Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Invalid DOI

In

• Buckley, Walter; Schwandt, David; Goldstein, Jeffrey A. (2008). "An introduction to "Society as a complex adaptive system"". E:CO Emergence: Complexity & Organization. 10 (3): 86–112. doi:10.emerg/10.17357.06e9a4b2212fd8b56de2bd2009e3a348. Retrieved 2020-11-02. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)

The DOI is clearly invalid. The format is 10.####/ or 10.#####/ and nothing else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

already fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why no archive-chapterurl?

If a book is available online, we enter |url=, and if this URL is dead we can enter |archive-url=. But there is no such equivalent for chapter-specific links, i.e. |chapterurl=. Is there is specific reason for that? (for a specific example, I could've just used such an option here.) --bender235 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be this template?

{{cite book |first=Michael P. |last=Barnett |authorlink=Michael P. Barnett |chapter=Symbolic calculation in the life sciences: trends and prospects |title=Algebraic Biology 2005 |series=Computer Algebra in Biology |editor-first=H. |editor-last=Anai |editor2-first=K. |editor2-last=Horimoto |publisher=Universal Academy Press |location=Tokyo |year=2006 |chapterurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060616135155/http://www.princeton.edu/~allengrp/ms/annobib/mb.pdf }}

That can be written as:

{{cite book |first=Michael P. |last=Barnett |author-link=Michael P. Barnett |chapter=Symbolic calculation in the life sciences: trends and prospects |title=Algebraic Biology 2005 |series=Computer Algebra in Biology |editor-first=H. |editor-last=Anai |editor2-first=K. |editor2-last=Horimoto |publisher=Universal Academy Press |location=Tokyo |year=2006 |chapter-url=http://www.princeton.edu/~allengrp/ms/annobib/mb.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060616135155/http://www.princeton.edu/~allengrp/ms/annobib/mb.pdf |archive-date=2006-06-16}}

Barnett, Michael P. (2006). "Symbolic calculation in the life sciences: trends and prospects" (PDF). In Anai, H.; Horimoto, K. (eds.). Algebraic Biology 2005. Computer Algebra in Biology. Tokyo: Universal Academy Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-06-16.

Because there is only one |archive-url=, its assigned value applies to |chapter-url= (or aliases) even when |url= is present; without |chapter-url= (or aliases), |archive-url= applies to |url=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

However, since there can be both, |chapter= and |title= as well as |chapter-url= and |url=, this model could be extended so that if an |archive-chapter-url= parameter would be given, it would be taken as archive link for |chapter-url= instead of |archive-url= (and |archive-url= for |url=). I have run into citations where it would have been desirable to specify independent archive links for chapters and work titles.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a few URL-related arguments and IMO having separately named archive-url/archive-date/url-status for each is a lot of complication. There is {{webarchive}} for those archive URLs that don't fit the current model. -- GreenC 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there is a limit of what we can link to, but I find {{webarchive}} too verbose to use - readers typically care about the fact that they can access an archived link, but don't care about the name of the archiving service.

Also, at least in the case of linking chapters, our citation templates already support most of it, and an archive link for chapters could probably be integrated into the displayed output in less obtrusive ways than the longer explanations that would probably be necessary to establish the connection to chapters when the link would be provided by a separate template. Also, maintenance would be easier.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Range of hyphenated page numbers?

What is the correct markup for a range of hyphenated page numbers? Is |pages=4-5{{snd}} 4-7 (4-5 – 4-7) correct or should it be |pages=4{{hyphen}}5{{snd}}4{{hyphen}}7 (4-5 – 4-7)? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Use commas between hyphenated ranges. Do not use {{snd}}. It doesn't play nice with the metadata. 64.61.73.84 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(64.61.73.84)'s answer does not give the correct meaning. The meaning of Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul's post is that the information in the Wikipedia is supported by information on pages 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7. You could use a spaced n-dash, like this: |pages=4-5 – 4-7. Or you could write |pages=4-5 to 4-7. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you can write |pages=4-5-4-7 (all simple keyboard hyphens) and let cs1|2 figure out the rendering:

{{cite book |title=Title |pages=4-5-4-7}}

Title. pp. 4-5 – 4-7.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Another option is to put the value in |at=, anticipating that well-meaning editors will come along and mangle the carefully constructed page range. |at=pp. 4-5–4-7 should work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have RTFM. The documented way to handle this is |pages=((4{{hyphen}}5–4{{hyphen}}7)), where the thing in the middle is an n-dash. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, TFM spells out what to do for |page=hyphenated-number and for |pages=simple-range, but does not spell it out for a range of hyphenated numbers. Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, it covers this case quite good already (without avoiding the redundancy that would be necessary to add to spell it out in even more explicit terms). But feel free to further improve on it.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Documentation bloat

I am concerned that the documentation for these templates, both Help:Citation Style 1 and Template:Citation Style documentation, is becoming bloated with redundant prescriptive injunctions, which degrade its value as documentation. In this case, the admitted purpose is to further a position in a dispute on this talk page, but the problem is broader, and has been going on for some time.

Bloated documentation wastes users' time, and makes it harder for them to find the information about the templates that they seek. The documentation should define the meaning of each parameter concisely, and not expand with polemics on what they should not be used for, especially when this is already a logical consequence of the definition. Kanguole 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Only seeing this now... I would normally agree, but if the existing documentation (per the very existence of the discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italics_2) does not prevent editors from abusing parameters for stylistic reasons, the documentation apparently is not clear enough for some...

(The purpose of my edit was to improve that situation/documentation by stating what should be obvious, but apparently is not, not to further any position in a dispute.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the points Matthiaspaul is making. But the OP makes a point worth examining, especially regarding sections like "What's new", "Deprecated parameters", "Recently added parameters" etc. that have been ripe for forking since forever. Perhaps the OP can provide other examples of, in his opinion, existing bloat. Here's the thing: a correct baseline imo for a project like Wikipedia is to assume that people who don't know how to write citations are providing them for people who don't know how to read them. Disregard the quantum-magnitude infinitesimal number of people involved in these discussions (compared to the universe of daily unique visitors). If this is the encyclopedia than (almost) anyone can edit, it follows that this is the encyclopedia in which anyone (everyone) can (should) provide reliable citations. To the satisfaction (verification ease & ability) of anybody (everybody) else.

That is not to say that the documentation doesn't have problems. There are many, and not all of them are the result of "bloat". 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)