Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT) |
m Remove Template:Nb10 - being deleted. (via WP:JWB) |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Automatic archive navigator}}{{Search box|root=Help talk:Citation Style 1|search-width=85}}
== [[Vancouver system]] authors ==
Line 154:
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Usual usage? That will be based on the established (pre-lua) documentation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_encyclopedia/doc&oldid=532245512]. Clearly {{para|encyclopedia|Encyclopaedia}} is self explanatory. As {{para|article}} is an alias for {{para|title}}, it is simplest to eschew it and simply use {{para|title}} and {{para|trans_title}} in reference to the cited article. Any use of {{para|title|Encyclopaedia}} is simply an error, that should be corrected if found, to {{para|encyclopedia|Encyclopaedia}}. Doing so should not create any problems. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<
::::The link to the older version of the {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}} documentation is pretty much the same as the current documentation because of how the CS1 documentation is structured. All of the CS1 templates share bits, pieces, and parts from {{tlx|Citation Style documentation}} which transcludes multiple other templates that contain the actual documentation for the various parameters.
Line 276:
== Auto-formatting dashes in page numbers ==
It appears that the templates now convert any hyphens in page numbers. I had to use the code for a hyphen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_31_in_Michigan&diff=585958519&oldid=585795551 in this edit] to get them to appear as hyphens again. (Environmental impact studies tend to use hyphenated pagination for the chapter and the page number within the chapter.) I understand that people don't always use a dash for page ranges, but it seems to be very counterintuitive to resort to codes like this when a hyphen is correct, and I had to dig to find the code which isn't documented, and instead the documentation says to use at... :( <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:Honestly, who cares? It has always been a complete mystery to me why some people are so hung up on the differences between hyphens and various supposedly different sorts of dashes. To the casual reader they are all the same. A complete and, in my view, absurd waste of time and effort. -- [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 21:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 297:
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Whatever solution should be coordinated with [[User:Citation bot]]; that's where I found the code because that bot will replace a hyphen with a dash... <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::There are a number of editing tools that will convert HTML entities to standard ASCII characters, so that is not a real solution. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm on the fence about all of this. On one hand, I appreciate that the correct dash can be hard to type, and that people are ignorant (some intentionally) of good typography, so the concept of the templates correcting a hyphen to a dash is nice. However, in this case, such a concept does actual harm since hyphenated page numbers are not a totally obscure concept. I think given those harms, the template should not attempt the autocorrection, and we should deal with educating people or just wikignoming dashes into place as needed. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:The cite templates do not convert hyphens to dashes in {{para|page}}<s>page number parameters</s>. Bots like Citation Bot, and scripts that use AWB and similar fixes, sometimes convert hyphens to dashes in that parameter. In other words, WP currently behaves like the latter suggestion ("just wikignoming dashes into place"), with the exception that the scripts and bots are unable to distinguish between a proper hyphen in a page number like "3-1". Hence the suggestion to put hyphenated page numbers into {{para|at}}. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 323:
::The script for standardising date formats automatically removes non-breaking spaces from dates, so I presume they are frowned upon. -- [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 10:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Hopefully, in the fullness of time, the template will insert nbsp when needed in dates, and we'll be able to remove all explicit nbsp from the parameter values. However, template doesn't do that yet, so for the moment we should leave these be otherwise some editors who spend time putting in these nbsp will complain. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
:::What script is that? [[MOS:DATEFORMAT]] seems to be mute on <code>&nbsp;</code> in properly formatted dates except within date ranges. Here's a rather long discussion about [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)/Archive 95#Non-breaking spaces in citations|<code>&nbsp;</code> in citations]] which I have not yet had the time to read. Perhaps that will be helpful.
Line 332:
:::::I like that script very much. It does strip <code>&nbsp;</code> out, but I've only spotted nbsp in two articles in 2 or 3 places; these are easily reinserted manually if needed, because the script automatically does "Show Changes" after it runs. See [[WP:NBSP]] for the prime advice about <code>&nbsp;</code> - it's pretty conservative, suggesting use in a limited way only where absolutely needed. To me, stray HTML which stops me from searching for plain dates while editing is just invalid wikitext. May I suggest {{tl|nowrap}} (<nowiki>{{nowrap| 2 November 1823}}</nowiki>) rather than fussing with <code>&nbsp;</code> ? --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 20:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::Really, the only part of a date that would need a non-breaking space or a nowrap is the month and day portions. A year can stand alone as a discrete unit, but the number for the day of a month depends on the month for meaning just as the numerical portion of a measurement depends on its unit. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::::::: I've changed my example to suggest that the year also conveys meaning - wouldn't allowing the year to break obscure that meaning, if only for a moment? --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Line 349:
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::What about metadata? --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::::As I understand it, Trappist is suggesting the output as displayed, not the metadata and not the wikicode input, would have the substitutions made to prevent the undesirable line breaking. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::::::Yeah, that.
Line 417:
== [[:Template:Cite court]] ==
Should {{tlx|cite court}} be added to [[:Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1]], [[:Help:Citation_Style_1#Templates]], ''etc''.? '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<
:No. {{cs1}} templates are characterized by their common use of either {{tlx|citation/core}} or [[Module:Citation/CS1]]. {{tlx|cite court}} uses neither.
Line 423:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
::Is there some kind of roadmap for converting such templates to CS1? Is the plan to have them all using CS1 eventually? It's just that, my thought is, if these templates get listed alongside {{tl|cite news}} and so on at [[:Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1]], they will gain more prominence and so editors will be more likely to use them. '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<
:::As far as I know, there is no such plan. If it is the collective judgement that a particular citation template would benefit from conversion to CS1, editors are, of course, welcome to do that.
Line 485:
When the icon templates (e.g. {{tl|sv icon}}) are used in the {{para|language}} parameter, we see references like this:
*{{cite web |url=http://www.bt.se/kulturnoje/recensioner/ensam-knyckare-utan-tillracklig-spets(4060978).gm |title=Ensam Knyckare utan tillräcklig spets |language= {{
I believe that the Reflinks tool is the primary way these templates are ending up in citations. Although I [[User_talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Issue_with_language_parameter|contacted Dispenser about this]] almost two years ago, it's still making the same error. Should the citation templates be fixed to display the references properly when the icon templates are used, or should I submit a bot proposal to fix these? Thanks! [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
:Let's not hold our breath for Reflinks to get fixed. There a a zillion bug reports and some very long-standing bugs.
Line 491:
:The [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation/language|documentation for the language parameter]] clearly states that templates should not be used, and that statement has been in the documentation for almost two years (the statement was added to {{tl|cite web/doc}} on Feb 15, 2012, AFAICT), so it should be uncontroversial to have a bot that replaces "language={{tl|sv icon}}" with "language=sv". The bot would need to operate on an ongoing basis, since Reflinks will keep creating these links, and the fix should probably be included in the AWB common fixes.
:What are the potential bugs in a simple replacement regex like "language=\{\{([a-z][a-z]) icon\}\}/language=\1" ? (I am not a professional regex writer, so that could be totally wrong.) Note that a few of the xx icon templates use a three-letter language code, e.g. {{tl|ace icon}}, which yields {{
:I am also OK with having the CS1 module automatically render the language in plain text if that is simpler overall. It would give editors immediate feedback, though it's a bit opaque and confusing, since when I add a template to an article, I expect to see that template rendered. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 534:
#Put some generic word like "staff" for the author and list the institution as publisher.
If one of these options is to be selected, a well-advertised RFC should be conducted. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:A fifth option, especially considering that the input value(s) of the parameters are emitted as metadata would be to redundantly list the institution as both author and publisher. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:This fifth option is similar to how I handle maps and their cartographers. For some, a different company drew the map for publication by the entity that actually issued it, but in other cases, the publisher drew it. So you'd get:
:*{{cite map |publisher= Michigan State Highway Department |title= 1936 Official Michigan Highway Map |date= June 1, 1936 |cartography= Rand McNally |scale= Scale not given |section= B10 }}
:*{{cite map |publisher= Michigan Department of Transportation |title= State Transportation Map |year= 2012 |cartography= MDOT |scale= 1 in:15 mi / 1 cm:9 km |section=B10 }}
:The publisher and cartographer are each credited, so there's no real reason we couldn't double up by crediting some works authored by the same corporate entity that published it by redundantly listing said entity as both the author and publisher where appropriate. Of course, if there is a specific office or committee that can be attributed, then more specific group should be used instead. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
* I find that "Staff" is entirely appropriate for citing news stories where the author is given as "staff" or "Times staff" or "our correspondent". It does provide information, just not as much as a specific name. "Staff" is not appropriate when the document is in fact a corporate utterance, then the corporate name is appropriate for the author. See OCLC's [http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/1xx/110.html 110 Main Entry–Corporate Name (NR)]] course down the page for the definition. But just because an entity ''publishes'' a book or article, does not mean that it is a corporate utterance. Take a look at [[:Resource Description and Access|Resource Description and Access (RDA)]] or the earlier AACR2, your library should have a copy. Let's not reinvent the wheel. Or more to the point, let us not make things more difficult than necessary. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] ([[User talk:Bejnar|talk]]) 07:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 569:
Three people on a projectwide issue, on a rarely watched Help talk: page, is not consensus sufficient to run a bot to remove something from hundreds of articles. The onus to demonstrate consensus sufficient to run such a bot is ''on the bot operator'', not on the people "complaining" about the bot edits; yes, BAG should have caught this, but its failure to do so does ''not'' excuse the bot operator from this important responsibility. Bots should not be used to win disputes over reference formatting. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 08:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
:Also, this is the wrong forum for this sort of discussion: in order for it to actually apply, it needs to be part of [[WP:MOS]]. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 08:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
::Actually, I disagree. Our MOS is silent on defining a citation style for use in the articles, deferring to the usage of a citation style defined elsewhere. Since MLA style has its stylebook, and ''Chicago'' has its book, the guidelines for how to handle "Citation Style 1" are this page. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::However, this page cannot mandate a particular style, as it is not a guideline and has not been established through the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 08:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Actually, in a sense, it can. This page defines what is CS1. The problem is that the definition hasn't caught up to real-world usages and considerations, as the above discussion shows. Our MOS defines the in-house style used when writing Wikipedia articles, except the in-house style used for citation formatting. On that topic, it punts. Editors are then free to use APA, MLA, ''Chicago'', ''Vancouver'', ''Bluebook'', or our editor-created CS1 or CS2 styles, among others. All the MOS says is that the application of a particular citation style be consistent. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::But it cannot ''prohibit'' or ''mandate'' the use of certain fields, however, across Wikipedia. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 600:
:::{{done}} - 697 reversions. [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 04:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
*My !vote is to include staff writer. If the source itself provides "staff author" we should mirror what the source says. It's difficult to know why or how end users will use that information but it's presumptuous to assume it is useless or not needed, otherwise why did the source include it. As well, Wikipedia readers may interpret a blank author field as a lazy or incomplete citation - it's often unclear why the author field is blank - including "staff writer" resolves any question. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|<
*:A lot depends on whether there is known editor. In the case of {{tl|EB1911}} as most of the articles do not have a specific author then just leaving it blank means that the editor Chisholm can be user for {{tl|harv}}. In the case of the Economist it is their policy not to include authors of their articles, but the chief editor may not always be known to the person citing the article, in which case "Economist staff" is useful. Also selecting on the word "staff" leads to the bizarre case were if an editor uses the construct "author=National Heritage" its OK, but if they use "author=National Heritage staff" it is not. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 682:
:And some likely mistyped titles:
:*<nowiki>{{cite book/new |title="Fully double quoted title" |chapter="Doubled double-quote at end of chapter""}}</nowiki>
:*<nowiki>{{cite journal/new |title='Doubled single quote at end of title'' |journal=Prestigious Journal}}</nowiki>
:*<nowiki>{{cite journal/new |title=''Doubled single quote at start of title'' |journal=Prestigious Journal}}</nowiki>
:*<nowiki>{{cite web/new |title=''Double single-quote" at start and end of title'' |url=//example.com}}</nowiki>
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 796:
: List of representative citation styles used in scholarly journals (data obtained from [[EndNote]]):
* [[American Anthropological Association]] Style Guide: <code>Author Year Title. Journal Volume|(Issue)|:Pages|.</code>
* [[American Geophysical Union]] Style Guide: <code>Author (Year), Title|, Journal|, Volume|(Issue)|, Pages|.</code>
Line 860:
::In each of the above discussions, the idea of commenting out the accessdate parameter was brought up. Note that, as far as I can tell (disclaimer: I am often wrong), the accessdate is displayed only if the URL is present, so commenting out the accessdate will not remove rendered information from articles. Commenting out the accessdate will leave the information in the citation as a clue for editors who might want to locate a missing URL or a missing publication date. Apparently, people sometimes remove non-working URLs, leaving the accessdate in place. The accessdate gives a clue about which version of an archived page to include in the citation. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 03:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:::The criterion should be whether the URL '''parameter''' is populated. This parameter may be a link to a mutable webpage and so requires an accessdate. A '''generated''' URL based on the DOI, PMC or similar identifier is intended to link to an immutable target, so does not require an accessdate.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<
== Migrating cite podcast ==
Line 1,092:
Here's a list of error types I have seen in that category. They are numbered manually for ease of discussion. All links are to actual instances of erroneous {{para|isbn}} parameters in actual articles.
*1. "|isbn={{ISBN
*2. "|isbn={{ISBN
*3. "|isbn= unknown" from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embouchure&oldid=587279725 Embouchure]. I propose removing "unknown" entirely, since it provides no information that helps a reader locate the source. The bot could also comment it to be more conservative.
*4. "|isbn=978-0-226-53431-2 (hbk.)" from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emery_Molyneux&oldid=568885667 Emery Molyneux]. Maybe comment out the extra text in case it is somehow useful to someone.
Line 1,107:
:Here is a rule for #1 and #2 (also picks up trailing comma, semicolon, and right parenthesis):
::Find: <code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)ISBN\s*([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code>
::Replace: <code>$1$2$3$4$5</code>
:And a slight variant for #6:
::<code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code>
::Replace: <code>$1$2$3$4$5</code>
Line 1,119:
:And for #3:
::Find: <code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*unknown)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code>
::Replace: <code>$1$2$4$5</code>
Line 1,127:
:For #4 and #10:
::Find: <code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)(\s*\([\w\s]+\))(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code>
::Replace: <code>$1$2$3$4<!--$5-->$6</code>
:<s>For #5:</s>
::<s>Find: <code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)[\d\-X]+,\s*(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code></s>
::<s>Replace: <code>$1$2$3$4$5</code></s>
:Numbers 8 and 9 should be caught by the rule that catches #6.
Line 1,139:
:Better rule for #5:
::Find: <code><nowiki>({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+,\s*)(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)</nowiki></code>
::Replace: <code>$1$2$3<!--$4-->$5$6</code>
Line 1,184:
::Related: as a result of their cleaning code, clicking on most of the ISBNs in the above citations works just fine. There may be some editors who argue that if the link works fine, it's pointless for a bot to mess with it. That's where the COinS explanation comes in. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ISBN
{{od}}Clarifying: If I use "|isbn=9780773532861." in a citation, I get a link that includes a trailing period. When I click on it, I am taken to [[Special:BookSources]], but the trailing period has been stripped away in the search box, even though it was in the URL. It looks like that link may be handled by Parser.php or equivalent code (thanks for the link). Looking at the Parser.php code may be helpful. It looks to me, as non-Perl hacker, that the code is extracting just the leading numbers, spaces, and dashes, in these lines of code:
Line 1,215:
Drawing tentative conclusions from all of this rambling: the code that leads from a cite template to [[Special:BookSources]] does a good job of ignoring extraneous text (and also non-hyphen dashes, it appears). It may or may not help us fix these malformed ISBNs. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
:Found it. {{specialbooksources.php}} does some cleanup as well. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 10:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::I'm happy to add starting ISBN, endash not hyphen and trailing punctuation fixes to AWB genfixes. The multiple ISBN, format in brackets and free-text issues are not something that I think are sufficiently clear cut to put in AWB genfixes. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
:::That would be great. I think adding 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 above should be uncontroversial. They are all either a leading and extraneous "ISBN" (with no space, a space, or a colon following), non-hyphen dashes (I think there are at least three kinds of non-hyphen dashes), or trailing punctuation (I have seen [,.;)] ). Anything else should wait for an RfC to gain consensus, since they may be at least mildly controversial. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,226:
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::Logic is now in AWB genfixes and I've run through the ISBN errors category and made about 1000 edits I think. It looks like it took just under 1000 pages out of the category. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
:::::::Brilliant! There are now 7,333 articles in the category, down from about 9,000. I did notice that one of the edits removed the text "ISBN" from a parameter that read something like "|isbn=ISBN=978...", leaving behind an extra "=". I fixed that article, but a tweak to the AWB genfixes might be in order. To be clear: AWB did not introduce a new error, it just changed one kind of error to another kind. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,349:
:{{para|number}} has not been deprecated in any discussion, as far as I know. We have already had enough arguments about parameters being declared deprecated without a full, advertised discussion. Let's not repeat familiar mistakes. {{U|Smith609}}, please undo your edits until there is consensus. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
::Well please undertake whatever bureaucracy is necessary to document the parameter properly and establish whether the correct behaviour for a bot is to (1) replace 'number' with 'issue' (2) not. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 08:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Shall I update the documentation to say number is an alias of issue? The bot needs to do (2) and support both parameters. We do this in AWB genfixes. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
== PMID error flagging ==
I have come across many templates that include an incorrect PMID (example: 30036011). As far as I can tell, PMIDs are issued sequentially; therefore it would be easy to flag any template with an eight-digit PMID as erroneous, in the same way that the parameter doi_brokendate identifies citations with a misformatted doi. Would someone with knowledge of LUA be able to implement this? (Ping me on my userpage if you need more input from me, as I don't often check my watchlist.) Thanks! [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 19:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:Pubmed has had 8 digits in use for some time, e.g. {{PMID
::25000000 is invalid, so perhaps the cut-off point could be 30000000, to be updated in ~10 years when PMID reaches this point? I have seen a lot of invalid PMIDS in the range 30000000-39999999, and it would be useful if these could be flagged automatically to users. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 19:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,360:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{PMID
It would seem that PMIDs are issued in blocks unless, just coincidentally, I happened to hit on the magic time when {{PMID
:{{cite journal/new |title=Pass: within allowed range |journal=Journal |pmid=1}}
:{{cite journal/new |title=Pass: within allowed range |journal=Journal |pmid=30000000}}
Line 1,374:
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks. I can write the help text, ping me when it needs to be done (& tell me where to write it). On a related matter, would it be possible to extend the {{para|doi}} validation mark any DOI ending in a full stop as invalid (common error)? Thanks [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
===doi subthread===
Line 1,388:
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks, that's good. Also, if not done already, it would be good to detect use of any endashes (–) as errors as well please, fairly common problem that hyphens are converted to endashes by insufficiently intelligent dash formatting scripts. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<
::Will these be added to {{cl|CS1 errors: doi}}? It should be easy for Citation Bot to watch this category and make any easy corrections. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 08:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,613:
The highlighting is done through CSS. The cite template wraps the citation in {{tag|span|params=class="citation"}}. The CSS <code>span.citation:target</code> causes the content of the {{tag|span|o}} to be highlighted when it is a target from a link— any text outside the span would not be highlighted. This works whether or not the citation template is inside a {{tag|ref|o}} or not.
The CSS <code>ol.references</code> causes the content of {{tag|ref}} tags to be highlighted when targeted in the output of reflist markup ({{tl|reflist}} or {{tag|references|s
If you have a cite template inside a {{tag|ref|o}} tag you technically highlight it twice, but is is the same color so it shows the same.
Line 1,643:
:Where the source does not have a proper page— such as some eBooks —short quotes may also be used to locate the in-text material that is being cited.
:--<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 17:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
::Interesting. A "scientific director" who thinks radium-226 is a uranium isotope? Or a bad quotation? Not really on topic here though. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<
== Way of finding {{tlf|web |...}} ==
Line 1,763:
:::[[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 12:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
::::That is an ugly citation. And its not the real title of the document. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::If there is a concern about the large size of a linked file, using {{para|format|PDF, 1.6MB}} or similar should be sufficient. The format should still be explicitly stated because not all URLs end in <code>.pdf</code> nor can/will all browsers display the icon if the URL does end in the appropriate file extension. Additionally, that icon lacks any sort of alternate text (as far as I know) to alert users of screen readers or other adaptive technology of the icon's intended meaning. In short, a little redundancy is a good thing. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
== "Work and publisher" issues ==
Line 1,774:
#*[[San Francisco Chronicle]] is an invalid example of this alleged rule because this newspaper's name does not being with ''The''. A better example of this alleged rule would be {{para|newspaper|[[New York Times]]}}, because that newspaper's name does begin with ''The''.
#* This needs to be harmonized with the instructions at [[WP:CITEHOW]], [[template:cite news]] and all the other cite templates, which make no mention of this alleged rule.
#* I don't think this alleged rule is well known or respected, because I have edited many hundreds if not thousands of articles inserting ''The'' before ''New York Times'', ''Washington Post'', ''Jerusalem Post'', ''Wall Street Journal'', and others; I've seen other editors do likewise; I note this in my edit summary, e.g. <
# Many journals use highly abbreviated titles when citing other journals (e.g. "J Am Vet Med" for "Journal of the [[American Veterinary Medical Association]]") because specialists in the field the journal covers usually already know what these abbreviations mean. Our readers do not, so these abbreviations should always be expanded.
#* This needs to be harmonized with the instructions at [[WP:CITEHOW]] and [[template:cite journal]], which make no mention of this alleged rule.
Line 1,911:
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Wikilinked author names complicate author lists last/first or ref=harv:''' So, the general method has been to have everyone use "authorlink=" and allow "ref=harv" to build the span-tag id from the "last=" and "year=". It is also difficult to get users to wikilink lists as "Last, First". However, Lua could auto-extract the last name from a wikilinked author name (when "ref=harv" is used), by detecting the leading double-bracket "[<
**The citation/core versions don't strip the markup when generating COinS, which is why we still document 'author-link'. And the only way to include the author link like this is to use 'author'. This doesn't play well with shortened footnotes, as the link for your example would be "Lincoln, A", which is nonstandard. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 22:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,982:
:::::::I see this was discussed at [[Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#Should date validation allow "BC" and other eras?]] and the majority of editors seemed to accept the idea of entering whatever date was correct, even if it was before 100.
== external links in page parameters ==
Corrupted [[COinS]] metadata occurs when editors place external links in any of the {{para|page}} parameters. To fix this, I have added a small bit of code to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] that extracts the page number strings from the {{para|page}} value and uses the extracted data for COinS. If this change is retained, editors may freely add external links in any of the page parameters.
Of course there is a caveat: When the value assigned to {{para|pages}} contains the square brackets, hyphens are not converted to endashes as they would be if the page range was not part of a url. I have a vague memory of a conversation that resulted in this restriction, but I suspect that it is imposed because the replacement code would indiscriminately replace hyphens in a url with an endash which would break the url. I'll give some thought to fixing this.
*{{cite book/new |title=Page number without external link |page=45}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Page number without external link |page=45}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=Page number without external link |page=45}}}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Page number with external link |page=[http://www.example.com 24]}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Page number with external link |page=[http://www.example.com 24]}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=Page number with external link |page=[http://www.example.com 24]}}}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked |pages=24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked |pages=24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked |pages=24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106}}}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls |pages=[http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80]}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls |pages=[http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80]}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls |pages=[http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80]}}}}
*{{cite book/new |title=No page number value}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=No page number value}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=No page number value}}}}
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked to support page numbers that are alpha and alphanumeric.
*{{cite book/new |title=Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers |pages=[http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2]}}
**<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers |pages=[http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2]}}</nowiki></code>
**{{code|1={{cite book/new |title=Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers |page=[http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2]}}}}
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Dashes in page numbers are optional:''' Remember how some page numbers should retain hyphens, such as page "B-19" or similar in newspapers, and so the auto-adjustment of page-number dashes in "pages=" is just a courtesy to users who can hand-edit to use dashes if wanted. For that reason, singular option "page=B-19 — B-21" can be used to retain hyphens. Otherwise, I would not worry about hyphens in page-number ranges because over 94% of real-world sources tend to use hyphens everywhere (except new ''Britannica''), and when other punctuation is used, then slash is far more common than dashes, such as in "pp. 5/7-8" or dates "May/June 1976" etc. The [[COinS]] metadata has been used by Bots to check for deadlinks and insert title, or archiveurl and archivedate (as in [[User:DASHBot]]), but I am not sure if page number is checked by Bots very much. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 17:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
== Migrating cite DVD-notes to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] ==
Because I'm in the process of [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox|migrating]] {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] and because {{tlx|cite DVD-notes}} has certain similarities, I've started migrating {{tld|cite DVD-notes}} as well. ([[Template:cite DVD-notes/testcases|testcases]])
During this migration, as it is with {{tld|cite AV media notes}}, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
#rename {{tld|cite DVD-notes}} to {{tlx|cite DVD notes}} to get rid of the hyphen – it is the only CS1 template that uses a hyphenated name
#{{para|format}} – in most CS1 citations, {{para|format}} has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). The {{tlx|citation/core}} version of the template tests the value assigned to {{para|format}}. If {{para|format|Liner notes}} then, the value is not displayed. I guess this is because {{para|type}} is assigned a default value of <code>Liner notes</code> – no sense in having both {{para|format}} and {{para|type}} display the same thing. Because {{para|format}} specifies the format of an online resource, it is interesting that the basic skeletons in the documentation don't include {{para|url}}. Until the template was converted to {{tld|citation/core}}, online accessible DVD notes were not supported by this template. I propose to deprecate this peculiar functionality of {{para|format}}; before migrating to Lua, replace {{para|format}} with {{para|type}} in existing citations; and add documentation to support the use of {{para|url}}.
#{{para|director}} – it isn't clear to me why this parameter is available. Sure, a director may have written the DVD's notes and should be credited as the author. But I see no reason for a special parameter here. For comparison, in {{tld|cite AV media notes}}, {{para|artist}} is an alias of {{para|others}} (as I think about it now, it isn't really clear why that is). {{para|director}} is an alias of {{para|author}}. I propose to deprecate {{para|director}} in favor of the standard suite of {{para|author}} parameters.
#{{para|titleyear}} – this parameter is an alias of {{para|origyear}}. It isn't clear to me what it is that this parameter is supposed to be doing – the name itself doesn't offer any real clues. It appears that editors are using {{para|titleyear}} to document the original release year of the DVD subject (see the [[Template:cite DVD-notes/testcases|testcases]] for examples). I think that this is a misuse of the parameter which should be the original publication year of the notes. I propose to deprecate {{para|titleyear}} in favor of {{para|origyear}}.
#{{para|publisherid}} – I propose to deprecate {{para|publisherid}} because it is simply a long-winded form of {{para|id}}.
Alternately, as was suggested in the discussion about [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox|migrating {{tld|cite AV media notes}}]], we might merge {{tld|cite DVD-notes}} into {{tld|cite AV media notes}}; a subject that I will address in another post.
I will be adding a note about this migration to the projects notified for the {{tld|cite AV media notes}} migration.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:I've been looking at some uses and have found several where 'publisherid' is an ASIN, thus 'asin' should be used; but it will take eyes on to fix those, so updating to 'id' is a first step. Some of the oddball parameter use is because I updated the original template to citation/core while trying to maintain backward compatibility. I agree that it is time to update the use. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::I just found one with an ISBN so there you go. I've updated item 2 in the list above to replace {{para|format}} with {{para|type}}. None of the pages I looked at, were using {{para|format}} to identify the online format (makes sense since I haven't found any that use {{para|url}} ...). I have an AWB script that will do much of this work.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I '''agree''' with all of the above, with the same recommendation I made in the section above. Let's get as much fixed before migration to Lua so that there are as few red error messages as possible. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:Please '''merge'''; the AV template is intended to be used when citing DVD liner notes; the mroe specific template is therefore redundant. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Documentation changed according to items 1–5 above with these exceptions:
:3. {{para|director}} – may or may not be the author of the note and so similar to {{para|artist}} in {{tlx|cite AV media notes}}; deprecated in favor of {{para|others}} like {{para|artist}} in {{tlx|cite AV media notes}}; makes it easier to deprecate {{tld|cite DVD notes}} in favor of {{tld|cite AV media notes}}.
New:
:6. Default type changed from "Liner notes" to "Media notes" (same as {{tld|cite AV media notes}})
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
== URLs in authorlink ==
One of the common errors is providing URLs in the {{para|authorlink}} parameter, which produces malformed links - how about catching this as a CS1 error? [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] ([[User talk:GregorB|talk]]) 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:Good idea. I posted a similar idea at [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Detect_and_report_wikilinks_in_author_parameters]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
::Yep, such a good idea that you have suggested it [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Suggested_check_for_invalid_values_in_.7Cauthorlink.3D|before]]. There is a version of the check in the sandbox.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Sigh. I must be getting old. Thanks. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
== Fixes that bots could take on ==
Here's a list of fixes that a bot should be able to take on. I come across these frequently. I have numbered them manually for ease of discussion. These are similar to fixes suggested by {{U|Wikid77}} above.
1. Change <code>{cite web|http}</code> to <code>{cite web|url=http}</code> in {{cl|Pages with empty citations}} and {{cl|Pages with citations using unnamed parameters}}. Many errors in these two categories are of this specific type, and they should be very easy to fix.
2. Change {{para|translator}} to {{para|others|... (translator)}} in {{cl|Pages with citations using unsupported parameters}}.
3. Fix ISBN errors in {{cl|Pages with ISBN errors}} as described in [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_4#Bot_to_fix_ISBN_errors.3F]]. This may require an RFC first.
4. Fix articles in {{cl|Pages with citations having bare URLs}} using some sort of Reflinks-like tool. These fixes will have to be run by hand using a script rather than a bot, since experience with Reflinks has shown that pulling data from web pages requires human oversight.
5. I keep coming back to {{cl|Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL}} and not knowing what a good fix would look like. Commenting out accessdates in those citations is tempting, but the error is sometimes a symptom of another error (like #1 above). We may have to clear out {{cl|Pages using web citations with no URL}} first.
More? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:Let me know when there's consensus that these errors should be corrected (perhaps a post to my user page?) and I'll modify Citation Bot to address 1 & 2 (and others if there's a clear way of how to). [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 18:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:I believe #1 could be automatically fixed by a bot. Regarding #2, there is ''some'' discussion on adding a {{para|translator}}-like property, but so far no consensus to do so. It would be nice to have a bot fix ISBN errors as in #3. I've seen bad bot-generated titles around, some including pipes (|) for instance. There may be a good way to automatically do #4, though, filtering the title. For #5, I recently had a discussion with an IP about accessdates. I often have commented them out, if I thought a url was left out, but there are times when they aren't needed at all. If there is a proper date for the work, the accessdate is most likely redundant. To start, a bot could run through all the pages, deleting accessdates if there is no url and a properly formatted MOS date prior to (or the same as) the accessdate. That would reduce the log some, because people who fill in accessdates for printed material often fill in the date of the work as well. (That's my observation, anyway.) <samp>[[User:PC-XT|—PC]][[User Talk:PC-XT|-XT]][[Special:Contributions/PC-XT|+]]</samp> 04:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:: Many editor tools auto-fill {{para|accessdate}} with the current date irrespective of whether {{para|date}} is populated or not. If this behaviour could be amended, suppressing the addition of {{para|accessdate}} where {{para|date}} is already stated, the number of new cases would likely rapidly plummet. One such widely-used tool is Reflinks. There are others. [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.244|79.67.241.244]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.244|talk]]) 11:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:::But Reflinks works with online sources that actually do have meaningful accessdates, so nothing wrong with its behavior.
:::I've fixed a lot of refs where accessdate was provided without URL, and I don't think I've ever encountered a case where simply deleting the accessdate would not be a proper fix. Still, it ''is'' tricky, but there is a simple heuristics: if there's accessdate without URL, and the template is {{tl|cite book}}, it is safe to do it (barring #1 above, which can be fixed beforehand). [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] ([[User talk:GregorB|talk]]) 12:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:::: Stating the retrieval date of a date-stamped online newspaper or journal article adds unnecessary clutter to the reference. Where the publication date is stated, there is no need to state the retrieval date. If editors are stating the retrieval date ''instead'' of the publication date then perhaps more guidance is needed. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.244|79.67.241.244]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.244|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
::::: I'm not aware of a guideline to omit accessdates if date is provided. I tend to always provide {{para|accessdate}}, even with {{para|date}}. The only exception I can think of right now is e.g. Google Books: the content that is pointed to is not going to change in a meaningful way, nor it is going to go offline (well, hopefully), so I suppose there is no scenario in which {{para|accessdate}} could prove useful. Still, what you say does make a lot of sense to me: undated online content might change, so we use {{para|accessdate}} to indicate which version of the webpage was used; dated content, however, ''shouldn't change'', so it doesn't really matter when we accessed it. This might even be an argument to say that ''accessdate should be mandatory if no date is provided'', although introducing this would create a hellish backlog... [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] ([[User talk:GregorB|talk]]) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Deleting {{para|accessdate}} automatically is probably acceptable in {{tl|cite book}} templates and in {{tl|cite journal}} templates where a {{para|doi}} or other identifier is present, since those sources are unlikely to change.
::::::I think that in other templates, commenting out {{para|accessdate}} is better than deleting it. For example, a {{tl|cite web}} template with no URL will generate a different CS1 error; someone trying to fix that error may find it useful to see the accessdate that was entered by a previous editor. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
::Some say that, for web pages with archiving forbidden in robots.txt, accessdates in addition to dates can be useful to help determine the likelihood of a dead url coming back. (In this case, a date range is specified, from date to accessdate. This seems to suggest that we should update these particular accessdates for accurate records, though.) There may be other uses for accessdates, besides specifying the version referenced, though I don't know of any. I do think deleting them for books and journals with specific identifiers would be fine. For others, comment them out if in doubt, since the bot will likely not have the capacity to notice if they may be used. (I am sure that in most cases, they are unused.) <samp>[[User:PC-XT|—PC]][[User Talk:PC-XT|-XT]][[Special:Contributions/PC-XT|+]]</samp> 04:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
== Migrating cite AV media notes to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] ==
I'm migrating {{tlx|cite AV media notes}}, more commonly {{tld|cite album notes}}, to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]]. ([[Template:cite AV media notes/testcases|testcases]])
During this migration, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
#{{para|format}} – in most CS1 citations, {{para|format}} has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). Here, in {{tld|cite AV media notes}}, {{para|format}} is mapped to {{para|type}}. This usage prevents legitimate uses like {{para|format|pdf}} for an online copy of the media notes in Adobe Acrobat format. I propose to deprecate {{para|format}} as an alias of {{para|type}}.
#{{para|albumtype}} – if I understand correctly, the purpose of {{tld|cite AV media notes}} is to make reference to "liner '''notes''' from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media" (emphasis mine). It is ''not'' the purpose of {{tld|cite AV media notes}} to make reference to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss (that is for {{tlx|cite AV media}} to do). When {{para|albumtype|single}}, {{tld|cite AV media notes}} changes the format of the citation title from italic to normal and quotes the title: ''Title'' → "Title". This, presumably, because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. But, {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} cites the notes, not the song, so this functionality is inappropriate in this template. For this reason, I propose to deprecate {{para|albumtype}} and the functionality of {{para|albumtype|single}}.
#{{para|albumlink}} – similar to {{para|albumtype}}, {{para|albumlink}} implies that this citation refers to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss. I think that this is misleading. Editors can wikilink the title or use {{para|titlelink}} to create a citation where the title links to a related Wikipedia article. Because {{para|albumlink}} is essentially an alias of {{para|titlelink}}, I propose to deprecate {{para|albumlink}}.
#{{para|publisherid}} – I propose to deprecate {{para|publisherid}} because it is simply a long-winded form of {{para|id}}.
Items 1 & 4 above also occur in {{tlx|cite DVD-notes}} which, when its time comes, should have similar changes made.
As part of these proposals, if carried, I shall change the documentation and then run an AWB script or three to implement the changes to the source templates.
Opinions? [[WP:WikiProject Albums|WikiProject Albums]], [[WP:WikiProject Discographies|WikiProject Discographies]], and [[WP:WikiProject Songs|WikiProject Songs]], have been invited. Who else should be invited into this discussion?
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Looks good to me. As to {{tlx|cite DVD-notes}} (355 uses), I recommend we migrate it to {{tlx|Cite AV media notes}} (5952 uses). --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::It appears that there are only a few significant differences between {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} and {{tlx|cite DVD-notes}}. In {{tld|cite DVD-notes}}:
::*{{para|director}} is an alias of {{para|author}}
::*the default value for {{para|title}} is Liner notes
::*there is some peculiar markup for <code><nowiki>format</nowiki></code>
::*{{para|titleyear}} is an alias of {{para|origyear}}
::So, yeah, I agree. But {{tld|cite DVD-notes}} isn't really the purpose of this thread.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I '''agree''' with all four points made by [[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]]. To avoid creating a new batch of error messages, I recommend changing all of the deprecated parameters in existing instances of {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} to the new supported parameters, or commenting out parameters that will not have a new equivalent. Is that what is proposed in the note about using AWB? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Before the migration to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]], an AWB script can change {{para|format}} to {{para|type}} (#1), change {{para|publisherid}} to {{para|id}} (#4), and delete {{para|albumtype}} and its value (#2). We would need to edit {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} before the AWB run so that {{tld|cite AV media notes}} accepts either {{para|titlelink}} or {{para|albumlink}}. Then, the AWB script can replace {{para|albumlink}} with {{para|titlelink}} (#3).
:Except for attendant documentation, I think that this is all that needs doing.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::AWB script ready; {{tlx|cite AV media notes/sandbox}} now accepts either {{para|albumlink}} or {{para|titlelink}}. ([[Template:cite AV media notes/testcases|testcases]])
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I clicked through a random sample of 30 or so articles that transclude this template to see which projects they are a part of. Based on that, here are some other groups to invite to this discussion: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians|WikiProject Musicians]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film|WikiProject Film]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music|WikiProject Rock music]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games|WikiProject Video games]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Invited.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There having been no further discussion, I have changed the documentation and the {{tlx|citation/core}}-based template according to items 1–4 above. I have made two additional adjustments:
:5. {{para|artist}} – simply a unique alias of {{para|others}} so I have deprecated it in favor of {{para|others}}
:6. {{para|notestitle}} – a unique alias of the more common parameter {{para|chapter}} which already has four aliases; deprecated it in favor of {{para|chapter}}
I will run my AWB script against [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_AV_media_notes]] shortly.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{U|Trappist the monk}}, In item 6 above, did you mean to say that you have "deprecated it in favor of {{para|chapter}}"? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
::yep.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Anything sending complex templates to the bin is to be applauded. Thank you! - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a link to this page from several articles I watchlist. Can somebody explain all of the above in plain English? Why are we doing this? What advantage does it give editors? Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox might as well be gobbledegook. We need citations to be as simple and as easy to use as possible, and stop this culture of [[WP:BRICKS|coming down like a ton of bricks]] to newbies who don't understand them. The main change seems to be changing "artist" to "other". Not really an obvious change from my point of view - CDs have "artists", they don't have "others"! [[User:Ritchie333|<span style="color:#7F007F">'''Ritchie333'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<span style="color:#7F007F"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<span style="color:#7F007F"><sup>(cont)</sup></span>]] 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:Editors fill out a {{cs1}} (CS1) template in an edit window. Right now there are two mechanisms that translate the template and its data into the rendered citation that readers see. The two mechanisms are {{tlx|citation/core}} and [[Module:Citation/CS1]]. The first is old-style Wikimarkup, and the second is the more modern [[WP:LUA|Lua]] scripting language. The big name CS1 templates ({{tlx|cite web}}, {{tlx|cite book}}, {{tlx|cite journal}}, etc) have already been switched from {{tld|citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1. It is now time to switch {{tlx|cite AV media notes}}.
:This switchover is part of a long-ongoing process to unify all of the CS1 templates from some 21 individual templates, each doing its own formatting and rendering, to a common base where all of the CS1 templates share common rules for formatting, parameter names, etc. Common rules and parameter names do, in fact, make the whole suite of templates easier to use and understand.
:The reason for changing {{para|artist}} to {{para|others}} is because this particular template is about citing the printed notes that accompany a CD, a cassette, an LP, etc – ''not'' about citing the accompanying CD, cassette, or LP for which, editors should use {{tlx|cite AV media}}. In general, the author of the notes is not the artist who made the music or video; if the artist is the author, then there is {{para|author}} to serve that purpose.
:Can you show evidence of where I have pursued the {{tq|culture of [[WP:BRICKS|coming down like a ton of bricks]] to newbies who don't understand them}}?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The initial AWB run is complete. During that I found one other change that I implemented. Apparently, at some time, {{para|bandname}} was a legitimate alias for {{para|artist}}. So, I have replaced that parameter where it occurred. Because I started replacing {{para|bandname}} sometime after I started the AWB run, I'll rerun my script to see if I missed {{para|bandname}} in pages that were changed before I found it.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I also found some with {{para|director}} as an alias for {{para|artist}}.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
... and {{para|mbid}} which I'm just deleting because in 2009, editors determined that that identifier wasn't appropriate. (Discussion [[Template talk:Cite AV media notes/Archive 1#Removing Musicbrainz parameter|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 32#Discogs.com|here]])
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
== Bold/non-bold volume parameter doc issue, or bug ==
I encountered an issue with {{para|volume}}. It appears that it is displayed bold unless the argument contains non-alphanumeric characters. In addition, if it is not bold a period is used as a separator. Examples:
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = 3914| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = (nbr. 3914)| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = VI| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = Z VI| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = test| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = (test)| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = te(s)t| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = te[s]t| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = te$st| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}</ref>
{{reflist|30em|stop=yes}}
I did not see the behavior documented anywhere. At a minimum, the documentation should include the conditions under which it is not bold and doesn't use the period. I'm not sure if this is the intended operation, so I have not just changed the docs. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:: '''Displays non-bold over 4 characters:''' Years ago, there was a request to not bold "vol 3" and so the length is checked for 5 or longer, to omit the bolding, but it can be forced by triple tic-marks: <nowiki>volume='''vol 3'''</nowiki>. -[[User_talk:v|Wikid77]] 20:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Which corrupts the volume metadata by wrapping it in <code>%27%27%27</code>. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 22:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:The template documentation pages are up to date.
::{{csdoc|volume|lua=yes}}
:--<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:Bold text is a function of length. If the value assigned to {{para|volume}} is greater than four characters long, then [[Module:Citation/CS1]] inserts the separator character (either the default period or the character specified by {{para|separator}}) followed by the volume. When four characters or less, CS1 omits the separator character and displays volume in bold font.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you both. Great; so I was not discriminating enough in trying different test cases 8-).
::{{reply to|Gadget850}}The documentation displayed to users is not correct. The text you quoted was not displayed on any of [[Help:Citation Style 1]], [[Template:Cite web]] or [[Template:Cite journal]]. None of those pages have any mention of the possibility that {{para|volume}} will not be displayed bold. [[Help:Citation Style 1]] and [[Template:Cite journal]] say that if you want it not to be bold, then include it in the {{para|title}}. [[Template:Cite web]] has no documentation at all as to the function of {{para|volume}}. In fact, on [[Template:Cite web]] the text "volume" only exists once and that is in the section on COinS data.
::It appears that a large amount of work has gone into creating the framework for the documentation to be easily switched between lua/non-lua. A brief glance indicates that a lot of the work to do so was done by you, Gadget850. Thank you.
::After adding {{para|lua|yes}} to every occurrence of {{tl|csdoc}} in [[Template:Cite journal/doc]], it appears the ''only'' thing on which it made a difference was {{para|volume}}. Sorry I happened to pick up one the one thing that was off. That still leaves handling both types in [[Help:Citation Style 1]] and some amount of documentation in [[Template:Cite web]].
::Floating an idea: Maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate, centralized CS1 template documentation page which is either almost completely transcluded into each of the templates, or each template documentation tells people to go there via a link. That way the documentation in each template concentrates on how it is ''different'' from the base, standard template, while not having to restate each piece of the documentation. Having them have to restate each piece, even though each piece is individually transcluded, makes the documentation less easy to maintain than having the basic standard documentation in a single page. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::We could add volume to the {{tl|cite web}} documentation, but why would you use volume for a web page? With the Lua updates, most parameters now work on every template, but we only document the parameters that are applicable. And yes, a lot of work needs to be done on documentation. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 08:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Anyone know why the 'series' separator does not show when 'volume' is four characters? --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Because that is how the code in [[Module:Citation/CS1]] is written. It is easy to fix and doing so would make module citation match core citations. Shall I fix it?
{{cite compare |sandbox=yes |mode=book |title=Title |series=Series |volume=vol}}
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Yep, I figured it was in the code. I was looking for the rationale. And I just checked the old core as well and it did not do it that way, so I think this is a bug that should be fixed. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know what the rational was, or if there even was a rational. Could have simply been an oversight. Fixed in the sandbox.
:::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
'''Support''' making volume display consistently, regardless of content or length. I trust Trappist to make it work right. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:Minor history [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Archive_6#Volume_bolding|here]]. All I've done is add the separator character so that it follows whatever the last parameter is before volume. It is still true that if the {{para|volume}}value has more than four characters, it will not be in bold font.
{{cite compare |sandbox=yes |mode=book |title=Title |series=Series |volume=MMXIV}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for hunting down that link. I read it, and the embedded link within that section (which goes to Archive 2). I did not see a justification for a four-character limit, which seems too short. I understand that a twenty-character bold volume name might be a bit garish, but six or seven characters of bold seems reasonable. At this point we might need some examples from real articles of longer-than-four-character volume names that are not bold, but should be. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:::: Years ago, there was a request to not bold "vol 3" and so the length is checked for 5 or longer (length of "Vol" +space+digit) to omit the bolding; but it can be forced as bold by triple tic-marks: <nowiki>volume='''vol 3'''</nowiki>. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 20:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I've been wondering if the bold / no bold determination should be made on content rather than length. For example: {{para|volume|23}} and {{para|volume|MCMLXXXVIII}} should be bold font but {{para|volume|3rd Crusade}} should be normal font. So if the value for {{para|volume}} contains only digits or uppercase roman numerals then bold; else normal.
:::These mock-ups demonstrate how this style might look:
::::{{cite journal/new| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = '''MCMLXXXVIII'''| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}
::::{{cite journal/new| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = 3914| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}
::::{{cite journal/new| first= fn| last= ln| title = title | series = 1| journal = journal| volume = 3rd Crusade| pages = 1–2|date = 1 April 1971}}
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Checking volume length was easiest method and insert dot:''' In cases where a volume number includes letters, such as volume "23a" (or "B-2"), then the 4-character limit has worked well to not bold "vol 4" but instead bold "B2" or "98-c". As mentioned above, the bolding becomes garrish, or glaring, with longer words, and even volume 48, as "'''XLVIII'''" could be a quieter "XLVIII" and no one would overlook it as being the volume number.
::* '''Cite journal:''' {{nb5}} {{cite journal
|title=Paper 5|volume=8c |journal=My Journal|date=May 2013}}
::* '''Cite journal/new:''' {{cite journal/new
|title=Paper 5|volume=8c |journal=My Journal|date=May 2013}}
::* '''Cite journal/new:''' {{cite journal/new
|title=Paper 5|volume=8c|series=Series X |journal=My Journal|date=May 2013}}
: Only inserting the dot at length 5 had fixed most volume titles, without disturbing journal volumes which should not have a preceding dot. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 20:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
::What? I do not understand what you wrote. And, what was the purpose of {{diff|Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox|600943177|600922881|this edit}}? Why should we treat {{para|volume}} differently when it follows {{para|series}}?
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:* '''Avoid dot between journal name and volume:''' This is about the common typesetting convention, in technical journals, to show the volume number bolded, with no separator after a journal name: ''Journal'' '''67''', which has been used in [[wp:CS1]] style for years. However, when "series=" is used, between journal name and volume, then the separator (dot "." or comma) is added by {cite_journal/old}, and hence the module /sandbox has been changed to match that. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 00:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:::But why only {{para|series}}? What about the other parameters that are rendered between {{para|journal}} and {{para|volume}}? And, perhaps more importantly, why are {{para|volume}} and {{para|issue}} separated from {{para|journal}}? There is some sense in separating {{para|volume}} from {{para|journal}} when {{para|series}} is set because that implies that {{para|journal}} is volume ''n'' of the {{para|series}}. Why should any other parameter be placed between {{para|journal}} and {{para|volume}}?
:::For {{tlx|citation}} and {{tlx|cite journal}}, if a periodical parameter is set (dictionary, encyclopaedia, encyclopedia, journal, magazine, newspaper, periodical, website, work) then, in this order and if set, these parameters are rendered between the periodical and volume parameters:
::::format, type, scale, series, language, cartography, edition, publisher, agency
:::For all other citations, these parameters are rendered between the periodical and volume parameters:
::::format, type, scale, series, language
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick thought for discussion, but can we eliminate the boldface completely? It's not used in APA, MLA or ''Chicago''-style citations (the non-WP styles I've had to use the most in college), so I don't see why we would need to retain it. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 01:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted all changes to this part of [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] while this discussion continues so that the [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Update_to_the_live_CS1_module_week_of_2014-03-23|update]] to the live module can proceed.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
== Physics articles with 30+ authors ==
{{U|Citation bot}} helpfully came along and filled out some references at [[Neutrino]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutrino&curid=21485&diff=601071804&oldid=600891799]. This has caused some problems with some physics papers with very many authors belonging to collaborations. Originally the first author had ''et al'' and the name of the Collaboration
:{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova ''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
}}
after citation bot came along it added the first 30 of the 100+ actual authors
:{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova ''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
|last4=Ambrosio
|last5=Anokhina
|last6=Aoki
|last7=Ariga
|last8=Ariga
|last9=Autiero
|last10=Badertscher
|last11=Bagulya
|last12=Bendhabi
|last13=Bertolin
|last14=Besnier
|last15=Bick
|last16=Boyarkin
|last17=Bozza
|last18=Brugière
|last19=Brugnera
|last20=Brunet
|last21=Brunetti
|last22=Buontempo
|last23=Cazes
|last24=Chaussard
|last25=Chernyavsky
|last26=Chiarella
|last27=Chon-Sen
|last28=Chukanov
|last29=Ciesielski
|last30=Corso
|display-authors=29
}}
setting {{para|display-authors|1}} looks odd as there are two copies of ''et al.''
:{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova ''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)
|display-authors=1
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
|last4=Ambrosio
|last5=Anokhina
|last6=Aoki
|last7=Ariga
|last8=Ariga
|last9=Autiero
|last10=Badertscher
|last11=Bagulya
|last12=Bendhabi
|last13=Bertolin
|last14=Besnier
|last15=Bick
|last16=Boyarkin
|last17=Bozza
|last18=Brugière
|last19=Brugnera
|last20=Brunet
|last21=Brunetti
|last22=Buontempo
|last23=Cazes
|last24=Chaussard
|last25=Chernyavsky
|last26=Chiarella
|last27=Chon-Sen
|last28=Chukanov
|last29=Ciesielski
|last30=Corso
}}
Is there a way of getting this to display OK without having to remove all the co-authors, which I'm reluctant to do as it means deleting data. I'm thinking there may be a case for a {{para|collaboration}} parameter or a way of suppressing the ''et al''.--[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 14:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:The only information in an author parameter should be an author name. The reason for this is that whatever text and wiki markup is in an author parameter gets copied into the citation's [[COinS]] metadata. So, don't put <code><nowiki>''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)</nowiki></code> in an author parameter. The CS1 templates will give you a properly formatted et al. with {{para|displayauthors|''n''}}. Consider using {{para|others|OPERA Collaboration}}:
:<code><nowiki>{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=OPERA Collaboration
|displayauthors=1
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}</nowiki></code>
::→{{cite book
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=OPERA Collaboration
|displayauthors=1
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::Yes I've thought of using the {{para|others}} but this puts the (OPERA Collaboration) in the wrong place, after the title. If you look at the various places these appear the group needs to bind tightly to the authors. For example arxiv[http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1623] has
::"N. Agafonova et al. (OPERA Collaboration) Title"
::--[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Then I think you're going to be disappointed. CS1 is a general purpose citation tool that satisfies a large number of citation needs. It is not, never has been, and never will be the perfect tool for all applications. (If I knew how to create such a tool, I certainly wouldn't be doing it here for free.) There are going to be citation needs like yours that are outside of the tool's capability.
:::There is however, an undocumented and unsupported possibility – if you use this, be forewarned that it might one day produce unexpected results. Set all of the {{para|author}} parameters as you should normally do; set {{para|others|N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)}}; set {{para|displayauthors|0}}:
:::<code><nowiki>{{cite book
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
|displayauthors=0
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}</nowiki></code>
::::→{{cite book
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
|displayauthors=0
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
== Update to the live CS1 module week of 2014-03-23 ==
In about a week's time I intend to update these files from their respective sandboxes:
:[[Module:Citation/CS1]] ({{plain link|1=//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1&page2=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2Fsandbox|name=diff}});
:[[Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration]] ({{plain link |1=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FConfiguration&page2=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FConfiguration%2Fsandbox |name=diff}});
:[[Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist]] ({{plain link |1=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FWhitelist&page2=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FWhitelist%2Fsandbox |name=diff}})
The update makes these changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
#Add PMC error checking; ([[Module talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#PMC error check needed|discussion]])
#Fixed a circa year date validation bug; ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Approximate_year|discussion]])
#Add url in |authorlink parameter error checking; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Suggested_check_for_invalid_values_in_.7Cauthorlink.3D|discuassion]] and [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#URLs_in_authorlink|discussion]])
#Expand DOI error checking; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#Suggestion_for_DOI_validation:_check_for_a_forward_slash|discussion]])
#Fix longstanding bug that broke citation terminal punctuation if the value assigned to |postscript= is multicharacter (like html entities); Moved citation template's default assignments for |separator=, |postscript, and ref=harv from the invoking template into the module; Added support for |postscript=none; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#Separator_when_set_to_none|discussion]])
#Limit acceptable years in dates to current year+1; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#Invalid_year_doesn.27t_generate_error|discussion]])
#Expand date validation; all allowable date formats should now be supported; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#Legitimate_date_range_examples_to_add_to_the_date_checking_part_of_the_CS1_module|discussion]])
#Migrate cite interview; ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Migrating_cite_interview_to_Module:Citation.2FCS1.2Fsandbox|discussion]])
#Move date validation code into a separate page [[Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation]];
#Extract page numbers from external wikilinks in any of the |page=, |pages=, or |at= parameters for use in COinS; [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#external_links_in_page_parameters|discussion]])
#Add lccn error detection; ([[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#Checking_for_invalid_.7Clccn.3D|discussion]])
#Migrate cite AV media notes; ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Migrating_cite_AV_media_notes_to_Module:Citation.2FCS1.2Fsandbox|discussion]])
#Migrate cite DVD notes; ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Migrating_cite_DVD-notes_to_Module:Citation.2FCS1.2Fsandbox|discussion]])
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
#PMC error checking;
#url in |authorlink parameter error checking;
#Move |postscript= and |separator= default initialization into Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox;
#Add subject and subject link for cite interview migration;
#Add artist, albumlink, albumtype, notestitle, publisherid for cite AV media notes migration;
#Add lccn error detection;
#Delete albumtype; merge deprecated parameters albumlink, artist, director, notestitle, publisherid, titleyear as aliases of other parameters; remove these parameters after 1 October 2014;
to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
#Add subject and subjectlink for cite interview migration;
#Add artist, albumlink, albumtype, notestitle, publisherid for cite AV media notes;
#Invalidate albumtype; deprecate artist, albumlink, director, notestitle, publisherid, titleyear; these last to be invalidated after 1 October 2014;
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Corrected item 5 for Module:Citation/CS1 to read: Added support for |postscript=none;
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:Done.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
== Bots edit-warring on hand-fixed cites ==
It has taken a while to confirm the bizarre introduction of invalid parameters by Bots, but it has happened in numerous pages, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Premenstrual_syndrome&diff=601773061&oldid=601358834 dif834] in article:<br>{{nb5}}• "{{la|Premenstrual syndrome}}<br>During that edit, the only "title=" parameter was incorrectly fubarred to be "duplicate_title" and required yet another hand-edit to correct a Bot ruining more pages with such crap. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Wikid77}} Have you reported the incorrect edit to the bot owner? [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 21:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
::I reported this bug on Citation Bot's Talk page, along with a suggested cause and a suggestion for how to change the bot's behavior in this case. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::: The bot is seemingly confused because {{para|url}} is missing. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.242|79.67.241.242]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.242|talk]]) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
== Chapter with book/volume and series ==
Another leftover problem, postponed last year to speed markup-to-Lua transition, is the formatting of a chapter, with a book and volume, in a book-series.
* {cite book |last=Doe |title=This Book |series=Series of Books}} → {{cite book |last=Doe |title=This Book |series=Series of Books}}
{{cite compare |mode=book| author=[[Edward N. Trifonov]] |year=1990| work=Structure and Methods| series=Human Genome Initiative and DNA Recombination; Proceedings of the Sixth Conversation in the Discipline Biomolecular Stereodynamics | volume=Vol. 1| pages=69–77|chapter=Making sense of the human genome|publisher=Adenine Press |location=Albany, New York}}
Now that we have time to discuss this, I think the obvious format should be quoted "Chapter" followed by italic book+volume (''Book'', Vol. 1), then followed by italic book-series (''Series of Books'') after the volume id, not before volume as displayed all last year. Across Wikipedia, many book series are displayed as italicized, which I think is the common format, but I have not discussed series format much before now. To assist transition, if a series name is hard-coded italic, then that could be left as-is while plain series names are italicized by the Lua processing. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:Do you have examples of style guides (APA, Chicago, etc.) that provide guidance on how to format chapter/book/series/volume citations? The CS1 does not follow any one style guide, but it is often useful to adopt or adapt an accepted style that an organization has thought through and worked on for many years. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
== Editors using only 'first', not 'last'. ==
I have recently stumbled across a couple of editors who have been adding references for years, and who always put the author full name in {{para|first}} and either completely omit the {{para|last}} parameter or include it but leave it blank. This means the author name doesn't show up in the reference.
Is there a bot that can go fix these? Having said that, many of the references also need other types of clean up at the same time, e.g. {{diff|ExoMars|602495173|602471506|here}} (and still not finished). -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.229|79.67.241.229]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.229|talk]]) 08:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:I do not think citations with this error are bot-fixable. There is too much variation. I put in a [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Check_for_author_first_names_without_last_names|feature request]] a while ago. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
::I have added code to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] to detect when there is a mismatch between {{para|last''n''}} and {{para|first''n''}} (or their aliases).
::*{{cite book/new |title=first3 without last3 |last=Last1 |first=First1 |last2=Last2 |first3=First3}}
::*{{cite book/new |title=editor-first3 without editor-last3 |editor-last=Last1 |editor-first=First1 |editor-last2=Last2 |editor-first3=First3}}
::In general, the code that assembles the author and editor names lists, searches the template for {{para|last''n''}}, {{para|first''n''}}, {{para|last''n+1''}}, {{para|first''n+1''}}, {{para|last''n+2''}}, etc. until {{para|last''n''}} and {{para|first''n''}} are both not found. When both are not found it could be that we've got all of the names, or that there is a hole in the list. We can't yet tell the difference so if there is a hole in the list, it will not be detected:
::*{{cite book/new |title=last3/first3 without last2/first2 |last=Last1 |first=First1 |last3=Last3 |first3=First3}}
::If retained, this error will categorize in {{cl|CS1 errors: last first mismatch}}
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
::: That seems very helpful. As I continue fixing references I never cease to be amazed at the very many creative ways people have filled in templates, often completely disregarding the documentation and abandoning common sense. Your new code is also likely to uncover many cases where citation bot has added only last names or added only first names and this is something that it appears to have been doing for years when authors are listed in the (co)author(s) parameter. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.229|79.67.241.229]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.229|talk]]) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Citations with only last names are not invalid because {{para|last''n''}} and {{para|author''n''}} are aliases. As far as I know, there is no way for the code to determine if {{para|last''n''}} or {{para|author''n''}} is missing a {{para|first''n''}}. The only case that this code catches is {{para|first''n''}} without its numerically matching {{para|last''n''}} or {{para|author''n''}}.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: Understood this catches "first without last" errors. Several editors as well as citation bot have created many of those. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.229|79.67.241.229]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.229|talk]]) 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
:::This looks great. I'll work up some test cases. Does anyone have an idea to make the category name clearer while still keeping it short? Off the top of my head: "CS1 errors: author or editor name mismatch". "CS1 errors: missing author or editor name". This latter category name could eventually be used to include not just the "first name only" case, but also the "hole in the list" case where there is "author1, author2, author4, author5", if that code can be developed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And a bit of a tweak and:
:{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4 |author=Author1 |last3=Last3 |author5=Author5}}
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
===Examples===
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4 |author=Author1 |last3=Last3 |author5=Author5}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First 1, First+Last 2 |first1=First1 |last2=Last2| first2=First2 }}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First 1, First+Last 2, Author5 |first1=First1 |last2=Last2| first2=First2 |author5=Author5}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First+Last 1, First+Last 2, Author5 (should produce error but does not?) |first1=First1 |last2=Last2| first2=First2 |author5=Author5 |last1=Last1}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First 2, First+Last 3 |first2=First2 |last3=Last3| first3=First3 }}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First+Last 2, First+Last 3 |first2=First2 |last2=Last2 |last3=Last3| first3=First3 }}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First+Last 2, First+Last 3, Coauthors |first2=First2 |last2=Last2 |last3=Last3| first3=First3 |coauthors=Coauthors |no-tracking=true}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First+Last 1, First+Last 3, First+Last 4 (out of order)|first4=First4 |last1=Last1| first3=First3 |last3=Last3 |last4=Last4 |first1=First1}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order)|first4=First4 | first3=First3 |last3=Last3 |first1=First1}}
{{cite compare |mode=book |old=no |title=First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order) with Coauthors|first4=First4 | first3=First3 |last3=Last3 |first1=First1 |coauthors=Coauthors |no-tracking=true}}
The above examples were added by Jonesey95. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
:With regard to the "should produce error but does not?" example: The code searches through the template's parameters for author parameters (and their aliasese) in numerical order starting with 1 ({{para|author}}, {{para|author1}}, {{para|last}} {{para|last1}}, and the other aliases). The code stops searching when it doesn't find {{para|author''n''}} and it doesn't find {{para|author''n+1''}}. So, in the example, the code found {{para|last1}} and {{para|last2}}, but didn't find {{para|last3}} and didn't find {{para|last4}} so it concluded that there are no more authors.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
== Date validation: Winter YYYY–YY ==
New test for the special case: Winter YYYY–YY.
*{{cite book/new |title=Pass: Sequential years |date=Winter 2004–05}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Fail: Same year |date=Winter 2004–04}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Fail: Not sequential years |date=Winter 2004–07}}
*{{cite book/new |title=Fail: Not sequential years |date=Winter 2004–03}}
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
:Nice catch. I saw one of those in the last few days while I was fixing another category of error, and I forgot to copy the citation to my sandbox to troubleshoot it. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
== Should quote chapter when title and journal ==
I think there is still an old 3-way bug for "chapter=" when using both title/journal, which I neglected to fix when first developing the Module:Citation/CS1 last year. As I interpret the issue, a "chapter=" should always be quoted and then force "title=" into italics. However, note the following in {cite_journal}:
{{cite compare|mode=journal
|first=Mark |last=Webster |chapter=Trilobite Biostratigraphy and Sequence Stratigraphy of the Upper Dyeran (traditional Laurentian "Lower" Cambrian) in the southern Great Basin, USA |EditorSurname1=Hollingsworth |EditorGiven1=J.S. |year=2011 |title=Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada |journal=Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin |number=67}}
In the above example, "[[Trilobite]] Biostratigraphy" is just one chapter in the larger topic (book), ''Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology...'', which would cover all life forms of the [[Cambrian Period]]. Perhaps always quote a chapter title? I was too tired last year (still am) to test all major combinations with title+journal/work, and I neglected to fix that. It is a minor problem, but some PhD users might expect it fixed in the next Lua release. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Problem is setting Chapter italic when Periodical+Title set:''' The problem can be fixed, in 2 places, by not quoting the Title text and not italicizing Chapter name, as done here:
<syntaxhighlight lang="lua">
if is_set(Periodical) and is_set(Title) then
Chapter = wrap( 'italic-title', Chapter ); --DO NOT DO THIS!!
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-italic-title', TransChapter );
else
Chapter = kern_quotes(Chapter);
Chapter = wrap( 'quoted-title', Chapter );
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransChapter );
end
</syntaxhighlight>
: Instead, always quote the Chapter name, by: Chapter = wrap( 'quoted-title', Chapter). Plus fix "if is_set(Periodical) then" to also check Chapter, as:
<syntaxhighlight lang="lua">
if is_set(Periodical) and not is_set(Chapter) then
Title = kern_quotes (Title);
Title = wrap( 'quoted-title', Title );
TransTitle = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransTitle );
elseif inArray(config.CitationClass, ...)
</syntaxhighlight>
: By adding the restriction "<code>and not is_set(Chapter)</code>" then the logic will naturally decide to italicize the book's Title as well as the "journal=" Periodical. Hence, that fixes the problem, without altering other issues about the quoted/italic titles. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:: ''Update:'' I have noticed several articles with similar use of 3 parameters about chapters, book/magazine titles, and collections or series. Hence, this issue should be fixed in the current Lua /sandbox version. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
== Accesswalls ==
Proposal: Replace {{para|subscription}} and {{para|registration}} with a new {{para|access}}.
Rationale: There are at least five, probably more, types of access restriction, and more may develop in the future.
Syntax:
*{{para|access|sub}} (or {{para|access|subscription}}) = subscription (paid registration) required
*{{para|access|reg}} (or {{para|access|registration}}) = free registration required
*{{para|access|fee}} = per-access or per-item fee required
*{{para|access|abstract}} = free abstract, but fee required for access to complete content
*{{para|access|audience}} = access restricted to defined (e.g. academic or professional institution) audience
This will also obviate any need to have code trying to determine which existing parameter supercedes the other, and other potential future complications. <span style="white-space:nowrap"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''SMcCandlish'''</span> ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ⚞(<sup>Ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅̆<sub>⚲͜</sub>ⱷ<sup>^</sup>)≼ </span> 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:I rather like this idea. What I don't like is the parameter name: {{para|access}} is too close to {{para|accessdate}}. Perhaps {{para|permission}}? I have bulleted your syntax.
:What is {{para|access|subscription}}?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I get what you mean about {{para|accessdate}}, but {{para|permission}} is longwinded. {{tlx|pra|access|subscription}} was a typo for {{tlx|para|access|subscription}}. All of them require some form of registration, so perhaps {{para|register}}. <span style="white-space:nowrap"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''SMcCandlish'''</span> ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ⚞(<sup>Ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅̆<sub>⚲͜</sub>ⱷ<sup>^</sup>)≼ </span> 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:*I fear that this further complicates the edit window, and the likely input errors when people don't know what too fill in. That's why binary yes/no is good. While these differences exist, I'd like to understand on a practical level what you feel the benefits to the project of this fractioning of the type of access. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:*I'm not sure if the complexity is worth the value to readers and editors. One problem is this sort of thing tends to change fairly rapidly, compared to the frequency with which reference lists are maintained. There are also some problem with the details of the proposal. A particular entry might be available at no additional fee to those affiliated with a particular institution, a paid subscription might be available, '''and''' the item might be available for one-time access. Another problem that an item with "access restricted to defined (e.g. academic or professional institution) audience" is not published and so shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
::*My concern is that it's already fragmented into a code mess for paid and unpaid accesswalls, with the further complication that some forms of paywall are not subscription-based, but one-time purchases. An alternative idea to what I first proposed is to merge the two existing options into one simplified parameter, and not distinguish at all between the paid types of accesswall: Perhaps a {{para|register}} or {{para|wall}}, with one value <code>paid</code> and opposite value <code>free</code>, with any other value (e.g. <code>y</code>) defaulting to "paid". <span style="white-space:nowrap"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''SMcCandlish'''</span> ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ⚞(<sup>Ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅̆<sub>⚲͜</sub>ⱷ<sup>^</sup>)≼ </span> 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
'''Revised proposal:''' Perhaps a {{para|register}} or {{para|wall}}, with one value <code>paid</code> and opposite value <code>free</code>, with any other value (e.g. <code>y</code>) defaulting to "paid". The problem with the current code that it assumes that paywalls are subscription based when this is often not true. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
== Unhiding hidden error messages ==
Right now, there are seven error message that are hidden from editors who have not chosen to make all error messages visible. These are
{|class="wikitable"
|+hidden CS1 error messages
!error message !! category !! number of pages in category
|-
|<span class="error"><code>|accessdate=</code> requires <code>|url=</code></span> || [[:Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL]] ||{{PAGESINCAT:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL}}
|-
|<span class="error">Check date values in: <code>|param1=, |param2=, ...</code></span> || [[:Category:CS1 errors: dates]] || {{PAGESINCAT:CS1 errors: dates}}
|-
|<span class="error">Cite uses deprecated parameters</span> || [[:Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters]] || {{PAGESINCAT:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters}}
|-
|<span class="error"><code>|displayauthors=</code> suggested</span> || [[:Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al.]] || {{PAGESINCAT:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al.}}
|-
|<span class="error"><code>|displayeditors=</code> suggested</span> || [[:Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al.]] || {{PAGESINCAT:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. in editors}}
|-
|<span class="error"><code>|format=</code> requires <code>|url=</code></span> || [[:Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL]] || {{PAGESINCAT:Pages using citations with format and no URL}}
|-
|<span class="error">Missing or empty <code>|url=</code></span> || [[:Category:Pages using web citations with no URL]] || {{PAGESINCAT:Pages using web citations with no URL}}
|-
|}
Any reason why at least some of these shouldn't be unhidden at the next [[Module:Citation/CS1]] update?
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
:'''My two cents:''' If I recall correctly, in [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_3#RfC|the discussion that resulted in these errors being hidden]], it was agreed that they would be hidden in a particular category until the bot-fixable errors had been fixed. Neither Bot nor AWB work has been applied to the "accessdate", "displayeditors", "format", or "missing url" categories. Please correct me if I am wrong. We may decide as a group that one or more of these categories is not fixable by bots (I'm looking at you, "missing url").
:The "date" and "deprecated parameters" categories have been traversed by bots to fix some of the problems therein, but they both need more work by bots. Those bots are either returning from RFC-induced hiatus soon (BattyBot Task 25, are you out there?) or awaiting BRFA approval (Monkbot's various tasks). Once those bots make a couple of passes through those two categories, we should expose the remaining error messages.
:The "displayauthors" category has been traversed by Citation Bot, which has fixed as many errors as it can. The category is down from about 10,000 entries to under 500. I think that error should be displayed.
:The "displayeditors" category is awaiting an update to Citation Bot's code, which has been requested via a bug report. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe many of the "cite web with missing URL" entries are likely to be references where a <code>dx.doi.org</code> URL has been bot replaced by a {{para|doi}} parameter and the template was not changed to the more appropriate "cite journal" version, or whatever, at the same time. Likewise for many of the "format requires URL" errors. I might be wrong though.
Where a bot removes {{para|url}} it should also remove other parameters that can only be present if {{para|url}} is present. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.229|79.67.241.229]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.229|talk]]) 23:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose more red messages'''. I have explained below how the red-error messages have left errors in thousands of pages for months/years (viewed up to 5 million times before hand-fixed), see reply moved to "[[#No more red-error messages]]" below. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
==Cite web or accessdate without URL==
Currently, using the cite web template requires a url or an error message is issued to those who have the messages turned on. Likewise a URL is expected whenever the accessdate parameter is present. But I came across an edit where an editor had added information from a source behind a paywall. I might face the same problem; I have access to some paywall sources through my library, but the access is explained by library personnel as clicking on a link on the library home page, then giving the password, and then searching for the source. If I give the URL from my address bar at the time I'm viewing the source, and then try that URL from a different computer, I get a page asking for a userid and password, but no one at the library seems to know the userid. So it would be rather useless to provide the URL.
It seems to me we should provide some advice about this situation. If the paywall operator is reliable and we viewed an exact copy of a paper publication, I suppose we could just give the information about the paper publication that we viewed online, and not mention that we viewed it online. But if the source is an electronic-source, subject to silent revision, we should provide an access date. What, then, do we use as a URL? The homepage of the paywall operator?
Courtesy also comes into play. If the paywall operator has in some way given support to the writing of the article, for example, by giving accounts to selected Wikipedia editors, or to another charity, it might be appropriate to acknowledge in some way that the information was accessed through the paywall. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
:I believe this is why we have {{para|subscription|yes}}. I could be misunderstanding you or just plain wrong, though.
:I think it makes sense to provide the URL. Using {{tl|cite web}} without a URL at all doesn't make sense. If it's a web-based source, it should have a URL. If your research librarian has access to the source, someone else's research librarian may have that same access. A reader who is desperate to locate that source can show the URL and other citation content to a savvy librarian and ask for help.
:If another editor can provide a more open URL for the same source, that editor can do so, which will benefit readers.
:Long-winded TL;DR part of this answer: In any event, these categories are like some of the other CS1 error categories, in that we have (or had) suppositions about the proportion of errors that were of one type or another. The steps in determining how to deal with the category, in my experience, are (1) do a bunch of edits and make a mental checklist of the sorts of errors you find and how to fix them, (2) if possible, develop scripts or bots to make common fixes, (3) run through the whole category and fix the straightforward problems using scripts or hand-editing, (4) examine the remaining citations to determine if the module code needs to be changed, to ask for a consensus-based way to fix the remaining errors, (5) modify documentation to help editors make fewer errors, and (6) recruit ReferenceBot to notify editors who create new entries in the category. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
::The parameter subscription=yes is fine if the url will bring a scriber to the source. But if the url won't bring a subscriber to the source, then the url is useless. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 02:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Is there a "permanent URL" link at the place where the source is? - [[User:Purplewowies|Purplewowies]] ([[User talk:Purplewowies|talk]]) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The paywall operator is Gale; I took a closer look at the URL in the address bar while viewing the text of the sources. I discovered what the userid of my libary is, I also found that the library's userid is embedded in the URL. There are differences in the URL when the source is revisited, so there are no permantent URLs. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Some paywalls allow partial viewing to verify intro:''' There are currently cites using some paywall urls which will display part of the linked webpage, to at least verify the intro of the article matches the cite, and in some cases, the partial intro section contained the text needed to verify the sourced text. So, as with the general rules, "less is more" and we should remove any preconceived restrictions about paywall access, as with users who purposely leave out some author first-names perhaps to simplify listing extra authors as just "last3=" and "last4=" etc. We need to avoid further "[[instruction creep]]" by omitting unusual rules which have also cluttered the template documentation with more [[wp:rulespam]]. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
== Date v. Year on drop down cite book template in edit window toolbar ==
I see from discussions above that "date" and "year" have been discussed. At some point, the standard "year" was dropped from the Cite Book template and replaced with "date". Ergo, when one uses the drop down template on the edit window toolbar, "date" is the only option available. This creates citation error issues with functions such as [[Help:Shortened footnotes|Shortened footnotes]] that only work correctly with years. After using the template, the user then has to manually change the word "date" to "year" for that to work. A big pain in the behind if an editor is creating an article with a hundred or so citations. And not every editor has enough experience to know it needs to be changed. If they don't manually correct it, the errors remain in referencing until such a time as another editor happens to run AWB, or just stumbles across it and manually corrects it. Or not. Can we please include "year" as a standard "fill in the blank" on the cite book template?[[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:That isn't how it is supposed to work. {{tlx|cite book}} is handled by [[Module:Citation/CS1]]. In that module, the year portion of a CITEREF anchor is extracted from either {{para|date}} or {{para|year}}, when both are present, the year portion of the CITEREF anchor comes from {{para|year}}. If the value in {{para|date}} is invalid, then the year is not added to CITEREF.
:Can you give me an example of where this is failing?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::I understand you want examples. Why was "year" removed from the templates? Was it causing a conflict? Mindful, that I am specifically talking about the cites used in conjunction with <u>templates</u> for SFN, Harvrefs, etc.
:::Please refer to [[Help:Shortened_footnotes#Date]]. {{tq|The in-text cite should include only the year. The full citation may include the year only or the full date. Most citation templates will extract the year from a full date to form the anchor. If both a date and a year are included, then the date is displayed, but the anchor is formed from the year.}} Regardless of what that says, the cite templates do not pull the year from a full date with shortened footnotes.
::Even before "year" was removed, if I tried to use shortened footnotes with only "date", it essentially told me the SFN is not pointing to anything in the bibliography. I cannot give you a specific example right now. And you might need to install [[User:Ucucha/HarvErrors]] to see the error messages. But even without that installed on your .js, if you are looking at a reference section with shortened footnotes template, when you click on one of them, they are supposed to jump to the cite in the bibliography section. If they don't, it's an error. Whether it's supposed to or not, not having "year" will trigger an error. SFN and Harvrefs have "year", and if the cites don't have "year", SFN and Harvrefs don't know what to look for and point to nothing. I have run across this innumerable times. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 14:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
My experience has been the opposite. Using something like {{para|date|2001}} or {{para|date|3 May 2002}} within cite templates has worked fine for me in conjunction with {{tl|sfn}} (use only the year within the sfn template). That's why we're hoping for examples, so that if there is a subtle bug, we can fix it.
I have the HarvErrors script installed, so if you point me to an article where this is not working, I'll take a look at it.
Here's an example{{sfn|Brown|2004}} of a shortened footnote{{sfn|Xavier|2006|p=43}} that uses the year from a date.{{sfn|Smith|2001|pp=60-80}}
===References===
{{reflist}}
===Sources===
*{{cite book|last=Brown|first=Philip|date=2004|title=Title|ref=harv}}
*{{cite book|last=Smith|first=William|date=2 May 2001|title=Title|ref=harv}}
*{{cite book|last=Xavier|first=John|date=June 2006|title=Title|ref=harv}}
These three footnotes all work perfectly for me. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Interesting. Next time I run across this, I'll post the example here. In the meantime, no one answered my question of why "year" was removed from the templates. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:::{{para|year}} has not been removed from any of the CS1 templates. It is still a valid and active parameter.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Do you use the edit window Toolbar that has a drop down for the cite template? Year disappeared from cite book (or Book citation) template when accessed from that drop down. Where "Year" used to be, it now says "Date". "Show extra fields" does not have "Year". Cite web has "Year". Neither cite news nor cite journal has "Year", however I never used "Year" with those, so maybe they never had it. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Maile66|Maile]],in the "Preferences" window that can be accessed by clicking "Preferences" at the top of the page, in the editing tab, there are two relevant check boxes, "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". Which of these do you have checked? ???? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc3s5h|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I have them both checked. But the one I'm referring to is [[Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0|RefToolbar/2.0]]. The "cite" selection in the upper right is what hides or displays the template drop down on the left. And in response to IP below, my concern is not the layout of anything except the disappearance of "year" on the cite book selection. That's a fairly recent change. I would say within the last few weeks. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::The layout of those form fields is terrible, still contains deprecated stuff like coauthors and has absolutely no clarity on when to use last/first and when to use author. Most of the forms have little or no support for multiple authors. A number of essential fields are also hidden away behind the "show extra fields" button. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.252|79.67.241.252]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.252|talk]]) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for the detailed detective work. It looks like the proper venue for continuation of this discussion is [[Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar/2.0]], since the toolbar, not the cite templates themselves, is presenting a limited set of parameters to editors.
Again, if anyone sees a citation using {{para|date}} that does not properly link to an sfn or harv template, feel free to post a link to an article or a sandbox test case here. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:I don't really see a need to fracture the discussion. {{para|year}} was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js&diff=594697871&oldid=594696161 removed] from the toolbar because it is supposedly redundant to {{para|date}}. Is it not? <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::I believe {{para|year}} is surplus to requirements as I explained at the [[Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#Toolbar Cite book missing .7Cyear.3D|other conversation]].
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I temporarily turned on "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". I found that the toolbar provided a mechanism to insert free-form footnotes. It also provided a way to insert citation template footnotes. It did not provide a mechanism to insert a reference list entry ready-to-go with short footnotes or Harvard citations. Before the toolbar citation would be usable, the editor would have to remove <nowiki><ref> and </ref></nowiki> and add {{para|ref|harv}}. Perhaps the non-working cases that [[user:Maile66]] complained about were a result of the editor not correctly modifying the output of the toolbar. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So that people know: [[WP:AWB|AWB]] currently changes parameter {{para|date}} to {{para|year}} in all citation templates when the value of the parameter is only a year as part of the [[WP:AWB/GF|General Fixes]]. This means that thousands of articles have been changed to using {{para|year}} instead of {{para|date}}. If this is not what CS1 desires, the general fixes need to get changed. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
== Proper use of parameter? ==
Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Wigan_Athletic_F.C._season&oldid=603287159 this] how the {{para|website}} or {{para|work}} parameter was envisaged to work? If not, what can be done about it? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:I don't think so. Thanks for fixing it. The documentation for {{para|website}} in {{tlx|cite web}} and for {{para|work}} in [[Help:Citation Style 1]] says nothing about urls in this parameter. I don't think that it would be too hard to add error checking for urls in these parameters as we've done for urls in {{para|authorlink}}.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
::It's easy enough to build in a rule to strip the url down to domain name for {{para|work}} and {{para|publisher}}, but I fear an avalanche of false positives if I include "website" in the regex. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 06:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The documentation states "title of website" and I think that is pretty clear. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
== External link icons ==
It appears that external link icons will be removed in the next update. The PDF icon is set locally by a rule in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] and there is discussion on removing it. See [[MediaWiki talk:Common.css#External links icons removed]]. I bring it up here, as many editors believe the icons are added by the templates. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
== Discussion of |accessdate= in another location ==
There is a discussion regarding {{para|accesdate}} at [[Help_talk:CS1_errors#Accessdate]].
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
== Exact use for place/location? ==
I am currently having a small dispute with {{user|Sitush}} over whither the {{para|location}} / {{para|place}} field in {{tlx|cite news}} is meant to show the physical publication location of the newspaper (Sitush) or the [[dateline]] (my position). Sitush has cited [[Template:Cite news#Publisher]] as a source, but the description is ambiguous. I feel that Sitush's interpretation is meant more for {{tlx|cite book}}. Can someone settle this?--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:Consistency. If it were as you suggest then "location" for a book would be, for example, the house (cafe, in the case of [[J. K. Rowling]]!) where the author wrote the book but in fact it is always the location of the publisher. Location can always be ascertained for place of publication of newspaper stories, defaulting to the first-named if there are several, but the place of submission is often not given. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 17:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::The place of submission is usually given in the dateline.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 17:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd dispute that, too. More often than not, it is not given at all. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Hence "usually".--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::No, "usually" means that more often than not it ''is'' in the dateline; I'm saying the opposite. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 17:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::We agree then. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I give up. You seem to be being deliberately obtuse now, sorry. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::No, I said that "The place of submission is usually given in the dateline", using ''usually'' to indicate that sometimes it is not. You replied, saying "More often than not, it is not given at all.", which means the same thing. Hence, we agreed.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ec}} Traditionally, the location of a newspaper is given when it is not contain in the name of the newspaper. This is to aid a reader in finding a copy of that specific newspaper in library archives. The dateline for an article is practically useless for this purpose because it will vary from article to article within the same paper
:To take an example from my hometown area, ''The Daily News'' is a newspaper published in Iron Mountain, Michigan, here in the US. There is also ''[[The Daily News (Kentucky)|The Daily News]]'' that is published in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and ''[[The Daily News (Texas)|The Daily News]]'' from Galveston, Texas. If I were to cite an article from the Iron Mountain paper that had a dateline of either Bowling Green or Galveston, readers would be confused as to which publication is the source of the cited article. What if the dateline listed was instead "Marquette, Michigan", which has no paper called ''The Daily News'' (the paper there is ''[[The Mining Journal]]'')?
:I hope this helps. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:And [[Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher]].
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:: {{ec}}Now I'm even more confused. As I understand it, the dateline is the location from where the article is submitted to be published in a newspaper. It has nothing to do with the location of the newspaper it is published in. Many newspapers use [[Stringer (journalism)|stringer]]s for this purpose. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::You've got the basic concept of a dateline correct, but in terms of citing an article, that location is not helpful for a reader to find a source. If I told you that the dateline location for an article is "Marquette, Michigan" for an event of national importance, and the newspaper is called ''The Daily News'', would you look for the article in ''The Daily News'' published in Iron Mountain, Bowling Green, or Galveston? It could even be the ''[[Daily News (New York)|Daily News]]'' from New York, which doesn't include the ''The'' in its name.
:::Just like for a book, the location given in a citation is the place of publication. If you're citing something like ''The New York Times'', however, the location can be omitted because it is contained in the name of the newspaper. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}Actually, as I now understand it, the dateline is a holdover from the years of print-only newspapers, used to indicate that a story was created at or near the location of the event and was thus more accurate. The lack of a dateline would indicate that it was created at the newspaper offices. A reach-around is the use of [[News agency|news agencies]] and stringers. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 17:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm starting to think that maybe a {{para|dateline}} field could be added to prevent confusion.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::We already have a way to handle both: {{para|publication-place}} vs. {{para|location}}. Compare:
:::::*{{cite news |last= Pepin |first= John |date= April 12, 2004 |title= Frost Causes Gas Leaks |newspaper= The Mining Journal |location= Marquette, MI |page= A1}}
:::::*{{cite news |last= Pepin |first= John |date= April 12, 2004 |title= Frost Causes Gas Leaks |newspaper= The Mining Journal |location= Ishpeming, MI |publication-place= Marquette, MI |page= A1}}
:::::Adding both properly indicates the dateline location of "Ishpeming, MI" while still disambiguating the newspaper to "Marquette, MI". <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Getting this discussion back to the question at hand, I pulled my copies of the APA and MLA style guides plus ''The Chicago Manual of Style''.
*APA: the 6th ed. is silent on including locations for periodicals.
*MLA: "If the city of publication is not included in the name of a locally published newspaper, add the city in square brackets, not italicized, after the name: '''Star Ledger'' [Newark].' For nationally published newspapers (e.g. ''Wall Street Journal'', ''Chronicle of Higher Education''), you need not add the city of publication." (7th ed., §5.4.5, p. 141)
*''CMOS'': "A city name, even if not part of the name of an American newspaper, should be added, italicized along with the official title. The name (usually abbreviated) of the state, or in the case of Canada, province may be added in parentheses if needed." It then gives a list of names with "but ''Oregonian'' (Portland, OR)" and then "For such well-known national papers as the ''Wall Street Journal'' or the ''Christian Science Monitor'', no city name is added." (16th ed, §14.210, pp. 741–2)
*''AP Stylebook'': "Capitalize ''the'' in a newspaper's name if that is the way the publication prefers to be known. ... Where location is needed but is not part of the official name, use parentheses: ''The Huntsville (Ala.) Times''. (33rd ed., p. 140)
Our CS1 templates separate the name and location of a newspaper like the MLA style or the last example from ''CMOS''. Both style guides ignore the dateline location because it won't help a reader find the source; datelines are specific to the article, they vary from article to article ''within the same newspaper'', and are not going to help distinguish between two papers of the same name. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:Ahhh, now I begin to understand. Thanks for clearing that up. The dateline is probably for the benefit of the newspaper then, not the reader, to help distinguish between articles with the same name. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::Not really. "A dateline should tell the reader that the AP obtained the basic information for the story in the datelined city" is how the Associated Press describes it (''AP Stylebook'', 33rd ed., p. 57). The dateline is only going to appear inside a paper once you find the article to give the reader information about the article, but if you're going off a citation, you'll need to find the right paper called ''The Daily News'' first. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 19:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Okay, I see. Thanks for the clarification.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
== Work parameter ([[Template:Cite news]]) ==
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has this problem. It seems that most of the people using this template do not understand the difference between the 'publisher' parameter and the 'work' parameter. The result is that many templates are filled out incorrectly, with the 'publisher' parameter filled instead of the more appropriate 'work'. Is there any way we could clarify this, perhaps by renaming the 'work' parameter to something more obvious? It is annoying to have to fix templates that have filled out incorrectly merely because of the vagaries of the parameters. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:The aliases for {{para|work}} are {{para|newspaper}} or {{para|magazine}}. The documentation clearly says that {{para|publisher}} is for the company that publishes something and that {{para|work}} is for the name of the name of the published work. I don't know why people will get that the publisher is a company in the case of a book, but get confused on newspapers. Maybe they forget that an article is published ''in'' the ''Daily News'' and not published ''by'' the ''Daily News''. I also find the same confusions with television networks like CBS (the publisher) and individual programs like ''60 Minutes'' (the published "work" of the network). With the alternate parameter names already in place, I think the only way forward is to educate people and just fix their errors. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::Yes. There's really no excuse for not acting like one cannot tell the difference between Apple Records and ''The Magical Mystery Tour''. The only template code suggestion that {{em|might}} help is to add a {{para|publishingco}} parameter as an equivalent of {{para|publisher}} and change the documentation to stop mentioning the latter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd support that change. The parameter would be longer, but at least it would make it absolutely clear that 'publisher' is not the same thing as the 'work' it was published in. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 13:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:::To be clear, I also support such a change, as the nominator-of-sorts. This template already uses long-winded parameter names, so it's not a big deal. I'd like it if it also supported {{para|pubr}} for those of us with borderline carpal tunnel syndrome, but whatever. I know we can't keep adding duplicate parameters indefinitely. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
== Need help fixing unsupported parameters ==
As the Bots continue to mangle major articles by inserting invalid parameters, we still need more people to help fix a few more pages, each day, to fix "DUPLICATE_" or "unused_data=" or other invalid parameter names. See category:
:* [[:Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters]] (pages: {{formatnum: {{PAGESINCAT: Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters}} }})
:* [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters&from=La Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters&from=La]
Remember, it is possible to navigate the category by URL question-suffix "?from=Ra" to display pages beginning at letters "Ra" or such. Try to scan through the list to fix major pages first (or semi-major, with 100+ pageviews per day); I just fixed page "[[Pluto]]" again, as major pages scarred with glaring {{color|red|'''''red-error messages'''''}} give the appearance that the "''keepers of the 'pedia"'' are unable to correct major errors in major pages. Many invalid parameters date back over 1-3 years, before the [[wp:CS1]] Lua-based cites were installed to show cite messages. Any help, even edit a few pages per day, will help reduce the backlog of 3,400 scarred pages, growing larger every day. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 16:03, 30 March, 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:If these improper edits are still happening, why are the bots not blocked? Why is it not the responsibility of the bot owners to fix all damage before the bots are unblocked? [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
::: I think Bot errors are rare. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Wikid77}} Could you please give some examples of bots that "continue to mangle major articles" where you (or someone else) has reported the error to the bot owner and the bot owner has not made the appropriate changes? Thanks! [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Coming here after seeing discussion on Jimbo's talk page: I'm happy to help gnoming away, but it would be great if there could be a priority list of the high hit-rate articles within the 3315 in the category.
And a question: why do some of the articles in [[:Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters]] seem to be sorted by their DEFAULTSORT, and others not? See, under "Pa": "Richard Phipson" followed by "Phoenix Jones": both have DEFAULTSORTS, so Jones should be appearing under "J". At the end of "M" we have [[Málaga]] though it has a DEFAULTSORT of "Malaga", while [[Öreryd]] is sorted correctly by its DEFAULTSORT of "Oreryd" What's happening? (My instinct is to look at this category for articles which need other work such as adding a DEFAULTSORT or checking whether "Foo (whatnot)" is correctly linked from "Foo", to do this while sorting out the citation problem, but I'm puzzled by the inconsistent treatment of defaultsorts.) [[User:PamD|<span style="color:green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color:brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Just scan the category sections ("?from=Ta") for obvious major articles; otherwise, fixing 5 pages is equivalent to a page read 100x per day. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:I'll commit to fixing 30 to 50 of these per day until the category is done. Who else is in? If we can do 200 per day, we can clear out the category in a couple of weeks. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:: I'm fixing 10-20 per day, while copy-editing. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{replyto|PamD}} Articles are placed in these error categories via [[Template:Broken ref]]. The coding in that template currently sets the category sort key to the page name, thus overiding any DEFAULTSORT in the article. These categories contain a mixture of people and non-people categories, so maybe a sort by surname wouldn't work too well. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{replyto|John of Reading}} but the weird thing is that they're sorting inconsistently, some by the Defaultsort and others by the page title. Your note doesn't explain how [[Öreryd]] files in the Os and [[Richard Phipson]] in the Ps. [[User:PamD|<span style="color:green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color:brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{tracked|38435}}
:::{{replyto|PamD}} Yes, my attempted answer was rubbish! The difference is that some of the entries are generated by citations inside {{tag|ref}} tags and some are not. [[:bugzilla:38435]] says that the DEFAULTSORT gets ignored when the category is generated via a reference and the DEFULTSORT statement is below the reflist. There's an example at [[User:John of Reading/Sandbox]]. In one of my test categories, the page is sorted under "Z", matching the DEFAULTSORT, and in the other it is sorted under "J", ignoring the DEFAULTSORT. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know of a way to provide a list of high-hit-rate articles in a given category, but I can provide a [http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?depth=3&categories=Featured+articles%0D%0AArticles+with+incorrect+citation+syntax&doit=1 catscan report listing Featured Articles that have CS1 errors]. There are currently 2,687 such articles. There are [http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?depth=3&categories=Featured+articles%0D%0APages+with+citations+using+unsupported+parameters&doit=1 26 Featured Articles in the "unsupported parameter" category]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
*I think many of those have "{{para|coauthor}}". --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{para|coauthor}} is deprecated but still supported so that's not how a page gets added to {{cl|Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters}}.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Somehow I didn't finish my thought. There are three bots now in [[WP:BRFA]] and a fourth on the way that will, I hope make a dent in the 99,000ish pages in {{cl|Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters}}.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::After sampling a few pages, 'unused_data' and 'DUPLICATE_xxx' added by Citation bot is probably the most common. Then we have a number of totally oddball parameters such as 'isbn2', 'opening', 'book', 'ref name', 'digitalised', 'issues', 'paragraph', 'producer', 'newsen', 'refname', 'nbv accessdate' and 'rev'; two references on one page use 'date-of-publication', 'title-of-website' and 'sponsor'. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 10:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Agree, quite a lot originating from the citation bot (that is, existing error that the bot marked in a particular way) and a mixture of other stuff. Please consider expanding [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters]] where appropriate, then we can more easily keep this category clean in future. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<span style="color:darkgreen">'''''Rjwilmsi'''''</span>]] 11:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I have fixed a few hundred of these articles, and {{U|Trappist the monk}} has cleaned up most of the low-hanging fruit (a few thousand articles) using an AWB script. Most of what is left are the "oddballs" referred to above. I believe that Citation Bot no longer adds "unused_data" to citations, but it is currently adding "DUPLICATE_XXX" (legitimately pointing out duplicate parameters that need attention from a human editor) and "eprint". The latter is an unsupported parameter; a bug report has been submitted.
:::::The category should be empty in 2-3 weeks, after which we will be able to watch for patterns in what is newly added to the category, notify editors using ReferenceBot, and take other steps to reduce the future growth of the category. Keep up the good work, everygnome! – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} As of 13:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC) this category was cleared of all pages which I believe should be changed. I went back through it again at about 03:03–04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC) and cleaned the additional 5 which had been added to the category.
::::::I just ran through it again (03:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)). There were 18 additional pages added. The errors on these 18 pages included:
:::::::6x Mistyped parameter names
:::::::1x "=" in parameter value instead of after parameter.
:::::::6x URL bad/no quoting of |
:::::::1x URL bad/no quoting of [
:::::::4x misunderstanding parameters (e.g. splitting access date into multiple parameters (year/month/day))
:::::::1x wrong separator between words within parameter name. "access date"
:::::::1x title bad quoting of |
:::::::1x title/chapter/book confusion
:::::::2x excess text
:::::::15–20x (4 pages, probably 15-20 parameter names were wrong) parameter names in foreign language (Spanish)
:::::::1x multiple uses of same parameter name
:::::::10x incorrect capitalization of parameter names
::::::There are 168 pages remaining in the category. However, none of them appear to be ones which should be changed. All appear to be archives, testcases, etc. I am using the following regular expression for the name criteria to filter them out:
:::::::<code><nowiki>[Aa]rchive|Articles for|Mediation Cabal|requests for arbi|Filled requests|Deletion review|Deletion review|Categories for discussion|Featured article candidates/Featured log|Files for deletion|Requests for arbitration|Suspected sock puppets|Wikipedia Signpost|Autofixing cites|Bots/Requests for approval|Centralized discussion/Citation discussion|Featured article candidates/Navenby|testcases|regression tests|sandbox</nowiki></code>
::::::I fixed 2,000, or so, pages. A significant number of the specific substitutions I determined are appropriate to put as standard [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters|template parameter name replacements]] within AWB for most citation templates. This will include all of the non-English parameter names for which I determined direct substitutions. Determination was done by a combination of translation and investigating the actual parameter names used in templates on various language Wikipedias. These determinations are far from comprehensive, but included all such which I encountered while making changes. I will try to work up a list of them and get them in as default substitutions for AWB. Doing so will, hopefully, help keep the quantity of pages in this category low. If anyone else has specific substitutions which are always correct (i.e. do not require human verification), they can be added to the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters|set that AWB routinely fixes]].
::::::However, the large majority of the rules (regular expressions) I used do not fit with that method of correction, or are inappropriate for unattended substitution without additional logic to check for erroneous corrections. Examples of such are regular expressions to replace within parameter names many/most 2 erroneous characters errors, any adjacent character swap, replacement of "|" characters in URLs and titles when the following text was obviously not a parameter, etc. Most of these could be included in a bot with a bit of logic for determining that the correction is valid. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 04:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
==No more red-error messages==
{{Tracked|5984}} <!-- Edit preview doesn't let you preview cite.php footnotes. -->
{{Tracked|21798}}<!-- Misleading error message for omitted </ref> tag -->
{{Tracked|54906}}<!-- VisualEditor: Append references section and list to bottom of pages when first reference is added -->
* '''No more red-error messages:''' After years of showing various types of the {{color|#CC0000|'''''red-error messages'''''}} to all users via [[Template:Convert]] or the [[wp:CS1]] cite templates, the evidence is conclusive that such messages do not cause readers to fix pages when left for months/years (or viewed over 300,000 times, as page "[[Vladimir Putin]]" in 5-13 March 2014), and even several experienced editors have edited many pages leaving red-error messages still visible for the year. There was even an RfC to re-hide such red-error messages in the [[wp:CS1]] cites as being a distraction for the readership. Therefore: {{em|After years of trying to get people to fix pages by showing numerous, clarified, red-error messages with help-page links of how-to explanations, the whole tactic of showing red-error messages has been shown to be a total failure of communication to get problems fixed in pages. In fact, numerous editors have fixed many cite errors faster by following the tracking categories and searching for "unknown parameter" or such, rather than viewing pages until a red message appears somewhere.}} Hence, the red-error messages can capture a reader's attention, but they do not cause readers to fix the errors which should be handled by Bots or by autofixing instead, to clear errors in recent updates and archives and talk-pages, all with the same rapid autofixing. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 18:53, 8 April 2014, 05:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:: If I see a red error message as I preview an edit, especially if I have just caused the error message to appear, I usually fix it before saving the page. Error messages should be shown when previewing a page otherwise the amount of errors may rapidly increase. On one page, I recently fixed a number of invalid {{para|authorlink}} parameters. However, as an experiment to see how long it would take, I left six references needing the document title to be filled in. It took 68 edits from 45 different users (and around 60 000 pageviews) before someone fixed four of the titles. The other two remain broken. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.252|79.67.241.252]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.252|talk]]) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The supposition that editors are unwilling to fix red error messages because people do not do so over a large number of edits to a page is flawed. The issue is not that having red error messages is a failure. It is that there is a failure to display such errors at the time when they can and would be fixed. Such errors are ''not'' shown anytime only a section of the page is edited and previewed. In order to see those errors you have to either be editing the entire page, specifically looking for the error, or have set up and enabled [[User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js|Anomie's Ajax Preview]] which shows references while previewing a section. Further, even when just reading a page in order to see the errors one has to go looking for them.
:::How many readers/editors scroll through the sometimes huge list of references just to read them? I know I do not. If I am reading a page and am interested in a reference, I just move the mouse to hover over that specific reference link. A popup window then shows that reference and that reference only. I then click within that popup to go to the reference. While reading, rarely do I actually click on the reference tag to visit the entire reference list.
:::There is a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 124#Automatically prompt editors before saving common mistakes|discussion at VPP]] at which {{U|Wikid77}} has raised this issue within the context of a larger question. There are multiple tracked bugs, some of which will certainly be fixed which will at least partially, address this issue. Getting the word out about the existence of [[User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js|Anomie's Ajax Preview]] to editors will probably also help. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Just for the record, I believe that red error messages sometimes cause editors to fix article references. I am presenting just as much conclusive evidence as was presented by the original poster. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: Many of those cases could be autofixed, with no need to edit the page, and no need to issue a red-error message. Where the cite data is undecipherable, then a simple note "[fix cite]" plus a link to a severe-error cite category would be sufficient. By autofixing the cites, then the severe cases can be isolated to separate categories, to enable faster fixing by cite experts. However, I do see not a problem with a lead zero "0" in a date "07 May" and 50,000 such dates could be autofixed to show "7 May" without a red message. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::As above, the date errors are a straw man. Date error messages are not displayed to readers unless they have specifically changed their preferences to show those errors. I'm trying to engage in discussions about this opportunity under an assumption of good faith, and I have provided actual data about articles above. Unqualified assertions that "Many of those cases could be autofixed..." and "evidence is conclusive..." without data are not helpful in advancing this discussion. I am willing to be persuaded, but so far I have seen nothing to persuade me that efforts in the autofix direction are better than the current system of fixing with bots and human editors. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
* '''Evidence of failure of red-errors to fix pages:''' As evidence, note how page "[[Theta]]" had shown "{{color|#CC0000|{{{|Unknown parameter 'book=' ignored|}}} }}" for 5 months (since [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theta&oldid=583684406 rev. Nov 2013]), but the cite error was left during 151,000 pageviews. Today, I fixed page "''[[Modern Healthcare]]''" which had a flood of 7 red-errors (from years ago) viewed over 4,800 pageviews (see old: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Healthcare&oldid=493074839 rev-4839]), where "_accessdate=" was appended after 7 agency names. Other pages also exemplify the problem: a page can be viewed thousands of times, while updated many times, but a red-error message does not cause readers to fix the error, so don't show it. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 05:49/15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Autofixing author, title, url or extra data:''' Remember, while the red-error messages have been left in pages for months/years during 2013-2014, the current autofixing can handle many previously garbled cite parameters; compare:
:{| style="border: 1px #aaa solid"
|
*{{cite web |tittel=Title |work=Essays |lats=Doe |first=John |date 3 May 2011 |pages=3--4|ACME Print|web=http://z |edit1-lasst=Smith |editor1-first=Jane |paragraph=6 |lociation=London}}
:'''autofix:''' <code><nowiki>{{User:Wikid77/cite web/auto|tittel=Title |work=Essays |lats=Doe |firstr=John |date 3 May 2011 |pages=3--4|ACME Print|web=http://z |edit1-lasst=Smith |editor1-first=Jane |paragraph=6 |lociation=London}}</nowiki></code><!-- disabled 2016-01-16 because of script errors -->
:'''current:''' {{cite web|tittel=Title |work=Essays |lats=Doe |first=John |date 3 May 2011 |pages=3--4|ACME Print|web=http://z |edit1-lasst=Smith |editor1-first=Jane |paragraph=6 |lociation=London}}
|}
: Note the extensive autofixing of title (from "tittel="), author ("lats="), url ("web"), date ("date 3 May") and editor ("edit1-lasst"), plus showing "paragraph: 6" to allow a reader to check the cite to verify the sourced text against paragraph 6. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 07:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
::Not this again. You've raised autofixing at the village pump as noted above, at [[Template talk:Location map#Autofixing map parameters|Template talk:Location map]], at [[Wikipedia:Autofixing cites]] and its [[Wikipedia talk:Autofixing cites|talk page]] , at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]] twice and [[#Should autofix more cites|here]] once before. Meanwhile your template has been [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_15#Template:Cite_web.2Fauto|thoroughly discussed]] and userfied without redirect. Nowhere has there been any support for your solution. It's gone well beyond the bounds of [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]] already. Please give it a rest.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 21:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Why would multiple "fix" notes, and mangled punctuation, as in "pp. 3–4. <sup>[fix date]</sup><sup>[fix cite]</sup>; ACME Print; <sup>[fix title]</sup>;" that hardly anyone will ever notice and fix, be preferable to a red note that attracts the attention of gnomes? There may not be many of us, but its pretty uncommon for me to edit an article (that even bothers to cite sources <sigh>) and not check some citations for cleanup. I have to agree the suggestions everywhere Wikid77 raises this issue that the "smarts" involved in his code are better suited to a bot or AWB script or something that people can use to go fix things. "Fixing" them by making guesses as to the intent and then {{em|adding more "fix me" notes}} is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or trying to drown more babies in the same bath, or something. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
: '''Because autofixing provides several advantages:''' The autofixing is preferable to a red note because it removes that distracting note while auto-correcting the cite to show author, title, url-link, date (etc.), with no need for a gnome or other user to alter the cite for years or decades, and as such, the small note "<sup>[fix cite]</sup>" is indeed a minor reminder that the cite parameters have been adjusted. In many cases, the issue of "making guesses" is a no-brainer, and the autofixed correction is obvious due to typical misspellings of parameters, but the great benefit with that is the detection of mangled phrase parameters, as a separate category, to help focus human effort on fixing garbled cites which require expertise, while hundreds of trivial typos are autofixed and do not need human intervention to cite the intended source document. In cases where human editing is rejected, such as in archived AfD or Arbcom discussions, then the autofixed cites will link to suggested sources without altering the archived page history. As for "''throwing the baby out with the bathwater"'' (no), instead the autofixing is more like automated draining of a bathtub by pulling the plug, with indoor plumbing, rather than hauling a washtub to be emptied. In general, autofixing is a type of automated technology, to make citing sources easier, with instant correction of typos. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::No it doesn't provide several advantages, as has been explained to you many times. But we've had [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_15#Template:Cite_web.2Fauto|the discussion]] and consensus was to userfy, and so to not use autofixing. Since then you've been pushing this almost continuously and got little interest and even less support. Please drop it.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
== circa ==
At present, the citation templates does not seem to recognise "circa" and abbreviations thereof, and throws these up as cs1 date errors. What does the template recognise, if at all? Or what can we do about these? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 03:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:"c. " should work (letter c, full stop, space), like this:
:{{cite compare|mode=book|title=Title|author=Author|date=c. 1894|publisher=Publisher|old=no}}
:This usage conforms with [[WP:DATEOTHER]], which is part of the MOS. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::In that case, per ISO/[[WCAG]] accessibility guidelines, the HTML should be <code><nowiki><abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>_</nowiki></code> (my underscore represents your space). The template {{tl|abbr}} may be used to achieve this. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Which would then corrupt the <code>&rft.date</code> with the {{tl|abbr}} HTML. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::::And it exposes the [[Help:Strip markers|strip markers]] and causes a date error.
{{markup
|<nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |date={{abbr|c.|circa}} 1900}}</nowiki>
|{{cite book |title=Title |date={{abbr|c.|circa}} 1900 |template doc demo=true}}
}}
{{code|{{cite book |title=Title |date={{abbr|c.|circa}} 1900}} |template doc demo=true}}}}
::::--<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 09:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::And it looks like any inclusion of <code>#tag</code> or a template that includes it causes the strip marker issue. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Lua to be able to break this down and properly characterize it. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::What about the template {{tl|circa}} which is what [[WP:DATEOTHER]] suggests as the way of displaying approximate dates? [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 13:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The shortcut above, [[WP:DATEOTHER]], is incorrect; it is associated with the level 4 heading [[WP:MOSNUM#Ranges|"Ranges"]] heading in MOSNUM (not MOS). The correct heading is [[WP:MOSNUM#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates|"Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates"]]. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Same thing:
{{markup
|<nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |date={{circa}} 1900}}</nowiki>
|{{cite book |title=Title |date={{circa}} 1900 |template doc demo=true}}
}}
{{code|{{cite book |title=Title |date={{circa}} 1900}} |template doc demo=true}}}}
:::::::If we are going to use this, we need to include it in the CS1 module. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 13:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Presumably, we could then use Lua to strip the markup and substitute the word "circa" in the COinS data? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Not a Lua programmer, but the simplest way would be to inject the date field (ca. 1900) into COinS as is and parse the "c." into the abbr markup. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 18:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Not sure where you mean to do that parsing; but why not put the word in full in COinS? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
Unless it is required by [[Wikipedia:DATESNO#Uncertain.2C_incomplete.2C_or_approximate_dates|WP:DATESNO]], which it doesn't seem to be, is this functionality necessary?
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:It may not be part of WP:DATESNO, but marking up abbreviations as above is part of [[WCAG]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:In fact the first line of the [[Wikipedia:DATESNO#Uncertain.2C_incomplete.2C_or_approximate_dates|WP:DATESNO section on uncertain dates]] mentions {{tl|Circa}}; I've posted a suggestion on the talk page about strengthening that recommendation. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
== date errors ==
What should I do with cases like "{{para|date}}undated"? Outright removal would probably be simplest. But correct? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{para|date|n.d.}} is accepted by the CS1 module. Like this:
:{{cite book |title=Title|author=Author|date=n.d.}}
:That's what I would recommend. Another choice would be to comment it out so that anyone editing the article would know not to look for a date in vain. I would not remove it entirely, lest you send someone on a wild goose chase that results in reinsertion of "undated". – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*Wonderful. Didn't know that "n.d." is accepted. Thanks. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::Looks like {{para|date|n.d.}} needs to be added to the documentation.
::Given that we explicitly recommend:
::*<code><nowiki>|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--></nowiki></code>
::*<code><nowiki>|publisher=<!--Unspecified by source.--></nowiki></code>
::Having a comment in addition might not be a bad idea. It could save someone some time checking. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::When changing from "undated" to "n.d." be sure to check for Harvard citations or short footnotes that need to change to match. This would apply whether the Harvard citations or short footnotes were done with templates ({{tl|harv}} or {{tl|sfn}} or manually. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 11:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Can the full stop after the brackets be suppressed when {n.d.) is used as (n.d.). looks a bit silly. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::We have the same situation regarding editions, formats/types:
:::::*{{cite book |last= Doe |first= John |year= n.d. |title= Book of Examples |edition= 2nd |location= Anytown |publisher= Example Press}}
:::::*{{cite book |last= Doe |first= John |year= 2013 |title= A Study of Examples |type= Thesis |location= Collegetown |publisher= University}}
:::::*{{cite map |publisher= Rand McNally |year= 2013 |title= The Road Atlas |map= Michigan |page= 50}}
:::::I don't see this as a problem since we terminate sections of the citation with a period, regardless if the content within parentheses contains a period or not already. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Alternately, use <code>nd</code> instead.
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::One of the style manuals that inspired the citation templates was [[APA style]], which does call for "(n.d.)." [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 00:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::<code>nd</code> produces a CS1 error. Regardless of the APA style guide, to my British eyes, a period after parentheses which terminate with a period looks out dated and overly formal. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 18:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |date=nd}}</nowiki></code>
::::::::::→{{cite book |title=Title |date=nd}}
:::::::::No error. Example please?
:::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::No error there but why has it not parenthesised the (non)date? [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |author=Author |date=nd}}</nowiki></code>
::::::::::::→{{cite book |title=Title |author=Author |date=nd}}
:::::::::::Date in parentheses when following {{para|author}}. Still no error. So where are you seeing errors? Can you show an example where {{tq|<code>nd</code> produces a CS1 error}}?
:::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Can't find it again, probably a preview error on my part. Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
=== Need to accept free-form dates ===
At this point, we can begin to allow free-form dates, such as "undated" or "late October 2011" and change the Lua software to bypass date-format checking when the date ''seems'' to be free-form. Recall that the Lua-based cites were purposely kept limited, from last year, in an effort to speed the markup-to-Lua transition from {Citation/core} within a 6-week period, leaving rare cite forks (and complex parameters) for later, which is now. The expansion of such new features should be tested in a separate version (not the main /sandbox version). -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:I don't quite recall the reasoning. Can you provide a link to the discussion?
:Since there seems to be no hope of distinguishing free-form dates from gibberish, the only way I can imagine your proposal working is to recognize a date in an improper form and issue a warning that it should be changed to an acceptable date; any entry not recognized as a date in an improper form would be assumed to be a free-form date and allowed. For example, "July 4th, 1776" could be recognized as a date in improper form. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:: The use of free-form dates is a common practice, and could be detected by some trigger words such as "late" or "early" or "before" (etc.), or perhaps by words which do not match misspelled month names. In the above case, "4th" beginning with digit "4" could be excluded as a non-alphabetic word, but would match a Lua [[regex]] pattern for digit-plus-th as pattern "%dth". -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Please provide data to back up your assertions about the commonness of the use of free-form dates. At this writing, there are 108,000 articles in {{cl|CS1 errors: dates}}. What fraction of those use free-form dates?
:::I think it makes more sense, since the date error messages are not displayed to readers unless they have specifically changed their preferences to show those errors, to leave the system as is until the category can be scrubbed by bots and bot-like editors, followed by human editors, who can find and fix the vast majority of cases that are actual date errors. In my experience, the vast majority of errors in the category are (a) valid date ranges that need an en dash or other punctuation fixes (many of these are bot-fixable), (b) newly-acceptable date ranges that need a null edit to remove the error category, (c) dates that are bot-fixable and just waiting on closure of an RFC about month abbreviations, and (d) dates of the form XX/XX/YY or XX/XX/YYYY.
:::I just clicked on a random sample of '''50''' articles in the category and found the following: '''5''' bot-fixable date ranges, '''8''' valid ranges needing a null edit, '''18''' fixable by BattyBot task 25, '''8''' of the form XX/XX/YY(YY) or XX.XX.YY(YY), '''10''' other dates needing human attention, and '''1''' free-form date ("YYYY-present"). So that's '''one free-form date''' out of an admittedly small sample of 50 articles, '''31''' bot-fixable or already-valid dates, and '''18''' dates needing human attention. If that scales, we're looking at about 2,000 free-form dates. Let's have this discussion again when the category is in the 10,000-article range.
:::A null edit of the whole category would cut the article count substantially, I believe. I don't know of any easy way to accomplish that. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
== Allow uppercase parameter names ==
After this whole past year of the Lua-based cites, I think it is time to allow uppercase names for several major parameters, including "Title=" & "Date=" & "Publisher=" & "Accessdate=" (etc.). The successful use of capital "Author=" has shown the feature to be workable, as well as perhaps leading some people to imagine capital "Title=" should work as well. The data seems to show 10% of spelling errors are capital-letter parameters, although the percentage might be higher due to the obvious quick fix for a even newcomer to use lowercase when an error message is seen. To simplify implementation, perhaps start with just 10 major parameters where the capital letter would be allowed.
Although the unknown parameters have been fixed among the 10,000 articles with "unsupported" parameters, the prior usage can be estimated from checking the user-space pages, as with a search:<br>• [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Unknown+parameter%22+%22date+ignored%22+site:en.wikipedia.org Google Search: "Unknown parameter" "date ignored" site:en.wikipedia.org]<br>In several prior cases, the problem has been capital "Date=" as an irksome glitch which prevented the date from appearing in a formatted cite. Anyway, because the long-term use of capital "Author=" has not caused major problems, then allowing a capital letter in 10 other major parameters should work well. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:This kind of tolerance of mixed case doesn't sound crazy to me. Clearly I'm in a devil's advocate mood today. Does anyone know the rationale behind allowing only lower-case letters in most parameters? Is there some programming-related reason that (some) parameters need to be case-sensitive? Why should the parser care whether someone writes {{para|author}}, {{para|Author}}, {{para|AUTHOR}}, or even, perversely, {{para|AuthoR}}? I'm just asking. If there's a reason, it would be helpful to understand it. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::: See below: "[[#No significant overhead for major capital names]]". -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::In the old template, we would have had to case change each and every parameter. This would have added more overhead to an already resource intensive template. I had a fix for the double periods issue, but it added way to much overhead.
::We have any number of bots working citation templates that we must consider before making a change of this magnitude. And lower case parameters are the defacto standard. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 19:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::Having bots do it (very easy for them to spot, quick to hopefully do) seems much more sensible than a programming fix, which will marginally make the code more complex. Only marginally but added up across every reference in every article there's bound to be some impact. All for fixing a few dozen/hundred/thousand errors. If bots do it once fixed it's fixed, and can stay fixed with periodic bot patrols.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Right, this would add a terrible amount of overhead to the template, and would make some pages fail (there's a limit to how many templates and parser functions one page can call). MediaWiki really needs some way to set "this wiki's parameters are case-insensitive by default" and "in this code, flip the case-sensitive bit until we say stop". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Browsing through the search above, the first ten search pages are user and talk pages. The few articles I sampled don't have this error, as they were fixed but still show in Google's search cache. I don't see a huge problem. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 10:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::That's because gnomes have diligently fixed all of those articles over the past few months (the error category was emptied yesterday!) and User/Talk/etc. pages are not included in the CS1 error category. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I wanted to see what it would be like to edit a page with all-uppercase parameter names, so I temporarily {{diff|Titan %28moon%29|604442967|604442785|created this}}. Click the edit button at the top of the left hand column. To me it is not at all pleasant and quite a lot like being shouted at. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.227|79.67.241.227]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.227|talk]]) 13:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced that this is an issue. For a time, there were a large number of {{tlx|cite music release notes}} templates in article space with capitalized parameters. Because that template is handled by {{tlx|citation/core}}, the capitalized parameters weren't displayed. I've fixed that with an AWB script and I've fixed thousands of capitalization errors in {{cl|Pages with citations using unsupported parameters}}. That category is essentially empty now.
:I would rather see more consistency than less. It's my experience that for the vast majority of templates, parameter names are case sensitive and that the default state is lowercase. Without there being a significant clamor for case insensitive parameter handling, we should stick with lowercase.
:Along the lines of consistency, I think, and have said before that we should standardize on parameter name separator characters and style. We have parameters that don't use a separator; parameters that use underscores, hyphens, spaces; parameters that are capitalized, lowercase, uppercase, and CamelCase. Where separators are used, the hyphen is by far the most commonly used. While we could allow spaces in place of visible-character separators, I think that it is helpful to readers to visibly connect the various parts of a parameter name so that it looks like a whole unit and not separate words.
:Similarly, where parameter names are run-together collections of whole or partial words, there should be a length limit before requiring the inclusion of separator characters. CamelCase names may be easier to parse, but out of all of the parameters currently in use, only a few have that form. As words get longer they get harder to parse, and it's harder to find typographical errors because these 'words' don't appear in everyday writing so your browser's spell checker declares most parameter names to be misspellings even when they are spelled correctly. Perhaps the limit should be 10 characters so: <code>{{xt|{{!}}accessdate{{=}}}}</code> but not <code>{{!xt|{{!}}ignoreisbnerror{{=}}}}</code>; <code>{{xt|{{!}}trans-title{{=}}}}</code> or <code>{{xt|{{!}}transtitle{{=}}}}</code> but not <code>{{!xt|{{!}}trans_title{{=}}}}</code>; parameter names that naturally occur in English are not subject to this requirement: <code>{{xt|{{!}}encyclopedia{{=}}}}</code>.
:Because it is common practice to capitalize initialisms, ISBN, DOI, etc., these types of parameter names (the identifiers) are, and should continue to be, allowed. Documentation, however, should not use the capitalized versions.
:So, I propose that we:
:#deprecate underscores and spaces as parameter name separators in favor of hyphens
:#deprecate unseparated parameter names of 10 or more characters in favor of hyphen separated names
:#deprecate CamelCase parameter names in favor of lowercase; hyphenate as required above
:#deprecate Capitalized parameter names in favor of lowercase; hyphenate as required above
:To implement this in [[Module:Citation/CS1]] is for the most part trivial. The cleanup afterward will require a bot or AWB script to troll through {{cl|Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters}} to repair individual citations. I am prepared to do that task.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:: As someone that has often typed {{para|trans-title}} without thinking, I support your proposal for parameter names to include hyphens, not underscores, not spaces, not CamelCaps and not capitalised. When inconsistency is allowed, it becomes harder to spot inconsistent things that are real errors. Of course, bots that edit references should be able to read aNyCase and allow for space or underscore where hyphen should be and then re-emit the corrected reference parameter names as all lower case with hyphens. It would be nice to see a requirement for ''space to the left of each pipe'' as a bare minimum so that word-wrap also has a fighting chance of working properly. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.227|79.67.241.227]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.227|talk]]) 16:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I strongly support unifying the way we concatenate words in parameter names. When a user is typing a parameter name they should not have to think "Now is this the one that is joined with a '_', or is it nothing, nothing with camelCase, or a normal one with '-'"?
:::We should decide on one method and make it such that from the user's point of view that method ''always'' works. It should work without consideration for how long the parameter is, or any other consideration. Given that there are a large number of hyphen separated names, I would second the suggestion that we choose that method. If we want to ''also'' have aliases for shorter parameter names where no separator is used, that is reasonable. An example would be that {{para|access-date}} could also be used as {{para|accessdate}}. For shorter parameter names it may be easier to type without the hyphen. However, the user that does not have detailed familiarity with the template should not ''have'' to know that words in certain parameter are joined in a particular way. One way of joining words should ''always'' work.
:::Making this change would reduce confusion on the part of users and result in a template that is a bit more user-friendly. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 06:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
=== No significant overhead for major capital names ===
After years of allowing both lowercase and uppercase id parameter names (such "isbn=" and "ISBN="), there has been no significant overhead incurred by allowing just one alias for a dozen parameters. The major problem with {{tl|Citation/core}} had been allowing 'surname1' up to 'surname9' or 'given9' as 18 extra aliases which were almost never used, compared to use of capital 'Date=' or 'Publisher'. Also, each various camel-case or mixed spelling (such as 'AccessDate' or 'AutHOR') would be cumbersome to handle in the {Citation/core} while almost never used in live articles. Fortunately, the parameters where people tend to use a capital letter are still rare, including: Title, Chapter, Last, First, Date, Publisher, Accessdate, or Author. Hence, if perhaps 10 major parameters were accepted with a capital letter, then there would be fewer cite errors, while no significant overhead in processing just those extra spellings (similar to 'issn' or 'ISSN'). Although [[wp:autofixing cites]] would also handle the capital-letter format, those would still be logged into a tracking category which would expand the total list of pages with invalid parameters. Instead by treating the major capital-letter forms as valid (similar to valid 'Author' during 2013), then the size of a tracking category would be reduced. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
== Log dates over 24 characters as long dates ==
To solve the problem of misjudging free-form dates or "{{tl|circa}} 1950" as being invalid dates (when actually valid), then I suggest any date over 24 characters long (longer than "September 16-29, 1150 BC") should be logged into a non-error tracking category, and not tagged with a "{{color|#CC0000|Check date values}}" message using a CSS class. The [[Template:Circa]] inserts an abbr-tag as "<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>" which is 29 characters, longer than 24 and hence could be skipped when checking for valid date format. Otherwise, there are too many date formats which need to be allowed, such as the need to allow dates in years BC:
:* {cite web |title=BC Years |date=November 20, 31 BC} → {{cite web |title=BC Years |date=November 20, 31 BC}}
When a tracking category is flooded with errors for valid dates, then it makes it more difficult to spot the pages which contain actual invalid dates. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 19:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::As noted above, {{tl|circa}} injects HTML into the COinS metadata, so it should be detected as invalid. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:* '''Lua can instantly remove any span-tag or abbr-tag:''' Before storing the [[COinS]] metadata, we can use the Lua [[regex]] gmatch() function to remove any circa <abbr> tag (or span-tag) and store only the "c." portion in the COinS. For "<nowiki>{{circa}} 1850</nowiki>" see result:
:::* <nowiki>{{#invoke:String|match|pattern=<.*>(.*)<.*> |s=<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1850 |plain=0
}}{{#invoke:String|match|pattern=.*>(.*)$ |s=<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1850 |plain=0}}</nowiki><br>→ {{#invoke:String|match|pattern=<.*>(.*)<.*> |s=<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1850 |plain=0
}}{{#invoke:String|match|pattern=.*>(.*)$ |s=<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1850 |plain=0}}
:: I have run several timing tests to confirm how Lua's internal gmatch() function is extremely fast, and could remove the HTML abbr-tag or span-tag instantly, leaving only the plain text in the COinS metadata. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 12:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::We should not use Lua to change <code><nowiki><abbr title="circa">c.</abbr></nowiki></code> to <code>c.</code> in COinS; if anything it should change it to <code>circa</code> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::We should not use {{tl|circa}} or any other template inside a CS1 template. If the functionality is worthwhile, then we should build it into the CS1 module. -<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Why not? It's a perfectly reasonable thing for an editor to expect to be able to do. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Pigsonthewing's question goes against the philosophy of the date checker: popular date expressions are OK and everything else is wrong. For example, the date checker considers "before 1924" to be wrong, even though it could be perfectly valid. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{@|Pigsonthewing}} We have no control over other templates. If the functionality is valid, then we should include it in the CS1 module where we can ensure it works proper with COinS. Otherwise we have to add a check for each and every template that might be included and injects HTML/CSS: {{tl|smallcaps}} (functionality now in CS1), {{tl|registration required}} (functionality now in CS1), {{tl|subscription required}} (functionality now in CS1), {{tl|asiantitle}}, {{tl|start date}}, and others. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 15:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::: I wouldn't argue that we should do so for ''check for each and every template that might be included'', (other than to strip away such HTML), but we should do so for those which add meaning or value to a citation; as in this case. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::That rather suggests that the date checker is in error. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
== HTML classes ==
We've [[Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 6#HTML classes|previously discussed]] using HTML classes to make our citations more easily parseable (Representatives of [[Zotero]], for example, have said that if we publish and apply such a schema, then Zotero will parse it.
). The suggestion then was "Once this module is debugged and implemented, then we can look at adding this feature". Shall we now do so? A proposed list of class names is at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/citation]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:Zotero already uses the COinS metadata— what is different or missing? --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::Among other things, it offers higher granularity and more features than COinS (the date the ref was accessed, for instance), and extensibility, which the earlier method lacks. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
== Rethinking accessdate ==
During testing of an AWB script to 'fix' accessdate CS1 errors ([[Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 1#Accessdate|more]]), I began wondering if we shouldn't be rethinking {{para|accessdate}}, its application, and the rules for its use. So, some of the questions that I think need answering are:
#Is {{para|accessdate}} correctly defined in terms of:
#:a. its meaning?
#:b. rules that govern when to use it?
#:c. rules that govern when to display it?
#Are the definitions above correctly and adequately documented?
#Are we correctly handling citations that have {{para|accessdate}} but don't have {{para|url}}?
##No? What should we be doing with these citations?
#Do we need a bot to sift through {{cl|Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL}}?
#:Yes?
#:#What should the bot fix?
#:#What constitutes a fix?
I'm sure that there are other questions but these are enough for now.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:Good questions. To help with answering question 1, here's the current text from CS1 template documentation that explains {{para|accessdate}}
:*'''accessdate''': Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; requires '''url'''. Do not wikilink. ''Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date.'' Can be [[Help:Citation Style 1/accessdate|hidden or styled]] by registered editors.
:Some thoughts:
:*It seems ''clear'' enough to me, but is it "correctly defined"?
:*I was unable to find an explanation of when the value of {{para|accessdate}} is actually displayed, except for the oblique "requires url".
:*There is no reference to date verification.
:*I believe that we are handling these citations as documented, though the documentation could be made more explicit.
:*I believe that the bot should fix the citations described at [[Help_talk:CS1_errors#Accessdate]] in rules 1–8 by commenting out {{para|accessdate}}. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{para|accessdate}} is only displayed when {{para|url}} has a value.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Does the module only look at {{para|url}}, or are other places where a URL might be found considered?
:::Here is a non-exhaustive list of places where a URL might be found:
:::'''URL positions:'''
:::* bare URLS in, or next to the citation (some are placed next to citations; yep, not the way it is supposed to be, but it is done)
:::* {{para|url}}
:::* {{para|chapterurl}}
:::* {{para|chapter-url}}
:::* {{para|contributionurl}}
:::* {{para|contribution-url}}
:::* {{para|archive-url}}
:::* {{para|layurl}}
:::* {{para|website}} (Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does)
:::* {{para|deadurl}} (Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does)
:::* commented out URLs
:::* Any parameter in which the editor has placed a URL. example:
::::{{Citation |last=Fortescue |first=Sir John William |authorlink=John Fortescue (military historian) |year=1915 |title=A history of the British army |volume=4 part 2| publisher=Macmillan and company |pages=[http://archive.org/stream/p2historyofbriti04fortuoft#page/889/mode/1up 889]–890 |accessdate=April 14, 2014}} [Note: This example links to a source which should not be changing, but other citations link to changeable content.]
:::Keep in mind that all it takes is a missing | character and the {{para|url}} is actually in some other parameter.
:::Technical note: The module should be changed to have one piece of code that determines if a URL is present and set a flag variable. Errors are also inappropriately generated about the lack of {{para|url}} for the presence of {{para|archiveurl}} when a {{para|chapterurl}} or {{para|contributionurl}} is present. Probably also the case for {{para|layurl}}, but I have not tested that one. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::From the beginning, {{para|accessdate}} has only applied to {{para|url}}. A primary requirement in the original development of [[Module:Citation/CS1]] was to keep its functionality the same as that of {{tlx|citation/core}}. Now that most CS1 templates have migrated from {{tld|citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1 that requirement may be eased.
::::Would you have an access-type date for all of your list of urls when there are multiple occurrences in a citation? If only one {{para|accessdate}}, to which in your list of urls should it apply if there are multiples but not {{para|url}}? What about the automatic urls associated with the module-supported identifiers (bibcode, doi, pmid, etc)?
::::Anything inside HTML remark tags in a CS1 citation is not visible to Module:Citation/CS1. To change that behavior would require a change to Wikimedia parser. So, the commented out URLs item on your list doesn't apply.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Concerning [[Template:Csdoc#url]], it generally makes no sense to include an accessdate in a journal citation, even if a url is present. Articles that are published in journals must by definition have been published on a specific date and with rare exceptions, the content is frozen and does not change over time. If a publication does not have an original publication date (year + volume + issue + page number), it wasn't published in a journal. With or without a url, I generally delete accessdates in cite journal templates on sight. Hence if a journal citation contains an accessdate without a url, I think the accessdate can be safely be deleted. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:Bohog's comment is true of print journals. However, cite journal has long been a synonym for cite news. Both news outlets and journals are now online, so there is a greater potential for changes to content, especially for news media. Another issue is that editors may not think to use cite web rather than cite journal when citing material on a journal website that is not a "paper", for example, a style guide for the journal. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::Given that it appears people have not, and will not, follow the link to the other discussion, I am re-posting an edited version of comments I made [[Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 1#Accessdate|there]] (it is a ''bit'' TL;DR 8-) ):
::I object to {{para|accessdate}} being deleted on any citations.
:#I regularly use access date information, even those on material which is supposedly unchanging (e.g. books, PMID, DOI, etc). {{para|accessdate}} provides a hint as to when the citation was entered on the page. Generally, this means that the person who added the citation believed that the reference supported the text at that point. While this may, or may not, be accurate, I routinely use access dates to prioritize which references need to be checked to verify that article content is still supported by the citation. Using it in this way is, of course, imperfect. However, there really is just not enough time in existence to do all the checking which really should be performed. This is one piece of information which can be used to help determine where to spend limited time.
:#I have also found that {{para|accessdate}} is useful in attempting to determine to what a reference actually is referring. We all know those references that have inaccurate or corrupted information. Sometimes the citation is copied from page to page with errors/vandalism – I recently fixed one that had the same error on 34 pages across 7 wikis which appeared to be the result of copying a vandalized citation. ''All'' information we have, including {{para|accessdate}}, is potentially valuable in such situations. In that specific instance having the {{para|accessdate}} helped me identify which citations had been copied from page to page and which were valid. This would have taken much longer without {{para|accessdate}}.
:#{{para|accessdate}} can provide a hint as to the time-frame of the actual date of the reference when that is not included with the citation.
:#It also can be used to eliminate some possibilities of what the reference is (A citation can't refer to a reference created after that date).
:#{{para|accessdate}} is also useful as one of the quick sanity checks for a citation: Is {{para|accessdate}} before {{para|date}}? If so, that citation needs to be checked.
:#In addition, I have used {{para|accessdate}} as an indicator that someone has merely copied a reference from one page to another. This can indicate that the person may have not bothered to read the actual reference which may imply that a closer examination of if the reference actually supports the text is appropriate. If the {{para|accessdate}} does not closely match the date when the citation was added to the page this can indicate that the citation was not actually checked by the editor who put it in the article.
::Let's not ''delete'' the information just because some people feel it is not useful, to them, on a citation that is correctly formatted, not corrupted by vandalism and has not been copied from page to page.
::Why is having an access date actually ''bad'' in any of these situations? Is it just that people feel it is not useful, for them right then? It's not like we have a limited amount of space on a page and we need to trim all information which is not critical.
::I see no reason to consider that having an {{para|accessdate}} without a URL is inherently an ''error'', let alone that the {{para|accessdate}} should be ''deleted'' for that reason. I can understand the converse of a URL without access date being an error. I can understand not requiring an access date for most references without a URL (i.e. ones which refer to physical objects).
::It is not reasonable to consider it an ''error'' to have an access date when the reference does not have a URL where other information in the citation implies that what is being referenced is not primarily on the web. In such case, the access date is information that is helpful in some situations, but not required. It is reasonable to give a warning that someone should check the citation and verify that a URL is not supposed to be there and disable the warning (perhaps with something similar to {{para|ignore-isbn-error|true}}). Alternately, just have the module not flag having an {{para|accessdate}} without a URL to be an error if there is a valid ISBN, DOI, or other ID that leads directly to a permanent, unchanging reference.
::The existence of the "error" is not to indicate that having the access date is wrong. It is to indicate that having an access date makes it likely that the person forgot to enter a URL when a URL is what is being referenced. The solution to citations being erroneously classified as this type of "error" is not to get rid of the access date information. The solution is to change the module so that it does not report most of the cases mentioned in the [[Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 1#Accessdate|list of tasks (elsewhere)]], where additional information that the module has (e.g. valid ISBN, DOI, etc.) indicates that a URL should not be required. Additionally, there should be a way to directly inform the module that a specific instance has been checked and {{para|accessdate}} without a URL is not something that needs further attention (e.g. a {{para|no-url-is-ok|true}})).
::It appears to me that people may be coming at this from the wrong point of view: See error..."fix" in easiest way possible. The easiest solution for an editor is to remove the {{para|accessdate}}. For us, there are more appropriate ways to solve a large quantity of these "errors". I think one reason people are concentrating on removing {{para|accessdate}} is that the text of the "error" leads their thinking in that direction. The "error" should have different text which concentrates on the lack of a URL, not the presence of {{para|accessdate}}. The error text should be something along the lines of: "Is there a missing URL? Add {{para|no-url-is-ok|true}} if URL is not missing." instead of what is currently displayed.
::All of the templates are increasingly used to refer to online versions of documents instead of physical copies. They are (all?) used to actually refer to websites with and without URLs being included. It would only be reasonable to comment out/delete {{para|accessdate}} if you can actually verify that there is enough ''valid'' data to indicate that the source ''really is'' a physical paper copy of an article. Doing so in such instances would ignore the other uses for {{para|accessdate}} data.
::For a large portion of citations currently in the error category, the right solution is for the module to not report the missing URL error when enough information is there to indicate a valid physical source, or "permanent" electronic location information (e.g. valid ISBN, valid DOI, valid arXiv, etc.). The module should also be changed to: 1. have a parameter which can be added to the citation to indicate that a URL is intentionally not present; 2. report the "error" in a manner that more clearly indicates that the issue is a potential lack of a URL, not the presence of {{para|accessdate}}. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll attempt a partial answer to the questions in Trappist's post that began this thread. An accessdate should be specified for content that was obtained from a source that is accessible through the World Wide Web, and similar protocols (for example, [[Gopher (protocol)|Gopher]]) ''if and only if'' the source
#lacks a publication date <u>''OR''</u>
#is likely to disappear and be difficult to locate ''OR''
#is likely to be altered
The first choice for the URL is the URL that is visible in the browser address bar while reading the source. If this isn't feasible, for example, with a pdf, the second choice is a URL that will download the source, will display download instructions, or which contains a link which can be clicked to download the source. Third chhoice: if the procedure for accessing the source is more complex (for example some paywalls), the URL should be a page from which the source can be navigated to; after the close of the CS1 template (but before the <ref> element, if applicable) the navigation directions should be given. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC), clarified 13:22 UT.
:To clarify, do you mean:
:*lacks a publication date ''OR'' is likely to disappear and be difficult to locate ''OR'' is likely to be altered
:or do you mean:
:*(lacks a publication date ''AND'' is likely to disappear and be difficult to locate) ''OR'' is likely to be altered
:or do you mean:
:*lacks a publication date ''AND'' (is likely to disappear and be difficult to locate ''OR'' is likely to be altered)
:Not sure I understand your apparent exception for pdf files unless by that you mean the exception for those browsers that spawn Adobe reader either as a plugin or as a separate program. If that's the case, then, is it not true that the url of the pdf can be obtained with a right mouse click on the pdf link and then by choosing 'Copy link address' or some such similar action?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::I mention pdf files as a type where the URL of the file may not be visible while viewing the file. This would also often apply to Microsoft Word and Microsoft PowerPoint files. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Is it necessary for a reader to see the file's url while viewing the file? And still, isn't it true that for a file not directly displayed by the browser, the file's url is available with a right mouse click on the file's link in the referring page? For example, there are pdf links on this PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22Behav%20Ecol%22%5Bjournal%5D&sort=SortDate&cmd=search&EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pmc.Pmc_LimitsTab.LimitsOff=true search results page]. If I want the url of the pdf file for the article "By any name, female–female competition yields differential mating success", I can right click on the pdf link and get this url: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199164/pdf/arr111.pdf.
:::This same applies to any non-native file type, right?
:::How does all of this apply to rethinking {{para|accessdate}}?
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Maybe I didn't word my post as well as it could be worded. The parameters, the automatic warnings, and any bots making fixes should all be in agreement. Much of what I wrote is intended as advice to an editor about which URL to include in a citation; if one URL will display the source directly while another will lead to a page where it could be downloaded by clicking a link, the former is preferable. From the display and bot-fixing point of view, we should hesitate to hide or remove the accessdate if we don't know what kind of source we are dealing with. Maybe it's a paywall where it's impossible to give a URL that will lead directly to the source; the editor didn't know what to do so left out the URL. A later editor may be able to supply a URL that is somewhat helpful. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: The issues about paywall sites are another reason to drop all restrictions about "accessdate=". -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
===Opinions of accessdate restrictions===
I think enough objections have been raised, above and in prior discussions, to reach a consensus now about the "accessdate=" parameter. Reply below. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Support removing accessdate restrictions:''' Limiting accessdate has not worked. The day someone noted a URL can be linked within a page number, I knew immediately the accessdate should have no restrictions and always be shown. The alternative would be new parameter "show_accessdate_you_moron = true" and that would only confirm the contempt which many people feel about accessdate, when one angry user noted we should just offer an abbreviation instead, such as "acdate=". Always beware how intelligent people are judging Wikipedia, and try to act smarter, quicker. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::Unsure exactly what you are proposing but if removal of text "Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date." then I am in favour of deleting that phrase from the document and allowing it to be used without such restriction. Trying to enforce this is just ridiculous. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::It sounds like Wikid77 and Keith D are in favor of displaying the value of {{para|accessdate}} in all cases and eliminating the current error message. Please correct me if I am misstating your position.
:::That leads me to wonder what harm would come from doing that. If someone wants to provide an accessdate for a book they found at the library, does that do any harm? I can't think of any. It may be extraneous information, but anyone who is looking at references on Wikipedia knows that they are going to run into all sorts of information that they do not need in order to locate the cited source. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: One of the reasons that accessdates are everywhere is the result of click-through editing using Reflinks: some editors simply run it and click 'save' without amending anything. It always adds an accessdate. I wish editors would instead archive the reference and add archiveurl and archivedate instead. I find no use for knowing that a newspaper article published and archived on the same day was also accessed on the same day. Of course it was! -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.227|79.67.241.227]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.227|talk]]) 20:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Style guide that recommends access dates for reading a book? Anyone? --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::If one reads a first edition tome by a long-dead author, and then cites in WP what it says, the date on which it's read is entirely irrelevant. And it would be ludicrous to say that such a date was in any way meaningful. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I entirely endorse what 79.67.. said. This is an encyclopaedia, where the object is to be useful within meaningful confines. We should not go down the road of allowing something merely because it's "harmless". Despite the instructions urging restraint, we've already gone some way down the road in ubiquitous use of access dates without truly questioning their utility or labouring under some misguided notion of the potential use which few actually explore. This is something that automated tools like Reflinks have a lot to answer for.<p>Whilst some editors might feel rather clever in second-guessing by applying logical and coherence checks, these checks are often not very determinant on the error. Do I want to spoil their fun? Hell no. But we need to remember access dates add an additional dimension that occupies a lot of server storage space whilst being, IMHO, rather shallow. This encyclopaedia, being a wiki, is prone to all sorts inconsistencies. Errors and vandalism happen and are often corrected by others. Maintaining these access dates is more trouble than is worth, as one can just as easily (or not) find alternatives or archived cites without them. OTOH, having these gives a false sense of security that a link can be found with a little diligence. Access dates are not palliatives for poor referencing practices. They should be removed in favour of urging editors to preemptively or systematically archive. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)</p>
*'''Support within reasons'''; maybe we need some limitations but more lax ones. Accessdates can be useful for non-web sources. Any source that may change should have an accessdate. Accessdates can also be used to indicate when a source was checked vs. when others sources were checked or when some other thing happened, and this can be useful information in determining whether source verification has been completed (i.e., in relation to a [[WP:V]]/[[WP:RS]]-related cleanup or dispute tag or discussion on talk page. Not all hardcopy sources have known publication dates. If someone has added a totally pointless accessdate , thenthat can be removed, and if there's an alleged reason for putting it back (maybe it wasn't as pointless as thought), that's a matter for discussion at that article, not a "never ever do this" decision made on some "Help talk:"-namespace page that only about ten of us pay any attention to. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
* "Any source that may change" is not a reliable source. "Access dates are not palliatives for poor referencing practices" make me reconsider the concept of access date altogether. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:*The fact that a source may change does not reflect on its reliability, so long as the source exercises appropriate editorial control over changes. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
::*Right. The entire WWW would have to be ruled out otherwise. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::*The APA style guide specifies that with online sources, the reference needs either a DOI or a URL with accessdate. Legal citations to online sources in ''Bluebook'' format use an access date with the URL. MLA now just specifies that if a referenced source is online, no URL is listed, but the accessdate is listed after "Web" as the descriptive label. ''Chicago'' doesn't require access dates, and instead it suggests archiving copies of sources, but it does allow them where publishers or instructors require them. But as SMcCandlish says, the entire online world is not ruled out, not by us nor by the various guides to citations. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 04:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
== Cite web cite not displaying properly ==
{{resolved}}
I've stumbled across a bit of a problem on the article [[William Wigginton]]. One of the cites, for {{tld|cite web}} is refusing to display, or rather, displaying as code.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00">''talk''</span>]]</span> 04:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Wigginton&diff=605107619&oldid=605105115 Fixed]. I'm not sure how or why. I replaced the hard return between "cite" and "web" with a space. I thought all white space was supposed to be treated the same, but maybe not. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::No, not all whitespace is treated the same. One of the issues we had with "unknown parameters" in citation templates was that a variety of different Unicode spaces were used within or around parameter names in some citations and not recognized as whitespace. Mostly those were the use of a hard-coded non-breaking space. In this instance, it was a standard LF (0x0A) character. It appears that while a LF is considered whitespace on either side of the template name, it is not considered such ''within'' the name of the template. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 06:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Similar problem occurs if a newline gets copied inside a parameter value, such as title or url. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::We can potentially fix those problems. We can't fix it in the template name as it occurs before the template is invoked. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::So is "cite web" a distinct template, not a "web" variant of "cite"? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|J. Johnson}} The answer to your question is a bit more complex than you are probably intending to ask. Yes, {{tl|cite web}} is a separate template. Except for redirects, each citation type is a separate ''template''. However, most such either invoke or call two base sets of functionality. The newer set of functionality is based on a Lua module. Templates such as {{tl|cite web}} invoke that module. Some citation templates still use the older wiki-template based citation code. There is a third type used for a [[Help:Citation Style 1#Bot-filled|few types]] of citations where a bot will go out and collect the information for the citation and create a template with the information filled in which is then transcluded into the citing page. All of those are ultimately based on the Lua module once the bot builds the template to transclude. There is a list of the [[Help:Citation Style 1#General use|General use]] citation templates indicating which base functionality is being used.
::::::{{replyto|Gadget850}} It is not clear to me that such problems should be handled within the module. The number of occurrences is relatively low and easily fixed in the page. Once we start "fixing" such things in the module it is an ever growing list of things to "fix". We have already cleared out the "unknown parameter" category. The extra processing is probably not worth it moving forward. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, Mayken. I was wondering how much of that had been changed. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''CS1 cites already rejoin split newline data:''' There has been some misunderstanding, but for over a year, the Lua [[wp:CS1]] templates have been autofixing cites which have [[newlines]] (LF) in data, but not newlines within the template name "{cite web}". For example, note a title on 4 lines:
:* {cite web |title=Title<br>Broken<br>into<br>Four Parts |author=Joe Fixit |date=Another day of autofixing}}<br>→
{{ns|10}} {{cite web |title=Title
Broken
into
Four Parts |author=Joe Fixit |date=Another day of autofixing}}
: When I first developed the Lua-based CS1 cites, several types of autofixing were added, such as non-plural pages "pages=4" shows as "p. 4" not "pp." or removing double-dots between parameters. The filter to remove newlines in titles was added soon after. Although handling all these issues has been detailed work, the results are amazing, such as wikilinking "location=[<nowiki/>[Washington, D.C.]<nowiki/>]" and still getting only one dot separator after the "D.C." text because the Lua module checks for end-dot (or other separator) inside a wikilink. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
==Status of autofixing cites==
I have been updating topic above "[[#Should autofix more cites]]" but I wanted to note some recent issues. Although the use of autofixing will retro-correct cites in archived pages (especially [[wp:AfD]]'s which admins want left unchanged) and fix all prior revisions of any page, the auto-corrections have reached perhaps 200 issues and will take more time to discuss. Please understand, the whole prior tactic of issuing {{color|#BB0000|''red-error messages''}} for cites was never my intention, but by allowing them into Lua cites for a whole year (April 2013-2014), we gained extensive evidence that those messages do not cause users to fix "9,000" articles, which had to be hand-fixed by a special backlog drive to clear 8,500 of them by mid-April 2014. Now, we see perhaps 12 new "unknown parameter" pages left each day (366/month, ~4,400/year), to be hand-fixed or else thousands of people see red messages. However, at this point, we are spotting the trends for ''new'' unknown parameters, where perhaps 10% are bad accessdate as "acesdate" or "access date" or "accessed" (etc.) and many are capital-letter form (invalid "Publisher="). Before release of autofixing, more users need to understand to search for {{nowrap|"<sup>[fix cite]</sup>"}} and "<sup>[fix url]</sup>" rather than "Unknown parameter |xx= ignored". The next step would be partial rollout for use of autofixing in some types of cites, such as {{tl|cite encyclopedia}} or such. However, I expect more weeks of discussion and stronger autofixing, such as to handle invalid:<br>"| urlhttp://xxx.com/index.php?zz=123&arg=en" as if "url="<br>Long-term, we need to expect many more editors to write invalid cites every day, but not yet, because currently the editor base of Wikipedia is in a slight decline, perhaps due to strange user-interface changes (https, login redesign, 2-style Frankenfonts with [[Liberation Sans]], etc.) or users leaving who cannot post more adverts. However, many users keep joining despite all the forced [[wp:VE]] or login problems, and autofixing will allow more new users to write invalid cites but still get workable results. That's the brief status so far. It will take time to transition. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:I plan to recruit ReferenceBot in the next month or so to notify editors who leave unsupported parameter errors, along with "coauthors without author", redundant parameter, PMC, and PMID errors. I am waiting for the redundant parameters category to be cleared (in the next couple of days) and for the job queue to stop adding new articles to the new PMC and PMID categories. Of the 27 error categories, 14 have been cleared, and four have fewer than 500 articles with errors, so they should be easy to clear and keep clear. That leaves nine categories to focus new ideas and energy on. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:: "coauthors without author" should perhaps read "coauthors is deprecated, use last/first or author" There are still many editors adding references with the coauthors attribute. -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.210|79.67.241.210]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.210|talk]]) 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I was referring to {{cl|CS1 errors: coauthors without author}}, which has been cleared out recently. Now that the category has been cleared, ReferenceBot will be able to notify the 2–4 editors per week who add a citation containing this error.
:::I forgot to mention above that we have eliminated over 50,000 articles from {{cl|Articles with incorrect citation syntax}} in the last month, since the most recent code update. The total number of articles shown on that page was about 299,000 on March 23, 2014, and it's down to 253,000 today (April 22). (I estimate over 50,000 articles eliminated because the code changes have added at least a few thousand new articles.) That is great progress. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
== CS1 Advisories ==
The functionality afforded by using templates is great but there are a number of template generators and bots which continue to produce deprecated parameters or make amendments that are, or soon will be, unnecessary.
I'd like to suggest creating a [[Help:Citation_Style_1/Advisories]] page, where salient points can be listed (and can link to more detailed stuff where necessary). This would be aimed at bot operators and at coders working on producing template generators. It would simply be a clear list of changes they may need to be aware of so they can amend the functionality of their systems. Template changes would be easy to find without having to trawl through the huge amounts of template documentation looking for things that may have changed.
Some examples to kick off:
* The {{para|month}} and {{para|day}} parameters are deprecated. Monkbot is cleaning up remaining cases. The {{para|date}} parameter can handle full or partial dates. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters.
* Bots should no longer swap {{para|date|1999}} over to {{para|year|1999}}.
* Bots should no longer swap {{para|trans-title}} over to {{para|trans_title}}. The hyphenated version is currently an acceptable alias and may?/will? at some point become the "default".
* The {{para|coauthor}} and {{para|coauthors}} attributes are deprecated. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters. Use {{para|last}}{{para|first}} or {{para|author}}.
* When handling a {{para|url}} ending .pdf or .doc it is useful to add the appropriate {{para|format|PDF}} or {{para|format|DOC}} parameter.
* For human readability of template code and sensible word-wrapping, please ensure there's a space before each |pipe when emitting refactored template code.
The idea is to avoid producing more stuff that needs to be fixed, and avoid doing work that is currently unnecessary or which will need to be undone when a future planned change is made to the template workings.
Discuss... -- [[Special:Contributions/79.67.241.210|79.67.241.210]] ([[User talk:79.67.241.210|talk]]) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:I've just updated [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters]] so AWB bots will no longer swap {{para|trans-title}} over to {{para|trans_title}}. It would be very helpful to have a list of the valid parameters and aliases for each citation template. [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::The best list of CS1 (Lua module) parameters I know of is at [[Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
== Requesting help with CS1 date error ==
In the [[Benzodiazepine dependence]] article, there's a CS1 date error that I can't seem to fix:<br>
<code><nowiki>{{cite journal |author=Professor Lader |coauthors=Professor Morgan, Professor Shepherd, Dr Paul Williams, Dr Skegg, Professor Parish, Dr Peter Tyrer, Dr Inman, Dr John Marks (Ex-Roche), Peter Harris (Roche), Tom Hurry (Wyeth) |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |date=30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981 |title=Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005 |publisher=[[National Archives]] |location=England |url=http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7798554&j=1 |format=PDF }}</nowiki></code> generates:<br>
*{{cite journal |author=Professor Lader |coauthors=Professor Morgan, Professor Shepherd, Dr Paul Williams, Dr Skegg, Professor Parish, Dr Peter Tyrer, Dr Inman, Dr John Marks (Ex-Roche), Peter Harris (Roche), Tom Hurry (Wyeth) |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |date=30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981 |title=Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005 |publisher=[[National Archives]] |location=England |url=http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7798554&j=1 |format=PDF |no-tracking=true}}
This seems to be valid per [[MOS:DATEFORMAT#Ranges]] but still generates an error. What am I missing? Thanks! [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:Similar to [[Module talk:Citation/CS1/sandbox#A date range error I have been unable to fix|an error]] reported by Editor Jonesey95. Fixed in the sandbox.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::Demonstrating the sandbox fix:
{{cite compare|mode=journal |old=no|author=Professor Lader |coauthors=Professor Morgan, Professor Shepherd, Dr Paul Williams, Dr Skegg, Professor Parish, Dr Peter Tyrer, Dr Inman, Dr John Marks (Ex-Roche), Peter Harris (Roche), Tom Hurry (Wyeth) |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |date=30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981 |title=Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005 |publisher=[[National Archives]] |location=England |url=http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7798554&j=1 |format=PDF |no-tracking=true}}
::That looks like it works. The deprecated parameter error is still there for {{para|coauthors}}, of course. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
== Time for a real CS1 style guide? ==
Of late there seem to have been several discussions that relate to various template parameters and the styling of rendered citations:
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Should_quote_chapter_when_title_and_journal|Should quote chapter when title and journal]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Bold.2Fnon-bold_volume_parameter_doc_issue.2C_or_bug|Bold/non-bold volume parameter doc issue, or bug]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Accesswalls|Accesswalls]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Chapter_with_book.2Fvolume_and_series|Chapter with book/volume and series]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Cite_web_or_accessdate_without_URL|Cite web or accessdate without URL]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Proper_use_of_parameter.3F|Proper use of parameter?]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#ORCID.2C_redux|ORCID, redux]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Work_parameter_.28Template:Cite_news.29|Work parameter (Template:Cite news)]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Rethinking_accessdate|Rethinking accessdate]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Allow_uppercase_parameter_names|Allow uppercase parameter names]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#circa|circa]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#HTML_classes|HTML classes]]
*[[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#.22news.3D.22_alias.3F|"news=" alias?]]
All or most of these issues could / should be answered by a proper style guide. Instead, what we get are a lot of short-term conversations that ultimately produce nothing. As we are now, we have documentation distributed across the various CS1 templates and help pages. The documentation is often out of date with respect to CS1's actual implementation and does not serve as a style guide because it can't.
I know that there are editors out there who are familiar with published style guides (I'm not one of them) who could write a style guide for CS1. That guide would then direct further development of [[Module:Citation/CS1]] into the tool that it really is capable of being.
Isn't it time we had such a guide? This is no short term project. Every citation type, every parameter, every bit of functionality, should be taken apart, examined and if found worthy, included in the style guide that details its use.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:Before enabling the CS1 errors: dates messages (or any of the other hidden messages) for everyone to see, I agree that a proper style guide should be in place which addresses those errors and their resolution. [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:It would be easier to start with a printed style guide and write a supplemental guide explaining which rules in the printed guide have been changed. For example, if we started with "[[APA Style]]" we could say that it has been extended to endnotes rather than being restricted to Harvard references, article titles are in double quotes rather than plain, the article title is linked to the web site of the article if available, etc.
:This approach would allow the CS1 style to benefit from discussions of the printed style guide outside of Wikipedia, for example, the blog at [http://www.apastyle.org/ the APA style website.] [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::Writing a supplement as you describe requires free and open access to the particular version of the established style guide that the supplement modifies. Any editor must be able to read that original and the supplement. CS1 is not APA, nor Chicago, nor any other but is, as I understand it, some combination of those with ideas of our own tossed in. This would seem to make it more difficult to pick one to modify but perhaps it's possible.
::You're the expert here on APA, how closely does what amounts to style in CS1 match APA?
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't think there is a ''requirement'' that the base style guide be freely accessible, although it would be preferable. The more popular guides have many free websites that summarize them. The biggest differences between APA and CS1, in my view:
:::*APA covers both the body of an article, and the citations; CS1 only covers citations.
:::*APA only describes parenthetical referencing, while CS1 applies to endnotes only, short endnotes with bibliography, and parenthetical referencing
:::*APA has some details of how elements of the citation are to be written that are not specified in CS1; for example, article titles are plain and have sentence case. Also, author first and middle names are always initials in APA style.
:::*APA publication dates are in the format "(2014, April 22)."
:::*In APA the date always follows the authors; if there are no authors, the title is the first element and is immediately followed by the date.
:::*Since APA is designed for paper, the URLs from which documents were retrieved are written out rather than being hyperlinks.
:::*There are element order conventions for many situations. The order is similar but not identical to CS1. If we wanted, we could make some minor changes in the order of elements to match APA, without requiring any parameter changes.
:::As for other style guides, ''Chicago Manual of Style'' has pretty much the same options (endnote only, short endnotes and bibliography, parenthetical referencing) as CS1, but the order of elements are quite a bit different. Also, the date format for journals and newspapers is pretty strange.
:::The Modern Language Association style is based on parenthetical referencing, where the author and shortened titile (not the year) are put in the parentheses. That would be a huge change. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::::I've been taking some undergraduate classes, and all of my professors/instructors have recommended the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). I purchased copies of the current editions of the APA, MLA and ''Chicago'' style guides, but Purdue OWL or the official websites are just as good for consultations. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white">Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So, perhaps I really don't know what it is that I want. Scanning through the MLA and APA sections at [//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ Purdue OWL] tells me how to manually construct various types of citations. With CS1, there is no manual construction, the templates and [[Module:Citation/CS1]] do that for us.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:As noted, the issue with APA, Chicago and others is that the manuals are copyrighted. We really need to start from scratch and create our own open style. The current display of citations is different enough from published styles that it should not be an issue. We already have a MoS that covers other styles; we need to work on only citation style here. We need to deconstruct the current documentation and recodify it.
:A major issue is that many editors and projects use the CS1 templates, but add their own spin, such as first name initials, smallcaps names, and many more variations. This muddles CS1 as a style. We will never have internal consensus on a house style— any consistent style will have to be imposed from above.
:--<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::Copyright is not an issue, except for those who insist on getting the information from the horse's mouth, and decide to buy the printed style guide. Copyright only applies to the words that are used in the style manual to explain the style; copyright does not apply to the ideas. We can explain the same style points in Wikipedia that a printed style guide explains; we just can't use the same wording to explain it. And of course, fair use still applies, so the occasional phrase or example from a printed style guide can be quoted so long as it falls under the fair use doctrine. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:We need to {{em|not}} adopt some third-party, paper-based citation standard. We've evolved our own for good reasons. If there's any justice in the world, it'll even spread off of WP.<p>I strongly concur that we do need such a guide. I have no objection to basing the overall gist of our style on some other one, but like all of [[WP:MOS]], it should be a synthesis of several, guided by actual mainstream usage, and with every point focused on what is best for our readers, not for editors much less particular camps of them.</p><p>Some of the style problems of various off-WP citation style guides, just off the top of my head and in 5 minutes or less:</p>
:# Failure to italicize the titles of major works (books, journals, TV shows, albums).
:# Failure to double-quotation-markup titles of minor works (chapters, articles, episodes, songs).
:# Forcing of all titles to sentence case, when WP should either leave them alone or (probably preferably) change them all to title case (except in foreign languages that do not use title case, like French).
:# Boldfacing of volume numbers instead of using the word "Volume" or "Vol." (an accessibility problem among other things).
:# Using even more cryptic markup like {{!xt|'''32'''.7:234}}, which varies between fields and off-WP "authorities", and is user-hateful jargon, vs. {{xt|Vol. 32, No. 7, p. 234}}.
:# Confusing reversal of given-name and family-name order, after first author as in {{!xt|Lopez, Maria; John Samuels}}.
:# Reduction of all middle names to initials.
:# Reduction of everything but surnames to initials.
:# Worse yet, doing so without period/stops/dot: {{!xt|Frehley, IP}}.
:# Even worse yet, doing so without commas {{!xt|Frehley IP}}.
:# Use of {{sc|small capitals}} for various conflicting purposes (first author's family name, all author family names, titles of one sort or the other, etc.).
:# Use of inconsistent date formats.
:If I were to sit down and pore over the major citation styles again, I'm sure I could quadruple that list in a hour or two, but a complete catalog of academic citation styles' "sins" isn't the point here, just an illustration that there are lots of them and that our style has evolved to avoid them, though imperfectly – I think some template may still be boldfacing volume numbers, and we do nothing at all to even encourage proper name handling instead of stuff like "Frehley IP". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
== Migrating cite music release notes to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] ==
Because it is similar to {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} I'm beginning to think about how to migrate {{tlx|cite music release notes}} to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]].
I'm thinking that changes similar to those made to {{tld|cite AV media notes}} apply here:
#{{para|type}} – provides functionality similar to {{para|albumtype}} as described at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox|Migrating cite AV media notes, item 2]]. Here, {{para|type}} has been repurposed to control the format of {{para|name}}. When {{para|type}} is set to any value, the value in {{para|name}} is rendered in quotations; otherwise the value is rendered in italic font. Presumably, this is because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. Because {{tld|cite music release notes}} cites the notes, not the song or album, this undocumented functionality is inappropriate in this template. I propose to remove this functionality from {{tld|cite music release notes}} and so free {{para|type}} for use consistent with the other CS1 templates.
#{{para|Format}} – not the same as {{para|format}}, this undocumented parameter is an alias of {{para|type}} which is not supported in the normal way; see above. Another, also undocumented parameter, {{para|titletype}}, is also an alias of {{para|type}}. I propose to deprecate {{para|Format}} because it is so similar to {{para|format}} (which has the specific definition of online resource file format) and deprecate {{para|titletype}} because it is undocumented. Both of these shall be deprecated in favor of {{para|type}} and I shall change the default value from "Release notes" to "Media notes" so that it is the same as {{tld|cite AV media notes}}.
#{{para|name}} – an alias of {{para|series}} is used in place of {{para|title}} which places the "title" of the notes in a nonstandard position when the citation is rendered. While supported, {{para|title}} is remapped to be an alias of {{para|chapter}} though this functionality is not documented. I propose to restore the normal sense of {{para|title}} and deprecate {{para|name}} in favor of the restored {{para|title}} consistent with all other CS1 templates.
#{{para|artist}} – simply a unique alias of {{para|others}}, which is not currently supported, so I propose to deprecate it in favor of {{para|others}} as was done in {{tld|cite AV media notes}}.
#{{para|pid}} – I propose to deprecate {{para|publisherid}} because it is simply an undocumented alias of {{para|id}}.
As I did with {{tld|cite AV media notes}}, I will modify the template, tweak the documentation, and then create an AWB script to make appropriate changes to the templates in article space.
I think that once these changes are made, another AWB script can rename the templates in article space from {{tld|cite music release notes}} to {{tld|cite AV media notes}} and so accomplish the migration without having any effect on [[Module:Citation/CS1]]. A redirect would handle any new instances of {{tld|cite music release notes}}.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:This all sounds straightforward to me. Would you consider notifying relevant Wikiprojects, as you did with the last migration? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::Did that already.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have tweaked the {{tlx|cite music release notes/sandbox}} ([[Template:Cite music release notes/testcases|testcases]] – such as they are) and have an AWB script to run after I update {{tlx|cite music release notes}}. I have added code to the script to fix capitalization. In a surprising number of these cites, the parameters are capitalized, so for who knows how long, these citations have not been fully rendered. I have also added code to change {{para|albumlink}} to {{para|titlelink}} because I have found them in the wild. Though neither are supported in the current or sandbox versions, {{para|titlelink}} is supported by {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} to which all of these {{tld|cite music release notes}} will eventually migrate.
I have found several instances of citations like the [[Template:Cite music release notes#Examples|second example]] on the template's documentation page. This example should be {{tlx|cite journal}} not {{tld|cite music release notes}}. Sigh. And, those that I did find seem to also put the journal's volume and issue number in {{para|id}}. Perhaps I'll see if I can make yet another script that will tease apart the contents of {{para|id}} and just fix these.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:I was going though {{tlx|cite music release notes}} a while back and found the same issue where other templates should have been used. I think there were some also uses of oddball parameters that were never coded. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
::Turns out that there were only about twenty of those citations that referenced [[Film Score Monthly]] and I have fixed them. Today or tomorrow I'll update the {{tlx|cite music release notes}} from {{tlx|cite music release notes/sandbox}} and start my AWB script working on adapting the article space templates.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::So is there now no longer any way to control the format of {{Para|name}}? I ask because {{Tlx|Cite music release notes}} is often used to cite the release notes for singles, and it conflicts with our manual of style if the name of any single referenced in this way can only be formatted in italics, rather than in quotation marks. [[User:A Thousand Doors|A Thousand Doors]] ([[User talk:A Thousand Doors|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Thousand Doors|contribs]]) 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
::::The purpose of {{tlx|cite music release notes}} is to cite print material. The title of the printed notes may be the same as the title of a single, but it is still a print document, separate and apart from the single, so the template treats it that way.
::::You do, I think, point out a shortcoming that exists in {{tlx|cite AV media}} which is supposed to be the proper template for citing singles, albums, video, etc. There is no mechanism available to render the title of a single in quotes. I'll have a look at that and see what can be done about it.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Having remembered that I want to finish this, within the next couple of days I will run an AWB script to rename existing instances of {{tlx|cite music release notes}} to {{tlx|cite AV media notes}}. Once that is complete, I'll make {{tlx|cite music release notes}} a redirect to {{tld|cite AV media note}} and do documentation cleanup.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:Some tweaks to the case sensitivity of the script, or a follow-on script, may be needed. See the unsupported parameter errors resulting from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_the_Way_You_Lie&action=history this edit], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Need_U_%28100%25%29&diff=606369416&oldid=606013538 this edit], and probably more. If you are done converting these templates, you could probably focus on Article-space pages in the unsupported parameter category. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::There were a small number which could have been handled a bit better in this transition, but nothing significant/major. I recall having to change some in earlier passes through the "unsupported parameters" category. Mostly I noticed it because it has some unique parameter usage which required special-casing a couple of the regex replacements I was using. most of my notice of it was the need to refine what I was doing to account for uniquely permitted parameter names. There are multiple templates where this sort of thing was the case. On this set I did not check, but it is possible that the most recent problems existed prior to the transition.
::However, the {{category|Pages with citations using unsupported parameters}} is once again cleared. If I recall correctly, there were 21 new pages in the category. At least 20%, if not more, were due to vandalism. At least one appeared to be erroneously not in the category earlier: the unknown parameters existed on the page from 2012. — [[User:Makyen|Makyen]] ([[User talk:Makyen|talk]]) 10:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:::In {{tld|cite music release notes}}, {{para|name}} equated to {{para|title}}, not {{para|author}}. Similarly, {{para|PID}} in these templates equated to {{para|id}} and not to {{para|pmid}}. {{para|type}} should be deleted and then {{para|Format}} becomes {{para|type}}. If there were other {{tld|cite music release notes}} citations that your script fixed, you might want to revisit them. I have fixed the two that Editor Jonesey95 identified.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::In March when I started all of this, I ran an AWB script that modified instances of {{tlx|cite music release notes}} by changing parameter names and fixing capitalization. Apparently I didn't get them all.
::I did just run a script over the content of {{cl|Pages using citations with format and no URL}} because I noticed that other {{tlx|cite AV media notes}} citations in pages that were edited by my rename script were misusing {{para|format}}. The script fixed about 120 of them.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Done, I think.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:Someone did a revert on [[Bette Davis Eyes]], but I fixed it. Looks like you missed [[Say Somethin' (Mariah Carey song)]]. I will fix the navboxes. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::Good, thanks. Carey is fixed.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
== For phased releases of new version ==
This is a Lua technical note. Due to the massive use of the [[wp:CS1]] cite templates, an upgrade runs over 6-7 weeks to deploy the smallest change into any article. Meanwhile, if a change is needed immediately, it would be faster to hand-edit it into a cite. Instead, if the Lua modules were partially released in phases, then many articles (perhaps 100,000) could get the upgraded cite templates within 2-3 days (15-20x faster). As an example, if the cite templates were changed to invoke the new Lua modules only when parameter "last2=" is used, then that would cause many major articles to have the update perhaps 20x faster. See proposed markup:
<pre style="margin-left:3em"><nowiki>
{{#if: {{{last2|}}}
| {{#invoke: Citation/CS1/new|citation|CitationClass=web}}
| {{#invoke: Citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=web}}<!--old version-->
}}
</nowiki></pre>
In this proposed case, the early release of the new [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] would be copied into Module:Citation/CS1/new, and then only pages with parameter "last2=" (about 124,000 pages) would have the new features within 3 days, while the remainder of the 2.1 million pages (with CS1 cites) would be reformatted over the 6-7 week period (perhaps after re-checking the results of the 3-day early release). In cases where another page needed immediate update, then setting one cite as "last2=&nbsp;" would cause that page to be reformatted within the 3-day period. Currently, we have occasional complaints that a problem, fixed in the /sandbox version weeks ago, is still annoying users due to the 2-3 month delay in upgrading all 2.1 million pages for a new feature. Because major pages tend to need new features, and major pages tend to use parameter "last2=" then the rapid 20x faster results could be applied in the targeted articles, as if the [[MediaWiki]] software had been improved to work much faster. The initial change to such partitioned cite templates would require a total reformat of all 2.1 million pages for 6-7 weeks, and then afterward the 3-day partial release would be possible. Meanwhile, hand-editing of cite formats is still the best method to get instant results in a limited set of pages. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:This seems excellent in every way, other than maybe the side effect that the "guinea pigs" being sort of tested on in the fast 3-day window are also most likely to be the major articles, but I guess that can't be helped. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:: '''The guinea-pig aspect is lessened...''' by the quick ability to re-deploy a last-minute fix, within a 3-day reformat period. I think the developers have noted how a last-minute fix (even deployed within a day) will re-reformat the prior pages but also override the prior change for pages not yet reformatted (during the initial 3-day period), as a combined 4-to-5-day reformat, not always 6 days total. In contrast, with a 7-week reformat then a last-minute-fix might delay a re-reformat (fixing a glitch) until late during the 7 weeks, although each straggler could use a [[wp:null edit]] to force each page to reformat the glitch within a minute. With the Lua-based [[Template:Convert]], the reformat of 550,000 pages took over 20 days (from 11 December 2013), and improvements have slowed to a crawl as leaving bugs for over 5 months now (where nonsense range {{convert|105|-|106|F|C}} formerly showed {{convert|105|-|106|F|C|1|disp=out}}, rather than the nonsense "41-41" same result for different numbers 105/106). When it's not "wiki" then it is "slowki" with very slow improvements. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 10:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Works for me. Glad someone is on this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::This sounds like a nightmare from a diagnostic and troubleshooting standpoint. A purge or null edit of an article would either invoke the current (old) version of the template or the new version of the template, but you would have to scan the whole article for an instance of {{para|last2}} (or whatever) in order to figure out which one it was using. Ugh.
::::Wouldn't it be easier to set up a null-edit bot, job queue job, or something equivalent, to perform periodic (daily? weekly?) null edits on the most popular articles?
::::Or, and I know I'm talking crazy now, what would it take to eliminate the root problem, which is that it takes two months for articles to be fully recategorized when the CS1 citation templates are updated? Is there a bugzilla bug for this issue, or is everyone resigned to the circumstance that two months is how long changes take to propagate? I, for one, am not resigned to that state of things, but I don't know enough WP history to understand why the situation exists. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 03:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
: '''New CS1 versions could be just weeks ahead of old:''' I think the [[MediaWiki]] developers are trying to design a new, faster type of multiple [[wp:Job_queue]] structure, auto-reformatting some major articles every day, but such software redesigns tend to take many months/years. The reason partitioned templates would work, to solve this cite-reformat problem, is because mainly the complex cites, with unusual parameters, tend to need new features/upgrades, and triggering a partial release by "last2=" (or also "author2=") would tend to reformat pages with complex cites. Also note: both the main release and the partial release could actually be the same revision of the CS1 cites, but the pages using "last2/author2=" would be reformatted weeks sooner then all pages using the main release of the CS1 Lua modules. The general principle is this: if a 20-times-shorter list of pages to reformat, plus the long list, are both processed at the same speed, then the shorter list will finish 20x times faster than reformatting all pages in the long list. Hence, the major pages (using last2/author2) would be re-rendered ~20x sooner than today's CS1 cites. In fact we might tend to release the partial release just 7-14 days sooner than the full, main release of the CS1 Lua modules. That is how we could reduce confusion between the features provided with last2/author2 cites versus all the other cites: keep the partial and main CS1 versions similar, within a few weeks of each other. However, we would definitely need to keep a formal release schedule, including feature/bug issues resolved by each particular release. By comparison, today's complexity is the uncertainty of whether a major article has yet been reformatting to display the current CS1 cites, or is still "in the queue" to be reformatted 7 weeks later. It would be great to look for last2/author2 and know whether the page would be updated within 3 days (or 50 days, as usual now). -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
| |||