Jump to content

Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Module talk:Citation/CS1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 8 March 2016 (fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Author parsing

So after the latest blowup over template changes, I think adopting the "vauthors=" mechanism from Template:Vcite2 journal is worth serious consideration. The current approach is very unambiguous, but having the first and last name of every author as a separate parameter makes for very bloated markup, and it's definitely a burden on those of us who are still hand-typing citations. I support the goal of making our references into something semantically meaningful, because I think that many useful tools for article curation could be built if we had a reliable way of identifying which articles were supported by which references, which journals, books, authors, etc. But the content has to come first: if the semantic markup scheme is deterring authors from editing, there is a serious problem. In the big picture, it's much more important to have people identify sources in medical articles as being WP:MEDRS (or not) than it is for those references to emit correct metadata. (I think the medical articles tend to be a bigger friction point because they often have very large author lists that bloat enormously.)

So, is it possible to graft the parsing code for "vauthors=" onto the "authors=" parameter here? I assume "authors=" already dumps its entire string as a single author into the COinS metadata, so it's unlikely to make things worse. And is it possible to parse "et al." or "''et al.''" at the end of that string without needing explicit markup? I have enough experience of HTML parsing to know that this kind of "do what I mean" parsing is risky, but given the debacle of the Visual Editor rollout, we're going to have to cope with hand-writing these templates for quite a while. Explicitly marking up every author may be less prone to error, but this isn't the first time there has been pushback about this, and I think this solution might make the process of structuring references a lot less objectionable. Choess (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't given the question of how would |vauthors= parsing work within Module:Citation/CS1 a great deal of thought but I'm pretty sure that it could be done. And it would produce better metadata because a requirement of |vauthors= would be that author (and editor) name lists would be required to adhere to the Vancouver system. Because |authors= does not have that kind of requirement, a wide variety of formats can be found.
Module:Citation/CS1 already recognizes a variety of et al. forms. It is that recognition that causes the population of Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. That same recognition strips the et al. from the author and editor lists before they are sent to metadata and causes the module to render the author and editor lists with the standardized form of et al. appended. The cs1|2 templates' remit includes handling and placement of static text but it is necessary to have a proper and consistent mechanism to inform the template when it should render certain static text. This is why we have |display-authors=etal.
When editors feel free to add non-author-name text et al. to author-name parameters, I think that they then feel free to add other non-author-name text to author-name parameters in spite of instruction to the contrary in all cs1|2 documentation. Et al. is relatively easy to detect and compensate for; other text, not so easy; if it were, I'd have a category full of pages that have such cs1|2 template parameters.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect this page to Help talk:Citation Style 1?

Should we redirect this page to Help talk:Citation Style 1? That page is watched by 160 editors, while this one is watched by only 60, and they are essentially the same forum. I think we should have just one discussion location for issues relating to the CS1 templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support this.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the above discussion occurred, absolutely. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And see the proposals below. I support the redirect. Just merge the existing discussions into the talk over there, if still active, archive them otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Et al 3

Please see this thread at the Helpdesk. The author name Sheetal is being rendered as She et al. in {{citation}}. Something to do with the regex for et al., apparently. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) For details, compare:

  • {{citation |first=Sheetal |last=Ranjan |chapter=Crimes Against Women in India |editor-first=N. Prabha |editor-last=Unnithan |title=Crime and Justice in India |year=2013 |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=978-8-13210-977-8 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k_6HAwAAQBAJ}}
  • Ranjan, Sheetal (2013), "Crimes Against Women in India", in Unnithan, N. Prabha (ed.), Crime and Justice in India, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-8-13210-977-8

This is evidently caused by the over-eager regexp in the following code line: 

local pattern = ",? *'*[Ee][Tt] *[Aa][Ll][%.']*$"

which will recognize an "et al" mark even if it has neither a space between the two words nor a word boundary before it. Could we have a "\w" check or something of the sort built in to the beginning of that regexp to avoid this?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I'd recommend replacing ",? *" with "(, *| +)" (i.e. either a comma plus optional space, or at least one space to separate the "et al" string from the preceding text). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lua doesn't support the regex alternation |operator. Fixed in the sandbox I think:

Citation comparison
Wikitext {{citation|chapter-url=//books.google.co.uk/books?id=k_6HAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA249|chapter=Crimes Against Women in India|editor-first=N. Prabha|editor-last=Unnithan|first=Sheetal|isbn=978-8-13210-977-8|last=Ranjan|publisher=SAGE Publications|title=Crime and Justice in India|year=2013}}
Live Ranjan, Sheetal (2013), "Crimes Against Women in India", in Unnithan, N. Prabha (ed.), Crime and Justice in India, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-8-13210-977-8
Sandbox Ranjan, Sheetal (2013), "Crimes Against Women in India", in Unnithan, N. Prabha (ed.), Crime and Justice in India, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-8-13210-977-8

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Like practically everything else that happens here, you are talking in cryptic terms that simply fly over the head of most people. Does fixing in the sandbox mean that there is going to be a proper fix or am I supposed to work it out by deploying whatever hack you did there? Female infanticide in India stills shows the error. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The sandbox is the development environment for the citation templates. Changes are introduced and tested there, typically after a discussion like this one. Once the changes have been tested, the changes are moved to the main module, which makes them active in the templates. Because the citation templates are used millions of times in articles, the main module code is changed only once every few months. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Your response makes sense, although I'd query the testing bit given the number of bug reports that seem to appear here ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Et al 2

In English, abbreviations are set off with a comma, e.g. like this. This applies to "et al." equally, i.e. Smith, Jones, et al. When used with two or more names, the APA style expects it, viz. http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/11/the-proper-use-of-et-al-in-apa-style.html. Similarly for Grammarist. As does ICMJE. Chicago says to use a comma unless there's only one name written in full. That's everybody except Trappist the monk, so I've restored my edit. Any third opinions? --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

When I reverted your edit, in my edit summary I wrote: cs1|2 not bound by ICMJE; historically, cs1|2 has not used a comma before et al.
I've written this before: cs1|2 are not APA, are not Chicago, are not Bluebook, are not LSA, are not ICMJE, nor are they any other style. Certainly cs1|2 have been influenced by these styles but are not beholden to them.
Here is a simple {{cite book/old}} using {{citation/core}}. It has nine authors so it generates et al. in place of the ninth:
Author1; Author2; Author3; Author4; Author5; Author6; Author7; Author8 et al. Title. 
This form has been in place since this edit to {{citation/core}} on 7 October 2009. That style continues in use to the present day in Module:Citation/CS1.
In the edit summary of your revert of my revert you wrote: not bound by your preferences either - see talk. I have made no claim of personal preference with regards to a comma preceding et al.; if you can show where I have, please do so, otherwise, please do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
RexxS has made a bold edit, and that edit has been reverted. Now we discuss. That's how WP works. Let's not have an edit war in a sandbox.
One of the things that we typically do on this page, or on Help talk:Citation Style 1, which is watched by more editors and serves as a better place to discuss changes to the module, is suggest a change and show some examples of how the change would be implemented. Then the change, if it meets with approval (or at least tentative approval, or perhaps aggressive lack of interest, or outright ambivalence), can be implemented in the sandbox and examples of the before/after rendering can be shown.
A suggestion has been made to insert a comma before "et al." in author and editor lists. Shall we attempt to implement that change in the sandbox and then display some test cases here to see if it works as intended? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the problems that besets Wikipedia is that it is being fossilised by editors who insist that "we have done it this way in the past" is an argument against any change. It isn't any argument at all. @Trappist the monk: Your revert summary made two points, neither of which provided any objective reason why it would be better to have no separator before " et al." Your argument is clearly then nothing more than your personal preference, and I make no apologies for pointing that out to you. I have provided multiple objective reasons: the use of commas before abbreviations is standard English grammar; all other style guides that I know of require a comma. I know we're not obliged to follow other style guides, but a lack of obligation to do something is poor excuse for not doing it, and I'd ask why you would not want to adopt a style that was consistent with what readers see in almost every other serious publication? --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Do not presume to think that I am opposed to change; I am not. For evidence of that look at the history of this module; read Help talk:Citation Style 1 and its archives.
Lest you continue to put words into my mouth that I have not spoken, let me definitively state my position with regards to punctuation preceding et al.: I am neither in favor of nor opposed to punctuation preceding et al. in editor- and author-name-lists; in short, I do not care.
If the community are content to have et al. rendered without preceding punctuation, then I accept that. If the community determines though discussion that cs1|2 should render et al. with preceding punctuation, then I accept that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – The only argument presented above for not including a serial comma before "et al." is that it hasn't been since 7 October 2009 which is not a strong argument. Furthermore the removal of the comma was apparently made with no discussion. As journal style guides overwhelming support including a comma, the argument in favor is much stronger. Boghog (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial support: I think that "Smith, Alan; Brown, Jane; et al." makes sense. In the standard CS1 style, I support changing to use a semicolon before "et al.", not a comma, because other authors are separated from one another by semicolons. If the separator of choice is a comma (i.e. |mode=cs2|name-list-format=vanc), then use a comma before "et al." – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    |mode= does not change the style of separators used in the author and editor name lists:
    |mode=cs1:
    Last1, First1; Last2, First2; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. Title.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    |mode=cs2:
    Last1, First1; Last2, First2; Last3, First3; Last4, First4, Title{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    but |name-list-format=vanc does:
    Last1, First1; Last2, First2; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. Title. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) – the error here because the example uses enumerated names
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point. A semicolon should be used unless |name-list-format=vanc or |mode=cs2 in which case a comma should be used. Boghog (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I corrected myself above. I'm not used to these new formatting parameters, but I knew there was some way to have commas separating names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The new |vauthors= and |veditors= cause the module to rewrite their content as a last-first list and then render it in Vancouver system style without requiring |name-list-format=vanc.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial support per Joensey95 for consistency with the existing formatting and how this is done in other style guides. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Serial comma is the norm here, and so far no real objections have been raised. "Standard English grammar" is of course a red herring, as these are citations rather than sentences. My only concern would be to clarify usage when combining individuals with corporate authors. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1 § separator preceding et al. static text

Error message

Where can I find the error message saying that if I provide an archive-url, I also need to provide an archive-date? Debresser (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In Module:Citation/CS1 search for the string local Archived. A couple of lines below that is: ArchiveDate = set_error('archive_missing_date');. archive_missing_date is defined in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you can see it in action here:
"web page title". {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
Is that what you wanted? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for the string "|archiveurl= requires |archivedate=" Or it doesn't work like that?
In any case, it should be "|archive-url= requires |archive-date=" Can somebody fix that? Debresser (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. Also fixed |archive-url= requires |url=, Check |author-link= value, and |display-editors= suggested.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Also fixed access-date, archive-date, doi-broken-date, lay-date, and publication-date in the call to dates() in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reprinted ed.

Hi,

Just noticed, on Thomas Lodge, that I get a CS1 warning about "Extra text" for a Cite book with the param "|edition=reprinted". I imagine this is not the intended behaviour. :-)

  • Tenney, Edward Andrews (1969) [1935]. Thomas Lodge. Cornell Studies in English. Vol. 26 (reprinted ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Russell & Russell. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Cheers, Xover (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's add a collaboration parameter.

Large science projects will very often have massive list of authors. See for example, the 2012 Review of Particle Physics list of authors. The usual way of citing these massive collaboration is typically to have "J. Smith et al. (Collaboration name)" or similar (for an Wikipedia example, see [1].) This is usually achieve with the less-than-desirable a) 

 |author1=W.-M. Yao ([[Particle Data Group]])
 |author2=...
 |display-authors=1
 |year=2012

which yields the broken/incorrect W.-M. Yao (Particle Data Group) et al. (2012), or sometimes with b) 

 |last1=Yao |first1=W.-M.
 |last2=... |first2=...
 |coauthors=et al. ([[Particle Data Group]])
 |year=2012

which yields a correct Yao, W.-M et al. (Particle Data Group) (2012), and other similar hacks.

The real/best solution would to add a |collaboration= that would allow to write c) 

 |last1=Yao |first1=W.-M.
 |last2=... |first2=...
 |display-authors=1
 |collaboration=[[Particle Data Group]]

or alternatively d) 

 |last1=Yao |first1=W.-M.
 |last2=... |first2=...
 |display-authors=1
 |collaboration=Particle Data Group |collaboration-link=Particle Data Group

in order to generate the correct Yao, W.-M et al. (Particle Data Group) (2012).

This should apply across the board, in both {{citation}} and {{cite xxx}} styles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can now do |last1 = Yao |first1=W.-M. |display-authors=etal rather than |last1=Yao |first1=W.-M. |last2=... |first2=... |display-authors=1. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not really relevant to the collaboration parameter. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I marked it up with a small?... I suppose I could have done a <aside>...</aside> to be all Html 5-groovy... --Izno (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I really, really doubt anyone would oppose this. The current options (A and B, above) cannot possibly be what consensus wants. The only thing tricky bit would be whether we want a |collaboration= + |collaboration-link=, but personally I would leave that to template coders to decide on.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Any updates on this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Illustrated

The same sort of problem as for reprinted happens with edition=illustrated. Any word in edition= ending in ed can trigger the match. eg

  • Salmon, John S. (2001). The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide (illustrated ed.). Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 0-8117-2868-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
I hope you have already solved this as per above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

COinS

When "|author=Y, X " is used we produce rft.au=Y%2C+X&rft.aulast=Y%2C+X which results in Zotero - duplicating the author. Shyamal (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use |last= and |first= --Redrose64 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Shyamal: Please do not experiment in the live module. At the beginning of your experiment a large number of articles (essentially everything that uses Module:Citation/CS1) was dumped on the job queue. In the two minute duration of your experiment, hundreds or thousands of articles were changed to reflect the changes caused by your experiment. It may be a while before these changed articles are restored.

|author= and |authors= are free-form parameters. Editors can and do write all kinds of name formats in them. |last= also suffers from this but usually to a much lesser extent. Human names being what they are, getting them right in the COinS must rely on editors getting them right in the cs1|2 templates.

Are you suggesting that the module should not duplicate the first author name in both &rft.aulast= and &rft.au=? That can be done. Does this apply when there is only one author? What about when there is more than one author?

Should &rft.aulast= always be filled even when there is no |first= in the template?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not see where I can check the COinS output from the sandbox version which was why I resorted to that foolishness. I have not evaluated all the situations but ideally Zotero import of COinS from Wikipedia articles should produce well-parsed output (whether there are issues in Zotero, I do not know). Users follow either the author= for one author and authorN= for multiple authors OR the alternative form of last= first= (single) and lastN= | firstN= (for multiple authors) - if the last+first/lastN+firstN versions both work fine with Zotero - the same should hold for the author/authorN - ideally. Currently using author results in two authors being listed after COinS parsing by Zotero. Shyamal (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
[Tangential question] - @Trappist the monk: - I am unable to find any contents on LUA being handled a job to be queued - my impression was that the idea of LUA was that the code would be executed when a page is requested and that the only things that would get queued would be the caching and cluster synchronization of the code. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not how I understand it. I was once told that the server farm caches fully rendered copies of each article. Each time an article is edited, the cached copy is replaced with a newly rendered version. Change to template code takes a while to propagate to all affected pages. This is why it is sometimes necessary to purge or null edit pages.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Changes to the the module sandbox can be evaluated by using the /new versions of the cs1|2 templates, for example:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First}}
Last, First. Title.
To see what the raw module output looks like, wrap the template in {{code}}:
{{code|{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First}}}}
which, for this example gives:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002B-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFLast" class="citation book cs1">Last, First. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=Last&rft.aufirst=First&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AModule+talk%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FArchive+12" class="Z3988"></span>
I am not at all sure I understand what you wrote. So rather than attempt a reply based on a misunderstanding, can I ask you to restate and perhaps provide cs1|2 examples of what you mean?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Test 1 Green tickY Last, First (2000). Title Test1.
  • Test 2 Last, First (2000). Title Test2.
  • Test 3 Last1, First1; Last2, First2 (2000). Title Test3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Test 4 Green tickY Last1, First1; Last2, First2 (2000). Title Test4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

http://oi57.tinypic.com/zl3f3o.jpg - You are right it seems to be a problem with the author usage - notice that the first author alone gets duplicated in Test 3 Shyamal (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What does the red rectangle mean? What does (first) mean? As a guess, these mean that Zotero found &rft.aulast= without &rft.aufirst= which may or may not be an error because cs1|2 does not have a parameter for corporate authors so they are usually placed in |last= or |author=.
I have extracted the author metadata from your examples:
  • Test 1 Green tickY {{cite book/new |title=Title Test1|last=Last |first=First|year=2000}}
    &rft.aufirst=First
    &rft.aulast=Last
    &rft.au=Last%2C+First
  • Test 2 {{cite book/new | title=Title Test2|author=Last, First|year=2000}}
    &rft.aulast=Last%2C+First
    &rft.au=Last%2C+First
  • Test 3 {{cite book/new |title=Title Test3| author1=Last1, First1|author2=Last2, First2| year=2000}}
    &rft.aulast=Last1%2C+First1
    &rft.au=Last1%2C+First1
    &rft.au=Last2%2C+First2
  • Test 4 Green tickY {{cite book/new |title=Title Test4| last1=Last1| first1=First1| last2=Last2| first2=First2| year=2000}}
    &rft.aufirst=First1
    &rft.aulast=Last1
    &rft.au=Last1%2C+First1
    &rft.au=Last2%2C+First2
It is not clear to me that the way Module:Citation/CS1 is doing things is correct. Why does the module concatenate the values from |first= and |last= into a value for &rft.au= when that author is already identified in &rft.aufirst= and &rft.aulast=? Is this duplication necessary?
Perhaps an experiment is in order. I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that &rft.aufirst= and &rft.aulast= are only filled when the first author is listed in the cs1|2 template with |first= and |last=.
I have extracted the author metadata from the hacked version of the module using your same examples:
  • Test 1 {{cite book/new |title=Title Test1|last=Last |first=First|year=2000}}
    &rft.aufirst=First
    &rft.aulast=Last
  • Test 2 {{cite book/new | title=Title Test2|author=Last, First|year=2000}}
    &rft.au=Last%2C+First
  • Test 3 {{cite book/new |title=Title Test3| author1=Last1, First1|author2=Last2, First2| year=2000}}
    &rft.au=Last1%2C+First1
    &rft.au=Last2%2C+First2
  • Test 4 {{cite book/new |title=Title Test4| last1=Last1| first1=First1| last2=Last2| first2=First2| year=2000}}
    &rft.aufirst=First1
    &rft.aulast=Last1
    &rft.au=Last2%2C+First2
So, do your test again using your examples and tell me if the hack makes a positive difference.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Definitely looks the way it ought to now. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave the experiment in the code for now.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I missed you other query - the red rectangle shows that the first author is getting duplicated - I suspect that &rft.aulast= is used in cases where only one author in a long list is given and expanded automatically as et al. by Zotero. I hope your fix has no side-effects and that it will be incorporated into the main code at some point. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Module:Citation/CS1 → Module:Citation/Formatting – CS1 stands for Citation Style 1, but this module is used for Citation Style 1, Citation Style 2, and even Vancouver-style citations. The name "CS1" is a confusing anachronism. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • As long as this is done in a way that doesn't break citation formatting during the process of the move, it sounds ok. I have frequently complained on Help talk:Citation Style 1 that decisions are made there that affect other citation styles without watchers of those other styles being notified of any discussion, so this sort of name change seems like a move in the right direction to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to open this can of worms and move away from "CS1" as the name, we should consider whether "Citation" is the right name for the module, since some people may think that the module is used only for {{Citation}}.
Personally, I think the current name is fine, since anyone who gets here is probably at least a little bit technical and will read the documentation. Let's modify the documentation to make it very clear where this module is used, then call it a day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

oppose: This feels like a make-work project. If proposer were a regular contributor to discussions here or at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and were proposer to have offered more substantial reasoning than the unsupported declaration that [the] name "CS1" is a confusing anachronism, then it's possible that I might be persuaded that this isn't a make-work project. There are twenty-three cs1|2 templates and their sandboxes that will need to be touched, this module (which will require tweaking so we don't break links to its submodules and sandboxes – which should also move if the main module moves), a deal of documentation, and perhaps other stuff that I haven't thought of that must at least be looked at.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it definitely confused me :P Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
What's confusing about the first two sentences of the documentation? "This module and associated sub-modules support the Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 citation templates. In general, it is not intended to be called directly, but is called by one of the core CS1 and CS2 templates." – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose since the module is in use, and since apparently it must be so crucial to the functionality of this site that it is cascade-protected. Leave it be; moving a module causes more problems than its worth since redirects do not exist in the "Module:" namespace. Moving this page will have severe negative consequences. Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose This has been at this page location for a long time and probably everyone concerned with it knows what it is, what it’s called. It’s name is not in English but it’s not an article or other page meant for readers of the encyclopaedia, so it’s name does not have to be in English. Many templates and modules have similarly terse names. As for “formatting” it is no more concerned with that then every template on WP that generates HTML, i.e. most of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The only part of Vancouver system styling supported by cs1|2 is the author/editor name-list styling and that, incompletely.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Trappist and because the Module's documentation is clear. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent change

@Trappist the monk: I think the recent change you've made here seems to have changed cite news so that page numbers are simply given as a number, so that for example a citation will now read "14 December 1912. 3. Retrieved 26 August 2015." instead of the old "14 December 1912. p. 3. Retrieved 26 August 2015." (bolding mine). At least I think it was the edit you made here that changed this, but templates/modules at this level of intricacy are beyond my pay-grade. If it is here, can this please be reversed? Example using cite news template:

"Obituary". Footscray Independent. 14 December 1912. p. 3. Retrieved 26 August 2015.

Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. The function is_valid_parameter_value() is used to test the state of meta-parameter NoPP. If set to yes, true, or y then set the prefix meta-parameters PPrefix and PPPrefix to empty strings. But, is_valid_parameter_value() also considers |nopp= (empty or not present) to be a valid parameter value so the subsequent code dutifully set PPrefix and PPPrefix to empty strings. In all other uses of the function, the meta-parameter that is tested is the same meta-parameter that is set to an empty string when it does not have an acceptable value.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me now. Thanks! Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 December 2015

Please implement these changes from the sandbox to restore the ability to use "#" in the "episode-link" parameter of {{cite episode}}, which was possible until these recent changes to the module. This problem was discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1. As explained there, linking to individual episode entries is valid, widely done and works, but now an error is displayed for no apparent reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This module, given its wide usage, is usually changed about once a month. Also, the discussion there does not seem finished. I've disabled the edit-protected request for both reasons. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Izno I'm not sure what the update frequency has to do with this problem. As it stands now, there are likely thousands of articles displaying warnings that will confuse editors. These errors shouldn't be displaying and weren't yesterday. When the fix is so simple, I don't see why it shouldn't be fixed. Since you're not somebody who can fix the problem, I'm reactivating the request. Best let an admin sort it out, since only admins can edit this module. As for being still under discussion, there are two parts to the thread at Help talk:Citation Style 1. The issue regarding {{!}} is still being discussed but there's no reason why this can't be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't revert another editor's |answered=yes.

The technical "fix" may be trivial, but it is not sensible at this time without other people agreeing to implement it at this time. (And just because someone made the supposed fix in the sandbox does not mean they necessarily agree with it.) --Izno (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping an edit request being reactivated. In fact there are specific instructions in the template that say Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Only admins can satisfy the request since this template is fully protected and, since you are not an admin, nor do you even hold the Templateeditor permission, you can't adequately satisfy the request. This problem was not a problem before recent edits. Nor were many other problems that have cropped up since the changes. This indicates that the changes were not adequately tested before implementation. I've been writing code, both personally and professionally, for 40 years and would never have made such changes without adequate testing. Granted, much of my professional work was mission critical, dealing with issues of national security, but I can accept that there is not an urgent need to revert the changes fully because these errors are not affecting "the mission" too much. However, implementing a simple change that merely reverts the addition of an error is to be expected. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

consensus should be obtained before formally making the request. (from WP:Edit requests). The standing consensus in the context of these modules, as I have already pointed out, is that the main template is synced from the sandbox only once in every while. If you are willing to challenge that standing consensus, please do so. Reactivating an edit request is not how you are going to get a change made either to the template or the standing consensus.

Please do not add the {{edit protected}} template merely to attract attention to the change, as it clutters up the relevant edit request category with unactionable requests. also from WP:Edit requests. (Re)activating this edit request has the exact effect proscribed by this sentence.

Administrators/templateeditors may be the only editors able to respond to a fully-protected edit request in the affirmative (that is, may implement the changes). However, I see little reason why any editor responding in the negative could not do so, where that editor knows of a consensus against that change (whether because of evaluation of an RFC related to that change or because of standing consensus as in this case).

changes were not adequately tested I would tend to agree that the module does not have a robust set of test cases, but that's not relevant to this specific request; in fact, an editor on Help talk:CS1 has raised that concern in one or the other of the recent threads after this update. Aside: It is, however, a monumental task with a module of this size.

The rest of your commentary is ad hominem/argument to authority and thus irrelevant. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't necessary to request that a change that effectively broke a template be reverted. Before the change there was no error. After the change there was an error when there shouldn't have been. You have to use a little common sense here. The whole point of adding {{edit fully-protected}} is to draw attention to an edit request. The particular section that you've quoted from is about the possibility of a request being controversial. It is meant to stop people saying things like "please add a parameter to display an image" and using a template drawing attention to a discussion that really needs to be fully discussed. A request to implement a simple change to remove an error introduced by an editor is hardly controversial.
I see little reason why any editor responding in the negative could not do so Of course any editor can respond, but the point that you are missing is that you are clearly not in a position to action the request so, while you can comment, you are not in a position to demand that the edit request not be reactivated, which is what you seem to be doing. It's really up to somebody who can action the request to make that demand. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: as far as I can tell from the comments here, it's agreed that this will be fixed at the next round of updates. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the case but, in the meantime, editors are going to be confused when they see misleading warning messages about things that are actually perfectly OK. For me, that's a big headache in the TV project. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

endode

There is a mistake for OL: "endode". Someone should replace it with "encode". --Obsuser (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. That particular typo has been there since 8 April 2013.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It hasn’t been changed yet (it’s in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration)... --Obsuser (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
At en:wp, all changes are made first in the sandbox versions of the cs1|2 modules. Then, once a month or so, we update the live modules with all of the recent changes. So the fix is here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. --Obsuser (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Archive_12&oldid=709025695"