Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90 ← Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95

'Others' parameter for 'Cite magazine' template

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)

There is also photographer. Some books the photography is the main content or the most notable contributor.
Looking at {{cite book}} it says:
others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith
So I guess if you free form Illustrated by Name, it would be possible to search the metadata. In practice editors might say things like: Illustrator: Name or Name (illustrator) etc.. the main thing is the ability to search on the word "illustrator" or "illustrated" in the others field. This is messy I agree and makes parsing error prone. OTOH how to deal with a couple dozen common occupations without blowing up the complexity of citations. Maybe if the keynames were associative arrays eg. |others[illustrators]=Joe Smith, Bill Barn |others[photographers]=Mary Sue .. -- GreenC 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
|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)

PDF page number parameter

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)

I frequently add the page number to the URL as described at WP:PAGELINKS. (Further documentation: [1][2]).
{{harvtxt|Abate|1998|p=[https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=thd#page=10 2]}}
Abate (1998, p. 2)
I'd be reluctant to add this to the visible citation, since I don't presume that future readers will be looking at the exact same PDF that I am. PDFs may eventually become deprecated and readers will view some other file format. The publisher may use OCR software to detect the printed page numbers and add it to the PDF file. In the latter case, the URL doesn't change, but the way page numbers are displayed to users will change, which could make notes about PDF page numbers to users confusing. Daask (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Also different PDF readers might give different page numbers, depending which page it considers #1 and how it counts - there is an internal algorithm that can't be assumed to be universal for every reader. -- GreenC 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is another routine request that has fair objections, as above. Izno (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
To add to the objections, the PDF-format e-book pagination of something is not likely to match other e-book formats (ePub, etc.). And if the document is replaced later with a new version, the PDF pagination may completely change, because whoever generated it use a different print-to-PDF tool. There are means of linking to specific "PDF pages" in documents, that are respected by some (not all) browsers, and I suppose such a link culd be used around the page number in |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)

Prioritize publisher URL over third-party repositories

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}}
    Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 6124072. PMID 30224994.

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}}
    Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 30224994.
  • {{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}}
    Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 30224994.

When both |doi= and |pmc= are provided, PubMed Central is linked

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:

  1. Both PubMed Central's HTML version and the publisher's HTML version sometimes have formatting issues that the other one does not. eg. In this publisher's version, quotes lack italics or sufficiently different indentation to clearly differentiate from body text. Not an issue in PubMed Central.
  2. The DOI sometimes, but rarely, links directly to a PDF, whereas PMC always links to an HTML, with a PDF usually available, eg. PMC 5780623
  3. Are publishers more likely to have supplementary data? A quick glance at some sample articles didn't indicate this, but I suspect it is sometimes true.

Daask (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason PMC takes precedence over DOI is historical and rooted in PMC autolinking before (free) DOIs did. Possibly because PMC version is lightweight, reduces data consumption (important on mobile and pay-per-GB internet plans) and does not require a PDF reader. Not saying this shouldn't be changed, just why this is currently the case.
Really we should have a hierarchy of priority for when multiple identifiers are free (like if |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)
That sounds reasonable, other than I'm skeptical we really need an override once a "cascade" of preference is established; the reasons to do an override would probably be very subjective. If we did implement one, |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)

Citation issue still broken

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)

This is a feature, not a bug. Books have no issues, so they shouldn't support |issue=. Same for websites. Journal have issues, so cite journal supports that parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe the template under discussion here is {{Citation}}, which is not exclusively used to cite books. Folly Mox (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the previous discussion said all that needed to be said. Llywelyn bringing it up again as if their point of view had consensus is simply disruptive. Izno (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a multipurpose template that displays every parameter you feed it, but I'm not upset that there isn't. Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's {{cite magazine}} with |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)
There is one, but it's based on what parameters you feed it. If you feed it book parameters then it will format as a book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in LlewellynII's keyboard's mouth, but it seems like that's part of the problem: {{Citation}} overthinks things, and requires editors to learn and remember which parameters it considers "book parameters" and which it considers "serial / periodical parameters", and that it cares if you try to mix and match them.
If, for some reason, an editor has a preference for |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.
I understand this probably would require rewriting some subroutines and would also probably negate the ability to output clean metadata, but it would flatten the learning curve. My gnoming job security is based on citation templates being fiddly and algorithms doing a bad job at filling them out properly, so maybe I shouldn't be supporting changes like this, but I did want to demonstrate that there's more than one person in favour of an easy to use catchall template that behaves as expected even if the parameter aliases chosen are non-standard. Folly Mox (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's to difficult to understand that using |journal= is required if you citing a journal. The issue I see with displaying any parameter is what formating and placement should be applied to random parameters, and should that vary depending on what other parameters are supplied. The issue is that a certain set of formating / placement is desired but without supplying the information required to do that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is just sort of the price we pay for continuing to support {{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)
Since CS1 and CS2 are quite similar in output, I've suggested that the two styles be merged together to eliminate the need to support two. For those who like using {{citation}}, they could continue to do so, and for those who prefer the other templates, they could continue to use them, and we'd get harmonious output in the end. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Works with multiple volumes

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)

Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and perhaps other guidance, cite the volume that supports the claim you are making in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Citing 2+ volumes of a work and making the reader try to guess which one is pertinent is "user-hateful". People keep getting confused into thinking that our citations and the templates we use for them serve some kind of bibliographic-catalogue purpose, and keep listing things like total number of volumes, total number of pages, form-factor of the edition/printing ("hardback", etc.), and even trying to list out all the different editions. This is not what they are for. They are for and only for helping the reader find the specific material in the specific source being cited by our article so that the claims in the material can be verified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

FAQ

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)

There are templates for integrating FAQs into pages like this; see, e.g., the top of WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_95&oldid=1232143079"