Open main menu

CS1This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).
Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Appreciating your work deprecating the old parameters for citations. Such parameters add additional clutter to articles that makes them even harder to edit, so I am fully supportive of your work. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Monkbot changes to 2018 Winter OlympicsEdit

Hi, your bot made some changes to CS1 parameters in 2018 Winter Olympics article yesterday, some of which I want to query. Can I discuss here? Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I'll be out for the next few hours but will read and respond to whatever it is that you would like to say.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm quite "into" citations and that's usually my first port of call when I come across a new article that wants some work doing to it, so I've developed a few preferences (and possibly bad habits). Take a look at this diff from yesterday...
BBC Sport and BBC News articles are specifically issued via dedicated web pages, as opposed to through an alternative news outlet such as a newspaper, hence I've always thought it correct to use the {{cite web}} template rather than {{cite news}}. I've understood the latter to be applicable to newspaper articles, online news items from news outlets such as The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc. even when they have an online presence. BBC Sport is a department of the BBC that provides online sports coverage, it's not a newspaper, not even an online newspaper. It's part of a corporation that publishes information online, hence {{cite web}} is probably more appropriate. Having said all that, it doesn't actually affect the way the citation is displayed so it's not really a problem in the great scheme of things. However, the thing that I'm most puzzled about is that your bot has substituted the 'work' parameter for the 'publisher' parameter in the case of BBC Sport and BBC News, which I disagree with. I've always gone with 'publisher' because these are divisions of a company, as opposed to newspapers or stand-alone websites. The 'work' parameter always italicizes the name (as an alias of the 'newspaper' and 'website' parameters), but 'publisher' doesn't. You can see that the BBC Sport and BBC News articles don't use italics in their titles for the same reason.
Reuters – same argument. I think this should use 'publisher' not 'work'
The Straits Times – I agree that this should not use 'publisher' because it's clearly a newspaper and it should use a {{cite news}} template with 'newspaper' parameter.
Business Insider – I agree that this is a news website and hence {{cite news}} template and 'website' parameter with italics is correct. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no fast and hard link between {{cite news}} and |newspaper= and little difference between {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} in the final rendering except that {{cite news}} will render |volume= and |issue= if present and does not require |url=. In cs1|2, the 'periodical' parameters, |journal=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, |periodical=, |website=, & |work= are freely interchangeable (they all map to an internal meta parameter called Periodical). The variety of names is mostly an editor convenience because template names that reflect the type of the source are more semantically correct.
Almost everything that is online can be cited using {{cite web}}. But should it? An online facsimile of a book: {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}? An online PDF of a scientific paper: {{cite web}} or {{cite journal}}? An online news article about Ebola in Africa, about monsoon floods in Bagladesh, about 2019 World Cup: {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}? The {{cite web}} documentation states:
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.
I see BBC Sport as a publication that is an online news source focused on sports news and that is published by BBC. As such, {{cite news}} is appropriate. Because BBC Sport is not a |journal=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, or a generic |periodical=, either of |website= or |work= is appropriate when naming the publication in a cs1|2 template. I prefer |work= because |website= was pretty-much created to be a companion to {{cite web}} (the move to Module:Citation/CS1 made |website= promiscuous).
In periodical cs1|2 templates, |title= names the article; |work= and aliases name the publication; |publisher= names the corporate entity responsible for publishing the publication that holds the article.
There are technical reasons for the choice of |work= (or an alias) over |publisher=. cs1|2 produces metadata for each citation. These metadata are machine-readable versions of the visual rendering. The metadata standard to which we attempt to adhere is not as full-featured as cs1|2. It is important that the correct information from raw cs1|2 template parameters gets into their matching metadata key/value pairs. Most of the parameters in cs1|2 that have matching metadata keywords are not confusing to editors; |<periodical>= and |publisher= are problematic because editors have a variety of opinions (or confusion) regarding the format of the rendered citation and whether a publication belongs in |work= or a publication belongs in |publisher=.
The metadata standard is limited. In the metadata, the cs1 periodical templates {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}} are defined as journal objects. Journal objects do not support the concept of 'publisher'; that is reserved for book objects (see the table here) so any data in |publisher= for these templates does not make it to the metadata. It is perfectly legitimate for these templates to have |publisher= but they must also have |work=. For readers who consume these citations via their metadata, omitting |work= from a cs1|2 periodical template is like giving the reader only the chapter name but not the name of the book that holds that chapter. An upcoming change to Module:Citation/CS1 will emit error messages when periodical templates do not have |work= (or alias).
Further, many many of the citations that Monkbot task 14 is fixing have italic markup. Italic markup is only allowed in |title= (so that journal article titles that include scientific names, for example, render correctly). It is the responsibility of the templates to format and render the final citation so that editors don't have to. To facilitate that, the templates require the correct data in the correct parameters, and that these data are free from contamination (wiki markup, extraneous text, ...).
Monkbot task 14 is working now to reduce the number of error messages that will appear at the next update to the module suite.
BBC Sport (and BBC News) in cs1|2 citations are publications that hold articles. In this sense, they are no different from The Straits Times (a publication) that holds articles. The article titles are quoted plain text, the publications are italicized, and the publisher (if present) is plain text. I do not think that MOS:TITLE should ever be recognized as a paragon of clarity; especially this:
"Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."
But, this part applies here:
"Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized..."
because BBC Sport is an online... news site with original content. It doesn't appear that the topic of italic title has ever been raised at those two articles.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Trappist the monk".