Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10

Page display in journal could use improvement
If you use the journal template an specify a page range, you get something like "The Journal. pp. 62-64". However, if the article is a single page, and many are, you get something like "The Journal. 64" This doesn't make it obvious what the "64" is, I confused it with the issue or volume. Is there any reason this isn't "The Journal. p. 64"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not page vs pages that makes the difference, but vs .  The short form is common with journal citations, where there is typically a volume and possibly an issue number before the colon.  Kanguole 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is page vs. pages. Try it yourself, or check out the Slime (video game) article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ok, I tried it. If you have volume, which should always be the case for a journal (I think), it's ok:
 * However, if you omit volume, then you do get a strange and unhelpful format:
 * I think the best solution may be to flag an error if journal isn't accompanied by volume. It's desirable to insert "p." or "pp." because these are sometimes needed to identify a location in a long journal article while distinguishing between the page range of the journal in which the article appears and the page being referred to, as in:
 * p. 54.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused why you suggest a change that does not address the formatting problem I'm actually having, and instead changes a very common usage to be an error. I'm even more confused why you think putting "p." in the reference, which is what we do everywhere else, is the wrong solution. Can you explain your logic here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution may be to flag an error if journal isn't accompanied by volume. It's desirable to insert "p." or "pp." because these are sometimes needed to identify a location in a long journal article while distinguishing between the page range of the journal in which the article appears and the page being referred to, as in:
 * p. 54.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused why you suggest a change that does not address the formatting problem I'm actually having, and instead changes a very common usage to be an error. I'm even more confused why you think putting "p." in the reference, which is what we do everywhere else, is the wrong solution. Can you explain your logic here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Peter, that is why we use SFN, to identify locations within a larger work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The "volume: page-range" format is a space-saving convention borrowed from scientific publications. I'm not convinced that it's helpful on Wikipedia, where we don't need to save space and can't expect all readers to be familiar with scientific publishing conventions. I would be happy if we changed it to spell out "vol." and "pp." (or "p.") in all cases, e.g.
 * Smith (2015). "Some article". Some journal, vol. 1, pp. 1–100.

But that's a big change, so it would take a lot of effort to build a consensus. Fixing the templates so that single-page and multi-page journal articles are always formatted consistently with each other even when they don't have a volume seems like a no-brainer. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * if the only use of a source is for a single page, it's awkward and over the top to use sfn; you have to put the main citation in a "bibliography list" and then the use of sfn generates a reference to it in a references list.
 * all the tests I've tried show that single and multiple page journal articles formatted in the same way. The problem is that without volume they generate forms like "Some journal: 32" and "Some journal: 32-56".
 * if volume must always be present (and I think it has to be for a genuine journal) then the problem goes away. I haven't seen any reason put forward as to why a volume-less journal citation is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the vast majority of journal citations used on the wiki don't have a volume. The journal template is not used just for "true journals", but any sort of periodical. I'd say the cites without volume outnumber the ones with one at least 9 to 1.
 * But what really confuses me is why you would suggest that that the current format is "correct" or "better". It's certainly not obvious to the casual reader, which is the subject of all of our writing. Can you perhaps explain why you think the "p." is something that should not be there? I really cannot see a cogent argument being offered to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence to support your claim that the vast majority of journal citations used on the wiki don't have a volume?


 * If I follow the link in the Backer cite @ Slime (video game), right there at the top of the cover it shows volume 1, number 5. Adding those to the  template:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I have two ideas on how to "fix" this. The first is to automatically add the "p." or "pp." in front of the page number(s) if there is no volume or issue number specified. The second option is add "vol.", "no." and "p."/"pp." to all of the various numbers in a journal citation. (If we automatically add the "vol.", then I would drop the boldface as well.) That's just my thoughts.  Imzadi 1979  →  15:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The second of Imzadi 1979's options is the one that is clear to everyone what the meaning is so would be my preferred option. Keith D (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support the display of "p." and "pp." and "vol." and "no." Science journals leave these out because space is tight, because they assume a certain knowledge among their readers, and because they have editors who can make sure that every citation contains a volume, issue, and page numbers. We have none of those things at Wikipedia, so a different approach is justified. I think it is needlessly obscure to hide those labels and assume that lay readers will figure out the meaning of the bold/colon/parentheses arrangement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The first of these ideas would be a clear improvement. The second would also change the formatting of working citations, and should not be done without wider consultation.  Kanguole 00:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree would be much clearer with Imzadi 1979's suggestion, vol., no., p. or pp. (It would also be great if an actual non-techy person looked over these suggestions. I spend hours trying to decipher what is meant by some of these "clarifications". SusunW (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * People need to understand that cite journal is used for many things that aren't academic journals: It is really in effect cite periodical. Nor am I convinced that all academic journals use volumes numbers, although to be sure the vast majority do. I see no valid reason not to display "p." and "pp." or even "page" and "pages" as well as "vol" when the relevant parameters have been filled in, and much benefit. DES (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one (and I'm sure there would be many, many other editors), would strongly object if tens of thousands of existing citations suddenly changed from the familiar "3(3):3–100" style to something else. This would also seem to be in direct contradiction to WP:CITEVAR – we used the template to achieve the formatting it does, and this should not be changed.
 * , and I'm yet to be convinced, there are legitimate uses of (or  with journal) without the volume parameter, then the format for these cases could be changed. If it's actually the case that  is being used for publications that intrinsically don't have a volume, then a different template is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to understand your objection here. Why do you feel this is not a good idea. I can only speak for myself, but "3(3):3–100" is simply gobbledygook, and I say that as a physicist. Try as I might, I cannot understand any situation where "vol:3 num:3 pp:3–100" is anything but a gigantic improvement. Can you explain your concern? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the time has come to tighten the definition of to be strictly for academic journals and make a real template out of the redirect that is now. would keep its familiar abbreviated form and would use something akin to 'vol. #', 'no. #', 'p. #', or 'pp. #'.

I think I recall a similar conversation to this one where it was mentioned that AWB general fixes is currently renaming to. That would need to be turned off. For, we would need to decide what the standard prefixes for volume and issue number should be, punctuation (if any), etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * in principle, that seems a good way forward. The name of the template might be a bit of an issue; there are publications that are thought of as "magazines" that do have volume numbers: National Geographical, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. The magazine that is at the root of this issue of the conversation has volume and issue and is a magazine, not an academic journal. I suspect that most periodicals do have these.   might do for a template name if  is not quite right.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, back.
 * I strongly support 's suggestion to use vol, p and pp. It just makes sense. no, on the other hand, does not. Non-english speakers, and even lots of them too I suspect, will not know that "no" is a short form for "number". If the goal is to make the cites easier to understand num or issue would be better choices.
 * As to making a new template, well that doesn't fix any of the thousands of instances we already have. Adding p and pp to this template fixes the problem, causes no breakage of existing cites, and requires no changes to existing articles. I cannot see any strong argument for adding yet another, except for semantic clarity, and in that case, simply make the two templates identical except in name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation no. is not so uncommon (if it is uncommon at all) that it shouldn't be used in cs1|2. MOS:NUMERO provides guidance on its use.  At least one external style guide (Chicago) suggests the numero abbreviation in journal citations.


 * This is the English Wikipedia. We do not dumb it down because some readers may not understand all of the nuances of the language.


 * You are presuming that the thousands of instances we already have are broken. If properly complete  templates are broken, then wiki projects that make heavy-use of that template would have notified us of their displeasure (WP:MED comes to mind, which project has never been timid about complaining when changes to cs1|2 weren't to its liking).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

wikilink or url for images in commons
I've been going thru and removing alot of references that are to Wikipedia I've come across several references that use an image from Commons or Wikipedia. Usually its an image of an old newspaper, but not always. At the moment, I'm whitelisting them, but I wonder if there is a better way. An example from Maryland Route 213 is  or from Lizzie Borden

Would adding a wikilink to the title be better? Example:   How would this affect importing the ref into reference software? Bgwhite (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * at least for the first citation, they could all be switched out to  for two reasons. First, it would link to the source for the current, high-resolution version of the map that's under that file name on Commons, and second, it would provide a fuller citation (correct authors, correct publisher, correct title, missing map scale, full date of publication, etc) over what's been input into some of the citations over the years. I've started replacing some of them, but there's a lot more to go, so it might be a job for someone with AWB access/skills to complete.
 * As for the core question, I'm not sure what the issue really is. We have many years of AASHO/AASHTO documents hosted on Commons and linked through AASHTO minutes. In building that template, I intentionally linked through the URL to Commons and noted Wikimedia Commons to indicate that we're citing a document that's only hosted on Commons, not something on Wikipedia.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Took me a bit to figure what AASHO is and what you were talking about. I'm an expert when it comes to creating confusion.  I grabbed the two examples I gave at random.  No special meaning was attached.  You did solve how to reference the ones about roads.   My main question is, what is the best way to reference images on Wikipedia/Commons?  I'll leave you a listing of the road articles on your talk page.  If you fix or don't fix them, that is fine.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * no need to leave me a listing, as I have that. However, it's a mind-numbing and tedious task that someone else could do a lot faster with AWB.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Imzadi1979's suggestion above of using via sounds appropriate to me.—Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How would this affect importing the ref into reference software? Making United States System of Highways does not include the link in the metadata (also gives an access-date missing url error). To make sure that the link is part of the metadata, use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1926us.jpg


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

language=en
When  is specified, it seems to get omitted. I don't think it should, c.f. . It's useful when one might expect a citation to be in a foreign language but is in fact in English. (For example, the website of a foreign person or organisation). Or am I just using it wrongly? Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The assumption is that since this is the English Wikipedia, that our sources are in English unless specified otherwise.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and that's usually a fine assumption. I don't just use these for sources but for external links too, so that I get consistent formatting (and access dates and so on) rather than "bare links". But I think that an overriding assumption would be that if an editor has explicitly put this parameter in, that editor wants it for some reason. In my case, and this is not the first time, I felt that a reader's assumption could well be that a website is in a language of its website's top-level domain (country identifier), e.g. a website with a domain name finishing .hu would likely be in Hungarian unless something else strongly indicates otherwise (the title being in English, for example). If the title were in Hungarian but the site/page in English, which might be quite legit e.g. for proper names, then the assumption is flawed.
 * Of course I can use in addition to the cite template, but I thought the point of the   parameter was to deprecate all of that stuff and do it inside the template itself. (Nice to have   now, by the way.)
 * If we're not to change this (and I imagine not), could we perhaps have the template issue an editor-only warning when  is used, saying that it has no effect (is a NOP)?
 * I presume  &c. have the same behaviour, but haven't tried. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it's a bit queer of me to say "foreign person" when I live in Hungary, but of course, wherever I go, I'm not a foreigner, I'm British. :) Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The behavior in question is documented in the templates' documentation. See, for example, Template:Cite book. If you want to see the rationale for this behavior, read Template:En icon, then read this discussion, then read this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Attribution to free sources in "cite book"
A recent TFD brought up a point about giving attribution to free sources such as Google Books and the Internet Archive. I have created via to give this attribution, but I was wondering if it would make sense to add a  parameter to cite book that could also call via, reducing the amount of templates and typing required. Primefac (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * there is already a via in the various templates. Viz:
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   07:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well colour me surprised. I wonder if the new template I created is even necessary then... Primefac (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well colour me surprised. I wonder if the new template I created is even necessary then... Primefac (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

duplicated terminal punctuation
Because I've been mucking about in a place where author is handled, I noticed that there are times when it is possible to have two periods following the last name in the author list. These are when the given name is an initial followed by a period and the name is wikilinked and when date is not set:

I have fixed that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The code that determines how to terminate the name lists was repeated in three separate places so I've consolidated it into a single function so that the three name lists, authors, contributors, and editors are all treated the same way. the translator name list is concatenated with  so it is treated differently. These are the editor cases (the double punctuation was fixed some time ago – this shows that I haven't broken it):

And these are the contributor cases: —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Progress like this makes WP look more professional. Nice work.


 * Is this issue in any way related to this discussion of suppressing separators? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. To do that right, I think that a lot of the code that puts all of the bits, pieces, and parts of a rendered citation together should be rewritten so that, as part of the normal way of things, the duplicate punctuation that I fixed today and the mixed punctuation described in the feature request are handled as each parameter is handled.  That task is something that continues to fester in my brain at a low boil so perhaps someday I'll wake up with an Ah Ha! moment.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Date metadata
I have previously mentioned that I am going to tweak the metadata code to make it more closely reflect the cs1|2 template that is the source. To begin this process I have spent some time tweaking the tables at Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS. That work is still incomplete.

A read of documentation at OCLC shows that we aren't doing dates correctly. The documentation at OCLC refers to a document at W3C that specifies the use of ISO 8601 date formats.

For dates in the Gregorian calendar converting to ISO 8601 is relatively painless for books because the value expected for  is a year value. For journals, the metadata has (currently unused) keywords  (season keywords: winter, spring, summer, fall),   (quarter keywords: 1, 2, 3, 4 – not currently supported in cs1|2), and   (specifically allows more free-form '1st quarter', etc; don't know if it would be ok to use this keyword for season ranges).

Normal Gregorian dates and date ranges can all be converted to ISO 8601. When a date falls in the Julian calendar, ISO 8601 only supports those dates as the parties sharing the date information among themselves agree. Absent such an agreement, and to make life easier (no conversion from Julian to Proleptic Gregorian calendar), I'm inclined provide only the year portion or portions of a single Julian date or date range to the metadata.

This last paragraph is here so that I don't have to go hunting for this preview copy of ISO 8601 again.

Comments or opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have revised the metadata code in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox. The date handling part of that revision is illustrated here. In the table below are the standard date formats and the expected translation to the metadata requirements. I'm clear about how most of these date formats should be translated but I'm not so sure about how we should handle season ranges (the yellow boxes in the table). For now, the code includes the yellow-box stuff in the metadata. Should it? Have I got all of the date formats?

Examples showing the new metata date handling are in the collapsed area. I'll address the other metadata changes in another discussion.

single dates
 * yyyy-mm-dd
 * dd Mmm yyyy
 * Mmm dd, yyyy
 * Mmm yyyy
 * dd Mmm yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * Mmm dd, yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * Mmm yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * yyyy (yyyy < 1000)
 * dd Mmm yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * Mmm dd, yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * Mmm yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * yyyy (yyyy < 1000)
 * Mmm yyyy (yyyy < 1582)
 * yyyy (yyyy < 1000)
 * yyyy (yyyy < 1000)

ranges
 * dd Mmm yyyy – dd Mmm yyyy
 * Mmm dd, yyyy – Mmm dd, yyyy
 * dd–dd Mmm yyyy
 * Mmm dd–dd, yyyy
 * Mmm – Mmm yyyy
 * Mmm yyyy – Mmm yyyy
 * yyy–yyy
 * yyy–yyyy
 * yyyy–yy
 * yyyy–yyyy
 * Mmm yyyy – Mmm yyyy
 * yyy–yyy
 * yyy–yyyy
 * yyyy–yy
 * yyyy–yyyy
 * yyyy–yy
 * yyyy–yyyy
 * yyyy–yyyy
 * yyyy–yyyy

seasons
 * Sss yyyy

season ranges
 * Sss yyyy-yyyy
 * Sss–Sss yyyy
 * Sss yyyy – Sss yyyy
 * Sss yyyy – Sss yyyy
 * Sss yyyy – Sss yyyy

proper name dates
 * Christmas yyyy

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Trappist the monk's statement "When a date falls in the Julian calendar, ISO 8601 only supports those dates as the parties sharing the date information among themselves agree" is not strictly correct. First, ISO 8601 requires the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar or Gregorian calendar; the data exchange partners cannot vary this requirement. If they do, their statements that they are using ISO 8601 are falsehoods. Second, ISO 8601 states "Values in the range [0000] through [1582] shall only be used by mutual agreement of the partners in information interchange." Thus there are a few months in which the Gregorian calendar is valid but nevertheless agreement among data exchange partners is required to use those months in ISO 8601.


 * In addition, the templates have no means to designate the calendar (Julian or Gregorian) so any date before Thursday 1 March 1923 has the potential to be Julian. Since the primary language of this encyclopedia is English, it is probable that sources with a date earlier than Thursday, 14 September 1752, are dated in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a curious problem. Questions of which calendar are usually noted in the text. But as metadata?? Does COinS have any provision for specifying calendar? Perhaps other systems, like MARC? While I wonder if there enough cases where someone cites a book published in (say) 1750 that someone else has an expectation of finding at a local library (distinct from a modern edition of such a book) to make this something COinS would trouble with. Are there potential sources published with non-Western dates? A curious problem. But do we need to worry about it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Foreword
How do you cite the author of a foreword? Thx! !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 October 2015‎
 * My best guess would be
 * or something similar. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  05:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I needed to do this, and what I did as a workaround was:
 * It's not the best solution, but it worked. When we have something better, that can be changed out.
 * Another option would be to list the foreword's author ahead of the citation template:
 * Phipps, Makena Elizabeth. Foreword. In
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   22:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to list the foreword's author ahead of the citation template:
 * Phipps, Makena Elizabeth. Foreword. In
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   22:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   22:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The first form should be avoided (the foreword not being a chapter, nor the author an editor), but second form looks good in all respects. It doesn't need to – indeed, should not – generate COinS metadata because the item that COinS is identifying is the book. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the first form is closer to what one would want if using short references, and the foreword is a contribution, if not a chapter. Not distinguishing book authors from editors is an issue, though.  Kanguole 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the first form is not acceptable, esp. as it makes Mekena Elizabeth the author of the book. But you do raise a good point: if the last names are different (let's say the foreword was by Makena Elizabeth Smith) you might want to use a short cite of "Smith 2004", and have that link to the full citation. One way is to use harvid. Or create the link yourself. I believe something like Smith 2004 would work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes Makena Phipps the author of the foreword, which is correct; the error is in characterizing Terry Phipps as the editor rather than the author of the book. If it had been an invited foreword in an edited work, that would be an appropriate way to cite the foreword, as in:
 * On the other hand, there is a similar problem with citing an invited chapter in an authored book, as in:
 * Here I want to cite Handel, the author of a contributed chapter, but Matisoff is the author of the book as a whole. Kanguole 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there is a similar problem with citing an invited chapter in an authored book, as in:
 * Here I want to cite Handel, the author of a contributed chapter, but Matisoff is the author of the book as a whole. Kanguole 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here I want to cite Handel, the author of a contributed chapter, but Matisoff is the author of the book as a whole. Kanguole 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here I want to cite Handel, the author of a contributed chapter, but Matisoff is the author of the book as a whole. Kanguole 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem you point out arises from an implicit assumption built into the template that the attribution (responsibility) for works containing work of others is of the nature of an editor, not an author. E.g., the template works on the assumption that inviting Handel to write an introduction puts Matisoff in the role of an editor. What is displayed is fine, the only problem is in the metadata characterization of Matiswoff as an editor. I suppose we could have a cont-author parameter that would, in effect, tell the template that this should be displayed as the author of the contribution, with author displayed like an editor, but reported to COinS as the author of the work. I think Imzadi's second form (above) is a better way, along with use of harvid for the short cites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We agree that characterizing authors of books that include contributions by others as editors is a problem, but I'm arguing that it is the only problem here. Handel's contributed chapter is properly described as a   (separately authored part of a book), just as if it were in an edited collection, and for bookitems OpenURL records only the author(s) of the part.  Similarly, a contributed foreword, whether in an edited collection (Isaacson) or an authored book (Makena Phipps), is also properly described as a  .  There might be an argument that wherever we emit COinS data for a   we should also emit a record for the containing book, but that would apply to all separately cited parts of books.  Kanguole 11:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * [a] contributed chapter is properly described as a (separately authored part of a book)  Do you have a source for that?  The two definitions that I'm aware of define  :
 * a defined section of a book, usually with a separate title or number (ocoins.info and oclc.org)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, your quotation is accurate. I don't think this error affects my argument, though.  Kanguole 11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with "book item" (and Book Item and Component Identifier is largely a dead-end), but I can see some ambiguity whether these "defined sections" can have independent author attribution. That our templates can't handle such distinctions intrinsically, well, is that really a problem? We do have a work around. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OpenURL uses  to indicate (as Trappist quotes) "a defined section of a book, usually with a separate title or number".  Handel's chapter in Matisoff's book is such, but so are invited forewords in both edited and authored books.  The citation templates include that key-value pair in the COinS metadata when chapter (or its alias contribution) is used.  So the above markup is appropriate for citing Handel's chapter (and, I would argue, the contributed forewords).  The only issue is that I have maligned Matisoff by placing his name in editor, but that does not show in the page formatting or the COinS metadata.  Kanguole 00:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I am averse to such mis-use of parameter attributes, I am fine with how it is currently displayed. If there is no problem with COinS, do we really care? Is someone likely to write a bot to "fix" such "errors"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Second form

 * I am uncomfortable with the second form,
 * First, it does not work properly with sfn, unless we somehow wrap the citation in an  element, which seems a bit too technical for most editors. Second, it does not give COinS for the author being cited but for the author of the book, so the academic brownie points go to the wrong person. As a minor quibble, most style guides would say the book author is also formatted incorrectly in this case. "Last, first" format is for the person(s) being cited. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it does not work properly with sfn, unless we somehow wrap the citation in an  element, which seems a bit too technical for most editors. Second, it does not give COinS for the author being cited but for the author of the book, so the academic brownie points go to the wrong person. As a minor quibble, most style guides would say the book author is also formatted incorrectly in this case. "Last, first" format is for the person(s) being cited. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then don't use sfn. Nor html elements, since (as I have previously pointed out) a short cite can be created using either harvid, or something like Smith 2004, which displays as "Smith 2004" (our putative "forwarder"), and links to the full citation (see the example above).


 * You have a subtle misunderstanding that needs correcting. The author parameters (including "last=" and "first=") are not necessarily "for the person(s) being cited". They apply to the item or work (book, article, etc.) described in the citation. That you are citing (say) the author of the foreword rather than the author of the book is of no significance to COinS because it is the book, not the foreword in the book, that is going be indexed and shelved in the library. There are no "academic brownie points" involved, as COinS doesn't do that, and I don't believe any "academics" are being scored for being cited on Wikipedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * sfn is by far the best way to refer to different pages in a source. If a solution does not work with sfn it is not a solution. I sense that you are a bit confused between harvid and sfn. These are not alternative templates, but complementary ones. You may want to review the documentation and then experiment in your Sandbox to see how they work together – and to see why the "second form" does not work from a web page navigation viewpoint. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "[i]f a solution does not work with sfn it is not a solution" is bull. Sfn might be the most convenient way to "refer to different pages in a source" for editors who are allergic to Harv, but I strongly dispute that it is "by far the best way". The second form does work; I will shortly be adding examples (below) demonstrating "web page navigation". If you are confused how to use Harv I suggest you go play in your own sandbox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In every other case, the author parameters are used from the author(s) being cited. There is no reason not to be consistent here, and indeed everything is much simpler if we are.
 * Regarding COinS/OpenURL, you seem to be overlooking that it can describe different kinds of sources, namely whole books (genre ) and parts of books (genre  ). It is the latter we are concerned with here, and the author of the part in question is Makena Phipps.  Kanguole 00:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We are being consistent. The last, first, title, year, url, and any other pertinent parameters should all apply to the same item. So if you want to do  that's fine.  But as no library (and I suspect no one at all) indexes forewords (and thus nothing for COinS to point to), you need to point to the book with something like: In Phipps, Terry W. (2004), Seasons of Sleeping Bear, .... (Suitably templated, of course.) So you can have an author-foreword, distinct from author-book. Just not in the same template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we"? This seems to be a rule that you have invented.  In fact it is very common for last and first not to be the author of the subject of title and url, but rather a part of that work.  What is normal in other citations is that last and first refer to the writer of the words we are citing.  Kanguole 23:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A point you have missed is that citation is not to authors ("writers of words"), but to the works ("words") by those authors. You have also blithely missed that last=/first= normally impute authorship to the work (e.g., a book) named in title=. The exception is when an editor is specified.  Then the working of the templates assumes that authorship applies not to ithe whole work specified in title=, but only to part of the work, such as a chapter. This is not suitable in the case at hand, where "we" have separate authorship but no editor.  But no problem, Imzadi showed how to do such a citation. If for some really pendantic reason you just absolutely must have "the writer of the words we are citing" put into last= and first=, I just showed you how. And will do so again, below.


 * The original question here is answered. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We cite works, which are written by authors. In this case, a foreword, by Makena Phipps, that is part of a book.  The "exception" to your rule that you wish to discount (citations using contribution/chapter) is actually extremely common, and is the closest to the current situation.  The difference is that the book has an author rather than an editor, but we discussed that issue at length regarding the Handel/Matisoff example above, and I thought you ended up agreeing that this was an appropriate way to handle that case.
 * The argument for putting the author of what we are citing into first and last is simplicity and consistency. Your method A below is an awkward workaround for the problem you insist on creating, but it links to the book, rather than the foreword.  Method B is invalid, because the first  is incomplete.  Kanguole 11:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not "insist[ed] on creating" any problem, and perhaps you would be so kind as to avoid making such misstatements. The problem presented by the OP (Lfstevens) is how to cite something (e.g., a forward) written by one author that is prefaced to something written by another author. The problem with using the chapter=/contribution= parameters is that it is designed for a similiar but different problem, which attributes the containing work to an editor. In the problem presented here such a characterization of the main author (e.g., Terry W. Phipps) as an editor is false. I have previously stated that though I am averse to such mis-use of the parameters I am fine with resulting display.


 * You (and also Aymatth2) seem hung up on insisting that "the author of what we are citing" must go into a last=/first= pair of parameters, on a supposed basis of simplicity and consistency. Perhaps you should make up your mind on what you really want. The "A" form, of prefixing suitable text to a citation template, is most simple. Your objection that short cites link to the citation of the book seems to be channeling Aymathh2's objection that "[r]eaders look forward, not back.", which I find quite trivial, even silly. But if that is a problem for you, fine, use the "B" form. It is a consistent use of the citation templates, simple enough and not at all invalid. If this specific example is incomplete please describe in what respect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The contribution/chapter parameters are used where we want to cite a part of a book, as situation with a direct counterpart in COinS (the  genre).  And that is what we want to do here, and in the Handel/Matisoff example.  The template is not a perfect fit, because it has paramers only for editors rather than book authors, but it is the closest we have.
 * Imzadi's first solution above is simple, because it uses the template with no special formatting, and uses first and last for the author of the cited item, like every other citation. It works with  with no special treatment (because of the consistent use of first and last).  It generates the correct formatting and the correct metadata.  As with the Handel/Matisoff example, the only issue is that the book author's name have been put in parameters called "editor".
 * Your form B is invalid because the first citation has incomplete metadata. This issue was beaten to death in this thread and I don't wish to repeat it here.  Kanguole 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should make up your mind re what you want, as your requirements are inconsistent. E.g., you object that my form A does not parameterize the "author of the cited item", and that form B (that does parameterize the author) has incomplete metadata (how?). Yet you would give the "first form" (using contribution=) a pass even though it misstates the metadata. You have not demonstrated any incompleteness of the metadata, and your sweeping assertion of invalidity is itself invalid. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Two ways of citing a foreword. Substituting "Smith" to distinguish between Phipps. Numerous variations are possible.
 * A: Smith, Makena Elizabeth. Foreword to [Harvid used to create "Smith" anchor aliased to Phipps.]
 * B:, in [Separate templates for Smith and Phipps; each getting their own last=/first=.]

"Short cites" linking back to the full citation: More than one way to do these things. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * #|Smith 2004a. Harvid used to link to Phipps.
 * #|Smith 2004a. Harvid used to link to Phipps.
 * #|Smith 2004a. Harvid used to link to Phipps.

–––––
 * The "A." example illustrates one of the problems with the "second form". The principle of least astonishment is that things should work the way users probably to expect them to work. The link to, whether placed instream with harvnb or placed in the reflist by sfn, should not jump the reader to text that starts with ""Phipps, Terry W..." and does not mention Smith. Readers look forward, not back. A website designer who insisted that was acceptable would not last long. The "B." example is bizarrely complex. Neither example addresses the COinS and author name format problems. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the simplicity of the "A" form, fine, use the "B" form. The latter satisfies your objections re navigability, parameterizing the forward's author, and jumping to the very front of the citation. As to addressing any COinS or formatting problems, you have not shown any. The only likely COinS problem I see is that no library has indexed the forward of this book, so there is nothing for a COinS record to point to. As to being "bizarrely complex", that's absurd. This example is a straight forward and quite ordinary use of the standard templates. But if you are not comfortable with that, please feel free to contribute your own example. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you fail to grasp how impossible the "second form" is. Apart from the obvious COinS and name format problems, it completely fails to meet accessibility requirements. The web is a very important tool to the blind. They navigate using a screen reader. A real-life example may help make this clear. Suppose a blind user is reading an article about England in 1066 with harvnb citations to the introduction by Magnusson & Palsson of a book by Sturluson. They hear something like,"Hardrada landed near York in mid-September. Bracket link Magnusson and Palsson two thousand and five pea ex eye eye eye [pause] end-bracket. Godwinson gathered an army and marched north. Bracket link Magnusson and Palsson two thousand and five pea ex eye vee [pause] end-bracket."
 * The user selects the second link and hears, "Sturluson Snorri two thousand and five King Haralds Saga Aylesbury Penguin you kay eye ess bee en zero one four one nine one five zero seven two."
 * There is no mention of Magnusson & Palsson, They click back and replay the link, and it does indeed say Magnusson & Palsson. They click forward, and again get what appears to be a completely different book. This is not an acceptable solution. You are surely not advocating that we recommend it? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "B" form is, of course, ludicrous. I assume it is a joke. Very funny. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your contrived example is ludicrous. But not funny. If you are done with your little joke perhaps you might contribute an example of how you would cite a forward. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward
The Magnusson & Palsson example illustrates that the "second form" does not work with screen readers, so cannot be treated as a solution. The "B" form, using two cite templates, one for the foreword and one for the book, is clumsy to say the least and generates some strange COinS. An issue with both is that the book author is not being cited, but their name is in last-first format. Only the cited author should be in this format; some say only the first cited author, for obvious reasons. So far no workable solution has been identified for citing an introduction using the current templates, so we have to consider enhancing the templates.

Two MLA-style examples from the Harvard Guide to Using Sources: Two APA-style examples from the same source:
 * Pynchon, Thomas. Foreword. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By George Orwell. New York: Plume-Penguin, 2003. vii-xxvi. Print.
 * Gillan, Jennifer. Introduction. Identity Lessons: Contemporary Writing About Learning to Be American. Ed. Maria Mazziotti Gillan and Jennifer Gillan. New York: Penguin, 1999. xii-xxi. Print.
 * Pynchon, T. (2003). Foreword. In G. Orwell, Nineteen eighty-four (pp. vii-xxvi). New York, NY: Penguin.
 * Gillan, J. (1999). Introduction. In M. M. Gillan & J. Gillan, (Eds.), Identity lessons: Contemporary writing about learning to be American (pp. xii-xxi). New York, NY: Penguin.

We obviously do not have to conform exactly to either style, but should observe the common principles in these and other standard citation styles. The discussion that immediately follows this one,, was an attempt to start thinking about how that could be done with minimal impact on the template and existing pages. The most obvious drawback, to me, is that it does not identify the person who is being cited. The WP editor should be able to easily specify that they want one or other of:
 * Pynchon, Thomas. Foreword. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By George Orwell. New York: Plume-Penguin, 2003. vii-xxvi. Print.
 * Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Thomas Pynchon, foreword. New York: Plume-Penguin, 2003. vii-xxvi. Print.

Is anyone interested in a calm and constructive discussion on how to enhance the templates to better support citation of introductions, prefaces, chapters etc.? That is, a discussion where the need for some change to the templates is accepted and the word "you" is banned? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The person being cited is identified in the short cite: either 'Pynchon 2003' for the foreword, or 'Orwell 2003' for the book. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given your last sentence, and especially the part where you define "calm and constructive" to mean that everyone agrees to change the template, I'm a little surprised that you don't don't go farther with that thought and define it to mean that everyone agrees with you and immediately changes the template to work exactly the way you think t should work. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to dismiss the people who disagree with you as unconstructive; have more good faith in their intentions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am starting from the premise that since no satisfactory solution using the existing template has been identified after all this discussion, there is none. We should look for ways to enhance the template that will solve the problem. I have no strong views about what the changes should be. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of unnecessary personal remarks in the above back-and-forth, which is why I have stayed away so far, but I appreciate 's succinct request above.


 * An apparent problem with the CS1 templates has been identified. It does not appear to be possible, using the existing template, to cite Thomas Pynchon's foreword to a book authored by George Orwell in a way that accurately characterizes the metadata. Specifically, it does not appear to be possible to create the following citation:


 * Pynchon, T. (2003). "Foreword". In G. Orwell, Nineteen eighty-four (pp. vii-xxvi). New York, NY: Penguin.


 * I believe that our current citation templates have no trouble with the second example given by above, specifically:


 * Gillan, J. (1999). "Introduction". In M. M. Gillan & J. Gillan, (eds.), Identity lessons: Contemporary writing about learning to be American (pp. xii-xxi). New York, NY: Penguin.


 * This second example can be handled using last, first, editor, etc., all existing parameters. We shouldn't use Orwell for the first example, however, since Orwell is the author of the larger work, not the editor.


 * I welcome suggestions with specific examples of citation templates, or changes to the existing template parameters, that address the Pynchon/Orwell citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the existing templates satisfactorily handle an introduction or foreword to an edited book, as in the Gillan (1999) example (though one might quibble about the quotation marks around a generic name). On the other hand, the original issue also arises with contributed chapters to authored works, such as
 * Handel, Zev J. (2003). "A Concise Introduction to Old Chinese Phonology". In Matisoff, James. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 543–576. ISBN 978-0-520-09843-5.
 * so I would characterize the issue as separately-authored contributions to authored books. The nearest approximation offered by the current templates is:
 * For this version,
 * The formatting is fine (because it does not distinguish authors from editors).
 * The COinS metadata is correct (because for the  genre it does not record authors/editors of books – in fact even the   genre does not distinguish editors from authors).
 * Harvard references like work as expected.
 * But although it does not show in any of the output formats, the markup is problematic, because we have put Orwell's name in a editor field.
 * What to do? We could just declare that editor can also be used for book authors when we're citing a separately-authored part of a book.  We could add aliases.  But some future output format might distinguish editors from book authors.  We could add a flag that says whether these fields refer to editors or book authors.  Or we could add new parameters for book authors, distinct from those for authors (used for the part) and editors.  Kanguole 11:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But although it does not show in any of the output formats, the markup is problematic, because we have put Orwell's name in a editor field.
 * What to do? We could just declare that editor can also be used for book authors when we're citing a separately-authored part of a book.  We could add aliases.  But some future output format might distinguish editors from book authors.  We could add a flag that says whether these fields refer to editors or book authors.  Or we could add new parameters for book authors, distinct from those for authors (used for the part) and editors.  Kanguole 11:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How about aliasing a book-author-first to editor-first, mutandis mutatis? Then in the future if an update to COinS/etc ever does necessitate the distinction between editors and authors of the overall book, we already have the infrastructure in place to make that distinction?  Imzadi 1979  →  13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * contribution is an alias of chapter. There is no contributor.  We could create a contributor suite of parameters so that we might write:
 * The combination of contributor and contribution would require author (or alias) and follow the MLA style and render like this for cs1:
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003). Foreword. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By George Orwell. New York: Plume-Penguin. pp. vii–xxvi.
 * and this for cs2:
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003), Foreword, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii–xxvi
 * If there are editors, where do those names go and, especially for cs2, how are they separated from the author name list? Semicolon as in this mock-up?
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003), Foreword, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell; Sam Smith (ed.), New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii–xxvi
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003), Foreword, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell; Sam Smith (ed.), New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii–xxvi


 * For the metadata, do we include Pynchon and exclude Orwell? If we don't, that is similar to how cs1|2 includes a chapter-author but does not include the editors.


 * Is the combination of contributor and contribution restricted to and to  when work is not set?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the concept of contributor and contribution, which can be used for Introduction, Preface, Forword, Afterword. I would include contributors like this in the metadata, since they have written part of the cited book edition. It could also be used for other types of contribution like Translation and Illustration. In theory, and we would need to think very carefully about this, it could replace others, editor and even author. That is a distant future concern. I would limit it to cite book and citation for now. The Harvard Guide section on non-authors shows a possible problem though. It shows two MLA examples for scholarly or critical editions:
 * Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. 1958. Ed. Harold Bloom. Broomall: Chelsea House, 2003. Print.
 * Bloom, Harold, ed. Things Fall Apart. By Chinua Achebe. 1958. Broomall: Chelsea House, 2003. Print.
 * The first is to be used when the book is mostly being cited for the author's contribution, and the second when it is mainly being cited for the editor's contributions. We maybe have the same problem with an introduction. If it is being cited, the person who contributes the introduction goes at the front, last name first.
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003). Foreword. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By George Orwell; Sam Smith (ed.), New York: Plume-Penguin. pp. vii–xxvi.
 * If the presence of the introduction is being noted as information about the edition, but the introduction is not being cited, it belongs after the editor, if present:
 * Orwell, George (2003) Nineteen Eighty-Four, Sam Smith (ed.); Thomas Pynchon (foreword), New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii–xxvi
 * I am mostly thinking of cases when the template is being used in a list of works by the person who wrote the introduction. Maybe it is not a serious issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The metadata issue is problematic. In the normal case we provide author name and book title.  For edited works, we provide author name, chapter, and book title; the editor is omitted because there isn't a key/value pair defined for editors.  The same might be true for this case.  We provide contributor name, contribution title (in  ), and book title.  We could provide the book author name as a second name in  .  Should we?


 * This proposal is not intended to be used for anything other than forewords and the like. It is not a replacement for others or for translator.


 * There are, it seems, two basic uses of the cs1|2 templates: citation and bibliography. I have wondered about using mode in some way to instruct Module:Citation/CS1 in the rendering of bibliographic items.  This is a topic for another time and place.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would buy that. I was maybe trying to be too ambitious, folding all the contributor roles (authors, editors, others) into a generic parameter set, then worrying about how to say which is being cited. So if the introduction is being cited, we use something like
 * but if the introduction is just being noted in a bibliography, we use
 * The contributor name(s) go at the front, first, last, if present, followed by the contribution or chapter value if present, followed by "In" and the standard book definition. I don't know if there should be a warning when there is no contribution or chapter. Maybe not?
 * The contributor name(s) go at the front, first, last, if present, followed by the contribution or chapter value if present, followed by "In" and the standard book definition. I don't know if there should be a warning when there is no contribution or chapter. Maybe not?
 * The contributor name(s) go at the front, first, last, if present, followed by the contribution or chapter value if present, followed by "In" and the standard book definition. I don't know if there should be a warning when there is no contribution or chapter. Maybe not?


 * That also works for a case I found lately where three people were listed as authors in the front matter, but each had written different chapters. There was no editor. So we could have
 * I would be inclined to just write metadata for the main authors. It is unfortunate that at present the COinS syntax does not let us supply data for other types of contributor, even when we have it, but that is a different subject, as is . Aymatth2 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In your example of three people sharing the authorship of (say) the Introduction, but not for individual chapters, what are you citing? These are different "items", with different authorship; they get cited separately. Don't try to mush everything into one package. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be citing the chapter by Baker in the book by Able, Baker and Cane. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not specified to whom the writing (or editing) of the book is to be attributed. If Able, Baker, and Cain wrote (edited?) the book, then sure, the citation for Baker's words in chapter 2 is "Baker, in Able, Baker, & Cain". (With all the other bits and pieces, of course; I'm just showing the essence of the citation.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not specified to whom the writing (or editing) of the book is to be attributed. If Able, Baker, and Cain wrote (edited?) the book, then sure, the citation for Baker's words in chapter 2 is "Baker, in Able, Baker, & Cain". (With all the other bits and pieces, of course; I'm just showing the essence of the citation.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sort of. I think we should take 'by' from the MLA example that you posted in the first message under this heading and reserve 'in' to edited works. Contributor names are listed last, first when provided by -last and -first in keeping with standard cs1|2 name-list formatting. So:
 * would produce:
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003). Introduction. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By Orwell, George. New York: Plume-Penguin. pp. vii-xxvi. (cs1)
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003), Introduction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by Orwell, George, New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii-xxvi (cs2)
 * In one of these conversations someone wondered about quoting generic contribution titles. We might have a list of such generic contributions: afterword, foreword, introduction, preface, (are there others?) that we recognize and do not render in quotes; any other contribution title we render in quotes.
 * In one of these conversations someone wondered about quoting generic contribution titles. We might have a list of such generic contributions: afterword, foreword, introduction, preface, (are there others?) that we recognize and do not render in quotes; any other contribution title we render in quotes.


 * If contributor is set then contribution is required else we generate an error message. The opposite case contribution without contributor is allowed for backward compatibility.  When contributor is set, contribution is not an alias of chapter but if both contribution and chapter are both set, we emit a redundant parameter error message.


 * Some thought will be necessary to make sure that  anchors are correctly generated for the contributor(s) and not the author(s) so that   works properly.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Harvard style examples all give only the name(s) at the start of the citation in "last, first" format, useful for alphabetical sorting, then all the other names in "first last" format. I would prefer that we comply with this convention. Some say that when there are two authors only the first should be in "last, first" format. I have no opinion on that. I do not see much difference between chapter and contribution. They both identify a part of the book. I agree the chapter is "in" the book and the intro etc. precede or follow the book "by" the author or editor. chapter without contributor is reasonable. I often cite an entry in a biographical dictionary where the author is not given. Sometimes the editor is not given either. There may sometimes be cases where contributor without contribution would be useful:
 * No point generating error messages for situations that cause no problems. I agree that if both contribution and chapter are present there should be an error message. A list of common generic types of contribution could also be used to give common abbreviations. Smith, intro., pref., forewd., aftwd., maybe? It should be easy to tweak. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No point generating error messages for situations that cause no problems. I agree that if both contribution and chapter are present there should be an error message. A list of common generic types of contribution could also be used to give common abbreviations. Smith, intro., pref., forewd., aftwd., maybe? It should be easy to tweak. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Name lists that use -last and -first in cs1|2 are rendered in last-first order. Without we change that fundamental property throughout, name lists shall continue to be rendered in that same way.


 * Let us solve one problem at a time. This proposal is to answer the how-to-cite-a-foreword question.  We shall use the contributor/contribution pair to determine when to rearrange the final output into the    by ... format.  When we actually get to the code it may be that this restriction is not necessary.  We'll see.  Until then contributor requires contribution.  Let us not disturb the normal method of identifying an author in an edited work:
 * We could do abbreviations but should expand them. But, editors are endlessly inventive.  I don't think that cs1|2 should be in the business of figuring out just what some editor thinks is the proper abbreviation for some contribution title.  Editors can type a few more characters to get it right.
 * We could do abbreviations but should expand them. But, editors are endlessly inventive.  I don't think that cs1|2 should be in the business of figuring out just what some editor thinks is the proper abbreviation for some contribution title.  Editors can type a few more characters to get it right.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It is contributor(s)/contribution pair, right? There could be co-authors to an introduction, as in:
 * Magnusson, Magnus, Pálsson, Hermann (2005). Introduction. King Harald's Saga. By Sturluson, Snorri. Aylesbury: Penguin UK. ISBN 0141915072.
 * I prefer to follow the Harvard conventions for first/last names, but agree it is a separate question. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as many names as are necessary as well as the  and   modifiers.  I'll start a separate discussion referencing this one for discussion of actual implementation.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would expect that the COinS author fields for a  would contain the author(s) of that item, and not include other people named as author(s) of the enclosing book.  So for this foreword, Pynchon but not Orwell.  Kanguole 22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * [ec] The following is implemented per form B (above) with the existing templates:
 * In
 * and can be cited as . Key differences with the previous example:
 * Page range of the Introduction follows the Intro. specific data
 * Book author preceeds title, rather than following (and with "by)".
 * Book author name is inverted, rather than "normal" order.


 * Having the page range of the Introduction (or any such portion) seems like a good feature to retain, as having it follow the book data suggests that the book is "pp. vii-xxvi".


 * It seems to me that the other two differences can be conceived as a single alternative of formatting. E.g.:
 * , 
 *  by


 * Could this not be handled as simple option? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Arguing for Form B is merely a variant of the discussion we've already had at the "Missing or empty |title=" error message discussion.  In this case its a  template, some connective text, and another  template. The first  template attempts to cite a 'book' titled Introduction and renders that title in italics and not quoted as it should be.  The metadata then is for a 'book' written by Pynchon titled 'Introduction'.  Because of this malformed metadata, Form B should not be used.  Also, because we have had this discussion before, I don't think I have anything more to say about it.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you paying attention? My question was whether the location and inversion (or not) of the author's name could be a simple option. Not discussed previously. And as I recall, your concluding comment on that other discussion was that you just didn't want to do it.


 * If using 'cite book' for only part of a book offends you, one could use citation. Of course, that's jiggered to assume a book. And we can't use 'chapter=' without a 'title=' because you screwed it up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , your personal attacks and mean-spirited comments are not welcome here, not to mention your continuing muddying of discussions by introducing tangential issues and responding with comments unrelated to the main question in the thread. Many of your comments are on point, but the noise is drowning out the signal, to the detriment of any constructive progress you would like to make.


 * I've been doing my best to ignore your direct and indirect attacks on other editors, but this last one ("you screwed it up") pushed me over the edge. If you feel that an editor has broken something, please address it in a neutral way in a separate section. If you feel that your concerns are not being addressed effectively, there are multiple venues available on WP for dispute resolution.


 * If other editors feel that I am out of line with this comment, I will stand down. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully support the above comments by User:Jonesey95. None of us needs the aggravation. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't entirely agree with your comment, neither would I say it is out of line. Discussion of this might be useful.


 * I allow that "screwed it up" may seem overly sharp, but perhaps you would accept that the tone of my comments (in this case, and generally) arises not from mean-spiritedness, but from exasperation. E.g., just above Trappist criticises my example because it "renders that title in italics and not quoted". Well, the example could be set up to quote the title (using 'chapter='), but that runs into the "missing title=" error - which Trappist brought about, and has obstinately refused to permit an exception. He criticises a lack of quotes where he has disabled that option. I find that exasperating.


 * As to "muddying of discussions by introducing tangential issues" - what do you mean? I think non-navigability and screen readers are tangential isues, but those were raised by Aymatth2. My intent is always to clarify issues. If on any particular point I have failed I would appreciate a comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being willing to engage in good faith. The particular example of "muddying" that I was thinking of was this response, in which you wrote a long section with multiple points/questions, some of which were about using the existing template, at the bottom of a focused conversation about how the templates could be modified to support an authored chapter in an authored (not edited) book. I found that post frustrating, since we were converging on a solution to an identified problem after realizing that the OP's request could not be met for that sort of citation need; the post has since been placed in its own section, called "Using the existing framework", which makes more sense to me.


 * I understand that you are exasperated. We can't all get everything that we want from these templates or from WP. Sometimes we have to live with something that is non-optimal, at least for a period of time. When I find myself in a situation that I do not like and have been unable to change on WP, I try to focus my energy on something that I can do something about. I also try to spend some time thinking about a new way of framing my dissatisfaction, or a new way to resolve a problem that might gain a broader consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I appreciate your comments. Even where I am not as nice as some editors might want, even where I am sharp with someone (usually to get their attention, but sometimes out of exasperation), I feel I am honest about my motives (ask if not clear). For that reason, and because in the end I do prefer civility, there is no reason for anyone to impugn my good faith. Where other editors get most frustrated with me seems to be in critical analysis of arguments, where for inadequacy of explanation (possibly my fault), insufficiency of patience (which I don't like to push), or various other reaons, there is incomplete understanding. E.g., my five points (below, after the section break) you deem "muddying" I see as clarifying: I was summarizing previous points. (Note especially point #2, on the distinction between using the existing templates as they are versus improving them, which drastically affects the basis for assessing the examples and arguments raised above.)


 * Hopefully that provides some clarification. Are there any other points I should address? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Form B" cites a book called "Introduction" by Thomas Pynchon and another book called "Nineteen eighty-four" by George Orwell. It gets part way towards acceptable visual format, but is cumbersome to code and creates odd COinS. It may have value as an interim solution. I think the discussion belongs in the next section, on . Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I confess to being unclear about what we expect to achieve with COinS. A serious bibliographic database would not be interested in our data, and I cannot see it being used to determine citation impact. Perhaps it would be useful to someone assembling Wikipedia articles into an e-Book? Whatever the purpose, we should fill out the parameters as they are intended. They do not include editors or other secondary contributors. We should also work towards getting COinS to support more complete bibliographic data, and when that is done modify our template to generate it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your second sentence. The primary intention of the parameters is get the information necessary to display the citation in some form deemed acceptable. Providing COinS data is secondary. If you want COinS to support more bibliographic data I think you have to talk to the people in charge of COinS – and hasn't this already been discussed? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Using the existing framework

 * Fine. Now show us how (in response to the OP's question) you would use the existing templates to implement these cases. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Several points need noting:


 * 1) The issue here is not about citing contributions to a) an edited work, where an editor is identified (which the existing templates handle just fine), but to contributions (typically forewords and introductions) to b) an authored work, where the containing work is primarily one of original authorship.


 * 2) The original discussion was how to cite a foreword with the existing templates. The context is implicitly pragmatic, looking for the best way possible. Perfection is not required.


 * 3) In assessing either the current alternatives, or how the templates might be modified, the assessment criteria should be selected or defined first, then applied to all alternatives.


 * 4) There is no rule or requirement that a cited author must be in last=/first= parameters, nor (as Aymatth2 claims) that only the specifically cited author may be in last=/first= parameters. Such a requirement is purely an idiosyncratic interpretation. (Probably results from not understanding that we cite works, not authors.) A logical consequence of such a rule would be that Orwell cannot be the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four if Pynchon is cited as the author of the Foreword.


 * 5) Aymatth2 has not provided any actual "Magnusson &amp; Palsson example", only a supposed result from some imagined citation that is no where demonstrated. His conclusion of "no workable solution has been identified" is unsuppored, and overlooks the context of the original questions, which was to identify the best – i.e., most workable – solution possible with the existing templates.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to have forked, as they often do, While some WP editors have shown interest in exploring possible changes to the templates, others see the problem as the best way to find a solution with existing tools. Both tracks of discussion can be pursued independently. There is no reason to suppress discussion along either line. A solution, even if imperfect, that uses the existing templates would be valuable, since any non-trivial change to the templates is likely to take time. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that the discussion forked as you criticised a pragmatic discussion from an idealistic viewpoint. Note that I have no objection with an idealistic viewpoint in the context of what should be, and of possible improvements to the templates. But non-perfection is not suitable for assessing work-arounds. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know of any real-world examples of the "second form" of citation, but would be very interested in a workable mock-up screen-reader example with harv or sfn of,
 * * Smith, Makena Elizabeth. Foreword to
 * That is, a mock-up where the blind user learns that Smith wrote the foreword. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As to a mockup of the "second form", isn't that what I provided? (Above, at "".) (Which you mocked.) How well any of that works with a screen-reader, well, you were not clear on what the problem is. If you can offer a better work-around, please do so. Otherwise that is perfectibility question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

... Hardrada landed near York in mid-September. Godwinson gathered an army and marched north.
 * My fault for not spelling out the Magnusson & Palsson example in detail. I assumed most people were familiar with the concept of a screen reader. It is a software tool for blind people that uses speech synthesis to let the user listen to web pages, and lets them navigate within and between pages using the keypad. The example, which I only outlined, is coded as, "Hardrada landed near York in mid-September. Godwinson gathered an army and marched north.
 * Magnusson, Magnus & Pálsson, Hermann. Introduction to"
 * This would display as,
 * Magnusson, Magnus & Pálsson, Hermann. Introduction to
 * The blind user will hear something like, "Hardrada landed near York in mid-September. Bracket link Magnusson and Palsson two thousand and five [pause] pea ex eye eye eye end-bracket. Godwinson gathered an army and marched north. Bracket link Magnusson and Palsson two thousand and five [pause] pea ex eye vee end-bracket."
 * They select the second link and hear, "Sturluson Snorri bracket two thousand and five end-bracket King Haralds Saga Aylesbury Penguin you kay link eye ess bee en [pause] link zero one four one nine one five zero seven two."
 * There is no mention of Magnusson & Palsson, They click back and replay the link, and it does indeed say Magnusson & Palsson. They click forward, and again get what appears to be a completely different book. This is typical of the kind of screen reader problems created when we ignore the principle of least surprise. It is not an acceptable solution.
 * There is no mention of Magnusson & Palsson, They click back and replay the link, and it does indeed say Magnusson & Palsson. They click forward, and again get what appears to be a completely different book. This is typical of the kind of screen reader problems created when we ignore the principle of least surprise. It is not an acceptable solution.


 * According to the National Federation of the Blind, there are more than 8 million blind people in the USA, in the sense that even with corrective lenses they must use alternative methods to engage in any activity that persons with normal vision would do using their eyes. The internet is an incredibly valuable tool to them, but often web pages are designed with total insensitivity to their needs. You will also see why I dislike cluttering the text with harv details. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I know quite well what a screen reader is, and if you're going to be snotty we can just end this discussion now. Your fault was in complaining about garbage out without showing us your garbage in. You are also being ridculous. Your complaint here seems to be (you really should state what you mean, not just throw out broad hints) that Harv cites are not suitable for screen readers. Which point arose only because when you complained (17:43, 6 Nov.) that the "Second form" does not work properly with Sfn I suggested you use Harv. I assumed that you knew how to pack Harv templates in  tags (just as Sfn does) to get the standard note links, but possibly I was wrong. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the blind user follows the link for "Magnusson & Palsson" and finds a citation that makes no mention of "Magnusson & Palsson". The link does not work. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So use the other form. Of course, when I suggest "A", and you complain it isn't "b". So I suggest "B", and you complain it isn't "a". As I have said before, if you can suggest a better way using the existing templates please show us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A separate, perhaps subtle, point is that in my view we are citing an author who has recorded their views in a work, rather citing than a work that happens to be written by an author. We are saying "according to J.J. Higgins, in his introduction to the 1976 book Tropical Penguins" ... rather than "according Tropical Penguins (1976), with introduction by J.J. Higgins...". Professor Higgins is the authority, not the book – although both should be identified. On the other hand, when we generate metadata for the book we should generate as much information as possible. The less complete the metadata the less value it has. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are essentially questioning the "we cite works, not authors". Note the subtle point that tends to confuse this: in all styles of "author-date" referencing we identify the work by the author (or authors) and date (usually just year). E.g., if Smith and Jones write a book in 2004, they, as authors, are the parties responsible for it and the presumptive authority for what we might quote. However, the source is not Smith, nor Jones, nor a Siamese twin Smith-Jones, but their work (a book), which is cited as "Smith and Jones 2004". In your example, yes, Higgins is the authority, but the source where we find his immortal words is the Introduction he wrote. In quoting Higgins, we cite the Introduction.  We also cite the book because that is where the Introduction is to be found. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ending support for |Ref= (upper case)
On a similar note to the above section, our remaining deprecated parameters are coauthors/coauthor and Ref (with an upper-case "R"). Given the difficulty of finding Ref with an insource search, I propose that we change it to unsupported to remove the last mixed-capitalization parameter from our templates (we have already removed support for the rest, like Editor). I'll be happy to lower-case any instances that remain after support is removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I support that. Given that only coauthor and coauthors would then remain on the deprecated list, can we now show its error messages?  Earlier this year, I spent much too much time and energy whittling the category down from somewhere around 25000 pages to just more than 10000.  That was a mind numbing, arduous exercise that I don't care to repeat.  I know that 10k pages is a lot of pages but perhaps if more people can see the error messages, more of these will get fixed.  One can always hope...


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't formulated an opinion on the coauthor thing but I also support removing upper-case Ref. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make a separate discussion section for the issue of coauthor and coauthors to avoid the forking that sometimes arises on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No longer supported. I have removed Ref from the whitelist and from the aliases list.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we unhide the "deprecated parameter" error?
In a section above, suggests unhiding the deprecated parameter error, since only coauthors/coauthor would remain on our deprecated parameter list. We said that we would unhide the error message when all reasonable bot fixes had been made. I think that we have reached that point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There having been no opposition, I have set the hidden flag to false.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

|page=, |pages=, |at=
We have a special error message and category for when a cs1|2 template contains a combination of page, pages, and at. Are the separate error message and category necessary? Isn't this condition merely a variant of redundant parameters like author and last? Is there any reason we shouldn't treat the extra in-source locator parameter the same as we treat any redundant parameter?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading through the error descriptions (and fixing hundreds of these errors), I think Trappist is right. We should merge these errors into the redundant parameter error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, one error message and one cleanup category seems better than duplication. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it emits a redundant parameter error message (and category) when a template has more than one of page, pages, and at. I added sheet and sheets to the test because there is a similar test that includes all five parameters when is the template. This change detects all of the redundant parameters in a single test.

For, the new error message is more precise:

This change also fixes a minor bug where the sheet or sheets value is included in a non- template. See the title portion of the live version of the comparison.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This change is also an improvement in another way than discussed above: it produces an error message that's easier to understand. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might it make sense to allow at together with page or pages? Some references involve both a page number and a location, e.g. "p. 15, footnote 46", and it would be handy to be able to put the page number in page while also giving the extra location information.  Kanguole 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The full citation created by cs1/2 that gives a full description of the source is distinct from the specific reference to a location within the source. In the common practice where, having only a single reference to a source, editors combine both it is better that the specific part be appended to the template rather then included in it. Inclusion implies that the specific page (or, heaven forbid, the footnote) is the entirety of the source.


 * Re 'cite map': in geology it is standard to describe "maps" as having a certain number of sheets (or plates, which should be an alias, which lack page numbers), AND a certain number of pages (understood to be of text). This might be confusing in regard of atlases, which are collections of maps, and might warrant a separate template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Work parameter and italics
I'm having trouble finding a decisive previous discussion on how websites are treated in citation templates. MOS:T states that the italicisation of websites "should be decided on a case-by-case basis", while cite web and co. force  and similar parameters to use italics. To get around this for some websites which shouldn't be italicised, I have always used the  parameter, but it's just been pointed out to be that this practice is discouraged by template documentation pages. Is there some consistency or consensus somewhere that I'm just not seeing? Adabow (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field. First section. --Izno (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* Thanks Adabow (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so my reading of that convoluted thread is that there is still no consensus around this issue. Is that a fair assessment? Adabow (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Auto access-date?
It will be very useful to have ability to (re-)generate access-date automatically instead of requiring to type it manually.

Yurikoles (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's outside the scope of what a template can do. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template name aliases
cf. Template:cite av media and Template:cite av media notes.

Consistency, please? 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what the request is here. The names look consistent to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed with a new redirect to.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

external link in parameter
Because of this discussion, I have revisited the code that does the error checking. Part of that was to consolidate the actual validation so that this test and the test that validates urls in the url-holding parameters use as much of the same code as possible.

The other part is to detect and flag bare urls in title, chapter, and work parameters. I've done this because the 'fix' described in that other conversation is to change Example to http://www.example.com Example which doesn't actually fix the problem. This fix also improves the error messaging.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

|nopp=, |page(s)=, and the extra-text test
nopp, when set to any of,  , or  , inhibits the display of the usual p. or pp. page prefixes.

The extra-text-in-|page(s)= test is disabled when nopp is properly set (see this archived discussion). I now don't think that the test should be skipped. If it is because editors may have included a prefix in the value for page(s) then that will corrupt the citation's metadata so that is not a good reason to skip the test.

It is the job of the module to provide static text. The values assigned to page(s) must not contain text that is not page numbers so that the metadata are not corrupted. When it is desirable to prefix page numbers with something other than p. or pp., the non-standard prefixes might be added to at. Alternately, we can resurrect and document p-prefix and pp-prefix (which I just removed). The extra-text-in-|page(s)= test should emit an error message rather than its current maintenance message. In either case, to preserve the metadata, at should not be used as a source for the metadata  because it is a free-form parameter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After poking through that maintenance category, I came to the conclusion that some editors were creating parameter values like p. 45 because our template can be needlessly obscure, displaying page numbers with no indication of what the number represents in many circumstances (cf the discussion above about vol/issue/pp).


 * If we modify the page numbering display such that 45 displays "p. 45" and p. 45 displays "p. p. 45", then a red error message should definitely be displayed for the latter case. But if p. 45 displays "p. 45", I think you'll encounter objections from reasonable editors if you show a red error message.


 * Am I responding to the question that you raised, Trappist? Or am I going in a different direction? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is the module's job to display static text, editors shouldn't, and shouldn't feel a need to, include non-page number text in page(s). We don't accept extraneous text in dates; we don't require editors to provide quotation marks, brackets, and other formatting details.  All we want is the data.  Give us a page number and we'll add the  .  By providing  we remove the 'need' to add extraneous text, do we not?


 * This does suggest to me that we should, as a part of tightening the definition of, emit an error message for journal cites that lack both volume and issue.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What definition of 'journal' requires them to have either a volume number or issue number? Certainly it is a characteristic, and the lack of same might warrant a warning (as possibly incomplete), but why these be required? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of citation style guidelines out there that have text about what to do when citing a journal that has no volume or issue numbers, so I think this is a common enough case that we need to handle it without errors and without making editors jump through complicated hoops to avoid an error. For instance from this copy of APA: "If an on-line journal gives neither volume nor issue number, simply put the journal's title and descriptor, and end with a period." This book gives an explicit example, although the journal in question seems to have acquired issue numbers at some later point. (Also, there are plenty of instances of cite journal on Wikipedia for things that are not journal papers, but it's harder to argue against emitting error messages for those cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the extra-text-in-|page(s)= so that the test is not disabled when nopp is properly set.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Publisher plus.google.com
Can something be done to pick-up publishers which have an external link to plus.google.com that seems to be getting entered in several recent cites. It is usually accompanied by invalid en-GB or en-US. Keith D (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Links to example edits? I think en-GB and en-US are being added by a Visual Editor tool. If we can track it down, we may be able to file a bug. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * finds about 2200 instances of the 'plus.google.com' string. I looked through the first 20 search results.  It appears that the Google+ links are being added by Visual Editor somehow.  Very often, the link in publisher does not match the link in url except that it is the publisher's or the work's 'home' at Google+ which is not directly related to the resource being cited.  These links then amount to nothing much more than advertising for the work or publisher and, presumably, income for Google.  Wikipedia should not be in the business of helping publishers and Google make money.


 * From Help:Citation Style 1, this:
 * If the publisher is notable and has an article independent of the "work", the "publisher" parameter can include a wiki-link to that article, but should never externally link to the publisher's website.
 * Because of this, at the least, we should add publisher to the list of parameters that we inspect for improper external links which will get these errors categorized for repair. This I have done in the sandbox
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been removing the links manually as spam, but would be really good to have the tool fixed so that it stops adding these links. Keith D (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked for participation in this discussion.
 * I have asked for participation in this discussion.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Users still insert month parameter with ProveIt tool
I have been fixing several pages this week for "month=" and one user noted using the ProveIt user-script (see User:ProveIt_GT) to add the whole new cite. The logical fix is to restore parameter "month=" as joined to "year" to avoid similar errors. Of course, every parameter name attracts more follow-on errors (such as "month2="), but those follow-on errors would be very rare compared to all the "month=" being added to pages this month (Nov 2015). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The addition of month by ProveIt is a bug that was reported in July 2015. That bug has been filed on GitHub.


 * I also fix unsupported parameter errors, and after the initial flush of a few hundred of them when we changed month to unsupported, I have seen only a few per week. They are easy to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

bug fixes for redundant parameter error messages
When there are more than one of a parameter alias in a cs1|2 template, Module:Citation/CS1 emits a redundant parameter error that lists all of the matching aliases in the error message. The first bug squashed is revealed when there are multiple calls to function. This function reads the list of aliases for a particular parameter and selects the first one that is set. If more than one is set, the function emits a redundant parameter error. Because the function is handy for other things – it is called for example, to see if any of the contributor parameters are set for cs1|2 templates that don't support the contributor/contribution pair – those other calls can cause duplicate reports of redundant parameters.

The second bug squashed is a flaw in how the error message itself is rendered. Enumerated parameters with the enumerator of '1' are treated the same as an non-enumerated parameter: author and author1 are the same. During the test, an enumerated parameter from the numbered parameter list in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (written there as, for example, translator-last#) is modified to be {{{{para|translator-last}} and this modified value is used in the error message. Similarly, {{para|translator#-last}}) also becomes {{{{para|translator-last}} to be used in the error message. The error message reports all of the matching aliases which, because the '#' has been replaced, makes the message look odd:

{{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |author=Author |last=Last |title=Title}} {{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |editor=Editor |editor-last=Elast |title=Title}} {{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |author=Author |translator=Translator |translator-last=Tlast |title=Title}} {{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |author=Author |contributor=Contributor |contributor-last=Clast |title=Title}}

While these have been 'fixed', listing two enumerated parameters when none are actually used seems improper. I've added a note to the code to remind me to think about a better fix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Better fix I think. Here is a rather extreme case where all of the possible {{para|editor}} aliases are included in the template: {{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |editor=Editor |editor1=Editor |editor-last=Elast |editor-last1=Elast |editor1-last=Elast |editor-surname=Elast |editor-surname1=Elast |editor1-surname=Elast|title=Title}} Same but testing {{para|editor2}} aliases just to make sure I haven't broken anything: {{cite compare |old=no |mode=book |editor=Editor |editor2=Editor |editor-last2=Elast |editor2-last=Elast |editor-surname2=Elast |editor2-surname=Elast |title=Title}} —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps show 'author' or 'last' instead of 'author1' or 'last1': Ideally, the error message should show the actual parameter names in use, but at least default to list parameters "author" or "last" rather than the rare "author1" or "last1" which are typically not in the bad cites I have been fixing. Of course, many of these author errors could be wp:autofixed but are among the most difficult to match invalid numbered firstn/lastn pairs. The autofix tactic is to tally all firstn/lastn and when first2 is missing use duplicate first1 as first2, preferably in a Bot fix which sees all duplicate parameter names. However, the general autofixing of unexpected parameter "xname=Doe" is to show literal "xname: Doe" with a colon inserted, at the end of the formatted cite. Meanwhile when the message says, "author1" and there is no author1, anywhere in the page, it is no wonder these various cite errors remain in pages for 2 weeks to 5 months or longer. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple similar ext. lnk icons and format-info. (archives)
It would look better if the archive icon/format-info appeared when specific to the archived item. If they are both pdfs, do they both have to appear? 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The pdf icon is added to external links by MediaWiki:Common.css. Because icons applied by css are not treated as images, they do not support alt text.  When Module:Citation/CS1 detects pdf external links, it applies automatic format, chapter-format, archive-format, etc. as an aid to those who use screen readers.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine, but for example, Internet Archive makes available archived documents in their original format, a practice I have encountered in other archive services. The extra icon and format-info are therefore redundant. It would make sense to include them if the archived format was different from the original format. Otherwise, and regardless of whether one is using a screen reader, it should be understood that a pdf document has been archived as a pdf document. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Journal article with introduction
An unusual citation problem showed up with the article on Jean-Charles-Pierre Lenoir. It is related to. An article in a journal had an introduction by Robert Darnton followed by an annotated excerpt of Lenoir's unpublished memoirs. The journal gives both Darnton and Lenoir as authors, but the WP article cites only the introduction. The approach taken in the article was to cite like: This does not give formal credit to Lenoir as uncited co-author, but the situation seems quite unusual, so it is presumably good enough.

The memoirs were eventually published as a book that included a lengthy discussion of Lenoir by Vincent Milliot, Un policier des Lumières. This was shown in the list of works by Lenoir as: In this case, the article did not cite Milliot, but only because his intro was not visible online. This is a reasonably common situation: an old book with a modern introduction that we want to cite. This is where contributor will be really useful (hint :~). Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For citations, we cite what we read. If a Wikipedia editor read an online source that did not include some material by Milliot, then Milliot shouldn't be mentioned by the Wikipedia editor. If a Wikipedia editor lists the works of an author, the Wikipedia editor should use reliable sources to compile the list, not other Wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The publication list in the Jean-Charles-Pierre Lenoir article is taken from the BnF entry in the authority control list at the foot of the page. The entry for the Milliot book also has an ISBN, which links to a Worldcat entry. Explicitly citing one or more of these indexes seems overkill, but I would not object if anyone cares to do so. This is tangential to the question of citing a contributor other than the primary author. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the English Historical Review article contains annotated [excerpts] of Lenoir's unpublished memoirs and we are to assume that Darnton is the author of the annotations throughout, then I think the template as you've used it here is correct.  Lenoir might be listed as last2.  Because the excerpts are just that, excerpts, then Darnton isn't  really making a contribution to Lenoir's work; rather, he is using Lenoir's work to support his own.  The article is Darnton's.  access-date not required for archived material; use 563194:


 * I must not be clever enough to figure out what it is that you are hinting at. The contributor / contribution support currently in the sandbox will give you what I think I understand you to want:
 * I think that Champ vallon, impr. is incorrect and should be Champ Vallon or Éditions Champ Vallon or Les Éditions Champ Vallon (I don't have French so I can't say for sure; see website); I suspect that 'impr.' means print or printed. At worldcat, 'Champ vallon, impr.' is followed by a 2011 date.
 * I think that Champ vallon, impr. is incorrect and should be Champ Vallon or Éditions Champ Vallon or Les Éditions Champ Vallon (I don't have French so I can't say for sure; see website); I suspect that 'impr.' means print or printed. At worldcat, 'Champ vallon, impr.' is followed by a 2011 date.
 * I think that Champ vallon, impr. is incorrect and should be Champ Vallon or Éditions Champ Vallon or Les Éditions Champ Vallon (I don't have French so I can't say for sure; see website); I suspect that 'impr.' means print or printed. At worldcat, 'Champ vallon, impr.' is followed by a 2011 date.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Darnton introduces and annotates the Lenoir excerpt, but the bulk of the text is Lenoir's, which is why the journal credits both of them. Still, the article is citing Darnton, so I think the citation format works. It is an oddball example. I do not see a need to support contributor in cite journal unless it is trivial to do so.
 * I add accessdate for anything I find on the web. I have no confidence that any website or archive will survive more than a few years.
 * Not a subtle hint – just wondering whether there are plans to make the sandbox version live. I keep coming across examples where I wish I could use the contributor parameter.
 * Worldcat, BnF etc. use "Seyssel : Champ vallon, impr.", meaning location=Seyssel; publisher=Champ Vallon; printed by the publisher. I like to show who printed it, since that could possibly affect pagination. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re making the sandbox version live: See the section above. That's what is meant by updating the module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not see that post. That is great! Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite journal and DOI vs. JSTOR
I just ran across what must be the grossest DOI yet constructed:

Shoving this into cite journal's  parameter looks, remarkably enough, to have worked just fine. However, for some journal articles, JSTOR uses the DOI as the "JSTOR number"; the stable address for a given article on JSTOR. And shoving that DOI into the  parameter… did not go as well.



I tried following the code to see what might be up, but my Template/Module-fu is clearly too weak for the task. cite journal just #invokes CItation/CS1, and the only place there I find the string "jstor" is in a blacklist of unsupported params for cite arxiv. Help? --Xover (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * dx.doi.org translates or redirects doi identifiers to the url of the appropriate destination. Module:Citation/CS1 uri-encodes the doi value when it creates the doi link:
 * 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0262:osapct]2.3.co;2
 * https://dx.doi.org/10.1641%2F0006-3568%282000%29050%5B0262%3Aosapct%5D2.3.co%3B2
 * But, that encoding doesn't work for jstor which treats the '/' character as a path delimiter. Changing the uri-encoded doi identifier so that   becomes '/' makes a usable link:
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282000%29050%5B0262%3Aosapct%5D2.3.co%3B2
 * The uri-encoding is necessary because the jstor value, in this case, contains  and   which mediawiki interprets as external link markup.  To properly fix this problem, will require new code that excludes the virgule from the uri-encoding.


 * I will attend to this after the next update to the cs1|2 modules.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. The article in question has the jstor parameter commented out right now, so I'll just leave it like that until this is fixed. --Xover (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite sign
Template:Cite sign says to "Copy a blank version to use," as do all the cite template docs, except that unlike the others "cite sign" does not actually provide a blank version to use. Is this supposed to be auto-generated? How do we get this fixed? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Errata, or multiple DOIs
A suggestion: I've noticed that for some fields (e.g. astronomy, astrophysics), the publication of errata more or less alongside, but in a separate journal article (with separate DOI) from the original, is common. I've seen various ways people have tried to address this (putting them in separate cites for instance, or, in the immediate example, trying to stuff both DOIs into the same doi param separated by a plus sign), but they all strike me as slightly suboptimal. So I'm thinking it might be a good idea to have some explicit support for indicating an errata for a given cite.

The first-pass, version 0.1, of that might simply be an doi parameter that spits out a help text, similar to what y does, saying "Errata available".

I'm sure more sophisticated versions are also possible, but I don't really have a clear idea of what they'd be. I'm also sure Wikipedia can get by just fine using separate citations for the main article and erratum for a long while yet (Wikidata will, I'm sure, bring many changes in approach to this class of problems), but the current state of affairs just feels horribly inelegant.

Thoughts? --Xover (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example from a WP article? Does the errata page link to the original article?


 * You could put an errata link outside the citation but inside the  tags for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, and also to illustrate why using separate refs (main + errata) for this, the citation that immediately precipitated this suggestion, is:
 * Having up to 30 authors is not uncommon on articles in this field (I've seen similar in medicine too). As you can see the DOI link is broken here because the editors have attempted to put both DOIs into the parameter. The two correct links would be and . In this particular case there is a backlink to the original article from the errata article, but this is not universal (depends entirely on the particular publisher). Incidentally, you can also see the Wikipedia editors have tried to shoehorn more information into various fields to account for the errata (in the journal parameter) which would be nice to be able to support in a structured way. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having up to 30 authors is not uncommon on articles in this field (I've seen similar in medicine too). As you can see the DOI link is broken here because the editors have attempted to put both DOIs into the parameter. The two correct links would be and . In this particular case there is a backlink to the original article from the errata article, but this is not universal (depends entirely on the particular publisher). Incidentally, you can also see the Wikipedia editors have tried to shoehorn more information into various fields to account for the errata (in the journal parameter) which would be nice to be able to support in a structured way. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A nifty trick I learned at WikiConferenceUSA was how to list multiple OCLC control numbers in a single citation using oclc. For example, two possible OCLC numbers refer to a Michigan state highway map printed in December 1927: 12701195 and 79754957. By using   in the citation, it lists both as: . This trick works for three OCLC numbers as well. If doi had similar support, the same workaround would work here as well.


 * That said, a variation of that would work, putting the main DOI in doi and inserting the errata DOI into doi. I just don't know if that would be confusing or not.  Imzadi 1979   →   07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That reminds me of another issue. A lot of journals have multiple ISSNs; typically one for the print edition, and one for online access ("eISSN"). This would also be a nice thing to have directly supported in the Cite templates. This could either be something like issn and eissn, or label (like for last1/first1, and with a label like "online" or "print"). --Xover (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The cs1|2 templates are designed, intended, to render a citation for a single source. Adding functionality that stretches that definition should not be considered.  In the Abbott, et al. example of a journal article and an erratum we have slightly different titles, possibly different authors, different volumes, different page numbers, different doi, different date, possibly different other stuff.  If errata are worth citing, they should be cited properly.


 * I have thought about adding support for eissn. That identifier is supported in the metadata and it should be relatively easy to implement as a more-or-less-clone of existing issn code.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that we should not support issn as a parameter, because we should almost always not include issns in citations. The purpose of an issn is to disambiguate journals with ambiguous titles (the issn is an identifier for the journal, not for the paper within the journal) but most journal titles are not ambiguous and even for those that are, other parts of the citation (like publisher=) are better ways to disambiguate them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (re David) We need ISSNs as a structured identifier for the journal, for the same reason we need structured identifiers (DOI, JSTOR id, PMID, Bibcode, arXiv id, etc.) for articles, even though they are in principle redundant with the article title: humans and systems are imperfect, and specific circumstances have specific requirements. Having gone through ~500 articles over the last couple of weeks trying to fix broken citations I can tell you with absolute conviction and 100% certainty that such redundancy is critical for rescuing refs where there is either insufficient bibliographic information provided by the original editor, or where some external factor has rendered one of the identifiers unresolvable. An easy example: a cite using url to a transient address on jstor.org, and a DOI that is currently non-resolvable on doi.org, with very few other cite parameters filled in. If the original editor had botched the journal name (not infrequent), this cite would have been near impossible to salvage without an ISSN that can help you find the right journal to look up the volume/issue numbers in. For citations, redundancy is good! That our current ISSN search (unstructured search of Worldcat) is fairly limited is an argument to improve the search and indexing function, not dropping ISSNs. --Xover (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (re Trappist) For the case where you're actually specifically citing something in the errata, yes, I agree, you should cite the errata separately. But for a lot of cases you perhaps just want to make readers aware that errata exists; possibly because you're not the original author of the Wikipedia article and can't easily tell whether the errata directly invalidates or modifies the statement the citation supports (I sure as heck can't tell in astrophysics articles). At the level we're often summarising, a cite's errata doesn't really need to necessitate changes in our article, but still be highly relevant to a reader's correct understanding. In other words, while I appreciate and agree with the purity of the design goal in principle, I think this may be one of those grey areas where making the box slightly more roomy is warranted. I don't think there is a critical need for this functionality in any short term, and we certainly should avoid letting cruft accumulate uncritically both in the template code and in ever more complex markup in articles, but, in my opinion, it's worthwhile enough to keep in mind for consideration slightly longer term, and it's not sufficiently incompatible with the defined scope of the citation templates to merit immediate dismissal. --Xover (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Last week's Science has an interesting article on the hijacking of journal websites. One of the way this happens is by creating websites with deliberately ambiguous titles. While an ISSN won't help if the real website gets hijacked, they can help distinguish very similar names. Especially where an initial editor may be unclear or careless about a name. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ISSNs are also used for newspapers and magazines, not just journals. If I include the ISSN for a newspaper, especially for an article not available online, then the reader can locate a library that has that paper within its holdings. It may be redundant to a DOI or other identifier, but it's nice to be consistent about listing ISSNs.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What do I do with Journal date as March 2014? date=2014-03-01?
The citation templates are generated red text if day of month is not specified. Perhaps it would be nice to come to consensus for guidance on this situation and put it in the styleguide. Apologies if I was too blind not to find it. For now, I am forced to lie and say it is the first day of the month, though this seems improper. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? should work, and does: . The format YYYY-MM-DD is ok for accessdate but should not be used for publication date. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you link to the article you are having trouble with, we can help you better. As indicated above, March 2014 should work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind is that for the vast majority of articles I've ran across, giving just the year is more than sufficient. The few journals that publish at an interval that makes year insufficient usually also provide full dates for their issues. And on the other hand, you very likely can't really solve this problem while keeping the month-type precision, because some journals like to "date" their issues with a season (i.e. "Spring") rather than a specific month name (i.e. "April"). The point of this data in the citation is to aid the reader in locating the intended article, and not to be a complete repository of metadata about it: if you have authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, and year (plus a couple of DOI/JSTOR/PMID/Bibcode-style identifiers), the reader has a myriad ways to look it up at need; distinguishing on month or season (which is normally redundant with Issue number) is in practice never needed. Nice, but not necessary. --Xover (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your remarks. The citations for date= field are YYYY-MM-DD in that particular article, and in general I follow whatever date format style the article authors have chosen. I know that isn't a rule- just a guideline, but somehow I got tunnel visioned into wondering if there was some trick to do YYYY-MM that wouldn't freak out the citation template's correctness code.  But I am snapped out of it now.  Doing Month YYYY is better than lying.  Thanks for talking me down off the ledge.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not-quite-right error message when last=, first=, and authors= all exist?
I found what looks like an erroneous error message in a citation in the wild:

The citation contains last, first, and authors, which is an error, but the error message strikes me as difficult for a civilian to understand. For the record, what I see in both the live cite book template and in the sandbox version is "".

The citation places the article in, which is correct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are three kinds of author-name-list: authors, vauthors, and author/last. This error message attempts to distinguish redundant author-name-lists from redundant aliases.  There is also a version of this error message for the three kinds of editor-name-list.


 * Is there a better error message?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hoping, though I expect the programming might be a challenge, for "" or something similar, to guide editors toward identifying the problem better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have modified the help text to include this error message.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about use of authors= parameter

 * Except that the example above uses authors (the plural form), which invites stuffing multiple author names into a single parameter, and is an error in itself. And while we all understand (right?) that mulitiple authorN (or 'lastN') parameters with different values of N are not redundant, an inexperienced editor might reasonably read " as precluding author1=, author2=, etc. I suggest something like "" Not a complete enumeration of all possibilities, but less misleading, and the fine details can be explained at the Help. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * authors is close to the right idea. All one needs to do is replace authors with Dietrich D, Arrigo J ;-) Mulitiple authorN parameters are needlessly redudant. Boghog (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Which results in the loss of the last name. Sometimes authors is correct. (Though IMO authorN is more correct because that also ensures good metadata--most correct IMO is of course the version which doesn't assume formatting i.e. firstN lastN.) --Izno (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dietrich D, Arrigo J also insures good meta data. The last name is not lost. Did you mean first name which is replaced by an initial? Boghog (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the first. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I allow (grudgingly) vauthors on the basis of the specified list of authors being in restricted format ("Vancouver style") that (if properly observed) permits recovery of the authors' last names. However, that does not apply to authors, which has no such format, and generally indicates a weak understanding of citation and/or sloppy usage. Indeed, use of authors (as well as coauthors should be deprecated, and warrants its own error message. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
 * I also dislike authors for the same reasons. But I think the solution is a maintenance category rather than deprecation and an error message. The reason is that I think we should make it easy for new editors to start using the citation templates rather than formatting citations manually, and learning the minutiae of how to separate author names into lots of little separate parameters is one of the things that I think makes these templates not easy to use. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a subheader to this forked discussion, since it is about a topic other than the error message itself. If you think that authors should be treated in a new way, please start a separate thread. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We can't properly formulate an error message until we determine what the error is. And the example at the top, using authors, is handled differently than with author, coauthor, or coauthors:

Which error are addressing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these examples match the example I introduced at the top of this discussion section. Trappist explained the error, which is that of using multiple author lists simultaneously. The examples immediately above are redundant parameter errors, a different category of error.


 * The error I was addressing was the use of authors and last in the same citation, which generates an error message that I thought was unclear. Using those two parameters in the same citation is a syntax error, a parameter conflict that hides information that editors presumably want to display. Trappist has since modified the help text linked from the error message, and I am satisfied with that resolution.


 * After I expressed my satisfaction with that resolution, a new discussion, on a new topic, was begun. That topic was whether authors was a valid parameter. Hence the new subheading. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before, any kind of "" message can be reasonably interpreted as precluding use of author1=, author2=, etc. But if the use of authors is deprecated, than it can use the same message as coauthors (my last example), and we don't need to craft any kind of special message. There would still be a matter of author/last conflict, but that is not the example you presented. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Contributor when authors are not listed
The new contributor parameter is really useful. But while putting it into recently-started articles I found an oddball case with a collection of children's verse edited by Armand Got. François Albert wrote the preface. The BnF entry is here. The authors of the poems are not listed. If we try to cite Albert's preface using contributor we get an error:



A workaround is to use chapter as

The quotes around "preface" seem awkward; Albert's contribution is not really "in" the anthology, but precedes it; Armand Got is not shown as editor. A different workaround is to replace  by

That does not look quite right either, and messes up the metadata. But these are minor quibbles. Maybe the chapter workaround is good enough. The scenario seems unusual. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that either an author an editor should be required with contributor, i.e. the following should be accepted:  . Peter coxhead (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I came across one case where there was a contributor but no author or editor. It was a program for a series of conferences with a preface by a named contributor, but with the person who assembled the program unnamed. The publisher was the group running the conference. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen similar cases where contributors are identified, but no editor or overall author. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen similar cases where contributors are identified, but no editor or overall author. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

update to the live cs1|2 module weekend of 5–6 December 2015
I propose to update the cs1|2 modules over the weekend of 5–6 December 2015. The changes are:

to Module:Citation/CS1
 * 1) bug fix in et al. detection; discussion
 * 2) bug fix in ; discussion
 * 3) bug fix in ; discussion
 * 4) bug fix in subscription and registration; discussion
 * 5) time and minutes now redundant; wikilink and url checks for all | -link= parameters; enhanced url validation; enhanced url error messaging; discussion
 * 6) detect non-printable characters; discussion
 * 7) proper date formatting for metadata; discussion
 * 8) improve metadata creation; discussion
 * 9) tweak  to ensure that the list is read first-to-last;
 * 10) bug fix and revision of chapter-format error handling; discussion
 * 11) revise language handling so that IETF codes are accepted; discussion
 * 12) add support for foreword, preface, etc book cites; discussion
 * 13) bug fix: duplicate punctuation in author rendering; discussion
 * 14) convert extra pages error to redundant parameter error; discussion
 * 15) add support for ; revise vol/issue/page handling; discussion
 * 16) revise url detection and validation; discussion
 * 17)  not skipped when nopp is properly set; discussion
 * 18) bug fix in redundant parameter error messaging; discussion

to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
 * 1) remove extra font-size css from subscription/registration style;
 * 2) detect non-printable characters;
 * 3) add support for foreword, preface, etc book cites;
 * 4) convert extra pages error to redundant parameter error;
 * 5) Ref no longer supported; discussion
 * 6) p-prefix and pp-prefix no longer supported; discussion
 * 7) unhide deprecated parameter errors; discussion
 * 8) add support for ; revise vol/issue/page handling;
 * 9) messages entry for newsgroup, titletype;
 * 10) remove extra_pages error;

to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
 * 1) add contributor suite of parameters; discussion
 * 2) Ref no longer supported;
 * 3) p-prefix and pp-prefix no longer supported; discussion

to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) proper date formatting for metadata;


 * Inserted omitted item 11 into Module:Citation/CS1 list.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The sandbox version seems not to include year in the generated reference id:
 * yields CITEREFAuthor.
 * yields CITEREFAuthor2000.
 * Kanguole 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thank you. Fixed:
 * The problem was in a function called  which is supposed to choose the first set item in a list of items.  The existing code uses   where   is some number of arguments.  The existing function ignores unset arguments and returns the first set argument.  The problem with that, is that the order of evaluation isn't guaranteed.  Calling the function like this with both arguments set:   can and does return.
 * The problem was in a function called  which is supposed to choose the first set item in a list of items.  The existing code uses   where   is some number of arguments.  The existing function ignores unset arguments and returns the first set argument.  The problem with that, is that the order of evaluation isn't guaranteed.  Calling the function like this with both arguments set:   can and does return.
 * The problem was in a function called  which is supposed to choose the first set item in a list of items.  The existing code uses   where   is some number of arguments.  The existing function ignores unset arguments and returns the first set argument.  The problem with that, is that the order of evaluation isn't guaranteed.  Calling the function like this with both arguments set:   can and does return.
 * The problem was in a function called  which is supposed to choose the first set item in a list of items.  The existing code uses   where   is some number of arguments.  The existing function ignores unset arguments and returns the first set argument.  The problem with that, is that the order of evaluation isn't guaranteed.  Calling the function like this with both arguments set:   can and does return.


 * My attempt to fix that failed, as you discovered. That attempt used   which evaluates the list left-to-right, but quits when it discovers an unset argument.  The anchor id code uses  .  When meta-parameter   is not set, it gets the value of   and   is set to  .  Because   is first in the list of arguments and because it is ,   returned nothing for the anchor id.


 * I have resolved that by changing to a  form of loop control.  This forces the function to evaluate every argument in the list in left-to-right order.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. These changes were implemented about seven hours before my time stamp here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Spurious 'Check |episodelink= value' error? in Template:cite episode
I'm note sure whether this might be related to the above discussion, but at Pan Am (TV series) I noticed a similar problem with episodelink in cite episode that has only appeared recently. This error is appearing at multiple articles so it isn't a problem with the formatting of the citation in Pan Am (TV series). For example, all of the citations listed in Sheldon Cooper used to be fine. I'm not really up on Lua, but I'm wondering if the errors reported today might have something to do with recent changes to Module:Citation/CS1 by . -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Still at Pan Am (TV series), I noticed a citation that reported "zero width space character in |title= at position 58". This is apparently caused by use of !, which I've seen used in many citations in the past, and which did not result in errors. In order to correct this error I've had to replace " Pan Am's " with" 's ". I'm not sure whether this is a recently created problem, or just a coincidence. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes AussieLegend, this issue with ! is the same issue mentioned above in .&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that allowing the "#" character as part of an episode-link value would fix the problem here. Here's a citation using a "#" character in episode-link using the sandbox code, which I have modified to allow the "#" character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that fix seems to work. It's something that is necessary because linking to individual episode entries is widely done in articles, including many outside the TV project. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I poked through, which currently has 672 articles in it, and it looks like 90% or so of the articles in the category are there because of this change to the module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Any chance the fix can be integrated into the official cite episode? Otherwise it'll have to be added to the help files. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixes are typically tested in the sandbox before being moved to the live module. We are debugging some other changes that were introduced in the most recent set of updates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete "Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications" category?
I was about to tag with a speedy delete template, but I thought I would check here first. I think that the code has been changed to place these pages in the redundant parameter category. I gave the remaining articles in the "conflicting page" category a null edit to clear it out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Date validation failing on leap days?
File:Tank Destroyer Forces (unofficial) logo.jpg hasn't changed since 2013, but it is suddenly showing a date error for 2012-02-29. There were no files in the date error category before the recent code updates. Here's a dummy citation to show the error:

It looks like the prose forms of the same date work fine, and YYYY-MM-DD works fine for non-leap-day dates:


 * Abbreviated month MDY:
 * Abbreviated month DMY:
 * Full month MDY:
 * Full month DMY:
 * YYYY-MM-DD for Feb 28, 2012:
 * YYYY-MM-DD for Feb 29, 1900 (not a valid date):
 * YYYY-MM-DD for Feb 29, 2000:

It looks like maybe we stopped marking leap days as valid in YYYY-MM-DD format. Or something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is in function is_valid_date in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation. The check  only gives the expected result is month is a number. My guess is that it is still a string. My fix would be to put   (and similar for year and day) somewhere early on. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the tip.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find the discussion for the non-printable character error category etc.
The link in is broken? 65.88.88.200 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Archive 9


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Date validation problem
There seems to be a problem with validation of 29 February 2012. Works fine for day & month first dates -

But gives an error for ISO style dates -

Keith D (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See two sections above. This has been fixed in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

vertical format, positional parameters, and the invisible parameter test
I noticed this at. In the normal course of events, MediaWiki numbers positional parameters 1, 2, etc. Unlike 'named' parameters, positional parameters are not stripped of leading and trailing whitespace. Even though cs1|2 do not support positional parameters, if they are in the template, the module will at least look at them; this is where the ignored text error message arises. When a cs1|2 template is organized in vertical format, if there is a pipe followed by any amount of white space and then a newline, the positional parameter's content (the whitespace and the newline character) are evaluated by  which detects the line feed character and emits the error message: 

I have fixed this in the sandbox I think: —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So that's what was going on. I looked at Catholic and a couple other templates like it, played with a couple of them for a while, and then forgot to post a note here to ask what was going on with them. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Another bad date issue
Hi, guys. I would like to cite a periodical that notes the issue as "Winter 1999-2000", however, I get the bad date error if I put that value in date or year. The same thing happens if I use a dash in "Winter 1999—2000". I assume that it is the notation of "Winter" that is the trouble here. Thoughts? Alternatives? Thanks! - Location (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use an endash:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It works! Thanks again! - Location (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External link in publisher=
We are now flagging external links in publisher as an error. I have been unable to locate consensus discussion to start doing that.

Can someone please enlighten me? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * publisher was added to the list of parameters tested because of this discussion et seq.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Guidance needed when URL is legitimate part of a title
We knew this day would come. This journal article legitimately has a URL in the title:



What should our guidance be? Should we recommend encoding one or more characters? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about nowiki?
 * (with the C0 control character error going away sometime soon, I hope)? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (with the C0 control character error going away sometime soon, I hope)? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * whether correctly or not, does not use Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. For that, use .  Replacing  with  and wrapping the url in title in  tags gives this:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Null character error message appearing in citations.
After latest module update? Currently looking @ interp syntax.

65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also with hdl. This behavior is new. Non-printable chars in these templates' code did not generate an error previously.

65.88.88.75 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * causes the cs1|2 invisible character error message because it has <nowiki >&amp;#91;</nowiki> and <nowiki >&amp;#93;</nowiki>. It isn't clear to me that the <nowiki ></nowiki> tags are necessary since the html entities for the square brackets aren't wikimarkup.  I think then, that  is where changes should be made; not here.


 * <nowiki ></nowiki> tags are also the culprit in the case of . There, the first unnamed parameter or id is wrapped in <nowiki ></nowiki> tags because handle system identifiers can be pretty much any printable character including characters that MediaWiki uses for markup:
 * I wonder if cs1|2 should support hdl identifiers in the same way that it supports doi and others. Identifier syntax is defined here:
 * hdl identifier syntax
 * The <nowiki ></nowiki> tags are problematic because they are converted to stripmarkers before Module:Citation/CS1 gets the template parameters. When the module creates metadata from template parameters, the stripmarkers are included.  So, this
 * renders like this:
 * and produces this metadata for :
 * Replacing, in this example case,  with   is slightly better because it is possible for a metadata user to decode the percent-encoded characters in   and arrive at what lies between 'c' and 'net'.  That is not possible with the stripmarker.
 * and produces this metadata for :
 * Replacing, in this example case,  with   is slightly better because it is possible for a metadata user to decode the percent-encoded characters in   and arrive at what lies between 'c' and 'net'.  That is not possible with the stripmarker.
 * Replacing, in this example case,  with   is slightly better because it is possible for a metadata user to decode the percent-encoded characters in   and arrive at what lies between 'c' and 'net'.  That is not possible with the stripmarker.
 * Replacing, in this example case,  with   is slightly better because it is possible for a metadata user to decode the percent-encoded characters in   and arrive at what lies between 'c' and 'net'.  That is not possible with the stripmarker.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a pending fix or workaround for this new wrinkle? Many citations use ' or 's or '  for a possessive titles like "The Force Awakens' BB-8" to avoid improper bold or italics which otherwise occurs (see citation 5 in this version of BB-8 (Star Wars)). Obviously em could be implemented in each one of these instances instead, but we're probably talking about hundreds (if not more) citations that now would need to be fixed. What's the reasoning behind the change??&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 07:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So &lt;nowiki&gt; is now outlawed from citation parameters? This seems like a major change with likely many unwanted consequences. Where is the discussion that approved it? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the module is overreaching at this point and that we may need to comment out the "C0 control character" portion of the test while we experiment in the sandbox with how to get decent metadata while allowing reasonable formatting of parameter values.


 * We are also overdue for a robust page of testcases to catch weird stuff like this when we make changes to the sandbox. Anybody want to volunteer to start putting one together or building on an existing page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have found a way around the <nowiki ></nowiki> stripmarker issue:

This also makes for better metadata. With this change, the title in the metadata is:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Checking to see if these sandbox changes improve interp and hdl:
 * That looks better to me.– Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks better to me.– Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks better to me.– Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a good fix so I have undone it. If I wrap something in <nowiki ></nowiki>, I expect that its contents won't be manipulated by any template or module, or by MediaWiki.  For my simple example of wrapping a pipe, the fix worked well enough because once the template was parsed, the pipe is just a character.  But, something like a url or a wikilink is manipulated by MediaWiki after the module returns.  So writing this:
 * the fix would replace the strip markers with the url and then hand that off to MediaWiki which dutifully renders the url as an active link. Not good.
 * the fix would replace the strip markers with the url and then hand that off to MediaWiki which dutifully renders the url as an active link. Not good.


 * What this fix can do, if applied only to parameters made part of the metadata, is to keep the stripmarkers out of the metadata. Without the fix to the metadata code, the title metadata for this example template is:
 * and with the fix:
 * I've modified the invisible character test to look specifically for the nowiki stripmarker. If found, it is ignored (no error message) and the test continues.  Delete characters are ignored when a stripmarker is detected but all of the other tests function normally.  Stripmarkers introduced by <ref ></ref> or other tags are marked as delete character errors:
 * I've modified the invisible character test to look specifically for the nowiki stripmarker. If found, it is ignored (no error message) and the test continues.  Delete characters are ignored when a stripmarker is detected but all of the other tests function normally.  Stripmarkers introduced by <ref ></ref> or other tags are marked as delete character errors:
 * I've modified the invisible character test to look specifically for the nowiki stripmarker. If found, it is ignored (no error message) and the test continues.  Delete characters are ignored when a stripmarker is detected but all of the other tests function normally.  Stripmarkers introduced by <ref ></ref> or other tags are marked as delete character errors:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether this broke none

produces
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.146.98 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * has never supported none.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In passing, since it was mentioned above: the hdl identifier used to be supported several years ago in the old. I've no idea why it was removed, but I suspect the identifier's native tolerance for characters incompatible with mediawiki. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Zero width space character" error when using ' and 's templates in citation
This is mentioned above, but it might get lost without its own subsection. When ' or 's are used in citations to properly italicize part of a title or make the name of a work possessive within a title, a "zero width space character" error is displayed. The examples below use ' and 's, respectively, in title:

I don't have a suggested fix at this time.

p.s. It appears that the sandbox also capitalizes Title in the error message, which is not right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If one believes, then the error message that we're seeing should read 'zero width joiner', not 'zero width space' The code at  is:
 * Zero width joiner wasn't one of the invisible characters that the module detected yet it was detecting zero width space. To see what is going on, I simplified the first example compare in this section:
 * I then highlighted and copied the title from the rendered citation and pasted it into the green box on this Unicode code converter website. I clicked the convert button just above the green box and goth this UTF-8 result:
 * and this Unicode result:
 * Six characters that should have been 4 characters. Reading the UTF-8 left to right:
 * zero width joiner character (positions 1–3)
 * hair space character (positions 4–6)
 * apostrophe (position 7)
 * zero width space character (positions 8–10)
 * the '6' character (position 11)
 * the '4' character (position 12)
 * hair space character (positions 4–6)
 * apostrophe (position 7)
 * zero width space character (positions 8–10)
 * the '6' character (position 11)
 * the '4' character (position 12)


 * Replacing in the simplified template with a an apostrophe and repeating the experiment:
 * gives:
 * (in UTF-8, 27 is the apostrophe, 36 is 6, and 34 is 4);
 * (Unicode)
 * (in UTF-8, 27 is the apostrophe, 36 is 6, and 34 is 4);
 * (Unicode)


 * I don't know where the hair space and zero width space are coming from. They are not part of the module and not part of the template so someplace in MediaWiki?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The hair space and the zero-width space are part of the template, apparently. Copy the template's wikicode into the Unicode converter including the semicolon and the left angle bracket. I get.


 * You can also see the zero-width space if you click to place your cursor next to the semicolon, then move to the right with the right arrow key. You will see that there is an invisible character after the apostrophe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well done. I hacked the  sandbox to replace the zero width and hair space characters with their numeric character reference equivalents.  Using the sandbox in the simplified example:
 * No error because there aren't any invisible characters when the module examines the content of title; what it sees is:
 * though that does bugger-up the metadata.
 * No error because there aren't any invisible characters when the module examines the content of title; what it sees is:
 * though that does bugger-up the metadata.
 * though that does bugger-up the metadata.
 * though that does bugger-up the metadata.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Did that cause this?

now displays
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.146.98 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * No. none is supported only by when using journal and by .  none allows cs1|2 to support a particularly brief form of abbreviated academic journal citation style.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to add a bit on this style: I know it's popular in academic publications in some scientific disciplines but I don't like it. Using this style makes it much more difficult to search for the citation in e.g. Google scholar since the author names are usually not unambiguous by themselves. So I'm torn on supporting it here. On the one hand, as long as we don't mandate a single citation style we should allow anything reasonably consistent within an individual article. On the other hand, I don't want more editors thinking it's a good style and being encouraged to use it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have modified the invisible character test so that it detects the transcluded value of and added a test for hair space. When is detected, it is ignored. The subsequent tests for zero-width joiner, zero-width space, and hair space are disabled when is detected. Because uses, that template's transclusion is also 'fixed'; see the comparisons at the top of this section.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems with templates within cs1|2 templates is that they can and do bugger-up the metadata. The metadata for a title using :
 * Title

looks like this:

So, I've added a bit of code at the same place where we replace stripmarkers to remove or replace, as appropriate, certain html entities and invisible characters:
 * replace with apostrophe character
 * replace  entity with plain space
 * remove  entities
 * remove zero-width joiner and zero-width space characters
 * replace soft hyphen, horizontal tab, line feed, carriage return with plain space
 * replace hair space with plain space – not sure about this one; is it really a 'space' or a device to slightly tweak the position of the following character?

Now, the metadata for my example looks like this:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this fixed? I see the errors at The Royals (TV series). Thanks.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 07:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. In the sandbox.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

cite web and 2 URLs
Hello, I could use some help with parameters for cite web, when I want to include 2 different URLs in the citation. The specific citation is used in "Further reading" of Otto I: The first URL leads to the specific document image, the second URL would be useful to point to the central login page of the image archive called "LBA" (for further research by interested readers). I have tried several parameter variations, but none of it really worked without an error message. Should I use a completely different cite template (or maybe none at all)? GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the publisher-related post a bit higher up. Still, any advice for the best handling of additional (non-spam) URLs in such citations would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, we recommend placing supplementary information outside of the cite template. In this case, you would place it after the end of the template. In the case of an in-line reference, you would place the information after the end of the template but before the closing ref tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hdl problem


How do I preserve the hdl template in the cite journal template? This is a problem that has recently popped up everywhere, so it might be a problem in a recent change. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Null character error message appearing in citations.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I see a solution in that section. Also it doesn't make sense to individually change the entries in 900+ articles when the problem can be fixed by changing the template back to its original setting. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * there may be a simpler solution by changing some aspect of hdl so it doesn't emit the control character giving rise to the error in cite journal.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone fixed that then? The question on Template talk:Hdl seems to have absolutely no responses, so can somebody who knows how to fix the problem just boldly change it so as to fix those 900+ articles.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't change . See Editor Jonesey95's 15:32, 6 December 2015 post in Null character error message appearing in citations..  The problem is fixed in the module sandbox.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion with the template:cite book/new above? That requires an editor to change all the cite journal template to cite book/new across 900+ articles. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is a version of that uses Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (all of the cs1|2 templates have matching   templates).  Do not use any of the   templates in article space because they can and will break spectacularly and stay broken for unpredictable periods.  Editor Jonesey95's post was a demonstration that the problem is fixed in the module sandbox.  When the live module is updated the error messages should go away.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh so it is just a matter of waiting for the update?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

|p-prefix= and |pp-prefix=
Because of the recent discussion involving page numbering, I have been looking at the mess that is page number handling in Module:Citation/CS1. There are two parameters p-prefix and pp-prefix that are, as far as I can tell, unused and are not documented. These parameters work in non-periodical cs1|2 templates but are ignored in periodical cs1|2. In these examples pgs.:
 * – cs1
 * – cs2
 * – cs1
 * – cs2

Because they are not used and because it is the duty of the template to provide static text in cs1|2 citations, I propose to remove these parameters. Because they are unused, deprecation seems unnecessary. Is there any reason to keep them?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are truly unused and undocumented, we should remove them from the code.


 * My experience with our recent transition of month and other parameters from deprecated to unsupported was that a few hundred articles were moved from the deprecated parameter category to the unsupported parameter category, despite all of our searching for month. The insource search does not reliably find all instances of the thing you are searching for.


 * That said, if we remove support for it, I'll be happy to clean up instances that may exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Now no longer supported:
 * – cs1
 * – cs2

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

|volume=, |issue=, |page(s)= and cite magazine
This topic is a follow-on from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10.

In the sandbox, I have limited the journal-style page rendering to :

For, journal-style page numbering applies only when journal is set. For the other aliases of journal, the module uses the 'p.' and 'pp.' prefixes:

I have created Template:cite magazine/new which calls Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. For, the module will render the volume, issue, and page(s) as: 'vol. # no. # p. #'.

Other templates that use these parameters are unaffected by this change. But, that makes me wonder if we should be limiting the rendering of these parameters. The table is a list of templates and the parameters that I think that they should support. Opinions? Comments?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * cite web should support page / pages, as it does now. As for citation, am I the only one who sees the mixed output with the boldfaced volume, bracketed issue and prefixed page numbers as strange? Why wouldn't we completely switch that over to "vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 101–130"?
 * One last thought, but we should decide if there will be periods (for cs1) separating all of the entries in "vol. 23 no. 6. pp. 101–130." or not. As it is, there is no period after the volume number. Personally, even for cs1, I'd see these as connected items that should be treated as a logical group and separated by a comma and ended by a period.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * you may not be the only one that finds the "39(12):4–34" style strange, but it's an absolutely standard format in many (perhaps most) academic journals (Nature, for example). So it has to be supported here (given that the English Wikipedia doesn't impose a single citation style). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the question was about the 23 (6), pp. 101–130 style.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, whoops, sorry. Then I agree with Imzadi1979, it does look odd. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No,, I don't find that original, truncated output strange at all, although I would personally prefer if cs1|2, as its own style, transitioned away from it under the guise of enhanced legibility for non-academic audiences. In the meantime though, citation shouldn't output something that's half that style and half the new style in certain use cases.  Imzadi 1979  →  14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That isn't just a issue (pun not intended).  The 'mixed' style occurs with just about all cs1 templates (even  when journal or an alias is not set).  Mostly this is because we don't limit the use of volume and issue as we should do.  That is the purpose of the table: to codify which of volume, issue, and page(s) is appropriate for use with which cs1|2 templates.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that volume, issue and page should always be grouped together. As it is right now, that only happens with journal and map cites; all other cites can insert any or all of the meta-parameters ,  ,  , and   between issue and page.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reports, techreports, and serials can have volumes. I have a vague recollection of even a conference report ("book") being issue in volumes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the table as above except because its documentation says it is "used to create citations for broadcast programs".  I don't see how volume is appropriate here.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that shows via DVD are often published in several sets (e.g. episodes 1-4, 5-8, etc...). Does it seem desirable to be able to delineate that, or is episode and format good enough? Presently, volume is used in that template, at least per the documentation, and that's the only plausible use I can see for volume. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing a DVD we should use . Perhaps volume (or maybe a more meaningful alias) is appropriate.  I've tweaked the table.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The documentation then fails to recognize that in publishing (etc.) the term serial is applied to any "publication in any medium issued under the same title in a succession of discrete parts, usually numbered (or dated) and appearing at regular or irregular intervals with no predetermined conclusion." (See also Serial (publishing).) Perhaps the intended of use of this template needs reconsidering, and the documentation corrected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are thinking of series which I think is intended to meet the needs of citing serial publications.


 * The definition of could certainly be tightened.  It is used to cite whole seasons of television programs, to cite individual episodes of programs, to cite a series of novels, and probably other things.  At some other time and place we should probably consider revision of, ,  to carefully define their use and minimize overlap, among other things.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have it backwards? "Serial" seems to be the more general term, while your "whole seasons of television programs" is more generally called a series. It's bad enough if these templates were misnamed, but to double down on the error would only make WP citation even more inscrutable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not blame me for the template and the parameter series.  I had nothing to do with their creation.  My previous post was merely a report of what I found when I looked at a few of the articles that transclude .  Go look for yourself to see how it is used.  Go look at its documentation to see how it is meant to be used.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my experience is that "series" is used to refer to an entire run of a show in the US (IOW, all ten seasons of Friends make up the series), while in the UK, there would have been be ten series of Friends. Rwessel (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Trappist, I don't blame you for the templates being possible misnamed and/or misused. (If I want to blame you for something I will find something you actually did.) And I certainly agree that "carefully refin[ing] their use" would be good. I am a little concerned lest any such refinements lock-in past mis-directions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Another quick thought, but I'm wondering if it would be possible to invoke the new output style in cite map if work is used instead of journal?  Imzadi 1979  →  14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be consistent, when Magazine:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have adapted Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that cs1|2 templates render volume, issue, and page(s) as specified in the above table. So that we don't clutter this page, here is a link to a version of my page that shows all of the templates.

Also at the top of that page there are test cases for. I have tweaked its support so that it properly renders lower case for cs2. Do we need punctuation between volume and number? between number and page? If so, what is it? Are we to render volume, issue, and page(s) all together as a group or allow the meta-parameters,  ,  , and   to separate issue from page(s)? If all as a group, where do they go? in the same position as volume and issue are now or in the same position as page(s) is now:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A conversation elsewhere caused me to discover a flaw. uses number, usually an alias of issue, but in this template it is an alias of id. When both id and number are used, the error message in the live version doesn't render correctly. I have also fixed that:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still getting the "More than one of |id= and |number= specified" error message on Dynamic dispatch. I was trying to use id= (which is undocumented!) like with other citation templates, to link to CiteseerX. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You should be getting that error because number is an alias of issue which neither of the parameter values  and   is.  The simple solution is to move the  template outside of :
 * It would seem that the best long-term solution should be that we add citeseerx as a supported identifier (like doi, isbn, etc).
 * It would seem that the best long-term solution should be that we add citeseerx as a supported identifier (like doi, isbn, etc).
 * It would seem that the best long-term solution should be that we add citeseerx as a supported identifier (like doi, isbn, etc).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 12–13 December 2015
I think that this weekend, I will update the live modules to take care the bugs I introduced:

to Module:Citation/CS1:
 * 1) bug fix: eliminate '#' as an illegal character in -link tests; discussion
 * 2) bug fix: refine url testing to fix improper detection of single-character third and higher level domain names as an error; discussion
 * 3) bug fix: refine url testing to fix improper detection of single-character second level domain names as an error; discussion
 * 4) bug fix: refine url testing to fix improper detection of protocol relative urls that have a colon in the path portion; discussion
 * 5) bug fix: refine invisible character testing to ignore the invisible characters transcluded from and to remove those characters from the metadata; discussion
 * 6) bug fix: refine invisible character testing to ignore the <nowiki ></nowiki> stripmarkers and to replace the stripmarker with its content in the metadata; discussion
 * 7) bug fix: refine invisible character testing to ignore positional parameters; discussion

to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
 * 1) invisible character test pattern adjustments
 * 2) invisible character error message improvements

to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation: —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) bug fix: restore proper leap-day detection for year-initial numeric formats; discussion
 * I strongly support this quick update cycle. We appear to have tens of thousands of false positives out there, which is too high.
 * I think we also updated URL error detection to allow the underscore character:
 * Let's do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, given the large number of reports. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, given the large number of reports. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also consider some: "" below. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's offtopic to this thread. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

✅. These changes have been implemented as of 12 December 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest change no longer reporting URL error
Hi, the latest change to the module appears to have removed the error checking for urls in plublisher. The previous change introduced error checking that would pick up things like https://plus.google.com/101039533681786523418 and report an "External link in |publisher=" error. Is this intentional or have we made an incorrect change? Keith D (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Piped link in |newspaper=
can I use a piped link in |newspaper= in cite news? As there are several papers worldwide with the same name the paper is disambiguated by location which I don't really want to show in the citation. 109.146.155.143 (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A piped link should work in cite news, although I don't think the pipe trick works.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pipe trick works:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The pipe trick doesn't work anywhere inside <ref ></ref> tags, though: Help:Pipe trick. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. We could probably work around that in the module but I suspect that would just further delay a real fix.
 * The pipe trick doesn't work anywhere inside <ref ></ref> tags, though: Help:Pipe trick. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. We could probably work around that in the module but I suspect that would just further delay a real fix.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Spurious 'Check |url= value' error?
... but obviously this breaks the link. The issue seems to be that single-letter hostnames are rejected as invalid.

I have two more or less separate areas of concern: It shouldn't matter, but for the record my real-world encounter with this issue was. I hope that all makes sense.
 * 1) URI validity and validation.
 * 2) * Are single-letter hostnames valid? Possibly not, but the host concept in the URI spec is more general so this restriction on DNS host names may be irrelevant in general.
 * 3) * Regardless of their formal validity should cite ref validation accept them as valid? IMO yes, but I won't argue.
 * 4) * If cite ref should reject them what is the right way to handle the situation?
 * 5) Documentation at Help:CS1_errors
 * 6) * The warning links to documentation for a |url= scheme error not a |url= value error. Is this a distinct error message or has the documentation just fallen behind the current error text?
 * 7) * The documentation does not describe the hostname length limit.

TuxLibNit (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I read RFC 952 and RFC 1123, single letter domain names are not allowed. You would think that if they were, someone would have http://www.a.com but following that link leads nowhere.  The   portion of   is a sub-domain, not a hostname.  User documentation can  be improved and  always lags behind the tool.  Point taken about the error message name and help-text mismatch; that's the documentation lag again.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sandbox fix. I've updated Help:CS1_errors to document the current temporary situation, more for the issue with relative references containing colons (potentially widespread in archive-url), than my obscure single letter name issue.
 * TuxLibNit (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In what sense is "i.word.com" a single character, anyway? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not, but the hostname,, is. Rebbing (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice write-up. I just had the same problem here. I think it's unreasonable for Cite to reject single-character hostnames: they're used by many popular websites (https://m.facebook.com comes to mind) and Cite's purpose is to link to resources, not to police standards. It looks like this could be cleared up by adding another clause to the if statement in is_domain_name:


 * Rebbing (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting the url check to work properly has been a challenge. I think that I have resolved this problem in the sandbox:

Find other templates that show an error for valid urls, edit the cite template to use the sandbox (append '/new' to the template name), click Show preview (do not save). Report any valid urls here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be done arbitrarily for at least ccTLDs without further investigation:
 * <span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * <span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * <span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Single-letter second-level domain. This seems to overwhelmingly produce false positives and I suggest it is switched completely off in live templates until it isn't badly broken. Many confused editors are wasting time trying to get rid of these useless error messages. I examined around 30 cases from a search on and didn't find a single case where the url was wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked the test to recognize single-letter second-level domains when the URL:
 * uses a two-character TLD that could be a ccTLD (not checked to be a country code listed at https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db); or
 * has  TLD; or
 * is  and  ; or
 * is,  , and
 * also revised so any TLD of 2 or more letters is recognized to support gTLDs
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the article, the following single letter GTLD names are in use: q.com, x.com, z.com, i.net, q.net, c.org, v.org, w.org, x.org, and the rest of the .org ones are available. Rwessel (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. The sandbox code recognizes all of the domain names you listed.
 * I'm not sure what your point is. The sandbox code recognizes all of the domain names you listed.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, misread your list. Rwessel (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am worried that this test is too restrictive and will continue to result in false positives. There are tons of new TLDs. I find it hard to imagine that every domain registrar managing TLDs on this list will prohibit single-character second-level domain names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * URLs with port specified are still reported as invalid. <span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples? Please always do us the curtesy of providing examples when reporting problems.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Port (computer networking) gives http://www.example.com:8080/path/ as example:
 * Real example from (worked when :8080 was removed):
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, fixed in the sandbox I think:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

parameter-link error may need further refinement
An episode-link parameter value with both a # and parentheses is causing an error in this citation:

There might be some other combination of parameters that causes this citation to give an error. The intended link works fine in article prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the error is because
 * Talang 2010#Episode 4 (Oscarsteatern, Stockholm)
 * removing wikilink markup:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . Yep. My mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . Yep. My mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ref id related proposal
Following the latest update affecting cite book.

Current:

where


 * 1) CITEREFContributor-Last1

Proposal 1:

where


 * 1) CITEREFany_one_enumerated_person (could be the enumerated contributor, editor, or author) so that harv could use any of those.

Or even

Proposal 2

where


 * 1) CITEREFany_one_enumerated_person (could be the enumerated contributor, editor, or author)


 * 1) CITEREFany_one_enumerated_person (could be the enumerated contributor, editor, or author)

Again, harv should work with any.

Doable? 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The   anchor is really the   attribute of the <cite ></cite> tags that enclose the rendered citation:
 * The  attribute is supposed to be unique to the enclosing element.
 * The  attribute is supposed to be unique to the enclosing element.
 * The  attribute is supposed to be unique to the enclosing element.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, is your friend.  So this is possible:

<pre style="margin-left:3.2em>


 * which renders:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not about the element but about the ref anchor. This ref anchor is a variable as far as  is concerned, so any relevant value will do. harvid is proof of concept. Somebody at some point thought to tie the ref anchor to author and its aliases, and failing that to editor. Since the relevant pool of values for the ref anchor expanded with definition of contributor (and translator), ref should follow suit and incorporate the new possible values for reference linking. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is asked that harv should give more leeway to editors as to what harv may be. Right now it follows a fixed ruleset ("Author"-->"Editor"-->). 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What Trappist is saying is that for technical reasons involving the way these things are coded into html, it is not possible for a citation to have more than one id. Right now you can change what that id is to whatever you want, using ref, but all harv links within an article must use the same id, and that can't be changed easily. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what a variable for a module argument has to do with html elements. All that is asked is this: instead of harv being tied to the module argument "author" (and if no-author to "editor"), make it more flexible so that it can be any of the defined contributor arguments regardless of whether they exist in the citation or not. So harv can accept any of "author" "editor" or "contributor". That way people will not have to duplicate citations to the same material. A book citation that includes author/editor/contributor has already the complete information. to the citation (through harv) need not have a one-to-one relationship. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Writing the html element is part of the purpose of translating the template wiki markup into html readable by a browser. All of the necessary bits pieces and parts of the html need to be in place at the time the module completes its task (nowiki and other stripmarker functions excepted).


 * Using as I demonstrated above allows three  templates to link to one cs1|2 template so there aren't any duplicate citations of that single book.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Then I do not understand what is is that you are asking.


 * The value assigned to the <cite ></cite>  attribute is defined by the harv keyword or by the value assigned to ref. ,  and related templates, make wikilinks that jump to the <cite ></cite> element that has a matching   attribute.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 looks at the lists of contributors, authors, and editors in that order (it does not consider translators). The first of those three lists that is not empty is used to make the   anchor.  So, in the case where there is a contributor, an author, and an editor in the cs1|2 template, the   anchor uses the contributor name.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct. And what is asked is, to be able to pick any of the 3 defined parameters as input for harv, non-exclusively.
 * The citation
 * can be linked to by as in
 * the same citation should be linked to by as in
 * because article context may require links pointing to the contributor and elsewhere in the same article, to the author.
 * To specify that the author is cited, one now must make an additional citation (duplicate) using harvid (or sfnref).
 * The change requested requires editing the module. I hope this is clear now?
 * 65.88.88.60 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As we have been trying to tell you over and over, this cannot be done. It will not work. It has nothing to do with how the module is programmed. It is a fundamental limitation of the way internal links work on all web pages, that a link can only have one name. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 65.88.88.60 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As we have been trying to tell you over and over, this cannot be done. It will not work. It has nothing to do with how the module is programmed. It is a fundamental limitation of the way internal links work on all web pages, that a link can only have one name. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I see nothing in local function anchor_id, local function extract_names or local function select_one of the module that disallows the proposal, or in any way affects http linking. Having multiple anchor-names for a single target is what is requested, and this is a well-established function. It seems like a simple matter of allowing links to be named according to any single entry in a pre-existing table rather than as a particular entry with a rigid ruleset. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should go mock up a web page, with html code copied from a Wikipedia article but then modified to do what you want, to demonstrate for us that this can in fact be done. Because so far you have failed to convince. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a different objection: what is the point? Can you give a real-life example where the proposed extension would actually solve a problem?  Kanguole 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it was stated above that this is a way to avoid duplicate citations. The example citation given above is complete. However, the present anchor scheme uses only the contributor-name for the ref-link. That is fine, when in the article context you are citing the contribution. But, if you want to cite the same work outside of the contribution, there should be a way to signal the reader that this is what you are citing. You can do this now with a user-created anchor (harvid or sfnref); or you can omit the contributor-name. Both involve duplicating the citation. Another solution is to pipe the CITEREF anchor:
 * Author
 * Clunky. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A real-life example? Kanguole 19:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishnamurti%27s_Notebook#CITEREFMcCoy2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishnamurti%27s_Notebook#cite_note-rmc2003-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishnamurti%27s_Notebook#cite_note-jk2003-pp5-9

I realize this is new, and as of the last time I looked contributor was not yet documented. But I believe you will get enquiries about this. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at harvc? This is the correct way to separate the citations of a contribution and a book.
 * If I understand correctly, what you want can be done. See the two references at the end of this sentence.
 * What is necessary is to generate nested spans each with their own id to enclose the citation, one span for every possible short footnote link. Thus if Smith is the author and Brown the editor of a 2004 publication the generated citation would be enclosed in.


 * The disadvantages are:
 * precision of crossreference is lost: in my example  should refer only to the book, not the entire citation
 * extra HTML would be generated that would almost always be unused
 * the chances of duplicate ids would be increased – editors would have to remember that "Brown 2015" can refer to the contributor, author or editor of a citation.


 * Peter coxhead (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Smith, John (2004), "Some chapter", in Brown, Peter (ed.) Some book


 * I have used harvc in the past, to good effect I think, despite minor irritations (it doesn't display Contributor-Date like the harv/sfn series, it uses harvp display for date whether you like it or not etc.)
 * I honestly do not see what is the fuss with . If I understand correctly, you are saying that its input cannot be a variable. And there is no way around that? The relationship ref--> is a cs1|2 programming convention, not an absolute requirement. A citation can allow ref to get its value from an array AND to also present a constant as input to.
 * In any case, it was just an idea. No need for people to get all excited about it. But as mentioned: once contributor gets documented and used, users will want to know exactly what I'm asking.
 * Btw, in old (pre-sgml) bibliographic notation, the role was specified:
 * Contributor. Date. "Contribution". In (author)|(editor) Author|Editor. Title. Identifier.
 * 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussing/explaining complex issues via text in talk pages is alway problematic in my experience, but I the point that you are missing is that a citation is compiled into HTML only when it is created/changed. Adding a sfn template or whatever that is supposed to link to it won't change its HTML. So you would have to create every possible id, as I tried to explain above. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was taken into account following Trappist's original response. The question became, must the Wikipedia reference anchor and the HTML citation id be one and the same in all cases. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

running out of time
This api call against returns a list of pages in the category that are also in article space. Two of which are these: The first is an enormously long, unorganized list of cs1 templates (approximately 1190 of them). The second is not so long but at 700-ish is still pretty hefty. These two pages are not rendering properly because "The time allocated for running scripts has expired."
 * List of aircraft
 * List of Italian football transfers summer 2014

I copied the cs1 templates from List of aircraft to User:Trappist_the_monk/testcases and converted them all to use Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (at the time, exactly the same as the live version). Then I clicked Show preview and then looked in the page source for the NewPP limit report. That report lists how much time is spent in Lua. I tweaked the sandbox to see what the report would show: This is the list of invisible character tests in the live module; the tests disabled for the sandbox test are marked:
 * 1) sandbox unmodified – this is the baseline
 * Lua time usage: 10.046/10.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage: 3.81 MB/50 MB
 * 1) invisible characters test disabled
 * Lua time usage: 3.453/10.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage: 3.71 MB/50 MB
 * 1) the invisible character group tests disabled (list below)
 * Lua time usage: 5.852/10.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage: 3.75 MB/50 MB
 * 1) a sanity check, this is the same test as the previous test except instead of Show preview, I clicked Save page
 * Lua time usage: 5.852/10.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage: 3.75 MB/50 MB
 * replacement, '\239\191\189'
 * apostrophe, '&amp;zwj;\226\128\138\039\226\128\139' – disabled in sandbox
 * apostrophe, '\226\128\138\039\226\128\139'
 * zero width joiner, '\226\128\141'
 * zero width space, '\226\128\139'
 * hair space, '\226\128\138'
 * soft hyphen, '\194\173'
 * horizontal tab, '\009'
 * line feed, '\010'
 * carriage return, '\013'
 * stripmarker, '\127UNIQ%-%-(%a+)%-[%a%d]+%-QINU\127'
 * delete, '\127'
 * C0 control, '[\000-\008\011\012\014-\031]' – disabled in sandbox
 * C1 control, '[\194\128-\194\159]' – disabled in sandbox
 * Specials, '[\239\191\185-\239\191\191]' – disabled in sandbox
 * Private use area, '[\238\128\128-\239\163\191]' – disabled in sandbox
 * Supplementary Private Use Area-A', '[\243\176\128\128-\243\191\191\189]' – disabled in sandbox
 * Supplementary Private Use Area-B', '[\244\128\128\128-\244\143\191\189]' – disabled in sandbox

Clearly running out of time is not good. Doing searches as a way to approximate what's out there, there aren't any errors attributable to the Specials, Private use area, Supplementary Private Use Area-A, or Supplementary Private Use Area-B. There are about 5300 C0 control character errors and about 1700 C1 control character errors. I expect C0 to drop significantly because a lot of those errors were the result of the zero-width space test seeing the ZWS character that is transcluded when editors use. Because we are currently testing for the string of characters transcluded by we avoid listing the ZWS as an error.

One more test:
 * 5. same as test #3 but with C0 and C1 control tests enabled
 * Lua time usage: 6.774/10.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage: 3.77 MB/50 MB

What to do, what to do? I'm inclined, for the time being, to modify the live module to continue the testing for all invisible characters except Specials, Private use area, Supplementary Private Use Area-A, and Supplementary Private Use Area-B. That will give editors and gnomes a chance to cleanup what's out there. We can easily disable C0 and C1 if it becomes apparent that these tests are taking too much time.

Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is accepted that 1190(!) cite templates in an article is more desirable than running out of script-processing time, then let's go with Trappist's change above. Most of what I've come across in the error category are line feeds and replacement characters. Let's get those fixed while we play in the sandbox with search routines that are not as processing-time-intensive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An intermediate (and clunky) solution would be to resolve C0/C1 tests per page rather than per citation. That is, once a C0/C1 character is found in any citation, the test stops, the citation is flagged, and the page is categorized. Not elegant but it may go some way around the problem until a real solution is found. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, no. One template cannot know what another template has discovered.  For each cs1|2 template, Module:Citation/CS1 is started afresh.  There is no mechanism by which it can leave notes to subsequent invokes.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor Dragons flight has added a small bit of code that makes a big difference in how much time it takes to process User:Trappist_the_monk/testcases. In my tests, Lua time has dropped from 6.7-ish seconds to about 4.0 seconds (best was 3.252, worst was 4.925).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Years ago I advised devs to increase Lua timeout to 15 sec & save template vars: I think it would be easy for the wp:developers to increase the Lua timeout limit from 10 to 15 seconds, as we discussed back in 2013 (remember the markup timeout limit was 60 seconds, compared to 10sec for Lua). IIRC the markup runtime could double (on a busy day) as 31sec could exceed 60sec timeout, but Lua runtime might vary 20% where an 8-second run became 10sec and killed the page reformat (because limit not 15sec). // As for "smart templates" which talk to each other through saved data, there is an mw:MediaWiki extension to save data, but might be expensive when used 1,000 times per page, and so the Lua might have to check and not save the count after perhaps count=50 or so, as I imagine reading the saved data count is much faster than storing the new count. By the way, we still get "wp:Edit conflicts" even though computer experts have developed "weave merge" algorithms to allow changing paragraph text while another user moves paragraphs on the page(!). Imagine a quick "selective revert" of 1 paragraph among dozens of valid changes in moved paragraphs, by weave-merge resolution. Computer technology is so far advanced beyond what WP is using today (cars which autobrake or auto-correct speed when a person runs into the street), but the more we discuss the concepts, then the better the chances for improvement here. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it valid to have a full stop at the end of a fully qualified name in a URL?
I came across this citation with a URL error in a live article, and clicking the link works fine. Is it valid to have a full stop at the end of a host name in a URL?

My vague memory of domain name formatting is that a full stop at the end of a fully qualified domain name is valid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should that be accepted? 1738 has
 * That is, period are separators between non-empty labels. Kanguole
 * That is, period are separators between non-empty labels. Kanguole
 * That is, period are separators between non-empty labels. Kanguole
 * That is, period are separators between non-empty labels. Kanguole


 * The concept of a "rooted" FQDN terminated with a period exists in some places, e.g. 1535. It is not widely used, but it is supported by some browsers / websites, for example Google and the ABC.net.au example above seem to accept the extra period and then silently remove it.  Other websites, such as CNN.com, return an error message if you add an extra period.  The real question is probably whether an FQDN with period might ever return valid content different from that without a period.  I believe that is possible in principle, though I've never heard of anyone doing that.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So this syntax is not permitted by the URL specification (quoted above) and works or fails unpredictably on different browser/site combinations. That sounds like two good reasons to consider it an error.  Kanguole 12:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 3986 which is the 2005 update to 1738 says that a terminal period is allowed with the FQDN used in URLs. Dragons flight (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * DNS has always (iirc; it's been a while since I last looked at DNS in any depth) allowed a terminal period, and it means essentially only that this FQDN is definitely fully-qualified (no need to look in any configured search list for the resolver). Whether that's allowed usage in a URL is up to the RFC that defines URLs, and as per Dragons flight that's the case since RFC 3986. A dotted FQDN should not return different content from the dotless version (it's the same domain; much like the punycode/non-punycode variants of an IDN), but I imagine it would be entirely possible, technically, to misconfigure a webserver to distinguish between the two. However, I don't think that's a valid argument for anything much. So... at least to my mind, this module should accept a terminal period as an obscure-but-valid syntax for the server part of a URL. Fixing syntactically valid but non-functional URLs needs to be handled elsewhere (manual, by bot, etc.). On the other hand, I cannot imagine, and have never seen, a single case where a terminal period has been used deliberately in a URL; so if this module were to treat this as undesirable and emit an error as "best practice enforcement" I wouldn't object, and I very much doubt that very many would complain about it. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is more of a DNS artifact. DNS resolvers always add the period at the end anyway (to signify the null "root" domain). However since the relevant RFCs and the applications based on them accept "relative" domain names (without the terminal period) there should not be any real issues. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. As for never having seen it, you can see the one that brought me here in the Further reading section of this version of "Stephanie Bendixsen". The link works fine, as one would expect from a properly configured web server and intermediary domain name servers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite episode query
What do we do when there are 2 dates supplied for something? Like a 'filming date' and a 'broadcast date' ? Like say http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=53243 which filmed 1 July 2010 but broadcast 18 July 2010. I figure broadcast but the film date seems notable info to include. Just add it outside the cite template? Ranze (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a citation is to help a reader locate the source. Choose the date that best comports with that purpose.  Other editors of the article using  may have an opinion regarding which of the two dates to use, so ask there.  Alternately, if there is a WikiProject that coordinates similar articles, you might start a discussion at the WikiProject's talk page.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Trappist's comments, but I have one to add. Usually the date of significance for a non-video source is the date of publication. The analog of publication in your case would be the broadcast date. There is an option though to display both. orig-year is used to hold an original date for print sources. I've used it, to note the date a law was enacted when it wasn't published for another two years, as one example. So I don't see why you couldn't do something like: .  Imzadi 1979   →  11:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

citing contributed forewords, prefaces etc
This topic began at Foreword and branches from Moving forward to continue here so that discussion of implementation detail can be separate from whatever conversation continues there.

The model for this feature is this armature:

If the code is right, then Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox should produce citations that look like these hand crafted cites:
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003). Introduction. Nineteen Eighty-Four. By Orwell, George. New York: Plume-Penguin. pp. vii-xxvi. (cs1)
 * Pynchon, Thomas (2003), Introduction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by Orwell, George, New York: Plume-Penguin, pp. vii-xxvi (cs2)

The tests:

Since this is the first test, something is bound to be wrong. In this case, 'By' should be in lowercase in the cs2 version.

Contributor has the standard enumerated suite of name parameters and modifiers. et al is not supported. This facility is only available for and  (where work or aliases is not set). The module understands the common contribution titles 'afterword', 'foreword', 'introduction', and 'preface' and renders these upright without quotes. For contributions that are not any of these four, the contribution title is quoted:

When contributor is set and contribution is not set the module emits an error:

Errors of this type will be categorized in

Still to do:
 * 1) fix the casing of 'by'
 * 2) adjust the   anchor creation to use the contributor name list when harv
 * 3) adjust the metadata creation to use the contributor name list instead of the author list
 * 4) properly handle editor(s)
 * 5) tests to make sure that I haven't broken anything
 * 6) fix other things that I've no doubt overlooked

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Overlooked: most style guides do not invert the author(s) names after "by" or "in". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are correct. However, cs1|2 from the days of, has rendered all last / first-defined name lists in last-first order.  This change is consistent with that norm.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The code for  anchors has been adjusted: —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And metadata as can be seen the the above examples.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor fixed, I think. orig-year is included because I've tweaked how the meta-parameter  is handled at that particular point in the code:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the contributor / contribution pair is specific to book cites with a book author, detect and flag cites with contributor but without one of the author aliases:

and flag cites that are not book cites:
 * ( – contribution here treated as alias of chapter)
 * ( – contribution here treated as alias of chapter)

but with contribution and author, no error:

Because there are multiple different errors, I've changed the category name to.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ta-Da! See Eugène Millet 1869:
 * This really is a useful solution to a long-standing problem. Great job! Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not good practice to use the sandbox versions of cs1|2 templates in article space. The sandbox can break at any time and remain broken for extended periods.  I will also note that catalogue illustré de 79 figures par Arthur Rhoné is a misuse of that parameter which purpose is to "record other contributors to the work ...", not for subtitles or descriptive text.
 * It is not good practice to use the sandbox versions of cs1|2 templates in article space. The sandbox can break at any time and remain broken for extended periods.  I will also note that catalogue illustré de 79 figures par Arthur Rhoné is a misuse of that parameter which purpose is to "record other contributors to the work ...", not for subtitles or descriptive text.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to try it out. Probably for Millet's bibliography it should be:
 * For Rhoné's bibliography it should be:
 * and for de Mortillet's bibliography is should be:
 * This seems consistent with the Harvard guideline for scholarly works, where the main person being cited goes to the front. I wonder if unrecognized types of contribution should be treated more like chapters, i.e. followed by "In"? Is there a way to make 88 generate pp. 88 in a bibliography? Any idea when the new template will be released? Once again, this really is a big improvement. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-standard contribution titles are treated like chapters in that they are quoted. If you mean that:
 * should render something like:
 * Contributor. "Contribution". In Title. By Author ...
 * then I see no real benefit.
 * should render something like:
 * Contributor. "Contribution". In Title. By Author ...
 * then I see no real benefit.
 * then I see no real benefit.


 * I think that your Rhoné example is improper. Rhoné may have contributed the illustrations to de Mortillet's work, but there doesn't appear to be anything in that work with the proper title "Illustrations".  contribution as currently supported is a title, not a class of things.


 * If you mean that you want pages to indicate the total number of pages, that goes against the long-defined and documented purpose of pages as an in-source locator; see Template:cite book.


 * I want to address a bug that I've found in the metadata handling of in-source locators. Since I'm there I will also see if I can address the issues raised in Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10.  So I don't know when I will update the live module.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is quite unimportant, but in this example the plans and illustrations are "in" the book. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I am not sure how to represent Rhoné's role in the book in his bibliography, the list of works he contributed to. He is credited on the title page with having illustrated the book with 79 figures, presumably scattered throughout it, like this one. Taken together they represent a significant work, But the credit is not really a subtitle, more a description. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood that in a citation, pages gives the location in the book. But in a bibliography, list of works by the author, number of pages is a fairly significant bit of information. Again, not sure how to represent it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not interleave your comments in mine. I have moved them.


 * My objection to Rhoné also applies to Millet for the same reasons.


 * There seems to be a wide variety of ways that illustrator bibliographies are handled. I peaked at a few articles in  and  and didn't find much in the way of consistency except, that the illustrator is rarely listed in the bibliographic entry.  In most cases that I saw, bibliographic entries were composed freehand.


 * Primary mission for cs1|2 is, and must remain, citation. That it can be used for bibliographies is a plus.  But, that is why I mentioned elsewhere that someday we might use mode to tell Module:Citation/CS1 to treat the template contents as a bibliographic entry rather than as a citation.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Both Rhoné and Millet are sometimes illustrators, sometimes authors.


 * A mode parameter could be useful. I would usually set it to bibliography. I almost always use sfn references that give locations in the sources and point to a list of source definitions. I often also list works by the subject of the article, so have two sections that list books and articles (by and about), both the same format. I would like both lists to give fairly complete bibliographic data. Mostly the stuff that does not fit elsewhere can go into others, but a clean way to cite the introduction would be useful – there is no good workaround.


 * Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but a clean way to cite the introduction would be useful – there is no good workaround. Which is what this change does so I don't understand your point.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * When this enhancement is implemented, it will be a major improvement. It would be nice if the template gave fuller support for Harvard-style bibliography information in MLA format. I understand this is not a priority, and accept putting the other stuff in others. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a curious inconsistency in the ordering of elements in the following:
 * yields
 * yields
 * (newly introduced) yields
 * Kanguole 13:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any inconsistency. Perhaps that's because I wrote the code and see it doing what I expect from it.  The last example should be following the contributor and author ordering shown in the MLA forms at Harvard Guide to Using Sources.  The MLA form was chosen over APA because we use the static text 'in' to introduce the editor when there is a contribution.
 * Kanguole 13:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any inconsistency. Perhaps that's because I wrote the code and see it doing what I expect from it.  The last example should be following the contributor and author ordering shown in the MLA forms at Harvard Guide to Using Sources.  The MLA form was chosen over APA because we use the static text 'in' to introduce the editor when there is a contribution.
 * I'm not seeing any inconsistency. Perhaps that's because I wrote the code and see it doing what I expect from it.  The last example should be following the contributor and author ordering shown in the MLA forms at Harvard Guide to Using Sources.  The MLA form was chosen over APA because we use the static text 'in' to introduce the editor when there is a contribution.


 * Can you point out exactly what it is that you see as an inconsistency?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems you have followed APA order (editor before title) in one case, and MLA order (title before author) in the other. For the purpose of distinguishing editors from authors, the prefix "in" is not a strong signal, as both cases refer to a contributed part of a book – indeed in both cases MLA omits the preposition while APA includes it.  The explicit text (Ed.)/(Eds.) would be more effective (but we'd need to find and fix cases where people have already explicitly attached it to the name of the last editor).  Kanguole 14:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * cs1|2 is neither APA nor MLA; for all that, cs1|2 isn't any of the published style guides. The APA-like ordering for 'In Editor. Title.' is not new to this version of the module's sandbox.  I don't see that there is anything that is 'broken' here.  Given that, I think that we should do nothing and allow the new feature to go live this weekend.


 * If there is an issue with the contributor-author-editor name-order, we should address it in its own discussion and then act accordingly.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is an arbitrary switching of styles between the two cases. As you point out, "In Editor. Title" has been used for some time, so it would be consistent to use "In Author. Title" for the new case.  Kanguole 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Partial autofixing of cites
There are some major causes of cite errors (such as fix text "http" to be "url=http") which we could try autofixing and compare the results. For example, the easy ones:
 * The raw text "http..." or "//..." could become the "url=" if not already set (30% of pages).
 * Allow "accessdate" as 1-c "acessdate" or 1-s "accesdate" or spaced "access date".
 * Allow caps "Title=" for "title=" when people are thinking to capitalize words in Titles.
 * Accept "month=" with year when no "date=" parameter given.

Among the harder autofixes is the bar "|" in title which appears in 35% of cite errors:
 * Append the "|text" into the "title=" when specified, but note "[fix cite]".
 * Set "date=" from text spaced when "|date May 1999" or similar "accessdate 10 Dec 2015"
 * Set "title=" from text spaced when "|title This Book".
 * Set "first2=" or "last2=" from "|first2John" or "|last2Doe" etc.

Those basic autofixes could remove about 75% of pages (300 of 400 pages) from the current cite-error categories (see: WP:CS1CAT), but logged instead into some "Autofixed cite" categories. So, if we focus on just simple autofixes, then the more-difficult hand-fixes could be done (by hand) to the remaining 25% of cite errors. Eventually, I have found even bars "|" in a URL could be autofixed for common URL formats, where the risk is appending URL parts in the wrong order, but that could be autofixed much later next year.

Meanwhile, many popular pages have retained cite errors for weeks or months (see: "The Band Perry", 500 pageviews/day), because cites are left unfixed not by lack of thousands of pageviews, but because most people DO NOT KNOW how to fix a bar "|" as " | " for a bar in a title. Similarly, we could autofix text "http" as "url=http" to fix 30% of cite errors. Otherwise, the harder the cite error, the more weeks/months before it gets fixed. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly every day, I fix a dozen or three citation errors of the types listed above, and many more flavors, using User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/unnamed.js, an AutoEd script, and others like it in the same subdirectory. Anyone who wants to is welcome to copy and modify pieces of this script to create a bot that resolves unambiguous citation errors. Note that I run this script attended, and sometimes it produces false positives and other fun results, so bot code would need to be crafted more carefully than my regexes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The show-stopper for Bot-based fixes (of Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unnamed_parameters) is the potential for "hyper-correction" of cite errors, while wp:autofixing cites would leave the internal cite markup as-is but inform cite gnomes by entries in new autofixed-page categories. An example of a hyper-correction might be "title=Election Results | Last Chance Recount" where the Bot autofix might add parameter "last=Chance Recount" for the pipe/bar "|" in the "title=" markup. However, because autofixing would reduce the cite-error categories, then some major articles could be spotted faster and hand-fixed sooner, such as the recent cite error in mega-page "Hello (Adele song)" (pageviews 12,000/day) which became lost among hundreds of pages with unnamed parameters (until I fixed about 450 of those older pages). Of course, when most cite-errors are autofixed, then there is less need to rush to fix pages, because many cites are effectively "good enough" to free time to fix the really garbled cites which autofixing would abandon (and not link into autofixed-cite categories), such as the garbled Twitter-link cite in popular page "The Band Perry" (cite "Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter") which remained unfixed for 2 months, sorted under "T" and hidden near the end of the unnamed-parameter category. Again, there is no need to rush-fix all cite errors, but rather find the mega-pages with cite errors seen thousands of times (or 1 million times) as in page "Cogito ergo sum" with cite errors left for 2.5 years. Meanwhile, we can set category-sort to "B" for "The Band Perry" (during the next 4 months), to keep it near the top of cite-error categories. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

breaking up Module:Citation/CS1
Module:Citation/CS1 is nearly 187,000 bytes big. For some time I have been contemplating splitting off certain bits of it into separate pages, much like I did for Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation.

To begin this task I have created Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities which will hold functions and tables that are common to multiple pages. Right now, it holds the error and categorization tables and the function  because these things are/will be shared among the various modules.

I intend to create another page for the named identifiers (isbn, doi, etc) because the code for those identifiers is large, rarely modified, and unique to each identifier.

You should expect large red script error messages on this page though I will try to keep that to a minimum.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The greater part of this is done. There are two new pages: Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers and Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities.  Identifiers holds all of the code that supports rendering and error checking of the named identifiers (isbn, doi, pmc, etc).  Utilities holds code that is used by Identifiers, Module:Citation/CS1, and Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation.


 * The code that was moved from Citation/CS1 into these two new pages has not been modified so continues to function as before. There is new code that is required to link pages together.


 * I have also added code to Utilities that looks for global functions and variables. There should be none.  If you see big red error messages that begin 'Tried to read nil global ...' or 'Tried to write global ...' let me know and I'll fix that.


 * I have not yet created sandbox versions of the new pages but will do so at the next update to the live module.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And another: Module:Citation/CS1/COinS.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink in param= with param-link= populated causes error
I came across this citation in the wild today:

series has a wikilink in it, and series-link is populated. Under those conditions, the citation does not render correctly. Should we detect some aspect of this condition as an error? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an error. The question, to me, is the cost-benefit of detecting it. How common an error is it, and how easy is it to detect? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Detecting this condition for title and series is pretty painless:

And for author-editor-contributor-translator name-lists:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that all of these error conditions should emit the "check param-link value" category, even if the author value is what needs to be fixed. Does that make sense, or am I off track? I'll be happy to edit the Help text accordingly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand what you're saying. When author is the parameter that needs to be fixed (as in the example where Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln), that page is categorized into .  Is that not correct?


 * Regardless, the help text will need to be edited to explain that wikilinks in a title-holding parameter are not allowed when the matching link-holding parameter has a value. In the case of author-, editor-, contributor-, and translator-name parameters, the error message parameter is fixed to the list name (author when the actual parameter used is last, etc).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that elegantly, did I? I tried the sandbox version of the Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln citation in an article preview, and I couldn't get it to emit any category, so I just wanted to confirm here. It sounds like it is doing the right thing. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From the Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln compare above I copied the template and pasted it into Abraham Lincoln (because the link was there in the comparison), changed to, wrapped the template in , clicked Show preview and got this:

<pre style="margin-left:8em><cite class="citation book">Abraham Lincoln. Title. <span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAbraham+Lincoln&rft.au=Abraham+Lincoln&rft.btitle=Title&rft.genre=book&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988">  Check   value (help)
 * The very last bit of that is the category.


 * A simpler way is to paste the template into Special:ExpandTemplates, change to and click OK.


 * There is a ; did you use that instead of ? It uses the live version of the module.  Not sure why we keep it around.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

eissn, hdl, citeseerx
Because it was easy, I have added support for eissn:

Should we add support for Handle System (hdl) and or citeseerx?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support adding hdl. This value is frequently placed in id, and it would be nice to have a cleaner place to put it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added hdl. It's pretty much just a clone of a portion of the doi code (which itself is an hdl).

We'll need a new error category and new help text (most of which can by cloned from the doi help text).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regex help needed to replace line feed character in title=
I'm digging in to the invisible character category, and I am trying to add some regexes to the AutoEd script that I use for unsupported parameters and similar fixes. I have noticed that line feed characters are particularly prevalent, so I'm trying to create a regex to find a line feed character in title and replace it with a space. Here's what I have so far:

This should translate to "Find a cite template without opening braces inside it, then find | followed by white space and then title, then find any characters until you get to one or more line feeds (\n+), then find more characters until you find a pipe or a closing curly brace. Replace it with everything you found except the line feed, which is replaced with a space character."

I am finding that my regex reaches too far if it finds a cite template without a line feed in it, going all the way to the end of a citation template and replacing the line feed at the end of the paragraph that contains the template. I think I need something after the first  and before the   to tell my regex to act only if it finds a line feed before it finds a pipe or closing brace, but I haven't been able to manage it. Can anyone help? – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't use your tool so I don't know if this will work for you. You might replace the   with   (consume one or more characters that are not in the set of   and  ).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That works great. I'm off to the races. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

what to do about &lt;math>...&lt;math> tags?
The <math ></math> tag pair is sometimes used in cs1|2 citation templates to render formulae as part of a journal article title.

The problem is what we get for metadata from the current live module:

Clearly, that is broken because the content of the <math ></math> tags is replaced with the nowiki stripmarker and so unintelligible to users of the metadata.

As part of the recent invisible character test fixes, I tweaked the metadata creation code to use  to remove nowiki stripmarkers from parameter values before adding those values to the metadata. I discovered that the library function does not work as its documentation suggests that it should (see T121085);  also (inappropriately) unstrips <math ></math> tags so using the current module sandbox we get this for article title metadata:

which is hardly better, and percent decoded, is text and an tag:

The tag does contain an   attribute so we might take its value and replace the math stripmarker with it. An equation written as:

renders:
 * $$r_i^2=(r_ir_j)^{k_{ij}}=1$$

produces this alt text:

which, percent decoded, is:

and which renders:
 * $$r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1$$

To my untrained eye, the two equations look the same.

Is there a better solution to this problem?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused: are you discussing using the alt text to produce &lt;math&gt; code that gets run through the Wikimedia rendering engine again, or do you just want to use it to generate COINS metadata? In your example this seems to work but I worry that running math coding through Google translate to Kurdish and back (or whatever the local equivalent for the Wikimedia engine is) will not always be so clean. But if this is only going to affect COINS metadata, this seems like a good solution: who cares if it doesn't always work perfectly as long as it generates something meaningful rather than the current unhelpful text.
 * In general, Wikimedia math formula rendering is a total disaster and has been since Wikipedia started. I have a long blog post about what I see as the reasons for this but basically they boil down to too much concern for how clean the semantics of the generated html markup is and not enough concern for whether it looks readable. In these specific cases, I would recommend using the math template series rather than &lt;math&gt;, (despite it being less clean semantically) for two reasons: (1) it more reliably generates mathematical formulae that both look like they should and match the surrounding text, and (2) to put more pressure on Wikimedia to make &lt;math&gt; actually usable if they want us to use it. So for your example, I would prefer to code it as
 * That doesn't really address your question about what to do about &lt;math&gt; but should be kept in mind to the extent that it affects citation formatting, since these templates are also going to appear in some citations.
 * One other thought: the Wikimedia engine does different things with &lt;math&gt; depending on your rendering preferences and what browser you use to view the page. E.g. it currently can generate math as bitmap images, TeX source, mathml, or svg, and it used to have an option to generate mathjax as well. Is this going to affect your metadata generation? Will it be a problem that different viewers see different metadata for the same citations? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I found the example reference that uses your other example equation: the reference Coxeter 1935 in Coxeter group. Unfortunately, for this case, there is no easy way to replace the math markup with templates: the overlaid subscript-superscript pair and subscripted-superscript are too difficult to get right. So for now we're still getting the C0 character error in that article. I guess we'll have to wait for your fix to the template software to make that one go away. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thought: the Wikimedia engine does different things with &lt;math&gt; depending on your rendering preferences and what browser you use to view the page. E.g. it currently can generate math as bitmap images, TeX source, mathml, or svg, and it used to have an option to generate mathjax as well. Is this going to affect your metadata generation? Will it be a problem that different viewers see different metadata for the same citations? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I found the example reference that uses your other example equation: the reference Coxeter 1935 in Coxeter group. Unfortunately, for this case, there is no easy way to replace the math markup with templates: the overlaid subscript-superscript pair and subscripted-superscript are too difficult to get right. So for now we're still getting the C0 character error in that article. I guess we'll have to wait for your fix to the template software to make that one go away. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This question is about <math ></math> tag markup and the metadata. The  markup brings its own set of problems because of included html and css.


 * I had forgotten about the math preferences. What that implies, is that the content of the <math ></math> tags isn't rendered until the page is served to the reader because MediaWiki can't know beforehand the settings of the reader's math preferences.  But, I think that the rest of the cs1|2 template has been rendered.  So the problem becomes, how to get the original <math ></math> tags content.


 * After the next module update, the metadata will hold the rendered <math ></math> tags content according to the settings of the user who last saved the page. That is ugly, especially the SVG version.  Each of the three optional renderings does include some form of text string that describes the equation so perhaps what I will do after the update is simply extract that from the rendering for use in the metadata.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added code to Module:Citation/CS1/COinS that detects the three various flavors of html renderings of equations in <math ></math> markup. From each of these, the code extracts a text string that represents the rendering. For PNG, the text is the value assigned to the tag's   attribute; for TeX, the contents between the ' ' and ' ' substrings in the  tag; for SVG, the content of the <annotation ></annotation> tag. Each of these extracted strings is slightly different but when they are put in <math ></math> tags similar results are rendered:
 * $$r_i^2=(r_ir_j)^{k_{ij}}=1$$ PNG
 * $$r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1$$ TeX
 * $${\displaystyle r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1}$$ MathML
 * $$r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1$$ TeX
 * $${\displaystyle r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1}$$ MathML
 * $${\displaystyle r_{i}^{2}=(r_{i}r_{j})^{k_{ij}}=1}$$ MathML

The code then replaces the math stripmarker in the metadata with the extracted string. The code can handle multiple equations in a cs1|2 parameter. If there are rendering errors, the stripmarker is replaces with the text string 'MATH RENDER ERROR' so that metadata consumers know that an editor is ignoring the big bold red rendering error message (like that ever happens).

The above equation in the live and sandbox versions of showing the metadata output:



—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External link detection not always working?
I'm being my usual confused and probably dumb self here. In the external link error help text, I see:


 * This error occurs when any of the CS1 or CS2 citation title-holding parameters – |title=, |chapter=, |work=, |publisher= or any of their aliases – hold an external link (URL).

In the documentation for cite web, I see:


 * website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work

My little brain comes to the conclusion that URLs in both work and website should display an error. That does not appear to be the case, however (the first cite web template uses website and the second one uses work, an alias of website; they are otherwise identical):

Here's the same URL in publisher in cite web and cite book:

But it works sometimes:

Here's the above citation with a trailing slash in the work URL:

What am I missing this time? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, do stop with the self-deprecation.


 * The problem, as you discovered, is the trailing slash; the parameter names in the error message are, I think, reported correctly. The function   used a flawed snippet of code that didn't strip off an empty path.   then returned   because it expected the last character in the tld to be a letter.  I've changed   to use   which should produce more reliable results.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That looks like it works as expected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Red error for missing url parameter on cite web
Now that we see so many clear citation errors, I've been going around my projects cleanup listing and fixing them, and I've noticed one that's really difficult to find on large pages- "Web citation with no URL"; basically, when you use Cite web and the url parameter isn't filled in. This error does not produce any visible red text, it just adds the page to Category:Pages using web citations with no URL (as well is Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, when applicable). On a page with ~100 citation it can be hard to manually track down which one has the error; is it possible for the offending citation to emit red text like many of the other errors? -- Pres N  00:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That error message is hidden. You can force a display of all error messages.  See Controlling error message display.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I presume that there's a reason why that error is hidden by default, since you obviously know about it, so I'll just use the css fix. Thank you! -- Pres N  02:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the category pages also say it's hidden by default and show the CSS. Maybe it's hidden because some editors use cite web when it isn't actually on the web, for example when they copy and adapt another citation. It still works in many such cases without having an error from the point of view of readers. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion ends in an RFC that hides certain error messages.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

year/date categorization fixes
I have fixed a couple of small bugs in  in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox.

When date does not contain a recognizable year, the citation should not be categorized in

The pattern used to test for YYYY-YY accepts a hyphen as separator so it matches the year and month portions of ymd dates. The test converts the YY to YYYY (using the century from the first year in the range). One of the years defining the range in date must match the value in year to add the citation to. In this case, the pattern matches 2003-04-29 returning  which is then converted to. Since 2004 matches one of the years in the 'range', the citation is added to the maintenance category:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ??? Shouldn't date and year in the same citation be mutually exclusive? Or am I missing something? 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When it is necessary to disambiguate citations (two or more of an author's works cited in the same article), and when the article uses or -family templates, a letter suffix is added to the year portion of date or year.  For dmy and mdy date formats, year is redundant.  For templates that use ymd date formats, inserting a disambiguator is not permitted (2015a-12-24) so these templates use year with the disambiguator (2015-12-24 2015a).


 * It is permissible, as a carry-over from past practice, to use both date (in either dmy or mdy formats) and year with year having the disambiguator. When the cs1|2 templates used as the rendering engine, this was the only way that a full date could be rendered and at the same time support  and  short-form citation linking.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarify usage of publisher
I couldn't find anything in the archives that specifically and clearly addressed this question. Are cable TV channels and local TV stations considered publishers for CS1 purposes? Or, are their owning companies the publishers? There is a script being used to mass-change work and website for these entities to publisher, and this seems wrong to me. Either way, the template doc could use some clarification to avoid endless spinning between the two forms. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In this RfC, Editor SMcCandlish wrote (at the bullet point 'Support italics') one of the better descriptions of just what it is that work is supposed to be. Perhaps that's helpful?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I read it and need some interpretation as to this question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To add, there is actually no real context-based citation template doc. There is doc for cs1|2-wide parameters, with few exceptions. What little citation context does exist, is buried in the systemwide documentation. I that the context here is cite av media, cite episode and the like. Imo, in these cases the TV channels etc. should not be considered publishers, just like magazines or encyclopedias are not the publishers of their articles. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For my purposes I'm interested primarily in the guidance at Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web, which share a description of publisher. It's that description that I feel needs clarification. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, a network or TV station would be considered a publisher, not a work, for citation purposes. In the case of TV, the work is the program. My oft-used example is this. 60 Minutes is a "television news magazine". It is rendered in italics as a work. Individual segments or episodes of that program are considered the analog to articles within a print magazine, so their titles are rendered in quotation marks. Broadcasting a TV program is the analog to publication, so CBS, as the network, is the publisher. In terms of the distinction between an individual TV station and the company that owns it, look at the distinction between a publishing house (Simon & Schuster) and one of its imprints (Charles Scribner's Sons) or the company that owns it (CBS Corporation). In that case, only the most specific entity needed to locate the source need be included.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking of websites for the cable TV channels and local TV stations. If a news article at nytimes.com is correctly cited as The New York Times, how can one oppose citing the article at CNN.com, containing equivalent reporting of the very same subject, as CNN or CNN? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "cnn.com" might be a work, but "CNN" is still a publisher. The website lacks a name separate from that of its publisher, and in those cases, I would never list the name of the publisher as a work. In distinction, WLUC-TV has named its news website Upper Michigan's Source, and so I do list that as a work along with the station call letters and location in citations.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you would be in conflict with the publisher guidance at and : "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". Following your reasoning we should code nytimes.com, not The New York Times. In my opinion the publisher of CNN.com is Turner Broadcasting System (or parent company Time Warner), and publisher should be omitted as largely irrelevant and unuseful in that context. Can you see a need for clarification here? &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of that website is the same as the name of their newspaper, The New York Times based on the usage of the same masthead (logo) between the two. CNN's website also shares the same logo as the network, implying the same situation, but to a different result as "CNN" the network is a publisher. However, WLUC-TV has three logos/names for its distinct entities: WLUC-TV (the NBC subchannel), WLUC-DT2/FoxUP (the Fox subchannel) and Upper Michigan's Source (their website). As for "CNN" vs. "Turner Broadcasting System", that's same relationship between Simon & Schuster and CBS Corporation, the corporate parent of the publishing house or "WLUC-TV" and "Sinclair Broadcast Group".
 * The guidance of which you speak relates to the traditional notion that the name of the publishing company behind a periodical publication is unnecessary for most citation purposes, especially where it is the same, or substantially (The New York Times vs. The New York Times Company") so to its publications.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've had this debate before. The work parameter should be the name of the site, not the name of the web server hosting the site. The name of the CNN site is CNN, not cnn.com. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, our guidance says that not all website names are rendered in italics. For websites that are the equivalent to a publication type traditionally rendered in italics (Wikipedia as an encyclopedia title, The New York Times as a newspaper title), we should continue to class them as works at the moment, but if a website title is the equivalent of something considered a publisher (CNN as a cable network, CBS News as a broadcast network division [but not The CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley]), then we'd render those as publishers. Maybe in the future other style guides like the Chicago Manual of Style will come to consider all website names as works, but they don't, and we don't, at the moment.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if you are correctly stating community consensus on this, and that's not at all clear to me, you're adding a ton of interpretation not present in the guidance, and that dearly needs fixing. That guidance, not the archives of this page, is where virtually all editors will go to determine the correct thing to do in these cases, as long as Wikipedia exists, and it is currently highly ambiguous. The average editor should not have to hunt down, parse, analyze, and synthesize widely dispersed wisdom in the archives. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think context is everything. What is it that is cited?
 * If what cited is an episode in a TV series at a certain channel, then:
 * episode-title series-name station/channel-name
 * If what cited is a TV series at a certain channel syndicated/owned by some entity, then:
 * series-name station/channel name station/channel owner/syndicator
 * As was stated above, there is very little guidance on context in the doc. Instead, it is more of a one-size-fits-all approach I think.
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since it's so difficult for so many people to grasp the amount of editor effort wasted due to this lack of guidance, I'll now give up (again) trying to improve the situation for the sake of the project. It's far from the first time I've encountered this, but I've yet to fully learn the lesson. We shall continue to spin, working at about 60% efficiency, with ongoing acrimonious conflict out there in the real editing world, per Wikipedia tradition. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Many-to-one references and various plurality issues
[Continuing on, loosely, from the thread above.]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, and please indulge me as I perpetrate some thinking out loud to the general amusement or boredom of the indigents. I have no solutions or concrete proposals, so this is fairly literally just me thinking out loud in the hopes it may spur… something of some kind of use.

I've ran into this sort of issue a couple of times in my field and have so far not found a solution that doesn't in some way seem suboptimal. An example that illustrates the category of problem: Shakespeare's plays are published in critical editions, where a modern editor modernises the text and collates the extant sources for that play (typically one or more quarto editions and a folio edition), adds extensive explanatory notes to each line (literally every line of the play has one or more notes attached), etc. The edition also typically contain an "Introduction" that is really book-length on its own, and that contains an extensive discussion of the play (sources, its dating, textual issues and editions, critical reception, themes and motifs, notable performances and adaptations, etc.).

That is, for these editions what you're really citing is almost always the work of the editor, except in the few cases where you want to quote directly from the text of the play (e.g. "To be or not to be").

A typical citation would be something like (picked at random from Hamlet):

(Arden publishes all the plays in individual editions over decades, and when they've done them all they start over with a new "series"; we're currently on the "third series")

Just something so basic as the display here feels off: Shakespeare may strictly speaking be the "author", but the work we're citing in 99% of the cases is that of Thompson and Taylor, so having Shakespeare shown most prominently feels off. Adding to this, the first name in the citation determines where it's placed in the list of sources for the article, so in an equivalent example from King Lear, the edition edited by "Brode, Douglas" gets sorted under "Shakespeare, William". And then the final insult is that in use of the author—date reference templates (typically sfn), due to the way the link is generated, you'd have to use to refer to Thompson &amp; Taylor's work. Not to mention the apparent incongruity of citing a work written by Shakespare in 2006 (~400 years after his death). The latter point also creates a barrier (increases cognitive load) for editors: when they actually mean to cite Thompson & Taylor they have to remember to write "Shakespeare" in the citation template.

The approach the WikiProject has currently landed on is to simply drop Shakespeare from the citation template and let it be inferred for readers (the style guide places all editions of the play in a separate subsection of the bibliography where all citations may be assumed to have an implicit William Shakespare included. However this fails to capture that piece of metadata in order to achieve the desired visual rendering, which is, I hope everyone will agree, suboptimal.

An alternative approach would be, as suggested in the thread above, to leave Shakespeare in the full citation and then use a custom link id so you can cite Thompson and Taylor but link to Shakespeare, but this gets really complicated real fast (and entirely defeats the purpose of using things like sfn).

A further problem, also mentioned above, which is very common in this area is citing chapters in a larger work. For instance, Cambridge University Press publishes a lot of Cambridge Guides to Shakespeare … on Film, on Screen, on Stage, etc.; that are edited collections of essays from multiple authors, where each chapter covers one aspect of whatever the topic of the overall book is. Needing to include an entry for each cited chapter in the bibliography is awkward (lots of duplication) and leads to inconsistent bibliographic details for the same work even with experienced and meticulous editors (I've had to clean up a lot of these in the FA drives for articles in the WikiProject's scope). Here the short citations are logical (you give the author of the chapter, not the editor of the overall work), so the problem is constrained to the bibliography.

And a final category of issue is citing a multi-volume work, where, as best I can tell, you have to include a full citation for each volume in the bibliography and then use YYYYa, YYYYb publication years to refer to them in short references. The exempli gratia here would be the (still current, even though published in 1923) standard reference work:



You could of course forego the p parameter to sfn and use loc with a manual specification that includes both page and volume instead, but this too seems suboptimal (forgoing a structured field for an unstructured one).

Now I don't really have any concrete proposals for this, and I doubt it can be solved in just Module:CS1 alone without also changing things like sfn, but I have a feeling that somewhere in all this there is a magic bullet that could solve these in a more elegant way; and I think there may be something lurking around the issue of multiple ways to refer to the same cite as the IP was suggesting above.

For instance, if one could include Shakespeare but specify that we want the link target to be generated from the editor (without having to use harvid or similar) you'd solve a couple of the issues (at the expense of complexity in Module:CS1), but still be left with the problem of sometimes needing to actually cite Shakespeare. On the other hand, having multiple anchors (using nested span elements as suggest above, or some similar method) would allow both, but would generate bloated markup.

And neither way would address the issues of citing multiple chapters from the same work. If you add that concern to the mix we're talking something along the line of being able to specify all the chapters and their authors in a single full citation and having the anchors to link them from distinct short refs. I shudder at the mere thought of trying to implement that in Module:CS1, and finding a way to display that in the bibliography would require a part of the functionality to reside in javascript on the client side. At that point I suspect we're really talking about some hypothetical future where all bibliographic data is kept in Wikidata and the bibliography in any given article is dynamically generated based on queries to that.

Anyways, I can hold my nose and keep using the various workarounds we've come up with (and periodically clean up the various confusion introduced by random editors), but I wanted to air these thoughts out here in the hopes that better minds than mine could come up with better ways to solve the underlying problems, and that my thoughts might serve as useful data points when reasoning about how to design this system.

Regards, --Xover (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Three issues, right?
 * someway to have multiple anchor ids for a single cs1|2 template
 * someway to list multiple chapters of a single edited work without duplicating all of the bibliographic details for each chapter
 * someway to identify and link to the separate volumes of a single work without without repeating full bibliographic detail for each volume; links to the appropriate volume somehow
 * Have I got this right?


 * 1) For this, it occurs to me that we might, as a first hack, allow ref to accept multiple keywords, perhaps: harv-ed, harv-contrib. Then if there are author, editor, and contributor, Module:Citation/CS1 would make its   anchor from whichever name-list is specified in ref.  That then might be extended to accept multiple comma separated keywords so that second and third keywords caused the rendered citation to be wrapped in.
 * 2) Does do what you want?
 * 3) I don't have a suggestion for this. Each volume in your example has its own ISBN so the templates differ by more than just volume number.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you have the issues down right (at least at the "bulletpoint" level), provided I myself have them down right in my head (for which there is no guarantee). :-)


 * Your idea #1 at first blush sounds like a remarkably elegant solution to that issue (and, if I understood it right, also the IP's issue in the previous thread). It adds complexity, but (without being familiar with the code) at least manageable complexity; and given you've articulated it clearly and succinctly I'd say the odds are good that it fits within a clean design too (a good rule of thumb in my experience). I see no obvious gotchas with this beyond the complexity, except perhaps a theoretical risk of collisions with manually generated values for ref (which I think is very unlikely, and if any are in the wild must be very rare).


 * As for #2, harvc is one approach to this that represents a set of tradeoffs which happen to be ones I dislike more than the tradeoffs in the way we do it right now. It's an entirely valid approach, and will suit many editors just fine, but I dislike it enough that I don't consider it an option. This may of course be simply because I a) haven't looked at it enough to understand it fully (not unlikely), and b) my wishing for a unicorn that just isn't possible to have with the current Mediawiki infrastructure. Again, I suspect a lot of this kind of stuff ultimately depends on keeping citation data on Wikidata.


 * I can picture ways to approach #3, but none I'd necessarily suggest as good ways. For instance (and a bit off the cuff), we could have a setup like (1 or I or i or...), (…), and even possibly yyyy for things like (iirc) the ODNB which was published as a single work in multiple volumes which came out spread over decades. But I wouldn't go so far as to say I suggest this approach without thinking a lot more about it. But perhaps your gut feeling has better foundation, by knowing the code and clearly having a model for what this template/module/system is (my grasp of it is pretty fuzzy). --Xover (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * #1: to address the William Shakespeare metadata issue when these templates are confined to a section of 'William Shakespeare's editions' where Shakespeare can be inferred as the author, 0 works to hide author and this works
 * #2: You don't say how you 'do it right now', nor do you identify the trade-offs that you don't like about . It's hard to offer any better suggestions when this information is left out of the discussion.
 * #2: You don't say how you 'do it right now', nor do you identify the trade-offs that you don't like about . It's hard to offer any better suggestions when this information is left out of the discussion.
 * #2: You don't say how you 'do it right now', nor do you identify the trade-offs that you don't like about . It's hard to offer any better suggestions when this information is left out of the discussion.


 * #3: cs1|2 templates are designed (if one can use that term) to render a complete citation for a single work. If I understand your idea for volumeN-identifier and volumeN-isbn, then that seems like an attempt to squeeze multiple volumes into a single template so should not be considered.  These constructs don't fix the problem of linking via  to the appropriate volume.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding #1, if there is a short reference "Name 2009, p. 45", readers will expect that to refer to an entry "Name, A. (2009) ..." in the list of cited works. You could make the link go to a different entry, but that would be surprising, and therefore best avoided.  If different things are being cited, they need different citations, even though this involves repetition of the #2 kind.  Kanguole 15:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * #1: Hmm. Clever, and a bit of a cheat, but it will certainly give the visual appearance that makes sense. However, anything requiring editors to manually construct a fragment identifier is a no-go in practice. Using citation templates is a struggle for many non-technical editors (and even for people with a technical background it's a bit of a chore). IOW, I think for this to work in practice would require the harv-ed support you outlined above.


 * #2: Well, as I mentioned I may not have sufficiently considered harvc, but my initial assessment is that its tradeoffs are toward exactly the wrong mix of duplication of bibliographic details and spreading information out among multiple templates. If I've understood it correctly (and that's not just a rhetorical caveat), it puts information (chapter author, chapter name) in a separate template that I consider strongly associated with the work (and hence should be in the main citation in the bibliography) and includes this information in the short citation which should ideally be just Name, Year, and Page. And on the other end it duplicates information from the main citation in its in parameter, with the duplication of effort to maintain and inherent risks of errors or letting the two get out of sync. But, of course, as I said, these are valid tradeoffs, they're just not ones I agree with. As for what I'm doing now I didn't mention it because it's essentially "nothing": for multi-volume works I list the volumes that are cited separately (and distinguish using YYYYa).


 * #3: Hmm. That reasoning holds true only if one considers each volume to be a separate work; but in this case all four volumes make up a single work. They're split into volumes simply due to limitations of the printing process (somewhere around 500 pages printing gets increasingly expensive, and somewhere around 1000 pages they're unable to actually make it hold together for love or money). In popular works (fiction, say) there are pricing considerations and the ability to charge more when published in parts, but in this work (and most similar reference works) their only customers are institutional ones (with prices to match): I'd bet good money you will not find a single extant copy of the original edition of this particular work outside a well-stocked university library. In fact, the 2009 facsimile reprint (which is still expensive, but now priced so a normal private individual may conceivably want to buy it) probably only has separate ISBNs because they want to be able to sell individual volumes. In other words, I see no inherent conflict between limiting the CS1/2 templates to a single work, and including a multi-volume work with individual identifiers (which happen to be of the ISBN type) in it. Unlike, obviously, something like the Harry Potter series, where each "volume" is a separate work in a series. --Xover (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. In the case I'm outlining here, sfn wouldn't need to link to different works: there's just one work so linking to it covers all four cases (volumes). However, sfn would need to support giving the volume in the rendered short citation (which you can do unstructured in loc today, but would probably be best handled by supporting a volume parameter in addition to p, neither of which affect the generated link). --Xover (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * #1: The argument that we shouldn't implement template features because these features are complex and difficult to understand, or because they require technical competence  is not persuasive.  Pretty much any article can be properly and adequately cited and referenced using the basic tools available in VE and RefToolBar.  To do more sophisticated citing and referencing necessarily requires that editors have more sophisticated knowledge of the capabilities and nuances of the citing and referencing systems employed at en:wp.  It is true that it would be easier to write harv-ed than to write:
 * or
 * 0 is not a cheat. It isn't commonly used but this insource: search shows that it is occasionally used.  Another alternative is 0 which might be easier to understand and is also occasionally used.
 * 0 is not a cheat. It isn't commonly used but this insource: search shows that it is occasionally used.  Another alternative is 0 which might be easier to understand and is also occasionally used.
 * 0 is not a cheat. It isn't commonly used but this insource: search shows that it is occasionally used.  Another alternative is 0 which might be easier to understand and is also occasionally used.


 * #2: compare this (from Romeo and Juliet):
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]
 * to this: [, , , , , , ]


 * #3: With each volume getting its own ISBN, I think that you have to treat each volume as a separate work. You could do this:
 * [   ]
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URLs to Internet Archive
Hello, in Hoseynabad, Jam the Template:IranCensus2006 generates a valid URL (atleast it works, inserting the URL directly in FF 42.0). Still CS1 marks this URL as "Check |archiveurl= value" (the same URL in the regular "url=" parameter also produces a similar warning message). Maybe that issue has already been mentioned somewhere else, but could someone have a look please? Should Internet Archive-URLs be protocol-relative to begin with? GermanJoe (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This bug has been fixed in the sandbox code. When other debugging and testing is done, we will move the sandbox code to the live module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:PRURL. -- Green  C  16:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An essay which should probably be amended since a) Wikimedia only serves content on Wikipedia via HTTPS now and b) a number of sites quoted on said essay only want incoming links from HTTPS as well. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

URL parameter validation doesn't take port numberl into account
See for example at the first reference at Gudivada. Currently, it's throwing an error but if the port number is removed, it doesn't throw it. --Glaisher (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That has been fixed in the sandbox; see Spurious 'Check |url= value' error?:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

can be retired or converted to a maintenance category
is empty and can be retired or converted to a maintenance category.

For background, see this discussion for a similar situation.

There are no longer citations – in the WP namespaces to which we apply CS1 error categories, at least – that contain exactly four editors without a display-editors parameter.

Any new citations with exactly four editors should display all four editors, on the assumption that WP editors will enter the editors that they want to display and will use display-editors to limit the number of editors displayed. We will need to adjust the CS1 documentation accordingly to wipe out the historical explanation of the display of "et al." for exactly four editors.

We could add a maintenance category for 4 as we did for 9 when we retired the similar author-related error category, since 4 with exactly four editors is no longer necessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well done! I'm glad to see it gone and will be glad to get rid of the special code in the module that supports it.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that this is the desired result:

Add maintenance category when the value in display-editors is set to a number equal to or greater than the number of editors listed in the template:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

access-date with archiveurl?
When archiveurl is set (and deadurl=yes), is there any reason to keep the access-date? It clutters the displayed ref with 3 dates, it's confusing and I don't see why the access-date would be needed since providing access-date to the archive is redundant with archivedate, and providing access-date to the original article is pointless since it's been replaced with an archive. Thanks. -- Green  C  16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be deleting accessdate from citations whenever I add archiveurl (and deadurl=yes). I am doing 100s (thousands?) of this via scripts etc.. if you think that's a bad idea, please ping me to discuss. -- Green  C  15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's basically a personal preference whether or not to include it. As for yes, that doesn't do anything. Setting it to no has the effect of switching the links around so that the citation still links the title to the original url, but the reverse value is useless.  Imzadi 1979  →  16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily object but I can imagine that there are people who will object. I have seen cases where the date of an archive isn't even approximately close to the date specified in access-date.  It would seem that the correct procedure is to confirm that the archive actually supports the article content before removing access-date.  Even then, instead of deletion, it might be best to simply hide the date portion of and add a note, perhaps like this:
 * &lt;!-- 2012-04-21 note text explaining why this date is hidden -->
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest if deadurl=yes and archivedate are set, the template suppress display of accessdate. It can remain in the cite template if anyone needs it, but it wouldn't clutter up and confuse the displayed reference. -- Green  C  16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting accessdate: You're not the first to suggest they are redundant. I've come around that side of thinking. However, I highly recommend that if you are using a script on pages you've not previously edited before that you get some wider consensus than is generally present here (and if it's automated, running it through WP:Bot approvals). Deadurl=yes/no: I think this parameter is quite useless, because it needs to be updated on a regular basis for websites that go offline. But it's there, so, see my previous recommendation regarding using a script. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing consensus here. Common sense and multiple stated reasons point to removing it. No actual reason for keeping it has been put forward. A compromise solution is the template suppresses display of accessdate if deadurl=yes and archiveurl are set. deadurl is useful, it's a manual flag that clarifies status of the primary link which is then useful for the citation template display, and for other scripts and bots. -- Green  C  16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've made what appear to be two contrary proposals:
 * suppress access-date when:
 * no and archive-date
 * yes and archive-url
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppress when archive-url and archive-date and yes (I made a typo above fixed) --  Green  C  18:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not seeing consensus here." - I mean this, as I said, in the general sense and not specific to this section. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think is the best way to get consensus for making changes to the template? Do we kinda decide here or is there more formal process? I personally think suppression of display is the best solution to preserve the information for whatever unforeseeable reason, but prevent its display when no longer needed as it confuses readers. -- Green  C  23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consensus is not necessary, you can hide access-dates.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is on a per-user basis, and removes it all the time, not only when archiveurl is set. --  Green  C  16:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is access-date redundant with archive-date? I'm apt to find a dead URL with an access-date of, say, 2010; replace it with an archive snapshot from 2012 (but often not later, when the archive snapshots themselves are broken-link messages); and set an access-date of 2015, to show when the situation was last assessed, which is useful to tell me when I did something, but could be useful to tell others that later archive snapshots are possibly flawed and that a middle date is better. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the proposal (now) is not to remove access-date entirely from the wikisource, but suppress its display in the rendered citation (when the primary link is dead and archiveurl is set). I think your point underscores the confusion. I wouldn't be able to derive what you're thinking based only on the existence of an access-date. I might see the 2015 access-date and think maybe the primary link went back active in 2015 and someone forgot to change the deadurl=yes to no. And then see it wasn't live and think, well maybe I should remove the access-date since it's no longer active. Or think someone made a mistake. Or not know what to think and be confused. There's a lot of confusion and uncertainly about what the access-date means once the link is archived. -- Green  C  16:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Printable URLs
Any URLs in the citation templates are lost when trying to create a print version of an article. This is especially bad for things like cite web, where the URL tends to be the only real canonical identifier. For example, while all the naked links in the article, like under 'External links,' append the URL in parentheses automatically like normal, most of the citations that include hyperlinks just hide it completely in the print medium. Surely the URL should be visible somewhere in the citation. --BeebLee (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this issue is the fault of the cs1|2 templates or Module:Citation/CS1. Rather, I think that MediaWiki chooses to treat external link that are wrapped in <cite ></cite> tags (as all cs1|2 templates are) differently from the way it treats those that are not.  Here are two external links, one with and one without <cite ></cite> tags:
 * Example.com plain external link
 * Example.com external link in cite tags
 * If you create a printable version of this page, the first should show the url while the second will not.
 * Example.com external link in cite tags
 * If you create a printable version of this page, the first should show the url while the second will not.


 * Perhaps your question is better asked at WP:VPT?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

'Display-authors=etal' replacement screw-up
The recent mass replacement of "et al." in author fields with 'display-authors=etal' (see list)) is screwed-up: extraneous semi-colons have been inserted following the author. E.g.:

Also, in places where the "etal" was used in the CITEREF link the corresponding adjustment was not made in the Harv template, breaking the link. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion that led to the decision to insert a separator character before 'et al.' at the end of a name list began here and concluded here.


 * The discussion regarding handling and removal of embedded 'et al.' text in name-list parameters is here – yours is the last voice in that conversation. When that change went live (21 March), any -family or  links that used the 'et al.' as an author-name, broke.


 * We can compare versions of your example with and without etal:
 * – your original
 * – and with with etal
 * From this we can see that the AWB script that I used to replace 'et al.' in author/editor name-list parameters with the appropriate etal or etal parameters has done no harm.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. Since the CITEREF links were broken earlier a little more degradation shouldn't be a noticable problem. Let someone else fix them.


 * The insertion of extraneous semi-colons (e.g.: ) screws up those cases where "author" is intended to be in the form of a short cite (e.g., "Folland et al.", or even "Folland and others").


 * The "conversation" you refer to Help_talk:Citation Style 1/Archive_7 was about the treatment of literal "et al.", and had nothing to say about the appropriate separator. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Help_talk:Citation Style 1/Archive_7 ... [has] nothing to say about the appropriate separator. That conversation, as I stated in my previous post, was about handling and removal of embedded 'et al.' text in name-list parameters.  The conversations about the separator character were these (also in my previous post):
 * Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 12 and
 * Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Journal articles in collections
What's the best way to cite a journal article that's been included in a collection? This is the specific example - I'd quite like to be able to show both the book and the original journal in the cite. Thanks! —  Scott  •  talk  15:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a book, not a journal, right? So, as a book, like this:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The linked academia.edu page lists two publications, the book chapter formatted above and a journal article, both by the same author but with quite different titles. I don't understand why both are listed but if you want to also cite the journal one I would think the best way would be with a separate journal article citation for the journal article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The linked academia.edu page lists two publications, the book chapter formatted above and a journal article, both by the same author but with quite different titles. I don't understand why both are listed but if you want to also cite the journal one I would think the best way would be with a separate journal article citation for the journal article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I would use cite encyclopedia since this is an edited collection.
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again after David's comment, it does in fact appear that the author has uploaded the wrong article to Academia.edu (or given the wrong attribution to the right article), so I only need to cite the journal. Thanks all! —  Scott  •  talk  17:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to include the 10.1177/135918359600100304 because of the wrong article/wrong title issue and note that the journal article requires yes or yes.
 * Looking at it again after David's comment, it does in fact appear that the author has uploaded the wrong article to Academia.edu (or given the wrong attribution to the right article), so I only need to cite the journal. Thanks all! —  Scott  •  talk  17:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to include the 10.1177/135918359600100304 because of the wrong article/wrong title issue and note that the journal article requires yes or yes.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall, thanks. —  Scott  •  talk  18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Any way to pass display-authors/editors values to Harvard citation?
Inspired, for better or worse, by 'Display-authors=etal' replacement screw-up.

So that, if etal --> autoformats

Don't scream at me if it can't/won't be done.

65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not certain what you are trying to do. (Example?) Harv will automatically display the 'et al.' when four or more authors are specfied. If you want to want to use the et al. form with only two or three authors use something like in the text, then add a ref with  to the citation template.


 * See example at Template:Harvard_citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement. (cite web)
One thing I would like to see is to be able to include the root URL of a website in the citation, along with the URL of the specific page. Currently, you have a |website= parameter to provide the name of the root website, but you don't have a corresponding |website-url= parameter.

My thinking behind this idea is this: Just as you can cite a book, and also make specific references to particular pages, you ought to be able to cite a website, and also make specific references to particular webpages.

I want to be able to point the user to both the book / website as a whole, and to specific pages / webpages.

It would seem adding a |website-url= parameter should be a relatively simple task.

Much more complex is another issue I've run across: being able to combine multiple references to several webpages from a single website. For books, you build the cite for the book as a whole, and add for a cite of that book to page 15. Perhaps you could split cite web into cite website and cite webpage (or something along that line). The cite website would build a core reference entry, and the cite webpage would add specific page references. The result would look something like this:


 * Lastname, Firstname (date). A Really Cool Website About Widgets. Publisher.
 * 1. ^ "A Page Describing Widgets" Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 2. ^ "A Page About How Widgets Are Made" Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 3. ^ "A Page About Using Widgets" Retrieved 2020-01-01.

Currently, all we can do is have three cite webs which leave three refs randomly appearing in the list, giving no clue that they are all from the same site, like this:


 * 1. ^ Lastname1, Firstname1 (date). "A Page About Tuits" An Exciting Website Dedicated to the Tuit. Publisher1. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 2. ^ Lastname2, Firstname2 (date). "A Page Describing Widgets" A Really Cool Website About Widgets. Publisher2. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 3. ^ Lastname3, Firstname3 (date). "A Page About Whatzits" A Neato Website About Whatzits. Publisher3. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 4. ^ Lastname2, Firstname2 (date). "A Page About How Widgets Are Made" A Really Cool Website About Widgets. Publisher2. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 5. ^ Lastname4, Firstname4 (date). "A Page About Thingies" An Amazing Website in Regards to Thingies. Publisher4. Retrieved 2020-01-01.
 * 6. ^ Lastname2, Firstname2 (date). "A Page About Using Widgets" A Really Cool Website About Widgets. Publisher2. Retrieved 2020-01-01.

You see how it's difficult to discern that refs 2, 4, and 6 are all different pages of the same website. You can imagine how confusing it would be if you did the same for books ... having to have a separate citation each time the page number changes in the same book. The alternate approach, provide one ref for the root of the website, is as unsatisfying as being forced to provide one ref to a 2000 page book, but never being able to refer people to specific pages in the book.

I realize this suggestion will be much more technically involved ... but something to keep in mind for the future. For now, just being able to implement the |website-url= parameter would be a great help.

Thanks for your consideration.

Hi-storian (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of what you want in the second half of your post is addressed here. Short citations of some form, along with a list of sources organized in a way that makes sense to you, is how most editors deal with an organizational challenge of this type.


 * As for adding a parameter that would explicitly link to the root-level page of an external web site that by definition does not contain information about the statement being cited, how does that help readers? It seems like a kind of link spam to me. As a specific example, how would linking to http://www.nytimes.com help a reader looking at a citation that already links to an article on the New York Times web site? The reader would see a list of today's headlines, which is highly unlikely to be relevant to anything in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jonesey95 I think you're missing my points.  We're not talking about New York Times ... that is a "cite news" btw, not a "cite web".  What we're talking about is a website that is essentially a book, with each page a separate webpage.  The Wikipedia article in question is about a broad topic, that includes the entire scope of the website, and then some.  Let's say the Wikipedia article is about Whatchamacallits, a group of objects that include Widgets, Thingies, Tuits, and Whatzits.  Think of the website as a book.  Think of having to do "cite book" for page 21, another "cite book" for page 92, a third "cite book" for page 142 ... and then have no way to realize that it's all the same book, about the same topic, which is highly related to the article in question.  Yes, if you have such a feature it could be misused as you describe, but it could also be properly used, as I describe.  But in your case, the first mistake was to use the wrong template.


 * The point of a reference is to lead the user to sources of interest and relevance as well as supporting narrow points. What if you had page 21, 92, and 142 and wanted to read the book, but you weren't allowed to have the book?  Or if you had the book, but couldn't open it?  Both are unacceptable, but when it comes to websites, you have to choose between one and the other.


 * BTW, speaking about WP:IBID, op. cit. can be just as problematic as ibid. What if you copy an op. cit. reference from one article to another??  The reference in the new article is totally meaningless, as the book is not referenced in the new article.  You have to try to figure out which Wikipedia article the ref may have come from in hopes of figuring out what the book is.  I just had such a case, tonight.  I would strongly discourage both ibid and op. cit. because Wikipedia content is too dynamic, and the references are sure to become meaningless over time. Hi-storian (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've encountered your basic situation before, and I used shortened footnotes to handle it on M-35 (Michigan highway). I was citing the various pages from  Hunts' Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula like this.
 * Some statement. Another statement. A third statment.




 * Since it's essentially a book, that's how I treated it in the full citation, but each shortened footnote links to the specific "chapter" of that book online in the loc parameter in lieu of a page number.  Imzadi 1979  →  13:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That looks like an interesting approach, and worth investigating further.  I really appreciate your examples, of both how to build it, and of an article "in the wild" with a forest of references, and how you handled it.  Very constructive feedback.  Thanks again!  Hi-storian (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

cite interview - title is often nonexistent.
If one has an interview citation like this one:



The interview itself doesn't really have a title, but there's still a visible citation error on the page. What's the best way around this? --Slashme (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is this example at :
 * In this example, the program name goes in title and program gets the 'publisher'. Applying that to your example:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In this example, the program name goes in title and program gets the 'publisher'. Applying that to your example:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess we haven't had enough fun trying to rationalize the ambiguous use of parameters like publisher=/website=/work=/title= but now we should have Which also pollutes the meta-data ("CBS" is not a program). We wouldn't have to shuffle parameters around to fill in a mandated title if we had some way of telling the idiot code that in some cases we don't have a title. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * was converted to use Module:Citation/CS1 from the old version with minimal changes.  I don't recall that there have been any substantive changes to it since the conversion.  In my comments above, I quoted 'publisher' because, in fact, program is aliased into id.  Why did the old version do that?  Fine question.  I don't know.  Probably because the ability to shuffle things around within the highly constraining limits of  made it difficult to do else-wise.


 * interviewer is an alias of others which, along with id, is not part of the metadata so the metadata for my tweak of Editor Slashme's example contains the interviewee, the program title, and the date. Nothing was corrupted, but certainly, the metadata are incomplete.


 * We should probably look at all of the lesser cs1|2 templates to see what refinements can/should be made.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Be sure to copy all that to the documentation for the edification of editors who want to know why sometimes the program name goes into the program parameter, but other times into title. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Any update on the collaboration parameter?
See Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 12 for the discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be able to do this now with contributorn and contributionn, which is presently undocumented on Help:CS1. --Izno (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder that contributor hadn't yet been documented. I have hacked a bit of documentation for it at  and.


 * I don't think that contributor and contribution is an answer to the question posed at the start of this discussion.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sort of like this then?
 * – this should probably have an error message
 * If collaboration is set, et al. is automatically appended to the author name-list so display-authors is not required.
 * – this should probably have an error message
 * If collaboration is set, et al. is automatically appended to the author name-list so display-authors is not required.
 * If collaboration is set, et al. is automatically appended to the author name-list so display-authors is not required.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Depends, some papers have one author, which speaks on behalf of a collaboration, e.g. which should be cited as 'K. Stifter (CMS Collaboration)' (or some variation of it) without the et al.. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of cases would have the et al. though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you expect that papers authored by a collaboration are written by a small subset of collaborators and that the small subset does the writing on behalf of the whole collaboration?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but in the case of 'K. Stifter (CMS Collaboration)', it is still a single-author paper. Just written on behalf of the CMS Collaboration. Having a 'et al.' there would make it look like a multi-author paper. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So in that case, Stifter is affiliated with CMS Collaboration just as s/he is affiliated with University of Minnesota. We don't include affiliations in citations, just authors.  If CMS Collaboration is not an author then it doesn't belong in the citation.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Date format - when not formal date?
So, the problem is the Date field has to be a verifiable "date" - dd-mmm-yyyy or somesuch

What can we do if the formal Journal date is published as "Autumn 1995" or "Fall 1995" or even "Jan-Mar 2001"

The Volume and Issue field deal as I would expect with the normal conventions of a certain format of Journal referencing - but not the Date field. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Autumn 1995 and Fall 1995 (also Winter, Spring, Summer) are acceptable date formats. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by your last sentence.  Can you rephrase, expand, and/or provide an example?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Jan–Mar 2001 or January–March 2001 work,, but you need to use the proper en dash and not a hyphen.  Imzadi 1979  →  12:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah - okay I will try those - excuse my ignorance :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  13:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All I will say in my defense is the "help" could be more "helpful" - regards :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  13:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can see a way to improve the help texts, please do.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Complaint Box - coauthors:
If we want to slap editors with a CS1 error (Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors=) than we shouldn't be using the citation toolbar to capture this. Am I missing a good reason for this mismatch? First one to reply with gets slapped with a trout. — xaosflux  Talk 19:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , please link to the toolbar you are describing and a recent diff that it produced for you. It looks like support for coauthors was removed from RefToolbar 2.0 in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok here is the diff Special:Diff/697961560, created using the CITE button above the edit box as seen on the highlighted sections below: [[File:20160104-Capture1.JPG]] and [[File:20160104-Capture2.JPG]].


 * — xaosflux  Talk 02:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Guessing this is coming from  in MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js? —  xaosflux  Talk 03:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that looks like RefToolbarLegacy.js. Based on the discussion on the talk page for RefToolbar, I am guessing that only the 2.0 version is under (occasional) active development. Given that notice was posted on that page as early as 2012 that coauthors was deprecated, I suspect that changes to the legacy toolbar are not forthcoming. You may want to switch to the 2.0 version, and if you are feeling bold, place a note on the page describing the legacy version to the effect that it is no longer under active development. Or suggest something like that on the talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like it ALSO is dependent on preference "Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function" being enabled. I'll check in to amending that description. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this is in MediaWiki:Wikieditor-toolbar-dialogs-preference, any suggestions on update? — xaosflux  Talk 04:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Barring any objections, will be tweaking this as shown on MediaWiki talk:Wikieditor-toolbar-dialogs-preference. — xaosflux  Talk 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 16–17 January 2016
I propose to update the live Lua modules on the weekend of 16–17 January 2016

changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
 * 1) bug fix. accept urls with port numbers; discussion
 * 2) bug fix. accept fully qualified domain name terminal period; discussion
 * 3) move code for identifiers and common utility functions to separate files; discussion
 * 4) move code for metadata creation to a separate page; discussion
 * 5) identify and announce | = with wikilink when matching | -link= is set; discussion
 * 6) discontinue implicit etal error messaging for editor name-lists; discussion
 * 7) add Amharic and Malayalam to format_script_value;
 * 8) bug fix. newsgroup check in check_url; discussion
 * 9) improve invisible character detection; discussion
 * 10) add collaboration support; discussion
 * 11) add df support; discussion

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (new page)
 * 1) add support for eissn; discussion
 * 2) add support for hdl;

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (new page)
 * 1) none

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (new page)
 * 1) remove extraneous map parameter from COinS; not used
 * 2) replace math stripmarkers in metadata with something vaguely resembling the source equation; discussion
 * 3) bug fix; article title (aka chapter) missing from cite conference book metadata; discussion

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
 * 1) typo fix; discussion
 * 2) add eissn support;
 * 3) add hdl support;
 * 4) use protocol relative URL for LCCN
 * 5) discontinue implicit etal error messaging for editor name-lists;
 * 6) discontinue invisible character detection for the specials and private use areas characters; discussion
 * 7) add collaboration support;
 * 8) add df support;

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
 * 1) add eissn support;
 * 2) add hdl support;
 * 3) add collaboration support;
 * 4) add df (date format);

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
 * 1) bug fix; ymd format dates not allowed before 1582; discussion
 * 2) bug fix in year_date_check; discussion
 * 3) add df support;

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I read the list above a couple of times and didn't see a link to the "external link detection" section above. Is it there somewhere? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, that change will also be part of the update.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I missed the discussion on collaboration. Could you please explain. Other than that, everything looks good. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a link above at #10. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I somehow missed that. Will this be active in and  only? 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All cs1|2 templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

cite conference title= parameter is incorrectly formatted
The cite conference title= parameter is currently being formatted in italics. But this is the title of an individual article or paper presented or published at the conference, and thus should be in double quotes, just like an article in a scholarly journal. Consider the example given on that page – "The Twilight of the Naturally-Occurring Elements" is a short paper of 15 pages or so that belongs in double quotes not italics. Indeed the description at Template:Cite conference says "Displays in quotes". So I think the fact that it is currently displaying in italics is a mistake. I've created an article that uses cite conference a lot, so I'd appreciate someone fixing this. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The individual article should be listed with chapter or contribution (but not both!). The title of the whole conference is what goes in title. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what goes in conference? From the documentation: "conference: Name of the conference, may include location if different from location and date if different from date or year."


 * Something is not quite right here. The documentation doesn't seem to match the rendering. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that is working as it should do but it is perhaps more confusing than it ought to be.  Here are the three parameters that are at issue and how the various combinations render:
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.
 * conference was created so that editors would have a place for the conference name, location, and date; this because the conference name might be different from the proceeding's name, the venue location different from the place of publication, and the conference date different from publication date.


 * It seems to me that we could change :
 * require conference – otherwise editors should simply use, , or
 * add an alias for book-title, perhaps proceedings – for clarity (and then deprecate book-title)
 * require proceedings – essentially same as requires title
 * replace functionality of current title with contribution, article, and/or perhaps new paper –
 * current title shifts to be come an alias of proceedings (or is just ignored)
 * support journal – I don't know how this should be rendered; perhaps concatenated with proceedings
 * use existing city parameter?
 * create conference-date to allow date validation?
 * other stuff I haven't thought of yet goes here


 * Because the functionality of title is redefined, the transition from the old to new might require a transitional form; perhaps . There are about 7,000 pages that use .  The process might be something like this:
 * create new
 * create new documentation
 * implement new in Module:Citation/CS1
 * replace existing templates with  templates and rename parameters – a bot or AWB task
 * remove support for old from Module:Citation/CS1
 * parallel support for and  in Module:Citation/CS1
 * replace existing templates with  templates – a bot or AWB task
 * remove support for from Module:Citation/CS1
 * replace documentation with  documentation
 * delete


 * Difficult? Complex?  Yes, but probably one of those bullets that should be bitten.  Shall we bite it?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * title should not be deprecated. This is what is being cited: a specific paper presented in a conference, whose title is title. conference should be an alias of work. The "Proceedings" are basically official transcripts of an entire conference. The cited paper may have its own transcript or it may be a chapter/article in the "Proceedings". To cite the entire conference, cite encyclopedia should be used since the official "Proceedings" is a published, edited collection. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about deprecating title.


 * We don't really have a proper way to cite a paper in isolation.  is a redirect to  which really ought to have journal set so that isn't really citing a paper in isolation.  Certainly we can use  to cite an on-line copy but that's about it.  Of course, citing a paper in isolation has WP:RS implications; self published perhaps, no editorial oversight, etc.


 * It should be permissible to use without the title of a paper/article/contribution so that the conference proceedings as a whole may be listed in a bibliography.


 * conference is permitted to hold the conference name, its location, and dates. These are not the name of the published collection of papers (the proceedings) so conference should not be an alias of work.  journal, which is an alias of work, should be kept available for those conference proceedings that are published as a special or regular issue of a journal.


 * I don't know where the use--for-edited-collections notion comes from. Yes, it's there at the top of but,  is capable of citing such collections and is often used to do just that.  There are those among us who will say that it is entirely improper for editors to use one type of cs1 template to cite material of another type.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * current title shifts to be come an alias of proceedings (or is just ignored)
 * This seems to me a de-facto deprecation of the current use of title in cite conference.
 * If you do not want editors to use cite encyclopedia for edited collections, gather sufficient consensus and change the documentation, and the cs1 guidelines. As it stands now, this is the template to use for any collection of articles/papers/chapters that have an editor (as is the case with conference proceedings). We agree: editors should not use cite book where it is not appropriate, like in this case.
 * The "Conference" is functionally and actually the "work" in citations of individual papers. Nor should conference be used to convey anything but the name of the conference. The date & location (which may be variables) should have their own parameters. The template and its doc needs work so that it reflects the intended usage and real-world conventions. One can safely assume that that is what readers expect.
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with title is that its definition is inconstant and that can lead to confusion. In, title is a book title; in , title is an article title; in , title can be either the name of the encyclopedia or the name of the article depending on the presence of article and encyclopedia.  If we choose to upgrade , we can and should choose parameter names that accurately reflect their content, then confusion is, I hope, minimized.


 * In item 5 of my list, title is redefined to be the title of the proceedings and is aliased with proceedings. In my scheme, title is not required because there is a new, clearly defined parameter to hold the title of the conference's collection of papers.


 * I disagree. The conference cannot be the work because the conference is not a published thing; it is merely the arena at which the paper was formally presented.  I cannot go to a library and checkout the conference; the proceedings yes, the conference no.


 * I do agree that conference should not be a free-form parameter that holds conference name, location, and date; items 7 and 8 in my list. Documentation that matches the new  is listed as item 2 in the implementation list.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a citation for a paper. This item (title) itself would not exist without the enclosing conference. Semantically and in fact a conference is published as it happens (cf. speeches). But I am willing to accept that functionally, conference=proceedings=work. However, equating a single paper with proceedings is incorrect imo. That is substituting a chapter for a whole book. Such incongruities have led to the current jumble of ill-defined parameters. 64.134.101.203 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so I know who I'm talking to, are you also 208.87.234.201?


 * Proceedings may be published in book-form or journal form. If we use  to cite a paper in a proceedings then title gets the title of the proceedings and contribution (or chapter) gets the title of the paper.  If we use  then title gets the title of the paper and journal gets the title of the proceedings.  In  as it is currently implemented, title can be used to name either the proceedings or the paper.  I want to remove that fluidity so that title within  has one and only one meaning.  Because it is expected that  will be used to render a bibliographic entry for the proceedings alone (no paper in the rendering), then title, if it is used, should be at the highest level of that hierarchy.


 * I am not sure I understand how it is that you think that anything that I've written [equates] a single paper with proceedings. Can you clarify?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is what I think most people would expect when referring (citing) a conference paper. Organizers (publishers) arrange/produce Conferences (works) at certain Venues (locations) where Moderators (editors) introduce Presenters (contributors/authors) who submit Presentations (titles/items/articles) in Lectures (speeches) that are almost always accompaniied by self-published Papers (transcripts) containing the subject matter. Such conferences may happen Periodically (series). They may also have separate Conference Tracts (editions), if one wants to cite in such detail. And there you have it. All the reasonably expected, real-world parameter aliases for cite conference, and their technical, programmatic counterparts, which (in good programming practice) should be invisible to the end-user. Sometime later, a record (proceedings) of the entire conference may be printed in a variety of media. Then, people may want to cite parts of the conference record rather than the conference itself. For that, there is already a template for such edited collections of items from multiple contributors: cite encyclopedia. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

After all of this, I wonder if we're talking about two different things. You appear to be talking about citing a conference itself; I am talking about citing the conference record.

WP:RS says in its first sentence:
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, ..." (emphasis in original; NPOV text omitted)

That link leads to WP:V §Reliable sources which contains this sentence:
 * "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." (emphasis in original)

If I understand these, citing a paper from a conference itself is not permitted by WP:RS and WP:V until that paper is published.

At the top of Template:Cite conference/doc there have been various statements of purpose over time, all more-or-less saying the same thing:
 * – current which reads:
 * "This template is used to create citations for published conference proceedings."
 * – current which reads:
 * "This template is used to create citations for published conference proceedings."

Similarly, at the top of Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc:
 * – current where the portion applicable to this discussion reads:
 * "[not for journals or magazines]; nor is it intended for conference proceedings, which should be cited with Cite conference."
 * – current where the portion applicable to this discussion reads:
 * "[not for journals or magazines]; nor is it intended for conference proceedings, which should be cited with Cite conference."

These indicate to me that the consensus expectation for is that it is intended to be used when citing papers published in a conference's proceedings.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact, I thought that we were discussing citing a conference, mainly because I believe that we already have an unambiguous citing facility for books and other such works (which may contain conference proceedings). So my point is moot, but now I wonder why we need cite conference as anything more than an alias of some other template (I still think the fit of proceedings into cite book is clumsy). A propos of nothing, imo this also brings up the general issue of sources behind a paywall. Proceedings (basically verbatim transcripts) may not generally available (published for select recipients behind a paywall). Compare conferences, that are also "published" for select participants (the invited audience). 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A simple insource: search for 'proceedings' found this book. Here the citation is written using :
 * and the same again, written using :
 * I included asin for this example only because at Amazon you can look inside.
 * I included asin for this example only because at Amazon you can look inside.
 * I included asin for this example only because at Amazon you can look inside.


 * In the above examples, the version does not render correctly so would be inappropriate for use in a bibliography.  Additionally, the Joint Discussion-17 ... text ends up in the template's metadata as   (book title) which it is not.  Additionally, the metadata includes this:   because  expects to be citing an article; (, not surprisingly, includes:  ).


 * Two more examples, this time including a paper. First :
 * and :
 * This time the version is really no better and perhaps worse. The Discussion-17 ... text is italicized when it shouldn't be.  In the metadata,   (article title) is wrong as is   (book title).
 * This time the version is really no better and perhaps worse. The Discussion-17 ... text is italicized when it shouldn't be.  In the metadata,   (article title) is wrong as is   (book title).
 * This time the version is really no better and perhaps worse. The Discussion-17 ... text is italicized when it shouldn't be.  In the metadata,   (article title) is wrong as is   (book title).


 * There has been some good come out of this conversation, I have discovered and fixed a metadata error that was leaving the paper's title out of the metadata. Here is the metadata for the  template with The Two Supreme Stars, ...:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have small bones to pick here. Using cite encyclopedia.
 * Yours:
 * Mine:
 * Yours:
 * Mine:
 * and
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine:
 * and
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 208.87.234.201 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of ref= param
I think that we need to be able to detect misuse of the ref parameter. See ; several times I have seen page numbers being put in that parameter by. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What pattern(s) should we search for to find this misuse? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a rule to my extra-text script that will catch a pp.&amp;nbsp;... and turn it into the proper page or pages. When I've finished with  I can run the script against Special:Contributions/Jgrantduff.


 * I want to expand the extra text test in Module:Citation/CS1 to include volume and issue. I've fixed a lot of those while fixing the extra text in pages.  I can include ref as well.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Something in the template doc and the help page should make clear that ref does not specify a page/in-source reference and should not be used for this purpose? Or change the easily misconstrued "ref" to the more specific "anchor" or "link-id" or similar. I sometimes wonder what were the people who originally named these parameters thinking. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've had a go at that.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

minor bug in date validation flattened
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Add exception? Do not find out where..
"registration: For online sources that require registration"->"For online sources that require (note, some allow to read a few articles, then not needed) registration". E.g. New Scientist, is that way, and people may not know/remember that it applies after looking up some articles. This may not even be the best example, as I'm not sure if I didn't see all of the first articles, I guess then this applies.. comp.arch (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly you want to cite a source that allows limited access after which registration is required? I would not characterize this as a free-access source. I would set yes and add a note after the citation stating that open access is limited, using link note as in . 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, limited access before registration. I'm not sure registration= is for that. I didn't check, I assume there is full access after the registration. Should such sites be labeled, as you might not need to register (that is offputting to many..) in case it's the first article at that site you are looking up. comp.arch (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If a source will require registration at some uncertain future point, it is prudent to be rid of the uncertainty by bringing that future point to the present. It is better to make an error on the side of caution. That is why it was suggested to set registration and have a link note explaining that the registration requirement may be conditional or that free access may be temporary (a source that requires registration is not considered "free" even when it gives full access. You "pay" by providing information, which makes it an exchange, not a grant).
 * Or, you can lobby here for alternative parameter renderings such as "registration may be required", etc. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

newsgroup addresses
With the changes to get url detection and validation correct, I broke the validation of newsgroup. The module makes an external link from the contents of newsgroup so:
 * comp.sys.atari.8bit

becomes

The module then tests  to see if it is valid using the same code that validates URLs. But, the order of things in a newsgroup and a URL are reversed. Where the top level of the hierarchy for a URL,  for example, comes at the end, the top level of the hierarchy for newsgroups comes at the beginning. The live module is seeing the digit in  as a malformed TLD

I've short-stopped the test so that when the scheme is, the rest of the newsgroup link must begin with a letter, may be followed by any combination of letters, digits, and dots, and must not end with a dot.

Does anyone know where the can find the real specification for newsgroup addresses?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perchance, here ? 72.43.99.130 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent! That reference led to RFC5536 §3.1.4 which does have what I want. Module modified accordingly.  Thank you.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to fix these newsgroup links: ... or should I just remove the parameter? — Wbm1058 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with the first one except that perhaps it should also include its 1994Jun29.002412.4803@rivers:
 * The second doesn't appear to be a usenet newsgroup. newsgroup is intended hold the value from the message's   header (  in the first example – see here).  The template adds the   scheme to make the complete url → news:comp.os.msdos.apps.  Freedos-devel doesn't produce a valid usenet newsgroup address so we get the error.
 * The second doesn't appear to be a usenet newsgroup. newsgroup is intended hold the value from the message's   header (  in the first example – see here).  The template adds the   scheme to make the complete url → news:comp.os.msdos.apps.  Freedos-devel doesn't produce a valid usenet newsgroup address so we get the error.


 * For the second example, perhaps should be preferred.  Of course, you can always fall back on.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Template to use for TV guides
I have access to two TV guides provided to me by my TV distributor. The first is viewable on the TV and lists "Original air date" for programs. The second is viewable online and lists "First aired" for programs. These mean the same things and the date matches up, it's just a difference in formatting.

I am trying to use both of these guides as a reference to support the original air dates of a TV program called Little Charmers on the Canadian "Treehouse" channel. You can see the shots at http://imgur.com/a/KGCdp where I wrote the key phrase overtop of the image.

The only thing is I do not know what template is best to use. A digital TV guide accessed via your TV interface is not example a "cite web" but what to call it? An encyclopedia? A report? A press release?

The online version of the guide I guess technically is on the web, but because viewing this version of the guide requires logging in (a simpler TV guide is viewable without logging in but does not convey detailed info like original air dates) it is not a URL I can simply give out to others or feed into Wayback Machine or something.

It is kind of like when someone will cite pubMed or something for a paper but the paper is only available to those who purchase it or have a subscription. Technically it is there but it is not available freely to all.

However since I took a screenshot of the program on it, I would like to convey it this way.

All I can think to do in this case is use archive-url and feed my IMGUR screenshot into that (to function as an archive) and put a simplified form of the URL in (minus my account number since that is sensitive information) as the original URL. I don't know any other way to put two URLs into a template.

Any other suggestions? 174.92.135.167 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to raise this topic at WT:TV. Editors there may be better able to assist you.  It is perfectly legitimate to cite something behind a pay or registration barrier as long as that source qualifies as WP:RS.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Regards the web citation, using imgur in such a fashion is linking to a known (albeit good-faith) copyright violation. This is not an acceptable option. Link to the page dedicated to the guide as if you were logged in, and set yes. Regards the TV citation, cite episode or cite AV media seem acceptable, but I'd defer to WP:TV as suggested.  If you can for either of these two options, see if you can find a copy of TV Guide (American TV guide booklet; not sure if there's a Canadian equivalent or if it's the same publication) for the date. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We had TV Guide (Canada) which I remember getting as a kid but it stopped publication in 2006, I think distributors only use digital guides via the TV or their website nowadays. I regret not collecting it like that guy on Seinfeld when it comes to sourcing the air dates of certain old series I love. No help in sourcing series of the last decade or so though.

Seeing as how the episode itself does not list a debut date, the guide is the only source I can think of for this since most TV reviers are only giving the Nick dates for U.S. debuts even when they debut first in Treehouse in Canada. AV media sounds closer, did not know about the subscription thing. I guess the trouble is, if someone ever goes back and checks it, even if they did have a subscription, once the episode actually airs it will not be listed and 'original air date' will not be viewable unless they know where to locate a rerun so they can click on it. This is easy enough using the 'search' function on the TV to scroll a list and find the title you're looking for but not sure how easy it would be on the website. Also there's really no specific URL it's just a basic URL where you access your subscription-based guide.

Aside from the more extensive data (original air date) the subscription-guide also goes further into the future. The non-subscrubed guide for example when I checked last night stopped at Jan 21 while the sub-based one went up to around Jan 28. Will bring it up at the TV wikiproject as suggested. I have to wonder though: is it copyvio or fair use when we are simply showing a brief snapshot of a guide verifying the air date by a distributor? 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can't do the equivalent by logging onto a website, then I think cite AV media would have to do. The postscript= parameter would outline all the steps you took to get to the information. Same issue if you have to cite content that is only accessible by an app. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of (Map) and (PDF) in Cite map
I've noticed that in Cite map, PDF format maps cited with title, map and map-url will display "(Map) (PDF)", while those that can be cited with just title and url will display "(PDF) (Map)". I would have though that the order should be consistent. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep. Fixed in the sandbox.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Evad37 &#91;talk] 13:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Cite episode - series
In Cite episode, series is required. This causes problems when it is used for one-off programmes. Please make the parameter optional. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's like citing a book's chapter without naming the title of the book, isn't it? Doesn't 'episode' imply, by definition, that it is one of a collection or series of other 'episodes'?
 * instead?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Logically, a one off programme may be considered a single-episode series; the cite episode template documentation opens with "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for television or radio programs and episodes." (my emphasis; perhaps the template would be better named as "Cite broadcast"). Furthermore,  lacks several relevant parameters. [BTW, your sig still includes the blank line, about which I've written on your talk page more than once; I've fixed this instance, but please fix it at source, per WP:LISTGAP ].  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that cite episode may be too specific (along with cite DVD notes, etc.), I wouldn't call a one off programme "a single-episode series". Any more than a book is a "single-volume series". 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it one either - nor did I. I said "Logically, a one off programme may be considered a single-episode series" (emphasis added for clarity). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone help to resolve this?? User:Trappist the monk? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is way too complicated.
There are a ton of options that aren't even related to a series like chapters. Also parameters are divided by category which makes it difficult to figure out where the parameter is that you need. Isn't there a way to link from the parameter set to its explanation? I mostly make text and grammar corrections, or add sources, so I'm not a wikification genius. I'm sure someone out there knows how to do this. As more parameters are added to Wikipedia this pages become completely overloaded with information. Soon people won't want the hassle of citations. Just saying. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand your first sentence.


 * I think that you are suggesting that we should have some sort of list of all parameters with their definitions and some mechanism to cross-reference or index by some generic term. Am I close?


 * Yes, the cs1|2 templates are complex, have a lot of parameters, and the documentation at best, is lamentable. Your help in fixing that would be much appreciated.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of the parameters do have anchors, these are normally of the form "csdoc_xxx", where xxx is the parameter name. For example: Template:Cite journal; Template:Cite magazine; Template:Cite book; Template:Cite web. Not all parameter names are covered in this way, there are too many aliases to do it sensibly. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

presentation tweaks
In Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox we keep static text, usually html and css, that is applied to various portions of the rendered citation. I have just moved the <cite ></cite> tag and COinS tag code to there from Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This change does not effect how the citations render but is merely better coding practice. Some simple comparisons without and with ref set:

comparing live metadata to sandbox metadata:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Good. Yesterday, I saw the references to the sandbox while looking at the live module code and I was a bit mystified. 65.88.88.76 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

|language= parameter internationalization
On and off I've been working with editors at other-language wikis to adapt our module suite to their needs. As part of that I have discovered that the spoof required to properly render the ISO 639-1 code  is no longer required. Calls to  now returns Norwegian as it should. I have tweaked the language support code to get the current wiki's language code and name so that languages are rendered in the local wiki's language. These examples were taken from our language parameter code at the Bosnian wiki (bs:Modul:Citation/CS1/igralište – their sandbox): the same examples here: —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * → Title (in norveški).
 * → Title (in norveški njorsk).
 * → Title (in norveški bokmal).
 * → Title (in engleski).
 * → Title.
 * → Title.
 * Neat. I'm curious: Is the "in" part of the language description coincidentally the same in Bosnian and English, or is that part not internationalized yet? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'in' part is handled by this line in bs:Modul:Citation/CS1:
 * where  is the index into the   table in bs:Modul:Citation/CS1/Configuration which contains this line:
 * replaces the  with the value of  . ("So that, as clear as is the summer's sun."—Canterbury; Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2)
 * replaces the  with the value of  . ("So that, as clear as is the summer's sun."—Canterbury; Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2)
 * replaces the  with the value of  . ("So that, as clear as is the summer's sun."—Canterbury; Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2)


 * In short, editors must translate the various static text for use in their wiki; this is one of the primary purposes of the Configuration module.


 * The Bosnian sandbox modules are slightly modified versions of the en.wiki sandboxen so that is why my examples above used 'in' and not 'jezik:'. Date validation involving dots in odd places, dots required for month abbreviations except when they're not required is the primary issue with internationalization of the modules.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing "language=cn" for China: I have been editing some Chinese text inside {cite_web}, so I needed "cn" for China as follows:
 * &rarr;
 * I'm not sure what code to use for China. Thanks again for taking time to add those major languages codes. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you follow the link in the error message, you'll get to List of ISO 639-1 codes, where you can do a find for "Chinese", which is "zh". – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cite gateway templates for French cites
The cite-gateway templates to other languages do not affect wp:CS1, but I am working on an actual {Lien_web} to auto-translate the myriad of French {Lien_web} parameters+dates into {cite_web} format. For example, our CS1 "url=" can be French "url=" (not "URL=") or "url texte=" or "lire en ligne=" to set the external link. Several new French pages have appeared here on enwiki, and I have tried to quickly hand-edit those pages, but too many wp:edit_conflicts wasted hours, and so the cite-gateway templates for French are needed to handle fr:Template:Lien_web and fr:Template:Ouvrage etc. The French also have subtitles as "sous-titre=" to append after title " : " and similar for chapter as "sous-chapitre=" among a dozen other "new" parameters. The French cites also wp:autofix dates, such as "date=July 6, 2015" on French WP will auto-translate to show typical French date "6 juillet 2015" etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:36/01:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I use an AutoEd script to make short work of copy-paste French (and other language) citation templates. I haven't been able to monitor the unsupported parameter category lately. Maybe a bot could do a daily pass through that category to translate foreign-language citations. My script should be easily portable to AWB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Access dates disappearing from citations when DOI or JSTOR etc. are set
Why?

Where was the discussion to make the non-requirement ? Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a "stable" or "fixed" http link, it makes the continuous existence of doi-broken-date incomprehensible. Please restore to previous (and discuss first). 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The text you quote was added to Help:Citation Style 1 with ; the edit summary refers to the standard documentation used by all cs1|2 templates: Template:Citation Style documentation/url
 * 2) There, the first text that approximately equates to your quote was added with . The edit summary refers to a discussion; perhaps this one.
 * 3) The text in your quote appears with and has since remained unchanged except that a hyphen was added to the parameter name.
 * 4) access-date without url is an error. Detection of that error condition first appears in Module:Citation/CS1 with . As a result of that edit, when url is not set and accessdate is set, the internal variable   is set to   and so not displayed in the rendered citation.  This functionality has not changed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first 3 points above. I am not questioning the help text. I am questioning the fact that it differs from what is actually happening. Access date is not now allowed when these identifiers are set, even though the help text does not state that. It doesn't state that is disallowed as it happens now, only that it is not required.
 * access-date without url is an error
 * This is specious. Of course there is a url, it is masked behind the identifier. This brings up a new inconsistency. Either all links may be accompanied by an access-date or none should be. And I do believe that access-date co-existed peacefully with jstor, doi, etc. until the latest update. What happened?
 * And to repeat: no link is "stable". If there is such a thing, then the parameter doi-broken-date is superfluous. Which one will it be?
 * Was there a discussion about this? I don't seem to recall any. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there wasn't a url; I said that access-date without url is an error. The requirement for access-date is that there must be a value assigned to url.


 * Here is a of the latest update to Module:Citation/CS1.  Search for this string (you should not find it in the diff but will find it in the code):
 * Test if accessdate is given without giving a URL
 * Also, for completeness, search for that string in the live module and in the . Compare the code in the two versions.  There was no change this long-standing code. (there will be next time because I'm going to clean up the extraneous   comment)


 * If access-date is to apply to the identifiers as well as to url to which should it apply in the event that there are multiple identifiers? pmid, doi, pmc, zbl, isbn, ...? For scientific and medial articles, multiple identifiers are common.  Are you suggesting that we need an access-date for each?


 * Certainly, nothing is ever perfect, so yeah, sometimes a doi breaks. I haven't spent any substantive time checking those dois with doi-broken-date to see if the broken parameter was added because the doi is truly broken or if the doi has a typo and the editor misdiagnosed the problem.  There may be editors watching this page who can speak to that.  If not, there's a research project for you.


 * I know that this access-date and identifiers topic has come up before. Search the archives of this page and you will likely find some.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to add my support for the status quo: yes, doi's sometimes don't work, but we don't want to have access dates for all the identifiers (jstor can be added to Trappist's list above), and there's absolutely no logic in having one for doi and not for the others. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Will get back to this after I have time to go through the code (not just the main module but also the subroutines). I might be wrong, but I remember access-date coexisting with doi and jstor.
 * Prior discussions on access date are somewhat convoluted and largely inconclusive as far as I can tell.
 * If access-date is to apply to the identifiers as well as to url to which should it apply in the event that there are multiple identifiers? pmid, doi, pmc, zbl, isbn, ...? For scientific and medial articles, multiple identifiers are common. Are you suggesting that we need an access-date for each?
 * Depends on the accessed version, imo. If all identifiers point to the same version, only one date is needed. If identifiers point to different versions this should be made explicit, even when the different versions support the extract of the source cited in the Wikipedia page.
 * 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Will get back to this after I have time to go through the code (not just the main module but also the subroutines)
 * Or perhaps someone would be kind enough to direct me to the module(s) and code that suppresses access-date when certain identifiers are set. I am stating "certain" because this does not happen in the case of isbn or issn for example. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Here is a nonsense template; the issn and isbn are valid but not related; there is an access date without url which gives us the '  requires   (help) ' error message and does not render the access date:
 * The meta parameter  is set to an empty string when the cs1 template is  (line 2097) and it is set to an empty string as I described above (line 2355).  That's it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, thank you.
 * Secondly, I was in error with my latest comment, and I thought I did strike it out, but I guess I didn't. I did find the routine in the main module, I quote loosely:
 * As there are several remappings, and the porting to the new modules (and also new routines such as the DF stuff), it makes this slow going on my part. I will look into them. If anything turns up I will continue at the proper page, not here.
 * Cursorily looking at Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers I don't see anything that contradicts what you say. It seems my memory was playing tricks with me. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As there are several remappings, and the porting to the new modules (and also new routines such as the DF stuff), it makes this slow going on my part. I will look into them. If anything turns up I will continue at the proper page, not here.
 * Cursorily looking at Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers I don't see anything that contradicts what you say. It seems my memory was playing tricks with me. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The behaviour is correct. You don't need accessdates with static resources like jstor, bibcodes, and dois. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I dispute there is any http link that is "static". As far as identifiers go, even ISBNs change or are reassigned. But this was not my point. I think it is confusing to consider doi stable and also include doi-broken-date as an option. The other objection was probably a mistake on my part. (I thought identifiers and access dates coexisted in the previous version). 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From the cite journal documentation: doi-broken-date: "Date the DOI was found to be non-working at http://dx.doi.org". In my experience, this parameter is most often filled in by Citation Bot when it tries to look up the DOI and fails to find data. This typically happens (a) when the DOI is not and has never been valid, or (b) when the DOI is valid but the article has not been linked to the DOI database yet, often because it is new. I can't recall coming across a DOI that used to work at dx.doi.org but has stopped working. In any event, the solution to getting it to work again is to report it to dx.doi.org or crossref.org and ask them to get it linked back up. access-date should not matter in this context, since the underlying journal article remains unchanged, unlike other web-based resources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest that broken DOIs are an everyday occurrence. But keep in mind that DOIs may link to material hosted at a 3rd party. For example, JSTOR also provides DOI links to material, sometimes in addition to JSTOR's own id scheme, sometimes not. Recently I came across a DOI for a journal's archive that was previously hosted at an information provider/aggregator. The hosting company decided to drop the journal archive, and as far as I know, nobody has picked it up yet (I did try to find out through doi.org). My original complaint (which was partly wrong) had more to do with the confusing language at WP:CS1 and the incongruous (imo) existence of doi-broken-date. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not that the http link is static. It's that the source you are citing is. If I cite, I'm referring to the article identified by the doi. This article will not change. You can come back 24 years from now and it will still be the same article. Accessdate are required for citing a web page. A scientific article is not a web page, although it may be hosted on one, so it does not require an accessdate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely, doi etc. is a identifier? And if the link is not accessible or has changed, then access to the source is affected. If the link is wrong, effectively the source has changed: it is no longer there. Then, the citation as previously formatted is unverifiable. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the responses above. The source has not changed and cannot change. It is a published journal article. access-date applies only to web-based sources whose content may change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking at a citation. It claims that something has been published in a journal. It may also claim that specific things in the article that includes the citation are in specific places at this published source. How am I to verify that? The journal may be obscure/otherwise hard to come by. If a link is given that points to a way of verifying the citation, then this is not a "convenience". It is necessary, in order to verify the claims of anonymous editors (as all Wikipedia editors are). One can reasonably say that then, and only then, do the cited claims become encyclopedic facts. For the person trying to verify all this, an inaccessible link means an inaccessible source, which makes the cited claims unverifiable. If there is an access date for a previously working link, it will give the enquiry a s suitable starting point. You can consider then whether information about the link's accessibility, state, and past history is important. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly legitimate to cite a journal article with no online link at all. The link is only a courtesy to allow readers to find the journal online. The journal title, publication date and page numbers, and other print publication data (including ISSN if it's an obscure journal that would otherwise be hard to find) are the parts that are necessary for verification. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes the legitimacy of doing the absolute minimum. Or the facility (as in ease) of adding citations that may be difficult to verify, or incorrect about the citation content, intentionally or unintentionally. This is not about the correct citation format, but about the content the citation is pointing to. Imo, the formatting guidelines (this page's parent) negatively affect verification in this case. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The access date of a mutable url is useful so that, when you look up a deadlink on archive.org, you can tell which of multiple different archived versions is the one you should be referring to. That argument is invalid for dois, because dois are not mutable: they are supposed to only ever refer to a single document, and the exceptions are rare enough that we don't need to worry about them much. In other words, this field is useless both for the binary question of whether a reference is or is not verifiable (which can be satisfied without any online link), and for the reader convenience in actually carrying out a verification (because there is no use the reader can make of the access date). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I have nothing more to add to my position as stated in the comments above. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

url again
In the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have tweaked the code in  to properly handle urls with queries (  delimiter) or fragments (  delimiter) but without paths (  delimiter) :

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Template alias Cite contribution
An alias of cite encyclopedia, and a useful one, imo. However it does not support contributor which seems counterintuitive. Any plans of adding the parameter to this? 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Repetition in Cite magazine
Cite magazine displays a duplicated for. "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for for articles in magazines and newsletters." SLBedit (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - thanks for pointing that out! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Automatic ISO conversion
Forgive me if you've heard this one before, but I didn't see in the archives. I frequently add references to articles that are in both mdy and dmy formats and it's a pain in the ass to not have a template doing the format switching for me. This is to say that I would prefer to enter  and have the template detect which format to use (either set within each individual cite web instance or by detecting some article-wide use dmy or the like). Is this possible or has it been discussed? I also ask because I'm working on a WP:Citoid browser extension. They're planning to stay in ISO 8601 and instead ask the local template creators to convert the dates, and this seems like the right choice. I use a citation manager for my more academic WP articles and it also spits out ISO format, meaning that I need to manually rewrite the dates or use  around each instance. While page date style detection would be nice, at the very least, it'd be nice to do something like  rather than changing three date instances with the date template (publication date, access date, archive date). Thoughts? czar 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js. He still hasn't implemented a "convert all dates in an article to the template version e.g. use dmy", but it's usually pretty easy to hunt that down on a page. --Izno (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is generally the case that a template cannot see the universe outside of its bounding  and   so figuring out what the page style is may not be possible.  On the otherhand, Scribuntu has this:
 * which can read the unparsed content of a page. A module can then search for a string, in this case,   (where   is   or  ).  It could then render dates according to the page style.  I can imagine, though, that this could be costly in terms of processing time or memory consumption so while doable, may not be practical for a large page with a large number of cs1|2 templates.
 * which can read the unparsed content of a page. A module can then search for a string, in this case,   (where   is   or  ).  It could then render dates according to the page style.  I can imagine, though, that this could be costly in terms of processing time or memory consumption so while doable, may not be practical for a large page with a large number of cs1|2 templates.


 * A date format parameter is certainly an option especially if Citoid is going to use a year-initial date format similar to ISO 8601. I expect that use of that tool will increase as more cs1|2 templates are created with VE which, as I understand it, makes use of Citoid.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At present, assuming we are using the cite xxx or citation templates sometimes applies to all the dates, sometimes it applies to the body of the article but not the citations, and sometimes it applies to the body and the publication dates but not the access and archive dates. (The dates that  would be YYYY-MM-DD format.) So if the templates were to detect and act on , it would be first be necessary to propose at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (with notices in other appropriate places) that Citation Style 1 and 2 be changed to make all the dates in the article follow the same format. That would be jut fine with me, but good luck getting a consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There has repeatedly been a consensus that ISO dates may be used consistently for access and archive dates, regardless of the format of other dates in the article. So it would not be possible to automate conversion of these dates. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Presumably, for the case where we create a new cs1|2 template parameter, df perhaps, and for it define certain keywords:,  ,  ,  ,  ,  .  Then, the   keywords would cause the module to apply date formatting to all dates whereas the   keywords would not reformat access- and archive-dates.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes, I really like this df solution. (I'm not really interested in pushing for new standardization right now, just to have a method of converting ISO to dmy/mdy easily in my own work.) I would recommend, though, that  rather than   default to changing all three (publication, access, archive) dates to dmy because that's how most people will use it. I suppose that would make   the option for only converting the publication date. What's the next step for this proposal?  czar  16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think a df parameter for cite xxx and citation would help. The whole idea is to have the template pick up the date format from information already in the article, rather than having a tool that adds the template figure out what date format(s) to use. So if the idea was to not standardize, and still allow the full range of options that are currently allowed, it is the use dmy and cousins that would have to change, maybe to something like  where s = all, not-cites, or pub (pub would make the scope the publication date but not the access date or archive date). Any date specified by a cite xxx or citation parameter that didn't fall within the scope would be YYYY-MM-DD format. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a page-wide solution is still on the table here. In addition to a page-wide solution, Editor Czar also suggested dmy which is more likely to be acceptable to the editor community as you pointed out.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As a test, I added this code to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:

<pre style="margin-left:14em">if not is_set (DF) then  -- if date format is not set in the template see if page has  template local text = this_page:getContent;                 -- get the page content DF = text:match ('{{%s*[Uu]se%s*([Dd][Mm][Yy])') or text:match ('{{%s*[Uu]se%s*([Mm][Dd][Yy])') or text:match ('{{%s*([Dd][Mm][Yy])') or      text:match ('{{%s*([Mm][Dd][Yy])') or ''; DF = DF:lower; end
 * The code fetches the unparsed page source and then searches for a match to any of the {{tld|use ... dates}} templates and their redirects and sets meta-parameter  to the specified format which it then sets to lowercase.


 * I checked to make sure that the code worked. It does.  My next test was to render my {{oldid|User:Trappist_the_monk/testcases|694946830|testcases}} page but without adding a {{tld|use ... dates}} template.  The testcases page bombed with lua time-out errors.  From this I conclude that this mechanism for page-wide date reformatting is impractical.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The cs1|2 date-holding parameters are: {{para|access-date}}, {{para|archive-date}}, {{para|date}}, {{para|doi-broken-date}}, {{para|embargo}}, {{para|lay-date}}, and {{para|publication-date}}.


 * Legitimate date formats are dmy, mdy, ymd, my, y, and various limited combinations of these in ranges. Except for ymd, m can be a full month name or three letter abbreviation. Also supported are seasons and certain named dates.  It would seem that for any setting of df, the module should convert valid dates to the specified format.  No conversions are done if there are any invalid dates because it simplifies things to know beforehand that the dates are in a valid format before converting them to another format.


 * Date ranges in ISO 8601-like format are not currently supported by WP:DATESNO so are not supported by cs1|2. If Citoid needs to specify a date range will it use the ISO 8601 format?  If Citoid needs to specify a season, will it use ISO 8601 format? Is there an ISO 8601 format for seasons?  What about dates outside of the Gregorian calendar; does Citoid support those?  In what format?  In a conversion, how do we specify use of abbreviated month names?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ISO 8601 date ranges can be somewhat convoluted, and imo pretty unappealing aesthetically. Auto-formatting of {{para|access-date}}, {{para|archive-date}}, and {{para|doi-broken-date}} into ISO 8601 through the discussed new parameter sounds like a good idea. For most readers, these dates would fall into the "too technical" category anyway, I think. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the Citoid dev page about those questions, but would it be all right to start with a version of df that solely converts ISO to dmy/mdy? And then add other contingencies later? I'm sure Citoid is just working these things out now so the answers will come in time. When I have publications with date ranges (which aren't supported in the template by any means, last time I checked), I just use the first date of the range (November–December 2015 becomes November 2015). czar  23:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we do this we can certainly start with just ymd→dmy|mdy.


 * cs1|2 has supported date ranges in a variety of form for a long time:
 * {{cite book |title=Title |date=November–December 2015}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} Using {{para|df}}. Keywords are:,  ,  ,  ,  ,. The module will reformat single dates among dmy, mdy, and ymd. Ranges, seasons, proper-name dates are not supported. No reformatting if there are date errors.


 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-12-20 |df=dmy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-12-20 |df=mdy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=20 December 2015 |df=mdy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=20 December 2015 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 2015 |df=dmy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1582 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=20 December 2015 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 2015 |df=dmy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1582 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 2015 |df=dmy}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1582 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1582 |df=ymd}}

{{para|access-date}} and {{para|archive-date}} are not converted unless the  suffix is used with the {{para|df}} keyword:
 * {{cite web/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |date=2010-12-20 |access-date=2012-07-14 |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2011-06-04 |df=dmy}}
 * {{cite web/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |date=2010-12-20 |access-date=2012-07-04 |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2011-06-04 |df=dmy-all}}
 * {{cite web/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |date=2010-12-20 |access-date=2012-07-04 |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2011-06-04 |df=dmy-all}}
 * {{cite web/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |date=2010-12-20 |access-date=2012-07-04 |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2011-06-04 |df=dmy-all}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (meta comment) It seems odd that there is no intra-article global variable facility. That would make this and other intra-article consistency a relative snap. Has it been established that such a facility has insurmountable technical obstacles? If not, perhaps we'd be better off, in the long run, putting our energies into helping that happen? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , would you be opposed to swapping →  (or -single) and  → ? I think   should default to changing all instances, as that will be the most likely use case.  czar  05:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The  suffix is, I think, very clearly understood to mean exactly what it does.  A   suffix pretty clearly applies to {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} but not so clear for {{para|doi-broken-date}}, {{para|embargo}}, and {{para|lay-date}}.  We must be able to accommodate WP:DATEUNIFY which allows access- and archive-dates in ymd format when all other dates are dmy or mdy so some mechanism is required to support that.  I'm not opposed to changing but I do like the very clear an unambiguous nature of  .  Is there a better option than  ?


 * While we're thinking about keywords, right now, the module unconditionally reformats to long month names. Do we need to have a mechanism to specify abbreviated month names? (supported in the module but currently hard-coded to reformat to long month names)


 * What about the case where {{para|access-date}} or {{para|archive-date}} is in a format different from the format specified in {{para|df}} and that format is not ymd:
 * {{para|access-date|Mmmm dd, yyyy}} and {{para|df|dmy}}
 * Should the module reformat {{para|access-date}} to ymd?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * {{tq|Should the module reformat {{para|access-date}} to ymd?}}
 * Even though I consistently use ymd for {{para|access-date}} and the like, I would not like to see any default formatting implemented without more inclusive discussion. To avoid possible future headaches. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When I asked {{tq|Should the module reformat {{para|access-date}} to ymd?}} I meant it to be understood to mean reformat {{para|access-date}} and/or {{para|archive-date}} when present and using a date format different from ymd and different from the format specified in {{para|df}}. So, if {{para|access-date|March 15, 2001}} and {{para|df|dmy}}, should the module reformat {{para|access-date|2001-03-15}}?  I asked this because WP:DATEUNIFY says that dates should be the same format except that access- and archive-dates may be in ymd format as long as the other dates are consistent. WP:DATEUNIFY does not allow for a mix of dmy and mdy dates.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If Citoid actually follows ISO 8601, they would format the date for the December issue of a 2011 magazine as 2011-12, which defies the Citing sources guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And also WP:MOSDATE. --Izno (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally wonder if this change is problematic from the Date formatting and linking poll perspective. --Izno (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What change? The additions of {{para|df}} and its attendant code?  Reformatting {{para|access-date}} and/or {{para|archive-date}} as I described in my reply to IP Editor 72.43.99.130?  Automatic reformatting to comply with the {{tlx|use dmy dates}} family of templates?  All or combinations of the above?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What changes would I find troublesome?
 * Making any change outside of a sandbox until either Citoid developers provide a citation that can be made to obey WP:Citing sources and Help:Citation Style 1, or the community agrees to make the necessary changes to "WP:Citing sources" and "Help:Citation Style 1".
 * Any change that would make existing hand-edited templates incorrect or confusing, such as one that uses 2011–12 to mean 2011 through 2012. (And neither editors nor readers are expected to be able to distinguish "–" from "-".
 * The citation or cite xxx templates converting Gregorian dates to Julian dates because a publication bears a Julian publication date and ISO 8601, which Citoid has apparently adopted, always uses Gregorian dates.
 * In view of the fact that Citoid is only handy for a limited range of citations, those with an identifier that it can use to generate a citation, and it is part of a high-risk project (Visual Editor) that may end up being a total flop, I'm inclined to think it's up to Citoid to find a way to work with the existing citation system, rather than altering the existing citation system to work with Citoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 22 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * {{ping|Jc3s5h|p=}}, Citoid is only part of this. Even without Citoid, my citation manager (and most publisher RIS data I've found) exports dates in ISO format. This is about accommodating those formats instead of rewriting dates manually. czar  08:10, 22 December |2015 (UTC)
 * Please tell us (or me) more about your citation manager. In the mean time, we're still talking about a manual step; the editor adding the citation must look at the article, figure out the date format in general, and specifically the citation format for publication dates and the group access dates and archive dates, and add the proposed df parameter. I'm skeptical that this step will be performed. So I think we'll remain where we are today; people who would like consistent style in articles will have to run various scripts or bots to enforce such consistency, independent of editors who add content with no concern for consistent style, whether the new content be infoboxes, citations, or paragraphs in the body of the article.Jc3s5h (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Czar}} I see that we have an article about RIS (file format) which in turn links to this specification. Considering that the specification allows for "Ancient Text" and that there is no mention of ISO 8601 or Julian or Gregorian calendar, and that the earliest supported year appears to be 1, we should infer that so long as dates were originally expressed either in the Julian or Gregorian calendar, whatever date appeared in the publication should appear in the citation, and it is up to the reader to figure out from context which calendar was used. The date format is NOT ISO 8601; the following are examples of RIS date formats:
 * YYYY or
 * YYYY/MM or
 * YYYY/MM/DD or
 * YYYY/MM/DD/other info
 * If Citoid intends to rely on the RIS data, it would be a falsification to blindly convert YYYY/MM/DD to ISO 8601 format (that is, to just change the slashes to dashes without considering what the calendar is). Such falsifications are intolerable and Citoid must be banned if it persists in such falsifications.
 * If Citoid isn't willing to output the correct format for the article, it should output the RIS format (but completely suppress dates with "other info"). The templates could require that citations with slashes in the date contain a df parameter; any citation with slashes in the date and no rf parameter would be displayed with red warnings replacing the date. As for Citoid's plan to eventually use WikiData, the developers should demand WikiData provide a date type that is agnostic about whether the date is Julian or Gregorian, and agnostic about the time zone, since the RIS format is agnostic about these matters. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was intended for Editor Izno, but I'll answer your points:
 * nothing we do here can compel Citoid developers to do anything; the code supporting {{para|df}} specifically requires all date-holding parameters to be error-free before those values are reformatted to the format specified in {{para|df}}
 * nothing in this change overrides an editor's decisions; hand-edited templates without {{para|df}} are rendered as is, warts, error messages and all; the module cannot rewrite wikitext
 * this change does not convert dates from one calendar to another; {{para|df}} only specifies how the date is rendered; cs1|2 emits an error message for dates in the YYYY-MM-DD style where YYYY is earlier than 1582 so for such a template {{para|df}} is ignored
 * Your post caused me to realize that there is a bug in the YYYY-MM-DD error checking code that emits and error message when {{para|date|1582-MM-DD}}. I have fixed that in the sandbox.  The current version of the {{para|df}} code will improperly reformat a dmy or mdy Julian date into ymd.  I'll fix that.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Trappist the monk}} It is correct to flag all YMD dates with a year less than 1583 as an error. The rational behind the error message is that many readers will infer that YMD dates are ISO 8601 dates, and ISO 8601 requires consent of data exchange partners before expressing any year less that 1583. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this discussion we first addressed the issue of Gregorian and Julian calendars. In that discussion, the demarcation between the two is 1582.  The documentation at Help:Citation Style 1 and Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... refers to 1582.


 * In this version of ISO 8601 (I don't have access to a current copy), 1582 is mentioned four times; 1583, none:
 * §3.11 Gregorian calendar – "... introduced in 1582 ..."
 * §4.3.2.1 The Gregorian calendar (2×) – "The use of this calendar for dates preceding the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (i.e. before 1582) should only be done by agreement of the partners in information interchange."
 * §5.2.1 Calendar date – "Values in the range [0000] through [1582] shall only be used by mutual agreement of the partners in information interchange." (this seems to conflict with the others)
 * The Acceptable date formats table mentions 1583. Our Gregorian calendar article identifies 1582 as the year of introduction and also as the year of adoption by several countries.


 * For cs1|2, Julian or Gregorian only matters when determining the validity of a 29 February date.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When {{para|df|ymd}} and the year portion of the source date is earlier than 1582, dates are not reformatted:
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1582 |df=ymd}}
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1581 |df=ymd}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 20, 1581 |df=ymd}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What about this:
 * {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=February 24, 1582 |df=ymd}}
 * That is before the Gregorian calendar went into effect.
 * As for cs1|2 not carrying about dates other than February 29, the templates issue the "Check date values in: |date=" error message for dates earlier than 1 January 1583 if they are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, and should continue to do so because cs1|2 dates are supposed to comply with MOS:DATEFORMAT which says "Use yyyy-mm-dd format only with Gregorian dates from 1583 onward." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that MOS:DATEFORMAT is wrong. The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 so MOS:DATEFORMAT should permit 1582 ymd dates.  You're right, cs1|2 also cares about ymd dates earlier than 1582.  It has never cared about the exact date of adoption; neither has MOS:DATEFORMAT.
 * As for cs1|2 not carrying about dates other than February 29, the templates issue the "Check date values in: |date=" error message for dates earlier than 1 January 1583 if they are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, and should continue to do so because cs1|2 dates are supposed to comply with MOS:DATEFORMAT which says "Use yyyy-mm-dd format only with Gregorian dates from 1583 onward." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that MOS:DATEFORMAT is wrong. The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 so MOS:DATEFORMAT should permit 1582 ymd dates.  You're right, cs1|2 also cares about ymd dates earlier than 1582.  It has never cared about the exact date of adoption; neither has MOS:DATEFORMAT.


 * I think that this is a minor issue because: in general, numeric date formats are not much used in article text; because publication dates in citations, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, are supposed follow article date format or the format specified by a particular citation style; because MOS:DATEUNIFY permits ymd dates in access- and archive-dates, which both require {{para|url}} so cannot be meaningful earlier than the late 20th century. A simple insource: search using this pattern , found no cs1|2 citations using ymd dates for the 1580s.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read Fred Brook's The Mythical Man Month you would have seen that the IBM System/360 Principles of Operation (or whatever it was called at the time) served as a contract between the operating system developers and the hardware developers. A hardware developer wasn't allowed to decide that a required machine instruction wasn't the best way to do it, and build hardware that did something else. I think MOS:DATEFORMAT should serve as a contract among readers, editors, and template developers. Templates should act like one would expect after reading MOS:DATEFORMAT, regardless if the template developer has some quibbles with MOS:DATEFORMAT. Among other things, this gives template developers an idea of what templates might need to change if MOS:DATEFORMAT changes. If this "contract" is ignored, and MOS:DATEFORMAT, the attitude will be "the templates are all over the map anyway, we'll just continue to ignore the mess". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have moved your comment out of my comment.


 * Of course, were this a hierarchical engineering department where nothing changes without there are reams of paperwork requesting approval from on high, then perhaps such a scheme as you describe might apply. Wikipedia is clearly not a hierarchical organization so there is no 'authority' vested in MOS:DATEFORMAT.  We, among ourselves, decide.  But you know all of this so I needn't restate it here.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * {{tq|i=y|Please tell us (or me) more about your citation manager.}} I use Zotero. Its default WP citation export defaults to ymd (I call this ISO because it's close enough, even if it's not exactly the spec) instead of dmy/mdy, which I think is fair enough. (I looked into this.) My options are to either write a custom WP citation style for each date format (dmy/mdy), which I think would be overkill, or to manually use {{tl|date}} on each ymd date it spits out (which I would consider a very clunky solution). I don't think it matters that my citation matter ingests slashes between dates and converts them to dashes. All that matters is that I get my dates into the right date format for the article with less effort than I need to exert right now. czar  15:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Czar}}Thanks, I have used Zotero too; I wasn't sure if you writing about a citation manager you use, or a citation manager you were creating. I'm sure there are many editors who never refer to any publication printed long enough ago that the publication date would be in the Julian calendar, and who feel no need to think about the possibility of non-Gregorian dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Trappist the monk|Jc3s5h|p=}}, what's the next step in moving ahead with this basic {{para|df}} param that converts ymd → dmy/mdy (or vice versa, if you want to support it)? I think the other discussions can be worthwhile but I don't see them changing this basic functionality, and since it's apparently already coded in the /new template, I'd like to use it and get back to editing ASAP. czar  16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not much happens all that quickly here, so perhaps you are destined for disappointment. Because it is the time for year's-end holidays, we may not have the eyeballs that normally keep us from going too far astray.  The owners of those eyeballs should be given the opportunity to have their say.  Assuming that there isn't implacable opposition, this change will probably go live sometime around mid-January 2016.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Trappist the monk|p=}}, how about now? czar  08:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Trappist the monk|p=}}, {{ping|Whatamidoing (WMF)|p=}} responded to some of your questions at MediaWiki czar  03:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what I wanted to write at that conversation. It didn't come out right.  Apparently that flow thing is not ready for primetime:
 * cs1|2 supports a subset of date formats allowed by the various sections of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates.2C_months_and_years of which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges is a portion. DATESNO is a term often (mis)used to refer to the dates portion of that MOS page because it is a redirect to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. cs1|2 compliance with MOS is specified at Help:Citation_Style_1.


 * cs1|2 do not support ISO 8601-like date-range-formats because MOS only supports YYYY-MM-DD single-date style. At present, cs1|2 will emit an error message if given a YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD range.


 * It is very common for periodicals to date issues according to season. How does Citoid report those dates?  What about dates that are proper names?  cs1|2 allows Christmas YYYY as a date because there are periodicals that use that date.  How does Citoid report that kind of date?


 * I don't know how Citoid gets its dates. If Citoid only works with on-line publications where the date of the cited material is guaranteed to be Gregorian, then there is no issue.  But, if Citoid can report dates in the Julian calendar then that may or may not be a problem.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The citoid service copies the date from the webpage that it is given. There are "translators" that tell citoid where the date is on the webpage.  Originally, if the translator said that the date on Example.Com is two inches to the left of the first picture (or whatever the machine-reading equivalent of that is), then citoid returned whatever was two inches to the left of the first picture as the "date".  When feasible, that's now being turned into a standard date format.  When not feasible, then you get whatever is in the field that is labeled as a date according to the translator, including "Christmas YYYY" or "Second week of January 2015" or whatever (including foreign languages).  Finally, if the date field is empty on the page, or the page has been re-designed and the translator hasn't been updated with information about the new HTML label for the date, then you'll get nothing (e.g., probably csmonitor.com at the moment; that website used to return dates right down to the second, but now URLs there aren't returning dates at all).
 * With the exception of scanned hard copies of old periodicals or books, I would be surprised if you managed to find a URL to a reliable source whose date is before the creation of the world wide web, and astonished if you managed to find one that used the Julian calendar but shouldn't be listed according to the date printed in the publication. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the extent to which Citoid is currently implemented in the visual editor, but I tried the visual editor (without saving cnanges) and found that I had a choice of "Automatic" or "Manual" tabs. If one chooses the manual tab, there is no requirement to include a URL and the date is free-form. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can also fill out a citation template under the Manual tab. The "favorites" are listed there, but if you go to "Basic", you can insert any template you want (or use regular text, exactly as if you were typing the bibliographical details straight into the article). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that we never resolved the,  ,  ,  ,  ,   situation. My preference would be to have,  ,   default to converting all three dates, because I would think continuity between all three is the common usage. So to accommodate those who do mdy/dmy for the pub date and ymd for the access/archive dates, we could use  and. I think that would be fair. {{ping|Trappist the monk|p=}} czar  02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't {{para|df|dmy-ymd}} imply the possibility of {{para|df|dmy-mdy}} or even {{para|df|dmy-dmy}} or that date ranges could be formatted as 1 January 2016 – 2016-01-11. Yeah, I know, that last seems a bit of a stretch but editors are amazingly creative when it comes to misinterpreting how parameters are to be used.  I guess I think that {{para|df|dmy-all}} is to be preferred because of its simple clarity.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Trappist the monk|p=}}, I expect there to be much greater confusion when {{para|df|dmy}} converts a single field instead of all fields. While it's nice to support editor choice to use ymd for the access/archive dates, it's far more common to see the same format used throughout the citation. Anyone looking for dmy-ymd (and who is familiar with that rule) will not be confused by that option, which they would expect to not be the default, but those who want dmy throughout will be confused when their param only changes the first of three dates. Eh? If I am unconvincing, a potential compromise could be to not use unhyphenated  at all and only use   and   or something along those lines. Appreciate your help with this  czar  21:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * {{tq|it's far more common to see the same format used throughout the citation}} – I've no idea what the situation is across the English Wikipedia as a whole, but in areas that I edit, YYYY-MM-DD seems to me at least as common for access/archive dates, if not more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine a tracking cat could get metrics on this, if necessary czar  05:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Trappist the monk|p=}}, thoughts? And as much as I don't like the proposed param scheme, I'd really like to start using this param (in any form) as soon as possible, if that implementation is still scheduled to go through czar  05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This went live 16 January 2016 as announced.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Allowing blank parameters
Has anyone figured how to get the Lua code to accept blank parameters such as empty "&#124; &#124;" so it would not trigger unnamed-parameter category? It took me hours to realize that error condition, after they omit "url=" at "|http...." how a lone newline "{cite_web| |...}" also triggered as a parameter with no '=' in the parameter. Everything is considered an error now (date "Feb." or "April/May" invalid??), and cite templates almost unusable now. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is fixed now, so a blank parameter can have a newline without triggering the unnamed-param category, but the hidden error categories do not update until after an edit is saved. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The code was updated about ten days ago. It can take weeks for the job queue to refresh all of the articles to remove them from or add them to categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pages with reference errors
Does anyone know what errors put a page into Category:Pages with reference errors? List of Mystery Dungeon video games (and several others on my cleanup list) are in it, but nothing obvious is jumping out at me. I know you can get it by putting a " " inside of a list-defined reference list, but that's not present here. -- Pres N  19:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That one is most often added by MediaWiki. Most commonly among those cases, it's for the case where a named referenced is defined twice. I tried purging the article but it didn't seem to work, and for me also, nothing is jumping out. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly, here. Because  are inside a template (reflist), and some of the query strings include =, mainly for page numbers? An example would be
 * 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Help:Cite errors, which might help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After about an hour spent chopping bits out of the article and previewing, I eventually realised that List of Mystery Dungeon video games contained two different references named "MDSW1SNES". It is very unhelpful that there is no error message for this case. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is normal for an error to be displayed in this case, and were I to hazard a guess, the error is not displayed because the references are list-defined. Might be worth opening a Phabricator task for it. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for finding out what it was! Sorry you spent so long on it. I had discounted that possibility since I knew an error message popped up for it, though I guess just for non list-defined refs. -- Pres N  04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for finding out what it was! Sorry you spent so long on it. I had discounted that possibility since I knew an error message popped up for it, though I guess just for non list-defined refs. -- Pres N  04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in my spare microseconds, noticed duplicate wp:reftag names are allowed under {Reflist|refs=} and no error msg upon edit-preview, but good to know triggered error category. The cite templates also categorize as unnamed parameter for blank "&#124; &#124;" but no msg there either. Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've filed a task at phab:T125074. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reason for the absence of the error message, is that it should be obvious to the contributor, i.e. the inline ref links will target the first anchor with the same name, and group all the invocations to the first reference with the particular name (WP:REFNAME). I suppose it is up to the contributor to notice that the inline links ignore the second named reference with the same anchor name before s/he commits the contribution. Not that an error message would be unhelpful. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Support for ArchiveURL ?
"Unknown parameter |ArchiveURL= ignored (|archiveurl= suggested)" WT? Good practice is to be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you produce. See Robustness principle. It seems the sandbox version supports ArchiveURL differently from the live version. Can't believe that, even where the URL includes the date, we're still spitting out "Error: If you specify |archiveurl=, you must also specify |archivedate=." :-( (Redirected here from Template talk:Cite web) Is the issue what User:SMcCandlish mentioned - a couple user "who effectively totally control these templates"? -- Elvey (t•c) 16:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The former ("ArchiveURL" etc.) by design (not least since it eases cleanup bots' work), the latter ("date in URL") because there is no sensible way for the citation to spit out the date. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * not all archived urls contain a date. If you can tell me what the date is for http://www.webcitation.org/68kPptKW6 then we can talk. (For the record, it was archived on June 27, 2012).  Imzadi 1979  →   17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I use the "cached" date as the archivedate. In this case, it's June 28, 2012.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True. And less ambitiously: You can't parse the date out of the archiveurls that do contain a date (which I think are the majority)?  Surely you jest.-- Elvey (t•c) 02:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You both missed the point. You can't parse a date out of a URL that doesn't have an embedded date, and I think it is quite beyond the scope of a template to retrieve an external webpage and parse that to return the archive date. Even if we attempted to parse URLs for dates, there would be a variety of formats in which they're embedded. In short, they need to be manually specified. (And with time zone differences, the date could be shifted slightly in any case.)  Imzadi 1979  →  02:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)