Template talk:Citation/core/Archive 14

|format= displays incorrectly when no author present in works with only a work title
See: Discovered minimal cite book Counter example: cite journal
 * Expected behaviour: ﻿Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment﻿ (Report) (PDF). Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1999-04-19. p. 12. LC/MEX/L.372. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
 * Expected behaviour: ﻿Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment﻿ (Report) (PDF). Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1999-04-19. p. 12. LC/MEX/L.372. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
 * Expected behaviour: ﻿Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment﻿ (Report) (PDF). Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1999-04-19. p. 12. LC/MEX/L.372. Retrieved 2011-10-06.

This is currently affecting a FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See above. Not sure what to do with this. A technical issue like this should never be an FAC showstopper. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worse: The format parameter is misplaced for books, maps, etc. ALWAYS
The format parameter works as expected/sane in but is worse than useless, downright confusing and weird, in the output of Template:Cite book and possibly a few other templates in this series. Without an specified author, the output is especially inane, suggesting that a file format was the author: With an explicit author it still doesn't make sense, implying that the date has a file format: Template:Cite web does the sensible thing: Template:Cite news and Template:Cite journal also do right: It should always be after the URL. If (despite the clear documentation at Template:Cite book/doc which says it is for the file format of something linked with url) it's intended really for the format of the hardcopy ("pamphlet", "audiobook", etc.), then we have a problem and need a new parameter for that usage (form maybe?), keeping format consistent with all the other citation templates, in which it refers to the URL-linked item.

It might make sense to suppress display of format in absence of a value in url, but the position problem should be fixed immediately, regardless. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite map is doing the same now after it was switched to Citation/core, implying the publisher or date is the format. (cite map doesn't have authors set up, using the publisher instead.) I agree that that format should appear after the URL, not elsewhere.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of format=PDF
Just a comment, but there's not much point putting PDF for any URL that ends in .pdf or .PDF; MediaWiki detects that format automatically and shows a PDF icon; having the text "PDF" appear is redundant, since it doesn't convey anything not conveyed by file name extension:

Just my opinion, of course. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that there is no alt text, so screen readers don't pick up the format. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And some users have images turned off in their browsers, meaning the PDF icon never shows up.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And they can't read ".pdf" in the filename? No one buys the "some users turn off images" thing any more.  For the tiny handful of people this is true for, they have far bigger problems using the web at all than file format icons in a reference citation.  That's a really, really marginal usability case no one expends energy on, post-1995.  But if blind users of screen readers cannot tell  what the format is even from the filename, then that's a real and major accessibility issue. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase that as a question: Is it true that users of screen readers cannot tell what the format is even from the filename? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Using my screen reader emulator, the PDF icon does not generate anything to give away the format. Of course, there's also a secondary issue to some degree. If you archived a source using http://www.webcitation.org, and that source is a PDF, the resulting URL doesn't have ".pdf" at the end, meaning that the link won't have the icon. I've also run into maps and other things that are PDFs hosted from URLs that don't end in ".pdf".  Imzadi 1979  →   21:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood; I've always used PDF for PDFs that didn't end in a literal ".pdf" or ".PDF". I asking whether a screen reader user has any way to tell that the url is to a PDF file when it DOES end with one of those strings. Is there some button to push that will read the URL out?  Or are screenreader users literally totally dependent on the format parameter to know what format something is?  I'm a bit skeptical that such dependency could be real, since the rest of the Web doesn't have format labeling. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Documentation
The documentation for the CS1 templates varies, which is why I created Help:Citation Style 1. I have now created Citation Style documentation to build the documentation pages with standardized chunks. Template specific parameters can be included manually. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please make TitleType work for periodicals
Hi all. Thank you very much for maintaining this template. It sings, it dances, and it does almost everything I need. And it even handles TitleType for books. But I recently noticed one problem: the TitleType values that I pass are ignored for periodicals. For example:

Instead, I'd like that markup to render as:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek column. Popular Mechanics.

I wonder if you could please enhance the template so that TitleType will work for periodicals?

Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TitleType displays in parentheses and is intended to indicate the type of the title, such as DVD, pamphlet, liner notes, etc.
 * Cite book using type:
 * If you really have to include the column, you could use at.
 * Cite journal using at:
 * Looking at Chicago 16, the style would be:
 * "How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek. Popular Mechanics.
 * So, we could look at adding another field altogether, but I don't see this being used a lot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek. Popular Mechanics.
 * So, we could look at adding another field altogether, but I don't see this being used a lot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The at parameter is fine, and we really don't care whether we match Chicago 100%. Most of the world does not use their style, only Americans do.  For this particular use, "Ask a Geek" column is what you actually want (otherwise it begs the question "What is a 'Geek column', and why would I ask it something?"). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I thank you both for your replies. Gadget850, the main use of specifying an article type is to point out letters to the editor. It can also be used to point out editorials and columns. I don't think it'll be so seldom-used.


 * To both of you: The at parameter generates the COinS field pages, which is meant to hold a page number. I suspect using at for article types may break automatic COinS OpenURL resolution for such refs. (If you've never seen automatic OpenURL resolution, visit your local university library, use Firefox to browse to some journal articles, then scroll down to the "References" section. Look for the find-it-in-your-library links added by a Web browser add-on.)


 * Anyway, I think it'd be better to change the documentation of TitleType to specify that it can also be used for specifying periodical article types. Or, if people prefer, someone could add a new field to this template.


 * --Unforgettableid (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that this template supports TitleNote; I added it to the documentation. I don't see that any of the CS1 templates support it, but it does what you want:

ASIN-TLD
Citation/identifier was updated to allow the ASIN parameter to change the top-level domain for sites outside the US. This now needs to be supported in core. Now in sandbox:

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there are objections, I will add this to templates as asin-tld. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Period issues
Et al. displays with two periods



Fixed in sandbox:

Ed/eds not followed by period if followed by date.





Fixed in sandbox:





---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Language
Is there any way to move the "language" parameter after the title of books citations that do not include chapters?

Current format goes "Linnaeus (1753) (in Latin). Species Plantarum." and that just looks silly. Circéus (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes: make a proposal and gain consensus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure no cogent argument can be made in favor of the status quo. It's just that the template family has grown in complexity _far_ past my ability to tell whether it is even POSSIBLE to implement that. Circéus (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra separator
Looks like there is an extra separator before Periodical

Fixed in sandbox:

Need to do some more testing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... that removes the separator after language:

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Second title
Some books have two titles (I'm not talking about subtitles). Please define a parameter for this (title2 / alttitle / ...). This style is recommended by CMS for this purpose: Title; or, Second title. --Z 21:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this two editions, or a translated title? Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could have used this several times recently, e.g. for The American Horticultural Society A–Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants a.k.a. The Royal Horticultural Society A–Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants in simultaneous North American & British variants that are otherwise identical and with the same edition number but different ISBNs (and, yeah, it weirdly was "Encyclopedia" not "Encyclopaedia" in the UK version, too). Another example is Bryan Sykes's Blood of the Isles (Eur.) a.k.a. Saxons, Vikings and Celts (N.Am.), again identical but for title and ISBN number. This also means we'd need isbn2. On the other hand, it's possible to convey information like this in a simple prose note between  and  . I guess it's really a question of whether following CMS style on this matter is worth the ParserFunctions overhead. There's no question that the information is good to include one way or another, as it can be major boon to verifiability; the A–Z above, for example, is so large it would cost about US$30 in postage alone between the US and the UK, and this is entirely unnecessary, since the "local" version can probably be found in any large library. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also the potential for the use of other identifiers such as ASIN and the like. I suggest using cite book twice:
 * There is a review on Amazon that notes that these works include different maps, so they are not identical. You could preface the second work with "Also in" or similar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should give the title, publishing location and ISBN for the variant which you actually consulted. There is no guarantee that excatly the same information appears in the other one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a review on Amazon that notes that these works include different maps, so they are not identical. You could preface the second work with "Also in" or similar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should give the title, publishing location and ISBN for the variant which you actually consulted. There is no guarantee that excatly the same information appears in the other one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so i was wrong in one case, but the general gist was there are plenty of cases when the same book is simul-published under different names for diffrent markets. This is also common with video and even music releases. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to put a download-size warning note?
If I want to put a warning note like "(150 MB)" for a pdf file, where do I enter that? I'd expect it to be outside of and right after the title label (underlined text). -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could use format. This will place it in parenthesis after the title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you'll risk it removed by one or more tools/scripts/bots as an invalid format field value. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What ia a valid format? What tools/scripts/bots check this? And on reflection, 150 MB is not really that big. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 150mb is huge in respect toa pdf file and takes ages to load-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a blanket decision. If I saw "150 Mb" in the format field, I'd probably remove it unless I took my time to analyze who added it and why assuming they left any note. I'm just saying with so much misuse of different fields, it might not be obvious to others and checking each edit is very very time consuming. "150 Mb" is certainly not an actual format value. I've seen AWB runs doing this among other things, not that I could recall now who it was or what they used. So perhaps a comment next to it would be useful. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just checked, the PDF-icon is added irrespective of the content of . -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, for me now it could be OK since I want to create a templated reference. So no AWB visiting there easily, it is under /documentation, etc. The  solution does give the result I prefer (it is where I got the idea from). -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The template does not generate the icon. See Help:External link icons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is added. Still, when (mis)using the parameter  this way, no other harm is possibly done except what is mentioned here? -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The icon Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif is generated by code within MediaWiki:Common.css and is largely dependent on the linked URL containing the characters  (upper or lower case). -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AWB genfixes removes HTML as this is unneeded and against cite web documentation. It also moves dead link outside the citation per Template:Dead link documentation. Otherwise no other changes. Additional unit test: format parameter not changed in citation template if contains (PDF) size information.  Rjwilmsi  21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a "blanket decision": A note of this sort, like any other such random note about a source, goes after the closing  of the   template and before the closing   of the surrounding  . Using any kind of trickery to insert it into some other field, especially the title, is a blatant falsification of that parameter's data.  Don't do it.  Not even with format, since "150 MB" is a size, not a format. There is no reason for every single thing that could ever possibly be said about a cited source somehow being stuffed into this or any other template. The citation templates should only contain data that, across most source citations, is considered useful for the purposes of citing the source.  If consensus concludes that we do need to warn people about large files, then we need to add code such that, say, 150MB will generate such a note, when used in the presence of url and/or archiveurl, and will do something sane when format is present, and so on, consistently across all citation templates.  I.e., this has to be discussed at Template talk:Citation/core. I just moved it here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If format is used appropriately, with the actual format specified, there's probably nothing wrong with adding the size, though: PDF (150 MB). See elsewhere on this page for why we need to add "PDF" even though MediaWiki auto-generates a PDF icon. PS: Please note that it is , per WP:MOSNUM, and that "Mb" means "megabits", not "megabytes". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The format field will show in parentheses, so it would be better not to use them in the value. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, so format, size &amp;nbsp; unit or, for obscure formats, [ [ Format article — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)