Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions about Help:Citation Style 1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
when |archive-url= is broken
In normal display mode (what readers see), broken archive urls are ignored except that the module emits an error message. When editors view the same article in preview mode, and when the archive url is an archive.org url, the module uses a modified form of the archive url. The purpose of that is to enable editors to see archive.org's calendar view so that they might choose the url of an appropriate snapshot to replace the malformed archive url in the template. When |archive-url=
holds a malformed archive url, the live module truncates the timestamp from 14 to 6 digits and appends a splat (*
). That used to work. So, I have tweaked the code so that the new preview-mode archive url uses the first six (YYYYMM) or four (YYYY) digits of the timestamp, zero-fills to 14 digits, and then appends the splat. To see this in action, you must edit this section (or page) and preview.
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Ask Hal: Frequently Asked Questions to the Blue Sky Rangers". Intellivision Productions. Retrieved November 3, 2008. {{cite web}} : |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)
|
Sandbox | "Ask Hal: Frequently Asked Questions to the Blue Sky Rangers". Intellivision Productions. Retrieved November 3, 2008. {{cite web}} : |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)
|
In the above examples, the live version links to a "We're sorry — something's gone wrong" page while the sandbox links to the calendar view.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for making this feature work again. (For those interested in the background of this feature, see: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_13#web.archive.org/save/...)
- However, the "*"-wildcard still seems to work fine with 0-, 4- and 8-digit timecodes, so the zero-filling does not appear to be necessary in all cases:
- https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html works
- https://web.archive.org/web/2017*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html works
- https://web.archive.org/web/201706*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html now fails
- https://web.archive.org/web/20170614*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html works (but zero-fills automatically)
- BTW, if you truncate the archive URL to
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170614
or shorter, the new implementation throws a Lua error in "Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox at line 2379: attempt to index local 'timestamp' (a nil value)." - The utility of the feature could be further improved if we would allow it to accept
|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/
as an entry shortcut forcing it to take the URL from the|url=
parameter and optionally the timestamp from the|archive-date=
parameter to automatically form archive URLs likehttps://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html
orhttps://web.archive.org/web/20170614*/http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/people/askhal/askhal.html
for the error message, so that editors could utilize our preview to select or create a snapshot from/at archive.org with a minimum amount of keystrokes. - --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed the script error:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Ask Hal: Frequently Asked Questions to the Blue Sky Rangers". Intellivision Productions. Retrieved November 3, 2008. {{cite web}} : |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)
|
Sandbox | "Ask Hal: Frequently Asked Questions to the Blue Sky Rangers". Intellivision Productions. Retrieved November 3, 2008. {{cite web}} : |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)
|
Cite magazine – why upper case Vol.?
Why does {{Cite magazine}} emit volume in upper case: {{cite magazine|title=Some title|magazine=Some Magazine|volume=17}} -> "Some title". Some Magazine. Vol. 17. ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Because it follows a period. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry if I'm a pest, but why then is page in lower case? — "Some title". Some Magazine. Vol. 17. p. 18. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think you're a pest, but the odds against getting a coherent answer to that are astronomical. Headbomb is right, of course, as you are in your question. 12.182.249.131 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why do I hear Tevye in my head when he says, while singing "Tradition":
- "You may ask, how did this tradition start?
- I'll tell you – I don't know. But it's a tradition..."
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry if I'm a pest, but why then is page in lower case? — "Some title". Some Magazine. Vol. 17. p. 18. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
display-authors bug
If you specify just one author and then invoke display-authors=1, you get an error. You need to specify an author2 to make it go away (even though author2 isn't displayed!). Urhixidur (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- You will get the same error when you have two authors and set
|display-authors=2
: - It is supposed to work that way. When there are only two authors, setting
|display-authors=2
becomes meaningless. When there are more than two authors and you only want to display one of their names, then|display-authors=1
will suppress display of the second author name and add et al. to the rendering: - When the template has only one of the two authors, set
|display-authors=etal
to indicate that the work has more authors whose names are not shown: - —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- The (help) link provides the three paths to fixing this error. Izno (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- As an aside - the Harv warning has changed to be bold from a brown-ish colour in the last couple of days - any idea what has changed? Keith D (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are two warnings for SFN. One set is emitted by the SFN module. Those are in red. The other set are from whichever of the three-ish scripts that detect bad SFNs. Those are the brown-ish color. While they may have changed in shade or something, the latter has always been that color. Izno (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- My script has not changed and shows the warning messages for the above citations like this:
<span class=warning style="font-size:100%">Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFirst_Author.</span>
- Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFirst_Author.
- But isn't
class=warning
going away? If it is, I should change the warning markup to:<span style="color:#ac6600">Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFirst_Author.</span>
- Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFirst_Author.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- You might consider emitting a class still so people can customize the color, but sure. Izno (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js Keith D (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- No changes to that script since this edit in March 2021. Yesterday was WP:ITSTHURSDAY, there is some small discussion about skins at WP:VPT about monobook skin stuff; related?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- It could be but not clear from that what the changes would be. Looking at phab:T285991 seems to imply some changes needed in preferences, but cannot locate checkbox "Enable responsive MonoBook design". I have tried unticking "Enable responsive mode" but that makes no difference. Keith D (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Keith D: "Enable responsive MonoBook design" is no longer there. It was at Preferences → Appearance, between "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all wikis (more information):" and "Reading preferences". I think it was removed when "Enable responsive mode" was added a little higher up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, these preferences were flipped; this was in either last week's tech news or the week before's. Izno (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Keith D: "Enable responsive MonoBook design" is no longer there. It was at Preferences → Appearance, between "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all wikis (more information):" and "Reading preferences". I think it was removed when "Enable responsive mode" was added a little higher up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- It could be but not clear from that what the changes would be. Looking at phab:T285991 seems to imply some changes needed in preferences, but cannot locate checkbox "Enable responsive MonoBook design". I have tried unticking "Enable responsive mode" but that makes no difference. Keith D (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- As an aside - the Harv warning has changed to be bold from a brown-ish colour in the last couple of days - any idea what has changed? Keith D (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Markup in titles
Peeking at Category:CS1 errors: markup, I see it doesn't include fields like "title". I'm in the process of cleaning up lots of HTML entities (which shouldn't be in these fields either), and I've seen lots of instances of double single quotes (''...'') in the title field. On Wikipedia, this will make italics, but apparently italics are not allowed in COinS fields? Is this something that should be systematically fixed? -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the title of an article includes a binomial name or the name of a genus then by convention this is placed in italics (using double single quotes). - Aa77zz (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and anything else would be utterly wrong and strongly resisted by those who edit organism articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is this about Wikipedia article titles or the title field of a citation? If it is the latter, then it crashes into one of the CS1 non-sensical flaws, the fact that
|title=
may be the source (as in {{cite book}}), or a location within the source (as in {{cite journal}}). This is pertinent, because the title value is auto-formatted differently. In the case of title=source it would be in italics. Including italics markup, would cause the affected text to display in straight type. Because of the fundamental error of mis-defined and mis-applied parameters, more convoluted acrobatics have to be employed. Good luck! 65.88.88.57 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is this about Wikipedia article titles or the title field of a citation? If it is the latter, then it crashes into one of the CS1 non-sensical flaws, the fact that
- Absolutely, and anything else would be utterly wrong and strongly resisted by those who edit organism articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Italic wikimarkup is permitted where it is appropriate to use it. Bold markup is also allowed though I wonder if bold makes much sense in the context of a citation's title. This search (times out) finds some use of bold markup in
|title=
. We might create a maintenance category to track bold markup in|title=
,|chapter=
and aliases. Such categorization must be mindful of'''s
(possessive form of italicized text). - —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought kerning was handled in
|title=
. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)- In titles that will be rendered in quotations (
{{cite web}}
,{{cite journal}}
, etc), cs1|2 adds kerning when the title text has leading or trailing quote marks{{cite periodical |title='leading' quote and trailing "quote" |periodical=Periodical}}
- "'leading' quote and trailing "quote"". Periodical.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, this is the most basic case. Is there a problem with inserting a hair-space in code to account for others?
- Also, I would include typographic emphasis in
|title=
if that is how the source is formatted, only as a help for the reader. There may be a minority of readers for whom anything but exact representation may cause confusion. However this additional emphasis should not be a requirement, just as (generally) adherence to case is not a requirement. There is already the semantic emphasis built in to the presentation of the work argument, and the occasional emphasis on|volume=
(depending on day of the week, or something). This should be enough to attract readers' attention to the most important information in the citation. But there may be another minority of readers for whom any added emphasis may confuse. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- In titles that will be rendered in quotations (
- Triple quotation mark in such a case will cause an error anyway as it will bold the rest of the sentence, not close the italic. Izno (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Umm, nope:
{{cite periodical |title=''Possessive italics'''s in title |periodical=Periodical}} and some trailing text
- "Possessive italics's in title". Periodical. and some trailing text
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Umm, nope:
- I thought kerning was handled in
{{cite web}}
template: please make the title
parameter optional
For web sources, specifying titles often is not necessary but makes code longer and wastes editor’s time. There is no reason to make it required. Let editors decide whether the title is needed. VSL0 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well it raises the question, necessary for what? What do you believe is the purpose of a citation? -- GreenC 04:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @VSL0: Could you please provide some specific examples of citations where you believe specifying titles is not necessary? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty: @GreenC: The
{{cite web}}
template is often used just for referencing (providing the source of information), not necessary for a citation. VSL0 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: @GreenC: @Headbomb: The purpose of using {{cite web}}
may be just providing the link to the source with specifying its date
or access-date
in a standard way. In case of accessible web sources there may be no need for knowing their titles in advance (especially if they don’t represent books, articles, publications), and this is enough for making the title
parameter optional. Could anyone modify the template? VSL0 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I know the topic is considered closed, but if you allow, I believe an observation must be made. The purpose of {{cite web}} stated above is incorrect. Like all citation templates, its purpose is to formalize a citation according to a citation system, in this case CS1/2. Citations don't exist to provide links although they should, if they can. Linking is an ancillary to discovery and wikitext verification. As far as
|title="Webpage Title"
is concerned, it is rather helpful to the lay reader, the same way an in-source location such as "chapter" or "page" would be in print. The related comments below are also pertinent. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I know the topic is considered closed, but if you allow, I believe an observation must be made. The purpose of {{cite web}} stated above is incorrect. Like all citation templates, its purpose is to formalize a citation according to a citation system, in this case CS1/2. Citations don't exist to provide links although they should, if they can. Linking is an ancillary to discovery and wikitext verification. As far as
- My opinion is that very occasionally be some merit in omitting a title – for example, not every web page has a useful title. But those are rare cases, and I wouldn't support removing title as a required parameter, for the reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Bare URLs#What is wrong with bare URLs? In the vast majority of cases editors should be adding titles to their cites. Also, as a final point, it doesn't actually break anything if you omit the title - you'll still generate a cite, and if it's really "wasting your time" to add a title, then don't do it. Per the page I linked above, "If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, we thank you for your contribution!" But such a cite should display a red error message, simply because it's very useful for you or anyone else who comes to the page after you, to know that a title ideally should be added. — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are several reasons why this is not a good idea:
- omitting the title makes the link as susceptible to linkrot as using a bare url rather than the template.
- titles are an indicator to the reader as to what the linked web page is about.
- if a web page is so poorly designed as to not have a title then I'd be questioning it's suitability as a reliable source. Nthep (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: @Nthep: I rather agree, and the topic may be considered closed. VSL0 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
IMO now theoretical since the discussion is closed anyway, the purpose of a citation on Wikipedia is to facilitate finding and verifying a source. The citation is a means to an end. If a title exists, it would be so significant to finding the source it would be required. If no title exists, I don't know. Would need to see examples. Often in those cases the title is descriptive eg. "Facebook post by A_User on a Topic". -- GreenC 16:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)