Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Continuing a conversation started at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Archiveurl, archivedate, deadurl fields have gone missing in the Cite web pop-up as it initially appeared to be change in the Visual Editor. @Risker, Salix alba, Jdforrester (WMF), and Xover:

The fields archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl are no longer appearing in the Cite web popup in the Visual Editor. As someone who uses the Visual Editor and pre-emptively archives URLs as I write citations, the loss of these fields is a major annoyance as it takes quite a number of clicks to add those fields back in using the Visual Editor. I have been told that the problem has been created by changes to the Template Data here for the the Cite Web Template. Could we please restore these parameters?

We have a tsunanmi of problems with dead link URLs and pre-emptive archiving is the easiest defence against it. And, while I am experimenting with IAB, I find that it often will not archive links that I can successfully archive myself with Internet Archive. Also IAB does rescuing (a service I don't need for what am doing) and there can be errors in this too, which I don't want to incur.

I write a lot of articles and I use a lot of citations. I use the VE because it more productive for content editing (less so for template work) so I will usually be in VE when I create citations. So significantly adding to the creation of a citation by requiring these three fields to individually added is a signficant time delay. Please change the Template Data back to include these fields by default. Thanks Kerry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote at WP:VE/Feedback, this is really an issue with the Visual Editor. It decides which parameters to display by default based on whether that parameter is marked as required or suggested in a template's TemplataData block; but then always inserts the parameters in the generated wikimarkup regardless of whether those parameters were used or not. To fix this, VE either needs to stop inserting suggested parameters in generated markup when they are empty, or it needs a new class of parameters that are "easy to access" but not included by default, or probably both. Or, of course, it could remember each user's favorite params and provide easy access to those, but I don't think VE's current architecture makes that feasible.

Note that right now it's editors who both use VE for new citations, use mainly web citations with {{cite web}}, and like to preemptively archive them (so |dead-url=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date= would get inserted, usually empty, into every single citation). But the problem is the same for any subset of editors with a preference for various fields. For instance, I most often use {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}, and very often want |doi=, |hdl=, |via=, |ref=, |editor-last=, |editor-first=, |editor-link=, |author-link=, |chapter=, etc. Given the status quo, in order for me to get easy access to these, they would have to be set as suggested and would get inserted into the generated markup of every single citation both created with and edited with VE (VE adds them even when modifying an existing citation, not just when creating a new one). --Xover (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Xover, you chose to be bold and make this change to the Template Data without discussion. When you were reverted (not by me), you ignored WP:BRD and reverted back to your version (i.e. edit warring). Please revert to the state before your bold change, then discuss please. The issue I raised is to do with cite web (you should raise your issue about cite book etc separately instead of using it as a distraction here). Citation URLs go dead very frequently, which impacts on key principles like WP:Verifiability which forms part of the five pillars. We are here to build an encyclopedia. You say your objection to their inclusion relates to Visual Editor including empty template fields when values are not supplied for these fields. If so, why aren't you having the conversation at Visual Editor Feedback instead of modifying the template data for one specific set of fields in this particular Template Data? Your objection to these empty fields appears to be that you don't like seeing them (despite there is no actual harm done by them) and they are not visible to the readers whom we serve. I cannot see how your dislike for them justifies working against the interests of people who want to make their web-based citations more persistent through the use of archive URLs. Kerry (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: I would appreciate it if you stop avoid personalising the discussion and casting aspersions. The mere fact of disagreeing with you does not ipso facto constitute edit warring, introducing vicarious arguments to distract from the main issue, not being here to build an encyclopedia, working against our readers, or refusing to get the point; all of which you accuse me of above. Please strike those parts of your message.

And just for the record, I changed the TemplateData back because the revert was made with an invalid rationale: a weak local consensus (made without all relevant information being available) elsewhere does not bear on if or how to change things here. This is fundamentally a problem with the Visual Editor, and should be addressed by changes to VE, but if a consensus forms here to make the parameters in question suggested in {{cite web}} I certainly won't object, and would be happy to make the necessary changes to the TemplateData.

Which, incidentally, means I would very much like the regulars on this page to chime in with their view (even the ones philosophically opposed to VE and TemplateData as currently implemented: broader discussion will contribute to a clearer and stronger consensus and avoid needless disagreements over similar issues in the future). --Xover (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC) [edited to correct clumsy phrasing. --Xover (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)]

I think that this squabble is a good demonstration that template data, which simultaneously attempts to be "template documentation" (hah!) and a ve control mechanism, does neither well.

If I understand the issue here, Editor Xover's complaint is that "suggested": true in the template data causes ve to insert the associated parameter into the wiki source even when the editor does not provide a value for that parameter so that what source editors see after a ve edit is:

{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Example |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url=}}

If this is the complaint, then I'm fully sympathetic because, to me, adding empty parameters that serve no function (because empty cs1|2 parameters convey no meaning) is just clutter in the wiki source that makes it harder to read.

However, if this is the complaint, this forum is not necessarily the best forum because editors here can do nothing to resolve the underlying problem. All that we can do is serve as a forum to decide if |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |dead-url= should be marked "suggested": true in the template data. My !vote is no, they should not. Editor Kerry Raymond may diligently and laudably archive web sources but I expect that most others do not.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. Leaving a blank parameter is not a big deal; templates have been doing this for eternity, and in fact in many cases the removal of "suggested" parameters is considered poor form. I would not have an objection to removing the "dead-url" parameter, though, as it would be only very infrequently used when the references are being created. The entire point of "suggesting" the "archive-url;" and "archive-date" parameters is to encourage editors to consider immediate archiving of URLs, which is a good thing. Bots are nowhere as efficient as humans who do the archiving when they have the URL open, and can make the exact match. As I said, I'm okay with dropping the dead-url parameter from the suggested ones, but there is good reason to leave the other two.
  
  I am very disappointed to see an experienced editor completely ignoring BRD in order to press the advantage in this discussion, though. Risker (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've created a Phabricator task for this asking that the Visual Editor does not include template parameters which have no value specified.

I can see the two sides, its nice to have clean wikitext, its also nice that the UI encourages good behaviour. Of the two it seems like there is greater net benefit to the encylopedia if use of archive-url is encouraged. --Salix alba (talk): 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I highly support removal of blank |archiveurl= and associated parameters for a couple reasons. 1. We have automated systems to deal with WP:link rot, namely IABot (accessible from the history tab "Fix dead links"), a sophisticated system currently in production with support from WMF and Interet Archive. 2. The scale is off the charts, 10s of millions of links on enwiki alone. In the first 15 years of Wikipedia only about 600k archives were added manually and by other bots. In the past 24 months of IABot running, this has increased to over 3 million with 2500-5000 new adds every day. User input is appreciated, but it makes little difference in the end. I would guess manual additions are 1/10th or less of what IABot is doing. And those manual adds are error prone. My bot WaybackMedic has removed or fixed 100s of thousands of bad archive links added by users and old bots. Manual input is appreciated, but we don't need to burden users with doing something that is automated. -- GreenC 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Note that the issue of removing blank/empty params is strictly speaking a VE issue (i.e. belongs in the Phab Salix alba linked above and not here). The core issue here is: while VE behaves that way, should cite web's TemplateData mark these parameters as "suggested" leading to empty params being inserted in articles as a side effect; or should the parameters not be marked "suggested", causing inconvenience to those editors who frequently need them in VE's citation template editor. If VE is changed to no longer insert spurious empty parameters even if they are marked "suggested", then the issue here becomes moot. If you have an opinion on the cite web-related issue (including "Don't care", if that is the case), it would be helpful if you could indicate it to aid in determining consensus. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"suggested" should be no, to prevent blank entries for archiveurl/archivedate/deadurl. In terms of VE behavior, that's up to VE but it seems reasonable that the configuration is determined via the "suggested" mechanism so the community can decide easily and openly on-site. -- GreenC 18:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Attempted summary (semi-arbitrary break)

Ok, since there appears to be no further editors chiming in, nor any ongoing discussion, I'm going to attempt to summarise. If you were pinged below, please verify and indicate whether I have accurately and fairly reflected your arguments. I've tried to be as neutral (and brief) as possible, but I can't preclude the possibility that I've messed it up (if so, I apologise and will correct as best I'm able). Note also that Risker has not edited since their initial post here and may thus currently be unable to participate (i.e. busy IRL), so please do not rely on my summary of their position until they have had a chance to verify it.

• Kerry Raymond is in favor of marking |dead-url=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date= as suggested in the TemplateData. They point to the inconvenience for editors of having to manually add the parameters under discussion to the Visual Editor's template editing dialog when using the Visual Editor to edit citations. They also point out the significant problem of dead links in citations and the consequent value of preemptive archiving, and that this makes WP:V an applicable policy. They do not consider empty parameters inserted in articles' wikicode to be a problem.
• Xover (me) is against marking them suggested because it causes VE to insert spurious and useless parameters into articles' wikicode, also for editors who do not routinely practice preemptive archiving. They (I) believe this is an issue that should be addressed in VE rather than in TemplateData. They (yes, I) also argue that leaving the parameters optional only negatively affects a relatively small number of editors, while setting them to be suggested would negatively affect both a relatively larger number of editors as well as all articles edited with VE in this manner.
• Trappist the monk is against marking them suggested, and argues that the current disagreement reflects the general problems with TemplateData as a system. They point to useless parameters being inserted into articles and the resultant clutter in articles' wikicode. They further argue that the underlying problem must be addressed in VE, and that leaving the parameters optional affects a relatively small number of editors.
• Risker is in favor of marking them suggested, considering the addition of empty parameters to be "no big deal". They also point out that including them by default has an educational effect by encouraging editors to include archives, and that manual addition by a human editor is more efficient and provides a better match between cited URL and archive than an equivalent bot addition. They also add that |dead-url= does not need to be marked suggested as it is relatively less frequently used.
• Salix alba sees both perspectives on the issue, pointing to clutter in the wikicode on one hand and user interface that encourages good behaviour on the other, but concludes that there will be "greater net benefit to the encylopedia if use of archive-url is encouraged".
• GreenC is against marking them suggested, pointing to clutter in wikimarkup. They further argue that manual addition of archives is both error prone and of relatively little utility given the scope of the link rot problem. They argue that the solution based on IABot and WaybackMedic (etc.) is both more efficient, with a lower error rate, and with less needless burden placed on human editors.

By my assessment this leaves us with no clear policy guidance for either option, and no numerical !vote advantage in either direction. I also see no ongoing discussions that might lead to a consensus, nor any sign that anyone is open to being persuaded by others' arguments. That is, I believe, the very definition of "no consensus".

In light of this, and of a request by one of the participants to that effect elsewhere, I am therefore going to self-revert the removal of the suggested properties for |dead-url=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date= until such time as we make some kind of progress toward a consensus, or until a possible future VE change makes the issue moot. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

PS. Since several editors expressed various disappointments above, allow me to express one of my own: A willingness to discuss (not just !vote) and to be persuaded is pretty fundamental for a consensus-oriented project. If one merely focusses on one's own immediate goals and how to achieve them, then actual consensus will forever stay elusive. Or put another way, absent a willingness to both discuss and be persuaded, the process devolves to wikilawyering and exploiting (gaming) first-mover advantage and lack of consensus as a "de facto consensus". While actual consensus may always have been impossible to achieve in this specific case (there is genuine and valid disagreement on the issue), I had very much hoped the efforts to achieve it had been more vigorous and constructive. Oh well. --Xover (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to achieve consensus when we discuss the problem and the solution as a single issue. The root problem was the presence of unused parameters visible to source editor users, which is an issue of how VE renders source text and affects many templates. The proposed solution was to change just one template in a way that adversely affected VE users who were not leaving those particular fields empty. My objection was to the proposed solution. I have no objection to a solution that directly address the problem in the VE's rendering and I think your proposal of a new "type" of field might be such a solution. I suspect that the VE may be constrained to behave as it currently does because [1] appears to say that a template can interpret the absence of a field differently to the presence of that field without a value. If so, the VE should not suppress fields without values. I can't think of an example of a template that actually does behave differently in those circumstances, but templates would appear to be allowed to do so. If that possibility was to be ruled out (that is, a template should not behave differently in those circumstances), the VE could safely omit the fields without values. But I think the question has to be put to the VE developers. Kerry (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Thanks for responding, and for your cogent analysis of the situation. Provided I've understood you correctly, we appear to be in agreement on both the underlying problem and the proper long term fix for it. And thus the only place we disagree is in the relative weighting of the downsides of the two possible status quos until a permanent fix is implemented. But in any case, since there is an absense of a consensus either way, the previous status quo (i.e. the one that coincides with your preference AIUI) stands until a consensus emerges. In the mean time, the Phabricator link at the top of the section is to a task tracking the request to the VE developers to address this. --Xover (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no convenient way within the Cite book template to cite a chapter that is only numbered. chapter=4 yields "4", which doesn't look like a chapter number, instead of Chapter 4. I'm adding the {{rp}} template, which is fine but less tidy. Clean Copy^talk 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If {{rp|Chapter4}} works for you, why wouldn't this:

{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=Chapter 4 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}

Keneally, Thomas (2002). "Chapter 4". Abraham Lincoln: A Life. Penguin. ISBN 978-0670031757.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am probably overly fussy, but the quotation marks annoy me. No citation style would use them for a chapter number. Clean Copy^talk 11:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No citation style would use them for a chapter number. Can you show examples of chapter number handling from published style guides? I don't know that this particular topic has been raised before so if there are published style guides that show numerical chapter headings in a form distinct from alpha chapter headings then we might want to adopt a similar styling.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association offers "(Shimamura, 1989, Chapter 3)" as an example of citing a specific chapter (p. 179). I don't have other style manuals at hand, but a citation generator (Zotero) gives "Aspray and Kitcher, History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, chap. 4." in Chicago style and "(Aspray and Kitcher, 1988, chap. 4) in Harvard style. I hope these are helpful. Clean Copy^talk 22:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The book by Keneally is the work being cited, and the chapter is a specific location in that book, so |at= seems appropriate:

{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0-670-03175-7 |at=Chapter 4}}

Keneally, Thomas (2002). Abraham Lincoln: A Life. Penguin. Chapter 4. ISBN 978-0-670-03175-7.

Kanguole 12:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree; |at= is underused in my experience of citation templates. |contribution=, an alias of |chapter=, works best for titled contributions, including in edited publications.

The only problem with |at= is that although you can use an external link as the value, you can't then include an access date, because this is only accepted without an error when |url= or |contribution-url= are present. @Trappist the monk: I think |at-url= would be useful, which would then allow |access-date=. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, |access-date= is not needed for a book. From the documentation: "Not required for linked documents that do not change. ... Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, ...." – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: the documentation isn't quite complete, in my view. It's not only a question of whether the linked document will change, but whether the link will change. Research papers, chapters in published books, etc. that are available at the author's own web pages, or the web pages of the institutions at which they work, have a habit of disappearing. It's useful to know when the link worked when trying to recover an archived copy. It's different for a paper with a doi, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that use of |at= is appropriate for a chapter title. In this example, the chapter 'title' is just a number (see 'chapter' 2) so we should render this chapter title just like we render chapter titles that are composed of words. The use of |chapter=Chapter 4 in my previous example is an editorial liberty taken for the benefit of those who are reading the rendered citation though I suppose that it could be omitted:

{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=2 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E28G6JSPqz8C&pg=PT12 |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}

Keneally, Thomas (2002). "2". Abraham Lincoln: A Life. Penguin. ISBN 978-0670031757.

And then there are the metadata issues:

|chapter=Chapter 4 → &rft.atitle=Chapter+4 + &rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DE28G6JSPqz8C%26pg%3DPT12

|at=Chapter 4 → &rft.pages=Chapter+4 (url is not available in the metadata)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I would not consider "4" to be the title of the chapter; chapters may be numbered and titled, titled only, or numbered only. Here they are numbered but untitled. Clean Copy^talk 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We use |chapter= when the work we are referencing is a separately-authored part of a book, but in this case the work is the whole book.

The same thing is seen with the metadata: the OpenURL genre for this source (to assist in finding it in libraries) should be book, not bookitem, so it should have rft.btitle, but not rft.atitle. Kanguole 17:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not the only reason |contribution= is used; it's often desirable to link directly to part of an old scanned book with no OCR, for example, using |contribution= and |contribution-url=. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the point you are making here. |contribution= is an alias of |chapter= as long as |contributor= (aliases and enumerations) is not set.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: I was making exactly the point you have below, namely that we don't only use |contribution= or its aliases when it is separately authored, but also when it's useful to specify |contribution-url= or its aliases. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true. cs1|2 does not constrain the use of |chapter= to referencing ... separately-authored [parts] of a book.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Short of a new parameter "Chapternumber", there seems no perfect solution. For my purposes, however the "at" parameter appears well-suited. Thank you all! Clean Copy^talk 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of the reader, "chapter" is an in-source location (the source being the book). Any info to identify this location uniquely and unambiguously would do. How much of such info you use is up to you I guess. A chapter with a unique title and number may be cited with either or both. A chapter without a title could be cited as "ch. [number]" (cf. "p. [number]" when citing a different type of in-source location). A chapter with a title but no number could use just the title. A chapter with neither could be cited as just "Chapter" as long as the pages containing it are also cited with |page=. Or it could be assigned a number depending on its order of appearance or proximity to a significant element in the source, as long as this is expressly stated (eg "chs. 3-5 [not numbered]", or "Chapter [follows map on p. 12]"). 108.182.15.90 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In {{cite book}} (and anything else using the same underlying implementation), when an external link is added to the title of a book, the translation of the title remains unlinked. But when an external link is added to the title of a chapter, the link is also added to the translation of the chapter title. I'm not sure which of these two behaviors is preferable, but shouldn't this be made more consistent?

• {{cite book | title=Book title | trans-title=Translated book title | url=https://book.url | chapter=Chapter title | trans-chapter=Translated chapter title | chapter-url=https://chapter.url}}
• "Chapter title" [Translated chapter title]. Book title [Translated book title].

—David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This conversation did not discuss |trans-chapter= so it did not get changed. Sandbox:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |trans-title=Trans title |url=http://example.com |chapter=Chapter |trans-chapter=Trans chapter |chapter-url=http://example.com}}

"Chapter" [Trans chapter]. Title [Trans title].

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What does the |format= parameter in {{Cite AV media}} do? The documentation doesn't say (I could check talk page archives, but I didn't particularly feel like digging currently.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I just need to read more carefully. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Really?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, one of these days edit conflicts will be correctly detected and reported.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While working on Category:CS1 errors: ISBN, I came across the pages below that had no errors but had had the categories (ISBN and one other) manually added to the page. I don't know why that had been done but... once I deleted the manual insertions, the pages dropped out of Category:CS1 errors: ISBN. It strikes that if it happened on those three, it could have happened elsewhere. Are such manual insertions searchable and removable by a bot?

• The pages
  • Defence Act of 2000 (Sweden)
  • Defence Act of 1936 (Sweden)
  • Defence Act of 1925 (Sweden)

--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to have a WP:DBR for all pages in a category tagged with {{Maintenance category}}. --Izno (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that there aren't enough to worry about a bot fix. insource: searches should be adequate. For example this search.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on reducing the count at Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored but I've reached the point where it seems that having both title= and chapter= can be useful to the reader. Can someone explain why having both is automatically bad?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Examples of citations that are stumping you would be helpful. I just picked one at random and fixed it; it was very broken and was using |chapter= incorrectly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's another fix. And here's how to fix a cite news citation with section=. It helps to have access to the source document to see what the editor intended to reference. Thanks for fixing these errors! Let us know how we can help you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Here's one (I haven't done all that many) that I fixed earlier today: Dacian Draco. I picked this one because it's heavily referenced and I'm out of my subject-matter depth on these type of articles.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: You didn't really "fix" it; you just removed the article's title, which was in |chapter=. The actual way to have fixed it is to put the journal title in |journal= and the article title in |title=. I went ahead and took care of that one, but a lot of your "fixes" it seems just seem to be removing parameters/information instead of retaining the information but making sure they're in the appropriate fields. Umimmak (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I should pick another category.<sigh>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet Yeah I've taken a look at some of these pages and they're pretty tricky to fix and turn into complete, accurate, non-buggy citations! Most of them are very broken as Jonesey95 has put it, so one would almost need to check the source itself to confirm what kind of material the source even is and what the |title=, |journal=, |chapter= etc are, since from what I can tell there is often a domino effect of mistakes where multiple parameters are off. I hope my edit summary/past comment wasn't too brusque; I didn't mean to discourage you. Umimmak (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Umimmak, no problem, I went over to ISBNs (interesting glitches there, as well), but I'll be back. Still unanswered, I think, is my question about why having both title= and chapter= is prohibited. Unless having both "breaks" Wikipedia, are we solving a non-existent problem?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: the issue isn't having both |title= and |chapter= -- if you're citing a chapter from a book both should be present. The error happens flagged when people use |chapter= with something like {{Cite journal}}. So to pick a random example from the error category (in Bunda people):

{{cite journal |title=Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923|chapter=Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai) |last=Schwetz |first=J |volume=4 |journal=Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale}}

Schwetz, J (1924). "Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923". Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale. 4. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help)

This was flagged since journal articles aren't expected to have chapters. One way to create a valid citation would be if this were a chapter in a book in a series, that is:

{{cite book |year=1924 |title=Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923 |chapter=Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai) |last=Schwetz |first=J |volume=4 |series=Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale}}

Schwetz, J (1924). "Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai)". Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923. Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale. Vol. 4.

changing {{cite journal}} to {{cite book}} and |journal= to |series=. However I'm hesitant to make the change myself since I don't know if this is accurate for this particular source, and Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale looks more like a journal than a book series. Like I said, they can be tricky to fix properly. Umimmak (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Journals (and magazines) can have |department= though; regular and named parts of the journal that are somewhat chapter-like. For instance, in literature related journals, that publish book reviews, "Works received" may be a pseudo-chapter. Or perhaps "Notices". Shakespeare Quarterly separates original articles (a scholar publishing their research, in the department "Essays") from book reviews (someone reviewing a book published by a scholar in the field, in the department "Book Reviews") in this manner. In some instances the distinction may be worth making (i.e. include in our citation).

• Manley, Lawrence (2012). "Divinity and State by David Womersley". Book Reviews. Shakespeare Quarterly. 63 (4). Folger Shakespeare Library: 590–594. eISSN 1538-3555. ISSN 0037-3222. JSTOR 41819772 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Which is, I presume, also why |chapter= is ignored: it's effectively an alias for |department=. --Xover (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but for this particular example, the "chapter" Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai) seems to be a subset of the article Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923, and neither is like |department=s "Obituaries", or "Book Reviews" or "Letters to the Editor" or whatever. Umimmak (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend fixing the easy error first, and then asking for help with the hard ones when the easy ones are done. Fixing ISBNs can be done the same way. There are still a lot of easy chapter= fixes left. The "help" text in the error message explains how to fix the easy ones. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems to take us back to how I got involved in the page to begin with. At some point, "the community" decided to suppress error warnings during the edit process in favor of tracking them down through error categories. If that actually worked, we wouldn't have about 2700 pages in Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored, which is one of many categories. Please see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_39#accessdate_(or_access-date)_and_url; I stumbled into this forum because it seemed perfectly logical to say when I had accessed an off-line resource and the editing process did not tell me I was in error. If you want CS1 errors to work, people have to know it's here. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm answering down here because the flow is convoluted for my minuscule brain. I'll tiptoe back into chaptyer= when I'm done with ISBNs.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we add an additional element to "cite magazine" called "supplement". Some magazines have additional supplement magazines with them and the parameter supplement would just be the name of the supplement magazine. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to a special issue, which is distributed separately from the regularly scheduled issues, or are you referring to something that is distributed with a regular issue, as in putting it in the same plastic envelope, or gluing it to the regular issue? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that could be both, but what I was looking for was a way to put down the supplement with that supplement's page number. But I couldn't see how to add a supplement title under the correct or current parameters. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Normally, you'd just declare this as |magazine=Scientific American Supplement, or whatever magazine that is. Or |journal=Astrophysical Journal Supplement. Or use |issue=Supplement #3 or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is supplement magazines have titles too, these supplement have their own issue numbers, so you tend to loose information, I feel it would be helpful to have the additional field. To help make the citation as clear as possible. Govvy (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please provide an example of a magazine of this format. I am not familiar with what you are specifically referring to and am curious as well. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So for instance CVG Magazine ran a supplement issue with some of their magazines titled "Hand-held Go!" so I think should be able to:

• {{cite magazine |publisher=Computer Videogame Magazine |issue=126 |supplement=Hand-held Go! |page=3 |date=November 1992 }}
• To generate an output of "Computer Videogame Magazine ". No. 126. Supplement:Hand-held Go! November 1992.

Govvy (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Could I see a picture of a physical copy / webarchive of one? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Would this be one? Because that should be cited as

• Author (1993). "Title". Go! Hand-held Video Games. No. 17. pp. ##. {{cite magazine}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Or if you want to publisher to be listed as well

• Author (March 1993). "Title". Go! Hand-held Video Games. No. 17. Computer Videogame Magazine. pp. ##. {{cite magazine}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You can view this copy on archive.org Govvy (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

To be correct in citation I feel you should be able to point out and make clear in the citation that the information came from a supplement magazine and what the original magazine issue was that it came with, issue and page numbers to make it as clear as possible for anyone that wants to get that magazine so they have all the information. I feel this additional field would help with the clarity of the information available, that's my two cents! Govvy (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see. Then I'd suggest "<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Author |date=May 1992 |title=Title |magazine=Go! Hand-held Video Games |issue=7 |pages=##}}, shipped with ''Computer Videogames Magazine'' No. 126.". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Shipped with? I don't see the parameter element for that. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Shipped, bundled, packaged... pick your word. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

|at=Go! Hand-held Video Games supplement, p. ## - rest of {{cite magazine}} filled in as if you were citing CVM itself, omit the |page= param. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The category is (effectively) empty. I accomplished it with the bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC (66%) and manual work (33%). There are more problems the bot can fix, but they are not being tracked by CS1|2. -- GreenC 00:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An article I have just created, Henrietta Bingham, has been categorised category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty. How can I indicate that there is no uncertainty but that they are all Gregorian dates (the default) for the early 20th century? Thincat (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to be done. The categorization is a tool implemented to help understand the issues raised by this rfc. See also this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll ignore it then. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The category is emitted by the {{cite news|last1=Young|first1=Crit C.|title=Miss Henrietta Bingham is Victorious in Sensational Match at Shelby Park|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|work=The Courier-Journal|date=August 15, 1919|location=Louisville|page=7|via=newspapers.com|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180314145945/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|archivedate=March 14, 2018|df=mdy-all}} in the "Early life" section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) what happened to this option? It no longer seems to work (e.g. {{cite magazine|year=1923|title=none|magazine=Foobar Magazine|issue=23}}→"none". Foobar Magazine. No. 23. 1923.)? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} or {{citation|journal=journal...}} only so:

{{cite journal |year=1923 |title=none |journal=Foobar Journal |issue=23}}→Foobar Journal (23). 1923.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)

and:

{{citation |year=1923 |title=none |journal=Foobar Journal |issue=23}}→Foobar Journal (23), 1923{{citation}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)

because this 'style' is apparently common in the biology world.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This would also be much needed whenever you need to cite a specific issue, or specific volume of a journal/magazine. E.g. in a Further reading section, you could have a Foobar Magazine. Vol. 2, no. 5. May 1923. {{cite magazine}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is another in a long line of changes making the citation templates less flexible because the implementor fails to imagine why other editors would ever cite things in a different way than they do. (For another example, see the thread above about "Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored", many of which were not errors but come from a time when the citation templates allowed one to use |contribution= to pick out subcomponents of journal articles, a practice that was subsequently disallowed and has caused thousands of errors that have remained uncorrected). Making the citation templates harder to use in this way is a mistake, and makes other editors likely to give up on the templates entirely (as I have done in some cases because of their inflexibility). I think the previous behavior should be restored. There is no good reason for deliberately breaking it. To pick one particular use case that I know I've used and is now broken for no good reason, I have often combined multiple reviews of a single book into a single reference (to avoid citation overkill) in a format like this:^[1]

In such cases it is often helpful to use title=none in the individual reviews, because the title is either missing (replaced by a description of the book under review with authors, publisher, price, pages, etc, not a real title) or the same as the title of the book. And although many of the reviews I list in this way are published in journals, some of them also come from magazines or newspapers. So title=none needs to work for {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, and for {{citation}} with the |magazine= or |newspaper= parameters. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

{{cite magazine}} (and all the others) never directly supported |title=none. It was only as a redirect to {{cite journal}} that it did so, and that redirect has long been undone. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An option to avoid using "title=none" could be using the issue title, in those cases where particular issues have titles (like "Special Bioinformatics Issue") or some variant on "Full Issue, {date or Vol/Issue}". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering when it's appropriate to use {{cite interview}} vs. CS1 templates more specific to the type of publication.

Take the following example: The Making Of Donkey Kong Country

I'm unsure if {{cite interview}} should be used in articles that predominately rely on an interview to communicate information, or only for strict question-answer type interviews.

For reference, here's what the citations would look like in both formats: (Note that the citation references the original source of the article, the Retro Gamer magazine.)

Cite interview:

{{cite interview |last=Mayles |first=Gregg |subject-link=Gregg Mayles |interviewer=Stuart Hunt |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |work=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}

Mayles, Gregg (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". Retro Gamer (Interview). Interviewed by Stuart Hunt. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.

Cite magazine:

{{cite magazine |last=Hunt |first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}

Hunt, Stuart (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". The Making Of... Retro Gamer. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.

I'm always happy to listen to other perspectives, so that's why I posted my question here. I'm also willing to improve the parameters of the above citations, if one has suggested improvements. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If the source was worth including mainly because it provides more useful information that other sources, I'd cite it with cite magazine or whatever. If the main reason the source was worth including was who the interviewee was, and his/her connection with the subject, I'd use cite interview. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not read that source but have skimmed it. I don't think that this source qualifies as an interview because the writer does not include the questions so what you have is a series of quotations interleaved with editorial commentary. I tend to think of Jimmy Carter's Playboy interview or the NPR's Obama interviews as something that would be cited using {{cite interview}}:

{{cite interview |last=Carter |first=Jimmy |interviewer-last=Scheer |interviewer-first=Robert |title=Playboy Interview: Jimmy Carter |work=Playboy |url=http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-jimmy-carter |date=November 1976}}

Carter, Jimmy (November 1976). "Playboy Interview: Jimmy Carter". Playboy (Interview). Interviewed by Scheer, Robert.

{{cite interview |last=Obama |first=Barack |interviewer-last=Inskeep |interviewer-first=Steve |title=Steve Inskeep Interviews President Obama |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEjeKrZxDFQ |date= 15 December 2016 |work=Morning Edition |publisher=NPR |via=YouTube}}

Obama, Barack (15 December 2016). "Steve Inskeep Interviews President Obama". Morning Edition (Interview). Interviewed by Inskeep, Steve. NPR – via YouTube.

In these, you get the back-and-forth question-response between interviewer and subject; something that is missing from your example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. That's what I thought (though I did not express it concisely.) I'm going to add a clarifying comment similar to "back-and-forth question-response between interviewer and subject" to the documentation for {{Cite interview}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

On an aside, you can do this since the last time we worked in the area (which is a year or two at this point):

{{cite magazine |interviewer-last=Hunt |interviewer-first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71 |first=SubjectFirst |last=SubjectLast}}

SubjectLast, SubjectFirst (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". The Making Of... Retro Gamer. Interviewed by Hunt, Stuart. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.

The metadata is probably less good, but that's how the metadata would be filled in {{cite interview}} these days anyway. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of that, can we change the phrasing of {{Cite interview}} to say "Interviewed by" instead of "Interview with"? Or is "Interview with" used in other style guides? Regardless, "Interviewed by" will make the interviewer/subject relationship more clear to the reader. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there is consensus for with->by and we just didn't get around to implementing it; ref archive 31. I have no opinion on the specifics of the noun/verb "interview" which is maybe why that change got caught not-done. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made a change in this regard. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: I'm not sure you're referring to. The module does not appear to be edited, so it still uses "Interview with". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not edit the live module directly (as it is used... many times). We instead edit the sandboxes and those are synched somewhat regularly (in the realm of quarterly). --Izno (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Can you link to what was edited? Sorry, I am just still unsure what was changed to incorporate this. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Try Special:Contributions/Izno. Should be fairly clear. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that this citation template exists. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there no output for accessdate? Govvy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is, but you need to specify a url for that. Print magazines don't require accessdates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, heh, been adding it on citations, so use to adding it, didn't notice there was no output till earlier, k. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is why we should enable display of the access-date-requires-url error message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In preview mode, at least. Not sure it's a good idea to display it to readers however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If nothing else, it could be added to Lingzhi's script. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's a CS1 error. It's already a message if you go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that. I'm glad that it's already implemented. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way to specify the rank of an editor in {{Cite magazine}}? Nintendo Power, for example, has an Editor-in-Chief, 2 Senior editors, and 6 (regular) editors. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Editors are editors. The only 'ranking' is positional (|editor1=, |editor2=, ...)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So what's the recommended practice then? Should I include every editor, regardless of rank, or would it is there any advantage to having only, for example, the Editor-in-Chief (aside from having to list multiple editors in Template:SFN, which can be mitigated by using the |ref= field to prescribe an abbreviated reference template). Is it too messy to list them all, or would it be okay? I personally like including everyone, but I can imagine how it might obscure the other fields with the pile-on. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't list any editor. Listing editors is for edited books/conference proceedings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One typically doesn't include any editors when citing a newspaper/magazine/journal/etc. People cite articles in The Washington Post without mentioning the editor Martin Baron; they cite articles in Nature without mentioning Editor-in-Chief Phillip Campbell; they cite articles The New Yorker without mentioning the editor David Remnick. Why would the citation for an article in Nintendo Power mention the editors? Also why would the editors' names be used instead of the authors' for sfns? Umimmak (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some articles in magazines and newspapers have no credited author. See for example ref ^[25] at Reading Southern railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb and Umimmak: The issue is, as Redrose64 just mentioned, some articles in magazines and newspapers have no credited author. This is particularly true for some video game magazines (hence my Nintendo Power example), where the staff is listed at the beginning, but the sections have no attributed author. The choice is between using the editor or the magazine itself in a short citation (e.g. {{sfn}}). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If there were no author for an individual article in a magazine, I'd use the same approach recommended in {{cite news}}; I'd add author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> which contains an html comment; it's as if the author parameter were blank, but editors can see the comment. I would not put the magazine editor in the citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That defeats {{sfn}} - I need at least one name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Actually, you can do it without an author: Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template Then it's up to your discretion to choose the format. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've personally followed For a newspaper or periodical you may use the name of the paper and the date, so something like: {{sfnp|''Nature''|1938}} and |ref={{harvid|Nature|1938}} when there is no listed author. Umimmak (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I use the author if one is credited, otherwise I use the editor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've used "Staff" as a value for author in some cases; more recently, I've taken to leaving the field blank and using comment syntax to indicate no by-line. An alternative to "Staff" could be "(name of publication) Staff" or "Staff, (name of publication)". Another option is to look at the html for the page being looked at, if online, which will sometimes include a technical author value, but this might not be the actual content author. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I only cite the editor in chief when it comes to magazines, whether I have an author for the section or not. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Why not add the author when available? Is it just a matter of using only the editor parameter in magazines ensures you have consisency between magazine articles with and without authors? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I meant to indicate that it is only the EIC I cite (regarding editors), not only the "EIC I cite only". --Izno (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay, that approach makes the most sense to me. I think I will adopt that approach. It might be nice if the template had that guidance as well, but from the varied responses above, that change in guidance would require discussion. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As was said above, if there is no credited author, then you simply don't list an author. (Some style guides say use 'n.a.' for 'no author', like they say use 'n.d.' when no dates are given). A citation such as "Obituary: John Doe (1921-1989)". The Metropolis Herald. 7 January 1989. pp. A2–A3. are perfectly acceptable. No style guide out there says to add the newspaper's editor in lieu of an author. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Side comment about 'editorial' or 'letters to the editor' where the content is primarily the response rather than the 'letter' — in these cases, I think that using the Editor-in-chief as the Author would be apropos if the piece has no by-line. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Which could be lying in many if not most cases, if the EiC did not author the reply. When there is no credited author, we shouldn't try to guess who wrote things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: As long as Ceyockey don't put the editor in |author=, it's fine. |editor= is intended for handling the editor, and that's the perfect use case for |editor=. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

True. However, I'd argue it's also unnecessary and contrary to all style guides out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Plus it establishes a harder-to-maintain precedent. A wikipedia editor might not always know the editor of a periodical for the issue a given anonymous source was published in -- it's only really nontrivial if you have access to the entire volume and not just the article in question, which might not be the case (with, say, paywalls, or interlibary loan scan requests). And since it is an unconventional citation convention to cite the issue's editors, one can't even look at others' citations for the article to determine the editor. Umimmak (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Good and convincing points all - @Umimmak:, @Headbomb:, @E to the Pi times i: Glad I brought up the circumstance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See Dipak_Nandy#Publications [2]

*{{Cite book
  |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle
  |contribution=Introduction
  |contributor1-last=Dipak  |contributor1-first=Nandy
  |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy
  |editor-first1=Douglas  |editor-last1=Jefferson
  |editor-first2=Graham  |editor-last2=Martin
  |publisher=Open University Press
  |year=1982
  |isbn=033510181X
  |pages=1–8
}}
*{{Cite book
  |title=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism 
  |contribution=Introduction
  |work=Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays
  |first=Arnold  |last=Kettle
  |authorlink=Arnold Kettle
  |contributor1-last=Dipak  |contributor1-first=Nandy
  |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy
  |editor-first1=Graham  |editor-last1=Martin
  |editor-first2=W.R.  |editor-last2=Owens
  |publisher=Manchester University Press
  |year=1988
  |isbn=0719025419
  |pages=1–17
}}

• Jefferson, Douglas; Martin, Graham, eds. (1982). "Introduction". The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle. Open University Press. pp. 1–8. ISBN 033510181X. {{cite book}}: |contributor= requires |author= (help)
• Kettle, Arnold (1988). "Introduction". In Martin, Graham; Owens, W.R. (eds.). Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism. Manchester University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 0719025419. {{cite book}}: |contributor= ignored (help); |work= ignored (help)

Are raising the errors:

|contributor= requires |author=

|contributor= ignored

For the first one, there is no author in this scope. There are contributors, there are editors (credited on the jacket). There is no overall "author" as such.

For the second, the contributor is rejected because |work= has also been used. Why? This is an assumption that the book cited is simple and can have at most a two-level structure. This academic tome has three, with separate authorship.

Suggestions? Or just move everyone to simply being "authors", or else abandon the template altogether and simply paste in the results? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Heading tweaked because templates break section links from watch lists.

The |contribution=/|contributor= pair are intended for use when the contribution is by a writer who is not the primary author of the whole.

For your second example, Nandy contributes to Kettle. The title of Nandy's contribution belongs in |contribution=; |title= gets the title of Kettle's book, and |work= goes away:

{{Cite book |title= Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays |contribution=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism |first=Arnold |last=Kettle |authorlink=Arnold Kettle |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Graham |editor-last1=Martin |editor-first2=W.R. |editor-last2=Owens |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1988 |isbn=0719025419}}

Dipak, Nandy (1988). "Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism". Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays. By Kettle, Arnold. Martin, Graham; Owens, W.R. (eds.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719025419.

Because the edited collection of writings example is authored by individual authors who do not share the credit for the whole, treat Nandy as an author and the introduction as a chapter:

{{Cite book |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle |chapter=Introduction |last=Dipak |first=Nandy |author-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Douglas |editor-last1=Jefferson |editor-first2=Graham |editor-last2=Martin |publisher=Open University Press |year=1982 |isbn=033510181X}}

Dipak, Nandy (1982). "Introduction". In Jefferson, Douglas; Martin, Graham (eds.). The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle. Open University Press. ISBN 033510181X.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In some references, I cite published articles (with cite journal) which are also publicly available as pdf format preprints at arxiv.org. I seem to recall being called out by another editor to not link to the preprint in the |url= parameter, and only use the |arxiv= parameter. But I can't find such a rule spelled out at Template:Cite journal or anywhere else. So what is the rule, and if there is none what do you think: is it a good idea to use both |url= and |arxiv=? Rontombontom (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Best practice is to use the URL for the full free to read version of record (a free version of the official paper) when available, and let identifiers do the rest of the work otherwise. When you don't have identifiers, or want to cut corners because you can't be bothered to figure out how to use templates, such links are fine, because they beat nothing, but it's not best practice. Free to read preprints like arXiv or bioRxiv are not the version of record, and may differ significantly from the reviewed/published paper, and paywalled official links discourage people from finding free to read versions because there's already a link, which makes it look like the job was already done, and some people who might want to put a free version up may decide not to, because they figure there's already a link and don't want to mess with things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll also point out that if you use |arxiv=, the arxiv link is marked as free to read, so readers know if they click on that one, they'll be taken to something they can read. E.g.

• Kretzer, Stefan; Lai, H. L.; Olness, Fredrick I.; Tung, W. K. (2 June 2004). "CTEQ6 parton distributions with heavy quark mass effects". Physical Review D. 69 (11). arXiv:hep-ph/0307022. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69k4005K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.114005.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not good practice to put two substantially different versions of the same paper in a citation. If the ArXiv version is substantially different from the official printed version, and you are citing the official printed version to support a statement in an article, you should link only to the official version. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, Jonesey95, thanks for the inputs! In my case, the differences are insubstantial (essentially, page numbers and journal headers). I'm aware that I can find the pdf in two clicks if I first use the arxiv link in the Wikipedia citation, but I'm concerned that non-specialist readers wouldn't know about arXiv and, without a hyperlinked article title, would just assume that the source isn't on-line. Rontombontom (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

But as Headbomb said, using |arxiv= displays a symbol next to the identifier, which lets the reader know that is free to read, no? I'm not sure I see the issue. Umimmak (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the discussion at User talk:LilHelpa#Date vs. year in citations.

On the issue of whether to use the |date= parameter or the |year= parameter when only the year (not the month or day) of the publication is supplied, the template documentation says:

Use of |date= is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:

1. The template uses |ref=harv, or the template is {{citation}}, or |mode=cs2
2. The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.
3. The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator.

Since most articles don't meet these criteria, I have been using |date=1998 instead of |year=1998. I always use the Source Editor, though, so I'm able to use the parameter of my choice. Both the Visual Editor and the editing toolbar in the Source Editor still insert a |year= parameter if the user only supplies a year. Is this something that should be fixed, or am I missing something? It appears the Visual Editor isn't following best practice. (After spending an hour investigating, I wonder if the root of problem isn't in the template data, rather than the coding of the Visual Editor.) Thanks. – voidxor 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

My own practice is to use year when I am specifying only the year of publication, or date for when I am specifying the publication date more precisely. But none of what you quote makes sense to me. #1 and #3 are more or less the same reason as each other, and are I think outdated (our citation code is capable of generating the correct citerefs for either date format as long as the date is in a standard format), #2 is not something that should happen (the MOS disallows that date format for date parameters), and #2 also makes no sense (why should using YYYY-MM-DD dates cause them to be put in a year parameter?). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

At the time that this documentation was written, there was no hard-and-fast MOS prohibition against using ymd dates in any of the date-holding parameters. I don't know if that has changed. The conditions listed are necessary when an article is using {{harv}} and / or {{sfn}} short form referencing and some of those references need to be disambiguated. The yyyy-mm-dd date format does not support year disambiguation (|date=2012a-07-04) so to get round that, a cs1|2 citation must use both |date=2012-07-04 and |year=2012a.

For the most part, |date= and |year= are aliases. Using |year=10 July 2014 'works' but is semantically incorrect.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

pushed the wrong button.

I was going to add that |date=1998 is perfectly legitimate because the year is a 'date' with year precision.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Actually, the MOS does allow ISO 8601 publication dates. See the parenthetical note "(however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided)" at MOS:DATEUNIFY.

@Trappist the monk: Question is: Is |year=1998 correct (outside of disambiguating Harvard references, of course)? – voidxor 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use |year=1998 just as it is acceptable to use |date=1998; both may be disambituated. That was why I wrote that [for] the most part, |date= and |year= are aliases. The only time that these two parameters are not aliases is when a whole date in ymd format is desired and must be disambiguated. Semantically, |date= applies to all forms of acceptable dates so it is preferred over |year= which should hold only the year portion of a date (semantics again).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on Category:CS1 maint: ASIN uses ISBN and I keep seeing |pages= entries in {{cite book}} which have a single number. I think some editors are using the parameter to show the number of pages in a book (e.g.: pages=385) rather than the pages on which information can be found (e.g.: pages=146–149). Can that error be trapped? Having asked that, I think the information would need to be sent to the "offending" editor's talk page because one of us tracking down technical glitches wouldn't necessarily have the book cited or the time (inclination?) to search out and make the correction.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

|date= or |page(s)=?

A single number in |page= or |pages= is accepted (it has always been thus). I don't know how to determine whether a single number (345) indicates a page within the source or the total number (345) of pages in the source without having the source in my hand. Some time editors write |page=345 pp but that's pretty rare.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: re A single number in |page= or |pages= is accepted (it has always been thus). -- it was my understanding that if it's only a single number, it needed to be in |page=, not |pages=? Does it end up not mattering which of the two is used?

And I would assume a single number in |pages= indicates they're not using it the intended way (i.e., they're noting the total number of pages, not the page number with the relevant information), but I suppose that editors' intentions can't always be predicted and that corrections based on assumptions shouldn't be implemented. Umimmak (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's try this out:

|page= with 1 number:

Last, First (18 March 2018). Title. p. 100.

|page= with 2 numbers:

Last, First (18 March 2018). Title. p. 100-200.

|pages= with 1 number:

Last, First (18 March 2018). Title. p. 100.

|pages= with 2 numbers:

Last, First (18 March 2018). Title. pp. 100–200.

So the module corrects |pages= to p. when there's only 1 page given, but it doesn't correct |page= to pp. when there are multiple pages given.

E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But I remember when this was discussed recently, the reason that |page= doesn't correct is for those rare edge cases where page numbers actually include hyphens. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Because I was working on parameter |asin=, I wasn't paying attention to how |pages= rendered when reviewing or after saving. I edited as lot of pages in the past few days and can't remember where I saw the "fault." I thought I'd read that the use of a particular parameter was important but I can't find it at Template:Cite book. If there's no issue, thanks and please disregard. BTW, I zeroed out Category:CS1 errors: ISBN but new ones keep popping up; I have a watch on it.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Would others agree with changing Lowercase sigmabot archive frequency to every 2 weeks? Keeping discussions for a month seems excessive, and it might actually limit discussion because there's too many things in the section list. Looking through previous discussions on the current page, I see no discussions which were continued past the 2 week mark, so that's why this is what I recommend.

I'm even in favor of archiving after 1 week, as "Working on Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters" was the only discussion which was resumed after 1 week, and it resumed under a new subheadline. A week probably gives enough lag-time so anyone actively interested can participate. Many discussions are also simple questions which are resolved within the day, so an archiving frequency of 1 week would allow for those discussions to be quickly archived, leaving space for the more involved discussions. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That a discussion has been stale isn't sign that the issue is resolved. LUA coders are rare, so many features (Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cross check year/date with the arxiv/bibcode) depend on Trappist the Monk (talk · contribs) doing it. Reducing the archiving to 2 weeks would mean we would need to un-archive things more often, and that's really, really annoying to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: See User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads. If there's a thread you don't want it to auto-archive after a certain date, then add {{subst:DNAU}} to the top, and it won't archive until you remove the comment.

We just have to make sure to do that to all the currently ongoing threads, and then we could implement a shorter archiving period which would remove a large majority of resolved, but cluttering discussions. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Or you can use one-click archivers like I just did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's buggy. It bumps the archive counter w/o good reason so you end up with lots of one-thread archive pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition, isn't it simpler to just have it auto-archive, and mark discussions as do not archive when necessary? In the long run, it saves time because you don't have to spend the time archiving when the talk page gets too long. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

---

@Trappist the monk, Umimmak, Izno, David Eppstein, and Redrose64: Does anyone else have a problem with this talk page being archived every 2 weeks, as long as {{subst:DNAU}} is added to all long-ongoing unresolved threads? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with archiving/dearchiving to have an opinion on this, so I leave the debate to others. Umimmak (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the current archiving settings harmful or disruptive or an impediment to the project? Not clear to me that they are. That being the case, I see no reason to change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: At least for me, I find they impede the project. 30 active sections is overwhelming and discourages participation. The unarchived discussions should be what's currently being discussed, not the remnants of long-resolved issues. Of course, as Headbomb mentioned, you can manually archive, but that undermines the timed archiver. The timed archiver should retain issues while discussion is still ongoing, but drop them once the issue is resolved. Large numbers of sections (30-50) are not managable, unless you have the page on your watchlist. And if an issue remains unresolved, {{subst:DNAU}} can be added, which allows unresolved issues to be very clear. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And for me, a speedier archiving would mean digging up threads more often, and would require people to see in the future and anticipate that there thread will be archived before it is resolved. The real solution is to get more coders to look at the template, and have a speedier deployment schedule than 3-4 times a year. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I almost feel like we're talking about two different things here then. For fixing issues with templates, if the issue is explicitely a problem, then add {{subst:DNAU}} to the top, regardless of how long you anticipate before it will be solved. For resolved questions, e.g. "How do I use this parameter", "how do I deal with this error" type questions, they should be archived more quickly. This change would even be better for more long-term issues, because they would be more prominent. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And then you have to remove {{subst:DNAU}} after the discussion is stale, which most people won't because they'll forgot to do it, if they even remembered to do in the first time around, leading to a lose-lose situation that it's more work for editors, AND you get stuck with 30+ threads because most DNAU threads get forgotten and bots don't take care of them anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a brief history of archiving:

23 Feb 2012 – first archiving established: 30 days

16 Nov 2013 – to 720 hours (30 days; also MiszaBot to ClueBot)

27 Jan 2016 – to 30 days (ClueBot to MiszaBot)

30 Aug 2016 – to 21 days

26 Aug 2017 – to 60 days

Sixty days may be a bit long. We seem to have liked 30 days a lot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This was also in the days before the template switched to LUA and updates to it became sparse and only doable by a select few people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Lua versions of {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}} were enabled late March 2013. This revision history chart may be interesting.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)