Misplaced Pages

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 70: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Help talk:Citation Style 1 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:34, 16 September 2020 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,805 editsm Archiving 1 discussion from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 10:37, 17 September 2020 edit undoMatthiaspaul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors137,493 edits fixed up dangling linkNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
:—] (]) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC) :—] (]) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
: {{re|Peaceray}}, you might be interested in ]. ] (]) 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC) : {{re|Peaceray}}, you might be interested in ]. ] (]) 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

== "archive-url" dependency == == "archive-url" dependency ==


Line 18: Line 19:
The option {{para|url-status|{{var|missing original}}}} would be one of the cases that would cause the archive to become the live location in the citation. If {{para|url}} needs to be present, perhaps a comment such as {{para|url|{{var|<nowiki><!--Original missing.--></nowiki>}}}} could be auto-inserted. ] (]) 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC) The option {{para|url-status|{{var|missing original}}}} would be one of the cases that would cause the archive to become the live location in the citation. If {{para|url}} needs to be present, perhaps a comment such as {{para|url|{{var|<nowiki><!--Original missing.--></nowiki>}}}} could be auto-inserted. ] (]) 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
: I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but the scenario you are describing appears to be covered by {{para|url-status|dead}} already. If only the archived URL is known, the original URL should be derived from the archived URL and inserted into {{para|url}}. In most cases, the archive URL contains (perhaps not exactly the URL the user used when invoking the page originally, but at least) the page used by the archiver when archiving the page. Displaying the archived web site may reveal the original URL as well (depends on the archiver, though). In the case of archive URLs in form of tiny URLs there are tools to expanded them into their long forms. This should allow most original URLs (or equivalents) to be recovered from their archived URLs. : I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but the scenario you are describing appears to be covered by {{para|url-status|dead}} already. If only the archived URL is known, the original URL should be derived from the archived URL and inserted into {{para|url}}. In most cases, the archive URL contains (perhaps not exactly the URL the user used when invoking the page originally, but at least) the page used by the archiver when archiving the page. Displaying the archived web site may reveal the original URL as well (depends on the archiver, though). In the case of archive URLs in form of tiny URLs there are tools to expanded them into their long forms. This should allow most original URLs (or equivalents) to be recovered from their archived URLs.
: Of course, {{para|url}} would then no longer be available for overloading, but there are alternatives for this (f.e. using {{para|title-link}} instead. See ] : Of course, {{para|url}} would then no longer be available for overloading, but there are alternatives for this (f.e. using {{para|title-link}} instead. See ]
: --] (]) 12:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) : --] (]) 12:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


::The discussion you linked is the one referenced in the OP. Basically, it is proposed to edit the doc so that it reflects the code: archive status depends on url status (which requires {{para|url}}). Not incidentally, this may help in keeping invalid data (non-URL entries) out of the URL field. Properly, all url indicators should be entered in the status parameter. An exception could be made for ''none'' in certain narrow well-defined cases. Since ''none'' is used elsewhere in the module, it wouldn't be a bad idea to declare it a special word. ] (]) 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC) ::The discussion you linked is the one referenced in the OP. Basically, it is proposed to edit the doc so that it reflects the code: archive status depends on url status (which requires {{para|url}}). Not incidentally, this may help in keeping invalid data (non-URL entries) out of the URL field. Properly, all url indicators should be entered in the status parameter. An exception could be made for ''none'' in certain narrow well-defined cases. Since ''none'' is used elsewhere in the module, it wouldn't be a bad idea to declare it a special word. ] (]) 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

== Use of Years from the Jewish Calendar? == == Use of Years from the Jewish Calendar? ==



Revision as of 10:37, 17 September 2020

This is an archive of past discussions about Help:Citation Style 1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 65Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 75

Usurped must be reinstated as a valid url-status value!

I currently work as a computer security professional. There are times when the original ownership of a website has expired & a bad actor has acquired the website. In these cases, I absolutely want to completely suppress the original website & only display the archived link. We need to protect our users from malicious websites. Peaceray (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it never went away:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2020-08-09 |url-status=usurped}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09.
Also, one conversation in one place. I have closed the other dicussion.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray:, you might be interested in this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"archive-url" dependency

Prompted by the recent discussion on auto-linking, which exposed cases of non-url data in |url=.

To mitigate, |archive-url= could formally depend on |url-status= instead of |url= (without checking the module code, I believe that programmatically, "archive-url" does depend on "url-status").

The option |url-status=missing original would be one of the cases that would cause the archive to become the live location in the citation. If |url= needs to be present, perhaps a comment such as |url=<!--Original missing.--> could be auto-inserted. 98.0.246.251 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but the scenario you are describing appears to be covered by |url-status=dead already. If only the archived URL is known, the original URL should be derived from the archived URL and inserted into |url=. In most cases, the archive URL contains (perhaps not exactly the URL the user used when invoking the page originally, but at least) the page used by the archiver when archiving the page. Displaying the archived web site may reveal the original URL as well (depends on the archiver, though). In the case of archive URLs in form of tiny URLs there are tools to expanded them into their long forms. This should allow most original URLs (or equivalents) to be recovered from their archived URLs.
Of course, |url= would then no longer be available for overloading, but there are alternatives for this (f.e. using |title-link= instead. See Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Towards_solving_pending_issues_of_the_auto-link_feature...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion you linked is the one referenced in the OP. Basically, it is proposed to edit the doc so that it reflects the code: archive status depends on url status (which requires |url=). Not incidentally, this may help in keeping invalid data (non-URL entries) out of the URL field. Properly, all url indicators should be entered in the status parameter. An exception could be made for none in certain narrow well-defined cases. Since none is used elsewhere in the module, it wouldn't be a bad idea to declare it a special word. 172.254.241.58 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of Years from the Jewish Calendar?

I'd like to reference http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/Vol_33__1931_1932.pdf using cite journal. The Year that is used is 5692 in the Jewish Calendar Anno Mundi. Is there any way to include this in the Cite Journal or is using the fallback 1931-1932 the only way?Naraht (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates, "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates.. such as religious calendars", but, "In cases where the date as expressed in the source is not compatible with the template software, the citation should be created without using a template." The principal of the template is to help readers find a source, for verifying a cite. If the reader can reliably find the source using the 1931-1932 date, it might be OK to use that if you still want to use the template. -- GreenC 04:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
In your specific case, you do not need to convert dates because the book itself is using the Gregorian calendar for publication dates: July 1931. You should not specifiy a year range, as the book was published on a specific date in 1931, and the fact that the application of the book as a year book spans from 1931 to 1932 is irrelevant in regard to the bibliographical data needed in a citation, and for all other purposes, that information is already in the title (otherwise, if important for the reader, it could be added as a note following the citation). Something like this:
{{cite book |title=The American Jewish Year Book 5692: September 12, 1931, to September 30, 1932 |date=1931-07-16 |volume=33 |editor-first=Harry |editor-last=Schneiderman |publisher=] |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA |url=http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/Vol_33__1931_1932.pdf |access-date=2020-08-17}}
Schneiderman, Harry, ed. (1931-07-16). The American Jewish Year Book 5692: September 12, 1931, to September 30, 1932 (PDF). Vol. 33. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Retrieved 2020-08-17.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 70: Difference between revisions Add topic