Template talk:Citation/core/Archive 10

could you folks please pick your dirty socks up off the floor? Everyone can see them.

 * see Template_talk:Cite_book, plus the thread referred to in that one. Methinks you should be looking for this: |in&#32;, among other things.&bull; Ling.Nut 01:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, or I would fix it.

 * Please fix this template. . The problems I have seen so far are all regarding book chapters. Look at the references of Governor of Kentucky: "John E.." occurs because you placed a period rather than a comma after the editor's name. Moreover, where is the (Ed.) or (ed.) or (Eds.) or (eds.)? . Please do wash your dishes. Please do check ALL the output of this template. It is everywhere everywhere across Wikipedia, and it frankly looks amateurish. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try doing the appropriate changes in Template:Citation/core/sandbox and testing them using, in Template:Citation/testcases. --Salix (talk): 08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was finished, would someone edit the template for me? &bull; Ling.Nut 08:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you use Template:Citation, or pass ,, then commas rather than periods are used as separators. If you feel that a comma should always precede "eds.", then please demonstrate consensus and the template can be modified.  You might also take quick glance at WP:AGF.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Authormask
Would someone care to explain why Authormask is throwing U+2003: EM SPACE? and displaying hyphens instead of displaying —? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |
 * 1) iferror:


 * Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10
 * Copy pastes as:    (2006). Battleships. London: Lorena Books. ISBN 9780754814078. OCLC 56458155.
 * Displays as: -- (2006). Battleships. London: Lorena Books. ISBN 9780754814078. OCLC 56458155.
 * Expected display behaviour: —— (2006). Battleships. London: Lorena Books. ISBN 9780754814078. OCLC 56458155.
 * Workaround: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Expected display behaviour: —— (2006). Battleships. London: Lorena Books. ISBN 9780754814078. OCLC 56458155.
 * Workaround: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * AuthorMask isn't documented here (that needs to be fixed), so I took a look at the markup. The field uses multiple &amp;emsp; wrapped in . Copy and paste is going to output spaces for the deleted section. FireFox 3.6/Win7 shows what appears as mdashes, as does Safari 5.0.2, IE9 Beta and Opera. My best guess it that the Mac is showing this as ndashes. This example uses the same output: &emsp;&emsp;.


 * I don't know why this is coded as such and I don't have my head in this template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Chicago 16 isn't available online, but remembering reading from Chicago 14 or so, they stipulate 3 em dashes for authormasks for repetition; not some hacked up struck through space. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Formatting error
I hope this is the place to get the attention of the right people (this has previously appeared here). Consider the following cite book and cite conference references that were recently added to the Polylogarithm article:


 * (this 1826 manuscript was only published posthumously.)


 * (also appeared as "The remarkable dilogarithm" in Journal of Mathematical and Physical Sciences 22 (1988), pp. 131–145, and as Chapter I of .)



Is there a way to make the "(in French)" and "(PDF)" parts in the 1st and 3rd references appear immediately after the contribution title, and not after the editor names? Is there a way to make the "in" appear in the 2nd case too where editor names are unknown? Thanks, 217.184.57.147 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC).


 * You could dispense with the template and create the citation manually. Lambanog (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you Citation/core folks are giving up on these issues (i.e. position of language and format information, dependence of "in" on editor availability)! 217.184.57.144 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Non Bug: Change of Style for the formatting of named or numbered volumes of books
Wotcher, yet another issue from FAC reviewing:


 * 1) Volume numbers for journals and such works are often bolded in citation styles.
 * 2) Volume numbers for separately titled Volumes of books and edited collections are not.
 * 3) Currently, Volume numbers and titles in separately titled volumes of books and edited collections are bolded.
 * 4) I propose that: Volume numbers and titles in separately titled volumes of books and edited collections be not-bolded.


 * Displays as
 * ie:
 * Expected display behaviour: Breyer, Siegfriend (1992). Soviet Warship Development. Volume I: 1917-1937. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-604-3.
 * Expected display behaviour: Breyer, Siegfriend (1992). Soviet Warship Development. Volume I: 1917-1937. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-604-3.

Could other editors comment on this change of style proposal which would affect the rendering of the following templates: cite book. May need to effect: cite comic ; cite manual ; cite report ; cite encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the boldfaced book volumes much myself, so I think this is probably a good idea. But if it's done for these templates it should probably also be done consistently with citation as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with non-bolding. The volume number is not the most important part of the citation, so why show it in bold? Another possibility is that we could wrap the volume in a "span" with a CSS class, and allow people to define the formatting of this class however they want: as bold, italic, underlined, or whatever. CO GDEN  19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agency, newspaper, and location
Currently, if Cite news is given an agency, a newspaper, and a location, it will list them in the following order:
 * Newspaper. Agency (Location).

However, it would make more sense to list the location immediately following the newspaper -- the location refers to the where the newspaper is published, not where the agency is located. Where the agency goes in this case is less of a priority to me, as long as it is put somewhere logical. But the other two items should be displayed in this way:
 * Newspaper (Location).

Thanks to anyone who can make this possible. (I raised this issue at Template talk:Cite news and was told that this was dependent on, so that is why I am bringing it up here now.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that approach would confuse location with publication-place. For news sources, the location should normally be the dateline's stated location, i.e. the place the story was filed by the author, not the place at which the work was printed or broadcast. This is particularly so for agency stories and wire services. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

CITEREF matching problem
It appears that Harvard citations fail in the case of a reference date spanning a number of years, e.g. "date = 1950–51" where the dash is written as "&amp;ndash;", because the CITEREF label generated by and that generated by  do not match.

I think this so silly that it should be fixed. 217.184.57.144 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to use year=, not date=. It is possible to use arbitrary strings that do not look like four-digit numbers, as long as you call it a year. For instance, it is typical to use e.g. year=1977a and year=1977b to distinguish two papers by the same authors with the same publication years. I don't see any reason why year=1950–51 shouldn't also work, as long as you write it the same way in both the year= field of the cite template and the harv template. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When you use date, the year is extracted and used to form the anchor. Use of anything other than a properly formed full date will generally cause the parser to extract the year improperly, usually as a time. Using year will resolve this issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The situation is as bad as I thought it is: I should have written "year =" where I wrote "date =". Sorry. Here is an example:


 * The Harvard citation does not link to the reference ...
 * ... because the two CITEREF labels do not match.
 * ... because the two CITEREF labels do not match.


 * This is indeed so silly that it should be fixed. 217.184.57.138 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right, it's not the date-year thing. The harv template is producing reference CITEREFDoe1950.E2.80.9351 while the cite journal template is producing reference CITEREFDoe1950.26ndash.3B51. If you replaced &amp;ndash; with the actual en-dash character I think it would work: should correctly link to  Anyone have any idea how the harv template manages to substitute the html entity before generating the citeref and whether the cite template can be persuaded to do the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Citation/core wraps the ref in the anchorencode magic word. It does fix the linking issue, but it doesn't look pretty: . ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a solution in the Template:Harv sandbox. Please see whether it works:  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That works: . We have six Harvard templates: should this be added as is or as a meta-template? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 05:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be safe just to add that as is (similar modifications could be made at the other templates); I'd recommend checking at Template talk:Harv first, though. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to normalize the other way round, as suggested by David Eppstein? – that is, to modify the cite templates instead of the harv templates, causing to generate "CITEREFDoe1950.E2.80.9351" when "&amp;ndash;" is used for the publication year range? The hmtl entity "&amp;ndash;" and the actual en-dash character could then be mixed freely, I suppose. 217.184.57.138 (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that possible? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Need updates to support "cite video game"
See here. We need some changes to this template before we can update cite video game. For instance, we require support for the following additional parameters: SharkD  Talk  01:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * developer
 * platform
 * version
 * level
 * language
 * creator - add and link author field to this
 * jan - Japanese article number: considering how many games are released in Japan, this should be added
 * isan - ??? Not sure. I don't know what code US uses offhand. One for the US should be added as it is still the second largest producer of commercial video games
 * scene
 * disc #


 * Could we see some examples of the expected output so we can figure out what fields are needed? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to make some specific comments over at cite video game. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given a few ideas over there. I don't know what all the code is capable of, especially with id numbers. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some incrementalchanges?
Can we atleast get support for:


 * developer and publisher to be listed as "Developed by XXX." and "Published by XXX."? This is how the citations are done everywhere for video games. Also have entries for programmer, lead designer.
 * Piping creator and desginer (both terms are used) through author
 * Disc to be listed as "Disc: XXX".
 * Platform (wasn't listed above...i think language replaced it accidentally). Basically it would just need to be a non-italicized portion ending in a period.

The non-linear stuff while still nessasary would have to have some other way of dealing with it and as mentioned there is no stylation style that really deals with the issues of citing video games. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Creating a list of articles using ref
I would like to make a list of all the articles which use a citation template where something other than harv. Does anyone have any advice about what tool to use? CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could set the template to .  This has the disadvantage that pages are only recategorized when they are edited. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  04:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend scanning a dump, when they become again available (should be in a few days). One way to read the dump is using WP:AWB. Svick (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the second is better option for what I'm trying to do. Thanks. CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

trans_work and trans_at?
We have trans_title, but I'm wondering if why we have that, but not translations for those. A lot of foreign webpages and book series use those. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Displaying "ed" or "eds"
I've sandboxed a change removing a conditional on IncludedWorkTitle for displaying "ed" or "eds". This looks like a problem, but I don't understand why the conditional was there so I'm not publishing the change. This came about as a result of a discussion at Template talk:Cite book. I'll suggest there that the discussion continue here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the proposed changes, though I also have no knowledge of the decision that led to the current state of the template.—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally brought this up, and of course still support it. Can we now implement this change? —bender235 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An apparently related comment has popped up at Template talk:Cite book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

EPO refs broken?
I just added US application US20060036965 in a reference in Ribbon_(computing), but the link to the EPO doesn't seem to work.

click for an espacenet error =>

Could someone take a look at it? 165.170.128.65 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit uses (as does your example above) - this discussion page is for the  template: although  is used by several other templates, it isn't used by  at any stage of the latter's processing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've raised a request at Template talk:Citation/patent, where it seems to belong. Please continue discussion there. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Corporate authors
Consider these (arbitrarily formatted) citations:


 * Random Notes (September 1999) Rolling Stone.

In each of these cases, the source has a "corporate author"; there is no author's name. What are the recommended ways to format these citations? How should the major citation templates support these? Do the citation templates need to be changed to support these? What should a parenthetical reference or shortened footnote for these sources look like? Finally, what is the proper term for these citations? (i.e. is "corporate authors" the right term?)

I am starting a parallel discussion over at WP:CITE, which hopefully will focus on the proper format. Here, I hope we can discuss how the template should support them. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the citation templates already support author-less citations fine (see the source):
 * In most cases, what you call “corporate author” fits best either  or   field. In the third example, I think the   is the most appropriate (that's similar to what you used – , but that's misleading: it's not a last name). Also, in the second example, I think it's enough to mention CNN once. As for shortened references – yeah, you have to invent some author, and I guess the corporate one (or its abbreviation) is a reasonable choice (but you may have to use the   parameter then). Svick (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases, what you call “corporate author” fits best either  or   field. In the third example, I think the   is the most appropriate (that's similar to what you used – , but that's misleading: it's not a last name). Also, in the second example, I think it's enough to mention CNN once. As for shortened references – yeah, you have to invent some author, and I guess the corporate one (or its abbreviation) is a reasonable choice (but you may have to use the   parameter then). Svick (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases, what you call “corporate author” fits best either  or   field. In the third example, I think the   is the most appropriate (that's similar to what you used – , but that's misleading: it's not a last name). Also, in the second example, I think it's enough to mention CNN once. As for shortened references – yeah, you have to invent some author, and I guess the corporate one (or its abbreviation) is a reasonable choice (but you may have to use the   parameter then). Svick (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases, what you call “corporate author” fits best either  or   field. In the third example, I think the   is the most appropriate (that's similar to what you used – , but that's misleading: it's not a last name). Also, in the second example, I think it's enough to mention CNN once. As for shortened references – yeah, you have to invent some author, and I guess the corporate one (or its abbreviation) is a reasonable choice (but you may have to use the   parameter then). Svick (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

These look right to me, but I am not an expert. I was hoping to find a definitive answer, because I would like to improve the anchor used when parameter harv so that these cases fall out. I'm starting (yet another) discussion over at WP:parenthetical referencing to see if they know anything. CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dot between series and volume
For example:

produces:
 * Freedman, Michael H.; Quinn, Frank (1990). Topology of 4-manifolds. Princeton Mathematical Series. 39. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

I think the dot between "Princeton Mathematical Series" and "39" should be removed, corresponding with cite journal (see Template:Cite journal). —bender235 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you use the same fields, then they are the same:









The difference is whether you use journal. Without it, the title is considered as a main title and italicized. With it, the title is considered a short work and in quotes. The output then differs:









---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This request was originally made at Template talk:Cite book, and came down here on advice offered up there. Looking at the code here, and at the particular item offered as an example, and at cite book vs cite journal, it looks to me as if the request is to format the book-published example as if it were a journal article. I'm thinking that this might best be done by using cite journal instead of cite book rather than by adding more special-case processing to core. I'm going to continue the discussion up at Template talk:Cite book with a suggestion to that effect; somebody please jump in and correct me if I've got it wrong. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is this "adding more special-case processing"? I'm not asking for a "dot/no dot" parameter, but instead just to remove the dot. Or has this any purpose I don't see, the way it is now? —bender235 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The complexity of removing that dot is due to it being prepended before the volume number, rather than associated as being appended after the series name. If the volume number were omitted, then a dot "." would still be prepended before some other parameter instead. Perhaps consider hard-coding a bolded volume number after the series name     &bull; series= Princeton Mathematical Series 39  and leave Volume= blank for now. -Wikid77 12:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the only problem? Then why no simple If-Else function a la ? I just checked the code. Essentially we would just have to remove   from this part of the code:  . Because there's also no reason to have a seperator between   and   (if there was no  ). —bender235 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, except this runs into horrible problems like Bar, Foo. Multiple Volume work. Studies in Social Things. Volume 14: Tigers of Albania. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh?  just removes the dot between   and   or (if there is  ) between   and  . That example you brought up is the rare exception that much rather deserves that "hard-coding work-around" you suggested above. In most cases, books with volume and series look like:
 * Freedman, Michael H.; Quinn, Frank (1990). Topology of 4-manifolds. Princeton Mathematical Series 39. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 * or:
 * Smith, Bob (2000). Encyclopedia of Everything 4. New York: Publisher.
 * If one wants to add a seperator, he could add it like . But if the seperator is added by the template, there's no way to remove it afterwards. —bender235 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's check consensus for no-dot volume: I agree that a simple if-else could omit the dot before volume, so we need to check the consensus for that style of showing a volume, such as 6: Title of work 6. Plus, we need to display, at times, "Title of work. Volume 6: Working at Home." That could be a different parameter such as "volume-name" beyond parameter "volume". Any objections to those changes? -Wikid77 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)