Jump to content

Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Help talk:CS1 errors
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 16 August 2015 (Archiving 2 discussions from Help talk:CS1 errors. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 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)
@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)
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)

Years before 0.

Regarding Help:CS1 errors#bad date. How to do the formatting to prevent a warning from showing up when the publication year is BCE? For example, if the publication "year=c. 431 BCE", then what needs to be changed to make the warning go away? Because I tried removing c., that doesn't fix it. I also tried B.C.E. and BC, and that doesn't fix it. I tried -431, and that isn't being accepted either. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

CS1 doesn't support dates before 100, consequently, it doesn't understand eras.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean that articles with such years in references are doomed to contain warnings until the end of time? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"431 BCE" could go in |origyear=, with the publication date of the source you are actually citing (and viewing with your own eyes), or to which you are referring readers, in |date=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes; thanks. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Help request: Another error trigger for date=? If so, please add it to the help section: Help:CS1_errors#bad_date. Thanks.

I think I found another way a date can be bad, but I am not sure it's actually missing from Help:CS1_errors#bad_date because I am very tired, and real life limitations will probably prevent me from making it back here.

I think I solved an error in Jafar Panahi triggered by the date being 07 instead of 7 with no leading zero. I based this on the following edit summaries:

  • (cur | prev) 02:05, October 29, 2014‎ Geekdiva (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,792 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Earlier legal problems: Another try at fixing the date problem: date=07 May 2001 → date=7 May 2001) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 01:59, October 29, 2014‎ Geekdiva (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,793 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Earlier legal problems: Added |nolink=y to the Sic template to prevent error of Wikilink in title. While I corrected the date= formatting, that didn't correct the date= error. Removing space to fix.) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 01:56, October 29, 2014‎ Geekdiva (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,785 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Earlier legal problems: Filmaker[sic] → Filmaker Template:Sic. Kept spelling & used T:Sic since this is the title of the ref. Corrected date= error and updated accessdate=.) (undo)

Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the link from the Help page to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Acceptable_date_formats, you'll see the instructions "Do not 'zero-pad' month or day". Good job fixing the error! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. (Wow, I did make it back here after leaving the tab up all night & day!) The mnemonic/shortcut MOS:DATEFORMAT works for me, although WP:YR is shorter.

I did open some of the links in the Help text, but eventually my eyes just jumped to the bulleted list, where I didn't see a solution that matched my problem. It would be good if this section was rewritten in troubleshooting order. In particular, "Following discussion here and further notification here, this error message will be enabled for display 11–12 October 2014," was distracting & confusing.

Gotta run! Thanks again, --Geekdiva (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that section was a mess. I've rewritten it to take out all of the examples. Too much clutter.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

underscores in parameter names used in error messages

At some point recently (during last year I would guess... maybe I'll track it down later), the recommended form of |trans_title= and |trans_chapter= was changed to |trans-title= and |trans-chapter=, respectively. That is, the underscores were changed to dashes. However the error messages for these when |title= or |chapter= are missing is still using the old underscore versions of these parameters:

  • [example]. {{cite book}}: |trans-title= requires |title= or |script-title= (help)
  • [example]. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

The documentation still also uses the underscore versions in places it should not. The accelerated pace of cite template work since the the translation to LUA has done great things for Wikipedia but I think we need to be more meticulous in keeping the connected material (error messages, documentation, and so forth) as sync'ed as possible. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The error messages were fixed in the sandbox some time ago. Your examples using that code:
  • [example]. {{cite book}}: |trans-title= requires |title= or |script-title= (help)
  • [example]. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
I expect to update the live module from the sandbox tomorrow morning. Yep, documentation isn't what it could be. We won't turn away helpers ...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasons and quarters are not allowed in date field

Many publications are listed as being published in a season, like "Spring 2011" or "Autumn 2012". An error is returned when this is put in the date field. These kinds of values should be accepted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Seasons are allowed. For example, {{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|date=Spring 2011}} generates:
"Title". Journal. Spring 2011.
Note that the season name must be capitalized. If you have an example where the season gives an error, please share it here.
For a previous discussion on quarters, please see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#cite journal and quarterly publications. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
GoingBatty Thanks for the explanation - that works.
I think there is universal consensus in grammar guides that seasons are generic nouns, not proper nouns, and that it is incorrect to capitalize them. If the policy is to capitalize them on Wikipedia then I think that is nonintuitive, and that both capitalized and non-capitalized season names should be allowed unless there is an extraordinary reason to disallow grammatically correct usage.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Please see Help:Citation Style 1#CS1 compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#Proposal on season capitalization, and Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#Time to show date error messages?. GoingBatty (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct format for the publication date of a bimonthly publication

I'm struggling to find an acceptable date format for the publication date of a bimonthly publication. The date is quoted by the publication itself as Jan/Feb 2015, but all my attempts to express that to the cite news template gives me a check date error. You can see my attempts in the history for Islay Airport. What format should I use?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE does not allow the use of the virgule as a date separator. The only separator allowed is an endash so the closest approximation of the Jan/Feb 2015 is Jan–Feb 2015. With that, the citation looks like this:
Shaw, Robbie (Jan–Feb 2015). "Serving the Southern Hebrides". Airports of the World. No. 57. Key Publishing Ltd. pp. 80–83.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried dash but not endash; should have thought of that. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

|format= requires |url= in Template:Cite encyclopedia

The clean up listing for WikiProject Somerset is showing several CS1 errors for articles ( including Athelm, Berhtwald, Robert Burnell, Sigeric the Serious) which use the Template:Cite encyclopedia for pages of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've looked at the template to try to repair the "|format= requires |url=" error, but can't understand what the problem is. Any help or advice appreciated.— Rod talk 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

At Athelm the two error messages arise because {{cite encyclopedia}} is not correctly handling |format=. {{cite encyclopedia}} is unique in that it promotes parameters depending on what it's given. For example from Athelm, the citation does not have |article= so the value in |title= is promoted to |article=, the aforementioned |title=, now vacated, receives its value from |encyclopedia=. Attendant parameters |url= and |trans-title= if present are also promoted. But |format= is not and should be. I have fixed that in the sandbox.
Cite encyclopedia comparison
Wikitext {{cite encyclopedia|accessdate=7 November 2007|author=Mason, Emma|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/832|encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography|format=<span style="font-size:0.95em; font-size:95%; color: var( --color-subtle, #555 )">(subscription or [https://www.oxforddnb.com/help/subscribe#public UK public library membership] required)</span>|publisher=Oxford University Press|title=Athelm (d. 926)|url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/832|year=2004}}
Live Mason, Emma (2004). "Athelm (d. 926)" ((subscription or UK public library membership required)). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/832. Retrieved 7 November 2007. {{cite encyclopedia}}: External link in |format= (help)
Sandbox Mason, Emma (2004). "Athelm (d. 926)" ((subscription or UK public library membership required)). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/832. Retrieved 7 November 2007. {{cite encyclopedia}}: External link in |format= (help)
There is a second problem not of my doing at Athelm: the template {{ODNBsub}} is not a file format and so does not belong in |format=. That template is best placed outside of the CS1 citation template. Removing {{ODNBsub}} from |format= will clear the error.
Mason, Emma (2004). "Athelm (d. 926)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/832. Retrieved 7 November 2007. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will not claim to understand all of that, but have copied your example into the article & will try to fiddle with the others to see if I can work them out.— Rod talk 14:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rod instead of using {{cite encyclopedia}} consider using the wrapper {{cite ODNB}} which fills out most of the fields for you.
{{cite encyclopedia |author=Mason, Emma |title=Athelm (d. 926) |encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography |publisher= Oxford University Press |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/832 |doi= 10.1093/ref:odnb/832 |format= }} {{ODNBsub}}
becomes
{{cite ODNB |last=Mason |first=Emma |title=Athelm (d. 926)|year=2004 |id=832}}
Mason, Emma (2004). "Athelm (d. 926)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/832. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
This also has the advantage of placing the article into the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the ODNB which helps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. Also consider adding {{DNBfirst}} if relevant. -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A bit tired of the overcare CS1 tries to impose

While it does help to bring more discipline to the dates field, there are many examples where (at least for me) it is a timewaster, the most recent example for me being at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Thornton#cite_ref-4 Neither the date 8 May, 2008 (nor 08 May, 2008) pass the redline test of CS1 for "archivedate=". Pray tell, whatsup?DadaNeem (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

CS1 simply enforces MOS:DATEFORMAT, and neither of your dates meet the allowed formats. The proper date is either May 8, 2008 or 8 May 2008. --  Gadget850 talk 00:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@DadaNeem: Since the article contains the hidden template {{Use dmy dates}}, "8 May 2008" is the proper format. GoingBatty (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Non-innocent ligand has a redlink category Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored instead of Category:CS1 errors: Chapter ignored. What's the best way to fix this? GoingBatty (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be because of this edit. So, we can move the category to the new name Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored or we can change change the module back to Category:CS1 errors: Chapter ignored. It would appear that editor Jonesey95 is correct in that consistency suggests that Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored is the correct name and that the category should be moved.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I have created the new category. Articles will migrate from the old category to the new category as they are refreshed by the job queue, or whatever it is called. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

book reviews

The error is flagged in Metal Ions in Life Sciences against some book reviews. These reviews occur in scientific journals but are not journal articles as such. Therefore they do not carry a title. The cite journal template correctly locates the book review but now gives this error. It did not do so before. I suggest a return to previous practice - don't make the title obligatory. Any response on Talk:Metal Ions in Life Sciences, please. Petergans (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Titles are required. For journal citations (and {{citation}} where |journal= is set) like this:
{{cite journal | first = Giuseppe L. | last = Squadrito | journal = J. Am. Chem. Soc. | year = 2007 | volume = 129 | issue = 27 | pages = 8670| doi = 10.1021/ja076902i}}
→Squadrito, Giuseppe L. (2007). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129 (27): 8670. doi:10.1021/ja076902i. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
you can add |title=none which will suppress the error message; if the parameter |url= is set, the citation must have a displayable title. For book reviews and the like that do not rise to the level of 'article' it might be a good idea to at least let readers know what the citation refers to by setting |department=Book Reviews or something similar:
{{cite journal |title=none |department=Book Reviews | first = Giuseppe L. | last = Squadrito | journal = J. Am. Chem. Soc. | year = 2007 | volume = 129 | issue = 27 | pages = 8670| doi = 10.1021/ja076902i}}
→Squadrito, Giuseppe L. (2007). Book Reviews. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129 (27): 8670. doi:10.1021/ja076902i.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Check date values" prevents editorial marks in citation date fields

It is common when a publication is known from a source other than the publication itself to indicate this in citations by using brackets around the date, like so: [17 January 1967]. Using this format in the date field of a citation template, however, generates the Check date values in: |date= error message, unlike "n.d." for when the date is truly unknowable. Is it possible to add an exception for brackets, or is that simply not meant to be used in this citation style? If the latter, is there some guide I can't find for whether to used n.d., or leave the field blank, or...? —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm have trouble wrapping my brain around when a publication is known from a source other than the publication itself. What does that mean, exactly? Can you give us an example where this notation is required and also, is there some published style guide that describes it?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you could use |orig-year=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No title error?

Could someone more familiar with these issues please take a look at Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)? I am using {{cite episode}} to cite "Inside Inside No. 9", and, though there is a title, an error is coming up. Have I done something wrong, or is this a false positive? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It happens when {{Cite episode}} is used without a series parameter:
Some code or documentation should maybe be changed. Is there ever reason to use {{Cite episode}} without series? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct. In this case, |title= is to |series= in {{cite episode}} as |chapter= is to |title= in {{cite book}}. Citing just a book's chapter doesn't help a reader. Of course, the documentation can almost always be made better. That |title= means different things to different CS1 templates is a problem that we have yet to overcome.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What would you recommend I do? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Is "Inside Inside No. 9" an episode of the series Inside No. 9 or is it something included on the series 1 DVD? If it isn't an episode of Inside No. 9 then perhaps you should be using {{cite AV media}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help- I will do just that. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Old accessdates do not work

Prior to this edit (see edit summary text) I saw an error pointing to Help:CS1_errors#bad_date. The date format wasn't obviously incorrect (checked by changing accessdate to date and the text here doesn't say anything about the restriction on the former). It seems intentional that accessdates can't be old (to make readers check if pages still exist "regularly" to then be able to point to an archive? A better way possible?) This should be documented. In case this is some strange error or the system is just made self checking (is it now?) then even better would be disabling the check (and remove the documentation or not add it). comp.arch (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the example:
accessdate is supposed to be a date an editor checked that the used content was at the linked source. Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001 so that is the oldest allowed access date:
accessdates which are too old should either be mentioned at the linked Help:CS1 errors#bad date or get their own section with a new link in the error message. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added text about access dates to the help text. It reads as follows:
Access dates (in |access-date=) are checked to ensure that they are between 15 January 2001 (the founding date of Wikipedia) and the present, since they represent the date that an editor viewed a web-based source to verify a statement on Wikipedia.
Does that help? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both.. The date did not ring any bells (I've not edited WP that long), it makes sense now. My idea was plausible, but maybe no reason to expire dates.. comp.arch (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's probably a rare problem so the new mention in Help:CS1 errors#bad date seems sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue needs to be resolved, now

I'm getting sick of this. HundredsThousands (Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored) of articles are affected and now display errors where they once worked fine because of the recent conversion. There was no discussion, no attempt to implement this in a thoughtful way. Chapter, section, etc, are perfectly reasonable parameters to expect in newspapers, periodicals, websites, books, and many other form of citations. The workarounds are simply not reasonable: title? No, not part of the title. departments? No, that sticks it in-front of the title, not correct in any citation style. at? wtf is that?

Please fix this by making the previously usable parameters work. I'm tired of having to update dozens to hundreds of articles, many of which are good or featured, to remedy an undiscussed fuck-up. If someone "needs" this to be in RfC question format: Should these errors be fixed in the citation template or the numerous affected articles where it previously worked. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The |at= parameter is not new, it's been around for years. Longer than me, in fact; and I notch up 6 years this time next week. It's for use when a |page= parameter is unsuitable. You might put |at=section B, p. 4, col. E --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Floydian: it would be helpful for you to provide specific examples of the problem you are citing. The above paragraph does not make the specific problem clear. For example, {{cite book}} supports chapters with no trouble. Example citations from actual articles are always helpful.

Floydian or someone else: it would be helpful to have side-by-side comparison of what citations looked like before and after the "chapter ignored" error message was added. Did {{cite journal}} display the value of |chapter=? The question in the RFC presumes that it did but does not provide evidence of that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hard for me to pull up a before example since even diffs will load the current template, but for current examples just rummage through the 5200 articles in the category I linked above. All I know is that I've used it since I started editing heavily in 2010. Not saying "at" is new, I'm saying it doesn't replace chapter/section. In {{cite news}}, I'd use the section parameter for the various newspaper sections (and those aren't departments); in {{cite periodical}} (or {{cite journal}} since the former seems to have vanished), I'd use it when an entry had multiple sections. In {{cite web}}, it has obvious uses for long websites with section headers. In {{cite report}}, chapter and section are essentially synonymous, but neither works now. These templates merely need to pass along the value as appropriate, so I'm not sure why this isn't a simple case of fix what was broken. 5000 "chapter=ignored" errors means something in the template must be wonky or not upgraded in the Lua conversions. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite periodical}} never existed. If it did there would be at least one entry in its log, which would include either a "delete" or a "move", but there are neither. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Aye... can't say I have the best memory. Could've sworn it does, but I saw the same in the logs and second guessed myself. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
A chapter ignored error message was added 29 November 2014 in [2]. The first discussion afterwards was Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#New error in cite conference: "chapter= ignored". I don't know whether the error message has been produced in all the same situations since 29 November. I examined {{cite journal}} and that template did render the section parameter before 29 November. See for example [3] which shows that on 21 November this reference displayed the section parameter "New Evidence Concerning the Structure, Composition, and Maturation of Class I (Polylabdanoid) Resinites" instead of an error message. The reference code now renders:
PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is why examples are helpful. That example citation is for a book. I know that this is not the answer you want to hear, but I have fixed it by changing the template to {{cite book}}, which is how I have fixed a few dozen citations in this category (I haven't spent much time on this category yet). I have found that the presence of an ISBN is usually a giveaway that {{cite book}} is the right one to use.
I agree with the general idea that some of the citations in the category may work better with section/chapter parameters in templates that currently don't render them, but some specific examples to demonstrate the need could be persuasive. For an example of a discussion where real citations from real articles resulted in a change to the template code, see this discussion about "Christmas" as an issue date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ontario Highway 407 has a whole dingy of them. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Just making sure this doesn't go stale. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed the last post. Thanks for the bump. Ontario Highway 407 needed to use |department= instead of |section=. See Template:Cite news#Periodical for an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but why not make chapter/section pass into the same CS1 parameter as department does and clear 5000 errors at once instead of one article at a time, especially considering some editors are doing AWB runs and just wiping out the parameter and values from citations in articles? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, making |chapter= an alias of |department= would not work, because they are two different types of data and are displayed differently.
In answer to your second question, if editors are deleting parameters and their values instead of fixing errors properly, those edits should be reverted, or the editors should at least be questioned about their reasoning on their talk pages. Nobody here would recommend removing a poorly formatted date, for example, just because the month was spelled wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well then, though I know you mean as well with me as I do with you, what solution do you propose for the remaining 5200 articles affected by this? A quick solution to a majority of the problems, or numerous solutions to a simple problem? - Floydian τ ¢ 05:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we fix them, just as we have fixed tens of thousands of errors in 22 other CS1 error categories that have been emptied over the last two years. Most of those categories have been cleared out article by article by dedicated gnomes. It takes time, but it is not hard to do. If we find, while fixing the errors, specific cases that appear to not have a good fix, we post at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and ask about them. Usually, that discussion leads to a way to fix the specific error. Occasionally, the discussion leads to a change in the citation module.
In the meantime, if the error messages bother you, you can hide the error messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll second that there's no reason the code shouldn't just have |chapter= render as |at=Ch.&nbsp; and it seems idiotic to remove functionality. — LlywelynII 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Bad" date

Your code currently reads 2-digit years as an error. They're not. Fix it. Thanks. — LlywelynII 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, whether you do improve the code or not (seems unlikely, given the coders' response above concerning |chapter=), your current list of error messages doesn't explain that 2-digit years do cause errors or how to go about fixing the problem. At the very least, patch that up. Thanks. — LlywelynII 05:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Two-digit versions of four-digit years are ambiguous (i.e. does "15" mean "2015", "1915", or something else?). I looked at MOS:BADDATEFORMAT, and that fact does not appear to be mentioned explicitly there, perhaps because it is obvious to many editors. The fix is to supply a four-digit year, following any of the formats that are provided in that table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LlywelynII: We do not appreciate comments like "They're not. Fix it." Two-digit years are an error, since they are not just contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style but are also ambiguous, and so we will not "fix it". If you follow the "(help)" link, you will see that it shows in its sixth bullet "date formats listed in WP:BADDATEFORMAT", and two-digit years are among those unacceptable date formats. There is nothing to "fix". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Two-digit years are not listed at WP:BADDATEFORMAT and are perfectly straightforward. The code is hinky. — LlywelynII 05:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
From WP:BADDATEFORMAT:
07-04-15 → Do not abbreviate year to two digits
the ‍ '​02 elections → Do not use an apostrophe to abbreviate year
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that Editor LlywelynII is referring to this citation from Angles:
where |year=98 causes an error. This, I think, is one of those cases where 98 was the year that the original text was written but that version is not the version consulted for the article.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That "98" should go in |orig-year=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. It's a reference to the original Latin text, not to the translation. — LlywelynII 05:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm skeptical. It would seem a rare thing for a Wikipedia editor to have access to an original Latin text from the first century CE. Much more likely, would be a copy or transcription made much later in which case, |date= should be the date of the copy or transcription and |orig-year=98. |orig-year= has nothing to do with whether the referenced source is a translation or in its original language.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added Two-digit year to the list of errors.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:CS1_errors/Archive_2&oldid=676411688"