Help talk:Citation Style 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
    Citation templates
    ... in conception
    ... and in reality

    removed support for |authors=; what about |people= and |credits=?

    I have removed support for the deprecated |authors= parameter from the sandbox:

    Cite book comparison
    Wikitext {{cite book|authors=EB Green|title=Title}}
    Live Title. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
    Sandbox Title. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

    This leaves us with |people= and |credits= as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.

    Support for |people= is documented in {{cite av media}}, {{cite mailing list}}, {{cite map}}, {{citation}}. Search results:

    Using |people=:
    • {{cite av media}} ~7900
    • {{cite mailing list}} none
    • {{cite map}} none
    • {{citation}} ~30
    Using undocumented |credits=:
    • {{cite av media}} none
    • {{cite mailing list}} none
    • {{cite map}} none
    • {{citation}} none

    Support for |credits= is documented in {{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}}. Search results:

    Using |credits=:
    • {{cite episode}} ~3300
    • {{cite serial}} ~30
    Using undocumented |people=:

    It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}, {{cite map}}, and {{citation}} should not be using |people= and |credits=. No doubt there are templates that use |people= and |credits= aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}} combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}, {{cite episode}}, and {{cite serial}}.

    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There having been no comment, I have restricted |people= to {{cite av media}}, {{cite episode}}, and {{cite serial}} in the sandbox. |credits= in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The typical freeform list on web, news, etc is |others= which flags CS1 maintenance if |author= or |editor= is not also listed.
    "titl_para". othrs_para. 2000-12-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
    This seems fine normally, but may not make sense if authorship is deliberately omitted, such as on many websites, or perhaps on 'zines without bylines (and without a named section editor, I suppose). So this parameter use would make sense in e.g. {{cite web}}, however, if a web page is cited in its entirety, and photographs are separately credited in a heavily-illustrated essay while the editorship is omitted.
    CS1 has no documented explicit parameter value for an unlisted author+editor. I've seen it requested and suggested here to use "n.a." similar to "n.d.", but this is not consistent with major citation styles (and per link, only Chicago ever sanctions "Anon." and dashed-out author entries). SamuelRiv (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    cite report: number, id, docket

    Testing {{cite report}}, {{cite tech report}}, and {{cite thesis}} I find that |number=, |docket=, and |id= are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion: Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)

    In report and thesis, |number= appears to not be used at all, while |docket= and |id= are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number= and |id= are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id= is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable -- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number= in CS1, and from what appears to be their documented metadata.

    {{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}


    Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.


    Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.

    Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id= is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should not be surprised that {{cite report}}, {{cite tech report}}, and {{cite thesis}} are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
    Each of those templates then developed along their own paths until they were each reimplemented using the meta-template {{citation/core}}; again at different dates and different editors:
    • {{cite report}}: 30 November 2011‎ by Editor Fifelfoo
    • {{cite tech report}}: 14 September 2011‎ by Editor Gadget850
    • {{cite thesis}}: 25 March 2011‎ by Editor Headbomb
    Development continued along their own paths until migrated to Module:Citation/CS1; also at different times by me:
    • {{cite report}}: 15 February 2015‎
    • {{cite tech report}}: 9 November 2013
    • {{cite thesis}}: 9 November 2013‎
    I can't speak to the migration to {{citation/core}} but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.
    Were these templates developed simultaneously by a single author, they would probably have been much more consistent but that is not the way of a wiki.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. Is this acknowledging that this is a bug? If so, is this to imply that current maintainers will address this in a future version, or else give permission for me to fix it now? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All that I provided was a history to explain why those templates are the way they are. Do you need permission to propose a change to these templates? Each module in the suite has a sandbox that anyone can edit so long as they don't break anything.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The url-access lock icon becomes huge if the linked source is a PDF file

    Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:

    Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989). "Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT: American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

    Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On the mobile theme it looks fine.[1] The template's CSS includes "background-size: contain;" for the Vector themes but not Minerva or Timeless. Toggling that off seems to make it the correct size. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using the Vector 2010 skin on mobile (using the desktop site), and the icon also looks huge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Toggling background-size: contain; made no difference for me, but disabling padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px; set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) —  Jts1882 | talk  14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you do that? padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px; does not exist in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's from MediaWiki:Common.css, found it while searching if this bug was reported previously. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to toggle the bg-contain rule twice because :not(.skin-minerva):not(.skin-timeless) triggers once for each skin. Removing either this or the padding works. Izno (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Izno who has much more experience with css than I.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've overridden the padding from Common.css in the sandbox, the effects of which can be seen already on this page (since the sandbox styles are presently on the page after the non-sandbox styles). Izno (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still seeing the over large padlock, should it have changed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably just caching or something. User:Izno/Sandbox is fine for me. Izno (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That fixed it, Rjjiii (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This larger padlock appears to have gone live in more skins as of today. I couldn't see it on Desktop in Vector 2022 until today. There is a new VPT thread about it. We may want to deploy this change to the live module ASAP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mysterious Harv and Sfn no-target error

    In Minkowski inequality, the {{sfn}} footnote to Bahouri, Chemin & Danchin 2011 and the reference generated by the template {{Bahouri Chemin Danchin Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations 2011}} are together somehow generating a "Harv and Sfn no-target error" categorization (look at the text of the footnote id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBahouriCheminDanchin20114-3" in the source of the generated article) but without generating a script-highlighted error nor any actual problem in harv/sfn link targeting. Does anyone know why this error occurs and whether there is something to do (hopefully without having to subst the citation template) to make it go away? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This behaviour is explained at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Resolving errors, and the following section, "Current limitations and false-positive errors". It can be resolved by adding the template {{Sfn whitelist}}, or just be ignored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a limitation of the mediawiki software, the check happens before the templates are expanded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get that idea? MediaWiki software has nothing to do with this error message. The error message is emitted by Module:Footnotes because the module can only see the wrapper template call in the wikitext. The Module cannot look into the wrapper template to fetch names and date from the wrapped {{cite book}} template. The check occurs during the expansion of each {{sfn}} / {{harv}} template.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I thought the check could only occur at that point due to a limitation of mediawiki, if not could the check not happen later (or the false positive be quashed after the expansion bof the templates)? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. sfn whitelist did the trick. Resolving this would have been easier if the error were visible rather than having to grovel through the rendered html source to find the offending citeref. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the error messages were first introduced we didn't yet have {{sfn whitelist}} or Module:Footnotes/whitelist so editors complained. You can show these error messages with the css described at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors#Displaying error messages method 3.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current format for issues is odd, proposal for additional parameters

    Some magazines don't advertise the issue number as clearly on the front magazine, and it can take a lot of extra effort to find the correct issue if they are cited but missing important information. We may have to buy the magazine itself just to confirm the issue number and sometimes there is no issue number at all and they label the issue by month/date, or they will have it by Holiday. It would be easier to add an additional parameter specifically for the name of the issue.

    Current version
    <ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>

    "パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). No. May 5, 2011. April 21, 2011.

    Looks awkward with the No. in front of it.

    Proposed change
    <ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>

    "パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue. April 21, 2011.

    ^^A proper issue name.

    <ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |issue-Num=999|magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>

    "パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue (No.999). April 21, 2011.

    ^^For both.

    This will simplify things and make the citation easier to read.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think |publication-date= would probably cover this use case without needing a new parameter:
    <ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |publication-date=May 5, 2011 |issue=999|magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
    "パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). No. 999 (published May 5, 2011). April 21, 2011. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 01:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Forbes72: That solves the last example, but that was merely hypothetical. There is no issue #999 for that magazine. There is no issue numbering that is immediately known to the direct public unless you purchase it and search for the issue number in the magazine, which can make things harder to reference
    Another problem is the example of having an issue name instead of putting an issue number. For example, "Christmas issue" or "Halloween issue". if we put "Issue=Christmas", it will instead say "No.Christmas" or "No.Halloween".
    the proposed change will allow us to say "issue" at the end.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue number is unknown/does not exist, just leave the |issue= blank. You can provide equivalent information by filling out |publication-date= and converting the holiday into a date if necessary: "Christmas 2011" becomes "Dec 25, 2011", "Halloween 2011" becomes "Oct 31, 2011", etc. From what I can tell, Famitsu has the publication dates listed pretty prominently on all their magazine covers, so I think it should be clear at a glance which issue is being referenced. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 01:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Forbes72: Famitsu was just a hypothetical. Don't you consider it original research to assume the publication date based on the name of the issue? Magazines are released monthly/weekly/bi-weekly/bi-monthly. So the publication date can be days, weeks, or even a month apart if we just assume it lands on the holiday. Either way, it's still misinterpreting the name of the issue and going out of our way just to avoid something as simple as citing the name of the issue. Wouldn't it simplify everything by just allowing a "Issue-name" parameter?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The templates already work for certain holidays e.g. A (Christmas 2001). "T". M.
    I otherwise agree, we have sufficient parameters to make this work fine today. Izno (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue Pumpkin Pie: I think your concerns would be clearer if you could point out a few specific (non-hypothetical) citations used on Wikipedia that would benefit from the parameter you are proposing. Have you actually run into this problem while editing?〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Forbes72:I had the perfect example a while back but I apologize I can't remember the issue that was giving me a hard time. all I knew was that for research purposes, I had the issue name but nearly impossible to find the issue number. However, I was able to find a similar example. EGM's magazine "Special Holiday issue" of 2007 doesn't provide the issue # immediately on the cover, and I don't own the magazine. Luckily I was able to find the issue number through different means but I had a couple of situations where I wont know the issue number unless I purchase the magazine and look within he first couple of pages. and sometimes its not there at allBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. EGM looks like a fairly popular citation target, 6609 citations across Wikipedia. Searching around for a specific citation, the Holiday 2007 issue was cited in Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings#Reception:
    <ref name="EGM">Electronic Gaming Monthly, Issue 223; HOL. 2007</ref>
    This citation does not currently use a citation template. A scanned copy of the issue is available on Building out the full citation template:
    <ref name="EGM">{{cite magazine|title=Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings|magazine=Electronic Gaming Monthly|issue=223|publication-date=Holiday 2007|page=87}}</ref>
    "Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 223. Holiday 2007. p. 87. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |publication-date= (help)
    This throws up an error. However, as Izno mentions above, some named dates already work: "Christmas 2007" does not cause any issues:
    "Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 223. Christmas 2007. p. 87.
    I wonder if the simplest solution is just to add "Holiday" to the named date whitelist so the template doesn't show a CS1 error. Do you think that would be enough? 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 00:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another problem is when the publisher prints a range of issue numbers or dates. Sometimes that is a regular occurence, and sometimes only when an issue is delayed. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is JSTOR really free access?

    I tried to describe jstor-access as registration, because the article in question could only be read if you signed up for a JSTOR account. But I got an error, and the template doc for cite journal says that JSTOR can only be marked as free. While it's true that once you sign up for the site you can read 100 articles without paying, I think it's misleading to mark it as free access, when it isn't actually public. Is there logic behind this that I'm missing? Pingnova (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not highlight the norm. Sources linked from named identifiers (|jstor=, |doi=, etc) are normally hidden behind some sort of paywall or registration barrier. Because that is the normal case, flagging those sources with |jstor-access=registration, |jstor-access=limited, or |jstor-access=subscription is redundant and would add unnecessary clutter to the wikitext and to the rendered reference. When an occasional source at JSTOR is free-to-read, it is appropriate to mark that source with |jstor-access=free.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Period following ellipsis and title punctuation

    In CS1 style it appears a terminal period is included following exclamation and question marks, but is omitted following ellipses (3 dots) (for fields unenclosed in "quotation marks"):

    • athr_p (2000). J'accuse!. publ_p.
    • athr_p (2000). J'accuse?. publ_p.
    • athr_p (2000). J'accuse... publ_p. [2 dots]
    • athr_p (2000). J'accuse... publ_p. [3 dots]
    • athr_p (2000). J'accuse... publ_p. [4 dots]
    • athr_p (2000), J'accuse..., publ_p [3 dots, mode=cs2]

    I only found one previous post from 2023-11-22 on this. At issue is that no style guide that I know of, that uses terminal punctuation in citations, omits the punctuation following an ellipsis. MLA citation has the ellipsis follow the stop] while APA and Chicago precede a stop (but the latter two refs do not discuss citations). APA has a citation guideline using an ellipsis for 7+ authors without punctuation, but the ellipsis is within the author list and not terminal: "a_1, a_2, ... a_N.". The only style guide saying that an ellipsis should not add adjacent punctuation is Chicago's FAQ response on fiction style.

    Regarding question or exclamation points and the citation style punctuation, they style guides get a bit more subtle. Generally (APA MLA and Chicago) citations usually have periods or commas be superseded by "stronger marks", but when the reading is more prose-like as in a bibliography entry, the comma is retained.

    Given all this, I suggest removing the code that omits citation-style punctuation following 3-dot ellipses. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Twin ISSN in cite journal

    The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

    Many magazines now have two ISSNs, one for print and one for Internet. In typical printed cites they are published with a comma in between. It would be great if the issn= parameter in {{Cite journal}} would allow that, too. Викидим (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you looking for |eissn= which already exists and can be used with |issn=? And, really, do you need either issn? There are those who believe that issn is mere pointless clutter.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, thank you. Will re-address my request to Citer tool creators. To me, ISSN is like ISBN - not necessary, but a useful tool when the cite is unclear / mistyped. Викидим (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Access-date < Date

    Edit preview doesn't show an error if access-date is earlier than date parameter. — hako9 (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not necessarily an error. The "February 2025" issue of a print magazine may be mailed to subscribers in January 2025 or even earlier, and made available on the web as soon as it is mailed. When reporting a problem, always provide a link to a real example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I did not consider that. — hako9 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |agency not working in Cite book template?

    Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that you meant to write: [[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]here.
    Support for |agency= in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion. |agency= is defined for {{cite news}}, {{cite press release}}, and {{cite web}}. Also supported by {{citation}} when that template has |newspaper= or |work=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have encountered several of these |agency= in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been |publisher=. I have seen no evidence that |agency= is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case I was looking for a way to reflect the Philological Society's contribution to the work.
    Obviously there are two reasons for citing a work, one to identify where the source material can be found and the second to give credit to the creators of the work. The OED is atypical for a book in that there were a myriad of contributing authors and the publisher came into the process 20 years after the start of the work.
    If not |agency= would you have another option for crediting the Society within the citation? — Skullcinema (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the work was based on materials they helped collect would |others= be appropriate? e.g.
    Murray, James A. H.; Bradley, Henry; Craigie, W. A.; Onions, C. T., eds. (1933). The Oxford English Dictionary; being a corrected re-issue with an introduction, supplement and bibliography of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. The Philological Society (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198611013. LCCN a33003399. OCLC 2748467. OL 180268M. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that will work fine. — ROU Skullcinema (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{cite report}} citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If one is to believe the results of this search there are ~355 articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter with {{cite report}} templates that have |agency= and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.
    Some cases, like this from Weather of 2021, the value in |publisher= us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=:
    {{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=|url-status=live}}
    Others, like this one from the same article, appear to use some sort of made-up 'agency' name:
    {{Cite report |url= |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url= |url-status=live }}
    ('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The category CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=?.--Auric talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |agency= is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of |publisher=. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use |via= to hold the name of the provider.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, thanks.--Auric talk 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it appears to have been frequently misused as an alias or synonym of publisher. That does not mean that there has ever been a time when citations that did so were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may have been some confusion when the publisher of a source is a government agency. Rather, |agency= has been a shorthand name for a parameter holding the wire agency of a news story, to properly credit that the origin of a news article in a paper was the Associated Press/United Press International/Agence France-Presse/etc. and not the cited newspaper itself, with or without any additional reporter byline. Imzadi 1979  22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As the parameter |agency= has been removed, how should the entry for it on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData be corrected? Should it just be deleted from the table? — Skullcinema (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed it. Izno (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relatedly, Citation bot has recently been adding agency= to cite book templates: see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 38#Adds unknown parameter to CS1 and Special:Diff/1221981567. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SSRN over 4700000

    SSRN 4700569 from Cyber Solidarity Act (draft) is correct. The limit needs to be increased. Auric talk 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A CSS bit

    It would be nice if the <i>...</i> output around work titles, generated by |work= and all its many aliases like |journal=, |newspaper=, etc., or generated by |title= in {{Cite book}}, and probably a few other variations, had a specific CSS class, e.g. <i class="cs1-work-title">...</i>, so that it can be targeted and re-styled. If those who personally cannot stand seeing website names and other non-dead-trees publications in italics had a simple one-line means of suppressing that effect, and could be pointed to CSS code they can just copy-paste into their global.css, then this would probably go a long way toward ending their defiance, their mis-placing of non-paper works' titles in |publisher= or sometimes other parameters in an attempt to suppress italics. This is behavior that results in incorrect citations with the wrong info showing up in metadata parameters as well as inconsistent title display for the readers. Maybe even do <i class="cs1-work-title cs1-website-title">...</i> so that the output of {{Cite web}} in particular can be more narrowly targeted. (In theory, it could be made extra-clever and auto-detect domain names, in case one is used in some other template, like {{Cite news}}.) It's annoying that this matter has been debated repeated, and resolved again and again in favor of using consistent italics for titles of major works per MOS:TITLES, for over a decade now, yet various individual just do not abide by it. The community has no patience for a bunch more "style drama", so it seems the thing to do is simply to provide a technical "out".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A selector like .cs1.web i would already do this (modulo attempting to catch misuses of the system), since there are no other elements that are placed by the citation system in italic. I think though by your recent comment this would not have helped anyway since it appears that the user was doing so inadvertently and not because they're in the group of people who don't particularly like italic website names. Izno (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing an entire conference

    What do I do if I want to cite the booklet of an entire conference, rather than a specific paper in it? The only way no error is thrown is if I put the conference title in |title, don't use the |conference tag, and put the conference booklet URL in |url rather than |conference-url - but is then the formatting okay? Rontombontom (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to have a page number to go with it, which implies you can cite specific sections...?
    Ignoring that, if you really need to, just use {{cite book}} instead. Izno (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unflagged generic title: "Data"

    I found a reference with |title=Data today. It turned out to be a generic title (not the real title of the link) and probably should have been flagged as a generic title (it wasn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please document |article-number= better

    Many electronic journals have switched from page numbers to article numbers, so for example I can cite to the last page of a 5-page article as:

    Jeet, Justin; et al. (23 June 2015). "Results of a Direct Search Using Synchrotron Radiation for the Low-Energy 229Th Nuclear Isomeric Transition". Physical Review Letters. 114 (25) 253001: 5. arXiv:1502.02189. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.114y3001J. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.253001. PMID 26197124. S2CID 1322253.

    So the hierarchy is work/journal, (series), volume, issue, article-number, page(s). (Usually issue is redundant, as article numbers are unique at least within volumes, just as many academic journals used to only restart page numbering per volume.) Many, many references in Wikipedia abuse the |page= parameter to hold the article-number instead, because the editors didn't know about this parameter. This comes out looking okay in the formatting, but produces mangled metadata, and prevents citing to a specific page. (Usually, when editors need to cite to a specific page, they place the article-number in the |issue= parameter instead.)

    It would be easier for readers of the documentation (and less reference-correcting work for me) if volume, issue, article number, and page number were listed in that order, and as close together as possible, so that they appear together in the documentation as they appear together in the rendered output.


    • In the "full parameter set" list, place |article-number= between |issue= and |page=.
    • Add |article-number= to the "most commonly used parameters" lists in the same position.
    • If you're feeling ambitious, add an example.
    • Within the "Description" section:
      • In the "Periodical" subsection, move the description of |article-number= to just after |issue= (currently just before)
      • Also change the current subsection order
        1. Periodical (describing work, issue, and article-number)
        2. Publisher
        3. Edition, series, volume
        4. In-source locations (describing page)
    1. Edition, series, volume
    2. Periodical
    3. In-source locations
    4. Publisher
    Although I can't get my preferred global order without splitting the Periodical subsection to insert volume between work and issue, this comes as close as practicable.

    Thank you! (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Partly done: I've done item 1. I have not done item 2: I think this is based on a claim that doesn't have an obvious basis in reality (and from extensive wikignoming I haven't seen it). I am not ambitious enough for 3. I've done 4.1. Regarding 4.2, I think the point is to emulate the order of the parameters as eventually displayed, and the work is in periodical, so it goes first. However, publisher appears before in-source locations (even if it is rare to have a publisher listed in a citation for a few reasons, not all of which are external). In this regard, I've moved publisher after ESV but kept it before in-source location. Izno (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ISSN link results in error; WorldCat URL changed?

    This is from our testcases page, a bit simplified: Campbell, Lyle (1978). "Chicomuceltec's last throes". International Journal of American Linguistics. 44 (1): 228–230. doi:10.1086/465548. ISSN 0020-7071..

    The resulting URL from the ISSN link is I get an error message that says "Oops, something went wrong". When I use the advanced search to search for that ISSN, the URL I get is Strangely, when I click on that link from here, I get the "Oops" message. I am puzzled. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also reported at Template talk:ISSN#Kaputt, without response. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also probably a good opportunity to make ISSN point to the ISSN website, rather than OCLC per POLA. If you want to link to OCLC, use |oclc=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that readers will benefit much if we switch to use the site because OCLC can supply a list of libraries that may hold a copy of the referenced source.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your ISSN links work for me.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still getting "Oops, something went wrong" for every ISSN link above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cache issue?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also still get their error message with my regular Firefox browser. However, it works with Chrome and Firefox in "Private Browsing" mode. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrecognized languages

    Is there any way to suppress the warning CS1 maint: unrecognized language (without disabling them) in Philippines citation [21] (Cobo, Juan; which uses |language=[[Philippine Hokkien|Early Manila Hokkien]] & [[Early Modern Spanish]]). Another editor added the source so I am not sure if I change Early Modern Spanish to simply es might make the citation less accurate. For Philippine Hokkien, I do not know what to use instead. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way they should not be linked. Early Manila Hokkien & Early Modern Spanish for convenience. The former says the correct code is nan and the template treats that as expected:
    • T (in Minnan).
    Early Modern Spanish looks to be more difficult to deal with. Neither it nor its lingual parents in the infobox appear to have a language assigned. Today, there is no way to work around that particularly gracefully. For our purposes though, it would probably be reasonable to mark it as es-x-early-modern which the template deals with by trimming to the es:
    • T (in Spanish).
    Clearing out this category would be aided by some improvement that allows us to add codes with an English name displayed e.g. a similar input to the one just above which would display as the desired language. Izno (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    'Others' parameter for 'Cite magazine' template

    While looking through the parameters of Template:Cite magazine, I noticed that the 'others' parameter is the recommended means by which illustrators should be listed. As the 'authors' parameter was deprecated for not contributing to the citation's metadata, shouldn't a separate, optional 'illustrator' (aliases 'illustrator-last', 'illustrator-surname', 'illustrator1', 'illustrator1-last', 'illustrator1-surname', 'illustrator-last1', 'illustrator-last1'), 'illustrator-first' (aliases 'illustrator-given', 'illustrator1-first', 'illustrator1-given', 'illustrator-first1', 'illustrator-given1'), 'villustrators' (Vancouver style), and 'display-illustrators' (to determine when et al. is added) parameters be added, to ensure documented magazine illustrators are searchable as metadata in a format similar to the ones established for authors and editors?

    The 'others' parameter would still be kept, of course, as a catch-all parameter for any additional contributors. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is access-date not required for "links to published research papers or published books" ?

    The template documentation explicitly says that an access-date is not required for "links to published research papers or published books." That seems to be based on an assumption that "published research papers or published books" do not change after being published, at least not without an explicit identifier such as a new edition. That seems to be problematic because that assumption is not true. In particular, it seems to especially problematic with respect to articles that are changed or withdrawn after publication where the URL and title may not change but the contents do change, sometimes in very important ways. ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the only reason for an accessdate is to determine which of multiple versions of a web link one accessed. Otherwise who cares when you looked at a web page. The date range might be useful for finding an archived copy, if you need one and have to choose among multiple versions, and it might be useful to readers for determining what date some dynamic information was updated. But published journal papers and books do not vary in the same way. A journal paper might be retracted or have an errata and a book might have multiple editions, but those are indicated in different ways. So the access-date is totally useless and best omitted as a useless distraction. As for your "the contents do change, sometimes in very important ways": [citation needed]. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statements "Because the only reason for an accessdate is to determine which of multiple versions of a web link one accessed" and "A journal paper might be retracted or have an errata..." seem to contradict one another. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you did not read the rest of the sentence, "but those are indicated in different ways". We cite the edition of the book we are citing, or we cite a separate erratum for a journal article. The access date is a much more imprecise way of specifying this information. If the other information is provided, the access date doesn't help. If the other information is not provided, an access date likely won't help disambiguate. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything published online can have a problem with revision control. Even a journal article published in print, the online copy can change. This is not a bad thing, it's the promise of the web. Maybe a rule would be if you reasonably believe the content is open to change, use cite web instead, with "web" defined as content that is liable to change and thus requiring an access-date. -- GreenC 04:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should have specified that I was thinking specifically of the "cite web" context. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, the documentation is by design kind of brief. This is an exception to an exception. Does it make sense to make the documentation longer for this? It's a tradeoff. -- GreenC 05:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributors in books that have only a primary editor

    I recently encountered an error when trying to add this citation: <ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |contribution=Oberlin College |contributor-last=Lee |contributor-first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=9781574401226 |pages=93–94}}</ref>. It produces this:[1]


    1. ^ Kelsey, Paul, ed. (2009). "Oberlin College". Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 9781574401226. {{cite book}}: |contributor= requires |author= (help)

    I am citing a portion of a chapter in a book that has only a primary editor, not a primary author (each chapter is authored by someone different), but using |contributor= with |editor= and no |author= leads to an error message and the contributor not being displayed. What is the proper way to resolve this? Should I be using the parameters differently, or does the template/error detection need adjustment? Sdkbtalk 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't they the author of the chapter, if you just use last/first you get:
    Lee, Diane (2009). "Oberlin College". In Kelsey, Paul (ed.). Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 9781574401226. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    The |contributor= / |contribution= pair in {{cite book}} is used when citing a contribution to a primary author's work: Anna Quindlen's introduction to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (permalink). Because your example does not have a primary author but does have content authored by one-or-more contributors, I think you should treat the contributors as you would treat authors of an edited collection of independent chapters. Perhaps you can rewrite like this:
    {{cite book |editor1-last=Kelsey |editor1-first=Paul |section=Oberlin College |last=Lee |first=Diane |title=Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan |date=2009 |publisher=Primary Research Group |isbn=978-1-57440-122-6 |pages=93–94}}
    Lee, Diane (2009). "Oberlin College". In Kelsey, Paul (ed.). Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. Primary Research Group. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-1-57440-122-6.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Author has two first names

    Or perhaps she considers her middle name to be a last name but she's not hyphenated.

    But look what happens.

    Lourgos AL (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune.

    Okay, it didn't happen. Let me go check.

    Variants of SARS-CoV-2 As of right now, ref 116.

    Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That article appears to use a mix of Vancouver style and spelled-out first names. You see at the top of the source where it says "cs1 config |name-list-style=vanc |display-authors=6"? That's why it abbreviates her first names to AL rather than spelling them out. However not all citations have first and last split in a way that allows the template to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the person's first name, or first and middle name combined, is "Angie Leventis", then "Lourgos AL" is correct. If the person's last name is "Leventis Lourgos" and first name is "Angie", then put "Leventis Lougors" in |last= to get "Leventis Lourgos A" in the citation, like this: Leventis Lourgos A (May 9, 2024). "New COVID 'FLiRT' variants are spreading nationwide. Chicago health experts urge up to date vaccination". Yahoo News. Retrieved May 14, 2024 – via Chicago Tribune. This page uses "Leventis Lourgos" as her last name, as does this page and WorldCat (though WC's site is mostly broken for me, so that link may be a 404 for you too). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to fix it, but I see it's done. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |agency= for {{cite magazine}}?

    On Special Force (2003 video game), I have a citation for a Reuters wire story reprinted in Wired. It used to be a {{cite web}} and, as with newspaper articles in {{cite news}}, I used |agency= to denote Reuters as the corporate author that is not the work's publisher. However, Citation bot converts Wired citations to {{cite magazine}}, which does not support |agency=. While I disagree with the automated conversion, using {{cite magazine}} here generally appears reasonable. Given the situation I outlined above, I think it would be valid for {{cite magazine}} to also support the parameter. The affected line in the Module is 3751. Kind regards, IceWelder [] 19:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New limit for OCLC.

    I have encountered to use of 10208486403 as an OCLC identifier. Help:CS1 errors says to report this situation here. Why is there a limit on the OCLC number? Seems like superfluous maintenance to me. User-duck (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]