Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Pointless whitespace error

The error "line feed character in |publisher= at position 26" is not cool. Templates are supposed to be whitespace-agnostic, and if the template can detect the presence of an LF it can also strip it out for metadata purposes. This is an impediment to copy-pasting source details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Line feeds create many more issues than just those concerning metadata, and they should be fixed at the wikitext level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow WP has failed to fall apart as the result of LFs being present, which they often can be. This is not a citation issue, and the citation template should not be barfing on cite data or metadata to try to force people to fix something they can't even see. The averaged editor probably doesn't even know what an LF is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP also has also failed to fall apart as the result of vandalism. Doesn't mean vandalism shouldn't be fixed. Likewise for stray line feeds which can cause both rendering accessibility issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a WP:GREATWRONGS argument. Cite templates are not the place to try to do anti-LF enforcement. Way, way out of scope. It's abusing a core function and necessity of the encyclopedia (citing sources) to try to arm-twist people into doing geek work for which many of them are not competent. Don't insert work- or behavior-coercion "riders" into basic functionality templates. Have a bot look for LFs and remove them. This is what we have bots for. Also, your analogy is false; WP has failed to fall apart at the hands of vandals because and only because of the constant work a large number of anti-vandals. There is no huge cadre of anti-LF editors, and WP works just fine without one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've set up the bot request for you, at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Linefeed "hunter-killer". Feel free to make it more specific or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Must say that this is a very useful feature of the templates as it catches many vandal edits as does the date error messages. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bots can certainly assist in cleanup, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be flagged in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As an average editor who learned what an LF was precisely because of this error, I agree that it's beyond the fixing capacity of many. That said, it is an error that ought to be identified because an invisible character in a URL is still a character and is contaminating the usefulness of the information. I see it as similar to date errors: while potentially difficult/unintuitive to fix, it causes problems, and so it needs to be identified. Leave the error message and get the bot to do its work. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

missing error handlers for cite bioRxiv and cite citeseerx

It somehow escaped us to include the error handlers for the cases where {{cite bioRxiv}} and {{cite citeseerx}} are missing their respective parameters |biorxiv= and |citeseerx=. That oversight has been remedied in the sandbox:

Cite bioRxiv comparison

Wikitext	{{cite bioRxiv|title=Title}}
Live	"Title". {{cite bioRxiv}}: |biorxiv= required (help)
Sandbox	"Title". {{cite bioRxiv}}: |biorxiv= required (help)

Cite citeseerx comparison

Wikitext	{{cite citeseerx|title=Title}}
Live	"Title". {{cite CiteSeerX}}: |citeseerx= required (help)
Sandbox	"Title". {{cite CiteSeerX}}: |citeseerx= required (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

collaboration-link

Can |collaboration-link= be made, analogous to |author-link=, etc.? Example @ K2K experiment.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? The purpose of |author-link= is to provide a way of linking a |last=, |first= pair because the two cannot be wikilinked. But, |collaboration= can be wikilinked:

{{cite journal
|author = M. H. Ahn
|collaboration=[[K2K experiment#Collaboration|K2K Collaboration]]
|date = 2006
|title = Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment
|journal = [[Physical Review D]]
|volume = 74|pages = 072003
|doi = 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003
|id = 
|arxiv=hep-ex/0606032
|bibcode = 2006PhRvD..74g2003A
|issue = 7 }}

M. H. Ahn; et al. (K2K Collaboration) (2006). "Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment". Physical Review D. 74 (7): 072003. arXiv:hep-ex/0606032. Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74g2003A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, my force of habit. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in plain text

I need to add the <ref></ref> myself afterwards?! — fortunavelut luna 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want your reference to be in a footnote, yes. There are many cases where citations should not be in footnotes (for instance, when they are part of a separate list of references at the end of an article and the footnotes only give short links to them), so it would be a bad idea to bundle the footnoting code into the citation templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Right, thanks a lot; I wanted to use the {{cite thesis}} ref within the article (that would explain why it doesn't have a parameter for page nos, perhaps?), but as I said, it didn't like it! — fortunavelut luna 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite thesis}} supports page numbers:

{{cite thesis |title=Title |pages=3–9}}

Title (Thesis). pp. 3–9.

Why would you say that it doesn't. Can you provide an example showing that it doesn't?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith there, Trappist. Was going by [1]. — fortunavelut luna 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to the documentation for |page= in {{cite thesis}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jonesey95, I'll remember that. — fortunavelut luna 14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

cite collection

Would it be possible to get a sub-class of cite encyclopedia for citing collections that are not encyclopedias? Perhaps "cite collection"? I realize there is no technical reason for this, but the semantic context is currently being obscured and that is a Bad Thing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than everyone imagining what it is that they think that you mean, perhaps you could supplement your request with a real-life (not contrived) example?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just use a redirect like {{Cite contribution}} if you are uncomfortable with the template name. Or make a new redirect at {{Cite collection}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)