Help talk:Citation Style 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Citation templates
... and in reality

Bot to notify users when they add CS1 errors

Hi everyone! Looking at the Help:CS1 errors#Most common errors shows a few categories that are quite large. Would it be reasonable to request a bot operator (not me) to write a bot that delivers user talk page messages similar to JaGa's DPL bot whenever a registered editor adds an article to one of the most common CS1 error categories? The bot could use the watchlist to see which user added which article to which category, and then add a new section detailing what the error means and how to fix it with text similar to what is posted at Help:CS1 errors. If so, we could work on fleshing out the idea (e.g. the exact categories and text for the user talk pages) before making a bot request. Or maybe someone following this page would be an interested bot op? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ReferenceBot used to do this, many years ago. It worked well. Maybe a bot operator would be willing to adopt its source code and maintain it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95: Thanks for mentioning this. Maybe I had memories of this bot in my subconscious.
@Legoktm: I noticed you recently posted on the bot op's talk page that you "archived the referencebot project". Does that archive include the source code for someone to adopt?
Thank you both! GoingBatty (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty: unfortunately when I looked at the source code I couldn't find an explicit license specified, which is partly why I archived it right away instead of waiting for a response from A930913. You could try emailing them? (I'm pretty sure the lack of license was oversight rather than intentional) Legoktm (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legoktm: Thanks for checking. If we get consensus here, I'll leave emailing to someone who might want to be a new bot op. GoingBatty (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legoktm: @GoingBatty: Hey, feel free to resurrect. The code was in Labs for that very reason. If you need a licence, I declare all my code on Labs as CC-BY-SA, unless you'd prefer a different one. A930913 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A930913, Jonesey95, and Legoktm: Posted at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to notify users when they add CS1 errors. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 17

Page watchers may be interested in the above BRFA. Izno (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"et al." in Cite web

The documentation for Template:Cite web says that if nine authors are entered then eight names will show, followed by "et al." This doesn't seem to have happened here. Does anyone know why? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That documentation is apparently ancient. That limit has not existed for a long time. Izno (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belated thanks, Izno, for clarifying that and removing the outdated guidance. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple volumes and issues in one binding

I am attempting to clean up the {{citation}} templates in talk:CDC 1604#Resources for delivery dates. I tried using {{citation | title = Fourth Quarter 1967 - First Quarter 1968 | series = COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS QUARTERLY | volume = Volume 7 Number 4 - 8 Number 1 | issue = 1 and 2 | url = http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AdamsReport1967Q4-1968Q1.pdf | publisher = Adams Associates }}

and got

Fourth Quarter 1967 - First Quarter 1968 (PDF), COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS QUARTERLY, vol. Volume 7 Number 4 - 8 Number 1, Adams Associates {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

The error message for volume is legitimate but the |issue= and |number= values seems to be ignored. How do I prevent |number= from being ignored and how do I mark up the citation for a single document containing two issues straddling volumes? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't include Volume in the |volume= field, you end up with "vol. Volume", and use magazine instead of series. If you use:
{{citation | title = Fourth Quarter 1967 - First Quarter 1968 | magazine = COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS QUARTERLY | volume = 7 Number 4 - 8 Number 1 |issue= 1 and 2| url = http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AdamsReport1967Q4-1968Q1.pdf | publisher = Adams Associates }}
You get:
"Fourth Quarter 1967 - First Quarter 1968" (PDF), COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS QUARTERLY, Adams Associates, vol. 7 Number 4 - 8 Number 1, no. 1 and 2
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are going to assume that the 'title' is 'Fourth Quarter 1967 – First Quarter 1968' then surely 'Volume 7, Number 4 – Volume 8, Number 1' is a subtitle so:
{{citation |title=Fourth Quarter 1967 – First Quarter 1968: Volume 7, Number 4 – Volume 8, Number 1 |magazine=Computer Characteristics Quarterly |url=http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AdamsReport1967Q4-1968Q1.pdf |publisher=Adams Associates}}
"Fourth Quarter 1967 – First Quarter 1968: Volume 7, Number 4 – Volume 8, Number 1" (PDF), Computer Characteristics Quarterly, Adams Associates
DON"T SHOUT. Not at all clear to me where issues 1 and 2 come from...
Still, this is not a good cs1|2 citation. cs1|2 does not support quarterly date ranges; perhaps it should though there has been no call for that. Nor does cs1|2 have a way to correctly handle volume and issue ranges; likely because doing so suggests citing multiple sources with a single template. None of the example citations above specify the article/section/whatever in the periodical is being cited. Perhaps it is best for you to abandon cs1|2 for this citation and manually construct a suitable citation. cs1|2 is good for most citation needs but certainly not good for all citation needs.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The upper case is in the original, but I believe that it is legitimate to make it sentence case. The actual text on the title page, other than spacing, is

adams associates
COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS
QUARTERLY
FOURTH QUARTER 1967 FIRST QUARTER 1968
Volume 7, Number 4 - Volume 8, Number 1

I don't know whether the dash is em or en. The 1 and 2 is probably a typo. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure that there is a dash of some form or other between 'Fourth Quarter 1967' and 'First Quarter 1968' in both places in the source where those dates are mentioned.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is a dash; I'm just not sure what flavor. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it still a magazine when it's hardbound? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Why wouldn't it be? It is/was quite common for publishers to bind all of the monthly issues of a periodical into single volumes. I've seen lots of those in the facsimiles available at google books.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was common to do so after the fact, but how common was it to publish multiple issues initially under a single hardbound cover, much less issues straddling a year boundary? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Add parameter |eudml=

I suggest adding a new parameter |eudml= to template:cite journal. Because eudml introduces the url to the full article, and if that url is open access it would be better to replace the parameter |url= with that url, and then, there is no place to enter the url of eudml. --SilverMatsu (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example

:Please provide more info on the identifier. It seems to refer to several different things. I assume you mean eduml and not eudml. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. I believe you mean eudml after all. It seems to have a bit of a narrow scope at the moment. I would wait to see if the concept matures/expands. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is adopted it would be better to use it as with the |jstor= field, so |eudml=143270 for the example above. That way it becomes another way that editors can look to gain access to the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I noticed that the
WP:GNG ? --SilverMatsu (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
It is a good idea, just on the basis of prominent partners such as the European Mathematical Society. The identifier website is very well designed and the identifier itself thoroughly explained, with extensible development. The "Reference Lookup" screen is a clever idea and a big plus, imo. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for this late reply. I created a new template like Template:ProQuest as an alternative plan. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fix example. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Example

  • {{cite journal |url=http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/resolveppn/?PPN=GDZPPN002102021|title=Il n'y a pas de variété abélienne sur Z |journal=Inventiones Mathematicae |year=1985 |volume=81 |pages=515–538 |last1=Fontaine |first1=Jean-Marc |issue=3 |doi=10.1007/BF01388584 |s2cid=122218539|id={{User:Silvermatsu/Template:EuDML|143270}}}}
  • Fontaine, Jean-Marc (1985). "Il n'y a pas de variété abélienne sur Z". Inventiones Mathematicae. 81 (3): 515–538.
    S2CID 122218539. EuDML 143270
    .

DOI and S2CID for {{cite bioRxiv}}

At

s2cid}} on the end). Hairy Dude (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

If you cite the preprint, then you need neither DOI nor s2cid. Those are for fully published papers.
b} 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
↑ that. {{
cite citeseerx}}, and {{cite ssrn
}}.
And no templates in headings please.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISBNs, plural

I have in front of me a copy of the sole (I believe) paperback edition of a book recently published by Stanford UP. On its copyright page (the verso of the title page), I read Identifiers: LCCN 2021049474 (print) | LCCN 2021049475 (ebook) | ISBN 9781503630680 (cloth) | ISBN 9781503632196 (paperback) | ISBN 9781503632202 (ebook). Such a list is pretty normal these days. I infer that the hard- and paperback books are made up of the same pages, and differ only in their binding. If I specify the paperback's ISBN, somebody with easy access to a library that lacks it but does have the hardback may not find the latter. (True, in practice, good OPACs often provide all usable ISBNs for a given edition of a book.) The "Cite book" template doesn't have the fields "isbn1", "isbn2", etc. Suggestions? (And dead-tree issues aside, I don't know anything about the/any ebook edition: may -- or should -- I ignore it?)

A quick search took me to Help talk:Citation Style 1/Perennial. At first glance, this seems to provide the answer. However, it seems to be about efforts to, for example, cite this or that set of publication details (ISBN), and page number(s), for an editor's Penguin paperback of David Copperfield (or a similarly multiply-published work), plus a greater or lesser number of the same for some library's OUP hardback of the same novel. These are two different editions, very likely to have different pagination and possibly with other differences besides. I'm instead asking about what in reality are single editions that just have a variety of packaging. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... we should use that perennial page more. Didn't even know it existed. :)
No, the answer is still the same, as the other versions can indeed be considered separate editions, even if they contain the same text.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT still applies, and you should cite the one you read. The others can/should use |id= as indicated in /Perennial to indicate any other copies you believe are desirable. Izno (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
"others can/should use |id=", no the others should be entirely ignored because they are not where you got the information.
b} 21:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
Izno and Headbomb, thank you for the responses, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. It's not just "the same text". At the top of (randomly chosen) page 184 of the paperback that's on my table, I read "Appropriating Cool, Cultivating Disaffection". I've never seen a copy of the hardback whose ISBN also appears on the paperback's copyright page, but I'd bet €1000 that at the top of its page 184 we'd read "Appropriating Cool, Cultivating Disaffection". The pages will be the same. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK and? What's wrong with using the paperback ISBN?
b} 03:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
Headbomb, nothing is wrong with using the paperback's ISBN. I don't think that I have suggested otherwise. The question is about adding the hardback's ISBN to the paperback's ISBN if the former is also provided on the paperback's copyright page (with the publisher's implication that the two differ only in the way in which the publisher has bound identical sets of identical pages together). ¶ Alternative bindings of what are in all other ways (aside from price) identical books is something very often encountered in academic books but not limited to them. The copyright page of my paperback copy of Bill Lowenburg's photobook Crash Burn Love: Demolition Derby says ISBN 0–9766535–1–6 Softcover on one line and ISBN 0–9766535–8–8 Hardcover on the next. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed parameters still listed in doc

Hi, was going through some stuff and noticed that (updated: was referring to the cite journal documentation, didn't specify this originally) the "subscription =" parameter and "registration =" parameters (easiest to search for if you include 10 spaces between subscription and =) are still included in the vertical list of the parameters. Were they left there by accident and should they be removed? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please remove them. Izno (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, will do. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 08:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled reviews

It's common for a single issue of a journal to have a collection of book reviews, each of them independently written. Template:Cite journal conveniently has both the fields "title" (for the title of the review) and "department" (for pointing out that it's a review, etc). But what's the best (or least bad) thing to do if the review is untitled? -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identify the section, e.g. "Review of Foobar the Sequel: The Return of Barfoo II".
b} 06:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
Headbomb, title=Review of ''Foobar the Sequel: The Return of Barfoo II'' (and no "department") would result in "Review of Foobar the Sequel: The Return of Barfoo II", with unwanted and misleading quotation marks; department=Review of ''Foobar the Sequel: The Return of Barfoo II'' (and no "title") would result in Review of Foobar the Sequel: The Return of Barfoo II (good!), but also a syntax error. I've a hunch that the syntax error can safely be ignored, but I'm not sure. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I do depends on how I'm using the review. If it's a standalone footnote I will often do something like |title=Review of Euler's Gem. Often I put together a single footnote with multiple reviews and it would look stupid for them all to have the same meaningless title, so in this case when possible I set |title=none (this only works when there is a doi but no url) or otherwise |title=Review. What should be avoided is something like |title=Reviews - Euler's gem, by David S. Richeson. Pp. 336. £16.95. 2008. ISBN 978 0 691 12677 7 (Princeton University Press). which is what you often get as the official publisher metadata for the review; this one is
doi:10.1017/S0025557200007397. It doesn't really make a difference in these conventions whether the journal lists it as a separate publication or bundles it as part of a bigger collection of reviews, because the title is made-up anyway. (And of course for reviews with real titles, different from the reviewed book title, you can just use their title.)—David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
David Eppstein, thank you; but if I specify |title=none, I'm told {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link) (though in other, prettier colours, and with links). Though this is because I've enabled the doodad that displays such error messages. (Sorry, I forget what this doodad/option is called. Whatever, I'm sure that the huge majority of Wikipedia users don't bother with it.) If I view the same page when not logged in, no error is apparent. ¶ If you're wondering, the particular reference I'm fiddling with now is to a review by Jean Aitchison that's currently the 17th in the article The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (an article that I do realize is a mess in other, more important ways). -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just a maintenance message; it's not an actual error. It's there as a warning to be careful, not to tell you not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 Hoary likes this. 09:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OCLC/Worldcat links as URLs

I've noticed a large number of citations use links to Worldcat in the URL field. These should, I believe, be subsumed under the OCLC tag, which generates the exact same link. These are deceiving to users who will expect a link to the actual book or article, rather than a listing of libraries that hold that title. I would love to see these treated as CS1 errors so we could clean these up. Thoughts? Straughn (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation bot used to remove URLs duplicating IDs. That was turned off based on an RFC for which you will need to dig. I think by that consensus making this an error would cause some consternation. Izno (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss this.
b} 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
I agree that a worldcat url in company with a matching oclc identifier parameter is pointless so I delete those worldcat urls on sight. Most of them, if I understand it, come from visual editor and citoid. I seem to remember some discussion someplace where the ve/citoid authors rejected the idea of omitting worldcat urls because not all of the other-language wikis support |oclc=. I don't know how reliable my memory is nor how valid that argument is.
I don't think that it would be all that difficult to have cs1|2 emit an error message when |url= matches |oclc=.
This search suggests that there are 31,000+ articles that use |url=https://www.worldcat.org/... so dumping that many errors on the editing populous will likely result in torches and pitchforks...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the argument in phab:T232771, but it doesn't hold much water for me. I need to respond to the closure comment there... Izno (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most cases, when a reference is used to source a claim made in a publication, it is useless to link WorldCat in the url field. In some unusual cases, though, such as when the reference is used to source a claim that someone published something (for instance: they published a doctoral thesis through X university in year Y), a WorldCat link can be the right thing to do. For this reason I would be opposed to deprecating these links, forbidding these links, or charging bots with removing these links. It might be ok to put them in a maintenance category for human editors to look at and clean up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply having the OCLC number would accomplish this. I'll run with
WP:VPROP Straughn (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

Indicating misspellings and information sources

Using VisualEditor I added the citation at 2021 Meron crowd crush#cite ref-51 (supporting the sentence I'd added) copying the title exactly as it appears in the English source: Interim recommendations in preparatio for the Hillula in 5782; it's clear from quotes in the source's text that preparatio should be preparation. I'd like to include a visible indication that the source has a spelling error so that anyone searching for the document in a library catalogue or elsewhere will know how it may appear. Adding [n] or [sic] to preparatio results in them appearing in same mauve as the rest of the title rather than black which is what I'd like to appear.

Since the exact date isn't in the English edition but is in the Hebrew at first I added the exact date in square brackets - [22] November 2021 - but when I checked to see how the citation would look it included"{{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)" so I deleted them and currently (22 November 2021) appears following the author. Can I do anything so that ([22] November 2021) appears? Is it possible to indicate the date's source? Mcljlm (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOS:SIC
applies; to wit: "However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)."
The source linked from the citation has the date November 2021; use that date.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: How to note that an article in one newspaper originally appeared in another newspaper?

Regarding this source:

"CHARLES WYCKOFF, PHOTO EXPERT". Sun-Sentinel. May 13, 1998. Archived from the original on June 29, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2023.

This article appears to have been printed in the Sun-Sentinel but under the title it states "By The Boston Globe". Should I ignore that or give credit to The Boston Globe? If so, where in all of the formatting do I note that? Thanks! -

Location (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

I think it might be reasonable to say the BG is acting as an |agency= here. That isn't all that different of an attribution in the article than another would give the AP. Izno (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! -
Location (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
Is agency for wire services like AP and Reuters? Another option is |via= (manually add italics). --
GreenC, typically yes. But I think that's how the BG is acting here. Izno (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translated author?

Is there a parameter to have the author's name in the original non-Latin script (e.g., 王可心) and then a translated version (e.g., Wang Kexin)? If not, should there be? Or should you just try to do it best you can using some other method in the Basic editor? Why? I Ask (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pick one name to put in |author=. If you would rather have a different presentation (for example, including their name in one of the CJK scripts), you can use |author-mask=. For example: {{cite book|title=Book |first=Kexin |last=Wang |author-mask=Wang Kexin 王可心}}: Wang Kexin 王可心. Book. Izno (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Why? I Ask (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I suggested a markedly similar solution to the {{cite tweet}} user name problem, you described that solution as a naive implementation (permalink). How is it that the proposed {{cite tweet}} use of |author-mask= is naive but the proposed translated-author-name use of |author-mask= is not?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trappist the monk, in the (cite) Twitter context, some people do not provide their real name. So you have to account for plugging the display name into |author= without the @ rather than |first=/|last= (and why I used the word demonstrating, which I honestly couldn't tell you if that should have a [sic] next to it). It had nothing to do with your proposed use of |author-mask= to include the @ symbol. Izno (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect message

According to the documentation, "limited" access means "there are other constraints (such as a cap on daily views, a restriction to certain day or night times, or providing the contents only to certain IP ranges/locales on behalf of the provider of the source) to freely access this source as a whole". The most common reason is the last mentioned ie region locking. But the pop-up message says "Free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required". That is the wrong message; if it were indeed the case, I would not be using "limited" but "subscription". Consider changing the message to match the documentation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most common reason is the last mentioned ie region locking. Citation needed. My experience is entirely different – I don't often encounter region blocked sites. For me, free access is most often limited to a certain number of views per time period. No doubt, others have different experiences.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll actually go further than Ttm here: It is the documentation that has drifted. We have had several discussions on this page that geo-limiting is not under the purview of "limited". Izno (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I found was Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 47#Access level: That's what |url-access=limited is for and the inconclusive discussion in Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 77#Having a special value for url-status when a page is geo-restricted? But by all means change the documentation to match the usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The particular case I am looking at is [1] on the page
WP:ELNO: Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

PMID limit excess report

@

PMID 36905184, which excesses the currently configured limit of 36900000 and leads to a bad PMID error of Citation Style 1. Please update this limit. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

Possible invalid edits to live CS1 module

I'm not sure why TadejM modified a live CS1 module with no discussion or apparent testing, but I believe that one or both of these edits were invalid and should be reverted. The "empty unknown parameter" message currently renders as "Cite has empty unknown parameter : |fake=", which is clearly wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jonesey95. You're correct, I should have first tested this. I have fixed this error, while the second message is now displayed correctly (see e.g. here). --TadejM my talk 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because these modules are used in millions of pages, we nearly always accumulate fixes in the sandbox versions of the modules, test them adequately, and then deploy changes in batches every few months. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted, thank you. --TadejM my talk 06:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TadejM, you are new around these parts. Please generally avoid editing the live CS1 modules. They are transcluded sufficiently many times where sandboxed edits are the default action and even simple-looking edits may cause undesirable behavior. Izno (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first of those edits highlights an oversight on my part. The message key archived-missing is referenced only once in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3705. That line and the next line do nothing because arch_text is not used after it has been set in 3705 and possibly modified in 3706. Those two lines are leftovers from the transition from when some error messages appeared in the midst of the rendered citation to the current state where all error messages appear at the end of the rendered citation. I have deleted the archived-missing k/v pair from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox and the two lines from Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i18n date handling

At Template talk:ISBN § is isbn restricted to english numerals there is a link to an article at the Kannada wikipedia (kn:ಚದುರಂಗದ ನಿಯಮಗಳು). At the bottom of that article there are a couple of Lua script errors. These errors occur because of |year=೧೯೭೭ (1977) and |year=೧೯೯೨ (1992). At line 335 in kn:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation, there is this: tonumber(input.year). That works fine so long as input.year is written as Arabic numerals. Kannada numerals are not Arabic numerals so the call to tonumber() returns nil. I think that I have fixed that in our sandbox and replacing make_COinS_date() at kn.wiki with our version of the function seems to support that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to this, I have figured out how to get MediaWiki to supply non-English digits for wikis, like kn.wiki, that might write dates like |date=೧೬ ಮಾರ್ಚ್ ೨೦೨೩ (16 March 2023). This particular functionality is disabled at en.wiki.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calculated archive-date

Given that there is code now (I think, as discussed above) to look for a mismatch in archive-date and the date based on the archive-url, it would seem that the next step is to allow for the archive-date to not be present *if* the archive-date is calculatable from the archive-url. What would be issues with that? Would it slow down the pages? Naraht (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it would slow down pages. We would need to benchmark on a representative page or two.
Besides that:

There's an argument to be made (which I think has been made previously) that we should just support auto-archive dates for those archivers that have the date in their URL, but if a archiver should change how their URL structure, we could be left with a lot of archive URLs without dates. Which could feasibly be cleaned up easily either way at that time, I suppose, we'd just need to differentiate between pre- and post-change somehow, if it ever came to that. I don't think archive.org is likely to change like that either way, so definitely something to consider. Izno (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Izno (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO this will cause unintended consequences not save much effort rather create extra efforts elsewhere. So many tools and processes depend on the existence of this argument. If the argument is missing is this because it's in the URL, and if so how do you parse the URL when there are 20+ archive providers with many variations - huge programming effort most won't bother with. Or is it because it's not in the URL and the missing argument is an error. Another hazzard is people will avoid adding the argument if they don't have to, and pretty soon they are not adding the argument even for URLs that require it - how do you teach people they need it for one case but not another - lots of errors will be introduced. -- GreenC 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request

Please add hatnote {{for|the cleanup template|Template:Cleanup press release}} on the above template to distinguish between {{Cleanup press release}}, as noted in this RM. Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@
plus Added to Template:Cite press release/doc, which is not protected. GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

Original publisher

When a publisher purchases a work from another publisher and reprints it, should the citation show the original publisher? Does the answer depend on whether it is a reprint or a revision? Is it appropriate to use |orig-date= for the purpose, given that there is no |orig-publisher= parameter? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would list the publisher of the edition you've consulted. If you consult the original work from the original publisher, then cite that. If you've consulted the edition by the new publisher, cite them.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. Imzadi 1979 → 19:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
If it's a reprint, giving the original year and publisher might help readers in verifying the citation if they have access to the original work; e.g.: Example title. new publisher. 2020 [1905 original publisher].. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give the citation to the work you are actually looking at. The reason is that the page numbering may be different on another edition or by another publisher. We cite the original date so people know how up-to-date the source is. If you want to help the reader find a copy, give them an OCLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a way to obtain the OCLC given the ISBN? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:BookSources; the 'Find this book at WorldCat' link under the Online databases heading.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another generic title

Hello, can you add "Detect browser settings" as a generic title. Currently, 27 instances. Keith D (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&oldid=1146325971"