Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

So, about those required parameters...

At this point, the change that made |website= and |newspaper= (or some type of "periodical" field) in {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} has been reverted after the long discussion at ANI.

We need to discuss what the fix is going forward.

• It is clear from those maintaining these templates that {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} should have a required periodical field (website/newspaper/work/etc.) that will populate metadata. This should not be avoided.
• It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcing |website= and |newspaper= as an italic style ,and close to around 200-300k existing cs1 citations out there are likely using |publisher= to get a non-italic style for the name.

This confusion seems to be stemming from the assumption that websites should be treated as a periodical reference. This is true for many websites, but does not extend wholly for things like the World Health Organization. Many a discussion has been held at the MOS pages that whether website should be italicized or not, with some not so strict guidance, but enough variance that forcing websites to be in italics created problems with this change.

Understanding that before any change is done that there likely will need to be a larger RFC to confirm, and giving editors time to fix templates as needed, as well as looking for potential bot aids, there needs to be some way to resolve this.

I had at least two ideas:

• If it is possible to add some parameter to {{citation}} that would allow the "periodical" field to not be rendered in italics. A bot could be made to convert all existing {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} that are using only |publisher= into the right parameter, and add the "no italics" flag. This seems like the easiest outside of the bot to make the automated changes.
• Making separate templates for "non-periodical" style web and news templates, that would not use any periodical field but instead the publisher field as the key metadata one. This seems like more work for something that seems like easy add to the existing ones.

I'm sure there's other possibility and solutions. And of course, this is on reading the consensus that the ability to have non-italic website/newspaper names in the citations is what the community wants. But this is a discussion that should happen now, now that we have resolved the immediate issue. --Masem (t) 03:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcing No, no it's not. You don't get to establish a false premise as an end-run around the consensus established at the proper location and place (above) on that point. The only real consensus from a content/style POV that discussion indicates is that people don't like errors showing up in their articles (whether deserved or not). --Izno (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The italics thing is a red herring, and periodicals are not required by any standards. If there's a periodical, or a work, emit that metadata. If there's a publisher, emit that metadata. Neither are required, because many online things are neither part of a work, of a periodical, nor necessarily have a publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree to a point, that the italics aspect (more specifically the presumption that WP has in practice treated cite web's as periodical citations by default) was a major point of contention that was not part of any of the discussion into the Sept 2 changes. (Making "website" italic was discussed in the RFC). Trappist stated several times at ANI that they thought, if we were citing a report from the WHO, it should appear as the italicized |website= and not as |publisher=, which was a point of contention in the changes (not just the error message issue). Clearly there was a disconnect between those maintaining cs1 and those using cs1 for how this should apply, and - if there is a need to fill metadata - that requires figuring out how to normalize the templates. Yes, the status quo is "fine" but there sounded like there were core technical reasons to make the change for metadata filling. --Masem (t) 15:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed: I believe that World Health Organization is the eponymous publication of the corporate entity (publisher) World health Organization. It would seem that WHO agrees. If you look in the source for Female Genital Mutilation (the page used as an example at the WP:AN discussion) you will find this: \"SiteName\":\"World Health Organization\".

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A World Health Organization report is a government-type document (which is fixed, and may be available as a PDF or in HTML at a given URL, but which is still a report if it is in hard copy), right? Then {{cite report}} should be used instead! Would switching that over take care of a big chunk of the ANI debate? --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem You appear to be assuming that, when a cite web has a publisher but no website, that it can only have been done that way to avoid the italics that using website would create. That assumption is wrong and an extreme failure of WP:AGF. It is completely legitimate to use publisher= for a cite web, listing the name of an organization that published the website. It would in many cases be incorrect to assume that field to merely be a workaround for the website italics. For instance, if I were to cite "Help talk:Citation Style 1" with a publisher of "The Wikimedia Foundation", it would be grossly incorrect to think that I really meant that the website on which I found Help talk:Citation Style 1 had "The Wikimedia Foundation" as the name of its web site. (In this example, the web site is Wikipedia, not Wikimedia.) You also seem to be reading the consensus of the AN (not ANI) discussion completely backwards: It is clear that most of the discussants don't give a fuck about italic vs non-italic website name formatting, and just want their perfectly valid and non-erroneous web-page-but-no-website citations to render without complaints. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to require a publisher. It may be required in some cases (e.g. The Eastern Daily Press newspaper is published by Archant Media Ltd). {{cite web}} does require an |url=, whereas it is an optional parameter in {{cite news}}. That is how is should be. There is no need to change it. Neither requires a mandatory|periodical= field. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this discussion is not about requiring |publisher= as that was not the issue at WP:AN. |publisher= is optional and allowed in all cs1|2 templates except the preprint templates {{cite arxiv}}, etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that it is, at least in part, because that was one of the causes of the error messages. It really messed up a load of articles before the category was hidden. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That is just not true. |publisher= has never been a required parameter. There is / was no error message.

The requirements imposed by {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} were for some sort of periodical parameter. Those error messages were:

The presence or absence of |publisher= played no part in the determination to display these two error messages. During the WP:AN discussion, it was these error messages that were hidden, not the category (Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:, would you please state what metadata is being emitted, and provide links to the standard that defines the metadata? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is the TemplateData stuff at the bottom of the documentation for {{citation}} ( eg Template:Citation#TemplateData ) --Masem (t) 16:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the templatedata is for the visual editor. Only a few of those parameters have COinS metadata. The {{cite web}} ones are listed at Template:Cite_web#COinS.   Jts1882 | talk  17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

TemplateData is a poorly conceived blend of program-control and pseudo documentation. Except that it exists on cs1|2 template doc pages to support that abomination that is ve, cs1|2 has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with TemplateData. If you think that I have strong opinions about those things, you would be right.

For the metadata standard, see Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS where there are links to the documentation that I have been able to find.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A right proper opinion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking anecdotally, but I sometimes use |publisher= in lieu of |website= only because it strikes me as more useful. I have never cared about whether it produces italics or not and I don't think that is the main problem here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably ask the question, "Should |website= be a) deprecated, b) contain the hosting website and be mandatory (i.e even if |publisher= is present), c) contain the hosting website and be supplantable with |publisher=? And if c) is implemented, what kind of information should go into |publisher= and what kind of information goes into |website=?" Or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Either deprecated (the simplest solution given it's so problematic) or made flexible so that non-periodical websites can be non-italicized. Despite what some have suggested, Wikipedia MOS has no requirement that website names be italicized. Yet one editor with programming skill makes the extremist argument that everything online — even organizations like the World Health Organization or Sears — be treated as periodicals and italicized. That is unlike any footnoting I've ever seen and contrary to things like the very widely used Chicago Manual of Style. There's no reason for Wikipedia to adopt an eccentricity.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be me (I am not Voldemort, my name may be spoken).

MOS does not apply to citations. If it did, then en.wiki's own WP:CITESTYLE would be invalid. cs1|2, like it or not, has a style that has developed organically to suit en.wiki's needs. Certainly cs1|2 have been influenced by CMOS, APA, MLA, and who knows what else but, cs1|2 is none of these styles. Yep, World Health Organization and Sears are eponymous electronic publications (websites) of the corporate entities that are their publishers. As the eponymous name, or title, if you will, these names are italicized.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I just find it remarkable that you seem to be saying WP:CITESTYLE does not apply to citations.

WP:CITESTYLE specifically says we can use Chicago Manual of Style, which does not italicize websites. But your programming for our citation styles does not allow this. Your citation formats essentially say we're forbidden to use Chicago Manual of Style.

FYI, I phrased it as "one editor with programming skill" so as not to personalize my argument. The salient point isn't who, but the fact that some editors can program, others cannot, and that distinction seems to be playing out.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote MOS does not apply to citations (emphasis added). MOS may not, on the one hand, permit any consistent citation style (WP:CITESTYLE) and then on another hand dictate how that citation style must be used. This, I think, is the point you are trying to make at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § RfC appears to contradict MOS here. cs1|2, like it or not, are styles (after all they are named Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2).

Yes, you can use CMOS, or APA, or MLA, or even Bob's Special Citation Style++ as long as you are consistent in the use of it within an article. None of these styles are cs1|2. Two or three years ago I tried an experiment that would have used |mode=mla to render a few ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and one or two others) in MLA format. The experiment 'worked' but the code to make it work was such a tangle that it would have made maintenance of the code base worse than it already is. The experiment was backed out and I hope will never be repeated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, re: "Yep, World Health Organization and Sears are eponymous electronic publications (websites) of the corporate entities that are their publishers", that would be a style error. The onus is on you at this point to produce a reputable style guide that supports you. The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What is a style error? According to whom?

Tell me why 'Supreme Court of the United States' is not the name of the court's website. Right there at the top of the page you linked (in the position that would be the masthead of a newspaper or a magazine or a journal were we looking at a paper copy and where those publications place their names) it says, in large white letters over a blue-gray background: 'Supreme Court of the United States' and this appears to be placed at the top of every html page at the site. Similarly, in the 'masthead' on every html page at https://www.who.int, in large blue text over a white background: 'World Health Organization'. Both look like names to me; yeah, the names are also the names of the organizations so eponymous electronic publications of their individual publishers.

cs1|2 (I keep repeating this, why?) is not any of the reputable style [guides] mentioned here and at WP:CITESTYLE. Certainly it was influenced by the reputable style [guides] but does not adhere to any particular one or group of them. Website titles have been italicized by {{cite web}} since its inception (15 years ago).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the website is supremecourt.gov and who.int, and 'Supreme Court of the United States' and 'World Health Organization' are their publishers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist, the problem is that you, personally, are inventing new style rules, where (a) there's no need; (b) there's no consensus; and (c) the new rules show a misunderstanding of the concept title. You could also say "let's not ever capitalize letters in book titles, including the first letter", or "let's always italicize authors' names". Those would be style errors too, according to everyone. Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title.

The thing you're grappling with is that most websites don't have names, so there is no title, i.e. there is nothing that needs to be italicized. You disagree with that: you believe they all ought to have names. But as a matter of fact, they don't. Their owners did not name them. In those cases, and that is most cases, we name the publisher. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote this declarative sentence: The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website. I asked you to tell me why that name is not the name of the court's website. You have not answered that question but instead, concocted speculative 'rules' about title capitalization and author-name font as examples of style errors. Then you wrote: Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title. Similar to what? How do your concocted rule examples tell me why Supreme Court of the United States is not the name of the court's website?

If I have a misunderstanding of the concept title, write something that will give me that understanding. Simply making declarative statements that Supreme Court of the United States (or World Health Organization) is not a title does not help anyone to understand why you are so certain that they are not titles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Because nobody refers to supremecourt.gov as "Supreme Court of the United States", or by any other title. It's "the Supreme Court's website", unnamed, untitled. In the below examples, green text signifies quotes from the sources provided, and not quotes from TTM.

• New York Times: announcing that the Supreme Court’s website would start posting briefs
• US News: a separate statement posted on the Supreme Court's website
• Fox News: posted on the Supreme Court's website in the early afternoon
• Forbes: The Court’s opinion is available on its website

Have you any counter examples? – Levivich 18:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that there is a formality criterion now? A website title is only a title when it can be used formally or informally in everyday journalism-speak? That a 'proper' website title would be used in preference to allusions or references to the entity's website ('its website', 'the <entity's> website'). Really?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with SarahSV. This is seeming more and more like one editor's crusade, and italicizing all website names is neither required by WP:CITESTYLE nor is it mainstream. For example, see the APA, Harvard and MLA examples here, none of which italicize the website name. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All websites must have "names", even when these "names" are not human-friendly. Please don't repeat stuff that just isn't so. The bottom line is that citations have their own style which is related to their utility. Don't try to mix the two, citations are not about prose, and they don't concern themselves with aesthetics. They are not there to make an article pretty, they are there to make it relevant. Because "SaraSV" or "Tenebrrae" or my IP mean exactly nothing otherwise. They can be standardized for the benefit of editors, but they must be presented from the POV of their users. If you believe that this view of citations is limiting, by all means use your own presentation. And let others use the tools that suit them. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: There was an RfC here on this page (still recorded above) that closed about two weeks ago that concluded (at 15:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)) that "an overall consensus exists here that names of websites in citations/references should be italicized". The RfC was widely advertised (at Help talk:Citation Style 2, Template talk:Citation, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, Wikipedia talk:Citation templates, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and with a long-open Administrator Noticeboard request for closure. The RfC was open for more than a full month before it was concluded. The editor in question who was not named did not initiate that RfC, and did not close it, and as far as I have noticed after a quick look, did not express an opinion in it. I therefore don't see a one-editor crusade here. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that RfC didn't say anything about making |website= or |newspaper= required parameters. One possible outcome, in line with the RfC, is that |website= is either in italics or blank. It's the "not blank" thing that seems to be one editor's thing, in my view, not the italics thing. – Levivich 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, but the comment that I replied to was complaining about a "one editor's crusade" for "italicizing all website names". That initiative was not coming from one editor. And I think it is arguable that the help guidance already said that the "website"/"work" parameter was more necessary and fundamental to citations than the "publisher" parameter, and that a lot of people seem to have been using "publisher" and leaving the "work" parameter empty to avoid italics. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the RfC close now means the Chicago Manual of Style — which does not italicize websites in footnoting — is now no longer ever allowed for citations? I ask you to clarify. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I think the RfC applies when the Wikipedia CS1 citation style and its templates are used but not when CMOS citation style is used. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Whew! I think we have common ground ... because I have run across one editor who believes that the RfC here means "There was already an RFC about this, and it was decided to italicize websites. That can not be overriden...." (Also, when I went to WP:CMOS I got WikiProject Comics, and when I went to CMOS I got a page for complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor. Can you point me to the page for CMOS citation style?)

So this is everyone's understanding? That WP:CITESTYLE allows us to use Chicago Manual of Style and we're free to, but just not with the "cite web" template? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RfC implicitly only applies to the Wikipedia CS1|2 styles (and their associated templates) and that there is no plan to change WP:CITESTYLE as a result of it. As the authority on the CMOS/Chicago style, WP:CITESTYLE refers to The Chicago Manual of Style and that article refers to some printed books and a website at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is drifting a little off-topic, but I noticed something at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/. I hope it is generally accepted that Wikipedia MOS guidance on typographical conformity applies to the formatting of titles that are quoted in citations (MOS:QUOTE, MOS:CONFORM, MOS:DASH, MOS:INOROUT, MOS:ITALPUNCT), and that the spirit of this aspect does not vary with the choice of citation style. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

When I waded through the chain of links within Wikipedia pages in the article and WP: space, I found myself at Z39.88-2004: The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services The Key/Encoded-Value (KEV) Format Implementation Guidelines. These have different metadata keys for different so-called generes. Examples include

&rft.atitle=Isolation of a common receptor for coxsackie B

A title of a journal article

&rft.jtitle=Science

A title of a journal

&rft.btitle=Professional XML Meta Data

A book title

So it strikes me that {{cite web}} is emitting false metadata whenever the website is not a periodical. Due to the pervasive use of cite web for all kinds of things, I suggest that {{cite web}} be modified to not emit any metadata, to avoid emitting falsehoods. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All cs1|2 templates emit metadata. Because the metadata standard does not directly support web citation objects, and because {{cite web}} renders stylistically like a journal citation, we use the COinS journal object with rft.genre set to unknown. For completeness:

rft.genre=article – {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}

rft.genre=conference – {{cite conference}} when a periodical parameter is set

rft.genre=preprint – {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite biorxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, {{cite ssrn}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that styling the citation for a non-periodical is not as serious as emitting metadata that declares the non-periodical is a periodical. Readers tend to be more flexible than software. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding url= to ref with title-link generates an error.

This edit assisted by (made by?) by OAbot seems to have generated a parsing error in cite journal by adding a url parameter. I suppose it is the prior presence of "title-link", which might itself have been a misuse but one that wasn't flagged and seemed functional. Thank you for maintaining our citation templates so well. It's a pity some users are less ... Thincat (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That template should emit an error message because you can't link |title= to two different targets. |title-link=s:Mount Everest: The Reconnaissance is a perfectly valid link into WikiSource. cs1|2 might handle this particular error a bit better by choosing either of |title-link= or |url= to link |title=. Which should it be? When more than one link target is present, it's still an error so there will be some sort of message.

OAbot should not be adding |url= to a cs1|2 template when that template has a valid title link so you should raise this issue at User talk:OAbot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Thincat (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Support year-suffix outside the English alphabet

Accordind to the sfn documentation (More than one work in a year)

When {{sfn}} is used with {{citation}} or Citation Style 1 templates, a year-suffix letter may be added to |date= for all accepted date formats except year initial numeric (YYYY-MM-DD). It is not necessary to include both |year= and |date=. If both are included, |year= is used for the CITEREF anchor to be compliant with legacy citations.

Also with regard to the direct use of CITEREF the following advice is given

Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals

The function check_date (Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) takes proper care of the optional suffix, but in an unsatisfactory way. People find natural, if not normative, to suffix the year with letters from their native alphabet.

Hence

{{cite book |last=Αργυρίου |first=Αλέξανδρος |title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940) |volume=τ.Αʹ |publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη |location=Αθήνα |year=2002α |isbn=978-960-03-3156-1 |ref=harv}}

will produce this, because the year is suffixed with a greek alpha

Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

There is nothing wrong with the matching pattern, it is the use of the standard string library instead of ustring that breaks things (lines 564-5).

Is this a "feature" (a rather awkward one if you ask me) or an omission? paa (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m confused, would using, e.g., 2002α, 2002β, 2002γ, to disambiguate Harvard style citations be limited to the Greek language version of Wikipedia? Or are you suggesting that the Greek alphabet be used even on the English Wikipedia to disambiguate citations which were published in Greek? Umimmak (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that the use of the standard string library implicitly enforces a choice that doesn't make sense to wikis whose alphabet is based on non-Latin script. Making this specific check with ustring keeps everybody happy paa (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue initially raised at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά#Cite_book. Is there some reason why en.wiki should not allow non-Latin CITEREF disambiguators?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox, I think. Also required a fix to Module:Footnotes/sandbox:

{{harv/sandbox|Αργυρίου|2002α}} → (Αργυρίου 2002α)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|first=Αλέξανδρος|isbn=978-960-03-3156-1|last=Αργυρίου|location=Αθήνα|publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη|ref=harv|title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940)|volume=τ.Αʹ|year=2002α}}
Live	Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Sandbox	Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk asked "Is there some reason why en.wiki should not allow non-Latin CITEREF disambiguators?" Yes. These disambiguators are usually (always?) associated with a list of sources in alpha-numeric order, where they are sorted first by author name(s), and with the date as a tie-breaker. All editors of the article will have occasion to re-sort the list as new sources are added. Thus the disambiguation characters should be letters of the Roman alphabet so that all editors will be able to insert new sources at their proper place in the list. It will also aid readers who are reading a version of the article which has been printed on paper, so that references to sources must be followed manually.

It's an open question whether this is a limitation that should just be documented, giving gnomes license to manually or semi-automatically convert non-Roman characters to Roman, or if it should be enforced by the citation software. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change redirects

{{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} all redirect to {{Cite journal}}. Since {{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} are not likely to have the |journal= parameter populated, these citations will generate the error. Would it be better to have {{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} to redirect to {{Cite report}} instead to avoid the error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We might have to do something about the default "(Report)" text that appears in {{Cite report}}. See this section above for a related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We might also need to discuss the formatting of the title of a report. For some reports/papers/documents, because of their lengths, they'd be considered long-form documents that should be titled in italics. Some would be short enough to be a short-form document and should be titled in quotation marks. Imzadi 1979 → 02:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a need to distinguish the work as short-form/long-form. It adds code overhead, and the dissimilar formatting of the same argument can be confusing. I think the presentation of all aliases of the same parameter should be presented uniformly, in this case by applying emphasis. With apologies to the OP for the unrelated comment. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, when citing reports, I use {{cite book}} with |type=Report so that the title renders in italics. (It's rare that I'd cite something that qualifies as a report that's also short enough to be considered a short-form document, and in those few cases, I err on the side of consistency with the rest and go italics.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that I'm opposed to this because presumably, editors who used those templates didn't want {{cite report}} and just repointing those redirects will break something. You might guess that I'm a bit sensitive to broken stuff right now ...

I would be in favor of eliminating these redirects and any others that point to {{cite journal}} (and, for that matter to the other cs1 templates). Then, if we decide that we need a {{cite document}} template, we create one.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Add |zenodo=

This would allow us to cleanup all these |url=https://zenodo.org/record/3348115#.XTk3rXt7kUE or |url=https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3348115 to be |zenodo=3348115 → Zenodo: 3348115 (with the green lock) instead. Or |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3348115 → |zenodo=3348115.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be useful: users have added thousands of links to Zenodo, which is now probably the biggest preprint/green OA server in the world apart from arxiv. (Disclosure: I'm known for liking Zenodo.) Nemo 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be a bit reluctant to add |zenodo=, since |doi= and |url= can already be used to store such links. Adding custom support for identifier schemes that are covered by the DOI system defeats the point of DOIs (having a unified identifier system on top of many providers). I think Zenodo URLs can already be made canonical as things stand. − Pintoch (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is zenodo is it's own repository, and does not link to where the canonical DOI would. So if you use |doi=, then you're usurping the version of record DOI. It's the same with |biorxiv=. It's technically a doi, but it's not the DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The advantage of Zenodo is that it is open access, whereas many articles which are linked to with doi require subscription. I'm in favour of providing a |zenodo=9999| field, but until then we can use |id={{zenodo|9999}}|. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Eastern name order": should one use |author= or |author-mask= ?

For works where an author's name is published as Surname Given-name (authors using "Eastern name order"), which underlying code is preferred? One option is putting the family name in |last=, given name in |first=, and then using |author-mask= so that the name appears in the citation without the comma. Using |ref=harv is straightforward, but one needs to add in punctuation such as the semicolon in |author-mask= if there are any subsequent authors.

(1a) {{cite book|last=Zhang |first=San |first2=John |last2=Smith |date=2019 |title=Title |author-mask=Zhang San; |ref=harv}} with {{harv|Zhang|Smith|2019}}

Zhang San; Smith, John (2019). Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) with (Zhang & Smith 2019)

If |author-mask= shouldn't be used to overwrite how the name appears in the citation, then one can put the entire name in the |author= field as it was published. Then one would have to use {{harvid}} within |ref= if the article uses Harvard citations/shortened footnotes.

(1b) {{cite book|author=Li Si |first2=Jane |last2=Doe |date=2019 |title=Title |ref=harvid|Li|Doe}} with {{harv|Li|Doe|2019}}

Li Si; Doe, Jane (2019). Title. with (Li & Doe 2019)

Both methods also work with editors (sparing the details of |ref={{harvid}}):

(2a) {{cite book|editor-last=Kovács |editor-first=János |editor-mask=Kovács János; |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}

Kovács János; Mustermann, Max, eds. (2019). Title.

(2b) {{cite book|editor=Kovács János |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}

Kovács János; Mustermann, Max, eds. (2019). Title.

And with contributors (and again, sparing |ref= details ):

(3a) {{cite book|contributor=Hong Gildong|contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}

Hong Gildong (2019). Preface. Title. By Smith, John.

(3b) {{cite book|contributor-last=Hong |contributor-first=Gildong |contributor-mask=Hong Gildong |contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}

Hong Gildong (2019). Preface. Title. By Smith, John.

Is there a reason why one method should be preferred over the other? Both produce the same visual output, but I was wondering if there were benefits to one over the other for other reasons. Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The trailing semicolon in |author-mask= adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation which will no doubt get improperly fixed by someone or some bot or some script which then becomes a maintenance headache. On the other hand, for the purposes of metadata, |last= and |first= are the preferred author-name parameters so using |author-mask= to hide the name separator comma is to be preferred over |author= with {{sfnref}}.

This name order issue keeps recurring so perhaps someday we'll be brave enough or clever enough to find a solution. In the mean time (and after the current kerfuffle settles) I'll fix the code so that trailing punctuation in the mask parameters doesn't add the maint cat.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot the punctuation would have added a maintenance category, so thank you for thinking about that and letting this be an exception. And yeah, no rush on this. Umimmak (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

While I’m thinking about it, Trappist the monk, is there an easy way to have |authorn-mask= accept text arguments in {{Harvc}} as well so it would work in a similar fashion? Thanks. And again, no rush on this; I know things have been a bit hectic. Umimmak (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In the sandbox:

{{harv|Black|2019}} → (Black 2019)

{{harv|Brown|Black|2019}} → (Brown & Black 2019)

{{harvc/sandbox |last=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask=Black Masked}}

Black Masked. "Contribution Title". In Editor (2019).

{{harvc/sandbox |last=Brown |last2=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask2=2}}

Brown; ——. "Contribution Title". In Editor (2019).

{{cite book |title=Title |editor=Editor |date=2019 |ref=harv}}

Editor, ed. (2019). Title. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

like that?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk yes that's perfect! Thank you so much for making these changes! Umimmak (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

done

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple url instances

This is currently allowed:

{{cite book|author=Author|url=http://example.com|chapter-url=http://example.com/chapter1|title=Title|chapter=Chapter}}

Author. "Chapter". Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Is not the appearance of multiple urls superfluous? All that is needed to verify the citation would be one url, the more specific one (chapter location) being the obvious choice.

I am bringing this up because User:InternetArchiveBot apparently ignores in-source urls, as in this: diff

Results in clutter. I am bringing it here because if multiple urls were disallowed the bot would not be able to make the edit as effected.

24.105.132.254 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We allow multiple links in citations (e.g. DOI, PMID, PMC, URL, chapter, wikilinks, even links in |pages=). One editor's superfluity is another editor's helpful additional link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but what you describe are different links to the source via different providers. The problem concerns urls to the same site via the same provider, which is also allowed. In the OP, |url= links the source's title/home page, and |chapter-url= uses the same link modified to locate a sub-page. This seems superfluous. The IA bot adds |url= even when an in-source location url (in the diff example, a chapter url) is already present. The source link is of course published by the same provider (the Internet Archive) in both cases. Obviously, the bot would not be able to do this if multiple instances of the same website were disallowed in a citation. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not superfluous, as sometimes it is useful to link to both the chapter, and the book or report containing it. As a particular case: the chapter-url can be used to link directly to a pdf, while the report url could link the webpage that has information about the report. At any rate, the use of both is widespread, and disallowing it would result in a lot of breakage. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove |url= when |doi= is provided

Per User talk:Citation bot/Archive 18#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier", if |url= should be removed when a |doi= is provided, then per Masem's comment in that thread, shouldn't CS1 throw an error for the former rule, particularly in {{cite journal}}? czar 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

CS1/2 can not know where a DOI URL points. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And by the same logic, you can't be sure ever be sure where a DOI will point at any particular time; the purpose of DOIs is to provide a fixed way of accessing a URL that can change. For this reason, I'm not sure that it's right to remove a URL that happens right now to be where a DOI points. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I know when citing IUCN it’s recommended to make use of both |doi= and |url= because A DOI links to a permanent web page with a specific year's assessment that will never be updated, so when a new assessment is issued, a new DOI will be created and the old one will then point to the previous assessment. An ID-based URL should always link to the current assessment, but that URL is not guaranteed to work indefinitely. Thus, it is probably best to use both, and to use the ID-based URL if only one URL will be used. But I do think in general it’s probably redundant and cluttered to have a DOI and the present address the DOI resolves to in the |url= field. The linked discussion began with examples like |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539513000915 with |doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.012. I’m not sure I see the issue with removing those sorts of |url=s. But I agree that this shouldn’t be treated as a CS1 error—particularly as the |url= often provides a different, typically free, way to access a paper. Umimmak (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead I actually deliberately chose not to make a comment in that direction; mine was solely regarding what is technically possible. The module cannot access pages offwiki, which means it cannot verify for itself that a DOI at a referrer link resolves to the same location as the URL. It's a separate consensus discussion treating the question of whether such links matching the resolved DOI should be removed, but I think there's a mass of silent consensus there, since I can recall only the one discussion by the OP concerned with the practice. (Which was not the case with the bot removing the publisher.) --Izno (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)