Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 21

"CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" error
There is a discussion on ill concerning an interaction between editor, editors and ill. It can be accessed here. Simply put, use of ill in the editor field is generating errors unless the plural form is used - which is wrong for a single editor. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As Tom.Reding remarked in that talk page (Template talk:Interlanguage link), editor and similar should not be used to insert links of any kind. His suggestion of using editor-link seems the way to go. I also believe that the resulting categorization issues could be resolved. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * causes fr to land in (and the same for editor parameters) because when   is rendered and the result handed to Module:Citation/CS1 it looks like this:
 * Only a small bit of that is the author name. The module sees the three semicolons which is one of the signs that there might be multiple author names in a singular author parameter.  Use of  in author will corrupt the citation's metadata and it was for that reason that I added the not-COinS-safe template to the  documentation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would foreign-wiki author/editor-links be trackable in some way (other than a database/insource search for ), similar (or identical) to ill's tracking Category:Interlanguage link template link number?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To whom is that question addressed? If to me, then my answer is: it could.  But I would return a question to you: why should it?  Very brief searches for categories identifying pages with interwiki or inter-language links (the normal kind, not those associated with ) turned up nothing.  That doesn't mean that there aren't such categories, just that in my quick look, I didn't find any.  If there are, great, perhaps we could use them.  If not, then what is the purpose served by creating a new category for these links?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would guess that, as foreign wikilinks became available in/translated to the native wiki, someone would want to change the author-link or editor-link to the native wikilink. That would be one purpose of a tracking category. I haven't really been involved with inter-wiki things, so maybe or others can enumerate other use cases. I'm just trying to retain the functionality of what Martin was trying to do; whether or not that's preferable by the community is a question idk the answer to.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be accurate I only got drawn into this when I picked up on Dcirovic changed "ed" to "eds" on a couple of pages I'd worked on. Dcirovic told me that reverting to ed caused an error, which is how I became involved.  I'm not actually sure who put in the ill templates since I assume Dcirovic was just finding a workaround for that error.  Tom's suggestion seems fine to me, but you really need to track down whoever inserted the template in the first place. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would guess that, as foreign wikilinks became available in/translated to the native wiki, someone would want to change the author-link or editor-link to the native wikilink. That would be one purpose of a tracking category. I haven't really been involved with inter-wiki things, so maybe or others can enumerate other use cases. I'm just trying to retain the functionality of what Martin was trying to do; whether or not that's preferable by the community is a question idk the answer to.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be accurate I only got drawn into this when I picked up on Dcirovic changed "ed" to "eds" on a couple of pages I'd worked on. Dcirovic told me that reverting to ed caused an error, which is how I became involved.  I'm not actually sure who put in the ill templates since I assume Dcirovic was just finding a workaround for that error.  Tom's suggestion seems fine to me, but you really need to track down whoever inserted the template in the first place. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Found them (for Timeline of Liège & Timeline of Bruges)! (and anyone else here), since de should instead be written :de:Gerhard Dohrn-van Rossum (see fix), the tracking performed by ill via Category:Interlanguage link template link number is lost. Do you (or anyone else here) wish it be retained in some way, say, via a tracking category?

For reference, I find 62 pages with {{para|author| {{ill }}, and 23 pages with {{para|editor| {{ill }}, which boil down to 80 uniques (that I will soon correct to the appropriate format). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * {{Done}}. ~332 pages with {{para|(author{{!}}editor)-link|:[a-z][a-z]:}} now.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think \s works as you intend. Kanguole 23:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? I intend to capture potential whitespace surrounding  via , which the query does.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In, the backslash escapes the 's'; the splat says match 0 or more of those.  I suspect that if you look through the search results, you won' find any spaces where the   (in 'real' regex) would find them.  I would write that search:
 * which returns a few more hits.
 * I don't think that cirrus search supports any of the character classes so you have to make your own with square brackets –  instead of , etc.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a hit (1 hit) for {{nowrap|" {{=}} "}} in my query (American and British English spelling differences), which is findable through gedit's regex, buuuut it only showed up because a no-space counterpart also exists on the same page. And I find 56 {{nowrap|" {{=}} "}} with your much better query, with 398 overall. I guess I'll learn the idiosyncrasies of cirrus search eventually... Until then, thanks {{U|Kanguole}}, and thanks again Trappist.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a hit (1 hit) for {{nowrap|" {{=}} "}} in my query (American and British English spelling differences), which is findable through gedit's regex, buuuut it only showed up because a no-space counterpart also exists on the same page. And I find 56 {{nowrap|" {{=}} "}} with your much better query, with 398 overall. I guess I'll learn the idiosyncrasies of cirrus search eventually... Until then, thanks {{U|Kanguole}}, and thanks again Trappist.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

cite arxiv tweak
yields the following

That's because the logic expect either author or last/first to be there, otherwise it display this message. The template should be updated accordingly (not show the "a bot will fix this soon" message / not categorize in Category:Articles_with_missing_Cite_arXiv_inputs).

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were moving away from authors for a variety of reasons. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the error shouldn't be "a bot will complete this citation", because no bots handles converting authors to not authors. If anything, it should be one of those red "authors is deprecated" messages, which categorize the article in the appropriate category. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added authors to the list of parameters not supported by and modified  so that if all of its authors are listed in authors, if will not solicit the bot but instead call the module and have the module render the appropriate error messages:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to mention specifically that its authors that is not supported / say that authors is deprecated? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * authors is discouraged but not deprecated. Before it is deprecated we need to find a way to deal with its aliases (people, host, credits) which, in use, often include role descriptors (director, producer, third assistant sycophant, etc) mostly used in.
 * As the code is currently written, it is not possible to add the offending parameter to the error message. One of my long-standing TODOs is to find a better way of determining if  is written with parameters not supported by the template.  When I find that solution, I'll add the unsupported parameter name to the error message.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a parameter like director could be made, which could append  at the correct location in the rendered author-list?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be easier to add aliases to author (and perhaps editor). The role could then be appended depending on the alias used. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Work
What is the work parameter for? Could someone please list it in the Parameters section of the documentation for me? Hyacinth (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * work is documented, such as that is, in Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, and Template:Cite journal. Also see Help:Citation Style 1.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2016
Hi.

This is an edit request for Module:Citation/CS1. The aim of this edit request is to implement the May 2016 consensus. I have already tested this request via [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=731009914&oldid=730336976 Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_web/sandbox&diff=731012176&oldid=695387909 Template:Cite web/sandbox], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_news/sandbox&diff=731012169&oldid=646033211 Template:Cite news/sandbox], the result of which you can see at.

Please locate the following code at lines 2956–2995:

...and replace it with:

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that real life can stay out of the way for long enough, I intend give advance notice that changes accumulated since the last live update will be incorporated into the live module over the weekend of 30–31 July. This change will be part of that.


 * Additional test cases in Editor Jonesey95's sandbox at Special:Permalink/724937035.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved the parentheses that wrap publication-date into Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. This changes the line:


 * to:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Advise on citing EI2
I want to cite an article on Encyclopedia of Islam titled Safawids. I'm just having trouble on the title and series

As far as I'm aware is this correct. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The only thing that I would change is in the 2nd author's name: de Bruijn and J.T.P.. The "de" like "von" or "van" refers to the last name, and should be part of that field. Btw, this template's doc is particularly confusing when it comes to distinctions between the work, the article within the work, and the wikilinks applying to both. The sections are the worst offenders. And this site is an encyclopedia to begin with. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, there seems to be an ISBN-13 for this, which is preferred (ISBN 9789004098343). 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Citation Style 1 but there are a number of problems here. Aa77zz (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The title page of the volume gives the editors as: C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs and G. Lecomte (see here)
 * The page numbers within the volume should be specified: pages=765-793
 * The author A. Welch (Antony Welch, University of Victoria) uses only a single initial.
 * It would help the reader to include a link to the scan on the Internet Archive available here (using chapter-url=)
 * I agree that it is sensible to list all the authors together - although the actual article specifies an author for each section of the article.


 * There's no mention of chapter-url in the template's doc. To add to the confusion, url links the article ("chapter") not the encyclopedia ("work") unlike other cs1 templates. 64.134.100.193 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * url links the title of the article:




 * Better? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. As pointed out above, it is chapter-url that should link the in-source location fragment (the article). url is supposed to link the enclosing source (work), in this case, the encyclopedia. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The cite encyclopedia documentation explains: "title: Title of source. Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both." I have fixed an error in the portion of the documentation that describes encyclopedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help guys, now I am working on fixing it, by changing the names and adding the number of pages and utilizing ISBN-13. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Title punctuation suggestion
The same way that

detects the single quotes in title so that it can space accordingly, I think it would be a good idea to detect whether the title ends in punctuation so that it may omit the period that follows the title's double quotes. czar 04:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A long-standing issue that is rather difficult to solve because, as the code is currently written, separators are added to citation elements in multiple places and in multiple ways. Sometimes the code adds a separator to the beginning of a citation element; sometimes it adds the separator to the end.  Previous attempts to solve this problem have not been successful.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A Meta discussion on the difference between via and publisher
A discussion at Meta, about the Citoid tool, may be of interest, and of relevance for how to better document these parameters. I'm not sure how to wikilink a Flow "Topic" like that, so the URL to it is https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:T8bcw7u9sdu65a4y with a title of "Confusing publisher and via parameters?". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You wikilink it the same way as a normal link: mw:Topic:T8bcw7u9sdu65a4y. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Cite journal: "subscription=no" should show "public access" or similar?
I've suggested in Template talk:Subscription required that "subscription not required" should be supported both as a separate template and as a "subscription=no" parameter in Cite journal. As this topic is common to Subscription required and this one, I'd suggest that it be discussed there rather than here, to keep the discussion in one place.

While I suggest in the Subscription required Talk page that no in Cite journal should generate text such as "(public access)", I think that as an interim measure (or permanent if my suggestion is not accepted) that no which at present generates an error message in Cite journal, should be silently ignored.

Regarding this template specifically, I've edited Template:Citation Style documentation/registration to add "Setting no or no is not ignored, but generates an error message." Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See this discussion.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Trappist the monk. Already (hopefully) in progress. Maybe it would be a good idea not to treat no as an error, but (for now) to ignore it? (Just a suggestion, don't bother to reply). Pol098 (talk) (re-inventor of the wheel) 14:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Great to see that there's interest in the issue! But the current registration and subscription seem to be redundant with the more granular system we are implementing. I wonder whether we should think about migrating these parameters to the new subscription / registration / … ? It's not easy to automate this because if there are multiple outgoing links in the source, we don't know which one they apply to. − Pintoch (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response. A single access makes a lot of sense as it replaces and expands multiple mutually exclusive options covering the same aspect. I suppose registration and subscription would have to be kept as undocumented options to support existing text. But I'm no authority on this and am not aware of the tricks and traps of templates that affect thousands of articles. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox transclusions
A lot (2000-3000) of pages transclude the /sandbox's, e.g. see https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Citation/CS1/sandbox&namespace=828#bottom Christian75 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The problem was caused by a cut and paste error I made when I updated .  That has been  so the number of transclusions should decline as the pages work their way through the job queue.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Separator added before short volume names/numbers
In troubleshooting the publisher parentheses coding above, I noticed that short volume numbers, which are bolded (per our documentation – if you want to start a conversation about that, please create a separate section), did not have a separator (typically a period aka full stop) preceding them, leading to inconsistent formatting. I have attempted to force the template to display a separator before all volume numbers by modifying the sandbox code. Please let me know if I have made any errors or introduced any problems, or if you object to this change. It is easy to undo. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I tweaked this so that the bold and non-bold versions use similar code forms.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured there was a more elegant way to do it, but I don't know enough Lua code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured there was a more elegant way to do it, but I don't know enough Lua code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are XLII and XLIII bolded differently? That makes no sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From the template documentation: "volumes of four characters or less display in bold." I don't remember the rationale, if there is one. You might search the archives of this page. It doesn't make sense to me either. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As it was suggested when this "improvement" was applied, either bold all instances of volume, or none. This simple explanation was too much for some people, and apparently, it still is. 100.33.37.109 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * But this is wrong when no publisher/location is given. The standard style for a journal to have the name of the journal immediately followed by the volume, without any punctuation. I now get a comma in CS2 and a full stop in CS1, which is just plain wrong.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions about descriptions of "publisher" and about "via" parameters
Both my questions refer to text under the Help:Citation_Style_1 section.

"publisher" parameter: It says it "should not be included for mainstream newspapers or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work/site/journal/etc." and has examples where the ""publisher" parameter should be omitted". I'm confused about the last one:
 * "|newspaper=USA Today and |publisher=Gannett Company"


 * How does that example show that the "publisher" should be omitted?

"via" parameter: It says ..."or if(!) the deliverer requests attribution". Zeniff (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the "(!)" mean?
 * Best to ask, who added it nearly three years ago in . -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Zeniff
 * You seem to have answered your own question: According to the text you quoted, publisher should not be included in two cases:
 * "for mainstream newspapers"
 * "where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work/site/journal/etc."
 * USA Today is an example of #1.
 * As for "(!)", the writer mean convey that he would be surprised that what is written after "if" ever comes to pass. IMHO, it is editorializing. Feel free to remove it if you wish.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely, User:Lisa - you have devined my meaning ;) User:Redrose64 - I've removed it. I've only seen a content deliverer request attribution once, and that was in their initial offer of free research access to Wikipedia editors. It would be easier for editors if such deliverers would be explicit on their content pages, or next to them. --Lexein (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Lisa ≠ User:Codename Lisa. Also, we have an admin called Liz. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that "should not be included for mainstream newspapers" is relatively new, and I'm glad to see it. I see publisher often being used as a synonym for work or its aliases, and this will put an end to that. Thank you, somebody. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so new; that text was added with.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my memory was fuzzy on the publisher thing. I guess a lot of the problem remains, come to think of it, given that the doc still gives no guidance for what to do when the same name could be seen as either a work/website or a company-hence-publisher. This goes beyond mainstream newspapers, e.g. CNN. Unlike trivial disputes like website-vs-newspaper, this actually affects what readers see. But never mind for now. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  14:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)\
 * via really should be removed from the templates. It's pointless clutter that serves no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That would need to be discussed with The Wikipedia Library, as they seem to have promised its use to their partners ( and guidance for particular partners, such as HighBeam). On the other hand, they also say that partnership is not "[a]n agreement to advertise the resource services beyond what is normally done for the use of any source" . Kanguole 16:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The misuse of publisher is because some people don't know the difference between publication and publisher. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it is a constant source of irritation that in "cite news" people keep putting the name of the newspaper or magazine under "publisher" instead of under "work" or "newspaper". When they do that, the name of the publication doesn't appear in italics, which the name of a publication always should. Is there really nothing we can do about this? -- Alarics (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My one attempt to get a consensus that would support a doc change/clarification was met with a distinct "meh". Maybe the problem was that it was on this page rather than somewhere more public. Or maybe we just need to RfC it from here. I'm down for that—if someone else wants to do it! Just do it right, per WP:RFC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I attempted to resolve this issue by writing User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers and linking to it in my edit summaries once in a blue moon. The result has been positive so far. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * via is a good thing, IMHO, to indicate where an online source was obtained when it's not from the original publisher. Yes, that means we credit some various republishers like those databases.  Imzadi 1979  →  22:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * publisher: Okay, then for #1, because "USA Today" is a mainstream newspaper, it does not even need the "Gannett Company" part. Is that right?
 * via: That makes sense. I'll leave the "(!)" there. I was just confused and wasn't even sure if it was a typo or not.
 * I recently used via in Special:Diff/732173882. I was trying to fix numerous "cite errors" which mostly were about publisher, and most of them used sources from one place which were re-published "via" another source. I'm not sure if I changed things correctly or not, though.. What do others think?
 * Thank you all for the explanations:) I'm glad a discussion got started:) Zeniff (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You made improvements to the Royaldutchshellplc.com article in your diff, and don't seem to have introduced any errors, but did not fix several that are present in the same cites:
 * should be
 * should be
 * should be
 * should be
 * should be
 * should be, unless there's an actual publication named Royal Dutch Shell, in which odd case,
 * should be
 * should be  (two cases of this, and the second case need not link "Reuters")
 * should be
 * should be
 * Remember that work is the same as publication or newspaper, while publisher is a company and only added when not redundant. There are probably other errors like this in the article, since your diff only covered part of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: 'I think that "should not be included for mainstream newspapers" ... will put an end to ... publisher often being used as a synonym for work or its aliases' – I wish it would put an end to that! It has not made a dent. Some days I have to fix that error 20 or more times, without even looking for it. It's as if people can't tell the difference between The Magical Mystery Tour and Apple Records, or between Game of Thrones and HBO. It boggles mind that this publication/publisher confusion happens, but with both periodicals and (especially) websites, it happens again and again every day. I almost suspect some automated citation tool is the culprit, since I know for a fact that some of them were automating this error in the past (I fixed one of them, a now-obsolete Firefox add-on). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "the doc still gives no guidance for what to do when the same name could be seen as either a work/website or a company-hence-publisher." – The solution is simple and obvious, fortunately: Instruct to always include the work/site title, first, and only add publisher afterward if it does not substantially duplicate the former (or is not considered necessary, in the case of major newspapers, something I strongly dispute, since corporate ownership of a paper frequently has bearing on its reliability, either in general, or with regard to particular topics). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have often wondered why it is that we don't have the module emit error messages for when the template doesn't include journal.  That is easily accomplished and the error detection could be extended to .  It becomes a bit more difficult for  because the news source could be a website, a newspaper, a radio program, a television news broadcast, though these latter are problematic because, unless archived at the source's web site, they exist only in the time of the transmission and are thereafter lost and so, unverifiable.  Still, it seems reasonable to me to require a work alias for, , and.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The via parameter is definitely not pointless clutter, and serves multiple purposes. The primary one is distinguishing between a provider of a "convenience copy" and the original publisher, needed for finding the source offline, or sometimes for identifying which quite different version is being cited/quoted. It is also useful for not falsely labelling things like YouTube as the publisher of something that was actually published elsewhere (there are also, of course, primary source videos that are literally published on such sites originally or solely, and the distinction isn't trivial). Plus the WP:LIBRARY use, which also serves reader interests, in not misidentifying something like Highbeam or JSTOR as a journal publisher. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "if(!)" – Just replace it with "", like we would in an article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've WP:Boldly reworded slightly, feel free to revert if inappropriate: The "publisher" parameter should not be included either for mainstream, widely-known newspapers, or where it would be the same ... Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 30–31 July 2016
Over the weekend of 30–31 July I propose to update the live modules from their sandboxen:

changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
 * 1) moved  and  static text to /Configuration; discussion
 * 2) removed parentheses from around publisher, per RFC; discussion, implementation discussion
 * 3) added separator before short volume name for consistency; discussion
 * 4) add access-date error when pmc makes url; discussion
 * 5) add bot specific maint cat and dead-url keyword; discussion and discussion
 * 6) fix corporate authors in vauthors parameter value; discussion
 * 7) proper kerning for “” and ‘’; discussion
 * 8) categorize use of authors and editors; discussion
 * 9) revised publisher, location, publication-date handling; discussion

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
 * 1) add aliases for contributors and translators for consistency with authors and editors; discussion
 * 2) added  and  static text;
 * 3) added separator before short volume name for consistency;
 * 4) add bot specific maint cat and dead-url keyword;
 * 5) categorize use of authors and editors;
 * 6) add free-to-read icon to presentation, arXiv identifier; discussion
 * 7) move parentheses into published message;

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
 * 1) add aliases for contributors and translators for consistency with authors and editors;

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
 * 1) n.d. bug fix; see discussion
 * 2) use the internationalized access-date validation; see discussion
 * 3) strip white space from reformatted dates; see discussion
 * 4) year has something other than year when date is set; see discussion

changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) adjust bibcode detection to allow digits in positions 7 through 9 see discussion
 * 2) add free-to-read icon support for arXiv identifier;


 * If it's done for the arxiv, it should be done for pmc and rfc as well. Possibly others too, I think OSTI has fully available sources, but I need to check if that's always the case. But it might be better to wait for the result of the discussion above to implement everything at once, rather than partially. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just added pmc and rfc., can you review my edits (here and here) to make sure I did not break anything? I think it's fine if we push the changes even if some "always-free" parameters are not currently marked as such. Once the change is live, we will probably attract more attention and it will be easier to reach a consensus about the parameters and icon design. − Pintoch (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 included the proposed update? I can't see it in the list, but I'm pretty sure the code for this was tested and working. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. It is still early, but I have seen no problems with pages I monitor. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like checking for incomplete access-date values was also implemented during this round of updates, as the .africa article has not changed since April, but it just appeared in the date error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That change was noticed at WT:VPT and I couldn't find the change to point to in the list above. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation data via Wikidata
Has anyone started work on a citation template which pulls data from a Wikidata item? It might look something like:



and would pull title, journal, author, etc, from the given Wikidata item.

Alternatively, we could add a Wikidata parameter to existing citation templates, so that they would pull in fields unless the value was supplied locally.

If not, I'll knock up a demo. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears of no benefit. Something like what you are proposing would be completely opaque to editors, and if you have enough information to actually define a reference such that it could be found in a database (and wikidata is not in anyway shape or form a reliable source), then you might as well manually enter it into the appropriate template or a manual reference. No-one should be using references that they havn't seen anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that Wikidata is a "reliable source", and Wikidata won't be used as a citation. Please avoid such FUD. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If Wikidata won't be used as a citation, why do you need a citation template which pulls data from a Wikidata item? Please explain. What you are proposing is using Wikidata as a citation where for example Q1234 is the citation stored in Wikidata and   would presumably produce a formatted citation. This is not FUD, but a reasonable interpretation of what you have stated. Boghog (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between storing citation metadata on Wikidata and citing Wikidata as a source. This section is about the former. The metadata (title, authors, etc) would be the properties of a particular Wikidata item instead of being specified in the citation template. − Pintoch (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Storing citation metadata is fine. Having a human inspect and call the data and permanently place it in an article is fine. Having a dynamic citation that can change over time is not fine. Citations need to stay the way they were when they were used. Under this system, an editor would have to go and look at the citation on Wikidata to make sure it is OK, then come back here and use it. That takes longer than just using it here. The only advantage of templated or remotely called citations is where you have a lot to use in many articles (a form of automation). Even then, it needs to be substituted each time, otherwise when you change the template, you change many citations without inspecting each one individually. Each citation needs to have been inspected. You cannot make the process easier. It is difficult for a reason, because it needs to be correct. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I am very worried about the use of wikidata like this. Take this edit as an example. The value of '142000' that refers to that memorial in the database we are linking to has been removed from the article and is now being called from Wikidata. That is really difficult for most editors to understand. What is the benefit of that? Before, people knew to use a template and add a parameter. Now they have to look up whether wikidata has the parameter, and then use the template? That is more difficult for people to understand (I get it makes the data manipulation easier across multiple wikis, but it leaves editors confused and that is bad). Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A point of information: This proposal is similar to, but more opaque than, the cite doi templates, all of which were proposed for deletion and substituted because the consensus view was that citation information should be placed in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean this discussion? Thank you for pointing that out. Was there not some discussion somewhere of where and how it was acceptable to use wikidata? Have I missed something about how it can be used at present? As I've said on Andy's user talk page, I would have no problem with this if when an editor clicks "edit", the data being called from Wikidata shows up in the edit window. At the moment, there is nothing there at all, just a mysterious emptiness, a black box whirring away. Opaque doesn't even begin to describe it. Another example of 'use wikidata' is here. There is more here, here and here and here. There is also Category:Wikidata templates. At the moment, what seems to be happening is that whole swathes of what I would call 'database maintenance' in the form of carefully incorporating database material and links in Wikipedia (whether that be citations or anything else that can be put in a database), are being transferred over to Wikidata, and editors who carefully maintain the articles here are being forced to work elsewhere, which increases the complexity of the workflow. That works for Commons and images, but when you have atomised data, it introduces complexity rather than removing it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you're looking for Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember that (vaguely). Have things changed in three years? I am still at a complete loss as to how an edit removing a local value with the edit summary "use wikidata" is helpful. I get that there are other edits being done elsewhere that ensure no functionality is lost, but unlike "go to this template and edit it", which is understandable, how does "go to Wikidata and try and work out how things work there" actually understandable? I can now see that some obscure link in the sidebar called "wikidata item" takes you here, and that the value is being called from there. But how do you associate an article with a wikidata item? I opened the edit window for Chatham Naval Memorial and searched for "wikidata", but nothing. Was it the initial creation of the page over on wikidata (this edit) that caused the "wikidata item" link to appear on the sidebar? If so, that is crazy. There should be a way to alert the editors of an article that a Wikidata item has been associated with it. Is that possible? I suppose not. It is just like if an article has templates, someone can merrily edit away on that template and those pages where the template is transcluded don't get 'told' that this editing is going on (unless that got fixed recently?). Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Other issues aside, how is Wikidata performance these days? Before adopting this into CS1, I'd like to see a mockup study of the performance impact. Citation templates can run hundreds of times on a single page, and I'd want to make sure that using 100s of wikidata citation calls would not appreciably impact the user experience. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

cite arxiv vauthors support


yields



It should recognize vauthors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it appears to support it to me. I see a list of authors in the output that corresponds to the vauthors. Is there another way it should be recognizing it that it isn't?  Imzadi 1979  →   01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's because has just fixed it. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)