Jump to content

Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Module talk:Citation/CS1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 28 February 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion from Module talk:Citation/CS1. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Date and year ranges

Why does {{Cite encyclopedia |title=dummy date=2000-2001}} create an error? Imho date=2000-2001 should be valid, and I think it used to be. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic that hasn't been fully discussed and there is a feature request to support it because year ranges are permitted by MOS:DATES.
The date checking is new so year ranges worked because they were never checked. My opinion: year ranges in citations are inappropriate. When using {{cite encyclopedia}}, an editor is usually citing an encyclopedia's article, perhaps a page or page range, and a volume of an encyclopedia that was published in a particular year. The WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT ethos, in my mind, requires a modicum of specificity. If an encyclopedia was published across a range of years, 1885–1920 for example, it seems to me that the editor is obligated to state the year of the publication that was consulted to support the Wikipedia article text. To do otherwise indicates laziness on the part of the editor.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with you on this issue. In any case, {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} disagrees with you. When will this feature request be implemented, or is it still being discussed? Debresser (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's look at {{cite Jewish Encyclopedia}}. Yes, the whole encyclopedia was published beginning with volume 1 in 1901 and ending in 1906 with volume 12. Apparently, this edition is collectively referred to as the 1906 edition. At {{cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} the examples given are to an article "Atonement, Day of":
  1. Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Atonement, Day of" . The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
  2. Public Domain Jastrow, Morris (1901). "Atonement, Day of". In Singer, Isidore; et al. (eds.). The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. p. 1.
The other two examples at {{cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} are similar and illustrate the use of |noicon= so are not included here. In example 1, the template links to "Atonement, Day of" at Wikisource. The Wikisource transcription of the article is not dated, nor does it identify the specific source (volume, page, contributor, etc). From the Wikisource article, you can link to Jewish Encyclopedia where publication dates are listed as 1901–1905. This date range is not supported by any citations (the Wikisource Jewish Encyclopedia is very incomplete).
Were I citing the Wikisource transcription I might do it this way:
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Jewish Encyclopedia]] |via=Wikisource |chapter=Atonement, Day of |chapterlink=:s:Jewish Encyclopedia/Atonement, Day of}}
→"Atonement, Day of". Jewish Encyclopedia – via Wikisource. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |chapterlink= ignored (help)
In example 2, the template links to "Atonement, Day of" at a website called jewishencyclopedia.com. This too, is undated except that at the top of the page there is text that reads: The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. From this example, one might expect that "Atonement, Day of" is found on page 1 of volume 1 (of a website?) and was written by Morris Jastrow. There is a Jastrow mentioned in the article's bibliography but it's not clear that that Jastrow is Morris Jastrow.
Were I citing the jewishencyclopedia.com transcription I might do it this way:
{{cite web |website=Jewish Encyclopedia |title=Atonement, Day of |url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2093-atonement-day-of |date=1906 |accessdate=2013-12-15}}
→"Atonement, Day of". Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906. Retrieved 2013-12-15.
If you go to the Internet Archive, you can find all of the 12 volumes of Jewish Encyclopedia. So, I looked up "Atonement, Day of". It's in volume 2 (not 1), begins on page 284 of that facsimile (not 1), and the contributor is Max L. Margolis (not Jastrow). Were I citing the Internet Archive facsimile I might do it this way:
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Jewish Encyclopedia]] |publisher=KTAV Publishing House |via=Internet Archive |location= |date=nd |volume=2 |title=Atonement, Day of |last=Margolis |first=Max L. |editor-last=Singer |editor-first=Isadore |url=//archive.org/stream/jewishencycloped02sing#page/284/mode/2up |pages=284–289}}
→Margolis, Max L. (nd). "Atonement, Day of". In Singer, Isadore (ed.). Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. KTAV Publishing House. pp. 284–289 – via Internet Archive.
(Undated because I couldn't find a publication or copyright date in the volume 2 facsimile.)
Given all of this, it seems to me that {{cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} is rather desperately in need of an overhaul which it is in my mind to do.
If the point is to cite an article whether it is at Wikisource, or at jewishencyclopedia.com, or at Internet Archive, then I see no point in using date ranges because either the specific location of the source has a particular date or it is undated. If you must use a date, and you are consulting either Wikisource or jewishencyclopedia.com then the date should be 1906 (although |accessdate= might be a better choice for the latter). If you are consulting a physical copy of Jewish Encyclopedia, |date= should be the date of the volume you are consulting.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have seen many citation templates that use date ranges. So do sources often. And for good reason, as in the case of a several day conference. What it comes down to is that date ranges are a fact, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, and they need to be supported. Like it or not. :)
As a reply to what you say above. I think it is more correct to have a date range than no date at all, as you propose in your "how I would have done it" above. I'd rather see that done soon, than an overhaul of Template:Cite Jewish Encyclopedia, which everybody seems quite happy with. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is more correct to have a date range than no date at all isn't a very persuasive argument because it amounts to little more than "because I like it." Can you at least say why you think this?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, at Template:Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011 there is a source that uses a range: 22 - 28 December 2011. This should be allowed. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is making decisions on what is appropriate? Not it seems people who were involved in many of the PD templates?

@Debresser I have just put back month in to {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} better it passes it through to to be handled at a lower level than that it kills it silently as then there is no way to tell how many articles are using it. I think you really should have discussed it on the talk page of the template before removing it.

@Trappist the monk you write "My opinion: year ranges in citations are inappropriate" be that as it may, if one does not know from which volume a citation comes then a date range is appropriate over the whole volume print. Indeed some of the templates, for things like the DNB calculate the year if the volume number is given, but if it is not then it puts in a year range. With the DNB the project is nearing completion on Wkisource and has all the facts such as author volume and page on each article, but many of the encyclopaedias do not. Therefore it is quite common for someone to have access to the text of an encyclopaedia without knowing the volume and therefore the precise year of publication. Besides some volumes are split into parts and difference parts may come out in different years.

BTW the month parameter is very useful for volumes that span a range of months but only one year. The span of months can be dropped in to the month parameter for visual reference leaving the year parameter to be used with the author or editor last name in a standard ref=harv manner. If the day and month range is such that the date parameter can not handle it then one is faced with two alternative. Either pass in a date and a year parameter (but that is subject to some good citizen removing the year parameter not realising its use with ref=harv or putting in a ref={{sfnRef}} which is more trouble than it is worth. -- PBS (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors should be citing the source material as they know it to be. If the information is taken from a paper copy of DNB or Venn or Jewish Encyclopedia, then all of the normal information one expects from {{cite book}} should be in the citation. If the source is an electronic facsimile like Venn or Jewish Encyclopedia at Internet Archive or any number of works at Google Books, then one should include all of the information normally used with {{cite book}}. If the source is an electronic transcription like Wikisource or jewishencyclopedia.com or A Cambridge Alumni Database or Project Gutenberg then one should include all of the information normally used with {{cite web}} and |accessdate= is likely appropriate.
Date ranges do little to identify the specific location of the source material. In your example of the DNB, the date range that covers the period during which the individual volumes were published does little to identify the specific volume that an editor is citing. On the other hand, knowing the year of publication can narrow the field. But, I have to wonder, if an editor is stating some fact and supporting it with {{cite DNB}} citations but doesn't know the volume, then that editor should step back, and simply cite where he got the fact and not try to misapply {{cite DNB}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
PBS, you are right. I should have discussed this. In any case, as soon as the article that use it are fixed, it can (and as a deprecated parameter should) be removed. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I notice that you have done it for a lot of templates, have you checked them all before you did it and have you updated the documentation of all the templates to reflect you change? It seems to me that you need to write some code to check all the instances. The you need to change the documentation for each template, then run your code over very instance, check if combining month and year into the date parameter breaks date parameter, if not then combine them automatically if it does work out how you can fix it manually. Only after those steps have been taken should the templates be changed to stop passing through month parameters. -- PBS (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I have not done this for other templates, to the best of my memory. If you see any, please write me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'll get round to answering other issues raised above later.
  1. A wrapper template can pass |date=, |month=, and |year= to {{cite encyclopedia}} which then passes them to Module:Citation/CS1
  2. If |date=, |month=, and |year= are all passed from the wrapper through {{cite encyclopedia}} to Module:Citation/CS1 then:
    |date= becomes a new variable called Date
    |month= is discarded
    |year= is used for the |ref=harv anchor id
  3. If |month= and |year= without |date= are passed from the wrapper through {{cite encyclopedia}} to Module:Citation/CS1 then:
    the module concatenates |month= and |year= into the new variable Date.
    |month= and |year= are then discarded
    the year portion of Date is used for the |ref=harv anchor id
  4. If |date= without |month= and |year= is passed from the wrapper through {{cite encyclopedia}} to Module:Citation/CS1 then:
    |date= becomes the new variable Date
    the year portion of Date is used for the |ref=harv anchor id
This is an attempt a clarity. If I haven't succeeded, let me know.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This I think is clear. Just to remind everybody that the issue of this subsection is to allow ranges of dates. It seems to be in practical use, based in at least some cases on sources. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This happens often with {{Cite conference}}, because many conferences last several days. Debresser (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation Style 1 currently lacks it's own well-considered, well-known advice on publication dates. To form such advice, it makes sense to look at printed style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). That guide has relevant guidance.

Sec. 14.151 on p. 772 indicates that "when an entire multivolume, multiyear work is cited, the range of dates is given (see 6.79)." If the work is not completed, the first year is given followed by an n-dash. Two examples given are:

Hayek, F. A. Contra Keynes and the Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence. Vol. 9 of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998-.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951–63.

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that your first example doesn't comply with the when an entire multivolume, multiyear work is cited clause. Volume 9 is clearly only part of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek so the publication date of that volume is the appropriate date. For Tillich, a date range is appropriate and is in compliance with the multivolume, multiyear criteria.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not my example, it's Chicago's example. You don't get to overrule Chicago. Furthermore, since I have proven that date ranges are accepted in citations by one of the most important citation styles, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to decide to overrule Chicago on an obscure page about how a module is coded. It seems to me if you want to overrule Chicago you must first obtain consensus to do so through a widely-advertised RFC. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about overruling Chicago? Obtain consensus to overrule Chicago? We here at Wikipedia have no power over Chicago. You are reading something there that I did not write. I merely pointed out that the Hayek citation seems to violate Chicago as you quote it. Nothing more.
CS1 is not Chicago. CS1 is not ALA. Nor is CS1 any of the other style guides.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors have been using CS1 for years. There has never been any guidance that I can find telling the users of these templates that they shouldn't have publication dates (whether using the date parameter or year parameter) that contain date ranges. In the absence of any rules to the contrary, we would expect editors to follow normal scholarly citation practices, and guides such as APA and Chicago are evidence of what normal scholarly citation practice is. In the absence of any CS1 rule to the contrary, a practice found in two major style guides is not an error. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems APA Style largely agrees with Chicago. The 6th edition p. 185 states

*For several volumes in a multivolume work or several letters from the same collection, express the date as a range of years from earliest to latest (see Chapter 7, examples 23 and 65).

23...Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963) Psychology: A study of science (Vols. 1–6). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

65...Allport, G. W. (1930-1967). Correspondence. Gordon W. Allport Papers (HUG 4118.10). Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, MA.

Since APA uses parenthetical citations, the details about which Allport letter was being cited would be contained in the in-line parenthetical citation.
Jc3s5h (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To not loose my reply in the discussion, I'll post it here. I said that I like a range better than no date at all. Trappist the monk asked if this isn't the "I like" argument. Of course it is not. Having some information, in this case a range of a few years, is better than having no information at all. If I know a work was written from 1901-1906, e.g., I will at least understand it is not a contemporary work. Also, and this I can not stress enough, sources themselves often give a date range, like in the writings from a scientific conference e.g. If it is in sources, we should be able to allow for it. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider the hypothetical case of a journal published more than once a year, which uses neither volume nor issue numbers. The obvious unique identifier is the cover date, which might be shown as "January-April 2013", "May-August 2013", and "September-December 2013". Let's say we use the second one as a ref source. Do we put contrived dates like |date=May 2013 or |date=August 2013, or the truth |date=May-August 2013? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Month ranges are supported already:
{{cite journal |journal=Journal of Foo |date=May-August 2013}}
Journal of Foo. May–August 2013. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
What needs to be added are valid day ranges, e.g. "5-11 December 2013" and valid year ranges, e.g. "1898-1900".
{{cite journal |journal=Weekly Journal of Foo |date=5-11 December 2013}}
Weekly Journal of Foo. 5–11 December 2013. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
{{cite web |website=Journal of lazy publishing dates |date=2005-2013|url=http://foo}}
"Web site with copyright range but no findable publishing date". 2005–2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
– Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think most editors here agree that date and year ranges should be valid. Can this be implemented? Note, ranges may be indicated with a variety of dashed (regular, en-dash, em-dash). Debresser (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Valid date ranges are what the documentation of the various templates say are valid. I haven't looked at all the templates, but Help:Citation style 1 says to use WP:DATESNO (which does not address date ranges). In addition, seasons, hyphenated seasons ("spring-summer") and dates in religious calendars are listed as valid. There is no description of how to write day, month, or year ranges. Should these proposed changes be the subject of a well-advertised RFC before implementation?
My position is if you don't have consensus for the documentation changes, or don't even know what the documentation changes will be, then you're not ready for implementation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DATESNO addresses date range style in the third bullet point below the acceptable dates table. Date range style is also addressed at WP:DATERANGE and MOS:DOB; both of which are subsections of WP:DATESNO.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that; day, month, and year ranges are indeed covered. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
So will the module start allowing it? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I second that. The rejection of year ranges by the validation has broken links to valid citations from {{harv}} and {{sfn}} in many articles. Kanguole 02:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Extra text in |date=

Another example: in the article 163P/NEAT the date "2012-01-20 last obs". At date= to |type= be acceptable to remove citation error messages? I argue that "2013-03-03 (solution date)" would be a more appropriate date, but the principle is the same. Some sources don't have a traditional publication date found in the traditional place (top center of front page of newspaper, copyright page of a book, etc.) Thus one must be able to specify which of several reasonable publication dates the editor has decided to cite. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module week of 2013-11-03

Toward the end of this week I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox (diff). This update changes several things:

  1. Added deprecated parameter tracking for deprecated parameters: Adds pages to Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters when they contain the parameters |month=, |coauthor=, and |coauthors=
  2. Extract common code from checkisbn() and issn() into new function is_valid_isxn(): Checkdigit calculation code for ISSN and for ISBN-10 is esentially the same so created a single function to do that
  3. Migrate cite thesis: discussion
  4. ISBN 13 checked for 978 and 979 prefixes: discussion
  5. Migrate cite techreport: discussion
  6. Date validation: discussion – by far the largest, this change checks dates for format compliance with MOS:DATE, checks date validity (no June 31, etc), allows year disambiguation in CITEREF identifiers when referenced authors have multiple works published in the same year without the need to use both |date= and |year=, and does not corrupt the COinS metadata.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Done.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Why deprecate coauthors it is useful parameter for those authors one does not wish to include in a short citation. I often use it for et all. If I am not to use if for that purpose what is the most elegant work around? -- PBS (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a citation where you have used |coauthors= to achieve a desired effect? We can probably show you how to use valid parameters to achieve the same effect. I use |displayauthors= when I want to show only a few authors and have "et al." added automatically. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to find one, as I have not kept records of such edits. But here is a source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=117002 where coauthors would be useful. The point is I do not want to have to type in half a dozen or more authors when I can simply use coauthors=et all to do the same thing.

Take for example this citation with eight authors

{{citation |last1=one |last2=two |last3=thee |last4=four |last5=five |last6=six |last7=seven |last8=eight |year=2001 |title=Title}} one; two; thee; four; five; six; seven; eight (2001), Title generates CITEREFonetwotheefour2001

With displayauthors

{{citation |displayauthors=1 |last1=one |last2=two |last3=thee |last4=four |last5=five |last6=six |last7=seven |last8=eight |year=2001 |title=Title}} one; two; thee; four; five; six; seven; eight (2001), Title {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help) generates CITEREFonetwotheefour2001

With coauthors

{{citation |last1=one |coauthors=''et al'' |year=2001 |title=Title}} one (2001), Title {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) generates CITEREFone2001

So displayauthors= and coauthors= generate similar looking output but the CITEREF generated is different -- Why add names to a reference that are not displayed when coauthors=et al is easier to type and does not cause complications with CITEREF? (WYSIWYG) -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying two things. I don't know how to show or see the CITEREF.
One author with displayauthors
{{citation |displayauthors=1 |last1=one |year=2001 |title=Title}}
one (2001), Title {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help) generates CITEREFone2001 (I don't know how to see the CITEREF)
One author with last2=et al.
{{citation |last1=one |last2=''et al.'' |year=2001 |title=Title}}
one; et al. (2001), Title {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help) generates CITEREFoneet_al.2001 (I don't know how to see the CITEREF)
– Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You can determine a CITEREF by viewing the page source; search for
<span id="CITEREF
and it goes from there to the next double quote. Alternatively, fill in the parameters of {{harvid}} and sandbox it:
{{harvid|one|2001}} → CITEREFone2001
{{harvid|one|et al.|2001}} → CITEREFoneet_al.2001
I've filled them in above. One reason not to use et al. but instead supply all the authors and set |displayauthors= is so that all of them get added to the COinS metadata. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
{{harvnb|one|''et al.''|2001}} does generate "CITEREFoneet_al.2001" but not in the form that appears on this page it generates "CITEREFone.27.27et_al..27.272001" while {{citation |last1=one |last2=''et al.''|year=2001 |title=Title}} generates CITEREFoneet_al.2001 no italics in CITEREF. So the two do not match.
Why bother with embedding et al in the CITEREF when one can use coauthors=et all and bypass it? After all we have just established (below) that if one has five or more author parameters they CITEREF will not match the {[tl|harvnb}} use of the same author parameters. Even if that is fixed (and the italic problem is fixed), it seems to me better to use coauthors=et all as it means less parameters and therefore less chance of errors in typing in names of multiple authors that are visually obscured and therefore harder to check for spelling errors and typos. It is far less confusing for people to understand that any value in "coauthors" will be ignored as part of the ref=harv construction than trying to explain the intricacies of something they can not even see and with which errors which are clearly not widely known event to those who are interested in the subject and commenting here. -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Therefore I think that coauthors should be note be depreciated, and I would appreciate it if someone would indicate where the consensus was formed that it should be depreciated. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

CS1 does not have any particular guidance about how to treat institutional authors, for example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Should they be considered an author or a publisher. Naturally many editors over the years will have decided to treat institutional authors as authors. Thus, the coauthors parameter must continue to be supported to allow for the case where a publication is written by two or more institutions. Obviously last2 and first2 are not suitable parameters if the second author is an institution. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: Couldn't you use |author2=National Institute of Standards and Technology instead? GoingBatty (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There are so many misapprehensions on this page that I just don't know where they are all coming from; I've already dealt with some elsewhere on this page.
Putting italics into a surname will not break a CITEREF link, but those italics are unnecessary if the documentation is followed. Forget coauthors, and fill in as many |lastn=|firstn= pairs as there are individual authors. Institutional or corporate authors go in |authorn=. Set |displayauthors=1 if you want "et al." to be displayed after the first author. Set |ref=harv (unnecessary if you're using {{citation}}). Fill in {{harvnb}} as per its documentation with no more than four surnames. Save it; the links will work.
If you don't believe me, you can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to check quickly whether any of the links from {{harvnb}} are broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Redrose64 you write "Putting italics into a surname will not break a CITEREF link". It is not that it is broken but that the harvard templates do include the italic symbols in CITEREF while {{citation}} does not. But because the output is hidden it seem even expedience users can find it confusing:
Here is an example to show that it does:
First long verified sentence with italics.[1]
Second long verified sentence with no italics.[2]
Notes
  1. ^ one & et al 3001, p. 101.
  2. ^ one & et al 3001, p. 101.
References
  • one; et al. (3001), Title {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help) (created with: <nowik>{{</nowiki>citation |last1=one |last2=et al |year=3001 |title=Title}} )
Redrose64 you also write "Forget coauthors, and fill in as many |lastn=|firstn= pairs as there are individual authors". Why make more work with potential unseen errors when one can simply use coauthors to achieve the same or better results?
Also Jc3s5h there may well be times that one wants to list co-author institutions in the long citation, but not mention them in the short citation. For example William Cobbett Cobbett's parliamentary history of England] can include "Great Britain Parliament" as one of the authors, but usually if one is using harv inline citations one would usually write (Corbbett 1625, p. 152) and not (Corbbett & Great Britain Parliament, 1625, p. 152) nor (Corbbett & et al, 1625, p. 152); which is another reason for keeping the flexibility afforded by coauthors.
Also (Corbbett & et al 1625, p. 152) looks tacky one would usual write that (Corbbett, et al 1625, p. 152)
I want to encourage more editors to use the citation templates. Making it more difficult to use and less intuitive will not help convince those who currently do not use them (because they say the templates are more trouble than they are worth), and making them fill out fields that are not then displayed etc is not the way to go. -- PBS (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
My comment about "Putting italics into a surname will not break a CITEREF link" concerned the surnames in {{citation}}. But the point is this: if you fill in |lastn= of {{citation}}, and the unnamed parameters of {{sfn}} correctly, the link between {{sfn}} and {{citation}} is automatic. The |coauthors= parameter has never been involved in the construction of these links. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
which is why it is desirable to keep the coauthors parameter as it simplifies what is otherwise an unnecessary complication. Since we started this thread I have come across an example of the sort of thing I am talking about, an example with one author who would be cited in a (harvard) citation, but where one may wish to cite the institution in the full citation:
example: last=Finch, author2=English Court of Chancery, or coauthors=English Court of Chancery
References
  • {{Citation |last=Finch |first=Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) |author2=English Court of Chancery |displayauthors=1 |year=1724 |editor-first=William |editor-last=Nelson |title=Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680) |publisher=R. Gosling}}
    • Finch, Heneage (Earl of Nottingham); English Court of Chancery (1724), Nelson, William (ed.), Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680), R. Gosling {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  • {{Citation |last=Finch |first=Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) |coauthors=English Court of Chancery |year=1725 |editor-first=William |editor-last=Nelson |title=Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680) |publisher=R. Gosling}}
    • Finch, Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) (1725), Nelson, William (ed.), Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680), R. Gosling {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Note that the year parameter is different 1724 and 1725. As an be seen displayauthors=1 does not have the desired affect instead it inverts the desired outcome (hiding authors in the long reference and requiring them in the short reference). -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Harv#Large_numbers_of_authors explains how to achieve what appears to be your desired effect. It also allows editors to accurately display the existence of additional authors in the short footnote, which |coauthors= does not do.
example: last=Finch, author2=English Court of Chancery, or coauthors=English Court of Chancery
  • A1 fact (Finch et al. 1726, p. 404) (links after following instructions)
  • A2 fact (Finch & English Court of Chancery 1726, p. 404) (no longer links since harvid is manually set, but if you want this result, just avoid using ref=harvid)
  • B fact (Finch 1727, p. 404) (links as expected but does not indicate existence of additional authors)
References
  • {{Citation |last=Finch |first=Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) |author2=English Court of Chancery |displayauthors=1 |year=1724 |editor-first=William |editor-last=Nelson |title=Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680) |publisher=R. Gosling |ref = {{harvid|Finch et al.|1726}}}}
    • Finch, Heneage (Earl of Nottingham); English Court of Chancery (1726), Nelson, William (ed.), Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680), R. Gosling {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  • {{Citation |last=Finch |first=Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) |coauthors=English Court of Chancery |year=1727 |editor-first=William |editor-last=Nelson |title=Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680) |publisher=R. Gosling}}
    • Finch, Heneage (Earl of Nottingham) (1727), Nelson, William (ed.), Reports of cases decreed in the High Court of Chancery: during the time Sir Heneage Finch, afterwards earl of Nottingham, was lord chancellor. (1673-1680), R. Gosling {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
– Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course one can do it through manipulating the CITEREF with {{harvid}}, but just lays yet another level of complexity onto the mix which can be avoided by using coauthors. I think it is important that the interface is kept as simple as possible for inexperienced users as there is a very strong prejudiced against using templates by some very experienced editors and making the interface of citation templates more complexed than they need to be is a mistake, and for that reason I think that 1727 with the option of using coauthors= should be kept. -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

CITEREF and harvnb and CITEREF and CS1

As a tangential point if there are more than 5 or more last=name then {{harvnb}} does not work because it allows five authors while {{citation}} only allows four.

{{citation |last1=one |last2=two |last3=three |last4=four |last5=five |last6=six |last7=seven |last8=eight |year=2001 |title=Title}} one; two; three; four; five; six; seven; eight (2001), Title generates CITEREFonetwothreefour2001

{{harvnb|one|two|three|four|five|six|seven|eight|2001}}one et al. 2001 generates |CITEREFonetwothreefourfive (NB no year)

-- PBS (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

{{harvnb}} does not allow five authors: it allows four plus a year - the documentation does state "Up to four authors can be given as parameters. (If there are more than 4 authors only the first 4 should be listed." Taking your last example and formatting it correctly, we have {{harvnb|one|two|three|four|2001}}one et al. 2001 generates |CITEREFonetwothreefour2001 --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of how to work around it, but that is not really the point, at the moment there are two templates that are meant to share a common protocol (CITEREF) and if there are more than four authors they behave differently. As most editors will not be displaying the CITEREF value when editing a page and are unlikely to notice that documentation mentions this extremity, it would be much better if they handled five author parameters in the same way. -- PBS (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the CS1 templates use named parameters: |last=, |lastn=, |date=, etc. {{sfn}} and the {{harv}} family don't use named parameters except for location specifiers |p=, |pp=, or |loc=. Because of that, {{sfn}} expects that editors will obey the rules and set the last parameter in the template to a year value that will match with the |date= value in the CS1 citation.
I suppose that we could change Module:Footnotes to check the value of the last positional parameter to make sure that it looks like a number and emit an error message if it dosn't. That seems a bit unnecessary to me because the HarvErrors script handles that quite adequately.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That is not an elegant solution because someone may have rolled their own using {{SfnRef}}. I think it can be fixed in a more elegant way by looking at the number of unnamed parameters: If the number unnamed parameter >5 then ignore all but the first 4 and the last one. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A sandbox version of {{sfn}}. This only changes the {{sfn}} portion of Module:Footnotes/sandbox.
{{sfn/sandbox|First|Second|Third|Fourth|Fifth|Sixth|Seventh|Eighth|Year}}
which yields an inline citation[1] with this CITEREF anchor id: CITEREFFirstSecondThirdFourthYear

References

  1. ^ First et al.
This is what you are looking for?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The documentation at {{sfn}} points out several other template names that can be used to perform the same function as sfn. For example, an inline cite might be coded ...wrote the group<ref name=JonesGang>{{harvnb|Jones |Cruthers|Peters |Chen |Ng |Phillips |2013}}</ref>. Clearly all the template names that serve the same purpose as sfn should work the same. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

{{harvnb}} doesn't take six authors, and nor does {{sfn}}. All of the {{harv}} group accept up to four surnames, one year, plus any one of |p= |pp= or |loc=. If used as per the documentation - that is, with no more than four surnames in the {{harvnb}} - the link to the {{citation}} works even if {{citation}} has 100 authors. Same goes for {{cite book}} and the other WP:CS1 templates, provided that you supply |ref=harv. The {{harvnb}} displays all the surnames if there are three or fewer, but if there are exactly four, it displays the first one only plus "et al." If you don't like {{citation}} to display 100 authors, just set |displayauthors=1 and it too will display one plus "et al." The linking between {{harvnb}} and {{citation}} will work, and there is no need for any "workarounds". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk I have only looked at the code and the result you published, and yes that looks like a fix for this problem, well done. I assume you will generalise that solution.-- PBS (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
No, please don't: it is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist. {{sfn}} is for Shortened footnotes, and the point about shortened footnotes is that they are short. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The result does not alter the length but if fixes a potential problem. It is far better to fix it in code that rely on people reading the manual that may or may not be up to date. -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Coauthors

I wrote above "Therefore I think that coauthors should be not be depreciated deprecated, and I would appreciate it if someone would indicate where the consensus was formed that it should be depreciated deprecated." Will someone please provide the link. -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You are the only person who used the term "depreciated". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If the coauthors parameter is used, an error category shows that says "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters". So I think PBS is right here using the term "deprecated". Debresser (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
These are two different words with different meanings. Depreciated is the antonym of appreciated, but the term that applies here is deprecated. Something that has been deprecated is being replaced or discontinued without any judgment on its value. Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually that is not so the meaning of deprecate in the OEDL: "To plead earnestly against; to express an earnest wish against (a proceeding); to express earnest disapproval of (a course, plan, purpose, etc.)." Until I looked it up I had always assumed that it was just a spelling difference between British and American English, my mistake. The OED goes on to say in a 1993 draft edition "More generally, to express disapproval of (a person, quality, etc.); to disparage or belittle. (Sometimes confused with depreciate.) ... Widely regarded as incorrect, though found in the work of established writers." -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny how the messenger and not the message is the subject of this thread. The point remains I do not think that coauthors should be deprecated. If there was ever a discussion on this subject in which a consensus was agreed could someone please indicate where in the archives it can be found. If no such discussion can be found then the message should be remove from the category mentioned by Debresser. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Shortened month names

I seem to have noticed that shortened month names are treated as error by CS1. And I assume that this is because the module can't tell the difference between a date in a reference or a date outside a reference (and the more so between a date outside a reference, that should really have been a reference and not just a raw link). Is that correct? I would agree with continuing that behavior. Even recommend it. After all, the fact that short names are allowed doesn't mean that there is a problem with writing them out. I personally even find it preferable. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser: Shortened month names (e.g. "Jan", "Sep") are acceptable in the |date= parameter per WP:DATESNO and do not give a CS1 error. However, you will see CS1 errors for shortened month names with periods (e.g. "Jan.") or abbreviations with more than three letters (e.g. "Sept"). If you're seeing something different, please provide an example. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Cite book with short month name. 30 Dec 2013.
Short month names are acceptable. Punctuation (a terminal period on the month, inappropriate comma placement, etc) is likely what you are seeing.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose so. Thanks again for being on top of things. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I noticed that WP:MOSDATE mentions no full stops after the day, but where does it say that there should be no full stop after the month abbreviation? Debresser (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Aha. I see this is mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Abbreviated_months_in_citations. And that the issue is as yet unresolved. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
But contrary to WP:MOSDATE I notice that shortened month names are allowed not only in references. CS1 allows it in all citation templates, whether or not they are references. I suppose that is because the code can't differentiate? Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around: make them all an error. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide an example of an article where CS1 is not displaying an error because a citation template is not used as a reference, and shortened month names should not be used per WP:MOSDATE?
The only possible use of a CS1 template I can imagine that wouldn't be a reference would be an entry in a further reading list, and I can't see any reason to have different rules for reference lists vs. further reading lists. As for imposing stricter rules, this obscure talk page on the coding of a module is not the appropriate place to make such a proposal; it should be proposed where editors who use CS1 templates will see it. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It could be a "Further reading" list. It could be a reference which is not a footnote. Sometimes editors forget to add the<ref>...</ref> tags, especially inexperienced editors.
I would not impose stricter 'rules'. I would propose that the module should mark them as errors. Because outside references that is what they are. That way they would be fixed. Just that alongside with that, they would be changed outside references as well. Which is not a problem in itself. Shouldn't discussion here be enough? If not, where then? Debresser (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Jc3s5h. Wider consensus that includes editors who use the templates must be obtained before making these types of changes.
The citations in further reading lists are exactly equivalent to reference lists. If an abbreviated month is not marked as an error in the later, it should not be marked in the former. Per WP:DATEFORMAT, abbreviated months are acceptable in references, tables, lists or areas where conciseness is needed. Hence there may be other situations where the use of abbreviated months is acceptable. Similar to the deprecated month parameter, why fix something that isn't broken? Boghog (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Jan." is preferable to "Jan" but in nearly all cases January is better. I tend to agree with Boghog unless there is a clear consensus (gained from a well advertised RfC in a predominate place) changes like these should not be made with bots. I was very surprised to see this list: User talk:GoingBatty#Additional date parameter errors for BattyBot to fix. Where is there a clear consensus for any of those proposed bot changes? Taking the first one as an example date= to |type= be acceptable to remove citation error messages? it involves less than six editors who do not agree, that is nowhere near enough to implement a bot change. -- PBS (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The first proposed change will not be implemented unless there is consensus. That is why I posted a query at the relevant project's Talk page. Most of the others are clearly errors per the MOS. The MOS is a result of consensus decisions made on the MOS Talk page, as far as I know. If you would like to continue this discussion or discuss other changes proposed in that list, please do so at the original location. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The MOS is a guideline not policy, and there is an awful lot in the MOS for which there is little agreement, and which is contradictory over the pages of the MOS, so using the MOS as justification for bot changes is questionable unless it can be shown that there is a specific consensus for the change. But to give you one example in that list above that is clearly not following the MOS guideline (there are probably many more). Take number "6" changing months from "MMM." to "MMM" is contrary to the MOS which recommends full dates, so who has decided that this list of actions is desirable for a bot to do? -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As indicated above, WP:DATESNO (aka MOS:DATEFORMAT) clearly shows that "MMM" is acceptable in references. GoingBatty (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

date=undated

It seems that |date=undated and |date=no date generate errors, but |date=nd and |date=n.d. do not.

How should we resolve these errors?

  1. Allow |date=undated and/or |date=no date
  2. Change them to |date=nd or |date=n.d. ("nd" and "n.d." seem less clear to me)
  3. Remove them from citations (do they add any value?)
  4. Something else?

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

They add value because it makes it clear that the editor who wrote the citation looked for a date but didn't find one, suggesting that subsequent editors might want to direct their efforts to some other area to improve, rather than searching for a publication date. It could also distinguish between an undated and dated version of the same publication, or between two works by the same author, one of which was dated and the other which was not dated. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Jc3s5h that they should stay. I think that "nd" and "n.d." are unclear to a casual reader and would prefer "no date" and possibly "undated" to be allowed. It looks like both APA and Chicago say to use "n.d.", so now I'm down to just not liking it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "nd" and "n.d." are awful and will only cause confusion; date=none is best. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"n.d." or "nd" is a standard abbreviation in The Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA style guide. If we don't want to use the abbreviation, then spell it out, but let's not re-invent the wheel here unless necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 00:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We already call for an approximate citation date to be preceded with "c.", and one must be fairly familiar with scholarly writing to understand that. I think "n.d." is no more obscure than "c." Jc3s5h (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If we allow all the above, we should also allow "unknown" and "N/A", e.g. And basically there is no limit to what you would end up having to allow. For that reason I would prefer to allow none of the above: nothing at all. If that would meet with strong opposition from editors who like the Chicago standards or other, as I would expect it to, then we should make a rule that only "n.d." or "nd" will be allowed, and say so clearly in WP:MOSDATE. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

CS1 error does not display when citation is not displayed, but the category is applied

I had a devil of a time finding an "unnamed parameter" error in Hydraulic fracturing. The article was in the category, but the error was not displayed. I think I figured it out after a little detective work involving a text editor. Here's the citation in question. Note the "|DOI: 10.5339/qfarf.2013.EEP-070 " parameter, which should be "DOI = ", not "DOI: ". The reference appears within a {{reflist}} template and is apparently not used in the article. It is almost surrounded by an HTML comment, but it's missing one hyphen at the start. I don't know what to make of this.

<!-ref name="flaring">{{cite journal | url= http://www.qscience.com/doi/abs/10.5339/qfarf.2013.EEP-070 | title=Managing process flares due to abnorma-l situation via design of co-gen system of discontinuous sources |last1=Eljack|first1=Fadwa |journal = Qatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Proceedings |volume=2013, EEP 070 |DOI: 10.5339/qfarf.2013.EEP-070 |date=22 November 2013| accessdate = 2013-12-29 }}</ref-->

This citation renders as nothing, whether it is commented or not:

(nothing).

But the error category is applied nonetheless.

I don't know what can be done here, but it sure is going to be hard for editors to find errors in hidden citations when there is no error message displayed. I suppose since the category is hidden, only error-obsessed editors will care. For now, I applied the missing hyphen so that the citation would be completely commented out, which rightly removes the error category. I also could have fixed the DOI parameter, but this works for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


That reference isn't listed by {{reflist|refs=}} because references aren't displayed if they don't have a matching <ref name= /> tag in the article text. Because the comment markup is incomplete the wikimedia processor can't match <!-ref name="flaring"> to a valid tag so ignores it.
Because the comment tag is incomplete, the CS1 template is processed normally which adds the page to the error category and would display the error message if the reference were displayed. Unfortunately, all of this stuff that prevents the citation's display is outside the bailiwick of Module:Citation/CS1.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This problem, which I had never seen before today despite fixing hundreds of article in the unnamed parameters category, also appears to exist in LeSean McCoy. I haven't tracked down the error yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone manually added Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters. --  Gadget850 talk 05:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Great catch. Something new under the sun. I have fixed CS1 errors in maybe 20,000 articles, and I hadn't seen that happen yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If the error is hidden for some reason, it should still show in the rendered HTML. I could not find it, so I searched for the category. --  Gadget850 talk 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive URLs are marked as errors if there is no url= even where there is a contribution-url = or chapter-url=. In such cases when a valid URL is provided for contributor or chapter the lack of a url= is not an error, and should not be marked as such. There are cases where only a chapter, or contribution is available online without the entire work. Yes, it would be nice to have a URL for the entire work, but it is not an error for there not to be one. At a minimum, there should be a parameter to specify that it has been checked and the error should not be displayed.

Further, what field gets linked with which URL is wrong in some cases. In these cases the contribution-url = and chapter-url = links should be on what is displayed from the contribution = and chapter = parameters. The url= should be on the title=. If the archive-url is provided and deadurl=no is not present, the archive URL should be the link for the contribution or chapter.


Without archiveurl: Citation that uses contribution-url= no url=:    (good)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = no url=:    (good)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses contribution-url= with url=:    (good)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = with url=:    (good)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)


With archiveurl:

Citation that uses contribution-url= no url=:    (title links to archive-url. Should link to nothing; contribution should link to archive-url; "the original" should link to contribution-url; shows error which is not actually an error, just a desire to have a URL for title)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = no url=:    (title links to archive-url. Should link to nothing; chapter should link to archive-url; "the original" should link to chapter-url; shows error which is not actually an error, just a desire to have a URL for title)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses contribution-url= with url=:    (title links to archive-url. Should link to url; contribution should link to archive-url; "the original" should link to contribution-url)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = with url=:    (title links to archive-url. Should link to url; chapter should link to archive-url; "the original" should link to chapter-url)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)


With archiveurl and deadurl=no:

Citation that uses contribution-url= no url=:    (shows error which is not actually an error, just a desire to have a URL for title)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = no url=:    (shows error which is not actually an error, just a desire to have a URL for title)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Citation that uses contribution-url= with url=:    (good)
"The Contribution", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Citation that uses chapter-url = with url=:    (good)
"The Chapter", The Title, July/Aug 2013, archived from the original on 5 Aug 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)


Thanks. Makyen (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these detailed citation examples. I have merged your |month= and |year= parameters to result in the same rendered citation, but without "deprecated parameter" errors that are displayed for some editors. Removing these error messages make it clearer where there are |archiveurl= messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for changing the depreciated parameters. I had cut & pasted the original citation and forgot to change them when cleaning it up to be more a readable example. Programming requires testing. Testing requires test cases to show what is happening both before and after changes. Without cases that show the issues it is difficult both to communicate and to find/fix issues.
In the final parts of my editing, I forgot to copy & paste the statement about the archiveurl error not being an error onto the first two occurrences. That has been corrected above. Basically, all four archiveurl errors above should not be displayed as errors (each has a primary URL specified).Makyen (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HTML entity for n-dash

My sandbox experiments seem to indicate the new version of the module flags date ranges that use &ndash; as invalid dates, but ones that use a genuine n-dash are not flagged as errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's try some here:
Cite journal comparison
Wikitext {{cite journal|date=July-August 1996|journal=Journal of Examples|sandbox=yes|title=Journal article}}
Live "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
Sandbox "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
date range with hyphen
Cite journal comparison
Wikitext {{cite journal|date=July–August 1996|journal=Journal of Examples|sandbox=yes|title=Journal article}}
Live "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
Sandbox "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
date range with {{ndash}}
Cite journal comparison
Wikitext {{cite journal|date=July–August 1996|journal=Journal of Examples|sandbox=yes|title=Journal article}}
Live "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
Sandbox "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
date range with &ndash;
Cite journal comparison
Wikitext {{cite journal|date=July–August 1996|journal=Journal of Examples|sandbox=yes|title=Journal article}}
Live "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
Sandbox "Journal article". Journal of Examples. July–August 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
date range with typed endash
Any more we wish to try? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Additional case: Journal with volume beginning mid-year:
Cite journal comparison
Wikitext {{cite journal|date=December 1995 – January 1996|journal=Journal of Examples|sandbox=yes|title=Journal article}}
Live "Journal article". Journal of Examples. December 1995 – January 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
Sandbox "Journal article". Journal of Examples. December 1995 – January 1996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help)
date range with typed endash, volume starts mid-year
Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: This additional case is an example of a valid date range (discussion above) that needs to be added to the module. The endash is not causing the error in this case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC affecting valid dates

User:EEng has proposed removing the limitation that dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format be in the Gregorian calendar, and the corresponding range limitation making the first valid year 1583 and the last valid year 9999 (for that format). This change could affect date validation. I have started an RFC at WT:MOSNUM#RFC: Connection between ISO 8601 standard and YYYY-MM-DD date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Archive_9&oldid=597462884"