)

I've seen up to 2 multiple DOIs (usually one for the book, and one for the book chapter), 4 multiple ISBNs (ISBN 10/13 mostly, but also paperback vs hardcover), 3 ISSNs (print, online, cd), 6 multiples MRs (usually for reviews of books), and 10 multiple OCLCs (because the OCLC system is bad at handling dupes). Now you may argue some of this is bad practice, and I certainly would agree to an extent, but some cases are legit and it's nonetheless being done.

So I suggest we allow for

  • |doi#/doi-#=, #=1-2
  • |isbn#/isbn-#= #=1-10
  • |issn#/issn-#=, #=1-3
  • |oclc#/mr-#= #=1-10
  • |mr#/mr-#= #=1-10

with |foobar1/foobar-1= as aliases of |foobar=. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a good idea to my mind. The purpose of a citation is to identify the source that the editor used to support a statement in a Wikipedia article. It is not a place to collect links to various versions or editions of the same source. In your miltiple-MR example, there are two different publishers, five different publication dates (all different from the date in the {{citation}} template), different pagination, different editions, different parts, and perhaps more.
The cs1|2 templates are designed to render a proper citation for a single source. If you want to do a bibliography of all of the different versions of a source, do that one cs1|2 template per version, do not attempt to shoe-horn them all into a single template.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not necessarily in favour of putting up multiple MRs/ISBNs etc, but it's being done and there are cases where it's legit to do so. If anything, supporting that at least allows us to track and cleanup such usage if it's found to be undesirable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to OCLCs, multiple numbers can be legitimate for the same specific source. As an example, the various annual and semi-annual maps published by the Michigan Department of Transportation (or its predecessor agency) can have up to 3 OCLC numbers. The Library of Michigan uses one number for a group of years lumped together, while other libraries assign a number for each individual map. If we only reference one number for a specific map, a reader may not locate a library near him or her because one institution closer is using one of the numbers. Template:Cite MDOT map/testcases lists all of the various permutations of the maps since 1919 with the appropriate OCLC numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Citation templates are designed to cite one specific source. If you want to provide additional information about different versions of a source, it can be placed outside the citation template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but this neglects the fact that one specific source can have multiple identifiers of the same kind. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I think we should apply the KISS principle: one identifier of each type is fine. However, this reminds me of the idea to generate citations from Wikidata items which represent a source: in this case, support for multiple identifiers should be easy. (Note that I'm not saying that there is any consensus for such a template.) − Pintoch (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
So which OCLC number is the "canonical" one to use, if we're supposed to limit to only one OCLC for the 2014 edition of the official state highway map of Michigan, OCLC 42778335 or OCLC 900162490? Different institutions catalog the exact same map under different numbers, yet it's the same resource. Imzadi 1979 → 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

KISS is my preference too, as far as what I do. And there's a lot of things the template can do that (ISSNs, publishers for journals, etc...) that I don't think should be used. But I don't think we need to insist on being purposefully unfriendly and force people to resort to the extremely awful

instead of the much better

The template should support that and put multiple identifier use in tracking categories. This will both facilitates cleanup in non-legit cases and supports in legit cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: one trick that was imparted to me at a WikiConference is to use |id={{OCLC|01234|012345}} , which would merge the two OCLC IDs together à la:
It's still a bit of a kludge over having the direct ability to insert two OCLC numbers, but at least it combines them together in the output. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's always possible, but that's a hack, which means in many case you'll have something like
where OCLCs are presented out of sequence (it should appear before the SSRN). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite interview: "Interview with" is annoyingly ambiguous.

{{Cite interview}} identifies the interviewer with the words "Interview with...". But those words commonly introduce the interviewee, e.g. Interview with the vampire. I ran into this when I saw:

and thought it was an error that the first name displayed didn't match the byline. Then I went to fix it and saw the "interviewer" parameter was set correctly. Could we use a word other than "with"? Perhaps something like:

That uses the much clearer "by" and gets rid of a duplicate word. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this change changing "with" to "by". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would not support the change regarding the parentheses--we already have a problem with parentheses that I documented in archive 24--but I personally have no issue with "by" rather than "with". --Izno (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm not attached to that specific replacement; I just wanted to make some concrete suggestion to get the discussion rolling. and that was the easiest thing for me to create using the existing template. I'm quite aware that the interactions between all of the possible optional parameters are quite intricate and something else may be required. Hopefully Trappist the monk will have some ideas. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I'm looking at what you suggested again, yes, I see what you meant to do with the verbiage. I considered doing the same thing when I looked at the module last--I might take a second look. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If we change the static text, shouldn't it be changed so that it is similar to other similar static text? For |translator= the static text is 'Translated by'; for |cartography= the static text is 'Cartography by'. So, if we make this change, shouldn't the static text be 'Interviewed by'?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Interviewed by is unambiguous and clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: My main request is to replace "with". The replacement "by" seems to be winning by acclamation. I don't care if we use the noun form (cartography by, interview by) or the past participle (translated by, interviewed by); they're basically synonymous, and current practice isn't consistent. For what it's worth, the noun form is two letters shorter, while the noun form "translation" is one letter longer.
A secondary issue, which is less important but might be worth addressing as long as we're working on {{cite interview}}, is the repetition of the word "Interview". Currently it appears in the |type= and to identify the |interviewer=. It would be nice to get rid of one copy, but this could be a separate revision if that's easier. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary text in {citation}

Don't ask why, but I want to know if there's a way to code something like

{{citation | ref=Smith | foo=Smith, W. (1987). ''American History''. p. 123 }}

where foo is some parameter name i.e. I want to manually hard-code the entire citation, but wrap it in {citation} so that citation's ref= feature is available. There are ways to hack this but I want something legal. In other words, is there some way to insert arbitrary text into {citation}'s output, in particular with there being no other output than the arbitrary text? EEng —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

{{wikicite}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
My goodness, if only I'd known... Thanks! EEng 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of the quote parameter

I tried looking through the archives to see if this was discussed before and couldn't find anything. If it was, please excuse me.

Anyways, the quote parameter as described on the help page only indicates that it should be used for "relevant text". This is vague and doesn't really tell you when the parameter should be used. On most articles, I don't see it used at all. On some articles I see it used with every citation. Which is it?

If it is supposed to be used more often doesn't that raise the problem of WP:QUOTEFARMs? --Majora (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: WP:V suggests using such quotes for non-English sources, while WP:OFFLINE does the same for offline sources. Limited use of the parameter in these cases is unlikely to be problematic per WP:COPYQUOTE, although of course it can be overused. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense Nikkimaria. Thank you for the explanation. I'm more concerned with the instances that turn out the be quote farms. Articles like James Matthews (racing driver) and Lupton family that make extensive use of the quote parameter outside of the prescribed uses listed in V and OFFLINE. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Majora: It's never seemed terribly unclear to me, because a |quote= is simply optional, and whether to include it is an editorial decision more than formatting one. I certainly use it much more with offline sources for the benefit of future editors, but the main reason is if there's some subtlety of meaning or nuanced phrasing that is difficult to paraphrase accurately. Quite a few of the quotes in Lupton family seem to fall into that category.
As an example of my judgement, see the three uses in CJPL § References.
One interesting example is the Cardarelli reference in Metre § References, where the cited source cites another source (Giacomo). I couldn't find the original source to cite it directly, but I'd like to give credit, so a quote comes to the rescue.
Regarding WP:QUOTEFARM. I tend to apply that mostly to the body of an article; it's a pain to read a section that's all quotes. In the footnotes, I'm a lot less worried as long as we stay out of WP:COPYQUOTE problems. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal. There is a reason that direct quotes need to be severely limited and that is because Wikipedia strives to be a "freely licensed" service. There is a carve out in copyright law for the fair use of limited numbers of quotes but too many of them borders on copyright infringement as you are putting copyrighted material on a page that is supposed to be released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. That is my concern with the numerous quotes being used on those pages. Nothing more. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal – Sorry, but that's nonsense; if that were true then Wikiquote would have no entries from anyone born within the last 100 years. Mr. IP 71 is correct. EEng 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use. See wikiquote:WQ:COPY#Copyrights and quotations for an explanation as to why. Long and numerous quotations in references is debatable at best as to whether or not it meets the standards for fair use. --Majora (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use. – Yes, and they still would if they were incorporated as a tiresome ==Quotes== section in the author's WP article. QUOTEFARM (a style choice) not QUOTECOPY (a legal issue) is the reason we don't do that. And if we decided, as a style matter, to incorporate a similar body of quotes in references instead of a section, it would still be fair use. EEng 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be comparing apples to oranges and missing the point (unless I am missing something). You are comparing a series of quotes from a notable person to a series of quotes in references that have zero bearing on the educational quality of the text. Our fair use policy is far more strict than the actual US law for a reason. To limit the use of non-free material in a free encyclopedia. Our policy requires a minimal use standard as well as a "contextual significance" standard. A list of quotes in references that can otherwise be easily accessed does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and therefore does not meet our standards for fair use (in my opinion). I agreed with the original response to my question. That the quote parameter is useful in offline or non-English references to help the reader more precisely pinpoint where the material is coming from (therefore helping to meet WP:V). Putting it in for every (or almost every) reference and for references that are otherwise accessible to an English reading audience (our main customers) does not meet our fair use policy. Hence the question and hence the desire for verification as the purpose of the quote parameter. --Majora (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of that, but it has nothing to do with my original comment in this thread, which is all we're talking about. All I said is that your statement that The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal is incorrect, and it is. All you have to do is look at QUOTEFARM (and compare it to QUOTECOPY) to see that. That's it. EEng 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Wow, I disagree with almost everything here.

  1. Like EEng, I don't read WP:QUOTEFARM as legal advice at all, but as style advice.
  2. I don't see how a collection of individually fairly used quotes from different sources becomes non-fair through aggregation. The legal issue applies on a per-source basis. Although there is some fuzziness in the legal definition of "source" (e.g. related works by the same author, parts of a serialized work), the cases we're discussing here are from clearly independent sources. I'm not a legal expert, and I could imagine a contrary precedent, but I'd like some evidence for the contrary claim before believing it. E.g. does Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, one of the world's most famous quote farms, pay royalties? Search engines produce results comprised mostly of snippets of the linked materials. Are they required to pay royalties because they put 50 on a page with little else?
  3. I utterly fail to see how the accessibility of the original (for offline or language reasons) affects the legal analysis of quoting. This is an editorial factor militating in favour of quoting, not a legal one.

I recommend quotes when there's a useful intermediate level of reading effort between the statement in the WP article and ploughing through the source. Just like it's helpful to specify the page which is relied on, sometimes it's helpful to cite the exact words. (And sometimes I can't resist entertaining text like "Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate." Doesn't belong in the article, but directs the interested reader to a fun read.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no legal advice whatsoever on Wikipedia. Only recommendations. As for your second point, you are completely misunderstanding our fair use policy. Look at it from a different, yet comparable, example. We limit the number of fair use images in a single article because too many of them violates our policy on fair use content. The same can be said for text. We already don't allow the copy and pasting of text into articles. We only allow quotes if they are directly related to context, are properly sourced, and cannot be restated in any other way without detracting from the context. References are also not supposed to be used to direct people to "interesting reads". They are designed to satisfy verifability requirements and to link material back to where we got it from. Nothing more.

There are clear alternatives to using direct quotes in everything besides offline sources (I grant the use of it in non-English sources is also helpful). If the source is a 300 page document the best course of action would be to put the page number where you got it from. Not the quote. If there are multiple different pages numbers the {{rp}} template was designed for that very purpose. Citing the exact words in readily available sources is not only unnecessary it can run afoul of our fair use policy if abused and overused. That is fact. --Majora (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: "References are also not supposed to be used to direct people to "interesting reads". They are designed to satisfy verifability requirements and to link material back to where we got it from. Nothing more." Rubbish. That's the primary purpose, certainly, but references also serve as "External links" and "Further reading". And those sections exist because a significant secondary purpose of Wikipedia is to direct people to additional sources of information.
While the policy on non-free images is of some interest, it's much stricter because an image is almost always used entirely, or a slightly cropped version. One sentence or paragraph from a much longer article or book is a completely different matter, and makes it vastly more difficult for quotation to rise to the level of copyright infringement. This is why images always require a fair use justification, and quotations don't. Even in the extreme case of Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the quotation was 400 words long, far longer than most quotes in Wikipedia.
The most significant factor which made that case so extreme is that it was an unpublished book, and the quotation damaged its sales by revealing a noteworthy "scoop". WP addresses that legal issue by not quoting from unpublished sources.
The result is that it would take extraordinary quantities of quoting to constitute a legal threat, so it's not necessary to fret over the issue and people don't.
MOS:QUOTE is clearly addressed to in-article quotations, and focuses almost exclusively on stylistic issues. For quotations specifically in references, WP:Citing sources § Additional annotation is very brief: "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible."
This is notably non-prescriptive, and defers to editorial judgement, "may" meaning "use them if you like."
Yes, there are alternatives. Use them if you like, too. I'm just saying that neither choice is wrong and in need of correction. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Note especially that the suggestion is to add quotes to make it easier to find the right sentences in a page of other stuff, regardless of any distinction between online and offline sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The advice for using the quote parameter is vague, so it leave interpretation up to the editor. Our fair use page (WP:F) (talking about quotes within articles, but I suppose would also apply to footnotes) says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". It doesn't define "brief" exactly. It would be hard to define it exactly; it could say "generally 20 words or less" or whatever, but that's maybe overly rigid and micromanaging. So it's going to have to be vague somewhat.
I've certainly come across paragraph-long quotes in articles and trimmed or deleted them on the grounds of being too long for fair use. We should do the same if I came across them in a footnote. I don't think I have, though; I don't think its an actual problem, or anyway not a common problem.
I do use use the quote field sometimes to pick out the relevant part of a long article or something. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context" would seem to allow this. If its a service to the reader, why not?
The OP is raising this point: suppose we have a 400-word quote in an article. That's too long for fair use, and must go. But then suppose we have 20 20-word quotes (all from different sources) in an article -- still 400 words, though. Is this a fair use problem? OP is saying it is, using images as an analogy. I don't know... I don't think I agree, though; I think it's probably different when you're using different sources like that. (But if you quoted 20 different 20-word sections from one work... hmmm... I guess that would violate fair use.)
'Course, you wouldn't have 20 20-word quotes in an article, on style grounds. But you might in refs. I haven't seen it much (or ever?) so I don't know as its a practical problem, but as a matte of guidance... it's an interesting question, but IMO it's probably OK. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: "suppose we have a 400-word quote in an article. That's too long for fair use, and must go."
A single 400-word-long quote would be questionable, but quotes totalling 400 words would not be too long, and the court case I cited above is the authority for that claim. That was an exceptional and unusual case, and normally 400 words from a book would be well below the threshold. What made it exceptional was that the book was not yet published and contained some valuable, previously unpublished information which was disclosed in toto by the "spoiler" article.
If, per WP policy, you don't consider unpublished manuscripts reliable sources, you can't hit this exception and you'd have to quote far more than 400 words to be an issue. Your 20 × 20-word quotes from a single source would be just fine. (The editor from The Nation who got in trouble applied the normal standards under which fair use would have clearly applied.)
The reason that "brief" is awkward to quantify is that it depends on many factors, including the size of the source. Quoting the interesting paragraph from a two-paragraph news story might be problematic. Quoting two whole pages (in total, not contiguous) from a long book would not be.
IANAL, but the basic question considered by copyright law is "are you quoting so much from the original that people are no longer interested in reading it?"
Since it's perfectly legal to summarize the original to the point that people are no longer interested in reading it (tl;dr), that's how small sources like my two-paragraph hypothetical are generally dealt with. This is also why text sources aren't particularly litigious and the whole issue has been a non-problem for Wikipedia in general.
It takes serious effort to contrive a situation where you run into a legal problem before you run into the problem of Just Plain Bad Writing. Which is why I'm advising people to focus their attention on editorial concerns. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the claim 'references also serve as "External links" and "Further reading"' - not true. If a source is provided for the purpose of directing people to additional sources of information, such sources belong in the Further reading or External links sections, where they are not references. References verify the article content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: So you're saying that a source which is used for both purposes should appear in both sections? This contradicts the MoS (WP:LAYOUTEL#External links: "nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section"), which is why I hold a contrary opinion. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S Re-reading your statement, perhaps our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding. Nobody is disputing that if a source is used only for additional information, it doesn't belong in the "References" section. I'm just saying that a source which does appear in References for legitimate reasons is an ex officio "Further reading" source, and it's reasonable to tailor the presentation of the reference to serve both purposes. For example, I will sometimes append a few words of description to a footnote to describe other information available in the same source, or to explain that this source is not reliable for fact X because it predates the discovery of Y. (Example: CJPL#cite_note-Progress2015-22) This is disagreeing with Majora's "Nothing more" statement. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It should not be necessary to annotate references in that manner. References are used to support claims made in the article. If the reference does not of itself direct people to the source of a claim made in the article text, it's lacking some detail; but adding too much detail is distracting. Identify the publication, and the point within that publication. Don't seek to justify why that publication was chosen, this can imply that the claim is weak. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: "adding too much detail is distracting." Agreed, and indeed most "Further reading" sources are not annotated. But a brief comment explaining e.g. that the reference is from a different point of view than most is not, IMHO, "too much detail".
"Don't seek to justify why that publication was chosen" While it's usually not necessary, I disagree. For example, see Russell Oberlin#cite note-2. There are numerous conflicting reports of his date of death as November 25th or 26th, and we had a long discussion on the talk page trying to sort it all out. Since it was so non-obvious, we added a brief note to the reference explaining the conflict.
Significant conflicts between sources may deserve discussion in the body of the article (e.g. the casualties at the Battle of Agincourt). But sometimes it's minutiae like "this source uses the variant spelling YYYY" or "although published on date C, this source appears to have been written before announcement B" that are properly placed in footnotes.
More broadly, assessing the reliability of sources is an important part of a Wikipedia editor's job (it's a form of research, but explicitly exempted from WP:NOR), and occasionally a source has to be considered partially reliable, i.e. reliable for some statements and not for others. This deserves a note.
This both un-confuses readers and prevents mis-corrections by alerting future editors to the issue. Not everyone reads the talk page archives before correcting an "obvious typo". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
But that's annotating the ref, outside the template but inside the ref tags, and fine. We're talking here about the "|quote=" parameter inside some templates. Those are used only for direct quotes from the source. Herostratus (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I rarely use the |quote= parameter; but when I do, I keep it short, less than one sentence wherever possible. I can't find any examples - which indicates just how rarely I use it. It's another case of "if you feel that you need to justify a ref by including a quote, it's on shaky ground". IIRC there were about two cases where somebody insisted on knowing the exact wording in my source, so only then did I add a quote - and no more than necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Thus my edit comment "We're really wandering into the weeds here." Yeah, the topic is drifting. Thanks for dragging it back.
@Redrose64: I perhaps use |quote= a bit more (as described previously), but all I'm saying is that there's a wide range of acceptable usage, and you're not wrong, nor is someone who uses it extensively. Someone doesn't have to write exactly like me to be correct, or good. The point I've been writing so extensively on is that including quotes is an editorial issue; concerns about copyright infringement are wildly overblown. Modern journals ruthlessly abbreviate journal names and usually omit article titles entirely for page-count reasons. WP:NOTPAPER, so I always include a full article title, and don't mind quotations as well.
If you look at Majora's original example of Lupton family, the quotes seem quite reasonable and in a consistent style. I might not have done it that way, but that doesn't mean it needs to be corrected. Also, they tend to be fuzzier qualitative descriptions rather than specific numerical values, so there's more room for dispute over the correct paraphrase, and having the original words there is quite nice. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for a new bot to update journal citations that BECOME open access.

Hi! I'm a newbie, but have apparently stumbled upon something bot developers might be interested in. At the teahouse I asked a longer question, which I restate here in part. There are many scientific research journals that, after 6 or 12 months post-publication, have "open archives" available from the same doi number that was originally "closed". However, general wp readers have no way of knowing that now, because the open padlock symbol doesn't ever appear (unless someone was to add it manually). I have no ability to actually develop a bot, but, in general, a bot could be instructed to search articles for references citing journals from a list of journals known to have such open access archives, determine if the reference is more than 12 months old, and then automatically add the "|doi-access=free" to the citation after the doi number. If anybody is interested in developing the bot, good luck, but I'd be useless, because my programming skills basically stopped with punch cards and COBAL in the late 70's! DennisPietras (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @Finnusertop:

Hi DennisPietras. This is something User:OAbot can do (see for instance this edit). However, as it is not clear whether these locks are desired or not by the community, this feature is currently disabled: OAbot no longer adds locks. It is straightforward to restore this functionality however. − Pintoch (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: Wouldn't a {{free after|year|month|day}} template solve this neatly, with no need to run a bot? It would work similarly to {{Update after}}. Or maybe something more generic like {{change effective|subscription|free|year|month|day}}. (A bot could clean out expired templates, but there's no rush.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Date formats in Template:Cite_web documentation

In the "Examples" section of the documentation for Template:Cite web, all of the examples use the DMY date format. I suspect that this may lead new users into believing that DMY is Wikipedia's house style for dates in citations. I've seen a number of edits to articles on American subjects where the editor uses the American MDY format for dates within the article text, but DMY in citations—particularly when using the template.

To remove this possible source of confusion, I'd suggest that the template documentation be changed so that the examples use a variety of date formats: DMY, MDY, and YYYY-MM-DD among them. However, before I tweak a page that gets so much use, I'd like to moot the idea here and see if there are any good objections. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Ammodramus. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with using a variety of date formats. It would encourage people to follow MOS:DATETIES in both citations and article text (it seems rather odd to find dmy dates on an American person's article). Canuck89 (converse with me) 22:21, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Multiple years and seasons in a date

How should a date that uses both multiple seasons and multiple years be entered? An issue of a certain journal ("Medieval Life," used on the Pioneer Helmet page) is dated "Autumn/Winter 1997/8." I've changed the years in the citation to "1997–98," but can't find a workaround for the seasons (e.g., "Autumn–Winter," "Autumn-Winter," or "Autumn to Winter") that doesn't tell me to "Check date values in: |date=." Entering "Autumn–Winter 1997" or "Autumn–Winter 1998" works, but isn't fully consistent with the journal's dating format. Thanks in advance for any suggestions! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

cs1|2 follows the 'rules' set by MOS:DATEFORMAT. This particular date format is not contemplated there so not supported here.
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997 works and is sufficiently correct enough to allow readers to find the source. The other date that you suggest, |date=Autumn–Winter 1998, is obviously wrong unless it is the publisher's intention that this particular date also applies to Autumn (nominally September into December) of 1998. I suspect that that is not the intent so using this second date would mislead readers looking for the source.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
What about |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998? EEng 19:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
And why is a seasonal date like this any different than how we'd handle a double issue for a weekly magazine that was of the form "December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017" or a bimonthly double issue "December 2016 – January 2017"? Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
One has to wonder just what this journal was thinking when they dreamed up an issue date like |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998. For them, is Winter 1998 only January–March? What about December 1998? What season is that in their way of calculating things? Yeah, I know, these are rhetorical questions that don't deserve an answer.
From an implementation perspective, there are some differences between |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998 and either of |date=December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017 or |date=December 2016 – January 2017:
  1. the former is two ranges whereas the latter two are single ranges; no other MOS-accepted date format is composed of more than one range
  2. were we to implement this format, the code must ensure that the second year in the year-range is the immediately following year: 1997–1999
  3. were we to implement this format, there is a southern hemisphere version: |date=Spring–Summer 1997–1998
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I propose that the original date should be disambiguated for clarity: "Title". Magazine. Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998. If that is aesthetically displeasing, some have recommended using |issue= for oddball dates like this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I'm using |date=Autumn–Winter 1997 as suggested. I'd happily switch over to |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–98 if implemented, although I agree that it's it's an unwieldy date as issued by the journal. @Jonesey95:, your suggestion is I think less clear, as the journal date is approximately August 1997 to March 1998, whereas |date=Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998 would be likely read as approximately August 1997 to March 1999 (or December 1998, but that's still significantly broader).
@Trappist the monk: In furtherance of your rhetorical questions, I see the date as being essentially "Autumn 1997 to Winter 1997–98." Thus December 1997 (which is I think what you mean when you speak of December 1998) is considered to be part of Winter 1997–98. But yeah, the fact that we're having this discussion is only because the journal's dating failed at being clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the southern hemisphere, Autumn and Winter are six months out of step with the northern hemisphere. Seasons are a poor way to identify time. 79.74.129.162 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the date in a citation is to help you find the work cited. We can't do anything about the north-south problem. If the periodical uses seasons in identifying their issues, we have to follow that. Also, to the extent we use date ranges, the new fashion (per a recent RfC) is e.g. xxxx-xxxx, not xxxx-xx. EEng 00:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; but we should show the cover date of the publication just as it is printed, so that a reader can go into a library and ask for that issue. We must not translate "Autumn/Winter 1997/8" to "September 1997–March 1998" since no librarian would be able to find the issue using that information. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

False error message when using sfn for same page in same book

See a version of "Anno Domini" for an example of the problem. The footnote {{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} is used twice in the article because the text on those pages of the book supports two different claims in the article. This results in the error message Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778.E2.80.939" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)., which is a false error.

I don't want to hear that the editor should have written <ref name = "painInTheNeck">{{harvnb|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} for the first footnote and <ref name="painInTheNeck"/> for the second footnote. This puts an unreasonable burden on the editor's concentration. First, the editor's mind must descend from the level of thinking about the article text and the source text to the level of the internal workings of the template. Second, the editor must be aware of every page number that has ever been cited in the article, even if some of the cites are in a different section and/or added by a different editor.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems to me the central question is why the machinery is detecting "with different content" -- is there some subtle difference to the content emitted by the two forms? EEng 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Because you'd given the different instances different outputs, so it was trying to create two different references with the same name—now fixed. If you're using {{sfn}} or its kin to any great extent, I strongly recommend pasting rather than manually entering them to prevent this kind of thing happening. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Compare:

{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}}
{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|p=778–9}}

Both produce:

<ref name="FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778&ndash;9">

but the content of the <ref>...</ref> tags are different:

[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], p. 778–9.
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], pp. 778–9.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I fixed the p vs pp parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
...he said meekly. EEng 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been tolerant, even accepting, of {sfn}, but "named refs" are an abomination. In this instance the saving of not having to type in the <ref>...</ref> tags seems not worth the trouble. Even where the editors on a page accept named refs, this kind of "gotcha" is not what I would like to spend time explaining to a new editor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Given this:

{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}

Is there another way to handle the archive.org link, or keep in |chapterurl=? -- GreenC 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Do it correctly by using |archive-url= and |archive-date= (and, since we're mucking about with it, {{cite encyclopedia}})?
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]] |year=1999 |title=v. Spy v. Spy |url=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archive-date=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "v. Spy v. Spy". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Archived from the original on 2004-08-03. Retrieved 10 November 2008.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, CS1 accepts a URL in |url= or {{chapterurl}} but not both. That makes it easy, just move it into |archiveurl=. Is that right? -- GreenC 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Not true. cs1|2 accept simultaneous |url= and |chapter-url= (or alias). When there are both |url= and |chapter-url= (or alias) and |archive-url=, the title in |chapter= (or alias) gets the url from |archive-url=:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |url=//example.org |chapter-url=//example.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140317172707/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2014-03-17}}
"Chapter". Title. Archived from the original on 2014-03-17.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)


This is a bot question. Normally when it finds an archive URL in the |url= field it moves to |archiveurl=, but in this case it would break the cite unless did the other things like the change to {{cite encyclopedia}}, |title= etc.. which a bot can't do safely given all the possibilities. Without |archiveurl= and |archivedate= the link rot bots won't be able to maintain the links. What about keeping it as is, with the addition of the |archiveurl= and |archivedate=:
{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archivedate=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
It might be possible to use {{webarchive}}'s |addlarchives= feature like this, which has the advantage if the |url= has content it can retains its own |archiveurl= and |archivedate= as normal:
{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop |url=http://differentsite.com |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}{{webarchive|format=addlarchives|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |date=2004-08-03}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. Retrieved 10 November 2008. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)Additional archives: 2004-08-03.
-- GreenC 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Your original question made no mention of bots. The answer I gave suggests how that particular citation would be better if written as I illustrated. There is no reason why a bot couldn't (shouldn't) move an archive.org url from |chapter-url= to |archive-url= as long as the original url is left behind in |chapter-url=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok.. there are multiple url placeholders but only 1 archiveurl placeholder. I guess it can fall back to using {{webarchive}} |addlarchives= if |archive-url= is taken. Seems like 8 possibilities it might come across:
1. url (empty) / chapter-url (full)
2. url (empty) / chapter-url (empty)
3. url (full) / chapter-url (empty)
4. url (full) / chapter-url (full)
5-6. archive-url full (for the url) + #3 .. #4
7-8. archive-url full (for the chapterurl) + #1 .. #4
-- GreenC 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Template date error messages

@Redrose64: When I made recent edits (last reversion) I did not notice |template doc demo=true. Is this supposed to stop the error messages or otherwise change how the template show the values? – Allen4names (contributions) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It prevents that page from being added to the relevant error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No reply from Redrose64 and the error messages still there looking like graffiti. I'll leave it to you two (Jonesey95) to fix this. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:CS1 errors: SSRN

I'm a bit surprised we don't have that one. The SSRN identifier is pure numbers (at least 3, no more than 7). Let's have some error detection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there documentation that specifies the length and format of SSRN identifiers? Making it up based on observation is less that optimal.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Never found anything official, but I tried everything below 100 and SSRN 100 was the first match. And nothing (google or otherwise) has more than 7 digits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Enable error tracking in draft space?

What's the reason for excluding that namespace from error tracking? It would be quite beneficial to bots and others doing semi-automated editing to be able to cleanup drafts before they're sent to mainspace. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this only for those errors which are kept at/around 0 errors (which requires additional non-trivial coding). Some categories of errors are in the 30k range still in mainspace and should be prioritized as such. --Izno (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't really see what is being lost by the error count jumping from 30K to 35K or whatever, other than perhaps the psychological despair of maintainers looking at those numbers as a "score". Prioritizing mainspace is pretty easy. You just filter out the draft space. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone looks at them as a score (so that's a red herring). You just filter out the draft space. How? An awfully odd turn of phrase. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Categorization of Draft and Draft talk namespaces was removed with this edit by Editor Jonesey95. I am unable to find a talk-page comment that explains why the change was made.
If anything is to change with regard to the draft namespace, I would make it so that all of the error messages display all the time; even those that are (still) muted by that long-ago RFC.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Links to previous discussions: excluding User space (April 2013); and excluding other namespaces from categories (Sep 2013). The Draft space did not exist at the time of the latter discussion; it was created in December 2013.
I also looked for discussion about excluding the Draft space, which happened in February 2014. I was unable to find any, and I don't remember now why I excluded it. I am open to showing Categories in Draft space as long as there are editors willing to fix the errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia contributors. "Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4". English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

In this case, how can I resolve this error?--Namoroka (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To Module:Citation/CS1, Wikipedia:Archive.is looks like a scheme (Wikipedia:) followed by a domain name (Archive), a separator (.), and a top level domain (is); a very common description of a URL. You can get round this error message by wrapping that part of the title (or the whole title, doesn't matter) in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags:
{{cite web|author=''Wikipedia'' contributors|title=<nowiki>Wikipedia:Archive.is</nowiki> RFC 4|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC_4|website=[[English Wikipedia]]|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|access-date=March 29, 2017}}
Wikipedia contributors. "Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4". English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2017. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The real way to fix this problem is to cite a secondary source and not a primary source. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That depends for what you want to cite this. Primary sources are quite often acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Preference between year or date parameter in Cite Journal

@Headbomb: According to the Template documentation, the date parameter is preferred. Also, simply putting just the year in the date parameter serves the same purpose. TemplateData is only relevant to VE. I do not see the problem in suggesting date in VE.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In the edit summary of this edit, you claim that the template documentation says: "Listing only the publications year is recommended." Where does it say that? I know of no such recommendation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I was only trying to appease Headbomb who suggests that year is recommended for journals. I prefer date. I was only showing a willingness to compromise.
As I understand it, year is only necessary and recommended under the special case where date format is ymd and therefore can not be used with a CITEREF diambiguator. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to review the whole argument or the specifics of the 'solution', I'm just saying that for journal and books, standard practice (and recommendation by most style guides) is to only use the year, not the full date. Encouraging use of the date parameter means that people will feel compelled to use the full date for things. We already have enough issue with the various tools trying to fill citations with complete dates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Headbomb. I don't understand why Template:Cite journal/doc#Date says Use of |date= is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:. What is the advantage of putting |date=2017 over |year=2017? The disadvantage is that it encourages the addition of wholly unnecessary month and day information where these are not needed and are not standard practice for journals. Newspapers, magazines, sure, but not scientific journals. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't answer to the reasoning behind why the template doc suggests date. I frankly don't care either way. My issue is that for most recent journals published the auto citation fill feature recognizes the full date and fills in the full date parameter. When you go in to edit the cite journal in VE the year param pops back in and you have to delete it. Right now empty |year= are being inserted everywhere when someone uses VE.
The solution to all this is simple have the Cite journal template convert the date and display only the year, even when user gives full date. While suggesting date, that is.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be making up rules, or even reformatting dates. Our only rule should be "use the cover date". If the journal states "March 2017", then we should not encourage people to use anything other than |date=March 2017. Do not tell them to remove the month; do not suggest that they should add a day-of-month that isn't actually there. Some journals - such as Nature - do have full dates, and we must not discourage those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
We certainly ought to. In as much as virtually all styles guides recommend omitting full dates for books and journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The key word in that quote is all (of those conditions). YMD date format does not allow for a disambiguator: |date=YYYYa-MM-DD is not allowed. When it is necessary to disambiguate a cs1|2 citation that uses YMD date format, the disambituator is attached to |year=YYYYa so editors can use |date=YYYY-MM-DD if they choose to do so. If only the year portion of a date is used, then editors may use either of |year= or |date= as they choose because Module:Citation/CS1 treats them as aliases of each other (there is no difference between |date=2017 and |year=2017).
I think that the notion that cs1|2 templates should be written preferring the use of year-only publication dates is a new topic. Certainly I do not recall seeing it raised before. If there has been previous discussion, here or elsewhere, please give us some links to those discussions.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I admit my 14th edition of the Chicago Manual is getting a bit old, but page 570 indicates that either the month/season, or the issue number, may be used in bibliography entries, if there are issue numbers available. Not all journals number their issues. I believe these are the ones that use continuous paging throughout the year, so the January issue starts with page 1, the February issue starts with page 189, etc.
Example from Chicago Manual 14th ed. p. 570
Bush, Jane R. "Rhetoric and the Instinct for Survival." Political Perspectives 29 (March 1990): 45–53.
Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • MLA omits full dates for periodicals, even magazines/newspapers, unless you are interested in the historical details.
  • May omit in Chicago. In my experience, most journals following Chicago omits them.
  • May omit in Vancouver. In my experience, most journals following Vancouver omits them, or only include the month.
  • In all cases, books only get years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the links Headbomb provided indicate that if a journal publishes several physical issues per year, but dates them with a month or season name and does not number the issues, that it would be ok to omit the month or season from the citation. The citation should lead the reader to the bound-together bundle of sheets of paper that are being cited, rather than leaving the reader to guess which of 12 bound-together bundles contains the pages the reader wants. Our documentation should not be written in a way that tells editors it's OK to omit the month or season when there is no issue number in the citation. (The Chicago link prompts for a user name and password so I don't know what that one says.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the examples. "For example, Brain Res. 2002;935(1-2):40-6." (full date is 10 May 2002) or "Walter Blair, "Americanized Comic Braggarts," Critical Inquiry 4, no. 2 (1977): 331–32.]" (full date is Winter 2017) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
These examples are not applicable because the issue number is available. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
These examples most certainly apply. None of them have the full date. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The examples do not apply. Let me give you a scenario. You want the right issue of the journal. You are requesting it from another library (for journals, the libraries would probably have a special arrangement). Or, the library has closed stacks and you can't go to the stacks to see which issue you want. The citation says "Jones, J. "April fool's day pranks", Old Fashioned Journal 8 (1875):335–7." Let us suppose that journal didn't assign numbers to its issues. By poking around, you determine that journal was published monthly, and the volume number was incremented once per year. You don't know which month to have sent to you, so you have to hope the librarians won't get upset with you if you waste their time and ask for all 12. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You're telling us examples which come directly from their manuals of style, which show full dates being omitted, do not support the general idea that full dates may be omitted according to these manuals of style? Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This sort of thing merely makes it harder for people for people to find out what the reference is - stripping the date is pure disruption and hinders the reader. There are too many citatations without sufficient information to be traceable already, without Citation Style 1 intentionally removing important information. For a large proportion of references date will be the primary way of identifying the issue - removing the identifier printed on the cover of a magazine or journal to replace it by an issue number which may be hidden inside is not sensible.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Concur. Do NOT remove any true information that makes it easier for Wikipedia readers to verify citations, and therefore article claims. Fashion citation style around the policy requirement, not the opposite. With this in mind, treat the formatting of the relevant fields as verification metadata, not data. The verification data is the source's content. Therefore a journal date written in some format can be substituted with any other equivalent format that provides the same, or better, ease of verification. 50.74.121.43 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Information that makes verification easier is good. Removing it to comply with someone's idea of good style is not helpful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts, and my editing practices are simple: use the date off the cover of the journal formatted to fit our MOS on dates (so an en dash, not a slash, etc) complete with the month or season, if specified, and if a journal issue has printed volume and issue numbers, include them too. More information, within reason, is beneficial to our readers who want to locate a source. Imzadi 1979 → 04:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ISBN wrapping

Hi, when spaces are used in ISBN numbers, the number can be split over lines as it is allowed to wrap. Should the templates be modified to use {{nowrap}} or should we deprecate spaces in ISBN numbers and always go with dashes? If the latter then we would need to track those ISBNs using the space format so that they could be converted. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of a related conversation at Template talk:ISBN from January 2017 and a previous conversation at Template talk:ISBNT from September 2016. It looks like there was a desire for consistency among the templates and also varying behavior among web browser software.
In the meantime, feel free to play with your browser's window size at this revision of my sandbox page. When I shrink my (Firefox) window, both {{ISBN}} and {{cite book}} freely wrap the ISBN value when it has spaces in it but keep the identifier whole when it has hyphens in it. So at least they are consistent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think ISBNs should be allowed to wrap on hyphens -- they frequently cause very unsightly bad breaks (but not spaces -- too confusing). EEng 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
When used in cs1|2, |isbn=123-4567-89X is translated to this:
[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]]&nbsp;[[Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X|123-4567-89X]]
which MediaWiki translates to:
<a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a>&#160;<a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X" title="Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X">123-4567-89X</a>
As you can see, there is no special treatment of the ISBN link with regard to wrapping except that we connect the label to the first group of digits in the number with a &nbsp; character. I use Chrome so the ISBNs on Editor Jonesey95's sandbox page wrap at both hyphen and space separators. It makes me wonder if Firefox also doesn't wrap multi-word hyperlinks or if ISBNs are a special case. What about ISSNs? DOIs? or other identifiers when they have hyphens? The module does not protect any of these from wrapping.
The module does nowrap the rendering of |access-date= and at the next update will insert &#8239; (narrow no-break space) between an access signal icon and its identifier.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
They're hyphens, not dashes. In an ISBN, a space is no more or less valid than a hyphen; you will find books with both forms, even to the point of inconsistency between what is shown on the copyright page and what is on the back cover. We must not instruct people to only use hyphens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
May be we could just convert the spaces in the ISBN to the &nbsp; character to stop it wrapping inappropriately. Keith D (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
No, non-breaking spaces are not valid. It's plain spaces or hyphens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a license parameter

Issues around indicating the accessibility of a cited reference have been discussed repeatedly here (example 1; example 2), usually with a focus on free availability rather than open licensing. However, with more and more scholarly journals — including many megajournals — now using CC BY and other Creative Commons licenses (not only open ones), perhaps adding a |license= parameter to the citation template would be a good way to go.

Initially, it would probably make sense to restrict this to standard copyright licenses, say the seven regularly used Creative Commons licenses (in which CC0 — technically a license waiver — was included) plus public domain. In order to display the information, the respective license icon could be used, which could link to the license text:

-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation (any, not just cs1|2) is to identify the source material that supports article text in accordance with WP:V. The purpose of the access signalling icons is to make it easier for readers to know of the linked sources in a citation are free-to-read or which lie behind registration or paywall. The licensing of the source does not aid the reader who seeks to read the source. Wikipedia should not be responsible for labeling citations with license status when that is the responsibility of the source's publisher. If readers and editors wish to reuse source material, they should consult the source's publisher and not rely on an icon attached to a Wikipedia citation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Trappist said basically what I was going to say, but more eloquently. The copyright or copyleft status of an on-line source has no effect on whether the reader will be able to find or read it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Mietchen, I'm a bit late on the party but I want to emphasize the fact that if you want to push for this, the first thing to do is to make sure that people outside our bubble of open-* advocates support the idea. Otherwise you'll face some backlash sooner or later. While I tend to agree with Trappist and Jonesey95, the opinion of the few people watching this page does not matter (well, in theory). I think we need a lot more work of educating editors, readers and researchers about open licenses before consensus for such a signaling can happen, but I would love to be proved wrong. − Pintoch (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I personally favor the idea of signalling a license for references, especially when we have tools like oaDOI that can provide API for that. What I think is most important, though, is "free-to-read"-ness. I have an hard time understanding if there is a consensus here: what do you think about that? My bias of course is towards open access and open access sources (I'm a digital librarian and I think there would be a lot of advantages to have some sort of system here on Wikipedia). Aubrey (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Both of the external links that you provided are the same. Did you intend that?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly Support! I use NYPL databases that are closed access all the time -- I have been wanting to have a better option than subscription required for a long time. So I fully embrace this very elegant and clear option to note open and closed access to these entries that require paywall access. There's a huge advantage to being able to see a lock and unlock symbol on citations. I fully embrace this usage and will be using it going forward. I think that especially for DOI type items this is a no-brainer and can only be a positive thing for citations on en Wikipedia especially.
As to this not being Wikipedia's job, I disagree completely. The Wikipedia editor's job is to create a full citation, in my opinion. Access information -- especially closed access -- is a natural and necessary part of this process. The creation of citations is curation, and how this information is accessed is a huge part of this. And it _does_ have a huge impact on how a reader uses the citation. Readers are in a hurry and respond to icons like this. I know that the PDF icon is a huge improvement when I am sussing out citations. To think otherwise I think is very disingenuous and wrong. Totally disagree. I KNOW it's part of my responsibility as an editor who creates citations. I am obsessed with citations and this access issue is a big deal, especially for an end-user. And that's what the information is there for, isn't it?
I would like to also advocate that this field is built into the WikiMarkup Template:Cite journal as well as being an option in the WikiMarkup Template:Cite news -- as these have been the places where I have seen the most restricted access.
Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: This thread is nothing to do with open or closed access (whether you need to go through some sort of registration/login process in order to view the source material). It concerns the licensing of the source - that is, licensing in the same sense that we use CC BY-SA and so on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: I am perplexed. This topic is about adding licensing icons (perhaps like those found at Creative Commons license) to cs1|2 templates. I am the editor who wrote that Wikipedia should not be responsible for labeling citations with license status. You appear (to me anyway) to be talking about, and supporting, the access-signalling icons that cs1|2 now supports. Can you clarify?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Licensing is not a referencing or verifiability concern. If anywhere, it'd belong in Wikidata. Open access signaling, however, is much desirable, and definitely within the scope of CS1|2 templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Scowiki localization problems

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T162406

Hi, I would like to know what I need to do to better localize CS1 on the Scots Wikipedia. For one, I would like to know how to make reference templates convert English dates put in the templates into Scots on the article (via sco:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation). Also, I would like to know how to localize the languages to where pages would go into sco:Category:CS1 Swadish-leid soorces (sv). At the moment, they either go into an incorrect category (sco:Category:CS1 Swedish-leid soorces (sv)) or into the error category (sco:Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognised leid). I can't find where any language name localization takes place in any of the modules. So, what needs to be done? Thanks in advance. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of date validation has never been to be a translator. That functionality has never been supported nor has it, to my knowledge been suggested. Presumably such translation could be done. It might take some thinking to determine where and when that would best be done; during validation? After? I would guess that the proper place might be in sco:Module:Citation/CS1 in the if not is_set(error_message) then test where a call is made to a new function that spins through the date_parameters_list and makes the translation; perhaps with a variant of this:
string.gsub('June 17, 1994', '%a+', {['January']='Januar', ['February']='Februar', ['March']='Mairch', ['April']='Aprile', ['May']='Mey', ['June']='Juin', ['July']='Julie'}) (in Scots, August through December are the same as in English?)
I think that the language issue is not an issue with the module. Rather, I think that it is an issue with MediaWiki. I think that the magic word {{#language:}} uses the same code as mw.language.fetchLanguageName() – I get the same result when comparing the one with the other:
{{#language:sv|fr}} → suédois (French)
{{#language:sv|nl}} → Zweeds (Dutch)
{{#language:sv|sco}} → Swaidish (Scots)
{{#language:sv|tgl}} → Swedish (Tagalog)
Try these in the Scribunto debug console:
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'fr')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'nl')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'sco')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'tgl')
MediaWiki may not support language translations for ISO 639-2 language codes (or perhaps only some, I don't know) so I suspect that it falls back on English when it doesn't know the target language. Perhaps you should pursue this topic at Phabricator.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I will bring it up at Phabricator. The MediaWiki not recorgnizing the correct language name was my biggest concern. Thank you for the response. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

I will be making (assuming my proposal is accepted) a presentation on Journals Cited by Wikipedia at Wikimania 2017, in Montreal.

If you are interested in attending, please sign up! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Your "homepage or blog" link leads to a red link here. :D --Izno (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

title_rem .. deadurl_rem etc..

[1] Came across these .. the article has more. Is it just someone's notes? -- GreenC 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't know. None of those have ever been part of en.wiki's cs1|2 but may have come from some other wiki?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. -- GreenC 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
These were introduced by Allen4names in this series of edits in February 2016. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_31&oldid=1104888151"