Template talk:Citation/core/Archive 7

No space before postscript
Is there a reason that there's no space provided before the PS attribute? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's usually used for punctuation, see e.g. Cite web, where you don't want a mandatory space. I'd think that even if you want to include additional text like "section 5", in almost all instances you'll want to have the separator in front of it.  Amalthea  10:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I think I've slightly misused it in a cite web, but it's a reasonable approximation of what I was trying to achieve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would use either  or   as a prefix if using PS for additional text. Usually the PS parameter passed to Citation/core from the wrapper templates just contains a single   character. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Error messages
Propose to tweak the error messages:

From



Which shows Error: You must specify the date the archive was made using the archivedate parameter when using citation template.

To the clearer and shorter:



Which will show Error: archivedate must be specified when archiveurl is defined when using citation template.

And correct



To note that the missing parameter is archiveurl.



---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this for the archivedate/archiveurl message (active voice):




 * John Cardinal (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK by me, but change the second message to match:




 * ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it looks like we aren't using external templates such as para then the updates should be:


 * From


 * To


 * And from


 * To

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried a along the suggested lines, but it didn't seem to make any difference in the behavior of Citation. Can you supply a test call to Citation that illustrates why this change is needed? Eubulides (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem
Using cite web


 * With archiveurl and archivedate


 * Missing archivedate


 * Missing archiveurl

That error checking is from citation/core. The messages are inconsistent, the first is overly long and the second should reference archiveurl.

The proposed changes would generate:

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse the above text because it fixes "url" to "archiveurl" which is absolutely necessary, and because it uses two similar formulas that are long enough to be clear and precise without being overly long. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the words "when using citation template" are superfluous. Just  and   should do. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation error has second parameter for the template, such as cite web. If it is not defined then it shows "when using citation template"— there is no way to suppress it. I'm not particularly fond of it, but we can take that up on the template page. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk


 * I say we don't need either. It is evident. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Error with Citation/make link
Hi, I'm getting the error: Expression error: Missing operand for > for the title fields of {{cite journal... and I've tracked the problem down to Template:Citation/make link. I'm not sure how to make this error go away. Does anyone have any suggestions? Waynethegoblin (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give a specific example of the problem? Preferably, an invocation of {{tl|Citation/make link}}? Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See his talk page, that he has fixed it. I never believed there was something wrong with this template. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We had the problem in MediaWiki 1.15, but managed to fix the problem by removing (from line 359 in Template:Citation/Core):

Specific changes
From 

To 

From }}

To 

Please copy the markup from above, as the  tags are escaped to show.

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note.


 * Umm, why is an admin making protected edit requests? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There were some obvious typos in the above request, which I think I've fixed; but has anybody tested this stuff in the sandbox? It should be tested, surely. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a sandbox copy as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall not try to be smarter than admins, but this edit is so simple and straightforward that I don't see why we need a sandbox version here. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I got called off on an emergency yesterday. Now in sandbox and testcases. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The &lt;nowiki&gt;...&lt;/nowiki&gt; tags are only necessary because the message has '|'s in it. Remove those (which are unnecessary anyway), and the nowikis become redundant.
 * Further,... the code can be simplified if there is no outstanding reason to have separate messages:

 |
 * or even more efficiently (and less verbose) but without adding the category:

 |
 * which will give
 * Archived from &lt;undefined &gt; on 3 October 2009
 * Archived from the original on &lt;undefined &gt;
 * which I think editors will understand just fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We are used to more elaborate error messages. And to understandable coding, for that matter. I stick by the old proposal. Debresser (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the editprotected template. All agree these messages need to be changed. The changes are textual only, so no technical wizard is needed to approve it. The proposal of User:Gadget850 has understandable text, which is consistent with other error messages (his expertise, after all). But most importantly: I am the guy working to clean out Category:Articles with broken citations every day, and I can tell you that the present formulation is misleading. So change it already please. There has been more than enough talking. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I tried in the sandbox, it worked in Template:Citation/core/testcases, but it didn't seem to work in Template:Citation/testcases (see the 3rd example). Can someone please look into this? I stared at a while but could not make sense of it. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is because I am still waiting for the fulfillment of my editprotected request to Citation (and a few other ones). See there for the explanation. This edit and the one there are connected, but may (and should) be made both independent of the other. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still don't understand. I installed the editprotected request to Citation/sandbox (here's the ) as well as the editprotected request to Citation/core/sandbox (here's the ), but the combination does not appear to work in Template:Citation/testcases. For example, the 1st and 3rd test cases both have an archiveURL but no archive date, but the revised version doesn't report an error for either test case. Could you please look into it? I'd like to see the proposed changes installed and working in the sandboxes. Eubulides (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is working in Template:Citation/core/testcases. In citation/sandbox, I think  should be  . ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sandbox" is not "sandbox"! That solved half of them problem. Have a look. One of the messages is there. I am working on the other half. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is a redirect. I tried that change and didn't see anything, but I probably did not go far enough. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, but there is a bug in citation core. I found it. Now I have to straighten it rest out. The trouble centers around two consequetive edits of 3 and 4 June 2009, based on this discussion. I'll have to rework the whole thing there. Those edits are the direct reason I and others have been complaining, but the problem was there before. I do think that these edits were made too hastily, without proper attention to their effectivity in solving the issue at hand. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it. May I add that I think the testcases now show precisely the right error message in every case. For testcases see Template:Citation/testcases, using Template:Citation/sandbox and Template:Citation/core/sandbox. For the needed change to Citation see Template_talk:Citation. The change to Citation/core is evident from this diff. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sandbox diff link is different than the one I get [/index.php?title=&diff=319884546&oldid=318432421 when I compare the current version with the sandbox version]. Have you changed the wording of the error messages intentionally? I haven't looked into what's the problem you all are wanting to solve, so the answer to that question might be self-evident. Amalthea  09:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I forgot that the sandbox version I was compairing to was already altered. So you can use your diff. Or just paste the whole thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have to change citation, too? You added that on my talk page, but I didn't see it in Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and there was no mention of it here, so I figured it was done already kept thinking that this is all wrong. I still think it's not quite correct yet though, please hold on a bit longer ... Amalthea  15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I now believe that this is all based on a misunderstanding. Archiving in the citation templates seems to work one of two ways:
 * Manually, like in Citation, where the whole Archived from FOO on BAR is built and passed into the Archive parameter.
 * Automatically, where the parameters OriginalURL and ArchiveDate are filled and the text is built by Citation/core, which also checks for errors.
 * The change proposed would require the Archive parameter to be filled, which most of the templates using Citation/core aren't doing. I've disabled the editprotected request for now, the text still wasn't changed as requested, but I'm keeping on eye on this page now anyway (although I'll probably not be online from somewhen tonight till Sunday, but this doesn't appear to be super urgent). Amalthea  15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't find any such editprotected request since I wrote there "I won't reactivate the editprotected request, because the changes to Citation/core and to Citation should be made together." Debresser (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Why did you reactivate the editprotected request when I said I'll keep watching this page, and when I said above that the requested change would break cite web among others, and had even errors in it that wouldn't have made it work correctly on citation either? If you could go into details about the bug you found, and the changes you want to make, and the change you're trying to make (besides the wordings), this would all be much easier. Amalthea  13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to explain why this wouldn't work on Citation. Have you not seen the testcases, which show it works perfectly on Citation? Or have you still not noticed that a change has to be made to Citation, as I said clearly before? And if it won't work with Cite web, neither would it break anything. And making it work would take the addition of one simple line. It's all so simple. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I restored the editprotected request because I wasn't aware none but you should be handeling this issue. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I should, and if you think I'm doing it wrong you're free to call in others, but I'm thinking it's easiest since I've now worked to understand your proposed change already, and what other templates depend on it. Amalthea  14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't see that it worked because somebody had made edits to on of the sandboxes after me. I have restored my version, and the testcases are just perfect; true beauty. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you had done the same 2-3 minutes earlier. :) Debresser (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen the testcases, and they don't work perfectly, no. See Template:Citation/testcases: The one at the very bottom,, shows:


 * It shouldn't output an error, and also shouldn't output a raw URL. I started working on the the problems in citation/core/sandbox (you'll find it in the history), but then realized that other citation templates using /core are doing so very differently And yes, it would break cite web and others since they then won't show the archiving information anymore. Your proposed change hides it all if the parameter Archive isn't supplied, which it isn't there and in others. The current way /core works is by either letting the outer template build the archive text itself and pass it in as Archive, with all the error checking done in the outer template, or by passing in OriginalUrl and ArchiveDate (which cite web does), and letting it be handled by /core. With your change, that wouldn't work anymore. Note that I'll again be offline in a couple minutes for a few hours, so I won't be able to reply swiftly. Amalthea  14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were right. The testcases still didn't show all the proper messages in the proper places. My partial success a few days ago must have risen to my head, imparing my ability to examine all cases thoroughly. Please check them now, and tell me if they are right. If so, I'll look into Cite web. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With the minimal addition of two short line to Cite web that will work also. See Template:Cite web/testcases, using Template:Cite web/sandbox. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still working on two minor issues with Cite web. One is a superfluous dot when there is no ur specified, the other is a superfluous addition in testcases #3 and #7. Both problems are in Cite web itself, not Citation/core. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody ever notice that Cite web doesn't give the title in 3 cases? Anyway, it works better with my changes than without them, so I advise making the change, and fix Cite web later. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but of course in case of an error when we display a big red message I don't even care that much if the rest of the information gets displayed properly. :) Anyway, still thinking about how best to do this. I'm still not quite happy with the current sandbox content since you've changed the meaning of the Archive parameter and are displaying the URL in raw form – the archive URL can get very long and ugly. I agree with you that we should move the error checking from into the /core template, but I'd rather not redefine an existing parameter. If we want to catch and display an error where archiveurl is specified without url then we have to introduce a new parameter. We should then also categorize any usages of Archive so that we can track down the deprecated usages. From what I can tell, the Archive parameter should be only used by two of the main citation templates, and has been replaced by OriginalUrl/ArchiveDate in all others, so it shouldn't categorize any at all. Would you mind terribly if I delayed this another day, and made a concerted change of all templates tomorrow? It is a fairly simple change, but I don't want to rush it with Citation/core, and certainly don't want to change it right before I go to bed. :) Amalthea  22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an unfortunate edit conflict right now.


 * Anybody noticed that there are no titles in Template:Cite web/testcases if there is no url. Let me tell you that the code Cite web is very wrong in a major issue, and this is one of the results. In this issue it differs from all other citation templates, and I am surprised that is so. But I do not think that should be a reason to make the correct edit to Citation/core and Citation, and add two lines to Cite web as well. With the note that Cite web needs some serious fix. I am willing to do so, but am frankly getting a little tired of working and fixing without getting my edits done. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In reply to the above edit by Amalthea. You are right that the archiveurl can get long. I definitely did not give any meanings to Archive that weren't intended by the designers of these templates. I just use them when they are defined, as should be done. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this "deprecated archiveparameters" you are introducing? Where was Archive deprecated? Debresser (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi It says so at citation/core/doc, and as far as I can tell it was only used in Citation and Cite press release. We are trying to remove manual assembly of the archive string, right, to let the error checking be done in /core? I've now changed the sandboxes for citation and for cite web, can you please have a look if it's looking alright in citation/testcases and cite web/testcases? I copied the error messages from one of your versions, but since you never said what changes you are trying to make I'm unsure if I'm missing anything. Have to take a short break, but I'll then modify the other sandboxes, and look at the testcases. Cheers, Amalthea  08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a good look at things, and I must disagree. The edit stating that Archive is deprecated was made here on 7 February 2009. The discussion took place on Template_talk:Citation/core/Archive_1. There the same author says specifically "This version of the sandbox contains an addition, which will continue to work alongside the existing code". That was a lot more precisely formulated than saying that Archive was deprecated. After all, Archive remained and remains in the code. The section added at that time was far from ideal, as we have noticed here already. It is precisely this section that I have come to improve. I do not think that at this time you should be changing the "approach", as you call it. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, I'd realy not want you to introduce an unneeded Category:Pages using deprecated citation archive parameters based upon such weak fundaments. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But that was the main change of this whole ordeal: Move the assemblage of the archive message from Citation into Citation/core! Done in, and part of your requested edit. The only thing I changed is using a new parameter for the archive url, and not simply change its meaning, since I'm not *sure* that no other templates besides the ones listed on Citation/core are using it. From what I can tell, the only other one that is still using the Archive parameter, and is thus circumventing the logic in /core is Cite press release. I've now also applied the change in the sandbox (testcases), so effectively, the Archive parameter should be unused (unless there are undocumented templates using /core, which should be caught by the Category). I don't have a problem with not categorizing it, it will continue to work of course, but that would be the only way to figure out if there are active, undocumented usages of that parameter that should get the same treatment, to display consistent error messages. Amalthea  10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps restrict the categorising to template namespace, and rename to Templates using deprecated archive parameters. That is what you want to use it for, after all. If you want to eliminate Archive from all citation templates, no problem. And in the end just remove it from Citation/core and the doumentation page as well. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done in Citation/core/sandbox. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The category loses most of its value then, though, since we'd have to rely on it being rendered on some template page. As indicated, I expect that the category would remain empty, and that we could completely remove the Archive parameter in due time. None of the templates listed on /core/doc are using it. Amalthea  10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what would be lost. After all, pages do not use this parameter, templates do. And it is the templates you want to fix. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is only categorized if the respective part is rendered on the page. Just like with documentation subpages, where the categories in the &lt;includeonly> part are only rendered on the template page and the documentation subpage isn't categorized, Cite web transcludes Citation/core inside an &lt;includeonly> tag, thus only renders it when it itself is transcluded, so only the actual page can be categorized that way, not the template that is used. Amalthea  11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll undo it. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your changes look excellent. Better than mine, that's for sure. A small thing "Error: If you specify |archiveurl=, you must first specify |archivedate= when using citation template, http://archiveurl/" should use "also" instead of "first. I fixed that for you. See also Template_talk:Citation_error. Debresser (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright, as I said I just copied them from some sandbox version. Thanks, Amalthea  10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice that Citation/sandbox uses your personal sandbox, while Cite web/sandbox uses Citation/core/sandbox. I have made the above one-word fix in both. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoopsie, thanks! Amalthea  10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also added a period as the PS in Citation/sandbox, analogous to Cite web and almost all other citation templates. You can see the period in the testcases. And includeonly tags, which I have held for a long time should be added to all citation templates, like in Cite web. Likewise I added the tails with the documentation and protection templates, to prepare the sandboxes for pasting into the real templates. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But I see two big problems. One is the double error message in testcase #3 (for both templates). The other is the message in testcase #4 (also for both templates). It is correct, but there is another and more important error: that there is no url specified. I'm afraid you are going to have to throw things around in another working order (ArchiveURL and OriginalURL, and you won't be able to escape adding OriginalURL to the ArchiveDate section at the end, just like when I tried it yesterday). Debresser (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check it now. There is one left that is a bit imprecise, but I'd say we can live with it (it's caused by the dynamic passing of either archiveurl or url in the outer templates). Amalthea  10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You fixed the double message, that is good. Instead of "you must also specify |url= and |archiveurl=" in testcases #4 and #6 I'd stick to the previous formulation "you must first specify |url=". For the reason that it is likely that using the archive parameter was an ignorant mistake. I see that often, that people think they have to use the word "archive" while they should have used simply "url" and "date". Let's start with that. I have something else afterwards. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Use Citation/core/sandbox, since both Citation and Cite web now use that one only. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that is all, use "first" and only "url". Debresser (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed "first"/"also" issue. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so that I get this right, you only want the hint for the url if that one is missing? Amalthea  12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. And the rationale is as explained above. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that actually made things easier. You already checked Citation/testcases, Cite web/testcases, Cite press release/testcases, I notice. Two things still left to do: 1) Check if it's OK that citations built with Citation/sandbox now end with a full stop. 2) Build sandbox versions of the other citation templates, to see if there are any issues with how they do their archiving that I missed. But other than that it should be good now, yes. Amalthea  12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this (and its fixes) done properly? There is a discussion saying that in core templates we should avoid using para. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at anything but the archival section. Amalthea  12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood. Yes, looks good, although I've usually written it as, i.e. with a trailing equals sign, just because I saw it done like that in your version.  Amalthea  13:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing important is not to use para I feel sure you could use |para= Debresser (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out it's only Citation/sandbox, Cite conference/sandbox, Cite journal/sandbox, Cite mailing list/sandbox, Cite news/sandbox, Cite press release/sandbox, Cite video/sandbox, Cite web/sandbox. Parameters are looking good everywhere, but building or checking the testcases pages would still be good. Amalthea  12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All seems well to me on those three testpages. Excellent, actually. And the dot seems fine to me as well. Since almost all other citation templates have it, I wouldn't worry about it. Especially since it is easily removed, if need be. Ok, waiting for the updates to the templates. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add the PS parameter with the dot to all citation templates, if there are any who don't have it yet. And use includeonly tags on all of them (most don't yet). Debresser (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there any discussion about that dot? That's the only issue I'm seeing now with the older test cases. Not that I disagree, but some editors are easily enraged when you question their favored punctuation quirks, and I'd rather not touch those. It's a change that will probably create a number of duplicate punctuation marks, and might at least need an AWB job or something to clean up. Amalthea  13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We fix them all the time after quotes. Nothing out of the ordinary here. And it is only the one final dot. And in several cases (including the only addition Citation, it is anyway not used if there is a quote, which avoids the trouble of fixing double dots. Don't make an issue out of it. I also added includeonly tags. You are willing to add them (includeonly tags) to Cite arXiv, Cite encyclopedia and Cite manual as well? Debresser (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, where did I add a dot, apart from Citation? They all had it already. As should be. I did add postscript to some templates, but that is uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)