Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Help talk:Citation Style 1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:20, 21 September 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Help talk:Citation Style 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

The documentation for 'cite av media' needs to be improved...

I assume {{Cite AV media}} is supposed to be used for YouTube video references? Yet the documentation doesn't contain one "YouTube example". It would certainly help if such an example could be added to the documentation. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IJBall
Your assumption is wrong. YouTube is not a reliable source in Wikipedia and must never be used. (It can be used as a medium though, as opposed to a source, e.g. you link to a reliable source that has an embedded video.)
{{Cite AV media}} is used for film and audio recordings, e.g. a conference available for sale on a tape, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray and online streaming.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall: my opinion is a bit more nuanced than Codename Lisa's. If the appropriate entity uploads a video to YouTube, without violating copyright, and the video otherwise meets our requirements regarding reliable sources and self-published sources, then in that case the video is acceptable as a source. However, in this case, YouTube is not the publisher, but it's acting as a republisher of sorts. In that case, you'd cite the video as if YouTube had nothing to do with the video, crediting the original creators and publisher. Then you could add the appropriate |url= with |access-date= and append |via=YouTube to note where it was republished.
However, since most content on YouTube is self-published, it can't be used without complying with the exceptions noted at WP:SPS. Imzadi 1979 → 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks to me we are actually on the same page. Just different opinions of how to word our approach... —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I actually knew all that. And, yes, I'm thinking of something like this which is simply a promo released directly from Nickelodeon on YouTube. Movie trailers direct from movie studios would be another example. In any case, this comes up a lot, and a "YouTube" example should be added to the {{Cite AV media}} documentation so that your garden variety editor knows how to properly cite YouTube, including the |via=YouTube parameter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Replacements (gsub) in Module:Citation/CS1

Should str= mw.ustring.gsub (str, '[“”]', '\"'); be changed to str= mw.ustring.gsub (str, '[“”]', '%"'); as Lua escape character should be %, not standard regex \?

Same applies for line below. --Obsuser (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Obsuser: In Lua, strings can use various escape sequences that start with \, including \". Further details at mw:LUAREF#string - Evad37 [talk] 08:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Obsuser: The Lua reference manual states that \" is a valid escape character for double quotes: Lexical Conventions. Normally %x is usable in describing a character class for x, (see Character Class, but within a replacement string a character class doesn't make sense, unless it's part of a capture. Try pasting:
  1. print( string.gsub('123abc', '[2a]', '\"') )
  2. print( string.gsub('123abc', '[2a]', '"') )
  3. print( string.gsub('123abc', '[2a]', '%"') )
into https://www.lua.org/cgi-bin/demo and you'll see that 1 & 2 work, but the interpreter barfs at the % in number 3. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Evad37 and RexxS: Thank you. I was confused with mw:LUAREF#string.gsub which says for replacement string that "The character % works as an escape character: any...". However, the following part of the sentence mentions captures.
I've tried to use :gsub(',', '%.') on one string in Wikipedia module and it worked as I thought it would: I got "." instead of ",", not "%." instead of "," (I want to say that % worked as escape character for dot; in https://www.lua.org/cgi-bin/demo it doesn't work that way). --Obsuser (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem seems to have arisen nearly 6 years ago, when it was decided to link Google Books pages not adding pageurl to titleurl and chapterurl, but distorting the use of titleurl, which since then can also no longer be addressed to the front cover. Personally I solve by placing a link in the page or quote parameter, but some editors disagree and revert me. I mean, what do you think of updating the template {{cite book}}? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A link to a particular page can be useful, but a link to the cover is just advertising Google Books for little benefit, since the same page is only one extra click away via the ISBN link. Kanguole 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
But since the title of a book is written on the front cover, the titleurl should direct there and nowhere else. Or not? In addition, the ISBN link often leads to a wrong edition of the book, or to one now out of print. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The ISBN should lead to the edition of the book being cited, otherwise it tends to make page number useless. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? That RFC did not make any decision regarding a (non-existent) |pageurl= parameter. In fact, |pageurl= is not mentioned in the RFC and only once is a cs1|2 template mentioned as an example – the editor described linked to a specific page using {{cite book}}. If there is a problem, I don't understand what it is. Can you elaborate?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll try. I'm asking about the possibility of linking directly a Google Books page using an appropriate new parameter (for instance |pageurl=) instead of overloading the functions of the other already existing parameters. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A |page-url= parameter is problematic because |pages= allows comma separated lists of page numbers. To do it 'properly', I think that we would need to deprecate that form of |pages= so that its only allowed value would be a single page-range (|pages=100–120). We would then need to enumerate both |pagen= and |pagesn= and create matching enumerated |page-urln= and |pages-urln= parameters. For semantic reasons it is desirable to keep |pages= because we shouldn't be using the singular form when identifying a page-range (|page=100–120).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Really very interesting. Well: maybe (maybe) pagesurl is a false problem. A page-range always corresponds to a chapter or to a page ff, which means that no one is interested in a direct link to the last page. For example so far I have only ever linked the first page, while on the page parameter I have included the full range (pp./pages 100-120, p./page 100 ff and so on). --Mauro Lanari (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement that a page-range [shall] always [correspond] to a chapter (or journal article). It is a common practice in bibliographic cites, but in that case, the specific page numbers are stated in the accompanying short cites. cs1|2, as a style, does not limit editors' use of page ranges in that way. For in-line citations, if the source chapter or article includes pages 100–120 but the important bit that supports a statement in our article is on page 105, we should cite the chapter in |chapter= or the journal article in |title= and identify the location as |page=105 not as |pages=100–120. It is poor practice for us to make the reader search an entire article for a sentence or fact that lives on one page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As you know, there is substantial disagreement on this point. Kanguole 14:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Every useful link to Google Books I have seen in cite templates links |title= to a URL for the page where the citation can be verified. That's the point of linking in citations – helping the reader verify the text in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, by doing so you have overloaded the functions of the other existing parameters instead of adding a new appropriate one. This is an example of how all the info may be supplied in the unfortunately persistent absence of |pageurl=: Graham, Stephen (2008) [1st ed. 2004]. Cities, war, and terrorism. Towards an urban geopolitics. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-470-75302-6. ISBN 0-47075302-1., where the reader is helped in verifying the text in the article (SUV as a "defensive capsule") --Mauro Lanari (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Linking to the front cover can only confuse the reader. The ISBN link and the URL link in the page number field are both one click away from the front cover page, and the front cover image is already in the left sidebar of the Google Books page. Just do this (I also removed a redundant ISBN): Graham, Stephen (2008) [2004]. Cities, war, and terrorism. Towards an urban geopolitics. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-470-75302-6. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kanguole: Last time that there was disagreement over what should be put in |pages=, I unwatched this page. I can easily do that again. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking the front cover is the only correct use of titleurl: "URL of an online location where the text of the publication can be found." It's not provided any further usage, and if you collapse the front cover with the page, you're getting the opposite of what you would like to avoid: confusing the reader. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no |titleurl= parameter, but the next sentence in the documentation for |url= is "If applicable, the link may point to the specific page(s) referenced." The link to the front cover is superfluous, so putting the specific page link in |url= may be inelegant, but is justifiable in terms of the purpose of the citation. Kanguole 17:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I've always thought that where a link to the page is possible (where a preview is available, though it won't be available to all) then the link should be wrapped around the page number. Where no preview is possible, but you still want to point to the book somewhere, then the URL can be usefully wrapped around the title. Doing both is a bit of overkill. Sometimes I think it is not worth the bother, and no links at all is best. It is often more important to start from the front cover of the book, and assess its reliability, before turning to the page you have been directed at. Jumping straight to a page is lazy and encourages people to take things out of context. I hate it when people use search-string URLs - that is discouraged, isn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Linking the Google Books title page ("About this book") is useful because it verifies the entire citation, in "§ Bibliographic information". I don't think linking to Google Books "About this book" pages is advertising, any more than mentioning the (original) publisher. After all, all citations could be conceivably reduced to just the identifier. That would make them extra-simple. In any case, my preference runs towards short citations; I link the page url at the short form, and often, the book title ("About this book") at the full citation. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
When a reader/user finds a {{cite book}} and sees the title book as a blue link, clicking on it (s)he expects anything but being directed to a specific page, furthermore "out of the context". To have discarded the idea of a |pageurl= parameter for "|url=: if applicable, the link may point to the specific page(s) referenced" is symptomatic of a lazy, confused, twisted mind. --95.234.110.97 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

New categories

I have just created:

These are applied automatically, by {{cs1 wrapper}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books and page URLs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Redundant thread; my bad.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved to #About WP:PAGELINK

User Mauro Lanari (talk), at 02:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC), opened a WP:TFD about {{Cite book}}, and it was speedily closed as being in the wrong venue. As a procedural matter, I'm posting it to the correct one for him, in slightly clarified wording, though I haven't formulated a firm opinion about it myself:

About WP:PAGELINK: The problem seems to have arisen nearly 6 years ago, when it was decided to link Google Books pages in a way that distorts the purpose of |titleurl=, rather than adding a |pageurl= parameter to go along with |titleurl= and |chapterurl=. Since then, |titleurl= can also no longer be addressed to the front cover of a Google Book. Personally I [Maura Lanari] solve this by placing a link in the page or quote parameter, but some editors disagree and revert me. I mean, what do you think of updating the template {{cite book}}?

For Mauro Lanari (talk)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • For my part, I'm uncertain we have an encyclopedic need to link to the front of a Google Book when citing a page in it. Most of us do not use |titleurl= but |url= (I didn't even know |titleurl= existed). A possible solution would be to enable a |pageurl=, and treat |url= as an alias of it if a separate |titleurl= is given, but otherwise treat |url= as synonymous with |pageurl=. A problem with treating any Google Books |url= as a |pageurl= is that people expect to see the title linked, not a tiny page number, and another is that we'd need the Lua to parse for books.google.com URLs in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    There is no |titleurl= to know about:
    Title. {{cite book}}: External link in |titleurl= (help); Unknown parameter |titleurl= ignored (help)
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title2 or AltTitle

Is it possible to incorporate something into template:cite web to reflect when a piece has more than one title?

For example as you can see at http://web.archive.org/web/20160729014127/http://www.macleans.ca/news/justice-for-black-canadians-not/ the original title of the July 28 piece by Domise is "Justice for Black Canadians (not)" but the present version of the article at http://www.macleans.ca/news/justice-for-black-canadians-not/ has changed the title to "Why we can’t trust SIU to probe death of Abdirahman Abdi" even though the URL still reflects the old title.

I would like a way to convey in the citation both the original title of the piece and then the replacement title for the piece.

To give another example of what I mean, take this piece by Stephanie McCrummen in the Washington Post:

It's the same piece, but was given a new title. Ranze (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would use |orig-year=originally published 22 March 2005 as "Looking for Logic amid the Pain". 64.134.66.58 (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I would not advise what the IP above suggests. In this case, I would only use the title for the version of the article that was consulted and cited. Yes, that could mean a mismatch between the title and the version of it repeated within the URL, but so be it. If necessary, it may be possible to additionally cite an archived copy of the old version of the article under the old title, but I would not try to combine what are really separate sources together. Imzadi 1979 → 15:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. This is for all practical purposes a reprint, except for the article's title. For purposes of verification, nothing changed materially, and discovery of the source has not been affected. It is convenient to provide prior history for the title, but this is not necessary in this case. Why make it any more complicated? It would be a different story if this was a different title in a different edition. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
When you add the content to the article, with a ref, in that ref you should use the title as it is shown at that time, the date as it is shown, and the accessdate is today's date. If the title changes tomorrow, leave it alone together with the date, accessdate and anything else. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If the title changes, the citation should be edited because this affects discovery of the source, and/or may confuse readers. This may be more pertinent when sources are online (eventually, all of them may be). Something should promptly alert the reader that they are looking at the right source, albeit with a different title. The use of |orig-year= was suggested in cases where the new title is cited, in order to provide title history as a convenience. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you went and looked (how else could you know the title changed?), then you have accessed it again, so should update the title to the current one and change the access-date. The purpose of the access-date parameter is to mark the date that something was most recently verified, not to freeze in time when a source was first added. In complex situations involving offline sources, you can just add a note after the citation template and before the closing </ref>. Another thing I've done when a work as two titles in different markets and they're they same down the page numbers, just with different covers and nominal publishers, is to do <ref>{{Cite book|...}} Also published as: {{Cite book|...}}</ref> There is no reason that every possible detail must be fitted into a single citation template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sections of websites

Is there a correct way to link to a section of a website? Which of these three is best?

  • [1] put both section and title information in the 'title' parameter
  • [2] put the section information outside the citation template
  • [3] use the 'at' parameter to describe the section

I should provide the full examples here, but am not sure how to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If the destination website provided an anchor to a section, then I'd use:
  • {{cite web |url=http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/Documents/acad/lists/P.html#Aeronautical_Engineering,_Francis_Mond_Professorship_of |title=Francis Mond Professor of Aeronautical Engineering |website=A Cambridge Alumni Database |publisher=University of Cambridge |accessdate=15 September 2013}}
  • "Francis Mond Professor of Aeronautical Engineering". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
On the grounds that nobody actually cares what the title of the container is (i.e. page title) when they have the title of the section linked via the fragment in the url. But that's just me. As for the actual venn.lib.cam.ac.uk site, they haven't realised yet that the HTML5 spec at https://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/a.html#a-constraints has now made obsolete the "name" attribute that the web-designers are using to create an anchor for each section - which is why the above doesn't actually work. Even dinosaurs like me have caught on to that. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The spec that I normally refer to shows that name= is obsolete, but words it as "should not", which is weaker than "must not". It then describes how the name= attribute can be used in such a way that it won't conflict with other name= or id= attributes. Later on we find "The following attributes are obsolete (though the elements are still part of the language), and must not be used by authors ... name on a elements (except as noted in the previous section)". Here we have the strong "must not", but conditionally weakened. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I would use the |at= solution here. The above suggestion of |title=Francis Mond Professor of Aeronautical Engineering is a made-up pseudo-title not appearing in the work, thus making it harder to find and verify the exact source material. I encounter this problem frequently, and fix it, of people trying to use the |title= parameter to describe or retitle a work because they think the actual title isn't clear enough or something. E.g., often I'll seen dictionary entries done as |title='anthropogenesis' entry, and this is simply incorrect; the correct value is |title=anthropogenesis. Don't second-guess the title even if you don't like it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Edited collections and chapters

Is there a difference between edited collections and books with chapters with different authors? Template:Cite book says: "For edited collections, use {{cite encyclopedia}}". But 'cite book' also gives the option for 'Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor'. This seems identical to 'cite encyclopedia'. Is there a difference? Some collections are arranged in chapters, some are not. Is that the main difference? That non-chapter collections should use 'cite encyclopedia' and collections arranged in chapters can use either? (In passing, people do sometimes use 'contribution' for chapters in a collection, when 'contribution' should really be for "afterword, foreword, introduction, or preface"). Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Everything makes sense when you realize that the doc is actually a story by Lewis Carrol. 108.55.199.227 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Am I supposed to find a queen somewhere on the documentation page? Clearly I'm looking in the wrong places. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the use-{{cite encyclopedia}}-for-edited-collections notion comes from. Perhaps it is a documentation artifact from the early days of the cs1 templates when those templates were much less capable than they are today. Scholarly works on some topic are often edited collections of writings by many authors compiled into a book of chapters. I see no reason to prefer {{cite encyclopedia}} over {{cite book}} for these works.
There is no requirement that states that |contribution= is specifically limited to afterword, foreword, introduction, and preface. The requirement that I think you allude to is for |contributor= which requires |contribution=. The contribution can be anything but is typically one of the afterword, foreword, etc.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Puzzling. I use 'cite encyclopedia' all the time. Quoting from {{cite encyclopedia}}:

"This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles or chapters in edited collections such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, but more generally any book or book series containing individual sections or chapters written by various authors, and put together by one or more editors."

Example of my use of 'cite encyclopedia': [4], [5]. Another example is the Dictionary of Scottish Architects, which could be cited as a collection (more strictly, it is an online database). Many of these online collections would be encyclopedias if printed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly your first example could use {{cite book}}. Your second could use {{cite web}} especially if the online version is the source that you consulted:
{{cite web|last=Brody|first=David|author-link=David Brody|title=Meany, George|url=http://www.anb.org/articles/15/15-01098.html|website=American National Biography Online|publisher=Oxford University Press and American Council of Learned Societies|subscription=yes|date=February 2000|access-date=12 August 2016}}
Brody, David (February 2000). "Meany, George". American National Biography Online. Oxford University Press and American Council of Learned Societies. Retrieved 12 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that any editor actually makes use of the information contained in the name of the cite template. {{Cite encyclopedia}} treats the container |encyclopedia= rather like MLA's style of using quotes, while {{cite book}} treats it as an alias for |work= so it is italicised. Chacun à son goût.
  • Cavell, Richard (2015). "Remembering Canada: The Politics of Cultural Memory". In Sugars, Cynthia (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Literature. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–79. ISBN 9780199941865. - cite encyclopedia
  • Cavell, Richard (2015). Sugars, Cynthia (ed.). Remembering Canada: The Politics of Cultural Memory. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–79. ISBN 9780199941865. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help) - cite book with |encyclopedia=
  • Cavell, Richard (2015). Sugars, Cynthia (ed.). Remembering Canada: The Politics of Cultural Memory. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–79. ISBN 9780199941865. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) - cite book with |work=
--RexxS (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a chapter in a book is supposed to be rendered in italics. The citation immediately above should be rendered as:
  • Cavell, Richard (2015). "Remembering Canada: The Politics of Cultural Memory". In Sugars, Cynthia (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Literature. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–79. ISBN 9780199941865. - cite book with |chapter=
– Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Jonesy is right. 'Title' in cite encyclopedia is equivalent to 'chapter' in cite book. This can confuse people. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer: I was trying to show what would happen if you were to use |encyclopedia= in {{cite book}}, not advocate its use! There is a case you could make for using {{cite book}} for all works written on paper with covers on the front and back. You just learn one set of parameters and the output they produce. Personally, I don't care if chapter titles are in quotes or offset in superscripted Comic Sans with a pink shadow. As long as we all agree on something recognisable and use it consistently. --RexxS Call me Dino (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I realise they produce the same output. It is more a case of when I look at a source, I think to myself "what type of source is this?". If it is a printed book, that is obvious. If it is is a collection, I tend to reach for 'cite encylopedia'. If it is a news publication, then 'cite news'. When it is a webpage, I know I should really use 'cite web', but there is a distinction in my mind between webpages with no named author and no obvious date on a website with no clear structure, and more organised online websites clearly intended to replicate the organisation of a collection of entries under a named work (sometimes with a named author, sometimes not). The DSA and ANB are examples of the latter, while an example of the former would be this. In those cases, it is sometimes only really possible to identity the title of the webpage and the publishing organisation (usually obvious from the website home page). The authority (i.e. 'reliability') of a citation with no named author rests on the reputation of the publisher. I'm not consistent, though, as citations to various online databases I do often format using cite web. What I think people struggle with is the idea that the webpage is the thing with the 'title' and the 'website' is the 'work', when in the case of a book, the 'work' is the 'title' and bits within it (the webpages in the case of the website) are pages or chapters and so on. What I am saying is that in some cases, it is obvious that the website as a whole is the 'work', but for other websites, they are more a collection of pages that sometimes bear little relation to each other except for being on the same domain name. This is a well-defined website, but this is more a loose grouping of pages published by the same organisation. Does that make sense of the difference I'm trying to describe? Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The documentation is inconsistent and confusing, but sometimes this results from design flaws, such as the dual use of |title= as remarked. Not that this hasn't come up before, it has, several times in the past 5 years (or more). Fixing these flaws (there are several) should be the first order of business. In my mind, this is much more pressing than adding nice little icons, or making sure that machines can exchange metadata, or making the native citation system comfortable for users of other systems. A moratorium on any new features until a clean easy-to-use design emerges, would not be a bad idea imo. Otherwise the rabbit hole may keep getting larger. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree the docs are contradictory and this should be resolved. I would advocate re-documenting {{Cite encyclopedia}} as for being for tertiary sources composed of numerous encyclopedia- or dictionary-style entries (whether it's a multi-author work or not is irrelevant, as a large number, maybe even a majority, of topical specialist encyclopedias and dictionaries are single-author). For my part, any time I'm citing a multi-author academic book composed of papers by authors, presented as chapters, with a volume editor, I use {{Cite book}} and treat the paper/chapter as |chapter=. I one case I ran into trouble because the paper itself had chapters, and I dealt with this with |at= to site both the subchapter and the page number, though technically it was overkill since a page number was probably sufficient. I have not monkeyed with |contribution= much, so I'm not sure how nice it plays with |chapter=; I've always reserved it for forewords, afterwords, and introductions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding a "disable italics on work" parameter?

I know there's a history about the use of italics for websites or not (which comes from MOS:TITLE) and whether to use the work= or publisher= parameter to achieve the right effect. We're having a discussion on WT:VG for websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which seem to have, in common practice around WP, to not be italicized as websites (as they aren't creative work websites but more as services). Past discussion on CS1 suggests they should be entered as publisher=, but this is not true as they have a separate publishing entity.

The only trick with CS1 that can make these appear non-italic in citations is to italic the name in the template entry , but this has this data passed into wikidata so it is undesirable.

Is it possible if we could get a field like "workni=y" or "wni=y" added to CS1 that, if set, disables the italics on the work= entry, so that we respect the general styling these types of sites have in prose, while also respecting how they are entered as wikidata? If the field is not set (eg applying to all existing templates), then there should be no change in behavior, the work entry is still italicized.

This type of change probably would affect less than 1% of the citations out there, while also making these templates consistent with the openness of MOS:TITLE which does not fully prescribe how to handle websites. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. We need to put to bed any further coddling of people who want to force-format things to suit their personal peccadilloes. People are just going to have to live with the fact that WP is not their personal blog, and has it's own style guide. Every citation style in the world is different in minor details, zero of them satisfy 100% of the people, and probably no one is 100% satisfied with every nit-pick any any of them. People just get over it. If someone is abusing the |publisher= parameter for the |website= title just to force it to not be italic, this is an error and should be reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked over that thread, and the entire thing is just because some people do not think clearly about the difference between a publication, a [re]distribution, and a publishing company, nor bother to figure out what the template parameters are. There is no use case at all in which we could need some |workni=. I've laid this out as a mini-tutorial at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#This really isn't difficult once you sort it out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that CS1 is forcing a choice that MOS:TITLE does not fully define. MOS:TITLE only speaks to using italics to a specific type of website but does not describes for all websites, and practice (which defines policy not the reverse) clearly shows that we don't italicize certain types of websites in running prose. So CS1 should be flexible to the openness that MOS:TITLE has, and not force a style choice nor encourage poor use of parameters to make a style choice work. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
??? CS1 is a style, and it is optional. Styles must be internally consistent. Templated styles like CS1 must be standardized. In this optional, templated style, |work= is always italicized. Unless you want to change the font-style rendering of the parameter (a different discussion, imo) I suggest using a different citation style, maybe a non-templated one. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Url validation

@Trappist the monk: and others: Why is http://нижнийновгород.рф/references/inter/tampere.html not recognized as good url? I found it on one page and error is raised. However, if I copy it in Chrome and paste it – I get form converted into standard latin characters: http://xn--b1acdfjbh2acclca1a.xn--p1ai/references/inter/tampere.html. --Obsuser (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the domain name is not written using the Latin character set. When you paste that url into Chome, it translates it into an internationalized domain name so that the internet infrastructure can understand it. Module:Citation/CS1 uses the standardized rules for domain name validation which requires domain names to be in the Latin character set.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Using Firefox, I don't find any difference between the two types of url: both work well. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The translation is still done; firefox apparently doesn't show that it is done.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have a magic word, {{urlencode:}}, that could be used to wrap URLs like that provided by the OP. Can this be built into CS1's Lua module? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Different kind of encoding. Percent-encoding is not ASCII Compatible Encoding. Here is what the magic word produces:
http%3A%2F%2F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4.%D1%80%D1%84%2Freferences%2Finter%2Ftampere.html
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there some other template that will do the job, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_23&oldid=740450570"