Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 32

@Trappist the monk: When using {{Cite biorxiv | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}, the title gets italicized.

• Goldberg, Amy; et al. (2016). "Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes".
  bioRxiv 078360. {{cite bioRxiv}}: Check |biorxiv= value (help
  )

{{

cite biorxiv}} does not yet exist; {{cite biorxiv/new

}} does:

{{Cite biorxiv/new | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}

Goldberg, Amy; et al. (2016). "Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes".

bioRxiv 078360. {{cite bioRxiv}}: Check |biorxiv= value (help

)

this is true because the live module does not yet support {{cite biorxiv}}; still waiting for template documentation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see. I was waiting for it to go live before creating the doc, but I suppose I could do that now.

b

} 03:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I hope I haven't screwed up.

b

} 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

quick query from a by-stander: should the template output some sort of indication of the name of the website or the publisher of the website that's hosting these articles beyond the bioRxiv identifier number? I understand what it is from clicking on the ID number, but maybe we could give just an extra clue for our readers? Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, but I based it on {{

b

} 14:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone know how to manage these templates for volumes with publication dates spread over multiple years? (they're unusual, but early 20th century works sometimes had publication dates of 1910-1913, for example). I've done it once before, but can't remember where! Any advice gratefully received... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Real life examples are almost always useful. It saves us from the need to contrive examples.

I think that it is true that, generally, each of the the several volumes of a multi-volume source should be treated as a separate source. The cs1|2 templates are not designed to render the necessary bibliographic details for a single source. So, best practice is, I think:

{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=100–110 |date=1910 |volume=1}}

Author (1910). "Chapter". Title. Vol. 1. pp. 100–110. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |page=78 |date=1911 |volume=2}}

Author (1911). "Chapter". Title. Vol. 2. p. 78. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=204, 223 |date=1912 |volume=3}}

Author (1912). "Chapter". Title. Vol. 3. pp. 204, 223. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=xxiv, 31–33, 354 |date=1913 |volume=4}}

Author (1913). "Chapter". Title. Vol. 4. pp. xxiv, 31–33, 354. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Or, for a single volume with a publication date that spans multiple years:

{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=100–110 |date=1910–1913 |volume=1}}

Author (1910–1913). "Chapter". Title. Vol. 1. pp. 100–110. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

That should work. Note the en dash. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#amazon.com

Can something be done about this template?

1. It has quite low use (according to
   User:Green Cardamom at Special:Diff/775225851
   , only 181 articles).
2. It has bugs which are not easy to fix. i.e. |deadurl=no is ignored, plus |archiveurl= and |archive-url= are not the same. It uses Template:Citation/core instead of Lua module templates like Template:Cite web.
3. Template:Cite web can do almost everything this template can do, including |rfc=.
4. Documentation is outdated.

As an example, right now this template needs to use Template:Webarchive for the purpose of |archive-url=, seen in revision 775225151.

I'd like to see this IETF template go away, or be fixed of its bugs. Any other proposals or suggestions? 80.221.152.17 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:Citation/core, Template:Cite wikisource is also affected and most templates have been converted to use Module:Citation/CS1. It's used on 2362 articles as of today. 80.221.152.17 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest open a

C

02:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No need for a TFD, 'just' update {{

b

} 07:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (and I have not looked at all possible cases) {{cite ietf}} correctly applies Citation Style 1. The back-end, and/or the scripting language utilized, is not directly relevant to style issues in general, and to citing IETF docs in particular, at least per the current CS1 implementation. If this template has bugs that trouble you and/or bad documentation that also troubles you, by all means fix them. Converting it to a CS1 template is another topic. As for {{cite wikisource}}, this discussion is not applicable. It is not a CS1 template, nor should it necessarily be one. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We deprecated |coauthor= and |coauthors= sometime in late 2013 to early 2014. These two parameters contributed the vast majority of pages to Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Except for eight stubborn pages (see separate discussion at WP:VPT), the category is now empty.

In the whitelist sandbox I have disabled the two parameters and will cleanup the supporting code in a bit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

At the WP:VPT conversation, Editor Jonesey95 has suggested that cs1|2 stop using Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters and instead use Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters. I agree with this suggestion. The current name is too long; the proposed name is in keeping with the majority of subcategory names in Category:CS1 errors. Without objection, I shall make the necessary changes to implement this suggestion. Now is a good time since the category is more-or-less empty.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that all support for |coauthor= and |coauthors= has been removed from the module sandboxen. I have changed the deprecated parameter category name. After we take the module sandboxen live (we ought to do that, it's been a while) Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author‎ can be deleted along with its supporting help text at Help:CS1 errors. Similarly, the new deprecated parameter category needs to be created and the help text pointed to it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

{{Cite web}} generates a warning when a (valid) URL is in Cyrillic (and, I suspect, in any other non-Latin script), which it probably shouldn't, since there is nothing wrong with the URL. An example of this behavior can be seen here. Can someone please take a look into this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2017; 17:48 (UTC)

Instructions for converting the URL to Roman characters are available via the "help" link in the error message. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The point is that there is no need to convert the characters, since the original URL is perfectly valid (and more readable).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2017; 18:03 (UTC)

Previous discussion.

As far as I know, DNS domain names must still be Latin characters. Unless the standard has changed, I suspect that what is happening is that your browser is now capable of translating хвастовичский-район.рф to its Punycode value (xn----7sbbfb0baicf2bdizhdn4c5b.xn--p1ai) to be usable by DNS but render's a Unicode version for the reader. If I drop the Punycode version of the url into my browser's address bar, I get the correct web site and my browser renders the Cyrillic domain name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for previous discussions, but must have missed that one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2017; 13:27 (UTC)

We have some access-lock images which are occasionally used to indicate whether a source is paywalled or not. One of them is File:Lock-red.svg. It's bright red (), with a transparent background. The {{cite journal}} source code uses it to indicate paywalled sources.

I don't like the bright red. Why? Because, as Mark viking pointed out six months ago,[1] many paywalled sources let you read the abstract for free, or a page or two for free. Please correct Mark and I if we're wrong, but we think that bright red may imply "you can't read any of this for free". This may mislead our readers, and dissuade them from clicking through and reading abstracts for free.

I think that we should use some color other than bright red.

We could use dark red (like this). And then we could add a white background or white border, to make sure that users reading Wikipedia on a black background would get sufficient contrast. In fact, if you look through the file history of Lock-red.svg, you'll see that it used to be dark red, until it changed to light red this past September.

Or we could use gray (on a transparent background), or black (on a white background), or any other color.

Thoughts?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The dark red fails one of the criteria we established for the icon designs, to wit: contrast against both white and black backgrounds. This is important for the visually impaired and for those who invert their colors (light text on a dark or black background).

As part of the initial discussions I proposed a series of icons that were all blue; access indicated by the lock shape only. That idea was shot down because others believed that multiple indications of access (shape and color) are better than the single (shape alone).

Before continuing this conversation, might I recommend that you spend some time in the archives of this page reading the discussions that got us to where we are today? I think that the bulk of it begins in Archive 22.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Trappist: The problem with the old dark-red access lock icon is that it had a transparent background. This made it nearly invisible when the icon was superimposed upon a black webpage. I see four possible workarounds: A) Underlay a white rectangle beneath the dark-red lock. B) Or a white rounded rectangle. C) Or a white oval. D) Or add a thick white outline to the dark-red lock. Even three or four pixels thick, if you want. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, those are work-arounds. But, neither you nor I have the power to change that which was decided by RFC, do we? Without another RFC that overrides the current consensus, the access signals shall have the forms and colors that were determined by the visual design RFC.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

In that RFC, Headbomb offered a choice of multiple colors for the free-access lock and the partial-access lock. But the only color choice he offered for the paywall lock was bright red. (In other words, bright red was the only choice available on the ballot.) Because the ballot offered no choice in the matter, I believe it might be inaccurate to say that the RFC participants agreed to make it bright red. I believe it'd be more accurate to say that the lock ended up bright red by default. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Only one color was offered for the free access lock, green. The only one where there was a choice was the partial access lock, yellow vs blue which left very few people happy. I personally believe Green/Grey/Red will gain support the next time we ask, but it's possibly Green/Grey/Grey will get it too. Green/Blue/Red is a a truly ridiculous scheme that makes zero sense, and people only went for it because the yellow was felt 'not yellow enough' or

books

} 04:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Look also at the post timestamped at "22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)" on this page for possible alternatives, some of which include gray.

books

} 12:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That gray is fine, though I still suspect that I prefer dark red. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The dark red would still violate

books

} 04:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've thought of some possible workarounds, and described them, in a comment which you probably haven't read yet. Search through this page for the phrase [ four possible workarounds ] if you'd like to learn about them. I believe that, with the workarounds, dark red is a viable option. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't viable workarounds. A white rectangle underneath the lock for instance, would look downright awful and be very distracting. Likewise for the other choices.

books

} 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice.

A) How about a thin white outline, perhaps one pixel thick or a few pixels thick? B) What percent of our readers view Wikipedia on a black background? I suspect that it's a tiny percentage. Shouldn't we care more about making things look nice for the majority than for the minority? —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The colors and shapes of the access signals lock was decided by the visual design RFC. Must I repeat myself? Neither you nor I have the authority to arbitrarily overturn such a decision. The number of readers who use an inverted color scheme is irrelevant; those who do deserve to be accommodated if it is possible to do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing we could possibly add to the hover text is "Paid subscription required, abstract or excerpt may be available" instead of just "Paid subscription required".

books

} 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Headbomb: Good idea. In fact, maybe we could provide even more alt text than that. Perhaps this: "A summary or excerpt may be available for free. However, to read the full text, you must either buy access or visit a library with a paid subscription. Try phoning your nearest university library." In addition, perhaps we could even add a dotted underline and a fancy cursor. border-bottom: 1px dotted #000; cursor: help; This would help readers realize that there's useful alt text, and that they should wait a second for it to appear. You can see a live preview of the full package at this link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a ridiculously long message. 'Paid subscription required, abstract or excerpt may be available' covers all of that. I'm not against the cursor/underlining though.

books

} 04:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Both you and I have been to university. Also, both you and I both know that we can get free online access to many papers at a university library. But many laypeople don't know this. In fact, even some university graduates don't know this. For those in the know, we're wasting their time by writing so much hover text. But these people can quickly learn what the paywall lock means. They can read the hover text once, understand it, and never feel a need to hover their mouse over a paywall lock ever again. But, for high-school students and other individuals not in the know, we may be opening their eyes (maybe for the first time ever) to vast trove of scholarly knowledge. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of having been to university or not, it's a matter of the message being exceedingly long. This is a message that will need to be read by screen readers several times per article, and thus needs to be short. This is why all the messages are short and to the point, e.g. "Free registration required" instead of "You are required to register to read this article, but it does not cost money to do so. Websites will typically asks for your email and some personal information. You could also ask a friend to register for you, or register with a dummy email if you do not trust the website with your personal information, however this may violate their terms of service. Your password and login information might be stored in a cookie. That being said, an excerpt might still be available to unregistered users."

"Paid subscription required" implies a subscription is required to have access to the full version; it doesn't matter if it's yours, your supervisor's, your friend's or the library's institutional subscription. If you have short wordings, those could be suitable however. But they need to be short, e.g. "Paid or library subscription required, free abstract or excerpt may be available".

books

} 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah OK fair. Your point about screen readers is a good one. Indeed, I looked into the matter just now; and it turns out that screen readers will indeed read out the image's title text in this case. (Source.) And your little speech discussing dummy emails and cookies made me laugh. :) How's this?: "Paid or library access required; but a summary may be available for free. Click for help." —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Locks aren't currently clickable and aren't linked to anything. Where would clicking on the lock take people?

books

} 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There need not be anything clickable for a title= attribute to be used; it is valid on most HTML elements since HTML 4.00, and all elements from HTML5 onward. From the HTML 4.01 spec:

Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tooltip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context.

Try hovering your mouse here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Re "There need not be anything clickable". The proposed message has "click for help". That's what I'm referring to.

books

} 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice.

Clicking on the paywall lock could take readers to Wikipedia:Find your source. Would this work? —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki copies the image's alt= attribute text into the title= attribute. No need to muck with title= attributes and no need for the image to be clickable.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not true: consider the twelve images in Headbomb's post of 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC) beginning "No, we unrestrict their use on identifiers and urls" in the section #Whatever happened to the access lock RFCs? - here, all twelve images have the alt= attribute, and none of them have a title= attribute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that we are both mistaken. Your mistake: none of those twelve images have alt= attributes – though some have 'alt' in their name:

[[File:Lock-blue-alt-2.svg|9px]] →

My mistake: MediaWiki does not copy alt= into title=. Rather, it is done in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration where the lock images are defined like this:

[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]] →

where the text to the right of the pipe is assigned to the title= attribute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They do have alt= attributes. Use your browser's "View page source" feature. Search for the text <img alt="Lock-green.svg" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png" You should find six instances, other than the one in this post. All six are identical: the <img /> tag has seven attributes, being (some values replaced with an ellipsis for clarity) alt="Lock-green.svg" src=... width="9" height="14" srcset=... data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813". There is an alt= attribute; there is not a title= attribute. The enclosing <a href="/wiki/File:Lock-green.svg" class="image">...</a> element doesn't have a title= either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So they do. MediaWiki copies the image file name into the alt= attribute. Better that than nothing I suppose.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The documentation implies that Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi= are not expected to offer a free full text by default So I am expecting the subscription will be set to yes by default if one of these is set. But it isn't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you mean that the template sets |subscription=yes if |doi= or other identifier is set, then no, that does not happen. The problem with |subscription= is that it doesn't specify which external link, |url= or one of the identifiers – there can be multiples – requires the subscription. As the code stands now, it assumes, correctly, that most identifiers (like |doi=) rarely offer free access to the source. We do not highlight the norm. When |doi= refers to a source that is free-to-read, editors may add |doi-access=free to highlight that identifier. There are exceptions: a couple of identifiers are automatically flagged because it is known that these identifiers are always free-to-read (|arxiv=, |rfc=, etc). In the same sense, |url= and |chapter-url= and their aliases are assumed to be free-to-read. Again, we don't hightlight the norm but when these are not free-to-read, editors may set |url-access=subscription, etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But a |doi= card does not trigger a "subscription required" note, nor does a |jstor= card; so |doi-access=free is the default. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What is card?

No, |doi-access=free is not the default because we do not highlight the normal state, either with an icon or with text. For most identifiers the links normally link to sources behind a registration or subscription wall. Because of this, there is no need to clutter the rendered citation with extraneous access signals.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"|registration=yes" and "|subscription=yes" rendering is awful

(Sorry to add this new section not at the end of the page, but it's related to the one above.)

I brought this up awhile back, but didn't have time to pursue it further then. I'll quote here my main points from before:

I was just editing an article where one of the citations required (free) registration to read, so I looked at the {{cite web}} template and found there was a "|registration=yes" parameter, so I added that. However, it renders so poorly and confusingly for readers -- "(registration required (help))." with the help tooltip giving "Sources are not required to be available online. Online sources do not have to be freely available. The site may require registration." -- that I reverted my change and just added "(Registration required.)" at the end of the <ref> manually.

First off, the "r" in "registration" should be capitalized if there's a period at the end, and the period should go inside the parentheses, not outside. Secondly, "Sources are not required to be available online. Online sources do not have to be freely available." must be very confusing to the average reader. I don't think it's helpful to the average reader to obliquely define Wikipedia reference inclusion policy in the help for what the tag means. Finally, why the weasel words in "may be required"? The parameter says "registration=yes", and it renders as "registration required" -- the "may be" has no business being there.

And the same is true for "|subscription=yes". Thank you, Trappist the monk, for pointing me to where I would need to make my suggested changes. I have just edited Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to change:

(registration required (<span title="Sources are not required to be available online. Online sources do not have to be freely available. The site may require registration." style="border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help">help</span>))

to:

(Registration required (<span title="The site requires registration to access this page." style="border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help">help</span>))

and:

(subscription required (<span title="Sources are not required to be available online. Online sources do not have to be freely available. The site may require a paid subscription." style="border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help">help</span>))

to:

(Subscription required (<span title="The site requires a paid subscription to access this page." style="border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help">help</span>)

I see that the period after the ")" gets added elsewhere, and may be done in such a way that it would be difficult to omit it for registration=yes and subscription=yes so that the period can be placed inside the parentheses in the above text, so I have not yet looked into that. Before I do, I wanted to see what the reaction was to my suggested changes and the logic behind them. Thank you. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I wouldn't worry too much about the separator character. If one is to believe the outcome of this rfc, then both |subscription= and |registration= will be going away.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe the outcome of that rfc. Its conclusions, well-meaning as they are, are self-contradictory: aspect B1 allows all locks ("the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"), but aspect B3 imposes them by not offering any other alternative ("the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"). 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Flagging would be allowed, whether to do so or not would be up to editor's discretion. There's no contradiction.

b

} 14:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Using the facilities of CS1, I would like to not use locks as allowed to, but I would like to flag access requiring subscription, as also allowed to. Any ideas? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The access of what is the question. URLs? arXiv links? DOIs? JSTOR identifiers? Simply appending "subscription required" at the end of the citation is ambiguous. How would you like things rendered? Do you have a mockup?

b

} 16:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not what I am asking. The exact placement or wording of the flag to be applied is not relevant to my question. All I want to be able to do is to signal subscription requirement, but without using locks. It seems that locks are locked in when it comes to this. If that is the case, the RFC close mis-informs, possibly because the RFC itself did not clarify that subscription/registration access flags are apparently dependent on the lock scheme. Aspect B3 may not be independent, but a sub-aspect of Aspect B1. Something like this should have been pointed out, as it may have been material to the RFC's consideration. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Then what you would like is not a viable or sustainable option. The reasons have been explained to you, and the community agrees on this.

b

} 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And my point is that the community was presented with a partly false or incomplete set of options. Aspect B3 was not fully explained as dependent on Aspect B1. This may have affected the outcome. It certainly affected the closing, and the closer's comments, which seem contradictory as indicated above. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, those are not contradictory, and does not hinge on locks being their or not. People could decide to go text-based, with arxiv:1234.1234 (Free to read), doi:10.1234/whatever (Subscription Required), JSTOR(Registration required).

b

} 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You will notice that what I wrote, included a caveat. The RfC closer wrote:

There is,however, a greater issue: A significant body of opinion has been expressed below that the entire visual status indicator idea is not acceptable. The above assessment must be interpreted in light of this. I would urge that this close is treated as a tentative indication of how the Citation Template processing would work in a new RfC to see if there is significant buy-in to proceed forward. To move forward with the shaky consensus established below would not comport with

WP:CONS. Overall, there is not yet significant consensus on implementation of these citation template behaviors.

This I believe leaves us in some sort of limbo. When previously I asked how we should proceed