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)

Years and Classical publications from Antiquity

This seems to throw an error when using dates of Classics

{{cite book|year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= 8 AD|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8 AD). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= 56 CE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56 CE). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= 56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= 267|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (267). ABC.

{{cite book|year= 124 BCE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (124 BCE). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= -56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (-56). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

{{cite book|year= 3 BC|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (3 BC). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

It appears to need a three digit absolute magnitude value or greater. This is clearly an error in the processor. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This topic is related to this citation? Forgive my skepticism, but I suspect that you are not directly citing a first century CE copy of Metamorphoses, but are citing a rather more recent edition. That being the case, then the appropriate date for the citation would be the date of the source that you consulted. At en.wiki, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies.

Also, your post here is a duplicate of a post you made at Help talk:CS1 errors#Years and Classical publications from Antiquity. One conversation in one place only, please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of published Latin works do exist, and there have been digitization efforts as well. So, accessing such, would the date the work was digitized or photographed be your "source date" ? This is a generalized query, since I've used old Latin sources for other things in the past (though with triple or quadruple digit years) I would expect that the citation template should work for older dates as well. Some Wikipedian editors can read Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Chinese, so ancient documents are accessible to some of the general population of editors here at Wikipedia, thus the citation template should be able to support this editor population. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless you're literally at a museum looking at manuscripts/tablets/whatever dating from antiquity, I don't see how there would be an issue. Can you give an example where the date of publication (not the date of authorship) of a source you cite would be in the double digits?

Edit: Personally for a well known text such at the Metamorphoses you can probably just do

{{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153}}

Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153.

That's generally how I've works like the CMoS say to cite classical works unless it really matters which edition you're using, e.g., if there's some debate as to the original text. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not deny that facsimiles of sources exist nor that there are editors here who can read them. Facsimiles abound on the internet:

Ovid (1889). "Book the Second: Fable I". In Riley, Henry T. (ed.). Metamorphoses. Translated by Riley. London: George Bell & Sons. p. 51.

But apparently, there are no surviving first-century manuscripts of Metamorphoses (so says the en.wiki article). The lack of surviving first-century manuscripts and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT suggest that citing Metamorphoses and using |year=8 AD is inappropriate. Cite the source that you read.

When the cs1|2 templates were first written, there were technical reasons for limiting minimum |year= values to three digits. While the technical limitation no-longer applies because of new technology, the constraint was left in and, but for the occasional case like the one in hand, there has been little call to extend date-handling support to cover all time. When the scholars of ancient texts take up their pitchforks and torches and clamber for ancient-date support in cs1|2, we can certainly consider it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Chinese over the last 2000 years is readable to modern Chinese readership, if they've been trained to read Classical Chinese (ie. 19th century Chinese and before) I would say that such sourcing would be expected for some topics. Or if you're a Brahmin and quoting Sanskrit sources of the past 3000 years. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the year something was originally written is distinct from the year of publication of the source the editor got the text from. Umimmak (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There are still good reasons to mark three-digit years as an error. Most three-digit years, like "year=207", are typos for four-digit years, like "year=2017". The error check finds these frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be able to be specified with an override of some sort, like providing "BCE" or "AD" in the parameter ? Or a plus or a minus sign? (ie. French-style dates with minus-signs for BC dates) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

|orig-year= works well for citing the original publication dates of older works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you need a |date= as well though, see: {{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153|orig-year=8 AD}} which produces Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite book|orig-year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX. ABC.

{{cite book|orig-year= 8|year= AD 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (AD 8) [8]. ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

That "|orig-year=" indeed does not provide the year unless "|year=" is specified per Umimask. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Special formatting for lists of works by an author.

This is a feature request. In lists of works by the subject of an article, eg. Andrea Gallo#Works, I tend to use author-mask=1 so the date comes first. In works with more than one author, I wish there was a parameter for {{cite}} which would show the date first and then list secondary authors prefixed by "with" after the date. Thank you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

May I point out that the first entry in any masked list should have the full citation reference, including the name of the author. Otherwise it is unclear what exactly you are masking. This holds for works by an article's subject as well, even when it is obvious who the author is. Secondly, in most citation applications, works are universally indexed by author(s) first (though some specialized systems may index by title/date rather than author/date). Since you decided to use CS1 to populate this list (a good idea, imo), the style should be followed. If this style doesn't suit your needs, I suggest formatting the list differently, without the strictures of CS1. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite book problem

Does anyone know what is wrong with this?

{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​|​chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}

which produces two errors:

Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​". In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva (eds.). Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. {{cite book}}: External link in |​chapter-url= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |​chapter-url= ignored (help); zero width space character in |chapter= at position 49 (help)

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but retyping the chapter title (without changing the chapter URL) seems to have fixed it:

{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End|chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}

Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End" (PDF). In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva (eds.). Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

David, thank you! I wonder whether there was an invisible character in the chapter title. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

U+200B zero-width space. With your cursor highlight the 'E' in 'End'. Walk the highlight one character at a time to the right. You will notice that it takes an extra step to get from the 'd' in 'End' to the chapter's closing double quote character. And, interestingly enough, that is position 49 in the |chapter= parameter value, just as the error message said. Isn't that amazing?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: (EC) There was one yes End​<INVISIBLECHARACTER>|chapter-url. You can find it by counting 49 character positions in |chapter=. Put your cursor there, hit delete. Nothing will apparently happen, but you've deleted the invisible character. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)