This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||
|
Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]
→ here.|agency=
in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion. |agency=
is defined for {{cite news}}
, {{cite press release}}
, and {{cite web}}
. Also supported by {{citation}}
when that template has |newspaper=
or|work=
.|agency=
in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been |publisher=
. I have seen no evidence that |agency=
is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|agency=
would you have another option for crediting the Society within the citation? — Skullcinema (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|others=
be appropriate? e.g.
Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{cite report}}
citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite report}}
templates that have |agency=
and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.|publisher=
us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=
:
{{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}
{{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}
The category CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=
. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=
?.--Auric talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|agency=
is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of |publisher=
. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use |via=
to hold the name of the provider.|agency=
has been a shorthand name for a parameter holding the wire agency of a news story, to properly credit that the origin of a news article in a paper was the Associated Press/United Press International/Agence France-Presse/etc. and not the cited newspaper itself, with or without any additional reporter byline. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the parameter |agency=
has been removed, how should the entry for it on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData be corrected? Should it just be deleted from the table? — Skullcinema (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, Citation bot has recently been adding agency= to cite book templates: see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 38#Adds unknown parameter to CS1 and Special:Diff/1221981567. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While looking through the parameters of Template:Cite magazine, I noticed that the 'others' parameter is the recommended means by which illustrators should be listed. As the 'authors' parameter was deprecated for not contributing to the citation's metadata, shouldn't a separate, optional 'illustrator' (aliases 'illustrator-last', 'illustrator-surname', 'illustrator1', 'illustrator1-last', 'illustrator1-surname', 'illustrator-last1', 'illustrator-last1'), 'illustrator-first' (aliases 'illustrator-given', 'illustrator1-first', 'illustrator1-given', 'illustrator-first1', 'illustrator-given1'), 'villustrators' (Vancouver style), and 'display-illustrators' (to determine when et al. is added) parameters be added, to ensure documented magazine illustrators are searchable as metadata in a format similar to the ones established for authors and editors?
The 'others' parameter would still be kept, of course, as a catch-all parameter for any additional contributors. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite book}}
it says:
|others[illustrators]=Joe Smith, Bill Barn
|others[photographers]=Mary Sue
.. -- GreenC 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]|others=
is a free-input parameter. If you want the very reader-unfriedly Vancouver style, you just do |others=Jones VT, Smith AM (illustrators)
. These templates are already excessively complex, and we do not need a whole new multiplying set of parameter variants for every imaginable kind of "other", especially as it also leads to a bunch of numbered variants of them: |illustrator5-last=
, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently encountered an error when trying to add this citation: <ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |contribution=Oberlin College |contributor-last=Lee |contributor-first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=9781574401226 |pages=93–94}}</ref>
. It produces this:[1]
References
{{cite book}}
: |contributor=
requires |author=
(help)
I am citing a portion of a chapter in a book that has only a primary editor, not a primary author (each chapter is authored by someone different), but using |contributor=
with |editor=
and no |author=
leads to an error message and the contributor not being displayed. What is the proper way to resolve this? Should I be using the parameters differently, or does the template/error detection need adjustment? Sdkb talk 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|contributor=
/ |contribution=
pair in {{cite book}}
is used when citing a contribution to a primary author's work: Anna Quindlen's introduction to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (permalink). Because your example does not have a primary author but does have content authored by one-or-more contributors, I think you should treat the contributors as you would treat authors of an edited collection of independent chapters. Perhaps you can rewrite like this:
{{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |section=Oberlin College |last=Lee |first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=978-1-57440-122-6 |pages=93–94}}
Or perhaps she considers her middle name to be a last name but she's not hyphenated.
But look what happens.
Lourgos AL (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune.
Okay, it didn't happen. Let me go check.
Variants of SARS-CoV-2 As of right now, ref 116.
— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|last=
to get "Leventis Lourgos A" in the citation, like this: Leventis Lourgos A (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune. This page uses "Leventis Lourgos" as her last name, as does this page and WorldCat (though WC's site is mostly broken for me, so that link may be a 404 for you too). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]|agency=
for {{cite magazine}}?[edit]This edit requesttoModule:Citation/CS1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OnSpecial Force (2003 video game), I have a citation for a Reuters wire story reprinted in Wired. It used to be a {{cite web}} and, as with newspaper articles in {{cite news}}, I used |agency=
to denote Reuters as the corporate author that is not the work's publisher. However, Citation bot converts Wired citations to {{cite magazine}}, which does not support |agency=
. While I disagree with the automated conversion, using {{cite magazine}} here generally appears reasonable. Given the situation I outlined above, I think it would be valid for {{cite magazine}} to also support the parameter. The affected line in the Module is 3751. Kind regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|agency=
to{{cite magazine}}
. Certainly this happens, and it's useful to know about in case someone doesn't have the magazine and wants to search for the story in another outlet. -- GreenC 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]I have encountered to use of 10208486403 as an OCLC identifier. Help:CS1 errors says to report this situation here. Why is there a limit on the OCLC number? Seems like superfluous maintenance to me. User-duck (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had this problem several times before, the actual is the following in Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures: Erwin Panofsky (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6. The link is on the whole collection instead of the chapter, although the link goes to the specific page. It is also confusing for the reader, he does not realize, that the link actually goes to the specific excerpt of the text. With {{cite encyclopedia I could probably solve the link issue. But "encyclopedia" is obviously the false term for this sort of text compilation. "Compilation" would be a good term for it (like in music, or short stories in literature, I suppose), with "title" for the particular text, and "compilation-title" for the book itself. MenkinAlRire 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|last=
as the first argument, which makes it easier to find when citations are in a list. The use of |author-link=
and |editor-link=
. The use of |chapter-url=
in #1 and |page=
for #2 depending which you prefer. I prefer #2 when linking mid-chapter and #1 when linking to a chapter. -- GreenC 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|url=
links the title of the whole book. |chapter-url=
, |contribution-url=
, or |section-url=
links the chapter/section/entry/article within it. Rjjiii (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|first=
and |last=
describe the author of a chapter. Without it, they are taken as the author of the book. It's awkward, but would be hard to change now. Kanguole 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some government websites have IP range restrictions to prevent international (intergovernmental in particular) spamming. I just came across the official law site for Georgia, which despite being linked on the main government site and having extensive English translations, appears to be at least intermittently down for US IPs and several other countries I tried via VPN. Though that proves nothing itself about this site in particular, I've seen similar behavior in websites of many countries seeking to prevent outside spam, including those of US states. Additionally, for legal reasons, a smaller news outlet might block access outside its key local market (such as happened with with several local US newspapers and GDPR).
For these reasons, a site may be seen as dead when it is just inaccessible for some region. If this region is a significant en.wp market, then it is appropriate to have an archive-url be the main title link. However, it would be inappropriate for a bot or other editor to interpret the original url as dead or otherwise problematic -- the original editor should instead be able to set an explicit parameter that the url has restricted access by IP. (Currently I just use an html comment). Since the main purpose is to prevent a bot from incorrectly flagging a dead link, it should go in |url-status=
, and I suggest the term regional
(or something similar but not identical to limited
so as to not cause confusion with the |url-access=
parameter). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs often have page numbers printed on each page, but these are offset from the page numbers of the digital PDF file due to title pages, forewords, etc. Normally we only cite the page number printed on the page we're citing. Could we add another page number parameter for the digital page number in such a document? Maybe we could call it "digital page", "PDF page", "digital document page", or "digital version page". Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{harvtxt|Abate|1998|p=[https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=thd#page=10 2]}}
|page=
. But even that's kind of iffy, for the aforementioned reason: if the document is later updated, that link might go to the wrong spot in the document. My practice has been to give the visible page number in the work, and if it lacks such numbering, then identify the in-document location some other way, e.g. |at="Dallas, Texas" entry
, or |at=§ 8.52.7
. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]I propose that we prioritize linking to articles provided by the publisher over third-party repositories when both are open access.
When a citation template doesn't supply |url=
, the URL linked by the title text is supplied instead by identifiers when an open access version is known to be available. My proposal only changes which open access version is linked when multiple options are available.
Consider the following citations of the same work:
When |pmc=
is given, then a link is provided to PubMed Central because all PubMed Central articles are open access.
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072}}
When |doi-access=free
, a link is provided to that DOI.
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239}}
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239 | doi-access=free}}
When both |doi=
and |pmc=
are provided, PubMed Central is linked
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239}}
{{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | pmc=6124072 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239 | doi-access=free}}
I am proposing a change only for the very last example, when both |pmc=
is given and |doi-access=free
. Currently, it links to PubMed Central. I think we should link to the DOI, since this is more likely provided by the publisher rather than a third-party repository.
My primary reason for this change is that some articles in PubMed Central appear to be preprints rather than the final published version, eg. PMC 6688940. (Note the text change following the mention of Salpiglossis sinuata.) Additionally, I think its worthwhile to encourage traffic to open access publishers.
Minor considerations:
Daask (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|doi-access=free
and |jstor-access=free
) so that autolinking apply to all version of record identifiers (i.e. not arxiv/ssrn/s2cid, etc...), which should be manually overridable i.e. |auto-url=jstor
. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|auto-url=
doesn't make much sense to me, since if you're doing a manual override that's the opposite of automated. (Plus as semantic/pedantic matter, auto- actually means 'self-'; an autoimmune disorder is an immune-system response to some of one's own cells, not an immune response to automation or brought about by automata.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]Hello,
The hyperlink behind the DOI number is DOI (identifier) which should be changed to Digital object identifier since this is the current title of the article. I can't find the source code responsible for the link, would be helpful if someone could change that who knows those templates better. –Tobias (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the template continues to be broken, failing to display |issue=
content in most instances. As mentioned by other editors, no, this isn't how it used to work and I wasn't insane/delusional to think so. As mentioned by other editors, no, there is no benefit or reasonable purpose to shutting it off. As mentioned by other editors, yes, it's generally beneficial to add the functionality even if (which wasn't ever the case) I had been delusional and just imagined the template worked better during a fever dream. Anyone who wants fiddlely use-specific coding can already choose between {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{whatever}}. This should be a decent multipurpose default template and there's no reason not to allow it to be.
Now, y'know, go ahead and actually fix it. Please. Thank you. — LlywelynII 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|issue=
. Same for websites. Journal have issues, so cite journal supports that parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|mode=cs2
, which should meet the OP's need: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. And here's {{citation}} with the same parameters: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. Works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]|contribution=
+ |title=
over |title=
+ |work=
, and supplies |issue=
, maybe it's not necessary to assume that the |issue=
was unintentional / unimportant / impossible, and just display it anyway.{{Citation}}
(CS2), despite it being used less than 1% of the time in our citations, and almost never consistently within the article. Per WP:CITESTYLE, if we encounter an article with a mixture of citation styles, that mess should be normalized to a single style. For my part, I normalize always to CS1 (and cite the guideline as the rationale). To date, I have never been reverted on it. CS2 is basically doomed. The fact that nearly no one uses it (in part because of its "I have to remember a bunch of quirks" issues), and a large number of casual editors aren't even aware it exists, means inevitably that articles that maybe started out using it, or more-or-less-predominantly using it, become more and more CS1 over time (unless at some super-obscure page no one touches), then the more inconsistent they get the more likely it is they'll get normalized to a single style, which will usually be CS1. This is a set of effects causing a synergistic not just linear shift toward CS1. PS: The only real rationale I've ever seen offered for CS2 is that CS1 weirdly uses "." as a separator, and produces a "choppy fragments" effect that some people don't like. So, just switch to ";" and the problem goes away, along with any further inspiration to use CS2 at all. For an off-site project, I use a lot of more-or-less-WP-style citations, and have been using ";" as the citation parameter separator, and it's perfectly fine for this purpose. Even if you have mutiple "last1, first1; last2, first2;" authors in series, it's clear that they're authors and when you encounter "The onomastic heritage of Strathclyde" or whatever, you've moved on from the author list to the title of the paper/whatever. Sticking a grammatically nonsensible "." in there is a solution in search of a problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used to be simple to handle with |vol=I, II, &c.
. The template currently throws out errors when |vol=
has a URL in it. Surely it isn't necessary to run entire citation template for every volume of a multivolume work. I assume there's a workaround for the reduced functionality, but it's not obvious or clear from the documentation what it is. So... what is it? — LlywelynII 23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the collaboration parameter says:
collaboration: Name of a group of authors or collaborators; requires author, last, or vauthors listing one or more primary authors; follows author name-list; appends "et al." to author name-list.
When collaboration is supplied, but author is not, the current behavior is to not display the name of the collaboration at all.
The problem is that there are studies for which the primary authors are not known. For example, the following rather important study, referenced in Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian, has 397 authors, none of them marked as primary: "Measurement of e+e− Momentum and Angular Distributions from Linearly Polarized Photon Collisions". Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. The current behavior forces me to use author for the name of the collaboration.
I propose to change the description and the behavior of collaboration so that it only requires supplying the primary authors if they are known, still displaying the name of the collaboration if author is empty. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|author=
parameter? Corporate authorship is pretty normal in a lot of areas. Unless I'm misunderstanding something – always a strong possibility – it seems like the behaviour requested here would render on the page exactly the same as |author=Collaboration Name
. What probem am I missing here? Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
collaboration
parameter, whether the names of the principal authors are available or not.collaboration
tocollective-author
and require that collective authors (such as corporate authors, commissions, collaborations, etc.) always go there, so that the authorn
parameters are only used for single humans. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|org-authorn=
before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of ((name_triggering_checks))
. Izno (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no senseisn't really true here. It makes less sense in the minds of various academics (concerned primarily with credit) than it does here, but even in the academic world and especially here, listing the first few names enables one to easily find the paper (or whatever it is) via various means, in most cases, because such a work will typically be indexed in various dabases, bibliographies, card catalogues, etc., by a partial or complete list of named authors, alphabetically by family name. It is crucial to remember that our citations exist for helping our readers find and make use of the sources, not for making academics happy about the frequency of their names appearing.
|collective-author=
or|org-author=
parameter would simply be a redundant alias of |author=
(or|authorn=
), which already serves that purpose. This entire discussion makes me question the necessity or wisdom of a |collaboration=
parameter in the first place. I have yet to run into it "in the wild" (despite over 18 years and 200K+ non-automated edits) and have never used it. There has never been a case of a citation I needed to build, no matter the complexity of the authorship, editorial process, and publishing, that I could not do entirely sensibly with other parameters, even if it ends up being something like: ... |last1=Chen
|first2=Xie-luan
|author1-mask=Chen Zie-luan
|last2=Smith
|first2=J. P.
|author3=Legume Projectiles Workgroup
|display-authors=etal
|translator-last=O'Brien
|translator-first=Maeve
|others=McNabb, John (illustrator)
|editor1-last=Gutierrez
|editor1-first=Selena
|editor2=Foostuffs Momentum Committee
|publisher=X. Y. Zedman & Co., for the Ministry of Foodfights
.... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started an FAQ for this page at Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ because of this discussion. IDK if we even actually need a separate page for the FAQ or if we can just put it on Help:CS1 or something. But I do think it would be valuable to have something for recurring comments/requests. Izno (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeking clarification on the placement of the ISSN parameter in {{cite journal}}. Specifically, what are the arguments for displaying the ISSN after the DOI and other article identifiers, rather than directly after the journal name?
For context, the ISSN is an identifier for the journal as a whole, not the individual article. Here are two examples to illustrate my point:
In Example 1, the ISSN is listed after the DOI, suggesting it is an identifier for the article. In Example 2, the ISSN is placed after the journal name, clearly indicating it is an identifier for the journal.
I believe that if we display the ISSN, it should be positioned to reflect that it identifies the journal. This would avoid confusion and provide a clearer reference structure. Alternatively, we could consider not displaying the ISSN at all in citations.
What are the current reasons for the existing placement of the ISSN, and would it be possible to revise the format for better clarity?
Thank you for your input. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678.
Here, the journal identifier (ISSN) is clearly linked to the journal name, and the article identifier (DOI) follows as part of the article-specific details.Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, PMID 12345678.
|series=
if present. It not present (e.g. because the books in the series all share the same title and are only distinguished by volume number), then I guess it belongs after |title=
, and sorted with other book-level identifiers like ISBN or a whole-book DOI. If the chapter/contribution has its own DOI, then that should adhere right after the chapter/contribution, I would think. In short: the desire to group and sort identifiers is reasonable, but only to the extent they are the same type and that grouping and sorting them does not confuse or mislead our reader. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]DOI prefix 10.1155's registrant is Hindawi, an open access publisher. However, Hindawi became open access in 2007, and some (rare) DOIs from prior to 2007 are not free, e.g.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)There should be a way to specify that for 10.1155, the template should only flag those from year 2007 and up, and not all of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, re this section: Template:Cite_web#Using_"archive-url"_and_"archive-date"_(and_optionally_"url-status")_for_webpages_that_have_been_archived. I realize I can just test this if mechanically possible, but are we allowed as policy to use archival sites beyond archive.org, such as for public records of the US Federal government, for redunant or backup citation functionality? Such as archive.is or to put such collateral on Wikimedia Commons, and thus use it as that secondary link reference? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|url=
and not the |archive-url=
. The way you can tell: if the link has a web archive URL, such as at archive.org, we would prefer that web archive URL to be in the |archive-url=
field. If there is a third layer, like a primary to the primary, then use something like I did above, or create a second citation. The concept is that every link is paired with a web archive link, no matter where the primary link is hosted. -- GreenC 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|url=
or|archive-url=
, instead |title=Document title
. Normally there is no |archive-url=
for content hosted at Commons, so just link to the File: in the |title=
. -- GreenC 22:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]Just saw this in "Tech News: 2024-24":
- The HTML markup used for citations by Parsoid changed last week. In places where Parsoid previously added the
mw-reference-text
class, Parsoid now also adds thereference-text
class for better compatibility with the legacy parser. More details are available. [3]- ...
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 June. It will be on all wikis from 13 June (calendar). [4][5]
- The new version of MediaWiki includes another change to the HTML markup used for citations: Parsoid will now generate a
<span class="mw-cite-backlink">
wrapper for both named and unnamed references for better compatibility with the legacy parser. Interface administrators should verify that gadgets that interact with citations are compatible with the new markup. More details are available. [6]
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several templates have the same issue with formatting, so I'm posting here. I'll leave a link at the less-watched talk page of each template below.
There are many specific-source templates that wrap a CS1/CS2 template. Previously, template formatting could be set with the |mode=
parameter in each template. Now, the formatting can be set for the whole article using {{CS1 config|mode=}}
. Some specific-source templates wrap the general purpose CS2 {{Citation}} and use |mode=cs1
. Because this emits the message "{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: overridden setting (link)
" and adds the page to a tracking category, the templates should be converted into CS1 wrapper templates. (Or fixed in some other way.)
Template | Proposed wrapper | Result |
---|---|---|
{{Calflora}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{Cite form 990}} | {{Cite document}} | |
{{Cite Transperth timetable}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{Cite UN World Population Prospects}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{EFloras}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{FEIS}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{Jepson eFlora}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{Minnesota Wildflowers}} | {{Cite web}} | |
{{Silvics}} | {{Cite book}} | |
{{Tropicos/main}} | {{Cite web}} |
Side note: the handful of CS2 map templates like {{Cite gnis2}} have a similar issue, Rjjiii (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]