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 12:32, 13 January 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion 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)

Bad error message in date value

This error message is not a result of an error (there's no error...) but of the incomplete description of date at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers which led to bad formatting of Module:Citation/CS1. See my example from Sobibór extermination camp. The referenced paper was published with the date: "15 March 2011 – 15 June 2011". This is what I wrote in |date=... and of course, I got an error message because we don't have anything like this in our guidelines. It is "either" 15 March 2011 "or" 15 June 2011, not both. "Dashes" are reserved only for the years, and that's it. See Help:CS1 errors#Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... Can you help? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For date ranges in the same year, state the year only once:
{{cite book |title=Title | date=15 March – 15 June 2011}}
→Title. 15 March – 15 June 2011.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The source [5] is about work done "15.04 – 15.06. 2011" (note that 04 is April and not March). It doesn't say it was written in that period. It refers to mid-September 2011 as scheduled so it was apparently written or completed after 15 June 2011 and before mid-September 2011. It seems suitable to only give date=2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The specific guidance provided above by Trappist the monk is on the page that the OP linked to. Do a find on the page for "between specific dates in different months". It's in the "Ranges" section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help, all of you. Everything works fine now. But for the sake of argument, please note that our Manual of Style makes this option extremely hard to find. It is only a side note at the end of a sentence about something else. Poeticbent talk 04:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage of "Undated"

Usage of "date=Undated" generates "Undated." or "(Undated)" as wished for in various cite entries, but it also generates an error display. It is very relevant sometimes to indicate specifically that there is no date given in the source. Example: footnotes 17 and 22 in this permalinked version of an article. How should the undated status of the source be indicated without generating error messages? I don't see advice given on this point within {{cite}} and various date information sources. sincerely, --doncram 17:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Citation#Date last sentence of the first bullet point:
For approximate year, precede with "c. ", like this: |date=c. 1900; for no date, add as |date=n.d.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, Thank you! That works fine. And, I revised that Citation Style documentation to make such treatment more prominent (i.e. to use the word "undated" explicitly and to bring out n.d. treatment to a separate paragraph from c. treatment). --doncram 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And I revised the style guide (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) to give this n.d. treatment for missing dates, too. --doncram 06:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted Doncram's change to WP:MOSNUM because that guideline, and it's parent guideline WP:MOS, don't address citations. This is easy to tell because if you look at a real style manual, the Chicago Manual of Style, it is 52 mm thick and 7 mm are devoted to citations (about 13%) In MOS and MOSNUM there are only a few sentences about citations.
In addition, Wikipedia does not have a house style. The CS1 and CS2 styles that use the corresponding templates have chosen to use "n.d." to indicate no date, but other styles may use other notation. And if an article isn't using CS1 or CS2, whatever the consistent consensus is at the article governs. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Periodical partial/nonstandard dates

The documentation for Template:Cite journal says "date: Date of source being referenced. Can be full date (day, month, and year) or partial date (month and year, season and year, or year)" the linked page Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates says "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring-summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." I am trying to cite American Book Review, Volume 23, Number 2, January/February 2002] and "January/February 2002" gives a date error. This is in Draft:Mekeel Mcbride. DES (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: |date=January–February 2002 --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Was the help text not helpful?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find it so, but I probably should have, i wan't thinking of this as a range but as a non-standard date, so i didn't follow the link to the section that discussed ranges. Several examples on the help page might be a good idea. DES (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What do this tennis subject for Because the guys or girl that is talking to me he or she doesn't know

74.69.154.137 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Help:CS1 errors.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Holiday bad date

"Holiday 2010" throws an error as a bad date. I know it's not one of the standard months/seasons, but shouldn't this be all right? – czar 09:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Holiday" sounds vague for an international encyclopedia. Your example appears to be:
"A Rare Glimpse". Retro Gamer. No. 84. Holiday 2010. pp. 38–39. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Did the magazine only say "Holiday 2010"? If it said issue 84 then shouldn't 2010 be sufficient? Is it known to be from December? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It might be one of those mags that comes out every four weeks, so thirteen issues a year - twelve dated for a month, the extra one might fit between June and July, or between December and January. See Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 5#Citation of Journals with named issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If "Holiday 2010" is what the publisher printed on the cover, that's what the issue is named. Your choices are just leave the red error message, persuade the maintainers of the template to change the template, or format the citation by hand and not use a template. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Or add the date outside the template like below, but it probably shouldn't be recommended. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
"A Rare Glimpse". Retro Gamer. No. 84. pp. 38–39. Holiday 2010.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Retro Gamer and the RetroGamer archive say that the date for issue 84 is 9 December 2010. The cover appears not to display a date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In which case, the issue with cover date December 2010 was probably published on 11 November 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Magazines on a 13-month cycle such as Retro Gamer commonly refer to their 13th issue as the Holiday issue (as it has no month and would be incorrect to call the "November" or "December" issue, which already exist). I don't know about Park Productions' relation to the magazine (or whether it can be trusted) but for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to change my citation to December 2010. I do recommend lifting the error message for these edge cases in the future. – czar 19:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't put December 2010 if it wasn't the actual December 2010 issue that was used. That would fail WP:V because the Wikipedia text would not be supported by the cited source. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The magazine itself does not list a date/month on its cover, its TOC, or its masthead. The Park Productions site says it was released December 2010 and this Wikia says issue #84 was a holiday issue. It's ambiguous, and I would prefer to use "Holiday 2010" but the web of CS1 is a black box to me. If the change is made, I'd be happy to update my citations. – czar 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

February 29

In this documentation, 1900 February 29 is given as an example of a nonexistent date. Very cute. But that date did exist, in countries (such as Russia) that were still using the Julian calendar in 1900. I'd change the example, except that it may accurately reflect the behaviour of the warnings. In that case, the warnings should change. —Toby Bartels (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone who edited that table set out to be cute. 29 February 1900 is acknowledged to have existed, along with the same date in 1700 and 1800. In that help section it is noted that Julian leap days will produce this error. This is because it is not possible for the validation code to distinguish between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in the overlap period of 1582 – c. 1923; the code assumes Gregorian.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Uppercase spelling of a month is a problem?

I was surprised that

generated a data error. It went away when I changed AUGUST to August. I'm surprised that an uppercase spelling of a month, which I believe is fairly common, and in no way ambiguous, is a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I added an example of this here to demonstrate the error. I also suggest using Title Case for the author's name instead of all caps, and using either MDY or DMY, but not both in any given article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Your very short response raises a surprisingly large number of issues.
First, an admittedly anal point. The table of examples has a column heading with the word "incorrect". That word choice is, in fact, incorrect. Very few of the entries in that column are examples of incorrect date usage. I suspect that some are specified in well respected style guides. They may all be examples of dates that cannot be parsed by our template but that doesn't make them incorrect. We ought to consider a better term. Off the top my head I will suggest "date formats not accepted by our citation template". That's a bit of a mouthful and there may be a better, shorter term.
In some cases, most notably in the example of a date such as 7/5/2015, the date format is perfectly understandable in a restricted geographic area, but ambiguous in a publication intended for a worldwide audience. It is perfectly appropriate for us to require an unambiguous date convention, but we shouldn't call the original format "incorrect".
I understand the reason for not writing our template to accept input such as "Febr.". I believe it is nonstandard and not common. It would be unreasonable to expect us to incorporate every possible abbreviation of months. However the use of all-caps for the month falls into a different category, in my opinion. I have seen it used in a number of publications. I think there is some value in using the exact style used by the source, subject to the comments above that in the case of ambiguous or rare usage we can override it. Unlike "Febr." Where it might take a couple seconds for a reader to figure out what it means, I can't imagine anyone will look at "AUGUST" and wonder which month is meant. There's also a practical consideration. I create a citation by copying and pasting the information from the source. Requiring that I convert months to title case is physically possible but either adds considerable manual work, or requires that I write code to do the processing. I would be interested in feedback on whether anyone else sees value in writing the date the same way the source does. For example, I'm not a fan of specifying authors names or article titles with all caps, but I often do so if that is how it is done in the source. Is this convention a bad idea? Is it different for authors names than for dates?
I also note you suggested using a common date format in the site. I'd like to discuss this in a bit more depth. I personally think the world ought to adopt the DMY convention with the month spelled out, but I understand I don't get to make all the rules. However, because I think it's the ideal choice, I always use it for my access date field. As noted, though, I'd like to use the source's date convention for the date of the article. If the community feels there is no value in reproducing the sources date convention, I suppose I could convert everything to DMY, although that's additional work. What value does it deliver?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Incorrect" column has both unacceptable date formats and bad dates like non-existent or future dates. I think it's clear enough that "Incorrect" means "Don't do this in Wikipedia." It isn't just for citation templates. Many of the issues are also at WP:BADDATEFORMAT which is linked in the section. All caps looks bad when mixed with normal capitalization so I agree we should avoid it in both names, months and titles. Months are just the only of these which is checked by citation templates. All caps references like at [6] draw attention above other references for no good reason. I also don't see a good reason to keep a date format from the source. We are just saying when the source was made. It's not a big deal for me but consistent date formats in the references looks better. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a bot that periodically trolls through Category:CS1 errors: dates and fixes shouted dates so no work is required on your part as long as what you leave behind isn't ambiguous or completely unintelligible.
I agree with Editor PrimeHunter that all-caps looks bad. I have been thinking about adding a maintenance category that would list pages that have shouting citation components so that these might be fixed by some sort of clever bot and the gnome hoard.
Here is probably not the place to discuss multiple date styles in a page. That is probably best done at WT:MOSDATE as that topic falls under the purview of MOS:DATEUNIFY.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A few concepts:
  • Many publications have their own style guides that specify style choices that are to be used within the publication. Wikipedia is one such publication. The "Wikipedia Manual of Style" and "Wikipedia Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" specifies which style choices are accepted within Wikipedia and does not attempt to be a general-purpose style guide for any writing environment.
  • It isn't "my access date field", it's Wikipedia's. Wikipedia has decided to decide on the format of the access date field first by limiting the choices allowed in "Wikipedia Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" and "Help:Citation style 1, and then allowing a consensus of the editors at a particular article to make a consistent choice from the acceptable choices.
  • In Wikipedia, as in every other publication I'm familiar with, style choices should be consistent within an article. (Some publications strive for consistent choices throughout the whole publication, but not Wikipedia.) The style used in various sources are irrelevant, except for a direct quote. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
MOS:ALLCAPS is unambiguous about Sphilbrick's original comment. "Avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps, when they have only a stylistic function." – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter I count 16 examples, only three of which appear to be "incorrect". It is a curious choice of a term when it applies to a decided small minority of the entries.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What work or short phrase would you use to mean "not acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles except direct quotes and titles"? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter I count 16 examples, only three of which appear to be "incorrect". It is a curious choice of a term when it applies to a decided small minority of the entries.
Jc3s5h You misunderstand. When I said " my access date field" I wasn't using "my" to modify "field" but "access". It is, indeed "my access" not Wikipedia's. I am fine with the Wikipedia community deciding on a date ofrmat for that field. If it has been decided upon, please point me to it. I believe I'm using one of the acceptable formats; if that is incorrect please let me know.
Trappist the monk I do not like shouting, but there is a difference between what we do in Wikipedia's voice, in which I think we should avoid shouting as much as possible, and what we do when citing sources. If we were using a direct quotation from a source, and the speaker used a date in one of our "incorrect" formats, we wouldn't change it. That part is clear, what is in clear to me is whether the style choices of the source when it comes to title and dates deserve the same consideration, which is why am asking for opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What word or short phrase would you use to mean "not acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles except direct quotes and titles"? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, the examples are incorrect according to MOS. See, for example, WP:DATESNO, which is linked from the prose above the table. The MOS uses the word "unacceptable". If you would like to change the wording on the CS1 Errors page to "Unacceptable" and "Acceptable", that works for me.
As for your responses to other editors and some of your statements above, you are complaining about guidelines provided in MOS (e.g. do not use all caps, and do not use the ambiguous format 7/5/2015). If you have a problem with those guidelines, please take your suggestions to the appropriate MOS talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my point. While a manual of style may include examples of items to be avoided because they are literally incorrect, in many cases they simply specify a convention to be followed. There's nothing wrong with this, it is highly useful to adopt standard conventions. However it is incorrect, in many cases to identify alternative conventions as "incorrect". It would be better to specify them as unacceptable. That's what's done in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Note that the word "incorrect" does not appear. (Unfortunately, I note the ubiquity in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but that's not a windmill I'm ready to take on today.)
I have no objection if you want to make this change. And while you're there, how about replacing the cs1 templates with {{para|date=}} templates so that editors can see (copy if they want) the incorrect/unacceptable and correct/acceptable parameters. There really is no need for us to be showing all of those error messages and unrelated stuff that's necessary to have a cs1 template render without errors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Any objection to changing "incorrect" to "unacceptable"?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In this context of source code producing an error message, I think incorrect/correct is better than unacceptable/acceptable. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, you wrote "however, because I think it's the ideal choice, I always use it for my access date field" and also asked if that is incorrect. The access date field should be one of the formats described at Help:Citation Style 1#Dates and be consistent with the other access dates in the article. If you are writing a new article today and you want to write both the publication dates and the access dates in the DMY format, fine. But if you are editing an article that already exists, and nearly all of the access dates are in the form YYYY-MM-DD, you should use that format, and ideally would correct the few exceptions to follow the format too. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Your 3 of 16 count is based on your own interpretation of "incorrect" as universally wrong. Most will probably interpret it as it is intended: incorrect here, i.e. not how it should be done in Wikipedia. A link in an error message leads to the section. It seems natural to me to use "incorrect" about whatever caused the error message the user is presumably trying to fix, and to use "correct" about the fix. Also note that the section starts: "When Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates contain date-holding parameters, an automated test is done to see if the dates are real dates that comply with a subset of WP:DATESNO". I don't think a column heading is the place for a long explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation of "incorrect" is something that is not correct. I'm stunned that you would disagree. How do you interpret it? 2002-03 is not an incorrect date. If you think it is, I can point you to literally hundreds of thousands of usages of that format, none of which have been challenged. It is, I grant, a format with a technically possible ambiguity issue, so I support the Wikipedia decision to disallow it as a format. Choosing a convention that disallows it is not the same as saying it is incorrect. All parameter fields have acceptable and unacceptable input. Input might also be unacceptable because it's incorrect, but incorrect and unacceptable are not synonyms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course "incorrect" means not correct. The question is where is it not correct? In all languages and societies? In English? In the English Wikipedia? In citation templates in the English Wikipedia? When you get an error message from a citation template in the English Wikipedia, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that when the explanation says "incorrect" it refers to the used template. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The question of whether the style choices of the source when it comes to title and dates deserve the same consideration as when we [are] using a direct quotation from a source is, I think, sort of vaguely answered by WP:CITEHOW wherein some aspects of styling for titles and other elements is loosely specified. For matters of citation styling not tied to dates, WT:CITE is probably a better venue than this backwater.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation, I have modified the explanation of date errors to make it clearer that the CS1 templates are highlighting date formats that are unacceptable (the word used in the MOS) per the WP Manual of Style, not enforcing a set of arbitrary rules. I also updated a bit of the prose to reinforce that same idea. Thank you to Sphilbrick for pointing out that the explanations could have been clearer and more consistent with the MOS, and for the other thoughtful comments above. Now back to fixing articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to clarify error for cite episode

Just fixed the following CS1 error on Gary Carter:

{{cite episode|url=http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/02/17/verducci-comments-on-gary-carter-a-j-burnetts-future/|title=Verducci comments on Gary Carter, A.J. Burnett's future|minutes=1:52|airdate=February 17, 2012}}, which clearly has a |title=, generates:

{{cite episode|url=http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/02/17/verducci-comments-on-gary-carter-a-j-burnetts-future/|title=Verducci comments on Gary Carter, A.J. Burnett's future|series=The Dan Patrick Show|minutes=1:52|airdate=February 17, 2012}} which has an added |series=, generates:

Would it be possible for the error message to be changed so that it guides editors to add |series=? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

fixed in the sandbox; see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Bug
—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Useless strictness of field format checking on {{citation}} template-family

Hi, I'm enjoying Wikimedia projects for several years, and also I love type-system on computer languages for several decades. However, recently I'm suffered from format error messages mainly on {{citation}} template family.

  1. Arbitrary date formats with rational reasons: Date format on citations take potentially various formats with rational reasons. For example, "circa 2015", "2014–2015", "last updated on 2015", "first half of 21th century", "20th or 21th century", etc. However, these all format are reported as error. How can we avoid this inappropriate error message ?
  2. "External link in |work=": Often we refer the specific web-page or chapter on larger-work, and we want to point the entire work by URL as a gentle manner. However now, hyperlink (URL) on "work" field on {{citation}} template-family is reported as error. What action is needed to remove this useless format checking ?

Thanks for your advances, --Clusternote (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Item #1 above is explained in detail here. In short, dates are checked against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can avoid the message by choosing a date format that is listed in the "Acceptable" column.
Item #2 is a new citation error check, and it may need some refinement. I think we might be over-reaching a bit with our URL detection in title parameters, given that we do not offer a |*-url= parameter that accompanies each parameter that would be useful to match with a URL. As the error category continues to populate, it has become clear that there is a desire among editors to provide useful links to match |journal= and |encyclopedia=, for example. It might be useful to start a discussion about this specific request at the most-watched CS1 discussion page, Help talk:Citation Style 1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your advices.  For the item #2, I'll try to discuss join to a topic on that forum. (possibly the series of citations in the form "{{citation|page or chapter}} on {{citation|larger-work with URL}}" might be appropriate on this situation)  For the item #1, I'm sorry for I'm missed the WP:DATERANGE. However, I'm still puzzled for un-support of {{circa}} on date field for avoiding the pollution of WP:COinS metadata. --Clusternote (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. According to a topic on the above forum,
{{citation| title=... |url=... |contribution=work |contribution-url=URL_of_work }}
seems the solution. Item #2 was resolved. Thanks, --Clusternote (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dates in BCE

I was looking at Varro (who write books about BCE 60) and was even trying to create a cite. It doesn't like |date=. What can I tweaked something? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 21:47, wikitime= 13:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite certain you didn't read a book that was actually created in 60 BCE; you must have read a copy that was printed much more recently. So you should set |date= to the publication date of the copy you read, and set |orig-year= to the date Varro wrote it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Unbuttered Parsnip and Jc3s5h: It's not possible to be certain of any such thing. Furthermore, the situation is still a mess, practically speaking. There are lots of old or common texts that are commonly cited and we may not have the ability to check the perfect veracity of a reprint against the original. They may be well known quotes like Shakespeare or even some foreign thing, where we can look around and assemble the name of the chapter and verse and title. Sometimes we need to generally say "this said this" but we still want to cleanly cite who wrote it and when and what kind of document it is. So the best I can come up with is to just pick a modern reprint and cite that. Apparently, orig-year magically lacks the strictness, at least for now. — Smuckola(talk) 00:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In other words, say where you read it. That's a basic WP guideline. Picking a modern reprint and citing that is exactly what you are supposed to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I know, but I'm saying not everyone has access to everything. And if I did, I can't necessarily literally verify that it's true to the 100 B.C. original. Also, not everyone is a scholar. So sometimes I have to literally pick one to cite. :\ Aside from that, the date= segment is sometimes excessively strict like if the actual timeframe for a magazine is quarterly or seasonal. In that case, the template blocks me from stating literally the exactly correct thing, and I do have to just make up something wrong.— Smuckola(talk) 04:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand the difference between what you're saying and what I am saying. Yes, you do literally have to pick one source, the source that you are looking at, to cite.
As for seasonal magazine issues, they should work just fine. Something like "Title". Quarterly Magazine. Spring 2015. works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Okay I guess I'll try it again ;) — Smuckola(talk) 06:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

circa dates

I am getting errors from |date={{circa|1970}} but what are you supposed to do when you don't have an exact date of original publication. Saying 1970 is wrong and leaving it out completely is not helpful to the reader. Kerry (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't use the {{circa}} template; simply write |date=c. 1970. {{circa}} adds a bunch of non-date cruft to the metadata:
<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr><span style="white-space:nowrap;">&thinsp;1970</span>
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The "External link in |<param>=" section says:

"External link in |<param>=

This error occurs when any of the CS1 or CS2 citation title-holding parameters – |title=, |chapter=, |work= or any of their aliases – hold a properly formatted external link (URL)." Not a helpful description. If someone knows your system well enough to know all the aliases for your parameters, he would presumably know your system well enough to avoid such a mistake in the first place. Would it be better to actually list the aliases, or link to them, rather than assume that everyone has memorized them? Previous discussion here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that the help text is inadequate, you are free to improve it. Please do; documentation is never done and there are rarely enough hands to do it.
In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, I have improved the reporting for that particular error so that it now reports the offending parameter name rather than the generic name.
I have also tweaked the detection code so that it will catch bare urls as well as external wikilinks. The purpose of the test is to alert editors that the url that they have included in a |title=, |chapter=, and/or |work= parameter is corrupting the citation's metadata. Your 'fix' merely masks the problem:
{{cite web/new | title=How to conduct safe and dignified burial of a patient who has died from suspected or confirmed Ebola virus disease | website=[http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/safe-burial-protocol/en/ Global Alert and Response] | url=http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137379/1/WHO_EVD_GUIDANCE_Burials_14.2_eng.pdf | format=PDF | publisher=[[World Health Organisation]] | accessdate=14 December 2014 }}
"How to conduct safe and dignified burial of a patient who has died from suspected or confirmed Ebola virus disease" (PDF). Global Alert and Response. World Health Organisation. Retrieved 14 December 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
{{cite web/new | title=How to conduct safe and dignified burial of a patient who has died from suspected or confirmed Ebola virus disease | website=http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/safe-burial-protocol/en/ Global Alert and Response | url=http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137379/1/WHO_EVD_GUIDANCE_Burials_14.2_eng.pdf | format=PDF | publisher=[[World Health Organisation]] | accessdate=14 December 2014 }}
"How to conduct safe and dignified burial of a patient who has died from suspected or confirmed Ebola virus disease" (PDF). http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/safe-burial-protocol/en/ Global Alert and Response. World Health Organisation. Retrieved 14 December 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your proposed sandbox change; it relieves my objection, to the extent I understand it. I believe this edit satisfies your objection to my previous edit. I do occasionally edit documentation on help pages and template documents, when I feel I understand them well enough. In this case, I believe the text is OK as is, because your change to the code will prevent the problem, assuming there is no practical way to list all present and future aliases. Art LaPella (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

date values in error

I have a magazine source which lists its date as "Aug./Sept. 2002", which generates a "Check date values in: |date=" error in my reflist. Is there a proper way to indicate a two-month range of source dates? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The full stop in short months is no longer valid and Sept is no longer a valid abbreviation for September. I would go for full months "August–September 2002" but "Aug–Sep 2002" is acceptable. Note it is an en-dash not a dash between the months to avoid the error. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That worked perfectly, thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:CS1_errors/Archive_2&oldid=699619392"