Category talk:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list

Errors in category documentation
DO NOT 'fix' articles in this category by wholesale replace of singular parameter author or last with authors. Such a fix, fixes nothing because converting the singular form to the plural form removes all author information from the template's metadata. The above will be removed. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The metadata is already polluted by misuse of the parameter in question
 * 2) More important than the above reasoning is the fact that the citation template is filled-in incorrectly
 * 3) Which invalidates the fragment such a fix, fixes nothing. The fix into authors corrects the semantic misuse
 * 4) Which affects editing by human editors


 * 1) agreed
 * yes, an editor did not write the template correctly; I don't think that that fact is any more or less important than item 1. Item 2 is the cause; item 1 the effect.
 * no
 * 1) *A cs1|2 template with any form of author parameter is broken when that author information is not made part of the metadata. For this reason, use of authors should be discouraged.
 * 2) *When multiple author names are listed in a singular author parameter, the metadata are corrupted but, the author information is still present. Better that the metadata be present and malformed than missing altogether.
 * 3) *'Fixing' multiple names in the singular last or author by conversion to authors removes the article from this category and so makes it harder to fix.
 * 4) *The correct fix is to replace the one singular parameter with the appropriate number of enumerated parameters or with vauthors. The text that you deleted from  should be restored and modified to reflect the proper repair methods.
 * 5) *See item 4 below.
 * 6) given the size of this category (109,500+ articles as I write this), it would appear that editors don't particularly care about semantics.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation templates target 1. readers 2. editors 3. metadata clients. The order signifies when and where a template is broken, and the severity of the "break". Before the pre-existing metadata pollution, a higher-order error had occurred, one that affects editing content: a singular-value parameter field was populated with multiple values. So, first, the citations in question belong to a different maintenance category, corresponding to a different error message. This move should be the first action for these pages.
 * Secondly, the fix proposed is not the only correct fix. Switching to free-form authors is as valid as any, and since fixes are expressly indicated, it should be included as an option. The fact that it pollutes metadata should be acknowledged, but that by itself does not disqualify the use of the parameter.
 * The number of pages in the cat may have as much to do with non-specific/incomplete/unwieldy documentation of the relevant areas as with anything else. By the same token you can say that an equal number of editors don't care about metadata. So that is neither here nor there.
 * A better fix would be better parsing of parameter values so that metadata are less brittle. Or coding to another metadata spec that includes the option of short free-form fields.
 * Per WP:BRD I will revert your latest change.
 * 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The module makes no distinction with regard to the thing that caused a citation to be broken. The module simply does not care.  That the template is broken is sufficient and it reports that the template is broken.  For these particular errors, the most likely reason is inattentive editors but we cannot know that for sure so the module reports what it knows: that multiple author-names appear in a parameter intended for a single author-name.  Because it reports only what it knows, this category is adequate.
 * The proposed fix is the only correct fix because cs1|2 consumers who read the citations through metadata tools have exactly the same rights to the information as those who read the citations with their eyes. It is always wrong to deny access to information in a citation on the basis of how a consumer accesses that information.
 * I will never argue that the quality of the cs1|2 documentation can't/should/needs to be improved. I know that it isn't really in my skill set to do so.  If you have the skills, please make it better.
 * To make a numerical comparison between editors [who] don't particularly care about semantics and editors [who] don't care about metadata and then conclude that the result of the comparison is a wash, ignores the fact that one is simply a failure to comply with the rules while the other is a denial of access.
 * The problem with human names is that there are no rules (see Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names). That being the case, writing code that would get it right most of the time is a huge task, one that I freely admit is beyond me.
 * As for a different metadata spec, we could do that were there a consensus to do so. That's why I separated the majority of the metadata code into Module:Citation/CS1/COinS because someday it may be desirable to change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with human names is that there are no rules (see Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names). That being the case, writing code that would get it right most of the time is a huge task, one that I freely admit is beyond me.
 * As for a different metadata spec, we could do that were there a consensus to do so. That's why I separated the majority of the metadata code into Module:Citation/CS1/COinS because someday it may be desirable to change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As for a different metadata spec, we could do that were there a consensus to do so. That's why I separated the majority of the metadata code into Module:Citation/CS1/COinS because someday it may be desirable to change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the category doc overemphasizes a secondary, derivative problem (metadata corruption). The primary problem is the misuse of a parameter, and the doc should be amended to emphasize that.
 * I do think that the first responsibility is to direct users, whether they are readers or editors. The indirect linking through the metadata is a nice convenience, and useful, but the citation system imo should not be dependent on it.
 * The overemphasis on metadata, and the ranking of fixes according to this emphasis, goes beyond the scope of style or even template design, and should be more widely and visibly examined. Until this takes place, I believe the real problem (the semantic misuse) should be pointed out, the derivative problem (metadata corruption) should be acknowledged, and more neutral language should be used in the category page.
 * I would support any move towards a more flexible metadata regime.
 * Thank you for the invitation to help with the cs1 doc. I'm afraid that in principle, I don't document what I can't code. I can offer suggestions that others may or may not ignore. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And
Is this just checking for the word "and" somewhere in the author parameter value? Because that does not necessarily mean the value is a plural; corporate authors and nobility often have "and" in their title while remaining singular. jnestorius(talk) 08:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The test looks for multiple comma or semicolon separator characters.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On Citizens' Assembly (Ireland) it seems to be complaining about . jnestorius(talk) 13:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I suspect that the proper 'author' is Enda Kenny because url links specifically to something he said during the discussion which seems to fit with the sentence in our article to which the reference is attached.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a workaround for this instance, but the bug still needs fixing. jnestorius(talk) 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a solution, I'm all ears. There are editors here who write comma-separated lists of surnames (most commonly in editor but also in author).  It is very difficult to write code that can discriminate between White, Black, and Brown, a corporate name and White, Black, and Brown, three individual authors.  This difficulty is why we mark these kinds of templates for maintenance and not as errors.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, documentation should list "known bugs". I don't see how a maintenance category can work if it contains a mixture of items need fixing and ones that don't; over time the percentage of items that are false positives will grow so that finding new errors among them will become harder. How can you tell when a page you previously reviewed as a false positive is edited so as to add an additional true positive? The usual solution when a simplistic automation guesses wrong is to add an override parameter to suppress false positives; compare Category:CS1 maint: Ignored ISBN errors. In this case something like  could do.
 * jnestorius(talk) 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Commas
Authors whose name contains one or more commas may be treated as first and last names: "The Department of Health, New York" may be entered as
 * |last=The Department of Health |first=New York

"Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Development" may be entered as
 * |last=Federal Ministry of Transport, Building |first=and Urban Development

and thus the containing article will not show up in this category, as on Aachen. Is there a reason not to do such a thing? Hyacinth (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Doing so identifies 'and Urban Development' as a 'first' name so that an external tool that reads the citation via metadata may render the name in first-last order as 'and Urban Development Federal Ministry of Transport, Building' which is nonsensical. When a name legitimately has more than one comma or semicolon separator, wrap the whole name in  tags:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is not a firstname-lastname constellation. Author is the appropriate tag." Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who it is that you are quoting, but yes, in the above examples author is the correct parameter; wrapping the parameter value in  tags prevents inclusion in this category.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who it is that you are quoting, but yes, in the above examples author is the correct parameter; wrapping the parameter value in  tags prevents inclusion in this category.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Two or more commas in an author name may be enclosed in   :
 * Department of Sustainability,  Environment  ,  Water  ,  Population and Communities

and thus the containing article will not show up in this category, as on Adenanthos ellipticus. Is there a reason not to do such a thing? Hyacinth (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

False positives
False positives are generated by suffixes such as "Jr" "II", etc. Although the category is hidden in these cases, it creates unnecessary and sometimes repeated effort trying to fix the problem before finding out there is actually nothing wrong. Is there some way the message can be suppressed when a citation is found to be correct? Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Likely the name uses an extraneous comma. WP:Naming conventions (people) suggests that commas between the name and the suffix is inappropriate.  So remove the extraneous comma: White, Jr, Bob → White Jr, Bob.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The category page explains that there may be some false positives. Perhaps would like to expand or refine the text to highlight this possibility and give examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation name contains two commas, but it is correct. cite journal author formats place suffixes such as jr. after the first name and after a comma (eg. Last, First, Jr.). I can document this more explicitly either on the category page or the cite journal page (it actually includes an example using a suffix after a second comma), but it doesn't solve the problem of having to scan through dense templates looking for a problem that may not exist, and then having no way later to know it has been done already. Lithopsian (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and the other cs1|2 templates only place a comma between an author's first and last names when the template uses last and first; author does not format its contents.
 * The only use of the jr suffix that I can find at is in the Vancouver System examples. Vancouver prohibits the use of punctuation in author-name lists except for commas that separate one author from another.  Where are you seeing an example using a suffix after a second comma?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Instructions?
It seems that this page should either assume that one knows the deal, and thus lack any instruction, or this page should actually provide instruction. For instance, if a user wants to reduce the number of articles in this category, this category page should tell them how to do it. If there is a rule against users reducing the number of articles in this category that rule should be stated. As maintenance the goal of this category appears to be to conserve or add rather than lose or remove information. A less informed editor may attempt to help and strip all author links from a citation, which would be information lost, not information maintained. Hyacinth (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that I don't understand the point that you are trying to make. author-link and its enumerated variants do not cause Module:Citation/CS1 to add articles to this category:
 * The module looks for comma and semicolon separators in the author and last parameters; when more than one of these separators is found in the parameter value, the module adds the article to this category.
 * The maintenance aspect of this category is to identify singular-form author-name parameters that appear to hold multiple names so that the offending template can be corrected.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are NOT saying that citations never link to authors, but that author links lost in the maintenance of articles in this category should not bother anyone. Hyacinth (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * cs1|2 templates can and do link to author pages; I have not said anything to the contrary. I have made no statement regarding the loss (or gain) of author-name links in cs1|2 templates.  I have said that the presence or absence of author-name links is not a contributing factor when the Module:Citation/CS1 takes the decision to add an article to this category.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are NOT saying that citations never link to authors, but that author links lost in the maintenance of articles in this category should not bother anyone. Hyacinth (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * cs1|2 templates can and do link to author pages; I have not said anything to the contrary. I have made no statement regarding the loss (or gain) of author-name links in cs1|2 templates.  I have said that the presence or absence of author-name links is not a contributing factor when the Module:Citation/CS1 takes the decision to add an article to this category.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of &
Why doesn't cause the article to show up in this list:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list? User-duck (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the code only counts commas and semicolons. It is an imperfect test but is intentionally conservative so that we minimize the number of false positives.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * could the use of an "&" and a comma (and potentially an "and" and a comma) be explicit enough means for detecting multiple authors? I've just found & am correcting ~260 Peter K. L. Ng, Danièle Guinot & Peter J. F. Davie, which don't flag as multiple authors even though they have 3.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we considered that and decided against it because both of those have legitimate use in corporate and institutional names. The question could be revisited though this backwater is not the place for that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Backwards copy
or anyone else: What's the proper way to use Backwards copy with multiple authors to avoid this CS1 error? For example, Talk:Afghan (ethnonym) has: , which generates

A similar topic was discussed at Template talk:Backwards copy in 2018 with no resolution. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kind of a problem because the template is rather poorly designed – only accepting one author name parameter per template and using authorn parameters which are indistinguishable from normal cs1|2 parameters.  authors should go away.
 * So, without a complete rewrite, add  so that when there are multiple authors only one is included in author with etal.
 * Better would be a complete rewrite...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I updated the template, but that didn't seem to fix Talk:Afghan (ethnonym).  Did I do something wrong?  GoingBatty (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you unquestioningly believe everything that I write. Don't do that.  The   is supposed to indicate an appropriate enumerator.  I got the  in the wrong place (since fixed).  Regardless, I did (correctly) write: when there are multiple authors only one is included in author (emphasis added).  It isn't a great fix – the reason that I suggested that [better] would be a complete rewrite....
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you unquestioningly believe everything that I write. Don't do that.  The   is supposed to indicate an appropriate enumerator.  I got the  in the wrong place (since fixed).  Regardless, I did (correctly) write: when there are multiple authors only one is included in author (emphasis added).  It isn't a great fix – the reason that I suggested that [better] would be a complete rewrite....
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dutch names and collation order
Is
 * |last=Riemsdijk |first=J.T., van

correct? It's usual practice for Dutch names, in order to correctly collate the surnames.

However here it's incorrectly generating a 'CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list' error. I can see why this would test for commas in last name, but not first name. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why we have the accept-as-written markup; cf:
 * → ← has maintenance message
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)