Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#arXiv identifier
{{Automatic archive navigator}}{{Search box|root=Help talk:Citation Style 1|search-width=85}}
"and updates"
I'm trying to cite a web page which gives its publication date as "2009 and updates". If I code "{{mono|1=date=2009 and updates}}" (or "{{mono|1=year=...}}") it formats OK but adds a red message {{color|red|Check date values in: {{mono|1={{!}}date{{=}}}}}} at the end. Is there any way of avoiding this message?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:We need a real example, please. -- Gadget850 talk 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:Such is the ephemeral nature of web citations as indicated by "2009 and updates". Because what an editor might have seen one day at a website might be different from what you see today or tomorrow, we use {{para|access-date}} to identify that point in time where the cited source supported the article text.
:—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::I'm still grappling with how to cite a number of online web resources which have previously been cited using "YYYY onwards" (as they themselves recommend in some cases). The citation year can just be omitted, but it does convey useful information to knowledgeable readers. Also templates like {{tl|harvc}} then can't easily be used to cite different contributions without repeating the main work. Another possibility is "YYYY–ACCESSYEAR" on the grounds that the cite can't apply to any updates after the access year (or the full access date). So far I've mostly settled for converting such citations to plain text, which seems a retrograde step to me, but does avoid the red error message. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
error chapter=ignored
I've been getting this error on hundreds of citations since the update to Lua. Cite news no longer accepts section= for newspaper titles. I know a section above discusses this, but I'm not sure why it's taken several months without a fix nor am I prepared to read that wall of technical text as I am unfamiliar with Lua. Newspapers have sections, the section parameter should be handled by it as it was previously. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{para|newspaper}} for the name of the newspaper: {{para|newspaper|New York Times}}
:{{para|title}} for an article title {{para|title|11 Women, Seven Seas and One Point to Make}}
:{{para|department}} for the section {{para|department|Sports}} (which see)
:
::→{{cite news |last=Museler |first=Chris |title=11 Women, Seven Seas and One Point to Make |department=Sports |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/sports/international/in-volvo-ocean-race-womens-sailing-team-hopes-to-navigate-new-path.html?ref=sports |date=23 December 2014 |page=B9}}
:As best I can tell, {{para|section}} is not and hasn't been a documented parameter for any CS1 templates except {{tlx|cite manual}} (now redirected to {{tlx|cite book}}) where it is an alias of {{para|chapter}}, and {{tlx|cite map}} where it is used to hold grid location identifiers.
:—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Floydian}} Template:Cite news#In-source locations suggests that you use the {{para|at}} parameter for the section title. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I get the {{samp|1=chapter= ignored|color=red}} error when using the {{tl|cite conference}} template even when using the suggested "Full parameter set in horizontal format".
:::This:
:::Outputs:
{{cite conference/new|first=Jean-Claude|last=Larchet|title=The question of the Roman primacy in the thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3mxbj99yRaQC&pg=PA188|year=2006|conference=Academic symposium on the Petrine Ministry. Vatican City. May 21–24, 2003|editor-last=Kasper|editor-first=Walter|editor-link=Walter Kasper|booktitle=The Petrine ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in dialogue|location=New York|publisher=Newman Press|isbn=978-0-8091-4334-4|page=188}}
:::Also, it does not matter if I use {{para|book-title}} (as described in "Full parameter set in vertical format") or {{para|booktitle}} (as described in "Full parameter set in horizontal format") the conference's publication title (from {{para|booktitle}}) is not shown. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Horizontal or vertical format is only for humans. The template's processor code, Module:Citation/CS1, cannot and does not distinguish between the two formats.
::::The missing chapter error is fixed for {{tlx|cite conference}} in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The error will go away and the citation will display correctly when the module suite is next updated.
::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I know horizontal vs. vertical coding is for convenience but there is a "-" in one but not in the other. I tried both formats of the variable. I am glad your answer is that it will fix itself. Thank you for the fast response. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{tl|cite news}} and {{tl|cite periodical}} should be fixed to pass section= along to the at= parameter or whatever would put it directly before the page number. Newspapers and periodicals are very often organized into sections, some with page numbers that reset for each section. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I don't how this is related to the topic, but you probably want {{para|department}}. -- Gadget850 talk 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Month style in date ranges test
I have added a test to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox that tests months in a range for matching style: either both short: Jan–Mar or both long: January–March.
Month to month in the same year ranges:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January–March 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January–May 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Jan–Mar 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Jan–May 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=May–Jul 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=May–July 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Jan–March 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January–Mar 2014}}
Because it uses much of the same code, season to season ranges in the same year should not be broken:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Summer–Autumn 2014}}
Day and month to day and month in the same year ranges:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 November – 3 December 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=November 12 – December 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 Nov – 3 Dec 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Nov 12 – Dec 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 Nov – 3 December 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Nov 12 – December 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 November – 3 Dec 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=November 12 – Dec 3, 2013}}
Month and year in different year ranges:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2013 – January 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Dec 2013 – Jan 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Dec 2013 – January 2014}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2013 – Jan 2014}}
Because it uses much of the same code, season to season ranges in the different years should not be broken:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2013 – Spring 2014}}
Day month and year to day month and year ranges:
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 December 2012 – 3 January 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 12, 2012 – January 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 Dec 2012 – 3 Jan 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Dec 12, 2012 – Jan 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 Dec 2012 – 3 January 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Dec 12, 2012 – January 3, 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=12 December 2012 – 3 Jan 2013}}
- {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 12, 2012 – Jan 3, 2013}}
Have I missed something? Keep this change?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Trappist the monk}} Looks good, as it should encourage editors to ensure they're using consistent month formatting. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
format with chapter-url but not url
Currently {{para|format}} is dependent on {{para|url}} where it should be dependent on {{para|url}} or {{para|chapter-url}}. In this example, adding a parent link seems overkill:
{{markup
|
|{{cite book |chapter=Organizational Actions of Units to Form the 9th Field Artillery Regiment Under the US Army Regimental System (USARS) |title=Official Department of the Army Administrative Publications and Forms |id=General Orders No 34 |publisher=Department of the Army |date=15 January 1986 |chapter-url=http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go8534.pdf |format=PDF}}
}}
-- Gadget850 talk 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{para|chapter-format}}
::{{cite book |chapter=Organizational Actions of Units to Form the 9th Field Artillery Regiment Under the US Army Regimental System (USARS) |title=Official Department of the Army Administrative Publications and Forms |id=General Orders No 34 |publisher=Department of the Army |date=15 January 1986 |chapter-url=http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go8534.pdf |chapter-format=PDF}}
:—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Forgot this was added. -- Gadget850 talk 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Cite journal and Google books
This works,{{cite journal|date=5 December 1988|title=Product Comparison|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=EToEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PAPT63|journal=InfoWorld|publisher=IDG|volume=10|issue=49|page=64|issn=0199-6649|accessdate=29 December 2014}} this works,{{Google books|EToEAAAAMBAJ|Product Comparison|page=PT63}} but this gives a Check |url= scheme (help). error.{{cite journal|date=5 December 1988|title=Product Comparison|url={{Google books|EToEAAAAMBAJ|Product Comparison|page=PT63}}|journal=InfoWorld|publisher=IDG|volume=10|issue=49|page=64|issn=0199-6649|accessdate=29 December 2014}} In other words, {{tl|Cite journal}} apparently cannot deal with {{tl|Google books}} URLs. Would be nice if it could. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:You'd need to add{{para|plainurl|yes}} to that template, {{u|82.136.210.153}}.
:#
:#
:I hope that solves the problem for you. Imzadi 1979 → 11:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::Ah, yes; thanks. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't see that there is much benefit gained from this roundabout method of adding {{para|url}} to {{tlx|cite journal}}. Why type all of that extra text?
:::
:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
::::{{ping|Trappist the monk}} The benefit of using a template in the {{para|url}} parameter is that if the website changes its URL format, you just have to change the template instead of finding and changing many articles. 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::
:::::Perhaps. But, if we're worried that Google will change its format then we should bring the functionality of
:::::
:::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Given the infrastructure and the cost of development I don't see Google changing this soon, nor without good reason. -- Gadget850 talk 16:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
cite journal without |title
In Lawrencium is this citation:
:
:→{{cite journal|first=G. N.|last=Flerov|journal=At. En.|volume=106|page=476|year=1967}}
No {{para|title}} yet no error message. Is this how it should be? The missing title error message is output when none of the meta parameters Title, Periodical, Conference, TransTitle, or ScriptTitle are set. Because {{para|journal|At. En.}} has a value, no error message. I don't think that this is proper. I think that all CS1/2 citations must have {{para|title}}.
Is there a reason that we shouldn't have this requirement and that I shouldn't remove Periodical and Conference from the title test?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:Tricky. In the botanical literature, it's common to give citations for the scientific names of plants without titles. For example, the citation for the name Freesia [http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=20330-1&back_page=%2Fipni%2FeditSimplePlantNameSearch.do%3Ffind_wholeName%3DFreesia%26output_format%3Dnormal here] is (in cite journal formatting) "{{cite journal |last=Klatt |date=1866 |journal=Linnaea |volume=34 |page=672}}" Should we be using such citations? Probably not, but sometimes they are hard to avoid, partly because of access problems and partly because old botanical works often didn't use titles in the way that is done now. I'm already having to convert citations with open-ended dates to plain text and seeing others do so as well; I'd be sorry to see yet another category of citation unable to use citation templates. On the other hand, the great majority of citations should have titles. Ideally there would be a way of overriding a "missing title" error message. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{para|title|none}} could explicitly set no title. -- Gadget850 talk 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::Because botanical citation style differs rather significantly from the general purpose citation styles that guided the development of CS1/2, it would seem to me that such citation needs would best be met by specialized templates to render that style rather than twist the CS1/2 definition. Are there not such citation templates?
::Editor Gadget850's suggestion is possible, though I think messy, so I'd rather not if I can avoid it.
::and, yeah, this was supposed to be a separate discussion ... fixed
::—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:As Peter coxhead states, some scientific traditions cite papers this way in their standard style. I've seen this in physics, crystallography, etc. — it is far more widespread than just botany. We should support them rather than deciding for ourselves what a proper citation is or should be. And again, why are you discussing changes to CS2 here without even a pointer to the discussion in the proper place? You do this over and over and it is a problem every time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:PS for some examples of physics articles that use this style (somewhat inconsistently, and currently without benefit of templates) see Logarithmic Schrödinger equation, Scissors Modes, Noiseless subsystems, Quantum dimer models, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::Those are ugly. To me they indicate laziness on the editor's part and make the reader's task more difficult should they ever decide to try to find the referenced source. For example, this:
:::E. F. Hefter, Phys. Rev. A 32, 1201 (1985).
::Would it have been so hard to make this?
:::{{cite journal |first=Earnest F. |last=Hefter |title=Application of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a logarithmic inhomogeneous term to nuclear physics |journal=Physical Review A |publisher=American Physical Society |volume=32 |issue=2 |page=1201–1204 |date=August 1985 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.32.1201 |pmid=9896178 |subscription=yes}}
::I think that editors here sometimes forget that we are not creating content for people 'in the business' but rather, we are creating content for the rest of the world.
::
::—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Sometimes editors feel like they should follow the conventions of their field, and sometimes those conventions include or exclude different information than you would. I agree that your reformatting is better, but I think you have the wrong attitude. These templates are supposed to be here for the convenience of the editors, to make it easier for them to format citations the way they would like to format them, and with greater consistency than hand-formatted citations. They are not supposed to be for the re-education of badthinking proles who don't want to format citations in exactly the same way you would. The templates currently support multiple minor variations in style (e.g. punctuation, use of author initials vs full names, inclusion vs non-inclusion of journal publishers, etc). This is another such variation, one that is very standard in some fields. Who are we to say that it is to be forbidden? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::::MOS:JARGON applies. But this is a separate discussion.
:::::Agreed. As a short-term solution, a {{para|title|none}} option to explicitly override the need to insert the article title to "silence" a visible error message would be a good option. If silenced, I'd suggest that the template use some sort of tracking category so that interested editors can expand the citation out in full. As {{ul|Trappist the monk}}'s example shows, the longer citation (with DOI/PMID) is quite a bit more helpful. As for {{u|David Eppstein}}'s comments, I understand a desire to allow academics to emulate their academic practices into Wikipedia writing, but at some point, I should think everyone would agree that Wikipedia has a house style (our MOS), and at least some things should eventually be updated to conform to our MOS's basic requirements in an effort to be accessible to the masses
:::::As I recently noted elsewhere, if I'm taking a university class where the instructor specifies APA style for citations and formatting, I use APA style and re-capitalize titles accordingly. If another instructor requires The Chicago Manual of Style, then CMOS it is. One semester, I was taking 5 course, one of which required CMOS (with footnotes), another required APA, two explicitly required MLA and the third required me to "just indicate your sources in parentheses with a list of sources at the end" (so I used MLA). An article I wrote in MLA style I expect to be revised into the house style of the textbook publisher. Now, our MOS is very flexible in terms of citation styles, and CS1/CS2 are two style options that can be selected, but Wikipedia:Citing sources does at a minimum specify consistency within an article, that journal citations typically have article titles, etc. There's another guideline someplace that also says that journal names should be spelled out in full to be accessible to non-specialist readers, but I'm not locating that advice at the moment. Our generalist mission, or our goal of being accessible to as many readers as possible, in any rate should push us to expand these shorthand conventions from various disciplines into fuller citations that non-specialists can reliably parse. Anyway, that's my 2¢. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I agree with all that. What I disagree with is the idea that making our templates more rigid and inflexible is a good way to encourage users to format their citations better. I think it's better to keep them flexible, so that people want to use them, and use other means to encourage stylistic consistency. After all, a much bigger problem than misuse of the templates is all the inconsistently hand-formatted citations that don't use the templates at all. We can't fix that problem by making our templates so prickly that only experts can get them to produce error-free output. For this reason, I would not be opposed to title-less cites causing the addition of a maintenance category, so that people who care about such issues can find them and fix them. But making them bomb out with an error message visible to all users, as was proposed here, goes beyond that and I think would cause more problems than it solves. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher has a sentence about not using abbreviated journal names.
::::::
::::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::
::Not as messy as I thought it might be:
:::
::::→{{cite journal/new |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
:::
::::→{{cite journal/new |title=none |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
::
::When {{para|title|none}} article is included in a maintenance category {{cl|CS1 maint: Untitled periodical}}.
::
::—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Occasionally an editor might want to refer to an entire issue of a journal (or newspaper) without specifying a particular article. This might be more likely if the issue being cited were a special issue or extra edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Minor tweaks to move the is-title-present test ahead of COinS generation so that we don't get &rft.atitle=none; no special treatment of {{para|title|none}} when the template is {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}}, or when {{tlx|citation}} uses {{para|encyclopedia}}:
:{{cite encyclopedia/new |article=article |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
:{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
:{{cite encyclopedia/new |article=Article |title=none}}
:{{citation/new |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
:{{citation/new |article=Article |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Citing a primary source document
As his personal physician, Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, completed the first "certificate of death" for JFK: [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]. (The notation in the upper left corners appears to indicate that it is a US Navy form.) This report can found in a few other places online, but the National Archives and Records Administration appears to hold the original documents and, therefore, be the most authoritative source of the document. My pathway to accessing these pdf's was 1) http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/, 2) http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/jfk-key-persons.html, 3) http://research.archives.gov/description/7460634, and 4) clicked the last two pages. I'm not sure what citation template to use since Template:Cite document redirects to Template:Cite journal. Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Perhaps {{tlx|cite report}}:
::{{cite report |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death (front) |url=http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg |id=NAVMED Form N |date=23 November 1963}}
::{{cite report |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |authormask=2 |title=Certificate of Death (back) |url=http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg |id=NAVMED Form N |date=23 November 1963}}
:But {{tld|cite report}} (as it is currently implemented) does strange things when {{para|work}} is made part of the citation (title is rendered quoted in italics):
::{{cite report |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |work=The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection |publisher=National Archives and Records Administration |pages=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]|id=NAVMED Form N |date=23 November 1963}}
:The next update to Module:Citation/CS1, will fix that weirdness and allow you to dismiss the '(Report)' annotation by setting {{para|type|none}}.
{{cite compare |old=no |mode=report |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |work=The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection |publisher=National Archives and Records Administration |pages=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]|id=NAVMED Form N |date=23 November 1963}}
:Or, you could just use {{tlx|cite document}}:
::{{cite document |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |work=The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection |publisher=National Archives and Records Administration |pages=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]|id=NAVMED Form N |date=23 November 1963}}
:—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::I like "(Report)" included in the citation, however, I think I'll use the last
::While I have you on the line, I have a web cite to very similar material: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/faq/ . Per American Experience (season 20), "Oswald's Ghost" (not italicized) was an episode of American Experience (italicized) that first aired on January 14, 2008. The episode aired on PBS, but the corresponding website material appears to have been authored by WGBH Educational Foundation as it states at the bottom: "This site is produced for PBS by WGBH". In Template:Cite web, I'm utterly confused as to who and what to credit as author, publisher, website, series, etc. This was my first attempt:
:::
::...which gives...
:::{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/faq/ |title=Oswald's Ghost |author= |website=www.pbs.org |series=American Experience |publisher=WGBH Educational Foundation |accessdate=January 5, 2014}}
::Do you think that is sufficient (even though American Experience is not italicized) or is there something else that you would recommend? Thanks again! - Location (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::If you like '(Report)', you can add it to {{tlx|cite document}} with {{para|type|Report}}.
::
:::For the other, perhaps this:
::::
::::→{{cite web |author=WGBH Educational Foundation |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/faq/ |title=Oswald's Ghost |website=American Experience |publisher=PBS |accessdate=January 5, 2014}}
:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Outside style guides like APA don't treat collections as works. In the case of APA, the collection information is just put at the end of the citation. Perhaps like this:
which renders as
{{cite document |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |publisher=National Archives and Records Administration |pages=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]|id=NAVMED Form M |date=23 November 1963}} The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.
Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:That's where {{para|via}} can come in very handily. Also, I wouldn't use {{para|pages}} that way, using {{para|at}} instead
:*{{cite document |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |publisher=National Archives and Records Administration |at=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front side], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back side]|id=NAVMED Form M |date=23 November 1963 |via= The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection}}
: Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for all of the feedback. While newer references indicate that this has changed, older sources (e.g. [https://books.google.com/books?id=MuQcaWtZmYsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22Form%20N%22&f=false Manual of the Medical Department of the United States Navy, 1906]) confirm that "Form N" was the US Navy's death certificate form. I'm guessing that "(REV. 4-58)" in the corner of the form/report/document indicates that it was revised April 1958. It's not unusual for governments to use various number forms, but I'm wondering how detailed we should be. I know this seems pedantic: If they call it a "form", should I use {{para|type|Form}} instead of {{para|type|Report}}? - Location (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Certificate is already implied in the title. -- Gadget850 talk 20:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::You can be as pedantic as you'd like to be. I put the form in {{para|id}} but it can just as easily go in {{para|type}}.
:::
:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
=Request to update Template:Cite compare=
Based on the discussion above, I've made a request at Template talk:Cite compare#Request to update the template to make code more visible. Discussion and technical assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Preface/introduction citation - is what I'm doing correct despite feeling hackish
I am attempting to cite an introduction written by one author which appears in a book written by another author. To make matters more interesting, the author of the introduction is credited as the editor of the complete text. The book, at its core, is an edition of the well-known Anna Lombard by Victoria Cross (Annie Sophie Cory). The introduction is by Gail Cunningham. I _think_ that the correct way this should display is:
- {{cite book |author-last=Cunningham |author-first=Gail |chapter=Introduction |pages=vii–xxv |title=Anna Lombard |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |editor-last=Cross |editor-first=Victoria |year=2006 |origyear=1901 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9}}
Buuuut ... that raises at least two problems in my mind. First, the origyear parameter makes this look as though the Introduction was originally published in 1901, when that's not actually the case (just the book itself). Second, to get this outcome, I've stuffed Victoria Cross in the editor field, which is the opposite of reality. I feel that can only create trouble for metadata scrapers (and potential futures where we go back to displaying "ed."); indeed, the publication itself considered Cunningham the editor.
What's best practice here, with the ultimate goal of being able to tag this with a Cunningham-named sfn (naturally)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:Unless something is changed with {{tl|cite book}} to allow us to specify contribution authors separate from the authors/editors of the encompassing work, the only thing I could suggest is splitting it into two templates, like:
:*{{cite journal |last= Cunningham |first= Gail |year= 2006 |title= Introduction |ref= harv}} In {{cite book |last= Cross |first= Victoria |year= 2006 |orig-year= orig. pub. 1901 |title= Anna Lombard |editor-last= Cunningham |editor-first= Gail |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9}}
:This is the best I can figure at the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
::That's ... unpleasant, but better than wrong. Thanks. I'm surprised there's not a sane way to do this, though. It can't be that uncommon... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I think that thhis solution brings its own set of problems. Now there are two sets of related but disconnected metadata. The second is complete and correct but the first gives us a metadata citation to a periodical article named "Introduction" but doesn't name the periodical. Perhaps fudge it a bit where {{para|chapter}} is modified:
::::{{cite book |last=Cross |first=Victoria |editor-first=Gail |editor-last=Cunningham |chapter=Editor's Introduction |pages=vii–xxv |title=Anna Lombard |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |year=2006 |origyear=1901 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9}}
:::or, set {{para|display-authors|0}}
::::{{cite book |last=Cross |first=Victoria |display-authors=0 |editor-first=Gail |editor-last=Cunningham |chapter=Introduction |pages=vii–xxv |title=Anna Lombard |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |year=2006 |origyear=1901 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9}}
:::and set {{para|ref|
:::
:::Neither are perfect but at least this way we don't have disconnected metadata fragments.
:::
:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't think either of those are really acceptable solutions, either. The first is formatted in a way that suggests Cross is the author of the introduction, and fudges the "chapter" name in an effort to combat that implication. But I don't see that changing section/chapter names is best editing practice. The second one disincludes (at least from visibility) the author of the actual book the introduction is attached to, which doesn't seem permissible, either. 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Ok, a slight variant:
::::::{{cite book |last=Cross |first=Victoria |others=Introduction: Gail Cunningham |editor-first=Gail |editor-last=Cunningham |chapter=Introduction |pages=vii–xxv |title=Anna Lombard |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |year=2006 |origyear=1901 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9}}
:::::Or you could set {{para|ref|harv}}
::::::{{cite book |last=Cross |first=Victoria |editor-first=Gail |editor-last=Cunningham |title=Anna Lombard |series=Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers |year=2006 |origyear=1901 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-0-8264-8184-9 |ref=harv}}
:::::Then use short-form links to the single citation but using two different names:
::::::
:::::::→{{harvnb|Cross|2006|pp=55–56}}
::::::
:::::::→Cunningham 2006, "Introduction", pp. vii–xxv
:::::
:::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
:::(different commenter) I think that if the existing template does not configure the citation in a manner which can be properly interpreted, you should set aside the template and manually compose the citation. I would add an editorial note to the wikitext (
::::I'd take this suggestion if I knew what the intended output even was. Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 isn't an exact match for any other standard reference format, after all. This would also then require use of {{wikicite}} to restore sfn functionality, which (while not guaranteed), is a pretty good sign that something's being done wrong. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to compare, this is how an introduction would be formatted in APA and Chicago:
- APA: Rieger, James (1982). [Introduction]. In Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus: 1935 (pp. xi–xxxvii). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Chicago: Rieger, James. Introduction to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, xi–xxxvii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Cite Conference - adding presenter parameter?
I am thinking that it might be useful to add "presenter" as a new parameter to :Template:Cite conference. Currently only the authors are addressed, but the program will focus on the presenter. Thanks for considering this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:I would use {{para|others}} to meet this edge case need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::However, the presenter will typically be one of the authors, and if I am remembering correctly, "others" are co-listed with "author". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::P.S. this isn't really an edge case, but rather a piece of information which is always available for a conference, but not currently captured in Wikipedia citations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:::My expectation is that the vast majority of "cite conference" citations are (whether Trappist puts his stamp of approval of this specific usage or not) citations to papers published in conference proceedings. We should only cite a presenter when the citation is to an actual presentation, rather than the associated publication, and we should only make such citations when the presentation has been recorded allowing us to verify the contents of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Presumably by "presenter", you mean the person standing at the lectern who reads the paper out to the assembly. Is this important? That is, did the presenter have any creative input? If so, they should already be listed as a (co-)author; if not, there shouldn't be any need to mention them at all. In the BBC documentary [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hrt1x Terry Pratchett - Living with Alzheimer's], there was a sequence where Pratchett began reading a paper to an audience, then stepped down part-way; somebody else stepped up to the lectern and read out the rest of Pratchett's paper. That was not spur-of-the-moment but pre-arranged, but I don't think that it's necessary to give the name of that kind person in a citation. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::At the conferences I go to, conference talks are given largely ad lib rather than being read from a written script, so there is definitely creative input in them regardless of whether the presenter is an author of the corresponding paper (the usual case) or not (as sometimes happens e.g. when travel plans break down). So if the presenter is not an author and we are referencing the actual presentation (not the paper) then we should credit the presenter. But I'm skeptical that this is a frequent enough case to need a special field in the templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::It would be especially infrequent because most conference presentations are not recorded, so can't be cited per se in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Separator parameters
At this discussion I asked why we have several different separator parameters. This discussion assumes that we don't need so many and proposes a path to streamlining this set of parameters.
CS1/2 needs three types of separator: one to separate {{para|first}} from {{para|last}}, one to separate the items in a name list (authors, editors), and one to separate the various elements of the citation. This discussion applies to the first two of these.
The name separator parameters are:
:{{para|author-name-separator}}
:{{para|editor-name-separator}}
I can see no reason to have different separators for first/last name separation in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate author last/first names should be used to separate editor last/first names. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would be {{para|name-separator}}. But that parameter name is already in use.
The name list separator parameters are:
:{{para|author-separator}}
:{{para|editor-separator}}
:{{para|name-separator}}
Again, I see no reason to have different separators for name lists in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate authors in the author list should be used to separate editors in the editor list. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would seem to be {{para|name-list-separator}}.
Because {{para|name-separator}} is already in use, I think that we need a two-stage process to cleanup this mess. In the first stage we:
- create {{para|name-list-separator}}
- make {{para|author-separator}}, {{para|editor-separator}}, and {{para|name-separator}} aliases of {{para|name-list-separator}}
- modify Module:Citation/CS1 to use {{para|name-list-separator}} where it now uses {{para|author-separator}}, {{para|editor-separator}}, and {{para|name-separator}}
- deprecate {{para|author-separator}}, {{para|editor-separator}}, and {{para|name-separator}} in favor of {{para|name-list-separator}}
- create a script (or bot if necessary) to troll {{cl|Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters}} that will replace instances of {{para|author-separator}}, {{para|editor-separator}}, and {{para|name-separator}} with {{para|name-list-separator}}
- after the number of instances of {{para|author-separator}}, {{para|editor-separator}}, and {{para|name-separator}} in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, these three parameters are added to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, are removed from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, are removed as aliases of {{para|name-list-separator}}, and are removed from the documentation
At some point after the last step in stage 1, do stage 2:
- remove {{para|name-separator}} from Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions
- recreate {{para|name-separator}}
- make {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} aliases of {{para|name-separator}}
- modify Module:Citation/CS1 to use {{para|name-separator}} where it now uses {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}}
- deprecate {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} in favor of {{para|name-separator}}
- create a script (or bot if necessary) to troll Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters that will replace instances of {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} with {{para|name-separator}}
- after the number of instances of {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, add these two parameters to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, remove them from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, remove them as aliases of {{para|name-separator}}, and remove them from the documentation
Are there flaws in this plan? Should I proceed?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:Looks good. I recall this being discussed a few years ago, but the discussion went off the rails. I did a quick search for {{para|author-separator}}; every use also makes the style changes made by {{tl|vcite2 journal}}. -- Gadget850 talk 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::I support the basic idea here, but it would be great to come up with parameter names for these two items that are less ambiguous. We already see unsupported parameters like {{para|name}} and {{para|published}} used by editors, for whatever reason.
::It looks like we are proposing default parameters of {{para|name-separator}} as the separator between first and last names (typically a comma in CS1 citations), and {{para|name-list-separator}} as the separator between authors (typically a semicolon in CS1 citations). These parameter names imply that there is a {{para|name}} parameter, but there is not. I understand that we are trying to indicate that there is one of each separator parameter that covers both authors and editors.
::I would love to see parameter names that are more self-evident; if I have to look at the documentation to remember which is which, the names are not good enough. I don't have a brilliant suggestion right now, but one of us may be able to come up with something. I will be OK with the above plan going forward even if there are no suggestions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:There's no point in having a parameter for the default separator between first and last names. If people want to get rid of the comma in names that are usually written surname first, the only sensible way to do that is with a separate parameter for each author or editor name. {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} are just hacks that do that in some cases but not others. (Not that getting rid of the comma is necessarily a good idea, but that's a different issue). Kanguole 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
{{ec}}
:::No argument. Instead of {{para|name-separator}} we could use {{para|last-first-separator}} because it only applies to {{para|last}}, {{para|first}}, {{para|editor-last}}, and {{para|editor-first}}. Or we could ask a more fundamental question: do we even need to specify a last/first separator character? It has been argued that we don't need to disable the separator for Asian names. It could be argued that we only 'need' {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}} when editors want to use CS1/2 in quasi-Vancouver mode ({{para|author-format|vanc}} or {{para|editor-format|vanc}}). Is there any other case where {{para|first}} is separated from {{para|last}} by any other character than a comma? If no, then why have {{para|author-name-separator}} and {{para|editor-name-separator}}?
::—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
=Display parameters: do we need them?=
Discussion split from above.
That then begs the question: do we need any of the display parameters for CS1? I have previously expressed that if the Vancouver or other style is to be used, then a specific template should be created. And now we have {{tl|vcite2 journal}} for just that purpose. Would it be possible to change the display parameters so that they can only be called by another module or template? This discussion may need to be split as it is straying from the original topic. -- Gadget850 talk 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:I don't think that there is a way of 'denying' the use of a parameter except by using the value assigned to CitationClass as a qualifyier. We have parameters that only work with one template: {{para|mailing-list}} only works with {{tlx|cite mailing list}} because we look for CitationClass equals mailinglist which is set with
::—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::I see that {{para|author-mask}} is used for bibliography lists and I know {{para|display-authors}} is well used.
::These parameters are generally used in conjunction with others to form a variant style.
::*{{para|authorformat}}
::*{{para|author-name-separator}}
::*{{para|editor-name-separator}}
::*{{para|author-separator}}
::*{{para|editor-separator}}
::*{{para|name-separator}}
::*{{para|last-author-amp}}
::*{{para|postscript}}
::*{{para|separator}}
::We have a lot of inconsistent uses, such as Way of the Patriarchs where one cite template uses {{para|author-name-separator}}.
::If CitationClass would do it, then that would be a solution. Set it to ExternalTemplate or the like. -- Gadget850 talk 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I think that keeping {{para|postscript}} and {{para|separator}} has some value because the allowed editors to mix CS1 and CS2 and have the rendered styling be the same for all citations. Here is an admittedly poor example. Presume that the page primarily uses CS2 so {{para|postscript}} and {{para|separator}} are added to the CS1 {{tlx|cite press release}} so that it stylisically resembles the predominat CS2 style:
:::*{{cite press release |last=Smith |first=Bob |last2=Jones |first2=Joe |title=Press Release Title |publisher=Big Big Newspaper |date=15 December 2014 |postscript=none |separator=,}}
:::*{{citation |last=Smith |first=Bob |last2=Jones |first2=Joe |title=Web Page Title |website=Website |date=15 December 2014}}
:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::For that we should have {{para|cs2|y}}. -- Gadget850 talk 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Now that is the kind of good idea I was hoping for above. Is it loaded with unintended consequences? Can it be combined with {{para|author-format|vanc}} into a single parameter that controls multiple display elements? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I strongly support the idea of having a single parameter to convert "cite" templates to CS2. Because {{tl|citation}} doesn't provide the extra information in the second part of the "cite" template name, it's proved impossible to fully replicate some behaviours between the CS1 and CS2 templates (thus {{tl|cite web}} can produce a title in double quotes without {{para|website}}; {{tl|citation}} cannot). Hence users of CS2 are occasionally obliged to use "cite" templates with the ugly additions |separator=, |postscript=none. How about {{para|style|cs2}} with alternatives like {{para|style|vanc}}? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{para|cs2}} would be for the occasional use where we need to mix with CS2 where {{tl|citation}} simply does not work. If you are going to use the Vancouver style, then it needs to be used for all citations. The new {{tl|vcite2 journal}} is a step in the right direction. With the name, it immediately establishes the citation style and allows follow on edits to conform. While doing parameter use searches, I found a number of articles with very inconsistent use; for example, Tropical cyclone has a number of uses of {{tl|cite web}} but only one uses {{para|author-separator}}. There is another article where one citation uses {{para|authorformat=scap}}. There is currently no way to discover consistency within an article other than by scanning it by eye. -- Gadget850 talk 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::{{para|cs2}} would also be useful for using templates that provide a specific reference in cs1 style (example: {{tl|Introduction to Algorithms}}) within a cs2-styled article, assuming those templates can easily be modified to pass that parameter along. But they would have to be individually programmed to do this, which makes it unlikely the {{tl|cite doi}} can do this, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::It could be done. First, update the bot so it adds {{para|cs2}} to each new citation, then add {{para|cs2}} to each doi subtemplate, another bot job. But I'm not sure of the status of {{tl|cite doi}}. -- Gadget850 talk 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I think I prefer {{para|style}} because it's then relatively simple for an editor to copy a CS1 or CS2 template from a page using one style to a page using the other style. It's only one parameter so converting CS2 to CS1 would be
:::::::::Adding a pass-through {{para|style|
:::::::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Many templates recognise a {{para|style}} parameter, and it's almost always intended for a semicolon-separated list of CSS declarations, and as such is passed unchanged into the style="..." attribute of some HTML element. We should not introduce confusion by using {{para|style|cs2}} (or variations on that) for a completely unrelated purpose - at some point somebody will attempt to use {{para|style|background-color: yellow; border: 1px solid blue; font-family: Times,serif;}} and wonder what went wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Redrose64 has a good point. Maybe {{para|citation-style}} or {{para|citation-format}} instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::When editors {{tq|wonder what went wrong}}: Check |style= value (Help)? I like to think that most editors are clever enough to understand a word's meanings in when it is used in different contexts.
::::::::::::Alternate names: {{para|styling}}, {{para|mode}}, {{para|form}}, {{para|appearance}}
::::::::::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
For the sake of argument, let us assume that we have or will settle on a parameter name that is both descriptive and not likely to be confused for some other parameter. In the discussion that follows, I use {{para|