Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 25

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 05:07, 21 October 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 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

SSRN free access lock

Per #Which identifiers?, we should add the green free access lock to |ssrn= so we can have Free access icon appended to the SSRN in citations like

  • Twomey, A. (2008). "Responsible Government and the Divisibility of the Crown". Public Law (93): 742–767. SSRN 1301166.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done.
  • Twomey, A. (2008). "Responsible Government and the Divisibility of the Crown". Public Law (93): 742–767. SSRN 1301166.
− Pintoch (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ISMN support

We should add |ismn= to support ISMN

  • |ismn=979-0-2600-0043-8 → ISMN 979-0-2600-0043-8

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Already supported:
{{cite book |title=Title |ismn=979-0-2600-0043-8}}
Title. ISMN 979-0-2600-0043-8.
I notice that the rendering has stripped the hyphens. I'll fix that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
We should update the doc then, because ISMN isn't mentioned. Also, is there a way to auto-hyphen the ISBN/ISMN? That would be really, really nice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cite_book#Identifiers, and every other cs1|2 template that uses {{csdoc}}, defines ISMN; has done since this edit. If you are thinking of that abomination TemplateData, perhaps it doesn't. If you want to fix that, go ahead; I will not touch it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of Help:Citation_Style_1#Identifiers. Never even was aware that Template:Citation Style documentation/id2 even existed, or that Help:Citation_Style_1 didn't make use of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Date format flexibility or error message suppression in Cite templates

More flexibility in the date parameter of {{cite}} templates is needed. See David Biespiel as of 18:22, 22 September 2016, which includes a reference to a two-week issue of The New Yorker, entered as:

  • {{cite magazine |title=Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry. |author=Robyn Creswell |author2=Bernard Haykel |magazine=The New Yorker |date=June 8 & 15, 2015 |url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/08/battle-lines-jihad-creswell-and-haykel}}

which displays with a spurious date error message:

The New Yorker web page says that the article appeared in the "June 8 & 15, 2015 Issue", so the date is correct. There should be a way of suppressing the error message. — Anomalocaris (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker just has to be different, don't they? You could put that information in |issue= as a workaround, with |date=2015 as a placeholder for the date. Or you could just call it June 8, 2015, which is what they do in their own URL: the URL for the article contains the string "/2015/06/08/", not "/2015/06/08&15/" – this is a tip-off that they know they are just being precious. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Closed ranges are allowed in |date=, so you could use "June 8–15, 2015":
Not quite right, I know, but possibly acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonesey's suggestion renders like so, for comparison:
Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker. No. June 8 & 15, 2015.
Not much better. Edition might also work:
Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (2015). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker (June 8 & 15, 2015 ed.).
--Izno (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a new parameter could tell the module to output a different character separate a date range, e.g. |date=June 8–15, 2015|range-symbol=& – so an ampersand could be displayed for the above above, or a / could be used when the source uses it (as in "June/July") - Evad37 [talk] 14:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. The double issue can be uniquely identified by the date of publication, which is June 8, 2016. This is when it became generally available, and that is sufficient for purposes of discovery. To remove any doubts or to be completist, |issue= can also be used; however that is not imo strictly needed for verification. I usually do this:
Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8, 2016). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker. No. [n1–n2] (double issue).
72.43.99.138 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To add, if the issue numbers are not available, the mysterious everyman-parameter |type= can be used:
Robyn Creswell; Bernard Haykel (June 8–15, 2016). "Want to understand the jihadis? Read their poetry". The New Yorker (double issue).
72.43.99.138 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To reply to Evad37 above, but "June/July" would not be in keeping with our MOS, and it should be switched to an en dash. That's the sort of minimal change traditionally allowed. We don't have to faithfully copy every exact detail from a source into a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Various workarounds have been suggested, but none of them recognize the fundamental issue. Sometimes articles are published in parts, with each part in a separate issue. It's possible, but less common, for the parts to not be in consecutive issues. So just it is possible to list pages as 18–9, 25, 36–9, it should be possible to list several publication dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of articles that are part of multi-part series published periodically, I would cite each part of the series as a separate article instead of trying to collapse them into a single citation. The overall title of the series can be noted in |department=. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: That would be way too cumbersome, as a single citation would have to denote: several dates, several issue numbers, and several page numbers. This is hampering discovery of the source and verification of the cited claims. One citation per issue, please. If the parameter |series= is available then it could be set as |series=part x [of y] or similar. Then all the related citations can occupy a sublist within the "References" listing. 184.75.21.30 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The sfn template has a fault when the date is "n.d."

Please see the bug report at Template talk:Sfn#Fault when date is "n.d." Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For the readers here, the problem has been identified as a feature request to modify Module:Footnotes. The CS1 citations appear to be blameless (this time!). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite within nominated for deletion

This TfD discussion could do with input from the citation experts crowd. The question seems to revolve around whether there is a need for a template that formats multiple locations/quotes from within a single source. Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Staggeringly unhelpfull

With an arrogance all too customary of wikipedia, User:Huntster reverted my edit without troubling even to notify me. (thanks robot?) The Edit summary given (I should be thankful for small mercies) said simply: 

keep discussion on the centralised page. Explanation has been given there.

Truly sublime! Currently that/this page runs to over 26,000 words. There are 23 pages shown of its archive.

This is the comment that s/he reverted on the redirect's Talk page: 

== WHY?!?!?! ==
I want to raise an issue with this page.  So wt* is the purpose of a redirect to a general Talk page that covers ...... ALL the citation1 pages ?!?!?!?!!!  Words fail. Sincerely. If you need more explanation I can't imagine any could ever suffice. LookingGlass (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Irony^2 ??

Needless (?) to say (see above) I am not watching this page, but, if relevant .. address me? Thanks. I haven't troubled Hunster with this, again, for reasons that should be self-explanatory (to anyone who stumbles across this message in a bottle).

LookingGlass (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As the above notice indicates, and to which you have been pointed prior by Pigsonthewing: To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions. It seems quite self-explanatory why you were reverted as a result. If you would like to change the practice of centralizing these talk pages, you should start a discussion, since you have been reverted. Be forewarned that I doubt anyone else will support your position in a change request discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
LookingGlass, adding text to a redirect page will always be reverted if it is noticed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey95 (and Izno), the sublime pointlessness of attempting to engage with wiki's Kafkaesque controllers doesn't escape me, yet nonetheless sometimes I succumb. Dialogues of the deaf. Messages in bottles. Peace out LookingGlass (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CiteSeerX support

It's been discussed all over the place, but I can't find any effort to actually implement it. We should have add the |citeseerx= parameter giving

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit was made; while I am agreeable to the lower-cased version, I could find nothing to indicate that CiteSeerX is every uppercased in its entirety. I would possibly support |CiteSeerX=. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Parameters are traditionally all lowercase, but they display 'normally', hence why |arxiv=1001.1234 yields arXiv:1001.1234 . I suppose we could do |citeseerx=10.1.1.220.7880 → CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.220.7880Free access icon, but I've got no strong feelings here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you're referring to the parameter name itself? There's been some movement to support ALLCAPS version of those for a while. It's annoying, but I guess this is just consistency with the other parameters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It should work now.
Let me add support for |CiteSeerX=. − Pintoch (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All caps for not-all-caps identifiers

Hum, actually |arXiv= is not supported, and it seems to me that identifiers tend to be lowercase or ALLCAPS only, so maybe it would be better to keep only |citeseerx= and |CITESEERX= for uniformity. − Pintoch (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The parameters with all caps variants are only all caps because they are abbreviations. CiteSeerX is not. I suppose CSX is, but does that occur in the wild? --Izno (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed CITESEERX (leaving citeseerx) from the Whitelist sandbox page because the name is not an initialism or acronym. DOI, ISBN, and others are allowed in all caps because they are initialisms or acronyms. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The caps are there for pretty much all identifiers though, even those that aren't initialisms or acronyms (e.g. |ARXIV=, |BIBCODE=), etc... I've restored it for consistency with the current behaviour. We should, however, add |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
When adding or removing parameters, don't forget to update both the configuration and whitelist. − Pintoch (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
So, consistency is not necessarily desirable here. Even if it were, let's talk about having all-caps versions of identifiers which are never used as acronyms. You point out that there are presently identifiers which shouldn't be all caps, because they aren't so outside Wikipedia I presume. As it happens, BIBCODE isn't used in the wiki-wild. I haven't checked the others, but we should deprecate that. --Izno (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
ARXIV is used some 1k times, but almost all of those are empty. Let's deprecate that also. It looks to me like ARXIV is being trans-wikied from somewhere, probably German Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with deprecating those, but right now the sandbox is inconsistent in its logic, and that is not acceptable. Either update the sandbox version to deprecate those parameter names, or allow |CITESEERX=, but a bastardized version shouldn't be there. The caps versions should be likely replaced by |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=.
That being said, if the germans use all caps versions like ARXIV and CITESEERX, we should keep ours too for compatibility.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Most of the ones I saw from German were using {{citation/core}}, which was odd; it's probable that if we updated our module, we'd be fine on any transwiki points. Even if we weren't, we can add a property suggestion for those all-caps variants. Do we want to replace those all-caps versions with the properly-capitalized versions? You seem to want that. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
All caps should be reserved for parameters that are pure initialisms, like |DOI= and |ISBN=. I recommend removing support for |BIBCODE=. I am fine with supporting mixed caps for parameters whose canonical versions use mixed caps, like |arXiv=/|bioRxiv=/|CiteSeerX=. All parameters should also support pure lower case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I don't get why you keep removing |CITESEERX= from the whitelist. Either we decide to remove capitalized versions of identifiers which are not acronyms, or we decide to keep them. In the former case, there are many other changes to do, for instance |BIORXIV= should also be removed as this parameter will be introduced in the next update of the live module (so, no deprecation needed). In any case, let's try to keep the sandbox in a consistent state, which should ideally reflect a consensus here. And let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, this is about a capitalized version of a parameter in a Wikipedia template… − Pintoch (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't edited in that region since the above date (24 September). No one since has voiced disagreement that we should perhaps deprecate (or remove before release) the all-caps versions of the parameters which are not acronyms, so I was planning to implement that apparent consensus at some point in the near future (today?). Feel free to implement that consensus yourself if you would like. --Izno (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw your edits today, so I did not respond earlier. Please go ahead with the rest of the parameters, it would be great to have a consistent sandbox. − Pintoch (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Pintoch, and Jonesey95: please review configuration edit and whitelist edit. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy with this, but should we replace the (rare) occurences of |ARXIV= in the wild by |arxiv= before the change is effective? (Could someone with AWB rights do it?) − Pintoch (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the parameter is now marked as false, pages including templates with the deprecated parameter will be added to the deprecated parameters category. We should indeed remove the parameter from usage prior to removing the parameter from the whitelist completely, but we do not need to remove the parameter from use prior to release of the changeset. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen TTM regularly work on deprecation of attributes in the wild using AWB, so yes, that is possible. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
At least part of the edit to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox should be reverted. Deprecated parameters should still display as if they weren't deprecated. For example, |coauthor= is deprecated (still) but the module displays its assigned value:
{{cite book/new |author=Author |coauthor=Coauthor |ARXIV=1001.1234 |title=Title}}
Author. Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |ARXIV= ignored (|arxiv= suggested) (help)
While not a hill on which I'd care to die, I think that we should avoid mixed case parameter names even to replicate the identifier's canonical name. This is the camel's nose to supporting capitalized parameter names. We deprecated and removed |Author= and a few other similarly capitalized parameters. Let us not return to that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I have made the requested edit. I personally would prefer not to have mixed case as well. Aside: Why doesn't coauthor= display an error? --Izno (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is more than one deprecated parameter in a template, the module displays an error for the first one it encounters. If I remove |ARCHIVE=, then there is an error for |coauthor=:
Author. Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not introduce mixed case. − Pintoch (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 and Headbomb: What do you think about leaving out the mixed-case versions? --Izno (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally care, and would personally get rid of all caps versions as well. But if the logic is that DOI/ISBN need to stay because some people will use caps for these acronyms instead of doi/isbn, the same argument can be made for mixed cases since some people will use 'correct' casing when writing arXiv/bioRxiv/CiteSeerX/Zbl. So while my personal DGAF levels are fairly high, we do need to think of newbies/user-friendliness... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Casing for compound parameters

Now appears |URL-access= purportedly for consistency. I'm not so sure about that. |URL-access=, if retained, will be the only compound parameter name that has different case on either side of the hyphen. The other 'acronym' compound parameter names, |ignore-isbn-error=, |doi-broken-date=, |dead-url=, etc, are all lower case. I think that compound parameter names should be lower case – which means that we should deprecate |ASIN-TLD= and revert the |URL-access= change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet more intrigue. The edit was bold on my part, so I'm not attached to it here. :D --Izno (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Trappist, I also prefer the fully lowercase version. Otherwise, if we support |URL-access=, we should also support |DOI-access=, |HDL-access= and so on… Let's keep things simple. − Pintoch (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite DVD notes proposed for merge with Template:Cite AV media notes

This discussion proposes merging Template:Cite DVD notes into Template:Cite AV media notes. Both are existing CS1 templates. Please discuss at the TfD page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

PMC minor formatting difference when embargoed

I noticed that when a PMC is embargoed, we render a colon after "PMC", but when it is available, there is no colon. I poked through the module code and was unable to find where that happened. Here are examples of {{cite journal}} with no embargo date, an expired embargo date, and a future embargo date.

Author (2006). "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Author (2006). "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (help)

Author (2006). "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (help)

Can someone please find that code and remove the colon from the "future date" example? I'm assuming this will be uncontroversial. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

it was in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox:
Author (2006). "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I found it, but I'm about to open a can of worms. It appears to be in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox at "local id_handlers". The can of worms has two parts:
  1. Some identifier names (e.g. arXiv and doi) are followed by a colon, and some are not (e.g. PMC and PMID).
  2. Identifier capitalization is inconsistent (e.g. ASIN and DOI).
At the risk of having to eat a bunch of worms, I propose removing all colons following identifier names (using nbsp for consistency) and changing "doi" and "hdl" to all caps, per the web sites that "own" these identifiers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps not just yet. doi, with the colon preceding the identifier I think is to be lower case. It was originally intended to be like a url scheme if memory serves.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are correct. So much for consistency. Thanks for fixing the PMC colon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This old discussion is related to that. I'm still annoyed that ISBN formatting is different than all others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The arXiv: formatting, with the colon, is what arXiv uses on its own site to format these things. It is how their identifiers are shown, in pages that list preprints like http://arxiv.org/list/cs.DS/recent, on the abstract page headers for the individual papers, in their recommeded citations, and even embedded into the margin on the first page of the pdfs there. It also is our internal wikilink format (e.g. [[arXiv:YYYY.NNNNN]] does what you might expect it to). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_25&oldid=745444552"