Edit filter log

'<!-- Deny citation bot April 2015 because we often post broken citations here intentionally and do not want them to be "fixed" -->{{bots|deny=Citation bot,SporkBot}}<!-- -->{{central|text=the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions]].}} {{talk header|display_title=Help:Citation Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates|WT:CS1}} {{WPBS|1= {{Wikipedia Help Project|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} {{WikiProject Magazines}} }} {{User:MiszaBot/config | archive = Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive %(counter)d | algo = old(30d) | counter = 61 | maxarchivesize = 200k | minthreadsleft = 2 | minthreadstoarchive = 1 }} {{tmbox | type = notice | image = [[File:clipboard.svg|40px]] | imageright= [[File:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg|40px]] | text = Some of the templates discussed here were considered for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|merging or deletion]] at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion]]. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: *"'''Withdrawn'''" proposal to merge [[Template:Cite press release]] with [[Template:Cite news]] on March 2, 2018, see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 2#Template:Cite press release|discussion]]. }} {{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot |age=30 |units=days }} {|style=width:100% |- | style="vertical-align: top;" | __TOC__ |style="text-align:right; vertical-align: top;"| {{Multiple image | direction = vertical | header = Citation templates | width = 250 | image1 = Rube Goldbergian music machine at COSI Toledo.JPG | image2 = Rube goldberg machine.jpg | caption1 = ... in conception | caption2 = ... and in reality }} |- |} == spam black list and archive urls == <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1588839774}} There is a discussion: {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Possible_interaction_of_spam_blacklist_and_citation_archival-url}}. Apparently, the spam blacklist can be triggered by a url embedded in an archive.org snapshot url (and presumably in other achive urls that include the original url). This presents a problem to editors who try to fix cs1|2 template citations. One solution described at the aforementioned discussion is to [[percent encoding|percent encode]] the original url in the archive url; this: :https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ becomes this: :https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.example.com%2F I have hacked on [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] and implemented this solution. Here for {{para|url}} and {{para|title}}: :<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}</nowiki></code> ::{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}} :::{{code|{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}}} and here for {{para|chapter-url}} and {{para|chapter}}: :<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=http://www.example.com |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}</nowiki></code> ::{{cite book/new |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=http://www.example.com |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}} :::{{code|{{cite book/new |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=http://www.example.com |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}}} This code looks for the original url ({{para|url}}) in the archive url ({{para|achive-url}}). If found, the achive url is split at the beginning of the embedded original url. The embedded original url is then percent encoded and the two parts rejoined to make a new archive url. The same is true when {{para|chapter}} and {{para|chapter-url}} are set, and {{para|chapter-url-status|unfit}} (or <code>usurped</code>). For now this applies to all 'unfit' and 'usurped' urls. Presuming we keep this, I wonder if we ought not have another keyword for {{para|url-status}}; perhaps <code>blacklisted</code>. A separate maintenance category might also be in order. Keep? Discard? Opinions? —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC) :I think this is as much an acceptable solution as any, at least as long as archive services do not disallow percent-encoding referrals for whatever weird reason. A social rather than technical issue may arise from editors who may wonder why a blacklisted url displays in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.130|72.43.99.130]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.130|talk]]) 18:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ::{{tq|... editors who may wonder why a blacklisted url displays in the first place.}} I think that's not an issue because the title is not linked to the blacklisted url but to a (presumably) good snapshot of the website page before it was blacklisted. I presume here that the editor who chose the archive url did so in good faith and that the archived source does, indeed, support the Wikipedia article's text. I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not. Still, to your point, using {{para|url-status|unfit}} or {{para|url-status|usurped}} disables the link to the original url in the rendered citation. ::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Never mind. I have reverted this change per the linked discussion. —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC) : Regarding this: :: {{talk quote| I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not.}} : I think that shouldn't be an issue. We should distinguish between these two cases: :# The url (or domain) was always malware/spam; it was never suitable for a reference, and still is not. :# The url (or domain) started off as a good source, but is malware/spam now. : One strength of having an archive in the first place, is that it can help us deal with case #2, and provide a good copy of an url back before it changed. This may be an argument for different handling of the two cases above, which may imply different values for <code>|url-status</code>. : I am not certain what your expectations were about how editors should employ the values '''''unfit''''' and '''''usurped''''' , given that the [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation/url|CS doc for <code>url</code>]] has little to say about them. But we could, I suppose, assign (or reassign) the ''usurped'' value to case #2: that is, "The url was good once (and the archive may still retain a copy), but it isn't good anymore", which goes along with one set of display possibilities including a displayable <code>|archive-url</code>. That might leave ''unfit'' to cover case #1, with a different set of display characteristics (including forbidding <code>|archive-url</code>, if it was always bad). Or, if that's not what you intended ''unfit'' to be, then perhaps some new value ('''''forbidden''''', '''''blacklist''''', or whatever) to indicate that this was never a usable url and the <code>|archive-url</code> should be suppressed if there is one. : Whatever the case (and even if nothing changes wrt to those two values), the documentation should be updated to clearly explain these two values, and how they should be used. I'm okay with not having it updated now, especially if the usage or meaning of these values is in flux, but once things shake out, there should be a clear and thorough explanation. (If you want help editing some doc for it when the time is right, feel free to issue a request on my Talk page, and I'll be happy to help.) [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC) {{Anchor|14:34, 5 Oct}} ::Original discussions about parameter values <code>unfit</code> and <code>usurped</code> are at: ::*{{slink|Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests/Completed#Suppress_original_URL}} ::*{{slink|Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Suppress_original_URL}} ::Neither of those discussions consider blacklisted urls. : ::There were subsequent discussions with regard to parameter values: ::*{{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_11#Suppressing_unnecessary_archive-urls}} ::*{{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_14#Recycled_urls}} ::*{{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_36#Handling_sites_that_have_become_malicious}} – mentions blacklisted urls ::*{{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_42#Correct_usage_of_dead_URL?}} ::*{{slink|1=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_43#The_dead-url=usurped_mechanism_seems_to_be_broken}} ::With regard to your statement: :::{{tq|The url (or domain) was always malware/spam; it was never suitable for a reference, and still is not.}} ::It has been pointed out that percent-encoding the original url in an archive url may be used to mask a cite that has always been malicious. That is also true of archive sites that support url shortening – create an archive copy of the malicious site at archive.today, use the shortened url to avoid the blacklist (until one of the bots that lengthens shortened urls arrives to lengthen it). As an aside, when these lengthening bots attempt to save an article that now has a blacklisted url embedded in an archive url, what happens? : ::I suppose that when archive urls link to malicious archives, the whole archive url can be blacklisted (presumably with sufficient flexibility that such blacklisting catches all archive urls regardless of timestamp). If there is a specific archive timestamp that can be shown to not be malicious, then an editor could possibly petition whomever does this sort of thing to white-list that particular archive. The question then becomes, how do we mark such white-listed archive urls? : ::For me, I understand <code>unfit</code> and <code>usurped</code> to mean that the url links to: ::*<code>unfit</code> – link farm or advertising or phishing or porn or other generally inappropriate content ::*<code>usurped</code> – new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's content ::Yep, there is no bright line separating the two but, as can be seen from the original discussions of these parameter values, we struggled to get even these because the waters, they are muddy. : ::And I repeat myself yet again: if you can see how the documentation for these templates can be improved, please do so. ::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :::{{green|lengthening bots .. what happens?}} - I believe there is a flag to exempt bot accounts from being blocked on save. I prefer to get blocked to manually fix. My bot also decodes encoded schemes in the path/query portion so the filters are not bypassed. IMO re whitelisting, it is often a matter of judgement/opinion and also double jeaporady since the original blacklisting presumably had a consensus discussion, it opens every blacklisted URL up to a new potential consensus discussion. This is a loophole for users to get past blacklists and overhead to manage. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 22:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :::{{tq|<code>usurped</code> – new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's content}} :::I assumed {{em|usurped}} to be closer to {{em|hijacked}}? If there is a new, properly registered owner (publisher) did any usurpation take place? [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 15:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC) [[File:Humpty_Dumpty_Tenniel.jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|When ''I'' use a word,' [[q:Through_the_Looking-Glass#Chapter_6:_Humpty_Dumpty|Humpty Dumpty said]] in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.]] {{wtp|usurp#Verb|usurp}} :::: I think that these definitions of ''usurped'', ''unfit'', and possibly other values of <code>|url-status</code> need solid, agreed-upon definitions. Just from the point of view of English usage, never mind specialized wiki vocabulary, ''usurped'' is much more like what IP 72 stated. The sense of a new domain owner with legit content is nothing like most native English speakers would imagine, I don't think, when seeing the word ''usurped''. :::: To me, your definition is a bit more like what would apply to a word like, ''repurposed'', or ''reassigned'', or ''repositioned'' or perhaps some word from marketing vocab when one company buys another's superannuated property, if there is such a word. The term ''usurped'' does not seem appropriate for the meaning you assume for it. This all needs further airing out, before the spam blacklist wrinkle, which is an edge case of the broader problem, can even be discussed. I have a feeling that there may be a need for at least one, perhaps two more values for <code>|url-status</code> to cover the different meanings that we seem to be alluding to for it, and trying to cram into two few values. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::: Just wanted to be clear about one point: I don't think we need new values, just for the sake of new values; there's not need to distinguish every possible thing that could happen with an url. But, when they should be handled differently by the software, then, yes: we do need values for those cases. When the confusion surrounding the current meanings of ''usurped'' and ''unfit'' are settled, I suspect we will find that we will need at least one more value, in order to assign it to different handling in the software, and I think the spam blacklist case may be one such example. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::::If you don't like the definitions that I offered above, write better definitions. I did write above: {{tq|...as can be seen from the original discussions of these parameter values, we struggled to get even these...}} Yeah, we know that these parameter keywords are less than optimal so there is no real need to spend a lot of words telling us what we already know. Suggest better definitions and / or suggest better keywords. :::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC) :::::For domain names that are not trademarked, {{para|url-status|reassigned}} would be imo a good option to clarify there is a new registrant. Obviously trademarked domains (like say, newyorktimes.com) would not normally lapse, so in these cases {{para|url-status|usurped}} would be more accurate. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :::::I agree with 72.43.99.138. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC) == Time to fix "In: &lt;title>"? == Regarding the problem where "In:" is not prepended to a title when no editor is specified ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_59#Proposal_for_an_"in-title"_("In"_+_title)_parameter|previous discussion]]), where Kanguole demonstrated a fix that was not implemented due to press of other work: could we have that implemented now? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC) {{ping|Kanguole|p=?}} &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC) :To recap, the proposal was that ::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book}}</nowiki></code> :which is currently formatted as ::{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book}} :should instead be ::Author, Ann. "Chapter". In ''Book''. :This compares with the formatting of ::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book |editor-first=A.N. |editor-last=Editor }}</nowiki></code> :as ::{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book |editor-first=A.N. |editor-last=Editor }} :It seems a clear improvement to me. The editor is flagged by "(ed.)", while "In" indicates a chapter in a book. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC) ::Yes. Not the least because it is not the ''editors'' that are "in" a book, but the ''chapters''. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :::Really? Who is the muddled one? Look at where 'In' is placed in this rendering: ::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |author=Author Name |chapter=Chapter Title |editor=Editor Name |title=Book Title}}</nowiki></code> :::::{{cite book |author=Author Name |chapter=Chapter Title |editor=Editor Name |title=Book Title}} :::Left to right: ::::Author name list precedes "Chapter Title", indicating that Author(s) is/are credited for "Chapter Title" ::::'In' introduces the Editor name list ::::Editor name list precedes ''Book Title'', indicating that Editor(s) is/are credited for ''Book Title'' :::The citation means exactly that Author's chapter is 'In' Editor's book. It does not say that Editor is in the book. :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ::::The author's chapter is "in" a book described by "Editor Name (ed.) ''Book Title''". If there is no editor, the chapter is "in" a book described by "''Book Title''". [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 23:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :Original discussion is at {{slink|Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 59#Proposal for an "in-title" ("In" + title) parameter}}. I think that I am opposed to this for the reasons I stated in the original discussion. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC) ::That was a wide-ranging discussion, but on this specific proposal I believe your argument that was that "In" marks editors, and is therefore superfluous if no editors are given. I've responded to that above. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 08:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC) : ::T: Your premises in the previous discussion were incorrect, and your grasp of the context muddled. It seems your underlying objection is simply [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Do we need to revisit this? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :::If you believe me to be {{tq|incorrect}} and that my {{tq|grasp of the context muddled}}, show me where I am incorrect and muddled. Just claiming these things for whatever reasons you might have is not sufficient to persuade me to change my position. You are right, I don't like it, but I don't like for the reasons that I've stated. Tell me what you think is muddled or incorrect, and I will attempt a clearer explanation. :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Trappist: In the previous discussion you stated (at 16:02, 22 Aug) that: :(1) The current "{{tq|cs1{{!}}2 rendering has been in use for a long, long time and, so far as I know, has not caused our readers untoward confusion}}", :(2) "{{tq|this proposal seems like a fix for something that isn't broken}}", and :(3) "{{tq|The proposed use case ... would result in incomplete citations with, consequently, incomplete metadata.}}" In the previous discussion I explained why this is needed: there is an exceptional challenge in citing reports of the [[IPCC]], especially in articles where there are '''dozens''' of such citations. Now I can't speak to what ''you'' may know about citing IPCC reports (though I suspect you have little or no experience in such cases), nor whether these details have "{{tq|caused our readers untoward confusion}}" (how would we know?). But I can speak for ''editors'': judging by the results it is a challenge for those who try, and with previous results being inconsistent, inadequate, and confusing. Strictly speaking your statement is correct (you don't know), but irrelevant. What is incorrect is the unstated premise that you ''would'' know if there was "untoward confusion", and the inference that therefore there isn't any problem. As explained previously, I have developed a way of handling these cases which is fully in accord with standard citation practice, except for one little detail: cs1{{!}}2 omits the "in". That ''is'' broken. You argue that the proposed use "{{tq|would result in ... incomplete metadata}}". Not really, but refusing to supply "in" is ''not'' going to force inclusion of editors. It will result — and currently does — in corruption of the title metadata where editors include "in" in the title itself. You might note that in my approach the top level citation is complete in every way, including the editors (up to four). More could be said, but let's thrash out the foregoing first. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :I don't think that there is anything wrong or muddled in any of the three statements of mine that you quote. :#yeah, I don't know for absolute sure that the current rendering {{tq|has not caused our readers untoward confusion}}. Do you know for absolute sure that readers have been caused untoward confusion? Without evidence either way, perhaps this point is moot. :#I stand by that; it was the conclusion of the preceding paragraph :#I stand by this too. In your original post you wrote: {{tq|I have instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation, yet I would like to indicate that the chapter is "in" a larger work.}} This is the proposed use case. Omitting pertinent information because it is 'preferable' (the why of that has not been explained) is improper because the resulting metadata are incomplete. :I have no experience citing [[IPCC]] reports. But, let us examine the current state of [[Global warming]] and in particular AR5 Working Group I Report. In the [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 59#Proposal for an "in-title" ("In" + title) parameter|previous discussion]] you provided an IPCC-preferred chapter citation so let us look at that report's citations. :*in the [[Global_warming#CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013|main book citation]]: :**you name IPCC as the author; IPCC does that in their 'preferred' citation. As a communal effort, I suppose that IPCC is, in a way 'the' author but the book is really the product of the editors and its various contributors. :**you use {{para|series}} to hold what in IPCC's citation is a subtitle. I presume that you are doing this as a way of avoiding the URL–wikilink conflict error that would arise from wikilinking part of the subtitle (<code><nowiki>...[[IPCC Fifth Assessment Report|Fifth Assessment Report]]...</nowiki></code>) when {{para|url}} has a value. This is problematic because the value assigned to {{para|series}} is made part of the citation's metadata in <code>&rft.series</code> misleading readers who consume the citation via the metadata into thinking that the report is part of a series named: :**:Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change :**you set {{para|harv|<nowiki>{{harvid|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}}</nowiki>}} as an anchor link from {{slink|Global_warming#Notes|nopage=yes}} and from the various chapter citations in {{slink|Global_warming#Sources|nopage=yes}}. I suspect that you also did this because the first four authors of "Summary for Policymakers" and "Technical summary" are the same and the first three editors of the book are also the same so Stocker et al. (2013) is ambiguous. :*in [[Global_warming#CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG1_Summary_for_Policymakers2013|IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers]] you omit the authors entirely; not clear why :*in all of the individual chapter citations you use this construct: :*:{{para|title|<nowiki>{{Harvnb|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}}</nowiki>}} → {{Harvnb|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}} → {{code|{{Harvnb|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}}}} :*:which makes the title in the rendered citation and in the citation's metadata be ''IPCC AR5 WG1 2013''; not the title of the book. We have discussed this peculiar use before; you ignored me then, I expect that you will continue to do so now. :The above may be {{tq|fully in accord with}} {{em|some}} (not named) {{tq|standard citation practice}}, but not with cs1|2. : :In the previous conversation I asked: {{tq|Can this not be handled by a mixture of {{tlx|sfn}} templates pointing to {{tlx|harvc}} templates that point to a single full citation template?}} You answered: {{tq|no, this can NOT [quote of my question redacted]}}. You did not say why. At [[User:Trappist the monk/sandbox/ipcc]] I have used {{tlx|harvnb}}, {{tld|harvc}}, and the original {{tlx|cite book}} (slightly modified) to do what it is that I think you want. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Responses: 1. That's right: you ''don't'' know that there ''isn't'' a problem in regard of the ''readers''. And therefore you should not claim that. However, there ''is'' a problem in regard of our ''editors'', which is evident in various confused attempts to cite IPCC reports. (I can state from personal experience that the confused and incomplete state of some of these attempts impairs verification, and it is reasonably inferred that there ''is'' confusion amongst that small slice of the readers that attempt to go to the source.) 2. So we will have delve into your prior statements. For now I will just summarize what I (and Kanguole) have said: what is "in" a book is the ''chapters'', '''not''' the ''editors''. More on this later. 3. "{{tq|Omitting pertinent information}}" and "incomplete metadata" seems to be the essential core of your complaint. (Right?) As for explaining ''why'': I did so explain in the previous discussion. Perhaps that explanation was inadequate? Or perhaps you didn't read it? Well, I provide the same example as before of a typical citation as requested by the IPCC: ::{{anchor|Stocker et al.}}{{quote|width=50%|quote={{refbegin}}Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie, 2013: Technical Summary. In: ''Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' {{orange|&#91;}}Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.){{orange|&#93;}}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.{{refend}}}} The '''problem''' here is a useless glut of metadata. '''As I said before''' (highlighting added): That's only ten editors and 34 authors (and I have several instances of over 50 authors); it does not include the ''chapter's'' contributing authors and review editors. {{hl|This is a surfeit of "fullness", a useless glut of metadata that paralyzes the grasp of essential information.}} (A demonstration: how quickly can you scan that citation and pick out which chapter it refers to?) It should be noted: that citation is intended to carry full details about BOTH the ''chapter'' AND the ''volume'' (book). Which is fine for a single standalone citation, but what I am dealing with is contexts where multiple chapters are cited from a given volume. In such cases '''repeating''' the volume information in each ''chapter's'' citation is not just useless redundancy, it buries the vital information (such as which chapter) in that useless information. The "omission" here is not of editor metadata (other than being trimmed to only four editors), but of ''useless redundancy''. That you want (?) the COinS data for a ''chapter'' to include all of the information for the ''volume'' is pointless because in most of these cases the chapter is ''not'' available separately, but only in the volume. (But of course there is an exception.) (If the emission of seemingly incomplete COinS data is a concern, then give us an option to suppress that.) The rest of your comments are mainly an attack on the method I have developed, and not really relevant to the issue here of "in", but I will address them briefly. * That ''you'' believe "{{tq|the book is really the product of the editors and its various contributors}}" is wonderful, and totally immaterial: that the IPCC attributes some content as collectively "IPCC" (instead of to individual authors and editors) is their call, not yours. * Any problems with the use of {{para|series}} can be discussed, but is off-topic for this discussion. * Yes: the "IPCC AR5 WG1 ..." form is used because of multiple problems with use of author strings. Example; "Stocker et al. 2013a" and "Stocker et al. 2013b" are essentially useless, giving no information other than there are two cites to what ever report that came out in 2013. * EVERY "Summary for Policymakers" is credited to the IPCC (and not to the drafting authors and editors) because this is per the IPCC, which is because these are "tweaked" by the governments. * Re the rendering of "title": are you referring to the metadata for the ''chapter'', or the ''book''? The title of the latter is ''Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis''. The use of {{para|title}} in the chapter citation is as a ''link'' to the book, and can be considered as incorporating by reference ''all'' of the details of the book, including the title, subtitle, editors, publisher, isbn, other isbn, and doi. The use of a symbolic link more clearly identifies for both readers and editors the target of that link. My reference to "standard citation practice" refers to nearly universal practice (see any style manual): chapters get an "in", even without editors. That cs1{{!}}2 does not do this is the deviation that I am trying to get fixed. Your suggestion to use {{tl|harvc}} is unworkable, and grotesque. Even if it produces an acceptable result, it introduces an additional, more complicated template, where many WP editors find the simpler harvnb somewhat challenging. It is grotesque in requiring the use of this additional template in every case (and additional instruction in its use), all of which would be avoided by a simple, one-time fix to cs1|2. Your belief that "in" should be contingent on having editors I will have to address later, as I am out of time now. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC) :1. I have never said that en.wiki editors aren't confused when it comes to citing IPCC chapters :2. Yet another thing I have never said: I have never said that editors are in books; I have said that authors's (possessive) chapters are {{em|in}} editors's (possessive) book. :3. pretty much, because someone somewhere is relying on what metadata is present in an en.wiki article to be correct; IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 as a book title is definitely not the correct book title and there are no other bibliographic details, ISBN, publisher, etc that can be used as an aid to figuring out what the cryptic title really is : :Yeah, IPCC's preferred citation format is a bit overmuch. By the way, it was not hard for me to skip over the author name-list to find the chapter title; it's right after the date. cs1|2 provides {{para|display-authors}} and {{para|display-editors}} as a way of reducing the quantity of author and editor names in the rendered citation; you have been using these parameters to, apparently, aid the {{tq|the grasp of essential information.}} : :Yeah, I know that you want to cite individual chapters of a source. I know that {{tq|'''repeating''' the volume information in each ''chapter's'' citation is not just useless redundancy, it buries the vital information (such as which chapter) in that useless information}}. I know that you want to omit {{tq|''useless redundancy''}} by which you mean volume or book bibliographic detail. I get that. This is precisely why {{tlx|harvc}} was created and it does it well without the need to misuse cs1|2 by use of invented book names and omitted bibliographic detail that results in incomplete and wrong metadata. {{tq|If the emission of seemingly incomplete COinS data is a concern, then give us an option to suppress that.}} You have it: {{tld|harvc}}. : :To your bullet points: :*perhaps it is; perhaps it isn't; if IPCC truly considered itself the author, it would be so stated on the report's [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Frontmatter_FINAL.pdf title page] :*still subtitle in {{para|series}} is a misuse of {{para|series}} so is pertinent to this discussion about improper metadata :*am I to understand that you disapprove of any short-form citation that uses lowercase letter CITEREF disambiguation? :*I cannot speak to the validity of your claim; show me something that supports your claim :*I get that you are using the {{tlx|harvnb}} in the cs1|2 template's {{para|title}} (book title) parameter to link to the book's full citation so that you don't have to repeat all of the book's bibliographic detail for every chapter. My claim is that such use in a cs1|2 template is wrong because each cs1|2 {{em|chapter}} citation produced by this method generates flawed and incomplete book metadata. :{{tq|"standard citation practice" refers to nearly universal practice (see any style manual)}} This seems to me to be an other-stuff-exists argument. cs1|2 has never inserted in between the rendered value assigned to {{para|chapter}} and the adjacent rendered value assigned to {{para|title}}. I see no reason why that practice should be changed. : :Causing cs1 to insert 'In' (or 'in' with cs2) between chapter and title fixes nothing. For your use case, the chapter citations would still produce flawed and incomplete book metadata. Your characterization of {{tld|harvc}} as {{tq|grotesque}}; what does that mean? You don't like how it looks? {{tld|harvc}} is more complicated than {{tlx|harvnb}}. But, for the most part, {{tld|harvc}} uses the same parameter names as cs1|2 and {{tlx|sfn}} / {{tld|harv}} templates. {{tld|harvc}} adds {{para|in1}}–{{para|in4}} and {{para|anchor-year}}. Editors who can work out how to use cs1|2 and the short-form templates can work out how to use {{tld|harvc}}. The en.wiki editor confusion is not fixed by the addition of 'in' between chapter and title. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC) === An arbitrary break where we go into whether "In" is ever "superfluous" === Trappist: Let us consider your other contention, that cs1|2 "{{tq|isn't broken}}" because (given chapter and title) the "in" ''should'' be contingent on specifying one or more editors. Your statement that cs1{{!}}2 "{{tq|isn't broken}}", the "{{tq|conclusion of the preceding paragraph}}", goes back to our [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_59#Proposal_for_an_"in-title"_("In"_+_title)_parameter|previous discussion]] last August, where you said: "{{tq|'In' without editors, to me, seems to be extraneous because {{para|authorn}} (and aliases) identify the author(s) of the entire book so saying explicitly that "Chapter title" is 'In' Book title written by Author(s) is overkill or clutter.}}" I find this quite muddled because in the cases at hand there are '''not''' any "{{tq|author(s) of the entire book}}". The ''chapters'' have authors (and also editors), and the ''books'' (volumes) have ''editors''; there is NO "{{tq|Book title written by Author(s)}}". That statement (the core of your argument!) needs considerable rework. I am further baffled by how "'In' without editors" could be "extraneous". (I will be quite impressed if can provide a sensible explanation.) On the otherhand, is it not clear to you that the factual nature of a chapter being ''in'' a book – both physically, and in the abstract concept of a work – is '''not''' altered by the specification, ''or not'', of any attributes such as authors or editors, or titles, publisher, etc.? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC) :cs1|2 isn't broken. I stand by that {{tq|overkill or clutter}} statement. Taking the simple case, a book authored by a single author. The book has a title: ''Book Title''. The book is subdivided into chapters. We want to cite "Chapter 6". Because there is only one author, that author must be the author of "Chapter 6" so there is no point in saying in a cs1|2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in ''Book Title''. Of course it is; that is obvious. There is no need to state the obvious. : :The {{tq|cases at hand}} are edited works where chapters are contributed by a variety of authors. Another simple example, a book assembled by a single editor. The book has a title: ''Book Title''. The book is subdivided into chapters. Each chapter is written by a separate author: Author A wrote "Chapter 1", Author B wrote "Chapter 2", etc. We want to cite Author B's "Chapter 2" so cs1|2 names Author B and "Chapter 2" which is {{em|in}} Editor's ''Book Title''. Because cs1|2 now adds an '(ed.)' or '(eds.)' suffix to editor name lists it might be argued that rendering 'in' when there is an editor name list is unnecessary. I have more sympathy for that argument than for adding 'in' between adjacent chapter and book title. And, I have to wonder: if it is necessary to have 'in' text between chapter and book title, isn't it also necessary to have 'in' text between journal/magazine/newspaper article and the adjacent journal/magazine/newspaper name? : :The proposed change to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] applies to my first simple example where there is no named editor, which as I have just attempted (yet again) to explain, is superfluous. The {{tq|cases at hand}}, because the book has editors, has the 'in' text between the cited chapter and the editor list as it should. Leaving out the editor list as you want to do tells cs1|2 that there are no editors so it doesn't include the 'in' text. : :cs1|2 has never supported the notion of chapter editors. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC) In your first paragraph you describe "{{tq|the simple case, a book authored by a single author.}}" (Whether authorship is a single person or entity, or plural, is immaterial, so let us agree that "author" includes "authors".) The essential character of your simple case is not "a single author", but ''no editors'', and also ''no division of authorship'' within the work.<small>[Removed duplicated content.]</small> Then you state that "{{tq|The proposed change }}[applies to]{{tq| where there is no named editor}}", which you describe as "superfluous". And you conclude: "{{tq|Leaving out the editor list as you want to do tells cs1{{!}}2 that there are <u>no editors</u> so it doesn't include the 'in' text.}}" And there is the heart of the problem: you equate "no editors ''specified''" (that is, no ''list'' of editors) with both ''no editors'', AND ''no division of authorship''. Both of those equivalences are false. (I direct your attention to the sample IPCC citation above, where the editors are listed in brackets, which indicates they are optional. I also direct your attention to the last line of my last comment: "{{tq|the factual nature of a chapter being in a book [...] is '''not''' altered by the specification, or not, of any attributes such as authors or editors ....}}" Do you disagree?) Your belief seems to be that listing of one or more editors is required to show when a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing work. My view is that "In" communicates that. Which is not "superfluous" in the simple case of unitary authorship and ''no editor'', because it is not used in that case. That is ''not'' because no editor is specified, but because authorship of the chapters is the same as for the whole work. Where chapters have different authorship it is quite legitimate to cite them without specifying the editors (if any), but "In" is required. In that regard cs1 is in fact broken. And no, "In" is ''not'' used between the title of articles and the name of the journal or periodical because it is understood that the attributed authorship applies solely to the article. In summary: you err in making "(eds.)" do the work of "In". &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC) :The simple case I described was as I described it: a single author; nothing more, nothing less. Because it is a single author example, there can be {{tq|no division of authorship}} unless it is somehow possible to subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever. Had there been an editor for my single-author example, I would have so stated. The point of that example is to show that 'in' text is superfluous because the single author is understood to be the author of both the chapter and the book. : :It is true that the proposed change to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] would insert unnecessary 'in' text between chapter title and book title when the template does not have an editor name list. cs1|2 cannot discriminate between a book that has no editors and a book with editors whose names are not present in the template. It is the responsibility of the en.wiki editor to correctly fill cs1|2 template parameters or to use some other citation method. : :That IPCC elects to bracket the volume's editor list does not necessarily indicate that the editor list is optional; it may just be a stylistic choice. And, IPCC's preferred citation form is neither here nor there because we are talking about cs1|2. You have evidence to support your claim that the IPCC editor list is optional in their preferred citation form? : :I have never claimed that a chapter is not in a book. I have claimed that it is not necessary to state the obvious: it is obvious when the author of the chapter is the same as the author of the book (the single author example). : :Yes, {{tq|listing of one or more editors is required to show when a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing work}} because without that list, the cs1|2 citation is incomplete. 'In', without an editor name list does not indicate that a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing work. Inclusion of 'in' text between chapter title and book title as an indicator that editors have been omitted, as it appears you want, will misrepresent all chapter citations where the chapter author and the book author are the same. The proposed change to Module:Citation/CS1 {{em|would}} include 'in' text between chapter title and book title. Your statement that {{tq|the simple case of unitary authorship and ''no editor'', because it is not used in that case}} is contradictory to that reality because the 'in' text would be included in the unitary author case. : :{{tq|Where chapters have different authorship it is quite legitimate to cite them without specifying the editors (if any), but "In" is required. In that regard cs1 is in fact broken.}} False and false. In a cs1|2 template, naming an authored chapter in an edited work where the editor(s) has/have been omitted, misleads readers into thinking that the chapter author(s) is/are the author(s) of the book; the cs1|2 template appears to Module:Citation/CS1 as the unitary author case. cs1|2 cannot discriminate between a book that has no editors and a book with editors whose names are not present in the template. The insertion of 'in' text between the authored chapter and the edited book title (editor list omitted) says nothing about an omitted editor name list. For this, cs1|2 is not broken. The rendering of the citation that should have editors is flawed because an en.wiki editor did not include the necessary editor name list; that is not the fault of the template but is the fault of the en.wiki editor. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Your "{{tq|subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever}}" is bullshit, and shows just how muddled you are, and even ridiculous. There is no question here of dividing ''authors''; the "division" refers to <b>author''ship''</b> – that is, the work, and thereby the ''attribution'', of one, or more. authors. Regarding your "simple case": back where you said "{{tq|there is no point in saying in a cs1{{!}}2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in Book Title}}", I had actually agreed with that statement, and presumed that you would ''not'' say "this chapter is in this book". But the only way "In" would be included is if you ''did'' "say" (specified) "{{para|chapter|Chapter 6}}" in the {cite book} template. Which is wrong. In this kind of simple case you do not create a full citation (using cs1{{!}}2) for a chapter; the full citation is for the ''book'' as a whole. Citation of a specific chapter, or pages, or any other ''part'', is specified as an in-source location. If you are not using short-cites (or similar) that data can be ''appended'' to the template along the lines of {{code|<nowiki>{{cite book |year= 2001 |author= Author |title= Book Title |isbn= 99999}}, Chapter 6, p. 110.</nowiki>}} Note: no {{para|chapter}}, therefore no "In" in the result. A chapter rates a full citation only where it is separately citeable, usually because of different authorship. I may provide some explicit examples, but it looks like I don't have time for that today. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC) :Clearly you did not understand my use of the words {{tq|single author}} to mean just that; a 'single author' means: 'one author'. I meant the 'subdivision' phrase to show that {{tq|division of authorship}} is a meaningless concept then there is only one (a single) author. : :Your quote of my statement misrepresents what I wrote. {{small|(I did fix the markup in the {{tlx|tq}} template)}}. Here is the whole sentence: {{tq|Because there is only one author, that author must be the author of "Chapter 6" so there is no point in saying in a cs1{{!}}2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in ''Book Title''.}} Of course I would say: {{tq|"this chapter is in this book"}} because it is. The proposed change to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] would insert, unnecessarily, 'in' text between the chapter's title ("Chapter 6") and the book's title (''Book Title''). : :Why would an en.wiki editor not specify {{para|chapter}} in a {{tlx|cite book}} template? It is done quite a bit. Here is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3A%22Cite+book%22+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*chapter+*%3D+*%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2F+-insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*editor%5B%5E%3D%5D*+*%3D+*%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 insource search] for articles using {{tld|cite book}} with {{para|chapter}} but without any of the {{para|editor...}} parameters. Because it is an insource search, the number of articles returned by the search is quite variable so the number of articles found by the search is likely quite a bit less than the actual number of articles that meet the search criteria. : :{{tq|Which is wrong. ...}} Really? Says who? Were it wrong in cs1|2 to specifically cite a chapter in a book's full citation, then cs1|2 would not allow en.wiki editors to do just that by providing and supporting the {{para|chapter}} parameter and its various aliases. Yeah, if en.wiki editors want, they may choose to append chapter and other in-source locator information after a cs1|2 template but why would they want to do that? That is guaranteed to produce inconsistently styled citations and to contribute to the citation maintenance headache. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC) ::I can think of three different situations where I would cite a chapter. ::#The chapter as a whole supports the claim in the Wikipedia article, and none of the considerations my points 2 and 3 apply. I would use "at=Chapter 3" or similar. ::#The authorship of the chapter is different than the editorship of the whole book. I would use "chapter= The Moon" or the like. ::#The chapter is available as a convenience link, but the book as a whole is not. The authorship of the book and chapter are identical. I would use a hand-typed citation spelling out the titles of both the book and the chapter, with the chapter hyperlinked to the convenience link (since the templates don't provide for this scenario). ::[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC) :::Are you sure? Hyperlinking to a chapter's text someplace on the internet is why cs1|2 support {{para|chapter-url}} (and its aliases). Here's an example: ::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |author=Author |date=2019 |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=//example.com |title=Title |location=Location |publisher=Publisher}}</nowiki></code> :::::{{cite book |author=Author |date=2019 |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=//example.com |title=Title |location=Location |publisher=Publisher}} :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC) ::::I hadn't noticed the chapter-url parameter. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) :::::Which works fine if you are citing only ''one chapter''. If you are actually citing the whole ''book'', use of {{para|chapter}} and {{para|chapter-url}} would be incorrect. In that case the availability of one (or more?) chapters (your #3) is information best appended to the template. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I have fully understood that your "simple case" is of a single author. I also understand – perhaps you do not? – that whether authorship is attributed to a single author, or multiple authors, is immaterial, as it makes no difference in the case presented. Your "{{tq|subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever}}" comment shows that ''you'' do not understand that my "division of authorship" is ''not'' over the domain of ''authors'', but over the domain of what portion of the ''work'' is attributed to the identified author ''or authors''. The concept of division of authorship is ''not'' meaningless even in this simple case, because it allows for an affirmation of ''no'' such division. It also provides a basis for distinguishing a not quite so simple case of a book attributed to a single author, yet some part of it has different authorship. And I have '''not''' misrepresented your statement. I quoted the part of your statement with which I agree. I left out your preliminary bit because it is muddled (and arguably wrong), and is immaterial to your point that "{{tq|there is no point in saying ...}}", in order to focus on the key point. As to saying explicitly that "{{tq|this chapter is in this book}}": now you say "{{tq|[o]f course}}" you would, though previously you said "{{tq|there is no point}}}" in saying so. I think you were right the first time. Given a book with ''unitary'' authorship (that is, with ''no division'', and regardless of whether "author" is singular or multiple), there is ''no point'' in listing all of the constituent parts. As long as the various parts have the same authorship (and date and publisher), they are presumed to be a ''single'' work. For which there should be a ''single'' full citation. The actual point in referencing the chapter is to specify the in-source location of the content referred to. (Right?) But here you err (along with a thousand or so others) making the full citation refer to a specific part. Consider this: if you wanted to cite Chapter 1 ''and'' Chapter 6 of a book, would you invoke {cite book} twice, making two full citations? Or would you use {{para|chapter|Chapter 1, Chapter 6}}? In such cases ''appending'' such information to the template is more sensible than trying to make the template handle all of that. Where a chapter (or other part) ''should'' be specified in a full citation is where that is distinctly citable in its own right (typically because of differing authorship), not simply part of a larger source. E.g.: where a book is attributed to "Smith", we don't repeat that information for each chapter (let alone each page!), as each part is presumed to inherit the attributes of its parent. But if one chapter is actually written by (or with) "Jones", that needs to be said. This is where the citation should be "Chapter by Jones '''in''' Book by Smith". "{{tq|[I]nconsistently styled citations}}" already exist, are exactly what I am trying to address (particularly with the IPCC reports), so it rather amazing that you raise every possible objection to what I am doing. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC) :{{ec}} :Apparently you don't. I think you are tying to read more into the simple example than is there. In the simple example, there is no subdivision of authorship; none; nada; the whole thing is the responsibility of the single author; every chapter, every verse, every page, every paragraph; all attributable to a single author; no other person gets credit for any of the simple example. : :You want cs1|2 to add 'in' text between chapter title and book title for all book citations. There is no point to doing that. It is obvious that the chapter is in the book; it must be because it is all part of the same citation. When I read that citation, I can see that the chapter is in the book without your proposed change beating me over the head: "see, look here, this chapter is in this book." Don't need that. : :You misrepresent me because the whole sentence says something different from how you are construing that little snippet. : :Yes, of course I would. Given the evidence of a cs1|2 citation with {{para|chapter}} and {{para|title}} and without your proposed change to insert 'in' text between the two parameter renderings, it is obvious that the chapter is part of the book. There is no point to the extraneous addition of 'in' text between chapter and book title; they are both in the same citation. : :I suppose then that you are opposed to the use of pagination or any other forms of in-source locators in full citations? I don't think that I have seen {{para|chapter|Chapter 1, Chapter 6}} or the like in the wild. Such use would probably be contrary to the requirements of the metadata which appears to want one chapter item per <code>&rtf.atitle=</code> key. Editors usually write separate full citations using {{para|chapter}} for these kinds of cases or they crowbar the chapter titles into multiple {{tlx|sfn}} or {{tld|harv}}-family templates. Appending multiple chapter names to the end of a full citation works only to the extent that the chapters are only visible to those who consume cs1|2 template visually; the chapter information is wholly lost (as it is with all short cites) to those who consume these cs1|2 citations via the template's metadata. Keeping the chapter in the cs1|2 template at least gets the metadata consumer in the general vicinity of the information being cited. And yep, free-form text inserted in the {{tag|ref}} tags is free-form text that one en.wiki editor will write one way, and other en.wiki editors will write in other ways. That is a recipe for inconsistency. : :{{tq|"Chapter by Jones '''in''' Book by Smith"}} is supported: ::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |title=Book by Smith |author=Smith |contribution=Chapter by Jones |contributor=Jones}} </nowiki></code> :::{{cite book |title=Book by Smith |author=Smith |contribution=Chapter by Jones |contributor=Jones}} :Yep, I object to your proposed change to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] that would unnecessarily insert 'in' text between chapter title and book title. I am in favor of consistency; tacking in-source locator information onto the end of a cs1|2 template in a free-form manner, as you have proposed here, is not going to do that. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I have found expert opinion (''Chicago Manual of Style'') that "In" is ''never'' superfluous, but required in all cases where a chapter is cited, even in a single-author book where there is no division of authorship. From the 17th edition: {{quote frame|width=90%| :14.106 Chapter in a single-author book. :When a specific chapter (or other titled part of a book) is cited in the notes, the author's name is followed by the title of the chapter (or other part), followed by ''in'' followed by the title of the book.}} Similarly for multiauthor books. It appears this is to distinguish ''chapters'', which are always '''in''' a work, from ''parts'' which are '''of''' a work. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC) :That's nice. cs1|2 is not CMOS; is not APA; is not MLA; is not Bluebook; is not &lt;{{var|insert favorite style guide here}}>. Yeah, sure, cs1|2 may have been influenced by these style guides but cs1|2 is not beholden to them. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC) When I referred to "standard citation practice" a week ago you demurred [<small>i.e., implied "the raising of an objection or taking of exception so as so as to delay action"</small>] that these practices were "{{tq|not named}}", and not in accord with cs1{{!}}2. [15:26, 12 Oct.]. But when I do name an authoritative source your response is that "{{tq|cs1{{!}}2 is not beholden to them.}}" To judge by some of your earlier statements – such as "{{tq|I see no reason why that practice should be changed}}" – cs1{{!}}2 is beholden to only ''you'', the self-appointed gate-keeper. This is starting to sound like a case of [[WP:OWN]]. And now you have .. YET ANOTHER OBJECTION!! That if editors are allowed to insert {{hl|free-form text}} into notes there will be <b>''inconsistency''</b> (gasp!), which you are not going to allow. Which is quite irrelevant to the change I am requesting, and comes into this discussion only because of your confused understanding of how to handle in-source locators. I have tried to address every objection you have made, but this is getting to be [[whack-a-mole]]. Perhaps you should codify your objections in a list, and be done with making them up as you go. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC) :You declined to name the 'standard' of the citation practice you are using at [[Global warming]]; that's ok, it does not really matter except that, whatever that standard citation practice is, it is certainly not in accordance with cs1|2 for the reasons that I have stated. : :It is true that your {{tq|authoritative source}} is an authoritative source about itself. But, CMOS, as an authoritative source, has no control over MLA (its own authoritative source about itself), nor APA (also its own authoritative source about itself), nor Bluebook (yep, also its own authoritative source about itself), and, therefore, no control over cs1|2. So, yeah, cs1|2, while it may have been influenced by CMOS, as it may have been influenced by MLA and influenced by APA, is not beholden to any of those authoritative sources. : :It is true that I see no reason for us to change [[Module:Citation/CS1]] to add 'in' text between chapter title and book title as you would have us do. That opinion does not make {{tq|cs1{{!}}2 ... beholden to only [''me'']}} nor does my willingness to defend this opinion make me cs1|2's {{tq|self-appointed gate-keeper}}. Such assertions are nonsense. I do not own cs1|2; never have, never will. : :If you will recall, you are the one who suggested that {{tq|If you are not using short-cites (or similar) that data can be ''appended'' to the template along the lines of {{code|<nowiki>{{cite book |year= 2001 |author= Author |title= Book Title |isbn= 99999}}, Chapter 6, p. 110.</nowiki>}} Note: no {{para|chapter}}, therefore no "In" in the result.}} From this I understand that you do not want en.wiki editors to use {{para|chapter}}, {{para|page}}, or the other in-source-locator parameters in a cs1|2 template but, to instead, add that information, free-form, after the template. One en.wiki editor's free-form text will be different from another en.wiki editor's free-form text so, yes, citations adhering to this method will be inconsistent. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC) You have a curious way of twisting things around. E.g., I did '''not''' "{{tq|decline}}" to name a standard, as no one requested such information; that word is misrepresentation. When I said I had a method "{{tq|fully in accord with standard citation practice, except for one little detail}}", I was referring to the general forms and practice of citation that are common amongst essentially ALL citation authorities, such as the ordering and styling of author(s), title, publisher, etc. — which you can confirm by consulting what ever authority you may have at hand. And with which cs1{{!}}2 certainly IS "in accordance". The ''detail'' at issue here is a certain case where cs1{{!}}2 is not "in accord" ''with itself''. But your complaint here (that I did not name a particular standard) is just more bullshit, because when I do name an authoritative source you assert that it is authoritative only about itself, and assert that it "{{tq|has no control}}" over cs1{{!}}2. Which is more twisting of reality, as no one claims that the Chicago Manual of Style has any "control" over anything but what the University of Chicago Press publishes. What you reject is the fact that CMS has influence because it is ''respected'' for providing a useful, clear, and consistent (as far as can be expected) ''model'' for citation, based on over a century of experience. Whereas your opposition is based on ... what? ''No'' authority, extremely little experience, just your personal interpretations and preferences of how matters should be. You see no reason for this change, therefore you won't make this change. That sounds like ownership to me. If not, how about stepping aside and letting someone else make the change? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC) :{{tq|The ''detail'' at issue here is a certain case where cs1{{!}}2 is not "in accord" ''with itself''.}} How do you reckon that? Your proposal here is to insert 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title. This is something that cs1|2 has never done. How can cs1|2 {{tq|not [be] "in accord" ''with itself''}} for this thing that it has never done? : :I did write that it is ok that you have not have named the standard that you are using at [[Global warming]]. I also wrote that whatever that standard is, it is not cs1|2 but is some other standard. It is true that CMOS has no control over cs1|2. Just because CMOS says to do something some way does not obligate cs1|2 to do the same thing the same way as CMOS would do – {{lang|la|vice versa}}, cs1|2 does not dictate style to University of Chicago Press. Yes, CMOS and the others are influential, they influenced the creation of cs1|2. I have never denied that. When the original authors created the original templates more than a decade past, they chose, for whatever reason, not to insert 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title. I, for one, happen to agree with that choice. My agreement with that choice and opposition to the current proposal is not ownership. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC) What??? How can you seriously say that inserting "in" is "{{tq|something that cs1{{!}}2 has never done}}"? Here is an instance of {cite book} (highlighting added): {{hl|{{cite book|author= Author |editor= Editor |chapter= Chapter |title= Book |year= 2000}}}} Do you not see "in" immediately following "Chapter"? QED: cs1 ''has'' inserted "in", and your statement that it ''never'' does is disproved. The bottom line of all the rest you just wrote is: 1) you do not accept ''any'' external authority, and 2) you "approve" of the way cs!{{!}} works now, so are not going to change that. The problem with that first position is that you have not indicated that you accept ''any'' authority or expert guidance, showing no basis for your opinion other than undisclosed, personal LIKE. And your "approval" can't be because you think the past work of sacred authors is perfect, because you are constantly changing it. You have also made all kinds of arguments, but they're pretty much all bullshit (like your "never done" argument above, or the "free-form text" argument before it), or just irrelevant. The bottom line to all of this is: ''you'' DON'T LIKE the request, and therefore ''you'' WON'T ALLOW IT. How is this not an indication of ownership? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC) :The insertion of 'in' text between chapter-title and editor-name-list is not the same thing as the proposed insertion of 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title. cs1|2 has never inserted 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title which is the proposed change to cs1|2. You will recall that in my first reply to you in this subsection I said that now that the editor-name-list is annotated with '(ed.)' or with '(eds.)', I am more likely to support the removal of the 'in' text in that case because now, the editor-name-list annotation makes the 'in' text somewhat redundant or superfluous. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC) So your sense of "between" is ''without any other text also between'', the other text being that about the editors. In that case your previous statement is missing a key qualification, and a more correct statement would be: {{tq|Cs1{{!}}2 has never inserted "in" ''without also inserting editor(s)''.}} Which (with a possible quibble about "never") is my statement of the problem. And your position is, quite simply, "having never done this before, it never should do it." Which is absurd, and not a valid argument. Your statement that inserting "(eds.)" "{{tq|makes the 'in' text somewhat redundant or superfluous}}" further demonstrates that you do not understand the nature and scope of "in": ''it does not apply to the editors''. It applies to the entire containing ''work'' (which has attributes of ''editor(s)'', ''title'', etc.). Likely you have been confused because the list of editors immediately follows the "in", but that is incomplete; you should parse the range of "in" greedily, not parsimoniously. "Eds." describes the nature of the named persons as "editors". "In" relates the preceding part of the citation – about the ''chapter'', which has a title and possibly zero or more named authors — to the ''rest'' of the citation, which has a title, and possibly ''empty'' list of named editors. (And I can provide an example of a book with a chapter with different authorship, and ''no named editors''.) "In" relates the ''chapter'' to the ''work'', quite independently of whether any editors are named; it is neither redundant nor superfluous. "In" applies to ''chapters'', and conditioning it on having editor(s) is thus an error. Having ''never been fixed'' is not an acceptable argument for ''should never be fixed''. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC) : :Yep, 'in' text {{tq|without any other text also between}} chapter-title and book-title is the essence of your proposal and the thing that I oppose as superfluous and unnecessary. It is true that {{tq|cs1{{!}}2 has never inserted "in" ''without also inserting editor(s)''}}. If it makes you happy to write it that way, do so. No. My position is that 'in' text {{tq|without any other text also between}} chapter-title and book-title is superfluous and unnecessary; does not convey any information that is not already present in the rendered citation. cs1|2 has never inserted 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title; it ain't broke so it don't need fix'n. : :When there is an editor name-list, 'In' text introduces the reader to the editor name-list so that the reader knows not to go into the stacks at the local library and look for the book at the chapter-author's name (the book is the editor's book and so is cataloged by editor's name). This is the only benefit that I can see for keeping the 'in' text with the editor name-list. It was more important when cs1|2 did not include the '(ed.)' or '(eds.)' annotation at the end of the editor name-list. With the annotation, the 'in' text is less important which is why I wrote that annotations {{tq|[make] the 'in' text somewhat redundant or superfluous}}. : :When there are no editors, and therefore no editor name-list to render, 'in' text does not introduce anything so is superfluous. Writing cs1|2 citation templates without editor name-lists when those templates should have editor name-lists (the apparent underlying rational for this whole proposal) is writing malformed cs1|2 citation templates. : :Clearly, you and I are not going to agree. We could go on, I suppose, but unless one of us somehow manages to find and enunciate that perfect argument, neither are going to be convinced to change our positions. With the caveat that I remain opposed to the proposal, you may have the last word if you'd like it. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC) === Another arbitrary break for "in: title" === ::The argument that the cs1|2 templates have always done something is not a strong one, partly because the introduction of "(ed.)"/"(eds.)" has changed the context, and partly because the cs1|2 style is a collection of more-or-less arbitrary decisions taken over a long period and fossilized by the extreme difficulty of getting anything changed. ::Certainly the above discussion does seem to have discussed aesthetics and different notions of consistency to the point of exhaustion. You are against the change; J. Johnson and I are in favour of it, and we know how to implement it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=911991168&oldid=910209492] So unless someone else chimes in, or there is some technical issue, I propose that we make the change. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 01:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC) :::I am persuaded by Ttm's points. :) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC) :::I do not agree that the impasse between Trappist and I cannot be resolved by anything less than a perfect argument. I also think that (even after two weeks) this discussion is not mature, in that there are a lot of loose ends. Particularly, there are some possibly persuasive arguments that have not yet been presented. Even if Trappist is done with this discussion, it has been long enough that it is unrealistic to expect a reasonable evaluation of the issue without a more succinct statement of the arguments. And the argumentation is incomplete on both sides. (E.g., I can think of at least argument Tappist has not raised.) If everyone agrees that a reasonable resolution can be made as matters stand now, fine, but in the current somewhat inchoate state there could be miscomprehensions. And I think there is still a chance that Trappist could be persuaded. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ::::{{u|Izno}}: Some of Trappist's points are foolish. Could clarify which points you find persuasive? &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Trappist: Repeating an earlier request: would you mind listing all of your objections? There are so many that I am not certain I haven't overlooked any. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) === Summary of the case for this modification === The following summarizes the case for modifying the cs1{{!}}2 code so that the insertion of "in:" into a citation is conditioned on specifying a chapter. It is standard citation practice (as recommended by all major citation authorities) to insert "in:" to indicate that a cited source is part of a larger work — such as a chapter in book — that has different authorship than the cited source. Currently cs12 does this only when one or more editors (presumably of the larger work) are specified. That functionality thus fails for actual and legitimate cases – such as contributions in conference proceedings where the editors that assemble the papers are often not named, or even books where an author includes someone else's work as chapter, but there simply is no editor – and the "in:" is needed despite the lack of any named editors. There are also cases of works (possibly with a long list of editors) from which multiple chapters are cited, where it is unuseful and even detrimental to repeat all of the details of the work in the citation of every chapter. In opposition (by Trappist the Monk), it has been argued that cs1{{!}}2 is "{{tq|not beholden}}" to any of these expert authorities, and therefore they do apply here. That is an unuseful attitude. Such authorities reflect "best practices" based on years of professional experience that would be unwise to ignore, and the use of "in:" in this manner is a standard convention that readers expect. It has also been argued that "in:" introduces the editor(s), and without a list of editors it is "{{tq|superfluous and unnecessary}}". However, the prerequisite that "in:" introduces a list of editors is incorrect. It should be understood as applying to the ''work'', not to just the first detail that describes the work. It might be noted that some citation authorities place the editors after the book title, which shows that the scope and meaning of "in:" is not changed by the ordering of the ''details'' of the work. It has been argued that not specifying any editors "{{tq|misleads readers into thinking that the chapter author(s) is/are the author(s) of the book....}}" But that is the point of "in": to indicate that a chapter has different authorship (or editorship) than the work; the problem arises not from a lack of editors, but from a missing "in:". It is ''precisely this point'' why "in" should be inserted even when no editors are specified. The inverse has also been argued, that where the authorship of a chapter is the ''same'' as the work (book), inclusion of "in:" implies otherwise, and is extraneous. However, this only happens if {{para|chapter}} is specified, which is an improper usage in such cases. Full citations (such as created by cs1{{!}}2) cite only the whole source, not the constituent parts. Such cases are presumably where a WP editor is trying to provide an in-source location, which should be done by other means. As has been said before, "{{tq|that is not the fault of the template}}". At any rate, an extraneous "in:" does no harm. Additional arguments of opposition have been made (see the long discussion above), but are not substantive. If there are no further comments I will propose proceeding with the requested modification. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC) {{ping|Kanguole}}: There being no additional comments or objections, I propose we proceed with the requested modification. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC) You must not take my silence as approval or even acquiescence. It is not. Neither of us were able to convince the other to change position. Nothing that I have read in your writings here since then has changed my position. Lest my self-imposed silence be misconstrued as approval or acquiescence, I must break that silence to reaffirm my opposition to this proposed change. —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC) I do not take your silence as approval, and I recognize your position of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. So we will let others decide. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 01:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Trappist the monk's first comment here was "{{tq|I think that I oppose this change}}", and his concluding position is that he won't discuss it. In between I have tried to address each of his objections, but he is adamant: he doesn't like it, and won't discuss it. Therefore it is not to be done. He is the boss here, and he has -- spoken? He has not articulated a persuasive argument against. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC) :Oh darn, I thought you had dropped it. I re-read the discussion a day or two ago because I was prompted earlier, and "I(DON'T)LIKEIT" isn't at all the basis on our side. It boils down to this: You would have us add additional text to {{em|every}} edited (and unedited) book citation where it is only needed essentially in your one and only one basically-super-special case. That's a non-starter. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC) :Also, have you tried this: <code><nowiki>{{cite book |contributor=Contributor |contribution=Contribution |title=Book |author=Author |editor=Editor}}</nowiki></code>? Displays as: {{cite book |contributor=Contributor |contribution=Contribution |title=Book |author=Author |editor=Editor}}. Is that somehow insufficient? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC) :{{tq|Full citations (such as created by cs1|2) cite only the whole source, not the constituent parts.}} This is simply false. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC) ::Your first assertion, that I "{{tq|would have us add additional text to every edited (and unedited) book citation ...}}", is '''false'''. This falsity arises in part from an incorrect premise, that the condition for inserting "In:" is whether a "book" (or other work) is "edited", or not. Now most books are edited (whether an editor is credited or not), and if you also include whatever books are ''not'' edited, that would cover all of them, right? Which is ridiculous, and ''not at all'' what I requested. So let's presume you ''meant'' "where an editor is specified". Even in that case citation of a ''book'' does not require "In:". (What exactly is the book "in"? Itself??) ::"In:" is used universally (arguably by everyone except Wikipedia) to indicate that a ''chapter'' (paper, etc.) is contained ''in'' a larger work (generally with different authorship). Such works often specify one or more editors, but ''sometimes not''. That is a point missed by whomever wrote the pertinent code here when they made "In:" unnecessarily contingent on specifying an editor. (''In addition'' to having {{para|chapter}} and {{para|title}}, though off-hand I don't recall the exact details here.) What I have requested is NOT going to "{{tq|add additional text to every edited (and unedited) book citation}}"; it adds "In:" only in those "{{tq|super-special cases}}" where chapter and title have been specified and it ''should'' be included, but is not, for lack of a named editor. ::And it appears you have not been paying attention through the past discussion. I am not dealing with trivial toy examples like yours, but industrial-strength cases where multiple chapters are cited from a volume ("book"), which if done your way would result in citations like the following, where everything past the point indicated is ponderously, and needlessly, redundant, making the key points harder to find: :::&#123;&#123;Cite book |year= 2014 |chapter= Chapter 1: Point of Departure |chapter-url= https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap1_FINAL.pdf |display-authors= 4 |first1= V. R. |last1= Burkett |first2= A. G. |last2= Suarez |first3= M. |last3= Bindi |first4= C. |last4= Conde |first5= R. |last5= Mukerji |first6= M. J. |last6= Prather |first7= A. L. |last7= St. Clair |first8= G. W. |last8= Yohe <small>{{tq|< Authors of the ''chapter''}}</small> |pages= 169–194 <small>{{tq|Everything below here applies to the ''volume'' >}}</small> |title= Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects |series= Contribution of Working Group II to the [[IPCC Fifth Assessment Report |Fifth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |author= IPCC |author-link= IPCC <small>{{tq|< Author of the ''volume''.}}</small> |display-editors= 4 |editor-first1= C.B. |editor-last1= Field |editor-first2= V.R. |editor-last2= Barros |editor-first3= D.J. |editor-last3= Dokken |editor-first4= K.J. |editor-last4= Mach |editor-first5= M.D. |editor-last5= Mastrandrea |editor-first6= T.E. |editor-last6= Bilir |editor-first7= M. |editor-last7= Chatterjee |editor-first8= K.L. |editor-last8= Ebi |editor-first9= Y.O. |editor-last9= Estrada |editor-first10= R.C. |editor-last10= Genova |editor-first11= B. |editor-last11= Girma |editor-first12= E.S. |editor-last12= Kissel |editor-first13= A.N. |editor-last13= Levy |editor-first14= S. |editor-last14= MacCracken |editor-first15= P.R. |editor-last15= Mastrandrea |editor-first16= L.L |editor-last16= White |publisher= Cambridge University Press |place= Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA |isbn= 978-1-107-05807-1 |url= https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf &#125;&#125; ::There are other challenges with these sources (such as the ''volume'' also having an author), but the key point for this discussion is that that long list of editors pertains to the ''volume'', not the chapter, and omitting it should not suppress the "In:". &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC) == Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment == <div class="boilerplate vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> :''The following discussion is an archived record of a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' ::<s>An overall consensus exists here that names of websites in citations/references should be '''italicized''', generally in line with current practices. Limited exceptions to italicizing were discussed by some, however no clear consensus emerged on this point. <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]}</span> 15:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)</s> '''Amended close''' - based on two different users approaching me regarding the wording of the RFC above, I am amending my close, and directing the users involved here to re-advertise the follow up question on scope. I do continue to find, as per the wording of the RFC question, a consensus exists to italicize the names of websites in citations/references. However, based on a review of the discussion, the scope to which this consensus should be applied is unclear. While the discussion was advertised widely on many citation pages, and the wording of the question may seem to imply a site-wide change, the location of this discussion, and comments in this discussion, may seem to indicate this consensus should only apply to this template. For that reason, I'm holding a subsequent discussion for 30 days so the community can conclusively determine the breadth of the application of this discussion, as it could be cut both ways here. <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]}</span> 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Should the names of websites in citations and references always be [[Italic type|italicized]]? Please respond beginning with: '''Italic''' or '''Upright'''. There is an additional section below for [[#Discussion and alternatives|discussion and alternatives]]. The text above, and the notifications and headings below were proposed on this page with {{Diff2|897160126 |this edit}}.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 04:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC) The following pages have been notified *[[Help talk:Citation Style 2]] *[[Template talk:Citation]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Citation templates]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]] *[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] ===Responses=== *'''It depends''' Websites that are more functional and less creative like IMDB should not be italicized, while those that provide long form content of its own creativity should be. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:This commentary on IMDB is annoying. There is significant creative effort (perhaps invisible) that goes into creating any website, much less one so large and developed as e.g. IMDB. Second, IMDB in specific has tons of user-generated content--that's why we don't treat it as a reliable source. Those people generating that content aren't contributing to some minor work. It is a major work they are contributing to. Major works get italics. Even a site like Metacritic still has a ton of work to have transcribed scores for works (magazines) that are not online. So the notion that e.g. Metacritic is also undeserving of being called a major work annoys me to no end. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 07:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *::Sure, IMDB has effort behind it, but its not the type of "creative writing" effort that we normal see in books, magazines, newspapers and long-form websites. Its more a database first and foremost. And sure, maybe not the best example, but even with Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. those still are database sites first and foremost and thus are treated without Italics. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:::Which is a completely arbitrary distinction. These are still websites, still created by some amount of creative effort. A designer or several took the time to make it look, feel, and read the way it does. That's something to italicize, because it's still a publication. "It depends" -> No, it basically doesn't. If you are citing it for the fact it has published something of interested, then it is de facto a publication and should accordingly be italicized (much as SMC says below). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:::Fundamentally, someone still {{em|published}} the website. They put in the significant work to provide some information to the public. That e.g. Metacritic is a database does not mean there was no work done for it. The reason there are even database rights in e.g. the EU is because they recognize that the act of creating a database might have significant efforts associated with it. To go on and publish it? Yes, yes very much so it is a long work. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC) * Yes, always italicize. A) We have MOS guidance that indicates major works should be italiziced. Period and end of story. Arbitrary distinctions of "it functions as this in this context" simply aren't necessary, and are essentially sophistry where used. They add unnecessary complexity to our understanding of what it is that we are talking about when we're talking about a source. Where the MOS does not require items be italicized, we are free to do as we please, essentially, as this is a dedicated citation style on Wikipedia. B) It decreases the complexity of the templates. That's good for new and old hands alike. Further, we would have to hack around the arbitrary desires of some small subset of users to support non-italics. (Some of whom do so based on external style guidance. That is not our MOS. Our MOS about italics can be found at [[MOS:ITALICS]].) Who really shouldn't care. The templates take care of the styling, and are otherwise a tool so that we don't need to care. The simpler we make them accordingly, the better. As long as it doesn't affect a great many sensibilities (and I've seen little evidence that it does, not having been reverted on many, if any pages, where I've converted publisher to work or website), then we should italicize. This is molehill making. -[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 06:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *'''No, only if the name of a film, newspaper, magazine, etc.''' normally italicized. Wikipedia itself is a website and, as a wiki, is not italicized. IMBD is a viewer-edited site and is not italicized. Etc. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 09:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:If someone cited WP as a source (not on WP itself, obviously, per [[WP:CIRCULAR]]), then it should be italicized. How to cite the Manx cat article at another encyclopedia: "Manx Cat", ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', [additional cite details]. How to cite the corresponding article here: "Manx Cat", ''Wikipedia'', [addl. details]. What's happening here is confusion of citation style with other style, like how to refer to something in running text. As a wiki, a form of service and a user community, most other publications are apt to refer to Wikipedia without italics, because they're addressing it {{em|as}} a wiki (service/community), not as a publication. But even in running text it would be entirely proper to use italicized ''Wikipedia'' when treating it as a publication {{lang|la|per se}}, e.g. in a piece comparing ''Wikipedia'' versus ''Encarta'' accuracy and depth of coverage about Africa, or whatever. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC) * I don't think there are necessity of italicizing. References and something like that, can be written by bold texts or adjusting size. There is another way to do that kind of activity.-[[User:Sungancho951025|'''Sungancho951025''']] *'''It depends'''. If the title can be found, word-for-word, on the web site (not necessarily in the HTML title attribute) then it should be italicized. If no suitable title can be found on the website and a description is used instead, the text in the title position should be upright, without quotes, and with no special typographic treatment; a case can be made for enclosing it in [square brackets]. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 11:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:With no allowances for [[WP:COMMONNAME]] (policy)?&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *::Some purposes for providing a title are to allow a reader to search for the site in case of a dead link, and to confirm the reader has arrived at the correct site once a connection is made. If a description has to be used instead of an actual title, not putting the descriptive title in italics will put the reader on alert to not expect to find the exact text on the website. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *:::I'm sorry. This is a hypothetical on a hypothetical that can lead to confusion for the main point of this RfC. Can you give a specific example of what you mean? I know [[wgbh.org]] (with {{para|work}} pointing to any of [[WGBH-TV]]/[[WGBH Educational Foundation]]/[[WGBH (FM)]], depending on the context of the citation) was used in the past, but I don't think that is exactly what you mean.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Yes, italic, the same way we've always done it,''' for all actual website titles (which are sometimes, though increasingly rarely domain names in form), in citations. No sensible rationale has been provided for changing this. In short, continue to follow [[MOS:TITLES]]. This has nothing to do with whether it should be italicized in running prose; that depends on whether the site is primarily seen as a publication (''[[Salon (magazine)|Salon]]'', ''[[TechCrunch|TechCrunch]]'', or something else, like a service, shop, forum, software distribution channel, or just a corporate info page. {{em|In a citation}} it is and only can be a publication, in that context. WP does not and cannot cite anything that is not a publication (a published source), though of course TV news programs and other A/V content count as publications in this sense; the medium is irrelevant. The citation templates automatically italicize the work title; always have, and should continue to do so (while sub-works, like articles, go in quotation marks, same as newspaper articles, etc.). If you cite, say, Facebook's usage policy in an article about Facebook-related controversies, you are citing {{para|title|Terms of Service}}{{para|work|Facebook}}, a published source (a publication); you are not citing a corporation (that's the {{para|publisher}}, but we would not add it in this case, as redundant; similarly we do just {{para|work|The New York Times}}, not {{para|work|The New York Times}}{{para|publisher|The New York Times Company}}).<p>None of this is news; we've been over this many, many times before. The only reason this keeps coming up is a handful of individuals don't want to italicize the titles of online publications simply because they're online publications. I have no idea where they get the idea that e-pubs are magically different; they are not. In Jc3s5h's scenario, of a site that is reliable enough to cite but somehow has no discernible title (did you look in the {{tag|title}} in the page source? What do other sources call it?), the thing to do would be {{para|work|[Descriptive text in square brackets]}}; not square-bracketing it (whether it were italicized or not) would be falsifying citation data by making up a fake title; any kind of editorial change or annotation of this sort needs to be clear that it's Wikipedia saying something about the source, not actual information from the source itself. Another approach is to not use a citation template at all, and do a manual citation that otherwise makes it clear you are not using an actual title.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)</p> *'''What we're doing now is correct''' When citing a website as a [[creative work|work]] (e.g. {{para|work}}, {{para|website}}, {{para|newspaper}}, etc...), they are italicized . If they are cited as [[publisher]]s (via {{para|publisher}}), they are not. This is how it is, and this is how it should be. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:To clarify, are you advocating ignoring {{tq|do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as {{para|publisher}}, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations}} from [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]]? (This is an honest question, reading your comment I can see multiple answers to it.)&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *::[[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] says: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features." We don't have to make a black and white choice this RfC is presenting. {{para|work}} can be either italic or not, "depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features", per the MOS. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC) *:::That is refering to prose, not citations. Also, that quote is from further up in the [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]] section. [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] is specifically the last part of that section dealing with citations.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Sometimes''' The {{para|work}} field shows italic, the {{para|publisher}} doesn't and you choose which is the best option. SMcCandlish says this RfC is about a small minority of users who dislike italic website names; I have no idea. However I have seen other users say this is about something else, namely that when citing content using {{tld|cite web}} one should ''always'' use {{para|work}} and ''never'' use {{para|publisher}}. They arguue everything with a URL on the Internet is a publication and therefore italic. But this argument neatly covers over a complex reality that exists, it is not always right to italicize. Users need flexibility to control who is being credited and how it renders on the page without being forced to always italicize everything and anything with a URL. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC) ** Almost always the name of the website is the name of the (immediate) publisher; for example, ''CNN'' (the website; alternatively ''CNN.com'') has this at the bottom: {{tq|(C) 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.}} Now, you could make the choice to do {{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |date=1 January 2001 |website=CNN |first=First |last=Last}} or you can do {{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |date=1 January 2001 |website=CNN |publisher=CNN |first=First |last=Last}} or you can do {{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |date=1 January 2001 |website=CNN |publisher=TBS |first=First |last=Last}} The middle one duplicates information and is also how the vast majority of websites are provided. So that's why we say basically say never to use publisher. It is {{em|correct}} to say that everything on the internet is a publication (you use the "Publish" button to save things onwiki, right? It's a publication when you create a webpage and make it available to other people). Anyone arguing otherwise is clearly so far into edge case territory that they probably should not be using these templates for their citation(s)... --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC) **:The above is what I mean about a small number of users with a radical plan to eliminate usage of {{para|publisher}} when citing anything on the Internet, and always italicizing, be it WGBH-TV or IMDB. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 00:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC) **::{{re|GreenC}} I'm not following your argument here. Izno doesn't here appear to be arguing against {{para|publisher}} as such; but rather is noting that in the ''typical'' case it will be redundant with the work ({{para|website}}). I am a firm proponent of providing publisher information (cf. the recent contentious RfC on that issue) and even I very much agree that writing, in effect, that {{tq|CNN publishes ''CNN''}} or that {{tq|''The New York Times'' is published by The New York Times Company}} is pretty pointless. And conversely, I notice some of the outspoken opponents of providing publisher information are in this RfC arguing in favour of the consistent use of italics for the work. I absolutely believe there are some cases where it would be correct to give {{para|publisher}} instead of {{para|website}} (and obviously there are many where giving both would be appropriate); but in terms of the question in ''this'' RfC, I think Izno is correct to dismiss those as edge cases that do not have a siignificant bearing on whether or not to italicize {{para|website}}/{{para|work}}/etc.{{pb}}But your original message caught my attention for a different reason: it implies that there is a need for local (per-article) judgement on italicizing or not the {{para|work}}/{{para|website}}/{{para|newspaper}}/etc. Are you saying there is a CITEVAR issue here? I am sympathetic to the view that stylistic consistency should not be attempted imposed through technical means (whether by bot or by template) if the style choice is at all controversial (in those cases, seek consistency through softer means, such as style guides). But I can't quite see that italization of the work in itself is in any way controversial, and this RfC doesn't affect the option to choose between {{para|website}}, {{para|publisher}}, or both in those cases when those are otherwise valid options (one can disagree on when exactly those are valid options; but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that such instances do exist). I, personally, wouldn't have batted an eye if you cited something on cnn.com or nyt.com that was part of the corporate information (investor relations, say) rather than the news reporting as {{tlx|cite web|publisher{{=}}CNN|url{{=}}…}}. Others would disagree, of course, but that issue is not affected by whether or not {{para|work}} is italicized. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC) ** "The {{para|work}} field shows italic, the {{para|publisher}} doesn't and you choose which is the best option." No; read the templates' documentation, [[Help:CS1]], and [[MOS:TITLES]]. The work title is required; the publisher name is optional, only added when not redundant, and rarely added at all for various publications types (e.g. newspapers and journals; most websites don't need it either since most of them have a company name almost the same as the website name). No one gets to omit {{para|work}} as some kind of "give me non-italicized electronic publications or give me death" [[WP:GAMING]] move. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italicize work/website''' when title is present, as we do now. As other people have already stated, this is not qualitatively different than a chapter in a book or an article in a journal or magazine, all of which follow the same convention of italicizing the larger collection that the title appears in. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) * '''Yes italics''', no change from how we currently cite. [[User:Cavalryman V31|Cavalryman V31]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman V31|talk]]) 21:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC). * '''Italics''' (ideally using {{para|&lt;{{var|periodical}}>}} in a citation template) '''are required''' when citing any published work, which, by definition, includes all websites. We have ''direct'' [[WP:MOST]] (a [[WP:MOS]] [[WP:GUIDES|guideline]]) guidance on this topic at [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]], which is directly backed up by three [[WP:POLICIES|policies]] ([[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NOT]]). Quoting from there: {{Talk quote block|{{anchor|ITALICWEBCITE}}When any website is [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cited as a source]], it is necessarily being treated as a publication,{{efn|Relevant policies (emphasis in originals): * [[WP:Verifiability]]: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.... Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been '''published'''.... '''Unpublished''' materials are not considered reliable.... Editors may ... use material from ... respected mainstream publications. [Details elided.] Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." * [[WP:No original research]]: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material – such as facts, allegations, and ideas – for which no reliable, published sources exist." * [[WP:What Wikipedia is not]]: New research must be "published in other [than the researchers' own] venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications".}} and in that context takes italics. Our [[Help:Citation style 1|citation templates]] do this automatically; do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as {{para|publisher}}, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations. {{notelist}}}} :To be clear, this has nothing to do with how websites should be presented in prose and only refers to ''citations''.{{parabr}}Also, there is clearly ambiguity on this point as evidenced by the range of opinions on this matter presented here, but the purpose of this RfC is to attempt to gain clear community consensus in support of our established guidelines and policies. Once gained, we can then clarify the instructions as much as possible so that this consensus is clearly communicated and easily accessible to all editors. The issue right now is that many, many people are (reasonably) misunderstanding the existing guidance on this point.{{parabr}}Up until a few weeks ago, I was included in the group of editors that was misunderstanding these guidelines. I urge everyone to read the above guideline carefully. Try to look at it without any existing bias and seriously consider changing your opinion <small>(not an easy task, I know!)</small> if there is a conflict with the above. Thanks,&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 22:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC) :*All of that text was added earlier this month with the stated aim of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=895238398&oldid=895234473 dissuading editors from de-italicising in cite template parameters]. I can't see how it can now be cited as proof that the practice is disallowed, any more than if I or someone else had chosen to add guidelines supporting the practice (or went and added them now). Nor do I see that those policies directly support the idea at all. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 23:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) :*: It isn't my responsibility to defend {{u|SMcCandlish}}'s addition there (or to dispute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=898280164&oldid=897282343 your removal of it]), but my interpretation of what he did with those edits was to bring the points into one place so as to clarify existing convention. I don't agree that this represents a change in the spirit of the MOS.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) :*::Yep. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics'''—but if the website lacks a name independent of its publisher, then there's no need to invent a name for a citation just to fill in that parameter of the citation template; the publisher in {{para|publisher}} will be sufficient. 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Imzadi1979|Imzadi1979]] ([[User talk:Imzadi1979#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Imzadi1979|contribs]]) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> *:Already covered this above, twice. Can you provide an example of an actual reliable-source website with no name? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *Per [[WP:CITESTYLE]], "nearly any consistent [(i.e. internally within an article)] style may be used … [including] APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook." Unless we want to make an exception to that like we do for dates due to special circumstances, this is really a moot matter. If this discussion only regards how this specific template will render such things, then that needs to be made clear. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]^{&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]}<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 01:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *:This is at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1]], so it's already clear what the scope is. If you're at an article is consistently using manual citations in some wacky style that, say, puts work titles in small-caps and italicizes author surnames (or whatever), then that same style would be applied in that article to electronic publications. (That said, any citation style that confusing is a prime candidate for a change-of-citation-style discussion on the article's talk page, per [[WP:CITEVAR]]). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics, with some caveats'''. Websites are works, so should generally be italicised where there's an official website title. Where there isn't, or where an unofficial title is being used, they should not be italicised. Publishers of websites (eg the BBC) should never be italicised. All of this simply follows the general principles for all forms of citation, and I disagree that the question of whether there's significant creative input into the work is a factor. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 02:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC) *: You're almost there. To follow on your example, what is the name of the website BBC.co.uk? Isn't it "BBC" (or "BBC News", depending on the actual page) and therefore shouldn't citations from bbc.co.uk have italicized {{para|work|<nowiki>[[BBC]]</nowiki>}} or {{para|work|<nowiki>[[BBC News]]</nowiki>}}, depending on context?&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 03:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC) :::There isn't a single website name. www.bbc.co.uk has no obvious title; www.bbc.co.uk/news is ''BBC News''; www.bbc.co.uk/sport is ''BBC Sport''; and so on. The publisher is the BBC. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 04:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC) ::::Actually, in this example, there would be just one website, the one suffixed with the [[top-level domain]]. That is the work. Anything that comes after the slash is a "chapter" in that work, or a "department". If there is a prefix like news.bbc.co.uk (that is to say a subdomain), then that should be listed as the work, since such subdomains have their own hierarchy. I believe this treatment corresponds to both the technical and the functional aspects. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.130|72.43.99.130]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.130|talk]]) 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''', how we've always done it (or should have always done it). [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 16:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC) *'''It depends''' [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]] says that only websites with paper equivalents (''The New York Times'', ''Nature'', etc) and "news sites with original content" should be italicized. Personally, however, I never italicize news websites that don't have paper equivalent or aren't e-magazines (BBC, CNN, etc). [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 10:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC) *: That is true for mentions in the prose, but not for citations. [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]] also says (at [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]]) {{tq|When any website is [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cited as a source]], it is necessarily being treated as a publication, and in that context takes italics.}} (See [[#ITALICWEBCITE|above]] for the full quote and direct references to policies backing it up.) This is very clear guidance on the subject.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *::Looks like it was removed as an undiscussed addition, also [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] redirects to general [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles]], not to specific section. That addition, if proposed, should gain consensus first. Anyway personally I don't see a compelling reason to format ref names differently compared to prose. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 22:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *:::Yes, it was removed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&diff=898332096&oldid=898330963 see below]), though I have a feeling the removal will also be disputed (hopefully it doesn't fork this discussion unnecessarily). The text is [[#ITALICWEBCITE|directly quoted above as well]] and it is directly supported by quotes from policies. References have different formatting from prose for all kinds of reasons. Our personal preferences aren't really supposed to enter into it when guidance is clear.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 22:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Oh, and the shortcut currently points to the full [[WP:MOST]] page because the anchor was also removed. I'll have to think about whether it needs to be retargeted or not. Maybe here at [[#ITALICWEBCITE]] (at least while the discussion is ongoing)?&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *'''It depends.''' Per comments above by Masem and Randy Kryn. As an article writer here, I'm looking to ensure there's consistency between what appears in the text and in a citation: I wouldn't italicise [[AllMusic]], [[IMDb]], [[Metacritic]], [[Rock's Backpages]], etc, in prose, so it seems fundamentally wrong to italicise those names when they appear in a source. And not that we would be citing it in many (any?) articles, but Wikipedia itself is a good example. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC) *: This is directly contrary to [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] (see [[#ITALICWEBCITE|directly above]]). Citations can be (and often are) formatted differently than running prose.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *::It's only "directly contrary" to MOS:ITALICWEBCITE because SMcCandlish bloody [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=895238398&oldid=895234473 added the text there on 2 May]!! [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *:::It is probably not a good idea [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=898280164&oldid=897282343 to outright remove it] while we are in the middle of this discussion. Any chance you'll self-revert?&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *::::I'm afraid not, and I think it's not a good idea that the text was added there. After all, you're repeatedly citing it as an MOS guideline supported by policy, when in fact another editor has simply invented the guideline. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 23:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) * '''Italics'''. For purposes of citation, it's a publication, even if it's online. Putting it in Roman instead would make the publication name blend into the other metadata elements, making it harder to read. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;[[User:Goldenshimmer|Goldenshimmer]]&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜[[User:Goldenshimmer/T|T]]/[[User:Goldenshimmer/C|C]] 18:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) * Leaning toward '''Italics''': It should be as easy as possible to write citations, and people shouldn't be gaming the system with tricks for special font formatting or using {{para|publisher}} instead of {{para|work}} when they cite some websites (which can also cause metadata to be mixed up). If I find something on the [[CNN]] website, I should be able to just use "{{mxt|{{!}}website{{=}}<nowiki>[[CNN]]</nowiki>}}", and the same for citing the website for [[ABC News]], [[BBC]], [[NPR]], [[PBS]], [[WGN-TV]], [[Associated Press]], [[Reuters]], [[Metacritic]], [[Rotten Tomatoes]], [[Box Office Mojo]], [[Salon.com|Salon]], [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]], [[HuffPost]], [[The New York Times]], etc. Writing citations should be dirt simple, and these sort of references are ''extremely'' common. If we don't do that, it seems difficult to figure out what rule we would follow instead. (e.g., if it seems like the name of an organization, don't italicize it, and if it is a content aggregator without original content, don't italicize it? – that seems unlikely to be advice that editors can consistently follow in practice.) —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 05:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *:No one is gaming the system. [[Template:Cite web]] allows both work= and publisher= parameters, depending on source, and lists some websites (National Football League, International Narcotics Control Board, etc) in straight format, not italics. This is because CNN, International Narcotics Control Board or National Football League are not the same type of work as ''Encyclopedia of Things'', ''Nature'', etc. They are authority organs rather than paper publishers and this is consistent with [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]]. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 09:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *::Except that those "authority organs" ''publish'' a website. When a ''publication'' is cited, it is by definition a ''major work'' and therefore take italics per [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]] (and the policy cited in [[#ITALICWEBCITE]], before it was removed). Using {{para|publisher}} instead of {{para|work}} when citing those publications ''just to change formatting'' conflates them and pollutes the usefulness of those separate fields.<small> (Semi-off-topic question, is there a page where the metadata created by the citation templates is explained? Having that information explicitly spelled out somewhere might be useful to this discussion as well.)</small>&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *:::Per current guideline, only "online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". Websites in general are not listed among "Major works". Otherwise various organizations (UN, NBA, etc), referenced in corresponding official websites, would also be treated as "works", which is nonsensical. The change of that guideline part apparently begs for talkpage discussion, because it was reverted. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 11:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *::::You are quoting a point that ''only'' applies to running prose. No one is disputing that (the bit about how the guideline applies to prose). Anything that is a published work, which includes every website, and is used as a citation, which requires complying with [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], and [[WP:NOT]], qualifies as a "major work" and is therefore italicized per [[WP:MOST]]. You are conflating the "various organizations" with the websites they publish, which are ''published works'' when used in a citation as described earlier.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *:::::WP:MOST makes no distinction between running prose and references for that matter (which is why {{para|publisher}} does not italicize by default, unlike {{para|work}} which does). Also, treating prose and refs differently may introduce [[WP:CREEP]] and is counter-intuitive. Italicizing all website names through default italicizing ref parameter may look like making things easier, but [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|if it ain't broke, don't fix it]]. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *::{{ec}} *:::[[Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS]] may be helpful. The table there is generally accurate but a bit out of date (newer preprint templates not mentioned, etc). For the purposes of cs1|2, {{tlx|citation}} when any of the {{para|work}} aliases have assigned values, {{tlx|cite journal}}, {{tlx|cite magazine}}, {{tlx|cite news}}, and {{tlx|cite web}}, [[Module:Citation/CS1]] treats these as 'journal' objects. Pertinent to this discussion, {{para|publisher}} is not made part of the COinS metadata for journal objects. When editors write cs1|2 citations with 'website names' in {{para|publisher}} to avoid italics, those who consume the citations via the metadata do not get that important piece of information. This is a large part of the rationale for the pending change that requires periodical cs1 templates to have a value assigned to a {{para|work alias}} (see [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 57#removing apostrophe markup in periodical and publisher parameters|this discussion]] and the [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 57#4. add error message for periodical templates without periodical parameter|implementation examples]]). *:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *::::Thanks, this is helpful. I'll dig into it when I have some more time.&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small>^{[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span>}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]}</small> 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *::My understanding is that the identification of the published work is considered more fundamental, at least for metadata purposes, than the name of the publisher of the work. The guidelines say that identifying the publisher is unnecessary if it is basically just redundant or obvious once the name of the work is known. This is completely straightforward when the work is ''[[The New York Times]]'' and the publisher is [[The New York Times Company]]. When publishers use their organization name as their website's name, it does seems a bit more awkward, but in my view, that what ''they have chosen'' to do{{snd}} they chose what title to use for their published work, and we should just follow their choice. The [[CNN]] organization has chosen to entitle its website (i.e., its published work) as "''CNN''" (using italics here not because they do that, which they don't, but rather because that is how we ordinarily format the titles of works, and [[MOS:TM]] says not to imitate logo styling). I think it is too complicated to second-guess this choice they have made. If we want to cite their published work, and they have chosen the title "''CNN''" for their publication, we should just refer to their published work as "''CNN''". Otherwise, we would need to make some judgment call in every case between whether the name of the website seems more like the name of their publication or seems more like the name of their organization, and do something different in the two cases. I think that's too complicated. It would get even more complicated if we also start trying to do something different depending on whether they are publishing original content or not (e.g. [[Metacritic]]), and I don't even understand the rationale for not wanting to italicize some names{{snd}} some of those sites ''are'' publishing original content, not just using what has already been published elsewhere. Anyhow, my understanding is that the intent of the parameter names is not primarily for font formatting. Choosing to fill in different parameters for font formatting purposes is what I referred to as "gaming the system", because I believe the parameter names were not really intended for that purpose. The parameter names are {{para|work}} and {{para|publisher}}, not {{para|italicname}} and {{para|uprightname}}. I suppose I might not object if someone wants the templates to support some additional parameter type like {{para|uprightsitename}}, but I think that's too complicated to expect it to be broadly understood and applied consistently. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC) *:::I've noticed that when pointed to [[WP:MOST]], italics supporters say it doesn't apply to refs, only to prose, but when this guideline suits their agenda, they say websites are "major works". Either one does not treat websites as "major works", because current WP:MOST does not apply to them (in which case they remain upright) or he/she respects current WP:MOST, which does not advise to italicize all websites. Seriously, [[double standards]]. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]^{[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]} 07:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' per {{U|SMcCandlish}}, and as I'm not seeing any compelling reason to make such a tiresomely complicated yet small change throughout all our citations. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) _{[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]}</span> 19:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' – I will never understand the distinction people try to make between online sources and print publications. Maybe that made sense in the 1990s but increasingly publications originate as web-only, or previously print publications cease printing and move to all-digital. I also fail to see the problem with italicizing a domain name if that's the best "title" for the publication. If a website includes the material you are citing, obviously it is serving as a publication and, as such, should be italicized. It also seems like it would circumvent a LOT of edit wars to simply declare all websites are "major works" and their names should be italicized as such in article prose, because the current weirdness of "well what {{em|kind}} of website is it?/what types of information does it contain/provide?" is such a stupid time sink. And that in turn would help avoid the whole "do we italicize website titles in citations?" debate, too. —[[User:Joeyconnick|Joeyconnick]] ([[User talk:Joeyconnick|talk]]) 20:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''': I think the names of websites should be italicized. Right now we are only talking about italicizing them in citations, but I think in the long run we will italicize them at all times. Like other things we italicize, they are named works with a publisher and subparts. This is not now common but such things move slowly and websites are relatively new. For now, I would favor italicizing the names of websites in citations/references and in external links. They are published sources.{{pb}}I'd be completely comfortable saying that the name of the website is ''CNN'' or ''CNN.com'' which is published by CNN. CNN is a company which has a TV channel, a network, a publisher and a website. It publishes a bunch of TV programs and [[CNN Films|films]]. It also publishes a website called ''CNN'' or ''CNN.com''. When we cite something from that website it should be italicized.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 23:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics'''. In CS1, sources such as websites are italicized, parts of sources such as webpages are quoted, and publishers such as domain owners are in plain text. This has been the consensus, and seems to be working well. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC) *'''Generally italics, but it depends''' - per {{u|SMcCandlish}}, but there are times that italics aren't needed and shouldn't be ''required'' --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC) **Per SMcCandlish? Can you double-check that? I believe SMcCandlish was ''italicize'' (always), not ''it depends''. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 13:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC) *** It depends in that some online entities are not italicized in running prose, being generally of the character of a service or some other non-publication, in typical-use context. If we cite them in a source/reference citation, however, we are only ever citing them as one kind of thing: a publication (a published source), so {{em|in a citation}} the italics belong there. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 17:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC) **** I thought it was implicitly understood that this was talking about what to do in citations. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' per SMcCandlish. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 06:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' When I cite something I read on https://www.nbc.com, I am not citing the network because the network is on television. Something I saw on television is not my source. I am citing the website which is a periodical and just so happens to share a name with the network. The publisher is "[[NBCUniversal]]". The "website=" is the proper parameter to use in this example. I don't see why non-periodical should be treated differently. They are a body of creative work and should be italicized similar to a book, a television series, or art. Misusing "publisher=" is not acceptable no matter how long that has been the status quo. Rotten Tomatoes is published by [[Fandango]]. AllMusic is published by [[RhythmOne]]. &lt;publisher> is different from &lt;work>.---&nbsp;[[User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#CC2200">Coffee</span>]]<nowiki/>and[[Special:Contributions/Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#663366">crumbs</span>]] 04:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC) *I've only just been made aware of this RfC, so I'm afraid I'm weighing in late. '''No italics for non-periodicals''' When we cite ''The New York Times'', we give ''The New York Times'' in the footnote, and not NYTimes.com. Because NYTimes.com is merely a delivery system. What we're citing is the news-gathering expertise of ''The New York Times''. So likewise when we cite NBC News, the website NBC.com is just a delivery system. We're not citing the IT guys and website administrator — we're citing the professional journalists and editors of NBC News. :Same with institutions: The British Board of Film Classification is not a print/online book, magazine or newspaper. No one italicizes it or Dept. of Commerce or The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why would we? And Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo are databases, not books or periodicals, and likewise are never italicized, by themselves or by their Wikipedia articles. What's the upside of Wikipedia using an eccentric style? :Modern Language Association (MLA) italicizes websites in footnotes. However, neither Associated Press (which eschews italics for quote marks) nor the Chicago Manual of Style (as explained [http://www.bibme.org/citation-guide/chicago/website/ here] italicizes websites. (There are about 16 or 17 citation styles in more-or-less regular use, incidentally, if we really want to go through them all.) So it's not like there's any consensus in the broader world outside Wikipedia for italicizing websites. Differentiating between books / periodicals and organizations / institutions / databases is more in line with the real world and offers clarity and specificity, two things an encyclopedia at its best provides.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 05:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC) *'''''Italics.''''' Maintain the present status quo and cleanup where needed. The [[Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 29#RfC: Use of italics in article titles|italics debate goes way, way back]], and there have always been some editors who have fought the trends. The debate has been reduced significantly over the last ten years, and Wikipedia (the project) and ''Wikipedia'' (the reference work) have been much improved for it. May the [[May the Bird of Paradise Fly up Your Nose|Bird of Paradise]] fly up the nose of those few editors who still can't or won't get with the program. Best to all''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:95%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>09:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)</small> ::It would be more productive to actually address the point about why we don't cite "NYTimes.com:" than to engage in ad hominen attacks on those who disagree with you. As for "following trends", an encyclopedia does what's best for clarity and specificity, regardless of passing "trends".--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC) :::Hey, [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]], been awhile. Good to talk with you again''!'' As for what specific points to address, please see the opinion and other posts by [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], as I agree with it on these issues. So if you must beat someone up about it, that's the editor to mangle, because it (SMcCandlish) is always throbbingly controversial. !>) By following trends, I did not mean "passing trends", but instead those lasting ones that ultimately resulted in how external resources and Wikipedia apply the use of italics in the present day. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:95%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>01:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)</small> ::And I think it's you who needs to "get with the program". You've linked to an RfC on the use of italics in article titles, but the issue here is whether titles of sites that are not italicised in regular text should be italicised in citations. You appear to be a fan of italicisation for the sake of it. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 16:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC) :::I'm a little confused since I'm saying just the opposite, as a matter of fact. If we're citing a periodical or book, whether online or printed, yes, italicization is standard. But if we're citing a company, then no. The argument that we should cite ''NBC.com'' for an NBC News citation or ''NYTimes.com'' for a ''The New York Times'' citation seems eccentric and non-standard. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 00:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC) :::::You are misstating my point. The news website that belongs to [[NBCUniversal]] is not named ''NBC.com''. It is called ''NBC News'' and is published by a division [[NBC News|of the same name]]. I would never put a .anything outside the <code><nowiki>|URL= </nowiki></code>. Two entities that belong to the same company can share the same name. In this case, there are two entities of different types: a publication (''NBC News'') and a publisher ([[NBC News]] division of a parent company [[NBCUniversal]]). We disambiguate them by italics. Using the proper parameter also allows it to be machine-readable. ---&nbsp;[[User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#CC2200">Coffee</span>]]<nowiki/>and[[Special:Contributions/Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#663366">crumbs</span>]] 09:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC) ::::@[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]]: Pretty sure that Editor [[User:JG66|JG66]] was not replying to you (who did not link to an rfc) but to Editor [[User:Paine Ellsworth|Paine Ellsworth]]. I am removing the indent that you added with {{diff|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1|904098028|904071195|this edit}}. ::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC) :::::[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]]: Sorry, I could have made it clearer. It is as [[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] says. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC) :::Thank you, [[User:JG66|JG66]], for thoroughly misunderstanding what I wrote, although that's probably as much my fault as yours. I think I've been with the program for many years, as I've been involved in many italics discussions and have learned much about the changes over the years in external style guides as they pertained to the applications of italics. I've always sought to improve Wikipedia's italic stylings in line with those external resources. The link I gave was just an illustration, an example, a gentle reminder that before then and since, editors have worked hard to get the policy and guidelines updated to their present not-too-shabby condition where italics are concerned. As for being some kind of fan of italics just for the sake of it, I really could care less. My only concern is whether or not this encyclopedia is consistent with other reference works in its application of italics. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:95%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>01:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)</small> ::::Thanks for the shout-out, [[User:Paine Ellsworth|Paine Ellsworth]]. I've been away mostly since it's just these types of discussion that cause me to. As I'd mentioned, the widely used [[Chicago Manual of Style]], for one, does not italicized websites, so this issue is ''not'' a question of Wikipedia being 'consistent with other reference works" — it ''is'' consistent with other reference works. Just not the one you prefer (MLA). ::::There is a valid, extremely useful distinction to be made between books / periodicals and institutions, companies and other organizations. I find the always-italics reductivism perplexing. By the arguments presented here ("I'm not citing NBC News but ''NBC.com''), then virtually ''nothing'' would ever be non-italicized, since all companies have websites. By these arguments, we'd never cite the British Board of Film Classification but only ''bbfc.co.uk''. We'd never cite Box Office Mojo but ''boxofficemojo.com''. We'd never cite Johnson & Johnson but ''jnj.com''. I think most people would find this eccentric and anti-intuitive. NBC News is not italicized, and placing it in a "website=" field that would italicize it and Dept. of Commerce and Johnson & Johnson, etc. goes against logic and common sense.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 12:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC) ::::: That's more of a discussion of how to use the template. In those cases, you would use both website/work and publisher in the template. publisher=Johnson & Johnson |website=jnj.com. It would really be the same if they published a monthly journal of their own. publisher=Johnson & Johnson |work= JJ's Journal [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 14:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC) ::::::jnj.com is not the ''name'' of the website; it is a shortened URL which a user can type into almost any browser address bar. The website has a name which happens to be the same as the name of the company that publishes it. So it would be <code><nowiki>|website=Johnson & Johnson |publisher=Johnson & Johnson</nowiki></code>. But in the same way we would not write <code><nowiki>|work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company</nowiki></code>, we would not list the Johnson & Johnson twice. Therefore, we arrive at simply <code><nowiki>|website=Johnson & Johnson</nowiki></code>. I will give you another example to demonstrate my point. NASA has many website including https://images.nasa.gov/. When citing this webiste as a source, I would not use <code><nowiki>|website=images.nasa.gov |publisher=NASA</nowiki></code> because the website has a name ''NASA Image and Video Library''. This is a website and not a physical library. Several NASA centers contribute to it and is entirely contained online. Again here, the name of the publisher is superfluous so we also arrive at simply <code><nowiki>|website=NASA Image and Video Library</nowiki></code>. ---&nbsp;[[User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#CC2200">Coffee</span>]]<nowiki/>and[[Special:Contributions/Coffeeandcrumbs|<span style="color:#663366">crumbs</span>]] 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC) *'''''Italics.''''' While there are some inconsistencies with some common usage, I think most of the issue is the misuse of the template. We should be trying to use both work/website and publisher so that we are completely informative. Italicizing the work distinguishes the two nicely when reading. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 14:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC) ::I think when the citation already links to jnj.com that it's redundant to additionally say ''jnj.com''. It addition to being redundant, this would simply add links to a commercial concern. What is the user-benefit of helping a company by adding twice as many links to it as the citation needs? --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 14:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC) :::Maybe it's important to know (for inexperienced editors) or at least gently remember (the rest of us) that using the markup for italics in the {{para|website}} parameter eliminates the italics in the end result. For example, when one uses <code><nowiki>|website=''jnj.com''</nowiki></code> in the citation code, it comes out upright, as in:&nbsp; <small>jnj.com</small>. So is the solution you seek 1) to eliminate the italics in the parameter or 2) to educate editors in its correct usage? '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:95%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)</small> ::::I completely agree with you, [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|Paine]] — I was, in fact, doing that for things like Rotten Tomatoes that are not italicized. But I believe I read somewhere in this discussion that such Wiki markup in templates adversely affects the metadata. If that's incorrect, then, yeah, I think we're reaching a middle ground. ::::Another possibility is to have a template called something like "Cite company" or "Cite organization", where NBC, Rotten Tomatoes etc. would not be italicized. But that's probably a separate discussion.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 22:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' per SMC. [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk:Cthomas3|talk]]) 05:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' Normally we use "publisher" for something like NASA. "website" is only ever used for a uri, e.g. <code><nowiki>|website=astrology.org.au</nowiki></code> If there is a publisher, website is not used; it is avoided whenever possible. "work" is never used for a newspaper; "newspaper" is always used instead 9and gives you italics), and we don't bother with publisher for newspapers, journals, magazines etc "work" is also generally avoided. However, for a TV site like CNN, we use publisher.<code><nowiki>|publisher=CNN</nowiki></code> [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC) *:{{tq|"website" is only ever used for a uri}} – this is simply not true; read the discussion above, especially the explanations by {{U|SMcCandlish}}. {{para|website}} is an alias of {{para|work}}, and should be used in the same way, as it is in citation-generating templates like {{tlx|GRIN}}, {{tlx|WCSP}}, etc. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics''' per SMC. I entirely agree that editors should not be "abus[ing] unrelated citation parameters, such as |publisher=, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations" because I see it happen all too often, and I don't think this should have been removed from [[MOS:T]] either. I don't understand why some editors will go out of their way to avoid using a parameter that italicises something as if it's "wrong". <b>[[User:Ss112|<span style="color: #FF6347;">Ss</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Ss112|<span style="color: #1E90FF;">112</span>]]</small></b> 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC) :::Well, because it indeed might ''be'' wrong. Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, is not italicized.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 00:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC) ===Discussion and alternatives=== *My impression is that much of the time when people list {{para|website}} in citations, they really mean {{para|newspaper}} (for newspapers that publish online copies of their stories), {{para|magazine}} (ditto), {{para|publisher}} (for the name of the company that owns the website rather than the name that company has given to that specific piece of the company's web sites), or even {{para|via}} (for sites like Legacy.com that copy obituaries or press releases from elsewhere). Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized; publisher names should not. Once we get past those imprecisions in citation, and use {{para|website}} only for the names of web sites that are not really something else, I think it will be of significantly less importance how we format those names. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *:I agree that people frequently use the wrong parameter and that this should be cleaned up, but it doesn't really address the root issue here. There's a tiny minority of editors engaged in kind of "style war" against italicizing the titles of online publications, and it's not going to stop until this or another RfC puts the matter to rest. There is nothing mystically special about an electronic publication that makes it not take italics for major works and quotation marks for minor works and sub-works, like every other form of publications, even TV series/episodes, music albums/song, and other A/V media. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC) *::We might have common ground: I don't think any of us disagrees that books and periodicals, whether in print or online, should be italicized: ''[[Salon (magazine)|Salon]]'', ''[[Newsweek]]'', etc. It's when the cite is to an organization like the [[British Board of Film Classification]] or [[NBC News]] or [[Rotten Tomatoes]] that are ''not'' books or periodicals, and are not normally italicized.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC) *:::It's been a couple of days, and this seems the correct section, "Discussion and alternatives", to talk about middle ground. [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|Paine Ellsworth]] suggested that for non-italicized companies and organizations, like [[NBC News]] and [[Rotten Tomatoes]], that we simply do wiki-markup to de-italicize the website= field. Or, we could have an additional template called something like "Cite company" or "Cite organization", where NBC, Rotten Tomatoes etc. would not be italicized. Surely a workable, practical compromise can be reached, as is the goal of consensus. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) *::::Also — and as a journalist this strikes me as obvious, though it just occurred to me this might not be so to the general public — there is a critical distinction between publications (italicized), which fall under the rules of journalistic standards, practices and ethics, and companies and organizations like Sears or Rotten Tomatoes or Amtrak (not italicized), which are not obligated to follow journalistic standards, practices and ethics.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC) *:::::Sorry, but no. You think a reference to something published on the ''[[NBC News]]'' website should not use italics? How about ''[[The National Enquirer]]'' and ''[[The Daily Mirror]]'' and the ''[[Weekly World News]]''? (Those publications don't seem to feel obliged to "follow journalistic standards, practices and ethics", so should we not use italics for those too?) Are you suggesting we use italics as an indicator of reliability? —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 12:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC) *::::::You're making my point: There is ''no'' one-size-fits-all solution, because publishing, broadcasting and the web are, like humans, complex. Saying ''everything'' should be italicized is just such an impractical, one-size-fits-all solution.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 00:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC) <s>*'''Wait: An editor in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to ''his'' preferred version ''after'' this discussion began?''' That editor, who unilaterally did this on 22 May, needs to restore the status quo to what it was ''as of 18 May when this discussion began''. We don't just change MOS pages without consensus, and the fact we're discussing this ''shows'' there's no consensus. We don't just change the MOS, then come back to a discussion and say, "Well, look what the MOS says, I'm right!" Jesus Christ. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)</s> *:Instead of hyperbole, perhaps it would be a good thing for you to: *:#identify the editor whom you accuse of this malfeasance *:#identify which of the many {{tq|MOS pages}} was modified *:#link to the actual edit *:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC) *::<s>It already was identified: At least one other editor, JG66, noted this SMcCandlish edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&diff=898278605&oldid=898277651 here] not long after it happened, and somehow the comment got buried and missed in this avalanche. JG66 even included the link to the actual edit, which is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=895238398&oldid=895234473 this one]. *::Just want to note that hyperbole means "extreme exaggeration". Stating factually that an editor in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to his preferred version after this discussion began is literally not hyperbole.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 17:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)</s> *:::Editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&diff=895238398&oldid=895234473 SMcCandlish's edit] to [[MOS:TITLE]] occurred on 2 May 2019. Isn't that 16ish days before the 18 May 2019 start-date of this RfC? Perhaps the claim that {{tq|[an] editor [SMcCandlish] in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to ''his'' preferred version ''after'' this discussion began}} (emphasis in original) is not correct? *:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC) *::::My apologies: Both the other editor and I must have scanned "2 May" as "22 May" in our minds. I've struck out my comments. *::::'''That said''', the 2 May edit still appears to have been done unilaterally without discussion. One editor "clarified" the MOS to his personal preference without talk-page consensus. That still is not right — and it remains a fact that italicizing EVERYTHING, even company names that are never italicized, is an extremist eccentricity not in mainstream footnoting.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 17:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) ===Closing=== There have been no edits on this topic in the last ten days. Is there any objection if I refer this to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure]]? Thank you.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 00:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC) :Are you in a hurry? If you force a conclusion to this rfc tomorrow, nothing would happen here because we is still have to conclude the [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC on linking title to PMC|pmc rfc]]. You might as well let this one run its full time. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ::{{ping|Trappist the monk}} Any objection to closing now? I'm not clear on why there is an advantage to wait until the pmc rfc is ready to close. Thanks,&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 22:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC) :::I did not mean to imply that this rfc closure should wait until the pmc rfc is closed. I did not / do not see any need for an early closure. Now that the rfc has expired, of course it can be closed. Don't expired rfcs end up on some list somewhere to be formally closed? :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC) ::::Close requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&diff=903804327&oldid=903795223 here].&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 02:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC) :::::That was a full month ago. Just adding a comment here to prevent auto-archiving. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 02:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC) :::::Another two weeks. Just adding another comment here to prevent auto-archiving. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC) ---- :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!--Template:Rfc bottom--></div> === Follow up discussion - scope of application of italics in citations RFC === <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1579271724}} All, based on the last RFC where I determined a consensus ([[#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment]]), I am holding a subsequent discussion to definitively determine how widely this should be applied, whether to all citation templates or a more limited scope. Please provide your thoughts below. I will close this discussion after 30 days. <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]}</span> 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) '''Note: This is not a discussion to re-debate whether italicisation should occur, as that was already determined in the previous discussion, but to determine where this should apply only.''' <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]}</span> 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) The following pages have been notified: *[[Help talk:Citation Style 2]] *[[Template talk:Citation]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Citation templates]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]] *[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] *[[WP:CENT]] —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) <s>14:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)</s> (initial list) 11:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (+WP:CENT) This RfC arises from [[User_talk:Steven_Crossin#Requesting_help_re%3A_an_RfC_close|this discussion]] at closer's talk page. —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ====Follow up responses==== *'''clarification needed''' - I assume we are just talking about CS1 template here. If so, a lot depends on which citation style our CS1 template is based upon. Different styles present websites in different ways (some italicized, some not). So which style guide is the template based on? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{ping|Blueboar}} The exact question is whether the earlier discussion applied to all references to websites, whether it applied to something lesser (e.g. as used in CS1/2), or something even smaller than that. I find it hard to believe that it would be something lesser than CS1/2 based on the discussion and context, but someone may argue such. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Italics in cs 1/2 templates''' - per the RFC discussion above. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *{{tl|Cite web}} only. The location of the discussion, [[Help:Citation Style 1]], put editors on notice that the RFC only applied to that style. {{tl|Cite web}} is the only template in that style I know of that calls for giving the title of the website as such. Furthermore, to avoid false metadata {{tl|Cite web}} should only be used for periodicals, so it should not be used for other websites. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{tq|Furthermore, to avoid false metadata {{tl|Cite web}} should only be used for periodicals, so it should not be used for other websites.}} This is a different discussion. Let's keep on topic. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *CS 1/2 only, but '''only web site / work, not publisher'''. Some discussion since the first RFC has attempted to extend the italicization to publishers (that is, organizations, not collective groups of web pages) in the absence of a web site / work parameter, and that is incorrect. This should only apply to CS1 and CS2 per [[WP:CITEVAR]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 16:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:I don't think I've seen anyone claim that {{para|publisher}} should italicize anything. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::No but some have argued that when a website has no title, the publisher's name should be used as {{para|website}} and be italicized, which is, indeed, italicizing the publisher's name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::: Which is also a different discussion. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Rerun this RFC from scratch''' – and this time advertise it on CENT. The proposal should be clear about what will change if it passes. So "Should websites always be italicized" isn't a great question. A better one would be, "Should we make change X to the MOS", or "Should we make change X to the citation template code", or something concrete like that. We need to differentiate between an MOS-style guideline directive, and a hard change to code. We also need to differentiate between work= and publisher= as discussed above. In my view, the scope of the existing RfC is nil because of the procedural flaws. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{ping|Levivich}} The original proposal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=897693478 was listed on CENT]. Please don't make this about whether it was advertised; that was not the question asked. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::Where? I couldn't find it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::{{ping|Levivich}} Review the link provided in my response. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::I didn't see it at first but now I see it. It should be advertised clearer on CENT. For example, the CENT advertisement was "Italics of websites in citations", and not the clearer, "Should website names always be italicized?" or the even clearer, "Should {{t|cite web}} always require a website name, which is always italicized?" <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::Not per the guidelines established on [[Template:Centralized discussion#Style]]. If you take a minute to review the history of that template, the intent is to be short and sweet. I used the title the discussion was started under (for better or worse). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:Added to [[WP:CENT]] *:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC) * CS1/2 templates only. I think that's obvious from the context in which the question was asked. Were it to have been asked elsewhere (say, [[WT:MOS]] or [[WT:CITE]]), it might reasonably have been interpreted to mean all citations/references, but here, I do not think that was the case. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *No, the [[Title (publishing)|titles]] of websites (if they have a title; most don't) should not be italicized. Where they lack a title, the URL should not be italicized. But whether or not website titles are italicized, in no circumstances should the publisher be used as the website title and italicized. That is, the title of https://www.supremecourt.gov/ is not "Supreme Court of the United States" or, even worse, ''Supreme Court of the United States''. That site doesn't have a title. The website's publisher is the Supreme Court of the United States, and that should never be italicized. Ditto with World Health Organization, BBC News, CNN, etc.{{pb}}''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' says: "Titles of websites mentioned or cited in text or notes are normally set in [[Roman type|roman]] [not italicized], headline-style, without quotation marks." Their examples include Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia. If the website has a printed counterpart, it is italicized along with the printed version, e.g. ''Encyclopaedia Britannica Online''. Where websites have no formal title, use a short form of the URL, e.g. Apple.com, not italicized. See ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', section 8.191, pp. 538–539. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:Just a reminder, the purpose of this discussion is to decide how to apply the determined consensus in the previous RFC, not to debate the outcome. <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]}</span> 19:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::{{u|Steven Crossin|Steven}}, I wonder whether the previous RfC delivered a clear-enough consensus. We generally don't italicize websites. [[Wikipedia]], for example, isn't italicized; nor are [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]], etc. Why italicize them only in citations? Our style choices should be consistent, at least within the same article. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::I agree with Levivich that the RfC needs to be rerun. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles]] does not support italicizing all websites: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features." Online newspapers, for example, are italicized. Other types of site are not. It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, making sure that each article is internally consistent. It makes no sense to write "Wikipedia" without italics throughout an article, then force people to use italics in a citation, but only if a template is used. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 22:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::I agree that we shouldn't be challenging the previous outcome in this RfC, since it's not the question being asked. With that said, an important distinction getting missed is when a website is being cited as a publication for the material it supports; that's when italicization should be invoked (according to the outcome above). Simply stating "Wikipedia" or "Facebook" in running text to reference the company or entity they represent places the website name in a different context. And in regard to the Chicago MoS perpective, keep in mind that the MLA format does support italics in citations. The inconsistency you're pointing out already exists outside of Wikipedia. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 06:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Rerun the RfC.''' <s>CS1/2 templates. Specifically, {{para|website}} for all templates and {{para|work}} for the <kbd><nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki></kbd> template. So, for example, Apple is a company that publishes websites ''Apple'' (apple.com), ''Apple Support'' (support.apple.com), ''Apple Developer'' (styled '' Developer''&thinsp;; developer.apple.com), etc. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)</s> '''Update:''' After thinking more about the problem, I agree with the other commenters that this RfC needs to be rerun. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 00:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Rerun RfC''' per Levivich. Failing that, the italicization requirement should apply ''only'' to {{para|website}} in CS1 templates, and that parameter should ''not'' be required. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *<del>'''Apply broadly''': So, let's see if I am getting this wrong. 😜 You've asked people and they've told you. If the majority of the participants had a constraint in mind, they'd have told you. AFAIK the italicization helps identify the citation component, not the role and the object of the work. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 05:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</del> ::No, the reverse is true. Italicization in citations is semantic (Chicago, the city, vs. ''Chicago'', the musical). It is not there to make a citation component stand out visually. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 09:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC) :::LOL. I never said "to make a citation component stand out visually". I said "helps identify the citation component", which is a semantic role. You gave a very good example for it: "Chicago" is a publication location, "''Chicago''" is a published work. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 09:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::::Oops. Sorry for misunderstanding you. I now get what you were saying: italicization is there to help us find the website title in a citation, not to tell us the type of the website (blog, web app, social media platform, etc.). —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 20:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) * <ins>'''Apply to CS1 only'''</ins>: It just occurred to me that it is meaningless to conduct an RFC about the italicization of website names across several styles unless we know for sure that all those styles have vague italicization requirements. And there is no evidence to suggest that people interested in styles other than the citation style 1 have participated in the original RFC. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 09:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) *'''italicize {{para|website}} in CS1/2 templates''' – I did not participate in the original discussion, but I do follow this talk page, which is used for discussion of these templates. When someone proposes here that a certain kind of citation should look like X, or that a certain combination should be forbidden, they are understood to be talking about the behaviour of these templates. I understand that other pages are used for discussing the MOS, and no change to the wording of MOS was proposed here. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 08:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Rerun the RfC'''. Alternately, apply this '''only to the CS1/2 templates''' — While this was posted at CENT, such a major, major change to Wikipedia got only a couple dozen editors responding, if that. Discussions for adminship, for example, get five times as many editors commenting. Make no mistake, this is essentially a site-wide change: "Cite web" is being used more and more throughout Wikipedia since even editors adding magazine or newspaper citations often figure, "Well, it's on the web." That means the de faco Wikipedia house style italicizes company and institution names, which no mainstream footnoting format does. Without a corresponding "cite organization" template that does not automatically italicize company and institution names, italicizing websites in CS1/2 is essentially mandating an eccentric house style. That means a cite from the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] comes out as ''National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' — misleadingly making it seem like a magazine such as ''National Geographic''. I think something this big requires more input than the small number of editors at this relatively obscure technical page.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *:Exactly. ''The New York Times'' ({{URL|https://www.nytimes.com}}) is an online news outlet and should be italicized. Google Docs ({{URL|https://docs.google.com}}) is a web app and should not be italicized (apps are not italicized, as opposed to games). It follows that <kbd><nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki></kbd> must use manual italicization. I don't think it's such a big problem. The rules for applying italics can be put in the description of the <kbd>website</kbd> parameter. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 21:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *::IMHO, Google Docs must never appear in {{para|website}}. It belongs to {{para|via}}. Such is the case for GitHub: The repo name goees into {{para|work}}. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ::::Generally, yes. However, the web app name will be listed in {{para|website}} for pages like "About", "Help", "Subscription plans", etc. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 18:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::::Oh, I see. In that case, your reference to Google Docs would be analogous to referring to an appliance's manual as opposed to referring to the appliance itself. In this case, the page to which you are linking is not an app, so, per your own criterion, definitely italize it. :::::But as I said, italicization has semantic meaning. This is important because {{para|work}}, {{para|publisher}} and lots of other parameters are optional. There is no telling if the citation has them. The italicization is your only clue. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::{{tq|the page to which you are linking is not an app, so, per your own criterion, definitely italize it}} I never said app/not-an-app was my criterion. I simply offered two examples: an online news outlet (which are always italicized) and a non-game web app (which are never italicized). There are many other types of websites which may or may not be italicized. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that there are two types of websites that disagree on italicization. Therefore, we can't apply italicization automatically and must leave the decision to the template user. ::::::You argue that Google Docs would never (or almost never) appear in {{para|website}}, so it's a bad example. Fine, let's take another example: [[Federal Reserve Economic Data]] ({{URL|https://fred.stlouisfed.org}}). Certainly you would agree that it goes into {{para|website}} (and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis goes into {{para|publisher}}). And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics). There are many more examples like that. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 00:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::Humph. This is getting more and more complicated without any benefit. Nah. I'd say italicize all works, be it book, film, play, or app. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::This is not {{tq|getting more and more complicated}}. I've provided you with two examples of websites: one that is italicized and one that is not. You've discarded the second example on the basis that it should always go into {{para|publisher}}, so I've replaced it with another example of a website that is not italicized. ::::::::So now we have ''The New York Times'' ({{URL|https://www.nytimes.com}}) that is italicized and FRED ({{URL|https://fred.stlouisfed.org}}) that is not italicized. This means that the decision on italicization should be left to the template user. ::::::::{{tq|Nah. I'd say italicize all works…}} Wikipedia follows the existing norms as much as possible. If we wanted to keep things simple, we wouldn't have non-breaking spaces, en dashes, em dashes, etc. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::I said "complicated and '''without benefits'''". And you're not here to follow the existing norm; you're here to ''change'' existing norm on millions of articles. If Wikipedia wanted to follow existing norms, CS1 would have never been invented. By the way, you keep saing "FRED is not italicized". [[WP:WEASEL|Not italicized by who?]] [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::It's not italicized by any mainstream source whatsoever. Neither is [[Fannie Mae]] or [[Freddie Mac]]. As for "I'd say italicize all works" ... well, why? You're not giving any reason for having Wikipedia citations go outside the mainstream with some eccentric citation style used nowhere else. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::No, you didn't say "complicated and '''without benefits'''". You said {{tq|This is getting more and more complicated without any benefit}}, which implies that "this" is: (1) getting more and more complicated; (2) does so without any benefit. I have addressed part (1), demonstrating to you that nothing is "getting more complicated"; in fact, the level of complexity is staying exactly the same as it was in my original comment: there are websites that are italicized and there are websites that are not italicized. {{tq|you're not here to follow the existing norm}} I will decide for myself why I'm here, thank you. {{tq|you keep saing "FRED is not italicized". Not italicized by who?}} Obviously, I'm referring to existing practice. As I've told you several comments back: "And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics)." Are you being intentionally obtuse? If you think I'm wrong, please demonstrate a variety of newspapers/magazines where FRED is cited as ''FRED'' (italicized). Except you can't. Because I've checked it thoroughly before posting my comment. You can continue to muddy the waters, or you can face the reality that in existing newspapers/magazines some types of websites are italicized (newspapers, journals, magazines, blogs, webcomics, etc.) and other types of websites are not (TV channels, radio stations, databases, company websites, etc.). See [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]]. —&nbsp;[[User:UnladenSwallow|UnladenSwallow]] ([[User talk:UnladenSwallow|talk]]) 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! "Obtuse" is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. And "existing practices" is still a weasel word. FYI, not only I can {{tq|face the reality}}, I can stare in said reality's eyes and tell it: "[[WP:OSE|Hey, existing reality! I reject you, because you cannot justify your existence!]]" I've already done so to gender discrimination. If necessary, I'll do it to unhelpful italicization of components. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 07:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC) *{{u|Steven Crossin}}, please offer an alternative title to this discussion so that it more accurately reflects citation practice. Citations do not italicize anything. They usually emphasize the most pertinent element, traditionally - though not exclusively - by using slanted type. Both the original RFC and this discussion keep applying the misnomer of "italics" which is solely a typographical convention and does not reflect the underlying semantic meaning. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *:"website=" in "cite web" automatically italicizes and does not allow manual override such as wiki markup. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 21:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Rerun the RfC''' and notify more widely. Template styles should follow the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles]] which has a defined position on use of italics for websites (essentially being: it depends). If an overall change of style is being considered then it should be considered in that forum rather than for a specific template that users would naturally expect to follow the conventions defined in the Manual of Style. [[Special:Contributions/203.10.55.11|203.10.55.11]] ([[User talk:203.10.55.11|talk]]) 02:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Rerun the RfC'''. You can't just overturn [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles]] without even advertising the RfC there. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 23:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ** The RfC didn't "overturn" anything. The wording on this particular thing at [[MOS:TITLES]] has just been confused and unclear for a long time (until [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]]); to the extent that the depending-upon-publication-type stuff could be interpreted as applying to citations (rather than use in running prose), it would not actually reflect WP practice, which has been to italicize these work names in citations, automatically, for 10+ years now. &nbsp;—&thinsp;[[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]]&thinsp;^{[[User talk:AReaderOutThataway|t]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|c]]} 22:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC) * Preferably '''rerun the RFC'''; at the very most, current consensus only allows for '''italics in cs 1/2 templates'''. Notwithstanding Steven Crossin's (understandable) request that the focus here be kept on-point, the fact remains that many editors are strongly opposed to italicising each and every website title, and/or that publisher= cannot be used instead to avoid italicising organisations in cite web. It seems to me it's a case of template managers/editors seeking to squeeze different scenarios into one tidy category – whether that's through obsessiveness or a touch of control-freakery I don't know. But, as was raised in the RfC, and has been added to or alluded to here by the likes of David Eppstein, Levivich and SarahSV, it's not a case of one-size-fits-all. I'm a professional book editor, and have been for far too many years, and the idea that an organisation ''has'' to be treated as a "work" in the interest of defining a component of the citation is, well, utterly ridiculous. [[AllMusic]], [[Official Charts Company]], [[Metacritic]], [[Supreme Court of the United States]], [[World Health Organization]], [[BBC News]], etc, are never italicised in regular text and need not be in a citation. <small>(No reader's going to go: "Aaargh, you've lost me ... how do the words 'BBC News' relate to the rest of the information in that source?")</small> :To return to the question raised here: CS1/2 currently prohibits adhering to a pretty fundamental point in British English style, which is that abbreviations such as eds, nos and vols don't require a full stop/period. In the past – I think it was with regard to the "eds" issue, if not the option to use "edn" for "edition" (which, I'd say, is also preferred in Brit English) – the response here was that editors are "welcome" to write the entire citation manually and so avoid having to conform to what they consider to be a contentious CS1/2 requirement. In the same spirit, and given the scope of the RfC anyway, editors should not be required to apply italicisation outside of CS1/2 and should be able to write the cite manually or find another way that presents the information correctly. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 02:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Italicize''' in citations (and there is no difference in this regard between CS1 and CS2, or manually-laid-out citations). Whether to italicize in running text or not depends on whether the site is primarily like a published work (e.g. ''Salon'' or ''IMDb'') or primarily something else (just advertising/support material like Microsoft.com, or a forum/social-networking service like Facebook). The "Rerun the RfC" stuff is patent [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], an "I didn't get the result I wanted" complaint. The original RfC was widely enough advertised and ran long enough to assess consensus, and given that italicizing these in citations is already enforced by the templates and has been that way for over a decade, the "don't italicize" stuff is not a question about what consensus is, but an attempt to overturn already well-established consensus (an attempt that has failed numerous times, not just above). &nbsp;—&thinsp;[[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]]&thinsp;^{[[User talk:AReaderOutThataway|t]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|c]]} 22:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 06:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Italicize in CS1|2'''—the original forum for the RfC was on the talk page for the CS1|2 templates. As such, it should be a clear principle that the results of the RfC would be confined to those templates. There is no need to rerun the RfC. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC) ====Follow up discussion==== *'''Comment''' Do you think there is any mileage in scrapping the "Cite web" template altogether, and creating a "Cite organization" in its place that does not italicise? The citation style is drawn from real-world application (i.e. the website name for a newspaper would be italicised, but for an organization it would not be) so Cite web seems to be encouraging standardisation where it does not exist. If you had to choose between Cite news, Cite book, Cite journal, Cite organization etc then the stylisation issue would take care itself. This would seem to be a fairly straightforward solution so what am I missing? [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 18:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC) ::I think you may be confusing prose style with citation style. Because both are styles does not mean they have the same functionality. Citations style their content towards verifiability. One way this is accomplished is by emphasizing the source, in this case, the website, so that the reader knows immediately where to start looking. It has nothing to do with application of a prose style, neither does it have to follow the referring document's style whether that is MOS or anything else. And don't overlook the fact that use of these templates (actually, the module they are based upon) is entirely voluntary. Any citation/citation style will do, as long as is consistent within the document. [[Special:Contributions/65.88.88.69|65.88.88.69]] ([[User talk:65.88.88.69|talk]]) 21:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC) :::I am not confusing prose and citation style. I have never italicised a company/corporation name in a citation in my professional work either. For example, if you are citing something on the BBC's website you do not italicise the "BBC" in the citation. The BBC's website is not a publication called the "BBC", it is a publication by the BBC. This is generally the norm for websites. I can think of several counter-examples: if you were citing something in the AFI Catalog you would italicise the "AFI Catalog" in the citation because it is a publication by the American Film Institute. In this capacity it functions as an online encylopedia/ebook and could be cited using an appropriate template. In the case of citing something on the AFI's general website it would be beneficial to have a "corporation" template that does not italicise the company name. The "cite web" template is promoting a standardisation where one does not really exist. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 00:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ::::The template has a {{para|publisher}} field. That is where the publishing entity (in most cases the domain owner/registrant) should be inserted. The BBC publishes bbc.com. The latter would be the source. Sources (works) should stand out, one of the reasons being that they may include a lot of other stuff, most of it mysterious to the average Wikipedia reader. The emphasis applied on the source field through italics has nothing to do with whether the source is a website or anything else. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ::Respectfully, there has just been an RFC that was in favor of italicizing. In that light of that RFC, this suggestion lacks pertinence. Clearly, the community sees value in distinguishing the name of the work from the name of the subwork and the publisher. If I may add, re-running the RFC reminds me of some of questionable political actions I hear about these days: The election in a state or nation does not go in favor of the ruling party, so they re-run the election over and over again. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 11:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC) :::RFCs are [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], they are a tool for determining community opinion. Consensus on Wikipedia has never locked in a vote, chiefly because as the participants in a debate change so can opinion. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ::::That's not what I see. RFCs are based on majority votes. In Wikipedia, minority valid concerns are ignored. In [[consensus-based decision making]], all valid concerns are addressed. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC) :::::See [[WP:WHATISCONSENSUS#Not a majority vote]], [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]] and [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change]] (the latter two are both policies). [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 09:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::And here is my contribution to the consensus-building process: No! Your suggestion is egregious and without benefits, both in its own rights and in the fact that discrimination in italicization is egregious and without benefits. First, because you are operating under the wrong impression that the only websites besides news websites are organizations' websites. Not so. Second, you don't seem to have a functional reason for not italicizing certain websites. In fact, no one here seems to have. Any "reason" I see here is very arbitrary. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::[[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] is absolutely correct in that RfCs are not decided on by number of votes. That's not her "suggestion" but Wikipedia ''policy''. You are completely wrong, per policy, in saying, "In Wikipedia, minority valid concerns are ignored." :::::::As for your other points, you seem to be ignoring multiple editors in both this discussion and the closed RfC saying flat out that the names of organizations (companies, institutions) are not italicized in any mainstream footnoting style — for the very good reason of not conflating them with magazines and other periodicals. The [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] is not ''[[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]]'', as if it were ''[[National Geographic]]''. Having Wikipedia adopt a fringe, eccentric footnoting style makes us look like an outlier and does nothing to enhance our credibility. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 16:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::My dear esteemed colleague Tenebrae, you are being awfully forceful here. And I fear we have digressed from the discussion of a proposal for "Cite organization". I do accept that it is partly my fault. (Actually, I have nothing else to add to it, so I can bow out.) I'd be glad to have you and dear Betty in my personal talk page to talk about merits of italicizing in citations or about the ''de jour'' and ''de facto'' status of Wikipedia's consensus policy. But this thread is already a hot zone. Let's keep other hot topic out of it. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 08:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::And incidentally, I find it odious that you compare this valid, by-the-book discussion as somehow illegitimate in the same way Trumpers try to deny the constitutionality of the impeachment process or recounts. ("The election in a state or nation does not go in favor of the ruling party, so they re-run the election over and over again.") That Trumpian position holds no water in either the political world or in a Wikipedia discussion. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::You seem to be commenting about one of those nations/states who have voided their election when it did not go according to the plan. (I'd probably look up Trumpian later.) In the meantime, we can focus on the fact that I don't see why Steven Crossin suddenly decided to void the RFC, without drawing any anologies to real-world politic situations. [[User:flowing dreams|<span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams</span>]] ([[User talk:flowing dreams|talk page]]) 08:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) :Re: "Do you think there is any mileage in scrapping the "Cite web" template altogether, and creating a "Cite organization" in its place that does not italicise?" – '''Absolutely not.''' It is not possible to cite "an organization" (or individual) on Wikipedia, only a published work. See [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] and all the policy it cites on this matter (or see it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles&oldid=922453901#MOS:ITALICWEBCITE here] if someone's been editwarring against it again). 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]] ([[User talk:AReaderOutThataway#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|contribs]]) 06:38, 2019 October 22 (UTC)</small> ::That guideline did not exist 6 months ago and is indirect contravention of [[WP:CITESTYLE]], so I certainly won't be observing it. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC) :::Contrary to [[User:AReaderOutThataway]]'s claim, I can find '''nothing''' in [[MOS:ITALICWEBCITE]] that says we italicize the names of organizations such as companies and institutions in citations. Nothing.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 18:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC) ::::I didn't suggest you would (cf. [[straw man]]). Read it again, please. You can't cite "an organization". You have to cite something published. If that's a major work (not a minor one like just an article), it's italicized per [[MOS:TITLES]], and the templates do this automagically. The organization itself goes in the {{para|publisher}} parameter, which does not italicize. No one here is confused by that, surely not you either, so trying to make it seem like I'm suggesting italicizing organization names is disingenuous. &nbsp;—&thinsp;[[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]]&thinsp;^{[[User talk:AReaderOutThataway|t]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|c]]} 20:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::Of course we can cite "an organization." It's done all the time hundreds of thousands of citations around the world: Doe, Jane. "Report on Apollo 11 [link]". NASA. Accessed Jan. 1, 2010. In no real-world scenario would "NASA" be italicized.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC) :This should be done the other way around. Don't require the use of {{para|work}} (or {{para|website}}, {{para|newspaper}}, etc.) in {{tl|cite web}} if {{para|publisher}} is present, but create a new template, {{tl|cite periodical}}, that does require a periodical parameter. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 19:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC) ::I think a "Cite organization" template is an excellent idea. As you say, it's drawn from real-world application, whereas Cite web seeks to impose "standardisation where it does not exist" (or, imo, standardisation for the sake of it). [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 01:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) ==What to do about ISBN-10s== 10-digit ISBNs have been deprecated [https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-formal/isbn since about 2007] and should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found. Conversion is a simple task (prepend "978-" and calculate a new check digit). Correct grouping of the other digits (based on "group" and "publisher" identifier lengths) is quite a bit more complicated and would require some kind of periodically updated table. I do have a javascript that accurately does both of these things while editing, so it could probably be converted to a lua module to do them while rendering instead. And I do mean a separate module, not just a new feature in {{tl|cite book}}. That way it can also replace the contents of the standalone {{tl|ISBN}} template, which currently looks [{{fullurl:Template:ISBN|action=raw}} dreadful]. If the above sounds like too much of a cosmetic execution-timesink (I suppose I'd need to create the module first and see how badly it performs), we could resort to tracking categories to fix the input rather than the output: * A maintenance category when the number of digits is 10 and should be converted to 13. ** This would be in addition to the error category when the number of digits is neither 10 nor 13. * A maintenance category whenever <code>(digits == 10 && hyphens != 3) || (digits == 13 && hyphens != 4)</code>, because these are sure to be wrong. Note that detecting ISBNs with the correct number of hyphens at incorrect positions would probably be nearly as expensive as actually fixing them, so they would be neglected in the latter strategy. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :I guess I disagree with your premise that {{tq|10-digit ISBNs...should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found.}} A 10-digit isbn in a book printed in 1982 is and forever shall be a 10-digit isbn. Editors at en.wiki are admonished to [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]. Part of that is accurately recording bibliographic details from the book that they are being citing. If the isbn on the title page of the book is 10 digits, use 10 digits in the citation, don't convert it to 13 digits. See the cs1|2 [[Template:cite book#csdoc_isbn|isbn documentation]]. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :: citation bot does the conversion IF the year is 2007 or later. That way we follow the say where you got it rule. In defense of isbn13 in older books, it COULD be thought of as adding area codes to older phone numbers—it is a stretch. [[User:AManWithNoPlan|AManWithNoPlan]] ([[User talk:AManWithNoPlan|talk]]) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :::[https://ipv4flagday.net/ IPv4 → IPv6] seems like a better analogy. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 20:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC) The [https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-formal/isbn ponderous tome] I linked to above says (emphasis mine): All new ISBN assignments are based on ISBN-13. '''If a 10 digit ISBN is''' '''found on the resource, it should be converted to a 13 digit number''', following the rules set out later in this section, before being encoded into the URN framework. According to the rules of the ISBN standard, '''such conversion does not create a new ISBN for the book''', '''but a new representation of the existing ISBN'''. [...] The ISBN in thirteen digit form is defined by the ISO Standard 2108-2005 and later editions. It was previously referred to as “ISBN-13” to distinguish it from “ISBN-10”, but since '''all ISBNs are''' '''now valid only in the 13 digit format and ISBN-10 is deprecated''', ISBN-13 should be referred to as “ISBN”, although in this document ISBN-13 is used for the sake of clarity. Note that it very clearly says "all ISBNs" and not "ISBNs of books published in or after 2007" and that there is no reference to any "grandfather clause" or continued validity of ISBN-10s for any duration of time after 2007. I do know Google Books (surely a more popular "where you got it" source than physical books anymore) info shows both 10- and 13-digit ISBNs, without regard to year of publication and without indicating which of them was ever printed on a physical book. Of course, according to the above document, they could have stopped displaying ISBN-10s (or recognizing them for search) twelve years ago without violating any standards. And since Google Books is an order of magnitude more popular than anything else on the [[Special:BookSources]] list, Wikipedia and the rest of the world would have immediately followed suit, if only they had done that. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 04:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :I find it difficult to get worked up about this cosmetic difference that has no effect on the verifiability of sources or readers' ability to find books when there are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors|hundreds of pages with actual ISBN problems on them]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC) : :That document is about how isbn's are or should be used in the context of [[Uniform Resource Name]]s. cs1|2 does not use urns so the requirements of that document do not apply here. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :Also, conversion is not simply a matter of prepending "978" to an ISBN. The prefix may also be 979 or in the future, something else. The ISBN registrar for the United States has a conversion tool but it is for US & Australia ISBNs only, see {{plnk|https://www.isbn.org/about_ISBN_standard|About ISBN}} (notice section on 979) and {{plnk|https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter|Converter}}. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 15:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC) ::ISBNs starting with prefixes other than 978- will have no 10-digit equivalent. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 20:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :::Did I miss something? I did not see any such statement. To quote from Bowker (the "About ISBN") link above, "A 10-digit ISBN cannot be converted to 13-digits merely by placing three digits in front of the 10-digit number. There is an algorithm that frequently results in a change of the last digit of the ISBN". So I assume this means there may be potentially a problem with the check digit in a text-based replacement. [[Special:Contributions/98.0.246.242|98.0.246.242]] ([[User talk:98.0.246.242|talk]]) 20:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC) ::::* Every 13-digit ISBN beginning with 978- corresponds to exactly one deprecated ISBN-10. ::::** "Corresponds to" means both forms refer to the same book publication and share a substring of 9 "significant" digits. ::::** These 9 are followed by a final check digit, which is calculated differently depending on which form and will differ about 91% of the time. ::::* Every 13-digit ISBN beginning with 979- corresponds to… no other number at all. ::::* Every 13-digit ISBN beginning with any other prefix… doesn't exist yet. Hopefully nobody still uses ISBN-10s at such future time. ::::* The [https://pastebin.com/raw/GUEKrdGb "algorithm"] is not as complicated as you may fear. :::: Hope this clears up some confusion. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 22:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :::::No, not really. But imo this discussion is becoming non-relevant as far as citations are concerned. As was stated before, editors should cite what they consult. If they consult a source with a 10 digit ISBN, then that is what belongs in the citation. If one feels so strongly about ISBN-13s, they should: ::::::Find a source with a published ISBN-13 ::::::Verify the wikitext claim (previously supported by an ISBN-10 source) based on the new source ::::::Replace and rewrite the citation based on the newly consulted source :::::What should not be done is replacing an ISBN-10 with an ISBN-13. These are marketing ids assigned to publishers by the proper agencies. Personally, I would reject any citation with a Wikipedia editor-manufactured ISBN-13 as original research or misdirection. Conversions of ISBN-10s are supposed to be done (and published) by the entities the ISBN's are assigned to. It is not up to Wikipedia to provide such service. :::::Not relevant to the above, are the various assignations. First, a straight text replacement is not the right way to go about it. Secondly, conversion tools, and their respective algorithms, seem specific to geographical areas. It is also not clear to me if outside the US "979" prefixes have not been used to replace ISBN-10s. In non-US materials, I have seen non-book ISBN-10s replaced by 979-prefixed ISBN-13s (sorry I have no real-world example handy). It would be perhaps relevant for citations to provide for an [[International Article Number]] (EAN) id, since that is what ISBN-13 is purported to align to. [[Special:Contributions/108.182.15.109|108.182.15.109]] ([[User talk:108.182.15.109|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC) :::::::The above should be amended, as according to the latest edition of the ''ISBN Users' Manual'' (2017), "ISBN is now fully compatible with GTIN-13" (7th ed., p. 10, find it {{plnk|https://www.isbn-international.org/content/isbn-users-manual|here}}). So I suppose that it would be a [[Global Trade Item Number]] id rather than an EAN that could be added if needed. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 18:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC) {{unindent}} * Math is not original research, especially not when the agency issuing these numbers has published very specific instructions for performing said math. The result is as deterministic as an MD5 hash. It just happens to be 5 lines of code and not 109. Here's [https://tools.wmflabs.org/isbn/IsbnCheckAndFormat another tool] that does the exact same math. Using that is not original research either. * Here are Google Books data examples [https://books.google.com/books?id=wWSTqfRuM70C#metadata_content_table from 1972] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=UjAIDgAAQBAJ#metadata_content_table from 2017], both of which show (mathematically!) equivalent 10- and 13-digit ISBNs side-by-side. Choosing the longer one in both cases, for the sake of consistency and forward compatibility, is not original research either. * There will eventually come a day when some of the [[Wikipedia:Book sources|hundreds of databases]] shown at [[Special:BookSources]] will cease to recognize 10-digit ISBNs. This will probably coincide with the assignment of 979s in the United States (when the confusion begins affecting people whose opinions matter). At that point our only choice will be to unlist certain book sources or quickly convert numbers to continue using them. * Here's a [https://books.google.com/books?id=ywN4AQAACAAJ#metadata_content_table French children's book with a 979- ISBN] and no short form next to it, because '''[https://www.isbn.org/about_ISBN_standard 979 ISBNs are not convertible to a 10-digit format and exist only in a 13-digit format.]''' Any replacement such as you describe would have to be a bonehead error, or the intentional re-assignment of a whole new ISBN to an old edition of a book (not any conversion at all). Any claim that one of the latter two things routinely happens ''would be'' original research. Hopefully it's all just a false memory. *Do you read many books from France, South Korea, and/or Italy? Serious question. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC) ::This is not how citations work. They involve published material from reliable secondary sources. ISBNs are legally issued and assigned identifiers through organizations established for this purpose. Even when the use of the conversion tools is allowable by third parties, the result would be unacceptable in a citation. The officially (by publishers) converted ISBNs have to be assigned by the ISBN agencies, like any other ISBN, and the source officially published with that ISBN. Anyone else doing a conversion and publishing it as an "ISBN" is doing OR as far as citations are concerned. Never mind wading into legally dubious territory. And that is assuming the algorithms don't change in the meantime. ::We have no way of knowing if or when, book-source databases stop recognizing anything. The data is already entered and structured. There is no rule that says ISBN-10 should not be listed in such databases, nor that it should be replaced by ISBN-13. In contrast, book-marketing databases (including publisher databases) are told by the International ISBN Org. to no longer quote ISBN-10s, but this is irrelevant. ::Additionally ISBNs have country codes irrespective of language. Different English-speaking countries may have different ISBN structures. The allocation of ISBNs is not cut and dried either. An educational music work could have been legally assigned an ISBN-10, and could be additionally assigned a 979 ISBN-13. A commercial music work would not have been assigned an ISBN-10, but perhaps an ISMN. Now however it can be assigned a 979 ISBN, since all these ids are compatible with GTIN-13, the new standard that is subsuming them. ::And who says that anything involving math cannot be OR? It's not just how you arrive at the numbers, but also how and why you use the results. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC) : Anyway, ISBNs are so frustratingly unreliable in Wikipedia. How often I seen metadata for an ISBN be out of sync with the metadata in the cite book template (year/publisher). This can happen for a number of reasons, but mainly books have multiple years of publication and multiple publishers such as the co. name vs. imprint name vs. later editions. So someone may put the original year of publication in {{para|year}} while using the ISBN of their in-print edition which might be 20 years later. Then how do you know which edition it is? One could assume the ISBN is correct, but I've seen people and scripts add missing ISBNs to templates without a clear indication they are choosing the one intended, and not just the most recently published in-print edition. Particularly by people pushing links to bookseller sites for a certain edition. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC) ::Isn't this more of a behavioral issue. There are many admonishments in various help pages for editors to cite what they actually consult. If the consulted online link refers to a different edition than the one originally consulted to write the citation, such information is relevant and should be included somewhere, maybe in a link note. [[Special:Contributions/98.0.246.242|98.0.246.242]] ([[User talk:98.0.246.242|talk]]) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC) ::Also when you see a plural <code>| pages =</code> parameter followed by only one page number, there's a 90% chance it's the last page (often intentionally blank). ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC) This thread is full of obviously wrong information. Some quick facts. All books with and isbn10 have an isbn13 — it’s automatic. It does not mean that it is printed in the book obviously. The EAN for a book is the isbn13. The GTIN 13 for a book is the isbn13 number. Lastly converting an isbn10 to isbn13 is easy: just add the prefix and change the check digit. [[User:AManWithNoPlan|AManWithNoPlan]] ([[User talk:AManWithNoPlan|talk]]) 18:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC) :Well, none of the above are facts, quick or otherwise, according to the official ISBN manual or the official ISBN issuing authorities. I suggest you go back and check. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC) :: Since you (24.105.132.254) are unwilling to do even a basic google search to see that you are wrong, here are the links. https://www.isbn.org/about_ISBN_standard and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number#ISBN-10_to_ISBN-13_conversion all isbn10's have an isbn13 equivalent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number#EAN_format_used_in_barcodes,_and_upgrading and https://www.barcoding.com/blog/bookland-13-ean-13-and-isbn-numbers-one-in-the-same/ All ISBN13 are EAN. All ISBN's a GTIN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Trade_Item_Number#Format_and_encodings [[User:AManWithNoPlan|AManWithNoPlan]] ([[User talk:AManWithNoPlan|talk]]) 00:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) :::Since I was the one who originally used these links on this discussion I know very well what they are about, and the background. [[Special:Contributions/72.89.161.42|72.89.161.42]] ([[User talk:72.89.161.42|talk]]) 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC) * I normally copy the ISBN from the indicia of the book. If it's an ISBN-10, a Bot will convert it to an ISBN-13. It did have an instance where the ISBN-10 in the book was incorrect; libraries had filed it both under the incorrect number and the correct one. After a discussion, it was agreed to substitute the ISBN-13. However, we have detected hoaxes based on invalid ISBNs. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC) ::If you add anything that is not published at the source, it makes for an invalid citation. I thought this was clear. How can you "cite" something that is not there? [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 20:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC) ::: The point is that even though the ISBN13 in not in the book, it is still a proper way to refer to the book. Just like journals from 1800 with DOIs and ISSNs and Such . [[User:AManWithNoPlan|AManWithNoPlan]] ([[User talk:AManWithNoPlan|talk]]) 23:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC) ::::Only if the later assignations have been published by reliable sources. If they have been concocted by Wikipedia bots or by anyone else they are not citable material. [[Special:Contributions/72.89.161.42|72.89.161.42]] ([[User talk:72.89.161.42|talk]]) 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC) :::::Agree keep ISBN10 there is a better chance of matching the book with other databases which may or may not respected unpublished/concocted ISBN13s -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 14:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC) *While it is true that ther is a 1-to-1, fixed mapping between ISBN-10s and 978- ISBN-13s, In the spirit of "say where you got it, books published before, roughly, 2005, should always use the ISBN-10, and no bot or editor should be converting these to ISBN-13s, unless citing to a newer edition. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 08:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC) :: I second this. Unfortunately, CitationBot was doing just this for months without approval and despite complaints. :: If the other ISBN is known as well, the alternative ISBN can be added as additional parameter <nowiki>|id={{ISBN|1234567890123}}</nowiki> (it would be even better, if the {{para|isbn}} parameter would accept two values rather than only one). On a practical level the two ISBNs are not actually redundant, as both might be used as text search patterns by users, and listing only one of them, users searching for ISBNs in articles may unfortunately fail to find a referenced book due to the embedded checksum (this is why stores almost always list both ISBNs in order to not miss any possible hits). --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 22:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC) == MR numbers not rendering properly == In the following cite journal, the id should render as {{MR|2108435}} (with no space between the MR and the number, the way these numbers are universally used in the mathematical publications from which they come, including in the review database to which they refer, and the way {{tl|MR}} correctly renders them) but instead a space is included. Has this been broken recently, because I don't remember seeing this bug before? *{{cite journal | last1 = Giaro | first1 = Krzysztof | last2 = Kubale | first2 = Marek | doi = 10.1016/j.dam.2003.09.010 | issue = 1 | journal = Discrete Applied Mathematics | mr = 2108435 | pages = 95–103 | title = Compact scheduling of zero-one time operations in multi-stage systems | volume = 145 | year = 2004}} Regardless of whether this is a new regression or an old bug it should be fixed. Think of it this way: suppose you used a template that for whatever reason produced a visible link to this page, "Help talk:Citation Style 1", but the template you used formatted it as "Help talk: Citation Style 1" rather than its proper name because whoever wrote that template somehow thought that Wikipedia namespaces looked better with a space after the colon, even though we all know that's not the proper name. Or if that's not drastic enough, suppose that some space-happy template editor decided that urls should be shown in an expanded form that puts spaces around each set of slashes. Would you be happy? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :This ''possibly'' dates back to sometimes in [[Template_talk:Citation/Archive_3#Identifier_sandbox|2009]] [[Template_talk:Citation/Archive_4#Identifier_overhaul|to]] [[Template_talk:Citation/Archive_4#Many_things_about_identifiers|2011]], when identifiers were streamlined into CS1/2 templates. The 2009 discussion address spacing specifically, which settled on unspaced. So maybe it happened through a subsequent code refactoring, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/identifier&diff=next&oldid=489955229]. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 11:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :MR without a space character was added to {{tlx|citation/identifier}} (used by {{tlx|citation/core}}) with {{diff|Template:Citation/identifier|346822955|346822324|this edit}}. A <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> was added with {{diff|Template:Citation/identifier|490778016|489955229|this edit}} which was, apparently, unchallenged. Comparing {{tld|citation/core}} rendering with current [[Module:Citation/CS1]] rendering: <div style="margin-left:4.8em">{{cite compare |old=yes |nosandbox=yes |mode=journal | last1 = Giaro | first1 = Krzysztof | last2 = Kubale | first2 = Marek | doi = 10.1016/j.dam.2003.09.010 | issue = 1 | journal = Discrete Applied Mathematics | mr = 2108435 | pages = 95–103 | title = Compact scheduling of zero-one time operations in multi-stage systems | volume = 145 | year = 2004}}</div> :[[Module:Citation/CS1]] briefly used a plain-space separator character but has used a <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> since {{diff|Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration|549235233|549228620|this edit}} in April 2013. So, not a recent change. : :Editor David Eppstein must have been aware that cs1|2 differed from {{tlx|MR}} because of {{diff|Template:MR|next|796767178|this revert}} of an edit where the edit summary of the reverted edit noted that it {{tq|...breaks format alignment with [[WP:CS1]]/[[WP:CS2]]...}} I can find no discussion here or at [[Template talk:Citation]] nor in their archives subsequent to that reversion to indicate that either Editor in that {{tld|MR}} dispute bothered to notify anyone that cs1|2 should perhaps be changed. : :For myself, I'm not sure that we should change. Running a wikilink directly against a weblink without a separator might be misleading to readers. The separator makes it obvious that there are two links there (the standard link colors are, to my eye, insufficiently different to distinguish one link from another. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :: The solution is obvious: restore the consensus version which is unspaced. The addition of the space was undiscussed. This doesn't require an RFC. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 13:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ::: I concur with {{u|Headbomb}}. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 14:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Anyway, I fixed it. Should be fine now. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :Nope, apparently I fixed the 'old' version. Oh well, LUApocalypse/template protection strikes again. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ::It looks like you might eliminate the space, for testing purposes, by modifying [[Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox]] to remove the nbsp from MR's "separator" variable. It would, as TTM says below, make the identifier rendering inconsistent, arcane, and potentially confusing for casual readers of articles. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :::In what sense is it less inconsistent, arcane, and confusing to make up our own formatting for this identifier rather than using the same formatting that everyone else who uses this identifier uses for it? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ::::It is confusing to place two links immediately adjacent to one another without an intervening space. They look like a single link. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :::::The fix for that is to eliminate the link to the Wikipedia article on the identifier type and just make it all one link to the MR entry, not to make up new and unknown-outside-Wikipedia formatting for MR identifiers. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ::::::That is not a fix because it makes {{para|mr}} even more inconsistent with {{em|all}} of the other identifiers because {{em|all}} of the other identifiers have links to articles that explain the identifier; as they should. ::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ::::The proposed change will make {{para|mr}} inconsistent with all other identifiers because, at present, {{em|all}} identifiers have {{em|something}} (either a <code>:</code> or <code>&amp;nbsp;</code>) between the identifier's en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link. The proposed change is arcane because only those who participate in this discussion will understand why, if the change is made, the en.wiki article link and the target link are allruntogether. The proposed change can cause confusion for the casual reader, for whom identifiers are already obscure, because the lack of a distinct separation can result in mis-clicks of either the description link or the identifier target (because they are allruntogether) and land the reader in an unexpected place. ::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Thinking about this reminds me of the [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 33#PMCID and the PMC prefix|PMCID and the PMC prefix]] discussion where we chose to ignore the {{em|official}} NIH recommendation (PMCID: PMC#####). Now here we have a proposal to follow someone else's recommendation. While I think that the wikilink should be separate from the weblink for reasons that I have stated, additionally, we should not be internally inconsistent in how we treat identifiers and their associated wikilinks. The proposed change will make {{para|mr}} inconsistent with other identifiers. I will revert the change to {{tlx|citation/identifier}}. That template is maintained as a record of how-things-were when we transitioned to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] so should not be modified. —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC) :Consistancy between identifiers is much less important than presenting the information following the standards of the format. We ''could'' write 'arXiv 1301.1146', but the actual format is 'arXiv:1301.1146'. Regardlesss, the space has been introduced without dicussion, against prior consensus, and is inconsitant with {{tl|MR}}, and should be reverted. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 20:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC) I don’t know whether it matters much that there is a space but if a *controversial* change was implemented without a discussion, the correct procedure is roll-back the change. —- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 22:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC) :History: ::{{diff|Template:Citation/identifier|346822955|346822324|2010-02-28}} – {{para|mr}} identifier added to {{tlx|citation/identifier}} without a space character between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link ::{{diff|Template:Citation/identifier|490778016|489955229|2012-05-05}} – <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> inserted between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link ::{{diff|Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration|549235233|549228620|2013-04-07}} – [[Module:Citation/CS1]] changes from plain space character to <code>&amp;nbsp;</code>; this is in the overlap period where cs1|2 transitioned from {{tlx|citation/core}} to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] ::at {{tlx|MR}} a short-lived edit dispute occurs between two editors wherein the edit summaries of two edits refer to the discrepancy in rendering style between cs1|2 and {{tld|MR}} :::{{diff|Template:MR|796767178|796757372|2017-08-22T23:13}} – {{tq|this breaks format alignment with [[WP:CS1]]/[[WP:CS2]] as well as instantiations using parameters <nowiki>{{{2}}}</nowiki>...<nowiki>{{{9}}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{leadout}}</nowiki>}}} ([[Module:Catalog lookup link]] inserts <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link) :::{{diff|Template:MR|next|796767178|2017-08-23T00:04}} – {{tq|this is not how MR ids should be displayed; if some other template does it wrong then fix it too. And when would you ever need multiple ids?}} ::{{diff|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1|927250470|927237521|2019-11-21}} – this discussion begins :The time between 2012-05-05 when the <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> was inserted in {{tlx|citation/identifier}} and 2019-11-21 when this discussion began is {{Age in years, months and days|2012|05|05|2019|11|21|sc=y}}. I am not aware of any complaints about how cs1|2 renders {{para|mr}} in that 7.5 year period except for the brief dispute at {{tld|MR}} which did not get raised here at cs1|2. That suggests to me that the 2012-05-05 change was not controversial. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC) :{{ec}} Changes that are controversial in the short term should be reverted, but a change that has been in place for seven years can be assumed to have consent, and should not be reverted without discussion, especially in a widely used template. That discussion is what we are having now. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC) ::Then let's presume that {{tl|MR}} has consensus as the more-actively monitored one and bring CS1/2 inline with it and the consensus of the active discussions from 2009-2011. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC) :::{{U|Headbomb}}, that would be an invalid presumption. {{tl|MR}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MR&action=info fewer than 30 watchers] and just [https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=MR#bottom 755 transclusions]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC) ::::That is no different than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/identifier&action=info]. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC) :::::It seems extremely likely that the low number of uses of {{tl|MR}} is in large part due to bots running around converting it into {{para|mr}} parameters. It means nothing. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC) {{od}} Suggestion (somewhat clumsy): Tooltip over the cs1 id rendering it without space. [[Special:Contributions/98.0.145.210|98.0.145.210]] ([[User talk:98.0.145.210|talk]]) 14:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC) :Not sure that there is a benefit to doing that. Here is a mockup: ::<code><nowiki>&lt;span title="tool tip text here">[[Mathematical Reviews|MR]][https://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2108435 2108435]&lt;/span></nowiki></code> :::<span title="tool tip text here">[[Mathematical Reviews|MR]][https://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2108435 2108435]</span> :In the mockup, the tooltip provided by MediaWiki overrides the tooptip provided by the {{tag|span|o}} tag. And, in an actual implementation, what is the tooltip text? :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC) ::Well, it is clumsy. Obviously the code would have to pass the id as a variable and concatenate the label with the id by removing the space after MR. I was thinking of something conceptually similar to {{tl|Hover title}}, but that is a poor example. I am also aware that tips are discouraged for accessibility purposes. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC) In this project to build an encyclopedia it is our top duty not to make up stuff. We simply report what is as it is. Since the official and long established MR format is ''without'' a space, we must use this format as well. Everything else is wrong and must be regarded as a typographical error. Thanks, David, for bringing up this topic. --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 11:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) :We have recently rejected such logic at [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_33#PMCID_and_the_PMC_prefix|this discussion linked by Ttm already]]. There are other concerns at place here; [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] is I think salient above any such "we must use it as elsewhere" (which you {{em|assert}} is correct). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC) :Count me firmly on the side favoring a space to avoid the sea of blue issue. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style="color:white;"><big>→</big></span>]]'''</span> 17:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC) :: I like the spaced variant as well, but IMO personal preferences are completely irrelevant when it comes to falsification of facts. In analogy to what [[WP:MOSTM]] recommends for trademarks, we would be free to choose a style if there would not be an established standard, but MRs have always been written without space (except for the few cases where someone made a mistake). If we want to be taken serious as an encyclopedia we have to stick to the facts, and not invent new ones. We are not here to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]], we do [[WP:NOTLEAD]], but follow. :: [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] is, IMO, a non-issue, because it's a matter of the rendering in the frontend (not something that is our business), that is, it is an issue that should (and easily could, if it would actually be regarded as a larger problem) be addressed in the browser. In most browsers the pre-selected link is shown either underlined or inverse (regardless if selected by mouse, keyboard or touch pad), so there is no risk to confuse a link with an adjacent link. --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 20:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) == New 979 ISBN Prefixes Expected in 2020 == FYI, in case any validation code needs tweaking: https://bisg.org/news/479346/New-979-ISBN-Prefixes-Expected-in-2020.htm --<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC) :Nothing that {{em|has}} to be done; cs1|2 already supports the 979 prefix. But, it occurs to me that we might want to strengthen the 979 isbn check so that ismn (979-0...) when assigned to {{para|isbn}} emits an error message. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC) : :[[Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox]] tweaked: :*<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=978-3-943302-34-9}}</nowiki></code> → {{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=978-3-943302-34-9}} :*<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=9791095833017}}</nowiki></code> → {{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=9791095833017}} :*<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=979-0-50226-047-7}}</nowiki></code> → {{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=979-0-50226-047-7}} :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC) 979- prefix is "expected" for books published in the USA, but is already being used (and cited on Wikipedia) for a recent subset of books published in [[List of ISBN identifier groups#Identifiers of the 979- prefix|France, South Korea, and Italy]] (which have already exceeded allocations in the 978- prefix). See [[#What to do about ISBN-10s|above section]]. Just be careful to note that 100% of 978- ISBNs and 0% of 979- ISBNs have a 10-digit predecessor, and disregard almost everything posted by the anon user (from various IPs). ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 14:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC) :That is not correct. Not all 13-digit 978 ISBNs have a 10-digit predecessor. Also it is not true that 979 ISBNs do not have 10-digit predecessor. Certain non-book educational works fall under the category, and outside the US there may be 979 classifications with 10-digit originals. [[Special:Contributions/72.43.99.138|72.43.99.138]] ([[User talk:72.43.99.138|talk]]) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC) :: Using the word "predecessor" is shifting the goalposts. There's a one-to-one relationship between ISBN-10 values and 978-prefixed ISBN-13 values. All ISBN-10 values can be converted to a 978-prefixed ISBN-13. All 978-prefixed ISBN-13 values can be converted to an ISBN-10. Not a single ISBN-10 can be converted into a 979-prefixed ISBN-13. Not a single 979-prefixed ISBN-13 can be converted into an ISBN-10. That's what this conversation is about. It's not about a publisher deciding to release a book with one ISBN and later releasing the same title with a different ISBN. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]&#124;[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 07:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC) == 'editor' or 'editors' as author names == In poking through {{cl|CS1 maint: extra punctuation}} I've been finding a lot of crap. Some of it should have been detected before we implemented the extraneous punctuation test. Specifically, we should have been looking for 'editor' and 'editors' as the only content of an author parameter. I have remedied that in the sandbox: {{cite compare |mode=book|last1=editors|first1=Paul De Vos ... [et al.],|title=Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology.|date=2009|publisher=Springer|location=Dordrecht|isbn=0-387-68489-1|edition=2nd |comment=from ''[[Arthrobacter monumenti]]''}} I've also added a test to catch the bracketed 'et al'. —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) {{cite compare |mode=book|last1=editors|first1=Paul De Vos ... [[et al]]|title=Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology.|date=2009|publisher=Springer|location=Dordrecht|isbn=0-387-68489-1|edition=2nd |comment=from ''[[Arthrobacter monumenti]]''}} :Also catches the todo that was in the module, but leaves behind a sad pair of brackets. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC) ::The warning seems fine, but the render appearance of things seem to have taken a hit in the sandbox. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 00:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC) : ::I'm not overly concerned about the rendering of an obviously malformed template (there is always the hope that someone will actually look at the rendering and see that sommat's amiss and render the necessary aid). Still, I have added a wikilink pattern that doesn't orphan the outer brackets. ::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) == GGKEY == Should we add an optional parameter for GGKEY, a google book identifier? [https://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/3431108?hl=en]. It can be found in some google books and added to the article, for example see [[Battle of Hel]] where the code was included in the refs (I think through [https://reftag.appspot.com/ this tool]). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) :What does the GGKEY do or represent? Would it link to something? The web page you link to above says {{tq|GGKEYs are only used internally within Google.}} We don't typically privilege a vendor's internal key, especially when identifiers like OCLC and ISBN ids are almost always available. When I do a web search for "GGKEY 8THUT9WAPTR", the GGKEY added to that article, I don't get anything except WP and WP mirrors. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC) ::I don't disagree, just wanted to raise it in case someone would find something more that merits this being useful, particularly AFAIK nobody has raised GGKEY in our discussions here before. I am totally wine with concluding we don't need to include it. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 05:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) :::Sounds good to me. It is useful to have a discussion on the record. I found a Worldcat record and an ISBN for that book, so I don't think there is a demonstrated need for a GGKEY identifier (yet). – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 05:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC) :I don't think that there is much use in cs1|2 for GGKEYs. As far as I can tell there is no easy way to get from the GGKEY to the source. [[GGKEY]] redirects to [[Google Books]] where there is no mention of GGKEYs in that article's text. So, perhaps {{para|id|GGKEY:...}} should be detected and flagged with a maint cat so that these can be removed. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*id+*%3D+*GGKEY%2F insource search] found about 1900 instances. : :The [[User:Apoc2400|author]] of the google books [https://reftag.appspot.com/ reftag tool] appears to be around occasionally. If we decide that there isn't a good use for GGKEYs, perhaps the author will be willing to tweak the tool so that it doesn't continue to add them when google doesn't have an isbn for the book. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) == publication-place, place, or location and their proper use == At {{slink|User_talk:Citation_bot#Erroneous_move_of_publication-place_to_location}} it is claimed that Citation bot improperly replaced {{para|publication-place}} with {{para|location}} in three {{tlx|citation}} templates ({{diff|Safety_lamp|next|917421353|this diff}}). Template documentation for {{para|place}} and {{para|location}} is [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation#csdoc_location|here]] and template documentation for {{para|publication-place}} is [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation#csdoc_publication-place|here]]. Also see {{slink|Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher}}. Examples of how cs1|2 currently handle various combinations of {{para|publication-place}}, {{para|place}} and {{para|location}} in {{tld|citation}} (same for cs1 templates): #<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=Title |place=Austin, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}}</nowiki></code> → {{citation |title=Title |place=Austin, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}} #<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=Title |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}}</nowiki></code> → {{citation |title=Title |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}} #<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=The Woodlands, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}}</nowiki></code> → {{citation |title=Title |publication-place=The Woodlands, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}} #<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |place=London |newspaper=The Villager}}</nowiki></code> → {{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |place=London |newspaper=The Villager}} #<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}}</nowiki></code> → {{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}} In the examples above: :items 1–3 using one of {{para|place}}, {{para|publication-place}} or {{para|location}}, is appropriate here to disambiguate the geographic locale for a particular ''[[The Villager]]'' :item 4 uses {{para|publication-place}} to disambiguate ''The Villager'' and {{para|place}} to identify where the (missing) author wrote the article (the byline) :item 5 has both {{para|publication-place}} and {{para|location}} with the same value (Manhattan) so the template renders only {{para|publication-place}} Our article [[Byline]] suggests that a byline applies only to newspaper and magazine articles and that a byline identifies an article's author. If a byline is defined as the author of a news or magazine article (which it seems to be) then shouldn't we: #constrain the dual-use of {{para|publication-place}} and either of {{para|location}} or {{para|place}} only to {{tld|citation}} when {{para|newspaper}} or {{para|magazine}} are set, and to {{tlx|cite news}} and {{tlx|cite magazine}}? #for all other templates (and, for {{tld|citation}} using the other periodical aliases) treat {{para|publication-place}}, {{para|location}}, and {{para|place}} as equal aliases; when two or more are present in a cs1|2 template, emit a redundant parameter error message? #because 'byline' is an author name, require an author parameter when {{para|publication-place}} and one of {{para|location}} or {{para|place}} have assigned values? #*if we do not elect to require an author parameter, we need to tweak the module so that the 'written at' static text is capitalized in {{tld|citation}} template renderings when there are no author-name parameters —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) :I don't think that these proposed limitations will work. First, I don't know what bylines have to do with anything. While a [[byline]] contains the author's name, a [[dateline]] often contains the place where the item was written. They are independent of one another; neither requires the other. Second, the documentation for {{tl|citation}} says that {{para|newspaper}} and {{para|magazine}} are aliases of {{para|work}}, as are {{para|website}}, {{para|periodical}}, and {{para|journal}}, so limiting any check to just two of those aliases does not appear to be feasible. It would make different aliases behave differently. Third, I don't see why an item using a {{tl|cite web}} or {{tl|cite journal}} template could not (in theory) have a place where it was written and a place where it was published, although I definitely don't have an example or a good [[WP:V]]-related reason to include both pieces of information. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) ::Answers: ::#Our [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation#csdoc_location|documentation]] uses the term 'byline' so perhaps that should be changed to 'dateline'? ::#We already make distinctions between the various periodical parameters; for example, we render {{para|volume}} and {{para|issue}} differently in {{tlx|cite journal}} and {{tlx|cite magazine}} (and {{tlx|citation}} with {{para|journal}} or {{para|magazine}}) and not at all in {{tlx|cite web}} (and {{tld|citation}} with {{para|website}}); limiting the check to just magazine and news citations is not at all difficult ::#I would think that a website is always written someplace different from where it is 'published' (is that the location of the 'home office' or the location of the server farm?); except for 'news' websites (which should use {{tld|cite news}}...) does a dateline make any sense? For journals, I suspect that almost all articles are written someplace other than the geographic location of the publisher so a dateline doesn't make much sense there either, does it? ::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) :::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACitation_Style_documentation%2Fpublisher&type=revision&diff=929101458&oldid=890647560 Fixed]. :::#Different rendering of parameters in different templates is not the same as treating aliases differently from one another. We do not render {{para|first}} differently from {{para|first1}}, for example. If we want to have certain parameters stop being aliases of others, we would need to have that discussion, fix all parameter usages so that they were accurate, have never-ending arguments (cf {{para|publisher}}/{{para|work}} in {{tl|cite web}}), and sometime, years from now, separate the function of the aliases. I don't have the energy for any of that; maybe others do. :::#As I said, "in theory", and I don't have an example. This one might be a non-issue. I thought it might spur someone to remember a relevant example. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC) :::::Ok, I'm confused. So perhaps what you are suggesting without actually saying it is that {{para|publication-place}}, {{para|location}}, and {{para|place}} should become simple aliases? To get the 'written at' static text, a {{para|dateline}} parameter should be invented that only works with {{tlx|citation}} (when either of {{para|magazine}} or {{para|news}} is set) and with {{tlx|cite magazine}} and {{tlx|cite news}}. More than one of them in a cs1|2 template triggers the redundant-parameter error? :::: :::::But wait. I spend a lot of time looking at cs1|2 templates and don't often see paired {{para|publication-place}} and {{para|location}} or {{para|place}}. So I decided to see how commonly such pairings are used. If one is to believe these searches, not often: :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*location+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*publication%5C-place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%2B%2F location followed by publication place] – 65 :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*publication%5C-place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%2B%2F place followed by publication-place] – 7 :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*publication%5C-place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%2B%2F publication-place followed by place] – 13 :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*publication%5C-place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*location+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%2B%2F publication-place followed by location] – 9 :::::Pretty rare. So that makes me wonder: do we need this functionality? And further, why do we need dateline / byline annotation anyway? If the purpose of a citation is to help readers locate a copy of the source, why should we be supporting the inclusion of an unimportant tidbit of data that doesn't really help the reader locate a copy of the source? Perhaps the answer to this is to deprecate the support for paired {{para|publication-place}} with {{para|location}} or {{para|place}} and as part of that make all three simple aliases of each other and make {{para|location}} the canonical parameter name to reflect use in article space: :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*location+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%2F location] – 282k :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%2F place] – 17.6k :::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=hastemplate%3AModule%3ACitation%2FCS1+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*publication%5C-place+*%3D+*%5BA-Za-z%5D%5B%5E%5C%7C%5C%7D%5D%2B%2F publication-place] – 12k :::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC) ::::::If those search results are to be believed, then having multiple locations to accommodate datelines is not useful enough to be worth the difficulties that are created. I suggest creating a maintenance category to track those dual parameters in order to validate the search results. If there are truly only 100 or so articles with dual parameters, we should make them aliases and be done with this unnecessary complexity. People who truly need to indicate a dual location for some reason can place a note outside of the template or use hand-crafted citations. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC) :::::::Sandboxen tweaked and {{cl|CS1 location test}} property cat created. :::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC) ::::I think Jonesey95 is correct regarding the handling of aliases. As for the 3rd point, the publisher's location (for the particular work) is the pertinent parameter imo. This is searchable information, and may be an additional path to identifying editions/impressions (a certain work may be styled or assembled differently by imprints of the same publisher based-in/distributed-from different locations). For web-hosted works, the publication place would be the location of the registrant, since registrants are the entities who own the publishing/distribution facility (the domain). If I remember correctly, this goes back some time, the discussion about the place where the work was created came about when citing rare or unique works, manuscripts and certain similar special cases. But I could be wrong on that. [[Special:Contributions/65.88.88.91|65.88.88.91]] ([[User talk:65.88.88.91|talk]]) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) :By the way, this issue also frequently comes up with academic conference proceedings, which typically have both a conference location and a publisher address. If a location parameter is provided, our template formats it as a publisher address, but some suppliers of publication metadata put the conference location in that position while I have also seen other solutions like putting the conference location as part of the title and the publisher location as part of the publisher name. Trying to format this as ::<nowiki>{{citation|title=Conference Proceedings|location=Conference Location|publication-place=Publisher Address|publisher=Publisher Title|contribution=Conference Paper Title|author=Author|year=2020}}</nowiki> :produces the totally incorrect formatting ::{{citation|title=Conference Proceedings|location=Conference Location|publication-place=Publisher Address|publisher=Publisher Title|contribution=Conference Paper Title|author=Author|year=2020}} :The location is not where the paper was written, and is not individual to the paper; it was where it was presented, and is an attribute of the proceedings rather than of the paper. The same issue also arises for dates: the date the conference was held and the date its proceedings was published often differ. My usual preference is to either omit the conference location and conference date or list them as part of the conference title (if they really were part of the conference title) but some more formal guidance on this in the documentation might be helpful. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC) ::I think that this is why we have {{tlx|cite conference}}. The proceedings go in {{para|book-title}}, the paper in {{para|title}}, the place of publication into any of the three {{para|publication-place}}, {{para|location}} or {{para|place}}. If it is necessary or desirable to include the name of the conference and conference location and dates there is {{para|conference}} – free form parameter that is not included in the citation's metadata. And for those who use cs2: {{para|mode|cs2}}. ::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Regardless what what the documentation says, the current, overwhelming practice is that {{para|location}} is the location of the publisher. If additional specificity is required, then those are the ones that should have dedicated parameters, e.g. {{para|writing-location}}, {{para|conference-location}}, etc. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC) *I would make location, publication-place, and place all exact aliases, with the meaning of publisher location, and document this more clearly, and do away with the "written at" form completely., it is not generally useful for our purposes. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 07:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC) == PMID: updated PubMed website, URL scheme == An updated version of PubMed has been released, will become the default in spring 2020, and will ultimately replace the legacy version. It has a new web interface, including a new URL scheme with prefix {{caps|https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/}} + PMID + {{caps|/}}, though I don't know where this is documented. It's a cleaner, more responsive website, and should be the default here. See: {{cite journal|title=The New PubMed is Here|first=Marie|last=Collins|date=18 November 2019|journal=NLM Technical Bulletin|issue=431|page=e3|issn=2161-2986|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd19/nd19_pubmed_new.html}} [[User:Int21h|int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Int21h|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Int21h|email]]) 03:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC) :Thanks for this note, [[User:Int21h|int21h]]. Pinging [[User:Mvolz (WMF)]] for the [[mw:citoid]] service, [[User:RexxS]] in case this might affect any Wikidata-enabled templates, and [[User:Matthiaspaul]] for the {{tl|pmid}} template. [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 06:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC) : :[[Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox]] updated: <div style="margin-left:3.2em">{{cite compare |mode=journal |title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site |journal=Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management |pmid=16639905}}</div> :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC) ::Awesome. Also notice that the website gives a Location response header to forward to the URL with an ending "/", i.e. {{smallcaps|https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16639905}} is forwarded to {{smallcaps|https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16639905/}}. This is also the format given in its permalink button located on the page. It also appears to rewrite the URL to be more descriptive, using the article title, but I don't know how it's doing that. I don't know how much any of that matters. And before this gets pushed, being such an important template, we should consider confirming the URL scheme, and if all else fails consider contacting the PubMed team about it. Thanks all. [[User:Int21h|int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Int21h|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Int21h|email]]) 12:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC) :::I suspect that we don't care if the pmid url has a trailing slash. {{tlx|pmid}} has been updated, and does not include a trailing slash ::::<code><nowiki>{{pmid|16639905}}</nowiki></code> → {{code|{{pmid|16639905}}}} → {{pmid|16639905}} :::If there are to be problems with the new url, there are now some 8k articles using the new url so that should give us some sense of confidence that all is or is not well in the pmid world. :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC) == Unhelpful error message == *<code><nowiki>{{cite ssrn|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}}</nowiki></code> gives *{{cite ssrn|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}} There should be a better error message for this. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC) :Fixed in the sandbox; needs help text and category which I'll do later: ::<code><nowiki>{{cite ssrn/new|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}}</nowiki></code> :::{{cite ssrn/new|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}} :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC) == access icon css selectors == In January 2019 we changed the selectors for the access icons. That broke {{tlx|catalog lookup link}} and [[Module:catalog lookup link]] which underlie many of the individual identifier templates (there is a list of these on the template's doc page). I have tweaked [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css]] to add a less specific selector for use by this and any other templates that might want to use the cs1|2 css. In this example from [[Template:catalog lookup link/testcases]], links 1, 2, 5, and 8 have access icons: :<code><nowiki>{{Catalog lookup link/sandbox|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|article-link=Wikipedia|article-name=WP|link-prefix=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|url-access1=free|url-access2=subscription|url-access5=limited|url-access8=registration}}</nowiki></code> ::{{Catalog lookup link/sandbox|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|article-link=Wikipedia|article-name=WP|link-prefix=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|url-access1=free|url-access2=subscription|url-access5=limited|url-access8=registration}} cs1|2 works as it should: <div style="margin-left:1.6em">{{cite compare |mode=journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |url=//example.com |url-access=subscription |pmc=1234}}</div> —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC) :Thanks! [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC) ==To regular editors of the <nowiki>{{cite book | ... }}</nowiki> template, that have write privileges== To this template, to the section/box entitled "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format", for each of the examples for which this does not appear, '''please at least add: * '''| page = | pages = ''' If one of these do not appear in ''every'' example, lack of importance might be inferred, which is contrary to WP policies and guidelines.'''Then, please add any other standard, important field that is normally needed (better empty fields in an example, than the field to be missing).''' Please, take onto account the preference of WP writers for web-accessible sources (and the fact of inevitable url demise). That is, '''consider whether ''every'' example book citation template should also present: * '''| url = | url-status = | archive-url = | archive-date = | access-date = ''' and possibly: * '''| doi = | doi-broken-date =''' Finally, in my opinion, at least one further example would be helpful, that of a two-author book with two editors, that is a part of a series, that has an original publication date that is old, and a recent publication date of a newer edition, that is available both in hardcopy, and in a digital paginated form. Add to this access date, and the fields based on the expectation that the url/doi will die. All from me. Just '''aiming for no <nowiki>{{cite book | ... }}</nowiki> example to lack a page number, and for all to have needed url fields''', and after than, hoping for an example that has essentially everything that is generally needed for citing scholarly secondary academic sources (which is our aim, I understand), Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:C700:9B0:A57B:85B4:7889:AE7D|2601:246:C700:9B0:A57B:85B4:7889:AE7D]] ([[User talk:2601:246:C700:9B0:A57B:85B4:7889:AE7D|talk]]) 15:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC) :While I tend to agree about page numbers, book citations are primarily to the printed text, and a URL to a convenience copy is in no sense required, still less a DOI, which msot books do not have. Even an ISBN is not required, and for older books there may not be one. url-status and the various archive parameters are not required even for {{tl|cite web}} much less for {[tl|cite book}}. We should '''not''' imply that an online version is expected, much less required. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 18:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC) == New url-status needed: content-missing == We might need a new url-status value (or two); maybe something like <code>content-missing</code> or <code>no-data</code>, for urls which are not dead, not usurped, not unfit (per discussions [[Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests/Completed#Suppress original URL|here]] and [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Suppress original URL|here]]), but which bring up the correct website, display readable content on the page like a containing header and footer with the expected website boilerplate there, but with the "meat and potatoes" portion in the middle blank, missing, or otherwise not able to [[WP:V|verify]] the content of the article. Example: [http://eleicoes.uol.com.br/2010/raio-x/2/presidente/votacao-por-estado/ this page] should (and at one time, did) have the results of the Brazilian presidential election of 2002 (and others, via radio button) but no longer does; instead, the central frame of the website is an empty gray box. None of the current <code>|url-status=</code> values express the fact that this url still belongs to the owner, still comes up, but contains no useful information capable of verifying content in a Wikipedia article. (In this case, the internet archive doesn't help; among [https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://eleicoes.uol.com.br/2010/raio-x/2/presidente/votacao-por-estado/ 67 captures at Archive.org], it's no better (spot-checked a few). But that won't always be the case.) I wish I had a better example, where the ''current'' website was a gray box, but Archive.org still had a valid capture showing the original page with complete data present (which I expect is a more common case), because that would be easier to deal with: the linked title should go to the archived page in that case instead of the url value; i.e., the action is similar to the status=dead-url, except "dead" is inaccurate since the original url is still live, just useless. In the example I gave, the action should actually be different, with the title being in plain-text, unlinked. It may be we need two new statuses then: * <code>url-status='''content-missing'''</code>{{snd}}url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive is good: link the title to the archive.org capture * <code>url-status='''content-inaccessible'''</code>{{snd}}url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive either doesn't exist, or exists but also has missing data: unlink the title. The '''actions''' required by these two cases may match actions associated with already existing values, and in that sense the new values (action-wise) are aliases of existing values. That would be a win for implementation, but the option of having new values would still be valuable in giving a clear and proper name to the cases. For example, the action for the first bullet is equivalent to the action for <code>|url-status=dead</code>; but imho it would be confusing to use the word "dead" for this case merely to elicit the proper action when the url in that case is so clearly not dead, and would confuse citation template users no end. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :Isn't this already covered by {{para|url-status|unfit}}? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :: Did you read the discussions linked at "here and here" in the first sentence? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 07:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :::Sure, but I don't see anything there that would make it not fit this case. Although less harmful than being hijacked by malware, I'd say that a blank page still meets the description of "generally inappropriate". And if a url is not working any more, I don't see the point in putting effort into a fine-grained classification of exactly the manner in which it is not working. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC) ::::As near as I can tell from the wandering path taken by <code>unfit</code> and <code>usurped</code> (see [[#14:34, 5 Oct|this comment]] by Trappist above), the actions don't match; but I could be mistaken. Also, the url '''is''' working, and it's decidedly '''not''' a blank page; it is identifiably the correct page. That's the whole point. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :: Pinging {{ping|Izno|Mindmatrix}} [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC) and {{ping|Jonesey95|Jc3s5h|GoingBatty}}. <small>updated by [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)</small> :The document at that URL is functionally broken. It should return a 404 or even a 500 if it were coded properly, so I'd consider it "dead" and it's certainly "unfit". [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC) : :{{para|url-status}} has no meaning to cs1|2 without the citation also has {{para|archive-url}}. Because what en.wiki cares about is source content, this citation is as good as dead. I was going to suggest that {{tlx|failed verification}} might be added to a citation with that url but that template requires at 4 that "the source still contains useful information on the topic". The example url does not meet that requirement. The advice at {{tld|failed verification}} when the source has "no relevance to any part of the article" is to delete the citation and add {{tlx|citation needed}}. The url may once have supported the article text (we don't know but [[WP:AGF]], it did). Marking the citation with {{tlx|dead link}} will, I think, bring it to the attention of [[User:InternetArchiveBot|IABot]] or others which will dutifully find one of the several archived empty snapshots at archive.org, add {{para|archive-url}}, delete {{tld|dead link}}. No benefit there. : :Perhaps what is needed is not a change to cs1|2 but some sort of new template that occupies the space between {{tlx|dead link}} (because the link isn't) and {{tld|failed verification}} (because no "useful information on the topic"). Until a new source can be found, we want to continue to say that once-upon-a-time this article text was sourced but now cannot be verified due to a form of link rot; perhaps: {{tlx|content missing}} (surely there is a better name); something that would not cause IABot and friends to add useless blank snapshots but would serve as a flag for editors who might be induced to find a working or archived source as a replacement. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :: Trappist, I like your suggestion, and your comments about the in-between world. And like you, I had also considered various things, including definitely the {{tl|failed verification}} idea, which however didn't seem quite enough all by itself. I like your idea of a new template. And again, I agree that surely there must be a better name; I tried to think of some, and just couldn't come up with a good one yet; I thought about all sorts of things about missing middles, like bagels and donut holes and taxidermy and [[Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture#Heart_removal|Mayan sacrifice]] and 'data eviscerated' but none of those seem serious or appropriate or suggestive enough; and the last few sound ominous. Maybe a new, optional param attached to {{tld|failed verification}}? Although, if we could come up with a good name for the param, then we'd have the name for the new template. The other reason I like your suggestion, is because it avoids having to complicate an already complicated situation here. :: I'd like to hear from others, to see what they think. If there is [[WP:CONS|consensus]] for a new template along the lines of what you suggest, then the CS1 doc for url-status should certainly mention it, so that folks attempting to code a {{tld|citation}} and running into this situation, could be guided to the template, rather than performing contortions with {{tld|citation}} or using improper values of <code>url-status</code>. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :::If the link does not verify the citation, and there is no archive link proving otherwise, the link should be removed. Whether such original link at some point did verify the citation is irrelevant. Citations must verify in real time, not at some point in the past or the future. There is no assumption of good faith here: the link either helps to verify the citation or it doesn't. This is not an unfit url, the parameter itself is unfit for inclusion. I remember a fairly extensive discussion on this issue not too long ago. Again, my comments only concern urls without counterparts in reliable archives. [[Special:Contributions/24.105.132.254|24.105.132.254]] ([[User talk:24.105.132.254|talk]]) 21:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Usually called a [[soft 404]]. They should be status 404, but the site is poorly maintained, it reports 200 even though the original page no longer exists or works (redirects to homepage is common). They are difficult to detect with automated processes. The best action is treat as dead. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC) :I've recently ran into a similar situation trying to verify some references from Indian and US newspapers, which only display a message like "we are currently not providing access or use of our website/mobile application to our users in Europe". Probably, this is down to the [[General Data Protection Regulation]] (GDPR/DSGVO). I was considering to use {{para|url-status|usurped}}, but then used {{para|url-access|limited}}. I agree that a special option like {{para|url-access|regional}} or {{para|url-access|GDPR-blocked}} (or something along that line) might be useful. --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 23:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC) ::Those are policy blocks. They come and go with arbitrary decree, and are relative to viewer location. What is blocked for one reader is not blocked for another. What is blocked today is unblocked tomorrow. There is no way Wikipedia can maintain that information. BTW these probably should not be set to {{para|url-access|limited}} which concerns limited for all readers (if we follow the given examples). Wikipedia is not designed to deal with policy blocks, such as Turkey and China. The permutations are endless and constantly changing. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC) : Not a soft 404. Page still exists at the original location, still contains some of the boilerplate content including correct page title, radio button selections for selecting specific years, and so on. A soft 404 is not that, but typically a server trapping a page, that like you said, no longer exists, and putting up substitute material, such as, "Hmm... that page seems to be missing. Try our site map.." or some such. This is nothing like that. This is the original page, in its proper place, with some of the proper material, but with the guts of the content hollowed out or missing. This doesn't affect the utility or benefit of Trappist's suggestion pro or con; but I don't agree that calling ita dead url is correct, as "dead url" has a specific meaning. This url is still owned by the domain owner, the url is not a soft 404, and the url still presents some data, but not the crucial data required for verifiability. That simply isn't a dead url. In my view, this is closer to an online news article that used to verify an assertion a month ago, but has since been significantly updated, and no longer does, with no archive of the earlier one available. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) == Protected edit request on 17 December 2019 == {{edit fully-protected|Template:Cite magazine|answered=yes}} Request to fix poor usage: For the '''quote''' parameter in the table, please change {{!xt|needs to include}} to {{xt|must include}}. [[User:Eric|Eric]] ^{[[User talk:Eric|talk]]} 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC) :[[File:Full-protection-unlocked.svg|28px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' According to the page's protection level you should be able to [[Help:Editing|edit the documentation page yourself]]. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:EP --> – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ::{{yo|Jonesey95}} Thanks for looking. I did manage to make the edit just now. Sorry for posting here, not sure what happened before. I must have either hit the wrong link or a link wrongly brought me here to make the request. [[User:Eric|Eric]] ^{[[User talk:Eric|talk]]} 16:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC) == date range in cite-web == is it proper to put a range of dates in {{tl|Cite web}} to show that a website has been online for a certain period of time, or is it best to just use a specific date? [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) :Without a specific example, hard to say, but in general, if the page has a specific date (an updated on ... date for example) then use that date; else, don't date and use {{para|access-date}} to indicate when you read that page and confirmed that it supported the en.wiki article the uses the citation. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC) ::Okay thanks for the prompt reply. The specific example I'm thinking of is ''Taxapad'', though there could be many more. Somehow a few days ago I stumbled upon [https://bugguide.net/node/view/650027 this site], and saw in the header a researcher named {{xt|Dicky Sick Ki Yu (1997-2015)}}. Yes, the name caught my eye, but so did the date range next to the name. I believed that Mr Yu had been a very bright young man who'd unfortunately passed away at the age of 17 or 18, and that the Bug Guide site was paying their respects. But then I looked him up on the wider Internet and found many references to Taxapad on Wikipedia, which was apparently a site run by Mr Yu. Our references list him with the date range (1997-2012). Realizing that it was implausible for a 14 year old to have done all this research, and presumably much of it when he was even younger than that, I figured that the date range must mean something else. So I looked it up and it seems that we are listing the lifespan of the website, not the researcher. That all makes perfect sense to me now. I'm just worried it might confuse other people, especially for sites that have been online for an even longer period of time. : ::So my question is, should we change all of the Taxapad references to just say 2012? And then apply the same practice to any other instances of {{tl|cite-web}} that have a date range? I dont know of any, but I suspect there are probably more examples on Wikipedia somewhere. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 16:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC) :::It is the purpose of citations at en.wiki to identify and help readers locate the source material that supports text in en.wiki articles. Listing the copyright dates of a relatively short-lived website is not of much use. For ''Taxapad'', I think that {{para|date}} can be safely deleted because a date range does not identify a particular point in time when information on that website supported an en.wiki article's text. The handful of ''Taxapad'' citations that I looked at do not have {{para|access-date}} so we don't really know if the archived snapshot supports en.wiki article text. {{para|date|1997-2015}} does not help to pin that down. :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) ::::Okay, thank you very much. If our search function is accurate, there are nearly 4000 mentions of Taxapad on Wikipedia, and at least a healthy portion of them have the (1997-2012) text in the date field. So, I cannot do this myself, ... at most I could nibble a bit and get it down to 3800 or so. I will try to see if it can be automated through AWB or some other tool. I suspect, though, it may be low priority because the text as it stands now is not actually wrong. In either case, thank you for your helpful answer. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 01:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC) :::: If that date range 1997-2015 is really defining the time this site was online, and if it would be important to indicate the first time the information was available there, a combination of{{para|date|2015}} and {{para|orig-year|1997}} could be used to indicate this. However, the problem is that it may be difficult now (in 2019) to determine if some specific supporting statement was already online in 1997 (or in some other year before 2015) already under the given link, unless you can find this in archived snapshots. --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) == Cite journal disallows pages and page params together == I recently added a citation which I wanted to include both a page range, because it's a journal article, and a page, to point to a particular portion of the article, but it has a CS1 error. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&type=revision&diff=932091148&oldid=931838586&diffmode=source (diff)] Maybe this should be allowed for cite journal? Cheers, [[User:Mvolz|Mvolz]] ([[User talk:Mvolz|talk]]) 10:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC) : You can use template {{tl|Rp}} to indicate the particular page. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 11:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC) :The in-source location for {{tl|cite journal}} is usually an article, and such locations should be indicated with a page range (an older, much rarer practice cited the first page only). Since articles were historically short, this was deemed acceptable. Adding a second-level location probably overcomplicates things. I would add a shortened reference ({{tl|sfn}}) with its own location to the specific page. Or, a note outside the full reference. [[Special:Contributions/100.33.37.109|100.33.37.109]] ([[User talk:100.33.37.109|talk]]) 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC) ::Or something like {{para|pages|98–109 [101]}}. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 17:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC) ::: I like this notation. I've also seen {{para|pages|98–109 (101)}}. Not being aware that pages accepts free-flow input, personally I have used {{para|pages|98–109, 101}} hoping that readers would "get it" that there must be something important with page 101, and editors would not remove it as redundant. However, for consistency it would be better to have a well-defined and documented way to handle cases like this (with or without extra parameter). --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 22:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC) == ampersands and Vancouver-style name lists == Vancouver style does not support the use of an ampersand between the last two author names in a name list so I have tweaked the module to ignore {{para|last-author-amp}} when used with {{para|vauthors}}: {{cite compare |mode=journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |vauthors=Red R, Brown B, Green G |last-author-amp=yes}} —[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC) == Small bug with Cite web and Visual editor == When using the Cite function to add a URL in the VisualEditor, the {{para|subscription}} parameter is still available even though it has been deprecated. - [[User:Samuel Wiki|Samuel Wiki]] ([[User talk:Samuel Wiki|talk]]) 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC) :Deprecated does not mean unsupported; {{para|subscription}} and {{para|registration}} are still valid supported parameters. Likely these two parameters will become unsupported at the next module-suite update. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC) ::I figured out it was coming from TemplateData and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_web%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=932532726&oldid=928090544 set the parameters] to deprecated status. - [[User:Samuel Wiki|Samuel Wiki]] ([[User talk:Samuel Wiki|talk]]) 16:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC) :::There is a problem with the edit that you made. {{tlx|cite web}} does not support {{para|chapter}} or {{para|cite entry}} so template data should not recommend replacement of {{para|subscription}} and {{para|registration}} with {{para|chapter-url-access}} and {{para|entry-url-access}}. You might want to fix that. :::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC) ::::Fixed. - [[User:Samuel Wiki|Samuel Wiki]] ([[User talk:Samuel Wiki|talk]]) 17:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) == When is <code><nowiki>url-status=unfit</nowiki></code> to be used? == I do not understand when <code><nowiki>url-status</nowiki></code> should be set to <code><nowiki>unfit</nowiki></code>. What is this setting for? The documentation doesn't seem to say what cases it is supposed to be used in. Thanks! [[User:DemonDays64|DemonDays64]] ([[User talk:DemonDays64|talk]]) 00:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC) :Achieving clarity on that question has eluded us. See {{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#spam_black_list_and_archive_urls}} (currently at the top of this page so likely soon to be archived). There is some history there. :—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC) The classic use case is when a domain has expired and hijacked by spammers, malware or porn sites. We don't want those links displayed. They are no longer "fit" for Wikipedia. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 01:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC) == template-doc-demo should be a bad parameter in the mainspace == I was about to recommend the use of {{para|template-doc-demo}} for another user but it turns out that I had a faulty assumption in mind: It currently disables error categorization in the mainspace. I do not believe that is the intent of the parameter and do believe that placement in the mainspace should cause the parameter to be disabled (or emit its own error message). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC) :At the moment, it appears that it is used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=insource%3A%2Ftemplate-doc-demo%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 one place in article space] ([[Paleocene]], in case the search link no longer works) because that article contains a valid DOI ending in a period (full stop), which the module currently flags as an error. If we are to flag this usage somehow, I recommend a CS1 maintenance category for uses of {{para|template-doc-demo}} in article space, for situations like this where the module has not yet been updated and a red error message should not be displayed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC) ::Such cases should probably use a wikitext comment to explain why the parameter throws an error (for the time being). I would certainly prefer an error; we have too many hidden maintenance messages as is. Maintenance messages should be reserved for when a page should be checked-in-on rather than obviously fixed (as with our ISBN-ignored category). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC) == Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019 == {{edit semi-protected|Template:Cite web/doc|answered=no}} {{subst:trim|1= <!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. --> <!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> }} ~~~~'