Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Test and implementation processes

As someone who is familiar with professional implementation of computer code, I am familiar with finding bugs in multi-levelled code (down to kernal level), but for someone who is not they would have be pulling their hair out yesterday, and would have had no idea how to work out if it was a problem they had caused or a change elsewhere. While I appreciate that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit what are the test and implementation processes that for changing CS1 code?

I am deeply concerned that changes are being made to the functionality of the {{citation}} interfaces for which there have been no RfCs to agree the change in the functionality. This should be the first part change control process so that a functional specification can be generated .... But I assume I am teaching my mother how to suck eggs, because I assume that anyone messing around with this code is familiar with how user specification are drawn up; How a functional specification is generated from that user specification; how code is written from that functional specification and how tests are written to test against the functional specification to test the changes before implantation takes place. Luckily thanks to the history mechanism there is little need for a formal roll back procedure, but there should be a widely advertised forum where implementation errors can be discussed before a roll back takes place (as of course one has to identify cases of false positives). -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked before for some sort of specification or style guide for CS1. The community have thus far declined. Because you are familiar with software implementation, will you write a specification for us?

In lieu of a formal process, whenever I make changes to Module:Citation/CS1, or to templates outside of this project, I always talk about it. Always. For CS1, changes are always made to the sandbox first; postings where I discuss the changes are usually here (unless started by someone else in some other place). Before I update the live module, I always post a notification here and at WT:AWB with links to the relevant discussions at least a week in advance of the update. All of this so that editors can check my work. This simple set of procedures is mostly effective. It doesn't always work as yesterday demonstrates. Do you have a better process that I should follow?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite template throwing invalid error message for date=yyyy-mm

The cite template has recently started to throw an error message for date=yyyy-mm. This is incorrect and needs to be fixed as the outcome of the RfC on this (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 146#Rfc: Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format.3F_Part_4) was not to disallow this format. Also, it explicitly states that mass changes should be avoided, and if the cite template doesn't get fixed mass changes is exactly what will happen now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the strike-through will just confuse people. What does it actually mean? Right here, right now, CS1 considers xxxx-xx dates to be erroneous. An editor sees an error message and clicks the Help link. The condition in the article is described by text that has been struck through. How is the editor supposed to interpret that? The purpose of Help:CS1 errors is to completely and accurately describe the error messages' meanings. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, running into this I as a reader would interpret it as something in transition and simply not act on it. If I was curious, I would look at the talk page or in the history. Of course, the obvious fix to the problem is to just fix the module not to throw this error any more. If you think it can't be fixed easily, we could also add a note explaining the situation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true for an editor of your experience level. For others, perhaps not. Those who come to this help page are generally seeking answers, not more questions. It doesn't matter that there is dispute about the presence of an error message; it does matter that an error message exists and editors who come here want to know what it means and what to do about it. The strike through should be removed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How is this for a compromise? or this? —PC-XT+ 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't 'warn' a bit strong? The closing admin "[recommended] ... [that] mass changes [shouldn't be] made purely on the basis of [the] RfC." (emphasis mine)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes, it should be close to the wording of the RfC result. I made the change. —PC-XT+ 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange date error

See Brahma Vaivarta Purana, at least 2 of the cited references of books are showing error with dates. I tried solving this, but couldn't. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. When two years are as far apart as they are in 1920 and 1974, it's probable that one is the year of first publication and the other is a more recent publication. But, without I have it in my hand to be sure, I can't be sure. Text that is not a date does not belong in a date-holding parameter. I followed the JSTOR link to get the journal's date and used that. Because the article is available at JSTOR, I deleted |accessdate=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] That was genius of you. Pretty good that you could also find JSTOR. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Having error on Gliese 687 - Citation No.4 Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti:  Fixed - changed |date=June 20/24 1966 to |date=June 20–24, 1966 per the source. GoingBatty (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• See citation No.12 on Bala Krishna. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks a mess to me. Whoever placed that citation seems confused about what is actually being cited:

{{cite book | first =Satsvarupa dasa| last =Goswami| url = http://www.sdgonline.org| title =Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta Vol 1-2| publisher = GN Press | date = 1980-82/2002| isbn = 0-89213-357-0 | page = Ch.13 "Struggling Alone"}}

|url= links to a website that I presume is the author's website; |isbn= links to Special:BookSources which identifies this citation as a book citation (this is somewhat supported by the misuse of |page= which identifies the chapter and not a page; |title= refers to volumes 1-2 so which volume contains the 'chapter' identified in |page=; and of course the date is all buggered-up.

I found what is probably the quote the citation references here. That might allow you to fix the citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Undated

Not sure if this is the right place but a bot is changing the clear "undated" to the what the chuff does that mean "n.d.", if anybody can explain why we should change clear language and add confusion or point me to the right place to make the point, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any, though, for a slightly larger audience of watchers, you might want to consider moving this topic to Help talk:Citation Style 1.

The use of n.d. to indicate that there isn't an available date is consistent with APA and The Chicago Manual of Style.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank, it may well consistent with these American style guides but to the general reader it just causes confusion, it would better to have the field blank if you cant use the concise term like "undated" then some unknown american style abbreviation. Presume we put slavish following of random style guides over clarity. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad you asked, and couldnt agree more with MilborneOne! While I live in America, I am also not familiar with n.d. meaning no date. Ive seen it to mean not done in my line of work. I like 'no date' or 'undated', which is exactly what I used up until just this moment, when I got the error message that undated wont work .

I am not as angry as Milborne, but find his point is well taken, Trappist the monk. How much non-U.S. traffic goes over the en.wikipedia? Are there any estimates? 80% of readers and maybe a little less for editors? wild guess, but I'd be surprised if people outside the US are familiar with nd.

Also, I actually have never seen anybody mark the date field 'undated', although this is clearly quite often the case for webcitations (most if not all US gvt websites, except EPA) where a missing date in the reference is ambiguous. This goes to show, that the average Joe editor doesnt even know that 'no available date' is even an option. Case for education.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A handful of searches reveal these data points:

Number of pages with citations using:

|date=n.d.: 2,439

|date=nd: 71 (BattyBot task 25 converts this form to 'n.d.')

|date=undated: 782

|date=no date: 269

I don't know why APA, CMOS, and apparently, The MLA Style Manual have chosen to use 'n.d.' I don't know if there are published style guides that use 'no date' or 'undated'. I do know that style in CS1 is primarily guided by Wikipedia's [[MOS:|MOS]] and when that source is mute on a topic, is guided by published style guides. That, as I understand it, is the goal at any rate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these data,Trappist the monk! I rest my case.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that the errors are visible to all, BattyBot is also changing |date=undated and |date=no date to |date=n.d. GoingBatty (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)