Template talk:Cite Q

Mass removals

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 edits 09:53, 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)

Template usage across Wikipedias

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.

@Pigsonthewing, @Mike Peel, @RexxS, @Adamant.pwn, @Ederporto, @LWyatt (WMF), do you have any information about this? Diegodlh (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

What is going on with Cite Q|Q45979098

This Cite Q generates a peculiar (to me) result at A. Heather Eliassen.

Kyriaki Michailidou; Sara Lindström; Joe Dennis; et al. (23 October 2017). "Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci". Nature. 551 (7678): 92–94. Bibcode:2017Natur.551...92M. doi:10.1038/NATURE24284. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 5798588. PMID 29059683. Wikidata Q45979098. {{cite journal}}: |author77= has generic name (help)

What is that Author77 error? If it's series ordinal 77, that's Christine L. Clarke (Q56204859) and not so peculiar. But maybe it's series ordinal 78, that's NBCS Collaborators (Q114328172) which obviously isn't a real person. I'm also not sure what that "cite journal" template is doing there. I appreciate any clarification or advice. Trilotat (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It's NBCS Collaborators (Q114328172). See how NBCS Collaborators (Q114328172) causes the same error.

Yosr Hamdi; Penny Soucy; Véronique Adoue; et al. (21 October 2016). "Association of breast cancer risk with genetic variants showing differential allelic expression: Identification of a novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 4q21". Oncotarget. 7 (49): 80140–80163. doi:10.18632/ONCOTARGET.12818. ISSN 1949-2553. PMC 5340257. PMID 27792995. Wikidata Q37684672. {{cite journal}}: |author24= has generic name (help) Trilotat (talk) 05:04, 7 June 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)

Removing fallback to P1810

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)

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 of the or maybe the of the cited item itself? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)