Jump to content

Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests/Completed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Module talk:Citation/CS1 | Feature requests
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 14 November 2015 (archive some sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of Module:Citation/CS1/Feature requests for those requests that have been completed.

Asian titles

Main work titles are formatted in italics. This is not appropriate for Asian scripts such as kanji, hangul and the like. Asian titles may also be underlined or placed in brackets 『』 or 《》.

See {{Asiantitle}} for current support. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And such styling should be done with CSS per #Presentation and content. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See also: Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Error message help pages

 Done

Each error message should link to a help page. I will take on the task of creating the help. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Page url

Editors often link to specific pages in an online book by wrapping a |page= or |pages= parameter in an external link. This practice can corrupt COinS data for the citation. This feature request suggests the creation of a new parameter that allows editors to continue linking to individual pages without corrupting COinS data. Linking to individual pages is supported at the WP:PAGELINKS guideline, which see.

|pageurl=: URL of an online book's page or pages where the cited text can be found. While not required, if provided, |url= must link to the same source as |pageurl=.

Examples:
Single-page link –
|page=18
|pageurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18
renders as: p. 18.
Page-range link (to the first page in the range) –
|pages=18–24
|pageurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18
renders as: pp. 18–24.
Multiple page links (only with |pages=; urls listed in |pageurl= must follow the same order as the pages listed in |pages=) –
|pages=18–24, 56
|pageurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA56
renders as: pp. 18–24, 56.
–or–
Multiple page links (forces pp. prefix unless |nopp=y; |pageurln= matches the last of |pagen= or |pagesn= or |atn=) –
|pages=18–24
|pages2=34 —this parameter ignored because it is followed by |page2=
|page2=56
|pageurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18
|pageurl2=http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA56
renders as: pp. 18–24, 56.

While two possible multiple page link handling methods are described, only one should be implemented.

Categories

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Me gusta This is needed. I think I like the pageurl1, pageurl2, etc version. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been recently wondering if |pageurl= is the wrong solution to the problem. The problem is that urls in |page=, |pages=, and |at= corrupt COinS metadata. Because specifying external links using wiki-markup is standardized, it seems to me that its possible that with the application of a little bit of code, the page numbers can be extracted from the external link wiki-markup for use in COinS without the need for new parameters.
The benefit is that nothing except the template code needs to be reworked.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

website for cite web

 Done

Add 'website' as an alias for 'work'. Many editors seem confused by the use of 'work' to indicate the website. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done in sandbox. Dragons flight (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web}} documentation updated.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Move toward uniform parameter name style

Add these parameter names to the whitelist. These replace their counterparts which are hyphenated, spaced, underscored, or camelcased. Template documentation should be updated to use these parameter names. The purpose is to move toward uniform parameter-name style. Other variants of these names should then, over time, be deprecated (I can always hope).

['authorfirst#'] = true,
['authorlast#'] = true,
['authornamesep'] = true,
['authorseparator'] = true,
['doibrokendate'] = true,
['doiinactivedate'] = true,
['editorfirst#'] = true,
['editorgiven#'] = true,
['editorlast#'] = true,
['editornamesep'] = true,
['editorseparator'] = true,
['namesep'] = true,
['seriessep'] = true,
['templatedocdemo'] = true,
['transchapter'] = true,
['transtitle'] = true,

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree we are very inconsistent about word separators, either nothing, hyphen, underscore, or space, and moving toward consistency is an excellent goal. That said, I'm not sure that removing the separator actually makes the most sense. For example, would it be easier for users if we consistently supported the use of a hyphen as the preferred word separator in parameter names? I have to think that having some separator is easier to read than having no separator. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes (and navboxes, IIRC) seem to be standardising, de facto, on an underscore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. This was resolved in favor of hyphenated multi-word parameters in a July 2014 RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Check for uri scheme in url parameters

 Done

One of the more common url errors is the omission of the uri scheme in |url=-type parameters.

{{cite web |url=www.example.com |title=Missing scheme |accessdate=2013-04-10}} → [www.example.com "Missing scheme"]. Retrieved 2013-04-10. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

CS1 can check for this and report an error |url= requires http:// and categorize into Category:CS1 url missing uri scheme errors or some such.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See Help:External link icons for the list of supported URIs. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"requires http://" would not be appropriate phrasing; as another scheme may apply. Were that not the case, we could programmatically apply http://. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, how about this: |url= missing URI scheme?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, but it is URI scheme. Note to implementer: news: and mailto: do not require the //. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, changed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the reality of URI schemes, I think the best we are likely to do is check that a URL either starts with "//" (protocol relative URLs) or has a ":" occurring in it somewhere. That covers most uses though it wouldn't catch the case of a bad "scheme", like htp://www.foobar.com/. Dragons flight (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Check added in sandbox. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Date: error checking

Currently, and invalid date shows as entered:

Markup Renders as 
{{cite book |last=Drucker |title=Book |date=Flubtember 2013 |ref=harv}}

Drucker (Flubtember 2013). Book. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

But the year is not extracted and inserted into the anchor as expected. There is no error message on this, so the editor is not aware of the issue.

I don't know how much checking can be done on 'date', but at a minimum if |ref=harv and the extracted year is blank, then an error message should be generated. --  Gadget850 talk 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it also an error if |ref=harv and no date / year is given at all? Dragons flight (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
What about websites and other resources where the date of publication may be not obvious or missing? Even if there is no date, I believe that {{sfn}}, etc. will still work as long as the year is also omitted from the footnote template. At the moment, I'd lean towards reporting an error when date is present and it can't figure out the year, but not report an error if date is blank. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
One problem is if the author has more than one publication, then the id is going to be duplicated. --  Gadget850 talk 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean if there are multiple works by the same author(s) and several different works lack dates? That seems like a rare edge case. Dragons flight (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It is quite common for dates to be in the format that is not recognised by the date parameter. eg date=January-March 2013, the work around for that is to include a year=value as well as a date parameter. The date displays and the year does not, but the year parameter is used in the CITEREF generated by ref=harv. For author publications in the same year the usual solution is to use year=2013 in the first one year=2013b in the second etc. Another method (which works for no date) is to set ref={{SfnRef}} to whatever is wanted as a CITEREF. Also ff no year or date is set, but either author or last is set then an error should not be generated as harv will work on just author. -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Check for missing authors

I posted this on Help talk:Citation Style 1 in a section on a similar error (coauthors without authors). This is a separate error from "coauthors without authors". I believe that it should be detectable.

The general case is that in a list of authors or editors, if one is missing, the remaining authors are not displayed, even though the intent of the editor creating the citation is usually for all of the authors or editors to appear.

Example 1: If there are multiple authors but no "author1" or "last1", no authors are displayed. Like this:

Example 2: The same thing happens with editors as well:

Example 3: If you include author1 and leave out author2, the remaining authors are omitted:

I expect that there are additional variations on this parsing as well.

As for what to do about it, it is clear that the editor adding the citation intended for authors to appear, but they are not appearing. I suggest the following:

  • Easy: Display an error message (or leave it hidden by default, I don't care, but definitely place the articles into a maintenance category that some of us can monitor) saying something like "Missing author parameter".
  • Easy: Change the documentation to reflect the fact that author2 etc. or first2/last2 etc. require author1 or last1, and that each subsequent author requires the previous one.
  • More Difficult: In addition to the changes above, change the citation module so that the other authors are displayed. This would be the flexible thing to do, though it may be challenging to code and would lead to citations with screwy syntax. It may also lead to strange corner cases with respect to "displayauthors" and other parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. This request has been implemented in the CS1 module, as you can see from the error messages above. The documentation has been mostly updated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Check for author first names without last names

When a "firstn" parameter is present in a citation without a corresponding "lastn" citation, no author/editor name is displayed for that author/editor. Either the citation's creator wants something to appear there, or there is some other kind of error that should be resolved. An error message will help editors resolve this problem.

Example 1: "first1" but no "last1". No author is displayed.

  • {{cite journal|last1= |first1 = John |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • "Sample title". Journal of samples. 8 (2): 6–8. March 2009. {{cite journal}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)

Example 2: "last1" but no "first1". Author's last name is displayed. This is fine; no error should be displayed.

  • {{cite journal|last1= Doe |first1 = |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • Doe (March 2009). "Sample title". Journal of samples. 8 (2): 6–8.

Example 3: Same as Example 1, but with "editor-last1" missing while "editor1-first" exists.

  • {{cite journal|author1=John Doe| editor-last1= |editor-first1 = Mary |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • John Doe (March 2009). "Sample title". Journal of samples. 8 (2): 6–8. {{cite journal}}: |editor-first1= missing |editor-last1= (help)

Recommended behavior:

  • Display an error message (or leave it hidden by default, I don't care, but definitely place the articles into a maintenance category that some of us can monitor) saying something like "Missing author last name parameter".
  • Change the documentation to reflect the fact that firstn requires a corresponding lastn, and that the name of an author/editor with only one name (e.g. Sting or Bono) should be placed in "authorn" or "lastn" (or editorn/editor-lastn). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
In my travels through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I am finding a number of articles with |first= followed by |coauthors=. It appears that editors thought that |first= was for the "first author", but it ends up displaying nothing. It would be useful to show an error message for these cases.
Examples from actual articles:
1. "| first = Christopher D. K. Herd | coauthors = Alexandra Blinova, Danielle N. Simkus, Yongsong Huang, et al. " from Tagish Lake (meteorite). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
2. "|first=Thiruvalluvar |coauthors=Rev.G.U.Pope (translation) " from Tamil literature.
These are easy to fix, but without the "coauthors without author" error message, which appears only because |coauthors= is used, citations like these will languish invisibly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these errors out in the wild. Here's one I just fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ontology and or schema for Citation template parameters to and from COinS, BIBO?

I'm interested in extending Diberri's citation filler to use Metadata or COinS information in it's cite web generation, to provide appropriate cite web, news, journal, book, ... output. Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts/hdump-head.pl is a sketch that does ok on some journal articles. Is there an ontology or mapping of citation parameters to COinS data that generates the code or is it interleaved in the Lua? EutilsRDF Web Service: an RDF interface to NCBI Entrez Utilities could be interesting for NLM resources, building on the Bibliographic Ontology (BIBO). BIBO mentions projects using it at Worldcat and the UK National Library. Obvious mappings are 

bibo:asin	Citation/core:ASIN ?
bibo:doi == prism:doi	Citation/core:DOI
bibo:edition == prism:edition Citation/core:Edition
bibo:isbn == prism:isbn	Citation/core:ISBN
bibo:issn == prism:issn	Citation/core:ISSN
bibo:issue	Citation/core:Issue
bibo:lccn	Citation/core:LCCN
bibo:oclcnum	Citation/core:OCLC
bibo:pmid	Citation/core:PMID
bibo:uri	Citation/core:URL
bibo:volume == prism:volume	Citation/core:Volume

(not quite to leaf nodes since (bibo:eissn == prism:eissn) is a bibo:issn, similarly with isbn10, isbn13 (Note that my understanding of this is at the little knowledge is a dangerous thing stage.) More table driven citation generation tools could be useful. RDBrown (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Cite_book#Syntax for a list of parameters that are included in the COinS metadata. Or, search Module:Citation/CS1 for the term "OCinSoutput" (without quotes).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
See Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS. --  Gadget850 talk 21:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Editions in cite map template

This entry is to track a request made on the Help Talk page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Editions_in_cite_map. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for day and year ranges

Support for day and year ranges? Examples of valid day and year ranges were provided in this discussion and this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the new "Draft" and "Draft Talk" namespaces to the module

Minor feature request for the sandbox after this week's updates (I would put it in directly, but I don't want to interfere with this week's migration of code to the live module):

There will soon (December 17, 2013, at this writing) be a "Draft" namespace, with an accompanying "Draft Talk" namespace, in Wikipedia. We need to include it in the list of namespaces that are not included in the CS1 error categories. Errors should be shown in those namespaces but not categorized.

We'll need to update the module itself, along with the module's documentation. I think it makes sense to wait until after this week's module updates before making any changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Done in the sandbox and in a comment on the Help:CS1 errors page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Done through {{broken ref}}. --  Gadget850 talk 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Detect and report duplicated parameters

Duplicated parameters in CS1 citations could be reported so that editors could avoid creating them in error and gnomes could fix them where they occur. I'm not talking about the existing redundant parameters errors. This would simply be reporting where there are multiple instances of e.g. |first= or |url= in the same citation. Duplicated parameters exist for numerous reasons, but only the last instance of the parameter is displayed, which is usually not the intent of the editor who creates or edits the citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, parameters are parsed by the MediaWiki software before they are passed to the CS1 module. By the time it gets to the module, previous parameters are already ignored. There is no way for a template or mudule to do this detection. --  Gadget850 talk 21:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oof, that's disappointing. I don't feel like starting a giant discussion about this, but would there be a valid reason for having two identical parameters in the same template? It seems to my naive self that this would always be an error that should be flagged by the MW software so that editors could fix this inadvertent mistake. Maybe there are some situations in which this arrangement is not an error, and I am just not clever enough to think of any. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Translator

Add 'translator' parameters. Should show preceded by "Translated by". --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate this feature. Could you code this in the same way as authors and editors (eg: "last1=|first1=" etc.), as some works have multiple translators. Mindmatrix 03:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just like 'last' and 'first', there would be an unlimited number. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Add "authorn=et al." to a maintenance category

Resolved

An idea posted by Trappist the monk elsewhere, recorded here for posterity: "Add code to Module:Citation/CS1 that will put citations with |authorn=et al. into a separate specific category."

I imagine this as a maintenance category rather than a "CS1 error" / "incorrect syntax" category. Let's discuss at some point to see if there are editors interested in filling in the remaining authors, editors who object to people doing so, or other opinions/ideas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also when et al. is included in |firstn=.
I think its an error condition; et al. is not an authors name, it is simply an indicator that there are unlisted authors. I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some mechanism by which editors can inform the template that not all authors are listed so that Module:Citation/CS1 will add a properly formatted et al. to the citation but that same et al. won't be included in the COinS metadata (as happens now with |authorn=et al.). This is much like |display-authors= except that all of the authors included in the citation template are displayed followed by et al. – perhaps, |etal=yes or something similar.

arXiv class would be nice

Resolved

Currently, supplying a parameter of the form "|arxiv=1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]" produces a messy error:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas; Kühl, Thomas; Nörtershäuser, Wilfried; Novotny, Christian; Reinhardt, Sascha; Sánchez, Rodolfo; Schwalm, Dirk; Stöhlker, Thomas; Wolf, Andreas; Saathoff, Guido (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". Physical Review Letters. 113 (120405): 1–5. arXiv:[physics.atom-ph 1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405. {{cite journal}}: Check |arxiv= value (help)

And trying &#91; doesn't improve it all that much:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas; Kühl, Thomas; Nörtershäuser, Wilfried; Novotny, Christian; Reinhardt, Sascha; Sánchez, Rodolfo; Schwalm, Dirk; Stöhlker, Thomas; Wolf, Andreas; Saathoff, Guido (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". Physical Review Letters. 113 (120405): 1–5. arXiv:[physics.atom-ph] 1409.7951 &#91;physics.atom-ph&#93;. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405. {{cite journal}}: Check |arxiv= value (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

It would be nice if there were some way to include the arXiv class in new-style identifiers. It's not critical, but it's normally included in arXiv citations in print, and if it's WP:MOS to omit it, a comment in the template docs would be nice.

In Lua, I imagine simply expanding the syntax of legal arxiv identifiers would be simplest, but an additional template parameter in the style of Template:Cite arxiv is also okay. The latter allows a class, but has the problem that it's not possible to list journal, volume, issue, page numbers, etc. for papers that are published peer-reviewed:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas; Kühl, Thomas; Nörtershäuser, Wilfried; Novotny, Christian; Reinhardt, Sascha; Sánchez, Rodolfo; Schwalm, Dirk; Stöhlker, Thomas; Wolf, Andreas; Saathoff, Guido (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". pp. 1–5. arXiv:1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |number= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (help)

Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is an arXiv class? --  Gadget850 talk 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The arXiv classification is explained here and here. The folks at arXiv.org recommend including it in citations, but we do not render it well. It appears to me that it would best be included in CS1 templates as a separate parameter to make validation, presentation, and linking easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The arXiv used to assign submission identifiers that started with a subject classification. This was annoyig if a paper was originally misclassified; reclassifying it required assigning a new identifier. In 2007, they changed to a system where permanent identifiers were purely numerical, with the classification appended as extra information. It's not essential, but customarily appended as additional information about a paper. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Improve accessdate checking

Resolved

May be we could improve the accessdate checking to rule out improbable dates of access. Probably the date when wiki was started should be an earliest possible accessdate. Have just seen article List of department stores of the United Kingdom with some accessdates of 1914! Keith D (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since |access-date= requires URL (and maybe also requires that Wikipedia existed), we could set a minimum year. The World Wide Web article says that the oldest known web page dates from 1991.
We could also test the access-date for future dates. I believe that we already test the year for dates greater than next year (since publications like magazines can have next year in their date). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What should be the limit for future access dates? It would seem that the minimum must be current server date+1 because 12:00:00 UTC today is 00:00:00 tomorrow in New Zealand.
  • 2025-07-24T22:50:30 – UTC time when this page last refreshed (Purge)
  • 2025-07-25T10:50:30 – NZST (UTC+12)
  • 2025-07-25T11:50:30 – NZDT (UTC+13)
Accepting current UTC date+1 allows editors to enter their local 'today's' date without error. If they use their local 'tomorrow's' date, there will be an error message for at most 24 hours after which there is no error.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --  Gadget850 talk 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Same here. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Today+1 is fine with me. I sometimes enter a date that is tomorrow (to me) when it is already tomorrow in the UTC time zone (I know, UTC isn't really a time zone, but you get the idea). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The current method of checking errors only considers information stored in the template (and could presumably consider the system time). If someone enters a date 2 days in the future, and no one does anything about it, after a day passes the error message will go away. I think that really diminishes the usefulness of the message. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a proposal that is better than the one above? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a better proposal. In a much more restricted editing environment, where the editing software knew that a citation was being entered (as in Microsoft Word) I would block the edit from happening at all, but the Wikipedia editing environment is too flexible for that. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So what's the current status of this request? If it makes a difference, I'm fine leaving future alone if it will get it moved in faster...Naraht (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Making notes to myself for this topic. mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#mw.language:formatDate refers to mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23time.

Wikipedia started 15 January 2001. Using {{#time:}} we can get the number of seconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00 UTC for the dates 2001-01-15, keyword 'today', and keyword 'tomorrow':

  • 2001-01-15 → 979516800 seconds UTC → 2001-01-15:12:00:00 UTC
  • today → 1753315200 seconds UTC → 2015-04-02:12:00:00 UTC
  • tomorrow → 1753401600 seconds UTC → 2015-04-03:12:00:00 UTC

So then the value in |accessdate= must not convert to less than 979516800 seconds nor more than 1753401600 seconds (tomorrow).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!Naraht (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

et al.

Resolved
see also: Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests#Add "authorn=et al." to a maintenance category

Detect "et al." in an author field. --  Gadget850 talk 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And having detected it, what then?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Trigger an error. I have recently found it in author fields for some reason. --  Gadget850 talk 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so have I. In fact, Monkbot, when it finds et al. in |coauthors=, is guilty of converting it to |authorn=et al. But I guess I was looking for some sort of idea about what should be done instead of simply adding an error message. What do we suggest that editors should do to get CS1/2 to display et al. outside of misusing |author=, |last=, and |first=? Do we tweak the definition of |display-authors= so that when |display-authors=et al the rendered author list has et al. but the COinS data does not. This might also be applied to |display-editors=. We could invent |et-al-author= and |et-al-editor= or some such similar to do the same sort of thing. We'd need to worry about interaction with |display-authors=n when the author list has more than n authors so that |display-authors= and |et-al-author= don't both add et al. to a rendered citation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I usually see |author= or |authors= with multiple authors and et al. --  Gadget850 talk 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Extra checking of URL & title

Hi, I think that there should be some additional checking on the |url= and |title= fields and setting up tracking categories so that they can be looked at and fixed appropriately.

For the |url= check if there is text in the field other than the URL, easiest way to do this would be to check for mid-string white space. This would pick up things such as this.

A converse would be to check for a URL in the |title= field as you should not get URLs in the title. This would pick up the inclusion of unnecessary details such as this.

Keith D (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of this request was discussed in a previous conversation, although it does not appear that any action was taken based on that discussion. Help talk:Citation Style 1 is usually a better forum for these conversations, in any event; it has more watchers. I recommend that you start two separate threads on that page, since this is really two different feature requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Suppress original URL

Based on this IP edit, I made this change to Da Hip Hop Witch. The cite templates force the display of the original URL once an archived link is provided, and unfortunately in this case, provides a link to a Paypal request. I've seen other original links leading to linkfarms or other undesirable links.

Can we add a feature to suppress the display of the original URL in such cases? Mindmatrix 15:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume that we could extend the functionality of |dead-url= to include some sort of meaningful code word that would serve the purpose of rendering the citation with just the archived message without the link. What should that code word be?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe |dead-url=hide? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps |dead-url=nolink?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer something which is better represents the semantics of the problem, in this case that the original link is spam or at the least "undesirable". Not quite sure of a good keyword for that. "origspam" or "originalspam". --Izno (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I had exactly that thought but my poor little brain isn't finding the right term. I did think of spam but that to me connotes spamming or spam (email), not a usurped or expired domain name. I also thought about advert, but this case isn't that; phishing, fraud also came to mind.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that the parameter value should describe the function, not the purpose. There could be multiple reasons for hiding the original URL. Hence "hide" or "nolink". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have with function over purpose is that function enables behavior that may not be desirable. For example, I can't think of any reason other than a link being a "bad" link to be correct to hide. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
unfit meaning not approriate?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What about usurped? Mindmatrix 15:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9 § Suppress original URL

 Done. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests/Completed&oldid=690676921"