Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 34

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 05:44, 14 July 2017 (Archiving 2 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 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

|ol= prefix

In its present incarnation, {{cite Q}} is a meta-template using {{citation}}. It uses parameter values obtained from wikdata. Wikidata holds OpenLibrary identifiers that begin with an 'OL' prefix. cs1|2 emits an error message when the value assigned to |ol= has an 'OL' prefix. Because this situation is reminiscent of this discussion, I have modified the |ol= error checking to quietly accept OL identifiers with the OL prefix. The appearance of the rendering has not changed:

Cite book comparison
Wikitext {{cite book|ol=OL7130221M|title=Treasure Island}}
Live Treasure Island. OL 7130221M.
Sandbox Treasure Island. OL 7130221M.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It is a good application of Postel's Law. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks from me also. What's old is new again (link to previous discussion, September 2014). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

single quote for an ASCII quote

As the Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS seems to be moribund, I decided to post here.

It took me a hour or more to work out that this was the cause of a problem that I have, because I read Help:CS1 and could not see that it was an obvious feature (so I assumed it was some sort of hidden character in the string or a fault in my scripting): 

* {{cite encyclopedia
  |title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)]]
<!-- |encyclopedia=A well known encyclopedia -->
}}

Works 

* {{cite encyclopedia
  |title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)]]
|encyclopedia=A well known encyclopedia
}}

Does not work because the ’ has been replaced with '

The reason for this substitution is in Module:Citation/CS1/COinS line 177: 

value = value:gsub ('<span class="nowrap" style="padding%-left:0%.1em;">&#39;(s?)</span>', "'%1");	-- replace {{'}} or {{'s}} with simple apostrophe or apostrophe-s

What is the thinking behind this line? -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

HO-hum it seems that is unlikely to be the line as &#39; is an ordinary ASCII single quote ' so presumably the conversion is elsewhere. -- PBS (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Line 177 in Module:Citation/CS1/COinS is not the problem. That line is looking for all of the styling that is transcluded when the {{'}} and {{'s}} templates are part of a cs1|2 parameter value because we don't want all of that extraneous html and css in the metadata.
The bug you found is in the function kern_quotes() in Module:Citation/CS1. There, the ‘ and ’ characters (U+2018 & U+2019) are replaced with simple typewriter quotes, perhaps a bit overzealously. I've tweaked the sandbox to limit that replacement so that only those curly quotes that are the first and last characters to the title are replaced:
{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)]] |encyclopedia=A well known encyclopedia}}
"fr:Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)" . A well known encyclopedia.
Your example that 'worked', worked because the title is not rendered in quotes; it was instead rendered in italics. Kerning is only applied to titles that the cs1|2 templates wrap in quote marks.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

When I was trying to understand the example, I was distracted by what I perceived as errors in writing the citation. Maybe the following would be less distracting:

* {{cite encyclopedia |title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)| SPENSER (Edmond)]] |encyclopedia = Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie | last1 = Bouillet | first1 = Marie-Nicolas | last2 = Chassang | first2 = Alexis }}

  • Bouillet, Marie-Nicolas; Chassang, Alexis. "SPENSER (Edmond)" . Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie.

As in PBS's report, Wikisource can't find the article. Note that I intentionally changed the curly single quote (used as an apostrophe) to a straight quote in the encyclopedia parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it can not easily be solved with redirects on Wikisource because as with this book, the will be hundreds subpages under the main page for many Wikisource sources. See for example:
This also affects links into sections within a page where, unlike Wikipedia, Wikisouce often uses ‘’ “” so potentially we have a problem that to access a section on Wikisource an ASCII single quote 's would be needed in the section header even though the rest of the text uses ’s. -- PBS (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
" I've tweaked .. those curly quotes that are the first and last characters to the title are replaced". Given that the links can be to sections this might not be sufficient as like this one s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion#The "Crowning_Mercy" it is possible that a funny quotation mark may be at the end of a title string (or at least before a | or a ]]) — this particular example has been hacked to use strait double quotes in the anchor, but the text has a pair of “”.
This explains why a link using {{cite EB1911}} fails on trying to link to that section, but does link to the one immediately before it.
-- PBS (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First things first: the reason that your {{cite EB1911}} example does not work has nothing to do with any kind of quotes. The link doesn't work because a space (or underscore) is missing from between 'Crowning' and 'Mercy'. If I rewrite that example as:

{{cite EB1911|short=x|wstitle=Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"}}
"Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.

the link works and takes me to the proper place in the wikisource text.

Now quotes and kerning. cs1|2 renders certain titles inside double quote marks. Sometimes titles, especially news article titles, contain single or double quote marks: Alien abduction survivor: 'They've got Elvis!' Without kerning, the terminal quote mark in my example would be placed directly adjacent to the trailing double quote mark applied by the cs1|2 template; kerning inserts a small amount of space so that the two quote marks can be distinguished. When I originally wrote the kerning code, I deferred support for wikilinked title text that cs1|2 would render in quotes because, in general, there is relatively little need for linking to en.wiki articles about a chapter or news article (if there are any such articles). Of course that ignores interwiki links to WikiSource among others.

The problem with wikilinked quoted title text is that kern_quotes() is looking for a single or double quote mark as the first and/or last character in the title text. With wikilinks, the wiki markup gets in the way and there are two forms of wikilink. For the time being, and until I noodle out an appropriate solution, for wikilinks like the first example below, kern_quotes() shall do nothing because there is no 'label' for that link. In the second example, because there is a label, kern_quotes() does insert the space to separate quote marks:

Cite encyclopedia comparison
Wikitext {{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|title=[[Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"]]}}
Live "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"" . Encyclopædia Britannica.
Sandbox "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"" . Encyclopædia Britannica.
Cite encyclopedia comparison
Wikitext {{cite encyclopedia|chapter=[[Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion#The "Crowning Mercy"|The “Crowning Mercy”]]|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|title=Great Rebelion}}
Live "The "Crowning Mercy"" . Great Rebelion. Encyclopædia Britannica.
Sandbox "The "Crowning Mercy"" . Great Rebelion. Encyclopædia Britannica.

I have restored the curly quote replacement code because kerning shall not be applied to the link portion of a wikilink. The example above, uses curley quotes in the label part of the wikilink. The example below shows that even with the curley quote replacement code restored, the link to wikisource works:

Cite encyclopedia comparison
Wikitext {{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=A well known encyclopedia|title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)]]}}
Live "fr:Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)" . A well known encyclopedia.
Sandbox "fr:Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)" . A well known encyclopedia.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox version of the first "Crowning Mercy" example now has properly kerning.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for pointing it out. "kerning" is nice to have, however not having it is not a show stopper. How soon can the fix to access to "wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Index alphabétique - A" be available in production? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made an interim change to the live module that permits:
{{cite encyclopedia |title=[[wikisource:fr:Dictionnaire universel d’histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)]] |encyclopedia=A well known encyclopedia}}
"fr:Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie Bouillet Chassang/Spenser (edmond)" . A well known encyclopedia.
Kerning in this live version is still broken.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement. -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Categorization for multiple languages in para language

Why there is only one category (for first language) added when there are two or more languages entered in para |language=? --Obsuser (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please link to an example article when raising questions like this. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. Because of an oversight on the part of the programmer. The function add_prop_cat() has a primary purpose of preventing the addition of multiple duplicate categories of the same kind at the end of the rendered citation. When there are multiple languages in |language=, add_prop_cat() receives one of two key values: foreign_lang_source or foreign_lang_source_2. If add_prop_cat() has never seen these keys previously while processing |language=, then the property category is added to the list. Once seen, no more of that kind of property cat will be added.
I have modified language_parameter() append the ISO 639 language code to the property's key to make each key language specific and add_prop_cat() to remove the code for rendering. If you copy this:
{{code|{{cite book/new |script-title=he:Title |language=sr, he, Old English, es, fr, Delaware}}}}
and paste it into article space and click Show preview (don't save) you should see this:
<cite class="citation book"> <bdi lang="he" >Title</bdi> (in Serbian, Hebrew, Old English, Spanish, French, and Delaware).</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AFrank+Speck&rft.btitle=Title&rft.genre=book&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;"> </span></span>[[Category:CS1 uses Hebrew-language script (he)]][[Category:CS1 Serbian-language sources (sr)]][[Category:CS1 Hebrew-language sources (he)]][[Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)|ang]][[Category:CS1 Spanish-language sources (es)]][[Category:CS1 French-language sources (fr)]][[Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)|del]]
I think that there is a slightly better way to do this and will pursue that idea a bit later.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

CS1 maint: English language specified

Just wonder what happened to Category:CS1 maint: English language specified? Why was it removed? – Danmichaelo (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fishing lesson: Scroll to the top of this page, find the "Search archives" box, type "English language specified", and you will get this result. The discussion is in Archive 8. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

hdl - OAbot - ELNEVER?

I am finding myself in a little edit war with User:Waldir , who added a "hdl" parameter to a ref in this dif with edit note: Added free to read links in citations with OAbot #oabot). The specific handle added here was hdl:10722/198790, which I hesitate to post, but I guess we need it for the discussion. There is a full-text link to the article on that webpage. I do not see any indication that this is a non-copyright-infringing copy.

My removal was reverted in this dif, with edit note Undid edit 784333522] -- restore link to full text, as existing DOI/PMID link to paywalled sources. and I again reverted.

So -

  • are people using hdl to violate WP:ELNEVER?
  • Is there a bot that is being used to violate WP:ELNEVER?

I've posted a link to this at the article talk page and may post other places to broaden this, depending on how this goes...who knows I may have something to learn here. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's an author copy, not a copyvio. An earlier version of OAbot had a problem with ELNEVER — it was posting citeseerx links, and those are often violations. But this one (as with all hdl OA links I have looked at) appears to be legitimate. More specifically, I think it's something one of the authors posted at their home institution, so I don't think it is problematic. I can't tell precisely which author did it, but three of them are listed as having the same institution as the preprint server (HKU). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks for that background and analysis of this link. I will self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For clarification, OAbot still uses |citeseerx= but is not run as a bot anymore (the BRFA was withdrawn). It has become a semi-automated tool where users are asked to check the links they add (https://tools.wmflabs.org/oabot/). Checking if a copy is legal can be genuinely hard even for librarians (it is not just whether it is an author manuscript or not! Very often, you need to take into account policies from publishers, from universities and funders, to assess the status of these copies). These considerations have little to do with the nature of the identifier used to insert the link (for instance, it is possible that a |doi= links to a copyvio, because some preprint servers can issue DOIs). − Pintoch (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Identifier order messed up.

Why is bibcode displaying before arxiv in?

Identifiers should be listed in alphabetical order. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The identifier labels are sorted with a case sensitive sort. 'B' has an ascii numerical value of 66 (0x42) and 'a' has an ascii numerical value of 97 (0x61). Proof for that is here, where I've added |eissn=1365-2966 and |issn=0035-8711 from the journal's wikipedia article:
"The extended rotation curve and the dark matter halo of M33". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 311 (2): 441–447. 2000. arXiv:astro-ph/9909252. Bibcode:2000MNRAS.311..441C. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03075.x. eISSN 1365-2966. ISSN 0035-8711. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that ought to be fixed then, either with case-insensitive sorting, or by putting the sortkey in a {{lc:IDENTIFIERNAME}} type of thing. Because it wasn't like that before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been no changes to the identifier sorting since at least this version (April 2013) of Module:Citation/CS1.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I distinctly remember those to be sorted correctly as late as this spring. But even if my memory somehow fails me, those should be sorted alphabetically, regardless of casing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Any update on doi-broken-date?

If anything, the doi should at the very least still link. Other improvements can wait/get more discussion, but the linking part should be easy to fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Any way we can get this bundled in the weekend's update? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of this interstitial period is to have a last chance to find and fix bugs; to create or modify supporting documentation, categories, templates, etc. – housekeeping preparatory to the update. It is not the time for new development or new features.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah well this has been requested a long while ago, is an easy fix, and we have over half a week left. WP:BURO applies here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we now implement this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

De-archived because discussion is ongoing/unresolved. @Trappist the monk:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk and Jonesey95: pinging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to me to have allegedly broken DOIs linked, since the doi-broken-date is checked by a bot and (a) could have been wrongly applied or (b) could have been a temporary problem or (c) both. There are plenty of links that don't work and are not flagged as such. That's just the state of the web, and always has been. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

NO ONE uses "access-date"

[Approximately] no one uses access-date. accessdate is the norm; access-date is the alternate.

I changed this documentation page to reflect this [de-facto] usage. Someone changed it back, saying "the canonical parameter names are hyphenated".

1) Both forms are listed, and they function identically. Therefore both forms are canonical. Or, whichever form is listed first is canonical. I changed the order here, thus changing the canon. Is that a problem? 2) I thought that this instruction page, not linking to any policy page, was the only guideline for this parameter. Does this parameter have a canon? Citation needed. (Let's change it too.) 3) If usage is 99% "accessdate" and 1% "access-date", then an unwritten rule or tradition supersedes the examples here. Thus these examples make fools of people, and they need to be corrected. If there is a canon, it also needs to be revised. 4) "is" does not mean "forever shall be. It would be hard to excuse not changing this. -A876 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It was I who reverted your edits.
See this RFC. Note that the RFC says: The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". What I wrote in the edit summary that accompanied the reversions of your edits is correct: the canonical forms of multi-word cs1|2 parameter names are the hyphenated forms.
Answering your questions:
  1. yes, changing the order is a problem because the RFC specifically states that hyphenated parameter names are to be the 'normal use' parameter names.
  2. the 'canon' is the documentation page for each template which derives from Template:Citation Style documentation which is the centralized parameter documentation.
  3. usage may well be as you describe. The decision taken in the RFC (2014) came long after the introduction of |accessdate= (c. 2006). Because the parameters |access-date= and |accessdate= are aliases of each other, there can be no mass change by robot to convert |accessdate= to |access-date= because such a change is merely cosmetic. Cosmetic-only changes by robot are prohibited. See WP:COSMETICBOT.
  4. because an RFC made the decision to prefer hyphenated names, I suspect that there is little justification for a change away from that RFC's decision.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
One minor point in response to the OP: I patrol the CS1 unsupported parameters category, and I occasionally see a well-meaning editor incorrectly "correct" "accessdate" to "access date", which introduces an invalid parameter. I have never seen anyone change "access-date" to "access date". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That to me indicates that some editors are reading "accessdate" as text rather as a parameter label. This would likely fall under careless/lazy editing. Isn't it obvious from the context that "accessdate" is part of a script?! 65.88.88.75 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
If I have autocorrect turned on in my OS, my browser will correct "accessdate" to "access date" for me while I"m typing, but it will leave "access-date" alone. Spell checkers in software don't have that same context you describe, so they'll correct what they see as a typo by inserting a space between what is otherwise separate words in the English language. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, the comment was about human editors. With machine editors such as autocorrection routines, gigo applies, I suppose. 65.88.88.208 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of authors in COinS metadata

I have just tried an experiment, at User:Pigsonthewing/Zotero-test, where I imported a citation to Zotero, from a Wikipedia citation template, using its COinS metadata. I then exported that citation from Zotero as a Wikipedia citation template,

The order of the author names was not preserved (instead, they were apparently sorted alphabetically by first name in the COinS output of the original template).

Is that deliberate? Can the behaviour be changed, so that the order is preserved in a round-trip? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The OP omitted that the above citation uses the experimental {{Cite Q}} wikidata template. I tried to substitute the Cite Q template to reproduce the problem, but it's a Lua module, and I couldn't figure out how to substitute it. So I rewrote the citation in my sandbox, like so:
{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1371/JOURNAL.ONE.0010676| volume = 5| issue = 5| last3 = Tassell| first3 = James L. Van| last1 = Williams| first1 = Jeffrey T.| last2 = Carpenter| first2 = Kent E.| last7 = Smith| first7 = Michael| last4 = Hoetjes| first4 = Paul| last6 = Etnoyer| first6 = Peter| last5 = Toller| first5 = Wes| title = Biodiversity Assessment of the Fishes of Saba Bank Atoll, Netherlands Antilles| journal = PLOS ONE| date = 2010-05-21}}
which renders like this:
Williams, Jeffrey T.; Carpenter, Kent E.; Tassell, James L. Van; Hoetjes, Paul; Toller, Wes; Etnoyer, Peter; Smith, Michael (2010-05-21). "Biodiversity Assessment of the Fishes of Saba Bank Atoll, Netherlands Antilles". PLOS ONE. 5 (5). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010676.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
When I look at the HTML source, I see the authors alphabetized by last name. The relevant portion of the citation looks like this: 
rft.au=Carpenter%2C+Kent+E.&amp;rft.au=Etnoyer%2C+Peter&amp;rft.au=Hoetjes%2C+Paul&amp;rft.au=Smith%2C+Michael&amp;rft.au=Tassell%2C+James+L.+Van&amp;rft.au=Toller%2C+Wes&amp;rft.aufirst=Jeffrey+T.&amp;rft.aulast=Williams
I do not know where this alphabetization happens, assuming that it is not coincidence. I looked through a few different specs linked from COinS, and none of them referred to any ordering of author parameters when there is more than one author. That surprises me, given the importance that journals and academics ascribe to the order of authors of papers, but it looks like you may be trying to do something that is not possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that Zotero is not sorting the author list on import? Also it is trivial to sort by the first authors last name in Zotero by clicking on the sort arrow in the Creator column header. Boghog (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2017 (UC)
I did not do anything with Zotero. As the OP said, "they were apparently sorted alphabetically ... in the COinS output of the original template". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
My reply was to the OP. The OP also said "apparently". Boghog (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the OP. The sorting was within a citation, not between citations. Just to be clear, I agree that the oder of authors within a citation should be preserved. Boghog (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
As a test, I have commented out one line of "table.sort" code in the CS1 module sandbox. Now the citation in my sandbox looks like this:
{{Cite journal/new| doi = 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010676| volume = 5| issue = 5| last3 = Tassell| first3 = James L. Van| last1 = Williams| first1 = Jeffrey T.| last2 = Carpenter| first2 = Kent E.| last7 = Smith| first7 = Michael| last4 = Hoetjes| first4 = Paul| last6 = Etnoyer| first6 = Peter| last5 = Toller| first5 = Wes| title = Biodiversity Assessment of the Fishes of Saba Bank Atoll, Netherlands Antilles| journal = PLOS ONE| date = 2010-05-21}}
which renders like this:
Williams, Jeffrey T.; Carpenter, Kent E.; Tassell, James L. Van; Hoetjes, Paul; Toller, Wes; Etnoyer, Peter; Smith, Michael (2010-05-21). "Biodiversity Assessment of the Fishes of Saba Bank Atoll, Netherlands Antilles". PLOS ONE. 5 (5). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010676.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
When I look at the HTML source now, I see the authors listed in the numerical order given in the citation. In other words, the "|last1=" author is correctly listed first, etc., even though he is listed second in the citation template above. The relevant portion of the citation looks like this: 
rft.aulast=Williams&amp;rft.aufirst=Jeffrey+T.&amp;rft.au=Carpenter%2C+Kent+E.&amp;rft.au=Tassell%2C+James+L.+Van&amp;rft.au=Hoetjes%2C+Paul&amp;rft.au=Toller%2C+Wes&amp;rft.au=Etnoyer%2C+Peter&amp;rft.au=Smith%2C+Michael
I have not looked at the rest of the COinS output to see if there are undesirable side effects of this change, but it appears to explain what the OP was seeing. The CS1 module appears to be sorting the author names in the COinS data. Andy, what happens if you export that citation to Zotero? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Zotero exports your sandbox version as {{Cite journal| doi = 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010676| volume = 5| issue = 5| last1 = Williams| first1 = Jeffrey T.| last2 = Carpenter| first2 = Kent E.| last3 = Tassell| first3 = James L. Van| last4 = Hoetjes| first4 = Paul| last5 = Toller| first5 = Wes| last6 = Etnoyer| first6 = Peter| last7 = Smith| first7 = Michael| title = Biodiversity Assessment of the Fishes of Saba Bank Atoll, Netherlands Antilles| journal = PLOS ONE| date = 2010-05-21}}, which maintains the original ordering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
While it's conceivable that Zotero also applies sorting (I've not yet tested that), in this case the reordering is already present in our COinS metadata. I used the word "apparently" because I can't rule out some other algorithm that coincidentally applied alphabetical sorting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The original cite was produced by {{Cite Q}} which gets its parameter values from WikiData. {{Cite Q}} uses |authorn= parameters and WikiData provides author names first-name-first. As Editor Jonesey95 correctly points out, Module:Citation/CS1/COinS sorts the metadata. When the cite does not use |last1= and |first1= all author-names are assigned to &rft.au keys. When the metadata are sorted, the sort compares the whole key/value string. Because author-names in this example are fist-name-first, that is how they were sorted.
The change to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that added the sorting was done here and appears to have been done for the convenience of the editor.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, the issue occurs when {{Cite journal}} is used, also - albeit sorted by last name. I've added some more analysis to User:Pigsonthewing/Zotero-test, using both {{Cite journal}} and {{Citation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. {{Cite Q}} calls {{citation}} and {{citation}} uses the same Module:Citation/CS1/COinS as does {{cite journal}}. The sorting differences that you see in the above examples occur because {{Cite Q}} feeds |authorn= parameters to {{citation}} but the example {{cite journal}} uses |lastn= and |firstn=. The module concatenates the value assigned to |lastn= with a comma and a space and with the content of |firstn= when it creates a &rtf.au=lastn, firstn key/value pair. There is no concatenation when the author name is contained wholly in |authorn=; the module does not attempt to rearrange such names into last-first order. When the cs1|2 template uses the first author parameters |last1= and |first1=, the values from these parameters are assigned to the &rft.aulast and &rft.aufirst keys respectively. Because there can only be one 'first' author, only one of each of these keys is allowed in the metadata; all other authors are placed in individual &rft.au keys.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of dead-url for non-archived {{cite web}}

How do I mark a dead-url without an archive-url ?

I'm trying to mark the 2nd reference in the article Common moorhen as a dead link. I can't find an archive on Archive.org or webcite so don't have an archive-url. When I add dead-url=yes to the cite template nothing changes. I was expecting a dead-link marker to be displayed in the References section.

The dependancies for dead-url is listed as just 'url', but it actually seems to depend upon archive-url (and url and archive-date). Well, I don't get an error, but I don't get any effect either.

Platinke (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked your heading.
The cs1|2 templates do not provide the functionality you seek. To mark a citation's url as dead, use the template {{dead link}}. |dead-url= has a default value of yes. When set to no, it causes the template to select the value in |url= when linking the value in |title=; otherwise |title= is linked with |archive-url=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Skeptoid}}

Discussion has started to expand this template to display the author and to support a date. However, this template also accepts ordered parameters, although the documentation makes no mention of it. I wonder if there's an easy way to verify that no ordered-parameter usage exists (and to list these, if any). If there are none, it may also be best to not support ordered parameters anymore for this template. If there are, the date field would unfortunately be positioned after the accessdate one to not break existing usage (of course not affecting named parameter usage). The discussion started on the template's talk page and there is a working potential replacement in a sandbox that is linked there. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 00:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This insource: search seems to indicate that there are none. Still, there are only a hundred-ish articles that use that template so it wouldn't be too onerous to add a snippet of code to the template that renders an error message when the template is used with positional parameters. Wait a few days and then search for the error message. Fix those templates and then remove support for positional parameters.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Insource was what I was looking for, thank you very much. I also thought that to detect errors this way a category needed to be used, but it's also nice to know that error messages can be enough. I'll experiment with this idea in my sandbox. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate - 01:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Trappist the monk and Jonesey95, the template was successfully improved, errors also cause preview warnings and pages to be added to a category. —PaleoNeonate - 07:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

New tracking category needed

Can someone add a tracking category for "Id parameter with ISBN tempate"? Is that easy or requites extra coding? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a clearer request: it may be useful to track usage of id = ISBN or id = {{ISBN in a maintenance category. Editors sometimes put redundant ISBNs in the |id= parameter. Redundant ISBNs can typically be removed with no harm, and ISBNs in the id= parameter without an ISBN present elsewhere in the citation template should probably be moved to |ISBN=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessarily 'wrong' for cs1|2 templates to use |id= to hold isbns? This insource search finds less than 700 instances of |id={{isbn|...}} so it doesn't seem to be a widespread 'problem'. Certainly, as Editor Jonesey95 points out, redundant isbns in |id= can be removed. Are there not cases where a second, supplementary isbn would be appropriate?
@Magioladitis: I think that you need to explain why your requested change is necessary.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Trappist the monk To track and fix. I would be OK with a list too. As said the cases should be checked manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If a list is all that you need, the insource search linked above should answer your requirement. Right?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Absent a dedicated |eISBN= (or functional equivalent) (see 1; I was sure there was another thread, but I can't find it now), adding supplementary ISBNs to |id= is a necessary safety valve. The prime example, that I thought I'd posted previously, being things like Cambridge Core, that publishes digital copies of print books. In most cases (at least for now) the print and digital versions are identical in all the ways that matter for citation purposes, but each has a separate ISBN (often called "eISBN" or "Online ISBN"; it's analogous to |eISSN=). In terms of citations, each are equivalent but there are two ways to access the same source. For instance, your institution (school, library, whatever) may not be able to afford the online service (they are expensive!), but have the print book in its collections. Or in my case, I have access to the online service through The Wikipedia Library, but my local uni library has a very limited selection of the reference works I need. --Xover (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You should give only one ISBN: the one for the edition which you actually consulted. This has been discussed before, several times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, I suspect that in your reasoning you are conflating the number of ISBNs with the number of editions involved. When there are multiple valid ISBNs for the work cited, that have differing qualities unrelated to the verifiability of the cite (e.g. method of access; service provider; or similar), multiple ISBNs would make the citation more robust and verification more convenient (or, in some cases, possible at all; both desirable properties). --Xover (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Having looked manually at many ISBNs while replacing the magic word with the template, I can say that it is not at all uncommon to see an ISBN in an id, or as a postscript to the template entirely, when there is another isbn using the isbn= parameter. The template really ought to reflect this common usage, rather than trying to change it. It's also common to add ISBNs to existing citations, when there is no way to tell which edition was originally consulted, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If a citation lacks an isbn, find an edition that verifies the reference and add that edition's isbn. Citing more than one isbn is looking for trouble: "The purpose of the ISBN is to establish and identify one title or edition of a title from one specific publisher and is unique to that edition". From the FAQ at isbn.org [1]. Basically, a citation with more than one isbn obfuscates the cited edition. Multiple isbns in citations should be discouraged, and if present, removed. An allowance could perhaps be made for eISBNs if the content is exactly the same as the print version. But even there, there are issues with pagination etc. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not how things work in practice, though. In practice, references are often added with no ISBN. Later in the article's development, someone looks up ISBNs for the works and adds them, as in [2]. It would be foolish to assume in any strong way that the ISBN in an article matches the version originally consulted, although in practice it seems to cause no problems for ISBNs to be added afterwards, because the other purpose of citations is simply to help readers find the references to learn more. I think it's a losing effort to try to educate every editor that they should manually verify every reference when they add an ISBN. Perhaps this is just another example of how the isolated discussions at these templates can fail to match the wider wiki - and another reason to consider not using citation templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
In spite of my argument above (re to Redrose64), I disagree with your position here. One should not add an ISBN to a cite lacking it without reverifying the claim it supports, in which case you do not need multiple ISBNs, just the ISBN of the specific edition consulted. And you should certainly not change an existing ISBN without reverifying the claim. In these scenarios, having a single cite contain the ISBNs of multiple editions (which may in fact say the complete opposite of each other on the point cited!) is not just confusing but even plain wrong. That there are editors who do this in practice is not an argument for specifically supporting the practice in the implementation. Any argument for support of multiple ISBN must rest on the existence of multiple valid ISBNs that do not compromise verifiability (including WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).
@72.43.99.146: Pagination and other differences are an issue, sure, but much like reverifying claims when adding a missing ISBN, this is a reasonable responsibility to place on the editor to handle. For instance, I'm currently working with two examples: one is a simple PDF scan of a paper book (it is literally identical, except for the highly theoretical possibility of cosmic rays and scan error), and the other is a more complete digital version (HTML, selectable text, footnotes displayed in a popup on hover, etc.) but where the provider has taken pains to maintain pagination (they mark the page transitions from the paper version visually in the digital text). In both these cases, the paper and digital books are the same edition they just have different access methods. However, I also have a counter-example, in a third book I'm working with: the text of the print book is provided in modern form (selectable text etc. etc.), but original pagination from the print version is not preserved, making this a separate edition of the work. The latter case also has a separate "Online" publication date, and other signs that indicate it might be being independently updated, and so differ from the print edition in substantive ways. I would hesitate long, and consider well, before adding the "Online ISBN" of this latter case to the same citation as the print edition. These are, ultimately, up to editor discretion and judgement, to decide how to handle. --Xover (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_34&oldid=790509825"