This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Cite Q. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. I just tried using Cite Q for the first time, and as it has the potential to save me a lot of time going forward, I was hoping that someone might be able to address this issue:
When P1065 is specified, it is assumed that the original URL is dead, which in the following example is incorrect. This mirrors the behavior of the citation template when |url-status is not set. However I was unable to find any Wikidata property for indicating the status of a URL. How do we solve this issue best? Is a new Wikidata property needed, or am I missing something?
And as always, if you are inserting this Cite Q template into an article that has an established citation style, you'll need to add custom parameters to ensure that the displayed citation conforms to that style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a question, how can I make text apperaed from using the template in a specific language? for example, I would like to have a reference completly in English (in Arabic Wikipedia).
Module:Cite Q retrieves a sitelink at line 520. After a bit of fidgeting about, at line 560 the module creates a wikilinked title for the citation. Module:Cite Q does not account for |pmc= (nor, for that matter for |url=). In cs1|2 templates, |pmc= automatically links |title= with an external link to the free-to-read source. cs1|2 assumes that external links, no matter how they are created, have priority over internal links to Wikipedia articles.
You can get round this problem by explicitly defining |title= in the {{cite q}} call:
{{cite Q|Q27131582 |title=Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia: Final-Year Medical Student Contributions to Wikipedia Articles for Academic Credit at One School}}
My impression from working with this, is that the template determines the name to display two ways... 1) the label associated with the author's entity on Wikidata, or 2) a "object stated as" qualifier to the author's name on the "work, edition, volume, or whatever" entity cited. It seems me, however, that in many cases the "house style" name form used here can actually be determined from information that can, or should be, stored on Wikidata... specifically the "given name" and "family name" statements on the author's entity. This could of course still be overridden the same way here, if desired, but seems far more likely to guess correctly in the vast majority of cases, and would make adding these less painful. Jarnsax (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The citation generated in the second case is obviously broken, it's returning the "as stated on the title page" name (I wrote this WD entities for this work), but if that was not defined, it would return the "entity label". Having to do it the 'first way' is far more painful, as can be seen from the markup. I know there are "issues" with performance when crawling a tree of linked items, so I'm not yelling "fix this right now" or anything, but it would definitely be nice (and help with consistent, proper citations) if you didn't have to define the first and last names every time. Jarnsax (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this, "ideal" would be pair of toggle switches, one (in the invocation of Cite Q to create a citation) to set the name order displayed on the page, and one (in the code for Cite Q) that could be used to set the 'default' name order displayed on that wiki... there could be the option to fetch the "title page name" if wanted. (added later) In order to avoid the "picking the default" toggle from requiring the actual code of "Cite Q" from being different on each wiki, the code snippets for the various options can be put on a subpage and transcluded, with notransclude tags around the snippets that the particular wiki doesn't want as default. Jarnsax (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we plan to use those properties at some point, but they're not yet in the Lua code. It needs someone who knows Lua to do that. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd just seen where those were mentioned 'over there' by ^ Mike, and was coming over here to mention it, lol. Much better than crawling the tree. Jarnsax (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors
which is listed in the corresponding Wikidata item Q 114773597. Also, when editing the Acanthomysis brucei page (in source mode) there is a warning message saying "Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden".
Does this error have anything to do with the "percent encodings" of the URL:s to the linked PDF file named "2002 Vol.23(1) 5Fukuoka-2.pdf" (e.g. %20 for spaces and %28 + %29 for the left and right parenthesis, respectively) or is there something else that is amiss? – Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
In the above code snippets, the variable url has a string of two urls:
<url> (<archive url>)
The problem was the ( in the <url> portion (an allowed character). The above code was looking for just an opening ( and it found that in the return value for <url> which contained: ...Vol.23(1)... so arcurl got:
That thing is later assigned to |archive-url=. Module:Citation/CS1 choked on it because |archive-url= does not begin with a uri scheme and because there is a space character in the value assigned to |archive-url=. By adding the space character at line 481, the code now looks for <space>( which works because white space is not allowed in a url and is part of the separator between the two urls.
We might want to specifically show how to do something like this where the use case needs to suppress everything in front of the "chapter" title. It's not 'obvious', and not an uncommon thing to need to do.
And yes, the markup is a bit 'pedantic' about stating things that I've suppressed. It's to attempt to produce the correct COinS metadata regardless of how we display the cite. People should do that. :) Hopefully I'm doing it correctly... I don't actually have software that uses it, so I can't check. Jarnsax (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
What does this template do?
The /doc could use an opening like: "This templates returns Y for input X. Its main feature is that ... with ... [something with Wikidata to do I guess]". DePiep (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, puts me on the right way. Will spend more time when application comes in sight. I've added an example, and ce'ed first line into more non-initiated wording (revertable ce proposal). DePiep (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Made an adjustment. Tried to prevent insider-jargon (perfectly correct descriptions, but not that explaining). I think module/template-editors-aimed documentation could be elsewhere. HTH. DePiep (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
We just don't want to (when all this gets translated) accidentally be telling random editors elsewhere to look on WD for an actual written citation. Jarnsax (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
We have the full text on commons and it is linked to using the "document file on Wikimedia commons" property on wikidata. However you wouldn't know it from the citation. Wondering what the best way to link to the full text from the citation would be?
Possibilities:
Link the title to the commons file (it's currently linking to the pmc website). I guess it might be redundant because it is free on the pmc website, but I can imagine cases where it is not. The commons file is more direct and doesn't require a second click.
Or, create a new "commons" identifier for CS1 module, which will link directly to the file. (change to CS1).
Or, put the green "unlocked" button on the wikidata when it has the commons link (change to CS1) to indicate it's available from the wikidata page.
The commons file is more direct and doesn't require a second click. For me, from the citation above, getting to the article of record is one click from the doi. It is also one click from the pmc (article title link is a mirror of the pmc link). Assuming that there were such a thing as a cs1|2 |commons= parameter that would link to the article at commons (|title-link=:File:{{#property:P996|from=Q37636856}}?), it takes me two clicks to get to the readable form of the article: first click, second click.
Because cs1|2 has |title-link=, I don't see any need for a |commons= parameter.
The WikidataQ37636856 link does not link from the citation to the source but rather links to a metadata page so the access icon does not apply. This is the same as the |pmid= link from which you can also get to the article of record.
different "issues" of the same edition, in different formats
Hardcover, softcover, ebook. All the "same edition". They get different ISBNs, different Google Books IDs, and sometimes the LCCN only applies to some of them. In at least some cases, the 'ebook', or a later paperback, has it's own ISBN LCCN. See A Sea of Glass: Searching for the Blaschkas’ Fragile Legacy in an Ocean at Risk (Q114635674).... just as an aside, what the LoC catalog calls an 'invalid isbn' isn't actually invalid, the LCCN just doesn't apply to that 'issue' of the edition.
Editors are, understandably, picky about such things in the sources they cite... they want to cite the exact source they used (and duh, lol). Actually "doing this" can, also, be 'painful'. See my efforts at User:Jarnsax/citations/publishers.
I think it would be "easier to use" if we could tell Cite Q which distribution format we want to cite, and have it use the distribution format (P437) qualifier to filter out the desired ones. Otherwise, we kinda need a separate entity for "exemplars" that are cited somewhere to avoid having to override it in the markup.
I'm not clear what filtering you expect the template do do. If you wish to site the eBook, give the QID of the item representing the eBook; if you wish to cite the hardback, give the QID of the item about the hardback. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jarnsax, if you want to use a book entry in wikidata as the basis for a reference, then create a wikidata item for the exact version used as the reference. In that way the wikidata item will have one ISBN-13, etc. In the language of the book world, the paperback edition is not the "same edition" as the hardcover edition. Ask any librarian, book dealer, or book collector. Often the paperback edition comes out months or years later than the hardcover, in a smaller format, and paged differently. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Use with Template:sfn
Hi, I'm a big fan of cite Q, and have been using it with the sfn reference style in e.g. bass trombone, but recently its use was reverted on contrabass trombone with this edit. Can someone explain what I did wrong? Apparently, "Cite Q doesn't work correctly with {{sfn}} templates. The only working options are to use Cite Q inline, or use another cite template instead." If this is true, then is that something we can fix here in Lua, and if it is false, I'd like to know what I'd need to do to make sure sfn doesn't result in no-target errors. Cheers —Jon (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You might start by visiting Category:Harv and Sfn template errors which will tell you how to enable the {{sfn}} error messaging. There are eight short-form references that show sfn error: no target errors at your version of Contrabass trombone (permalink). Seven of them work (false positive errors); the eighth (Yeo) does not.
The seven false positive errors are present because the Bevan, Guion, and Herbert {{cite q}} templates do not include a value for |date=. Module:Footnotes, the engine that renders {{sfn}}, reads wikitext of the {{sfn}} templates and the wikitext of the {{cite q}} templates. From that reading, the module attempts to construct correct CITEREF identifiers. It then attempts to match {{sfn}} CITEREF identifiers to {{cite q}} CITEREF identifiers. When there is no match, the {{sfn}} template emits a sfn error: no target error message.
I think that Editor ActivelyDisinterested's edit summary is not quite correct. Because it is often necessary to explicitly override {{cite q}}|author= parameters with |last= / |first= parameter pairs for use with {{sfn}} templates, explicitly stating |date= can (should) be done at the same time. Doing that will ensure that {{sfn}} and {{cite q}} work together.
{{Ping|RexxS}} can you amend this template so that retractions handled like errata are? You did this in the sandbox for errata, but seems to be operational without the sandbox notation. Trilotat (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-automated synchronisation of code across projects
I've just been told of mw:Synchronizer, a script which can be used to facilitate the synchronisation of code, hosted on the Mediawiki wiki, across projects, and which may be extendable. Can we make use of it?
Just a thumbs-up for "consider how to use |url-status=" which is on the TODO list. There was at least one editor (some time ago) who removed archival information for citations on the grounds that the articles were not (yet) dead. After some discussion, s/he pointed out that as long as I included |url-status=live, then s/he would consider that acceptable. So the question is, I presume, whether this should be decided in Wikidata or as an override on Wikipedia - or what the default should be: live or dead? The default in the citation template appears to be 'dead', so there's a risk of having to type '|url-status=live' into all the Wikipedia 'cite Q' usage if we don't want to upset people who prefer to read the live URL than the archive - typically with a lot more surveillance-capitalism privacy violation. Boud (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! The last WikiWorkshop included a developer track (cc @Pablo (WMF), @Scann (WDU)) to foster collaborations between researchers and developers, with the aim to come up with hacking projects that could be worked on during the upcoming Wikimedia Hackathon.
During the corresponding "Improving citation metadata" session (cc @Nidiah), @Fnielsen wondered (please correct me if I missunderstood you) whether there is an estimate of how much the CiteQ template is used across Wikipedias.
This seemed to be an easy enough task to be addressed as a hacking project during the hackathon. However, we are not sure if it has been done already.
Yes, I wondered during the session :). WDQS with a SERVICE query can fetch usage for individual papers and we use that in Scholia (together with a DOI search), see, e.g., https://scholia.toolforge.org/work/Q21090025#wikipedia-mentions. The Wikipedias queried are limited. I have been thinking about making a database of Cite Q citations, so more elaborate queries could be done. — fnielsen (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Fnielsen! Thanks for the clarifications. So, as I see it, the problem with what we currently have is that we have to choose a work (e.g., a paper) and only then ask WDQS which Wikipedia articles cite it via Cite Q. Is that correct? That is, if we wanted to get all Cite Q occurrences this way, we would have to repeat the search for all works in Wikidata, individually. Correct?
On the other hand, just to make sure, the database you are proposing would be a snapshot that we would have to update from time to time. Is that right?
Thank you! @Nidiah and I will be happy to introduce this proposal in the pitching session of the Wikimedia Hackathon tomorrow :) Diegodlh (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I have worked around this problem in the article. If the template is not going to display all of those parameter values, it should probably drop them instead of passing them along to {{Cite journal}} for processing. The Cite Q citations in that article are still out of conformance with WP:CITEVAR in multiple ways, as is very common with this problematic template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thank you for the repairs on the wikipedia article and for the edit summary. Just to be clear, none of the references used Cite Q, but I understand your point. Trilotat (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Right. Because only some of the citations in this article use Cite Q, the Cite Q templates need significant modification to conform to CITEVAR. This need is typical when you have a mix of CS1 templates and Cite Q, but the need is not usually met. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Locations in report citations
Suggestion: It'd be useful to include locaction information in Cite_Q citations to reports (comparison in sandbox), since the location of the publisher / commissioning organisation / authoring organisation is often highly relevant (indeed usually more relevant than a book's publisher's city!). Either drawing from the country (P17) of the publisher (P123) or maybe the location (P276) of the cited item itself? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk06:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I've made some changes at the module sandbox (diff) which remove the fallback to subject named as (P1810) for authors' names. Using P1810 for this is semantically wrong, because this is simply not what P1810 is for: P1810 is for storing what the subject is named as, which would be the work that's being cited, not the author. Only using object named as (P1932) (with fallback to the author item name or unknown author) is correct, because P1932 is for what the object is named as, which would be the author. If anyone objects to these changes, please let me know. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
About 244 of these were removed in the last day and a half, possibly bot- or script-assisted, in favor of "{{cite thesis}}" instead (search-on-page for thesis) with no resulting improvement to the page. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the replacements in any way worse? I'm non involved with these replacements, but if they don't make the page worse, and reult in the cite being readable/editable more esily on enwiki (in edit mode), and more easily findable as a thesis (by using the specific cite thesis instead of the generic Cite Q), then I don't see the issue here? Looking at some examples, it seems like the editor is adding small changes to make the cites more consistent (e.g. making sure that the type of thesis and the name of the University are alaways included). Fram (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I picked one of the contributions at random, at Helen Leach, and found that the change from Cite Q to Cite thesis fixed a CITEVAR problem, improving the page. Citation #9 in that article had no period after the author's middle initial, and it used commas to separate the items in the citation, unlike all of the other citations in the article, which use periods. After changing to Cite thesis, citation #9's punctuation matched that of the other citations in the article. That looks like an improvement to me. This template has caused CITEVAR problems for its entire existence, and replacing it with a Citation Style 1 template like Cite thesis, or using custom parameters, usually fixes the problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the replacements are in every case worse; not least since they loose the additional functionality which Cite Q has over other citation templates; for example automatic update if the paper or thesis cited is marked as retracted on Wikidata. This behaviour is disruptive, done without consensus (and your RFC to prohibit the use of this template failed, you'll remember) and needs to stop (and be reverted). If it's bot driven, it is unlikely to be approved, and the bot should be blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Funny, right below people aexplaining how the changes are actual, visual, current improvements, you simply claim that they are "in every case worse", claiming a highly hypothetical case (right, a 1927 thesis will be retracted, sure)... Please stop trying to claim that someone improving articles is disruptive just because they no longer use your template. Fram (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is a strange and invalid argument. Just in case I was extremely lucky in my first random click, I picked another article at random, Dianne Sika-Paotonu. The improvements are clear from this citation version to this version. The edit fixed an invalid date ("1 January 2014" to "2014") and correctly converted commas to full stops, matching the other citations in the article per CITEVAR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the first on the list (Jacinta Ruru). I think the Cite Q usage was originally placed there by the person who later replaced it with {{cite thesis}}. The CITEVAR problems not withstanding, is it inappropriate for an editor to go back and change the template they used? Trilotat (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow it's not very nice to find yourself being discussed without being tagged in. There were discussions on my talk page back in March, it would have been polite if someone had mentioned I was being discussed here too.
While I cited Altmetric tracking as an issue for the thesis project, which it is, the more relevant point is that in every case the citation I made was an improvement because Cite Q does not include the institution the thesis was submitted to as a part of the citation. That's a pretty fundamental part of a thesis citation. Yes, the vast majority of the citations I changed were ones I had made in the first place, and I wish the thesis project team had chosen a different template at the time. However we believed that Cite Q is a good thing, and were hoping it would be improved to do a better job of pulling thesis data from Wikidata (we did start a discussion here with how it cites theses). No improvement has happened. We also knew we would be adding URLs for digitised theses later, and didn't want to have to adjust citations individually. I would love for Cite Q to be fixed to include the institution a thesis was submitted to, and the repository that publishes the metadata, and handle dates and author punctuation etc better. But until it does, being criticised for switching to a different template that makes a better citation seems pretty unfair. DrThneed (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Your edits were being criticized by editors who were unable or unwilling to see that they were CITEVAR-related improvements. Thank you for these editing improvements, and my apologies for not pinging you or linking to this discussion from your talk page. That was an oversight on my part; I probably did not think to do so because your edits were improvements rather than problems.
As for improvements to this template to help avoid CITEVAR problems, I have been asking for them on this talk page for years, to little avail. I have lost hope that this template will ever be compatible with the most commonly used citation templates without significant customization. People who use this template with the naive assumption that it will work like {{Cite journal}} and its siblings will, unfortunately, be advised its adherents to read the very long, intricate documentation, which humans tend not to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
trans-title = ?
The documentation currently has "Title not in English" in the "Done" section. How can the equivalent of the usual citation parameter |trans-title=Dog (for |title=Chien) be added as a declaration about an element in Wikidata? In Module:Cite Q I don't see anything that gives me a clue. Currently I'm doing trans-title as an override from the Wikipedia side.
I seem to be having a new issue using Cite Q for chapters. Three months ago I was able to cite a chapter of a book (e.g. this item on this page), but now instead of Cite Q pulling information about the book, there's an error ("{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)"). Does anyone know how I could fix this? --Prosperosity (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps not broken, per se, but never supported? In the ~/testcases, there is no example of this template supporting a chapter qid.
From poking around on the internet, it appears that Green is the author of "From Hawaīki to Howick...", a contribution to La Roche's Grey's Folly: A History .... Your use of {{cite q}} for this source misinterprets that and assigns Green as the author of all. If I understand the source, it should be cited like this:
{{cite book|contributor=Green, Nathew |contribution=From Hawaīki to Howick – A Ngāi Tai History |author=La Roche, Alan |date=2011 |title=Grey's Folly: A History of Howick, Pakuranga, Bucklands-Eastern Beaches, East Tamaki, Whitford, Beachlands and Maraetai |location=Auckland |publisher=Tui Vale Productions |isbn=978-0-473-18547-3 |oclc=1135039710 |language=en}}
Green, Nathew (2011). "From Hawaīki to Howick – A Ngāi Tai History". Grey's Folly: A History of Howick, Pakuranga, Bucklands-Eastern Beaches, East Tamaki, Whitford, Beachlands and Maraetai. By La Roche, Alan. Auckland: Tui Vale Productions. ISBN978-0-473-18547-3. OCLC1135039710.
{{cite q}} does not support that sort of citation.
Hi, I've been experimenting with Cite Q on Book of Helaman. I'm reusing the same sources a lot (and I'm in the process of adding more)--is there a way to use Cite Q with a more shortened footnote style? Is there a recommended way to reference multiple page numbers from the same source? Thank you. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I set up one {{sfn}} template in this revision, but I reverted it because it shows me a (possibly false positive) sfn "no target" error that I don't have the energy to dig in to right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Missing |date=2020. Another way to write that would be:
Looking for script or other way to convert Cite Q to CS1 template
I'm looking for some easy way to convert a Cite Q template instance to a CS1 template like {{Cite journal}} to fix CITEVAR problems. As an example, a helpful editor naively added a Cite Q template to Common pochard, where all of the citations are written in "Last, First" author format and a bot can easily fix missing |doi-access= information in CS1 templates. I would like to convert that Cite Q template to {{cite journal}} so that it is easier to fix the author information. Is anyone here familiar with a tool, script, template, or other method of resolving this common CITEVAR problem? Thanks in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a script but an 'other way'. {{cite q}} supports |expand=yes so:
{{Cite Q|Q99410785|doi-access=free|expand=yes}}
{{Cite journal|author-link2=Cameron Neylon |author1=Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang |author2=Cameron Neylon |author3=Richard Hosking |author4=Lucy Montgomery |author5=Katie S Wilson |author6=Alkim Ozaygen |author7=Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy |doi=10.7554/ELIFE.57067 |doi-access=free |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q99410785|Q99410785]]|issn=2050-084X |journal=[[ELife|eLife]]|language=en |pmc=7536542 |pmid=32924933 |publication-date=14 September 2020 |title=Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions |volume=9}}
Copy that output, paste over the original {{cite q}}, edit as you see fit, and publish.
However, the output is throwing a template error ignoring the |journal= parameter, as if it were wrapping {{cite book}} instead of {{citation}} per the template documentation. Not sure what's going on here but I'm uncertain how to fix it. Folly Mox (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
According to Google books and WorldCat the source is a book. It has an ISBN number rather than a doi. It is issue 19 of a series of publications, not a journal issue. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem is with the wikidata entry. Otago Conservancy Miscellaneous Report Series is treated as if it is a journal, using the wrong property designation ("published in" = P1433), when it is just a series of publications. Such reports are often in series of publications treated as books. The correct property is "series" = part of the series (P179). StarryGrandma (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Brian H. Patrick (1994). Valley floor Lepidoptera of Central Otago. Otago Conservancy Miscellaneous Report Series. Vol. 19. pp. 1–54. ISBN0-478-01584-4. WikidataQ124030180.
Thanks for the fixes. Is it incorrect then that {{Cite Q}} wraps {{Citation}}, and now chooses a template dynamically based on source type? I get how that would fix chapters, since {{Citation}} doesn't support them, but the documentation doesn't seem to reflect that. Folly Mox (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I get how that would fix chapters, since {{Citation}} doesn't support them Bullshit. See this example:
Geez sometimes I wonder whether my device accesses a different mediawiki version but I accept it's probably just faulty memory. I might have been thinking of |trans-chapter= or |script-chapter=?? I feel like one of the set wasn't supported last summer. Is there like a table somewhere with one axis CS1|2 templates and one axis parameters, with little tick marks where they work together? I feel like I get this wrong all the time. Folly Mox (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, as the OP stated above. I was wondering if there is a way to fix it at the Wikidata item. Some templates that re-use Cite Q, like {{Academic peer reviewed}} (see this talk page section), do not appear to accept |doi-access=, so resolving the problem at the Wikidata end would be cleaner. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
See See {{Cite Q|Q21999077}} for an example of how to use p953="full work available at URL" and P6954="online access status" to indicate open access status.
Good question. Why does the first example above link to the PMC without any such specification? Is it a default? In the example I gave do the properties I listed actually do anything? Will experiment. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
In {{cite journal}} and {{citation}} (when it has |journal=), |pmc= with a valid value links |title= to the PMC. This choice was imposed upon cs1|2 by WP:MED long ago. I attempted to undo that choice but that brought out the angry hordes with their torches and pitchforks.
To override the automatic linking you can specify a value for |url=, you can set |title-link=none or, if |doi= is available and the template has |doi-access=free, you can set |title-link=doi.
I was over-optimistic. The template code currently does not read those properties:
-- url = {id = "P953", maxvals = 1}, -- deal with this along with archive-url
There is a lot of "to be done" in the code. I can't see in the code how it generates the url field in the citation. I suspect it is generated from the PMC; if a paper has a PMC it is published open source. So the PMC link will always be marked open source. To mark another identifier as open source will have to be done on the Wikipedia side. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The question here is how do we get WikiData to have a property that marks not-always-free identifiers as free. |bibcode=free, |doi-access=free, |jstor=free, etc. Unlike the always free arxiv, pmcid, etc... and never free pmid, mr, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b}20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
For this astronomy paper, using {{Cite Q|Q29392710}} displays
Cite Q passes everything to the template {{citation}}. That template automatically links the doi url to the title because it somehow determines that the paper is open access, but it does not mark the identifier as open access. I think the solution is to mark the identifiers as open access in Wikidata. In that Wikidata entry I've added "online access status" (p6954) and value "open access" (q232932) as a property of the DOI statement. Since the open access indicator we want is a property of the identifier, not the resulting url, Cite Q could query for that property and value and mark the identifier as open access without having to implement any complications of dealing with url fields. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Cite journal|author-link1=James Lattimer |author-link2=David Schramm (astrophysicist) |author1=J. M. Lattimer |author2=D. N. Schramm |bibcode=1976ApJ...210..549L |doi=10.1086/154860 |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q29392710|Q29392710]]|issn=0004-637X |journal=[[The Astrophysical Journal|The Astrophysical Journal]]|language=en |pages=549–567 |publication-date=December 1976 |title=The tidal disruption of neutron stars by black holes in close binaries |url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1976ApJ...210..549L |volume=210}}
{{cite journal}} (or {{citation}} were that the named template) doesn't automatically [link anything] to the title except the value assigned to |url= or, when that is omitted or empty, |pmc=.
Please make setting of display-authors and display-editors optional to avoid "Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting"
Please make setting of display-authors and display-editors optional to avoid "Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting", as there is currently no way to set it. Please make it via an argument and by looking go the "cs1 config" template, if specified in the article, on whether it contains display-authors or display-editors already set for the whole article, in this case, the Cite Q should not generate these attributes.
As seeing in some pages that use "Cite Q", such as Civilization, the "display-authors" are set in the "cs1 config" header, there is no need to overwrite the display-authors in particular templates, for consistency. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This is where the overridden setting comes from; nothing to do with |display-authors=. To fix Civilization delete |mode=cs1 from the {{cite q}} template.
Greetings and felicitations. In the article "Egyptian Arabic" two references are generating errors due to the use of this template: Behnstedt, Peter; Woidich, Manfred (2018); and Borg, Gert (2007). Both have the error "{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored". How do I fix this? —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The root of the problem is that this template started out as an interesting idea but has turned out to have many flaws and nobody willing to write code to fix or work around those flaws. Sometimes you need to use a better-maintained template, like {{cite book}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Best to convert at least Watson, Janet C. E. as well, as the link to the book is, as far as I can tell, a copyright violation link (I see no reason to believe that the uploader has the right to distribute the book like that in any case). Converting all of them would be even better, but might take some time... Fram (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Nice work! I removed the remaining Wikidata links, as they didn't add anything, some didn't work anyway, and it is more consistent now. Fram (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. ^_^ I was uncertain about discarding the Wikidata links. Please verify the rest of my work to make certain I didn't make any mistakes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. Cite Q is immensely useful for many reasons. Just because it doesn't do everything doesn't mean we should abandon it. — Jon (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I wrote any opinions above, except the part about it being an interesting idea. Nor did I say it should be abandoned. I said that sometimes it is an invalid tool for the job, as is true for the citation described above, and other templates need to be used instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I looked at Behnstedt and Woidich (didn't bother with the other one). {{cite q}} doesn't support citing a chapter qid; see Template talk:Cite Q/Archive 7 § Cite Q chapter broken. You might cite the book qid and then add |chapter=, |chapter-url=, and |doi= parameters or whatever to get what you want.
Thanks for the reply. I've fixed {{cite Q...}} so all the links now work. However, I'm getting "{{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)" from:
I believe if I assigned "CNN Newsource" to the right property, this notice would disappear. However, I've so far been unable to find the right property to which to assign it.
User:ActivelyDisinterested said, "CNN News Source is not a valid author name ... . The correct field in this case would be |agency= but [that is not] supported by Wikidata / Cite Q." I've experimented with assigning "CNN Newsource" to different properties, so far without finding one that makes this complaint disappear.
This is a moderately common occurrence, where a news agency disseminates a story without giving a byline, and a news outlet publishes it. In that case, it seems sensible to specify the news agency as the "author" for the purposes of {{sfn|...}} AND keep both the news agency and the outlet in Wikidata in some way.
The error is triggered by CNN. CNN is not the author (just as Reuters, Associated Press, etc. are not authors). These entities are agencies so |agency= is the correct {{cite news}} parameter. There is a work around if you really, truly, absolutely must use |author= in {{cite q}}: |author=((CNN News Source)). It would be better to cite the source correctly and avoid such work arounds by expanding the {{cite q}} template (|expand=yes) and replacing the {{cite q}} with a corrected form of the expansion. All of these fiddly bits to fix this and fix that and the attendant wasted time in conversation are just not worth the effort.
If a news agency has disseminated a news story without a byline the are the 'agency' not the 'author'. Rather than misusing the author field you can setup the |ref= field in the cite using {{sfnref}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a reminder that as int21hasked on 30 Jan 2022 and I asked on 23 July 2023, it would be nice to be able to use something like literal translation (P2441) so that an article such as d:Q24293504 or d:Q125941907 automatically shows up with the |trans-title= parameter in the en.Wikipedia including the English translation of the title if that is available with P2441, or the equivalent template in ja.Wikipedia shows the Japanese translation in addition to the English original if P2441 is used there (currently Q24293504 using the preferred ranking vs the normal ranking). A temporary workaround is to add |trans-title=Whatever the Translation is as an override in {{cite Q}}. Boud (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (use WDP Boud (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC))
I guess for the moment we'll have to stick with the workaround |trans-title=Whatever the Translation is as an override in {{cite Q}} ... Boud (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a question from someone other than me concerned that this is not yet implemented, but it's on the To do list, and we're all volunteers. So I guess either someone has to volunteer a proposed edit to the appropriate module, or else be patient and wait for others to propose a viable fix. Boud (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Fixed@Prosperosity: The property series ordinal (P1545) exists (for example) for putting numbers to indicate author order. This is needed if you happen to enter the authors into Wikidata in an order different to the one in which they're listed, or, what's even more commmon, if some authors need to be author name string (P2093) because they're not yet in Wikidata (or have names like Jane Smith or Jose Silva and trying to work out which Wikidata element they are is too much work) and other authors exist in Wikidata, e.g. Decidim, a Technopolitical Network for Participatory Democracy (Q128012134) currently has one Wikidata-unknown author (just a string of characters) and three Wikidata-known authors. In your case, there's only one author, so P1545 isn't really needed, but it can't hurt to put "1" there - which I did. Boud (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
