Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 84

Thanks! That's awesome! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Title? I'm updating/creating templates for EUR-Lex codes with hopes for compatibility with CS1's id parameter, so I copied the same pattern used in {{SELIBR}} and others, and they all use {{Catalog lookup link}}, but is it required? I ask because {{ECLI}} does its own thing and, as I only started learning template code today, it will take time for me to wrap it in Cll, so I'm just wondering whether I even need to (I know practically I don't because CS1 is not ideal for most law at the moment anyway, but I raised that issue elsewhere).

As an aside, lookup templates based on Cll, somewhat tailored for CS1, (like SELIBR and those with native support like {{

Afaik, catalogs will add multiple identifiers only when the work exists in multiple editions or formats in their repository (sometimes with a "master" identifier if the catalog allows master records). In this case, only the identifier that corresponds to the edition/format consulted by the citing editor is required and appropriate. As for the use of Cll, this is not the purview of CS1. You may want to raise the issue in a more template/module-specific forum, where issues of code reuse, compatibility, and development can be discussed more fully. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have several other questions just about what's possible with a CS1 wrapper -- should I got to

WikiProject Template then? SamuelRiv (talk

) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I would start at the talk pages of the templates/modules you're working with, including Cll, and expand from there if there's no traction. I haven't looked into CS1 wrappers/metatemplates in a few years, but I remember the category was pretty messy, and iirc included templates that were based on CS1 style elements, but not CS1 templates. Some of the editors regularly posting here did some cleanup in the meantime I believe. 64.18.11.64 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to change citation templates which hurt articles' Google ranking and was told about this page. I'm not sure if this discussion will move here, but if not at least there is a link to the VP discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen quite a few such template instances that have an archive link but are still active. Perhaps the bot is checking the links at a time when there is an outage or a certificate issue? Sometimes it can be as simple as the link changing from http to https. Praemonitus (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Among the suggestions at the Village Pump was to change the dead links to plain unlinked text. I haven't seen an example how that might look, but I suspect it would add considerable verbiage to the emitted text. I suggest that would be a bad thing; it would add horrible clutter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are inline googleoff and googleon tags that could be used. Praemonitus (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Like nofollow, this should probably be a mainspace-wide issue. Another problem with delinking the "original" url is the case of preemptive archiving. In such cases the original link is not dead, only pre-empted. This is an efficient way of handling possible link rot, as it requires no maintenance, without any degradation of the reader-facing info. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The citation templates already have a parameter, |url-status=live, to indicate preemptive archival linking. When used, the citation will continue to link to the original article, with the archive link only being listed as a backup. As such, there is no reason to de-link the originals in those cases, and all of the information is available to disable de-linking for those citations. It shouldn't be a problem. FeRDNYC (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I'm envisioning, rather it was to add an extra parameter which could be used on some articles, and probably not much. There already is an extra parameter for inappropriate links. I would use it for articles where I'm concerned about Google ranking, because Google has changed and is apparently following links even when told not to. The discussion has since been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 198#Proposal to change citation templates which hurt articles' Google ranking. It seemed like a roughly divided response, but one that could change if views on the site got worse. I don't expect it to be accepted at the moment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the documentation for {{Cite podcast}}, while the parameter |transcripturl= has been deprecated, the parameter |transcript-url= should work. However, when using it, the template returns an unknown parameter error:

• {{Cite podcast |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
• Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022). "Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast). Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Retrieved 6 July 2022. {{cite podcast}}: Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (help)

Compare the equivalent {{Cite AV media}} where the parameter does work:

• {{Cite AV media |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
• Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022). Did economists move democrats to the right?. The Science of Politics. Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Transcript. Retrieved 6 July 2022.

I've tried looking at the relevant module to see what change might've caused this, but it's beyond me. Does anyone know what the issue might be? Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 11:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

{{cite podcast}} has never supported |transcript= or |transcript-url=.

For the above comparison, I have tweaked the module sandbox so that |transcript= and |transcript-url= are recognized and so not discarded. This shows that Module:Citation/CS1 does not support these parameters for {{cite podcast}} and never has. I don't know why {{cite podcast/old}} repeats |url= as a bare url (and I'm not going to spend any time trying to figure that out).

For the community: should the cs1|2 module suite be changed to support |transcript=, |transcript-format=, and |transcript-url=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

{{cite podcast}} has never supported |transcript= or |transcript-url=. Well, that explains it. I hope I didn't misunderstand the documentation, which seems to list it as a valid parameter?

[S]hould the cs1|2 module suite be changed to support |transcript=, |transcript-format=, and |transcript-url=?. Are the equivalent parameters in {{Cite AV media}} not from the CS1 module?

I personally think a transcript link parameter is beneficial for AV media, since it increases accessibility and eases verification checks by other users. I was looking at the archives of this talk page while searching for a solution to my problem, and it seems this has been discussed before without any outcome. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 12:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The {{cite podcast}} template documentation says nothing about |transcript=. The deprecated and recently removed parameter tables are generic and are included in most if not all cs1|2 template doc pages.

Of the 27 cs1|2 templates, |transcript=, |transcript-format=, and |transcript-url= are supported only by {{cite AV media}} and {{cite episode}}.

Can you link to the previous discussions? Such links can be helpful.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was primarily thinking of this discussion where an anon user complained about the supposed disappearance of the parameter in a variety of templates, although as I understand your comment, it wasn't present in some of these to begin with at all. The last few comments in that discussion were about whether or not such a parameter was needed. Others of interest are this one which appears to be right before the introduction of the parameter to {{Cite AV media}} and this one where including the parameter in other templates, including {{Cite podcast}} was aired, but the discussion seemingly didn't go anywhere. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 19:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Trappist asked for comments on the use of the |transcript= parameter group.

The parameter group should be supported, but only if designed, applied and documented correctly.

Let's start with definitions: Transcript Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (3 definitions).

• Definition 3 (medical usage): Ii doesn't seem any CS1 templates need to employ the medical definition (DNA transcript), and is hard to conceive of a situation they would.
• Definition 2 (art usage, see more here): Probably, {{cite sign}} and {{cite map}} could conceivably use this parameter group in rare cases.
• Definition 1b (court or academic record): It is possible that the court usage of transcript and the court transcript itself may need to be indicated, but as there is no specialized template for citing court cases, this could be wide open. Academic transcripts are considered private documents and there is no reason to presume they would be published, except rarely, as parts of other works such as biographies perhaps. Or to make things more convoluted, academic transcripts could be entered as evidence in court cases, so one could conceivably cite academic transcripts as in-source locations of court transcripts.
• Definition 1a (verbatim copy, the most common use): any work that may be cited in non-text media could use the parameter group. This includes {{cite book}} (an audiobook not specifically published as a print book), {{cite interview}}, {{cite podcast}}, {{cite press release}}, {{cite speech}} etc. etc.

Application note: Transcripts themselves should be cited as the works they represent if they are expressly published as transcripts, for example such transcript of a speech should still be cited with {{cite speech}}. Some transcripts are published with titles different from the original. Others may be cited in non-online media, and therefore such transcripts would not use a URL. There may also be situations where transcripts may have a different title, and a URL. All these cases should be formatted and presented differently. For now, this comment is just exploring the definitiona and their applicability. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Following from the above, an implementation proposal:

• Renames: |transcript= to |transcript-title=
• Adds: |transcript-url-access=
• Presentation: transcript parameter values render in plain-text for simplicity
• Conditions:
  • |transcript-url-format= ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
  • |transcript-url-access= ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
  • |id= (for the transcript) required if there is |transcript-title= but no |transcript-url=
  • |transcript-url=[displays |transcript-title= value] else |transcript-url=[displays] Transcript (static text)
  • When both guideline items below apply, format the citation similarly to citing a translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Guidelines:
  • Editors should add |transcript-title= when different from work title
  • When editors cite a work via its transcript only, strongly encourage |type=transcript

Other, advanced considerations: transcript identifiers, transcript archiving, other-language transcripts. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Some history:

• Special:Permalink/551163953#Error categories and user pages
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#Display errors on Talk pages but exclude from Categories?
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Update to the live CS1 module week of 2014-02-09 – +draft & draft talk (apparently without discussion)
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 31#Enable error tracking in draft space?
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 42#Enable error tracking in draft space
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 64#Namespace check for Category:Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs and Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 January

In Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 12 we have a list of namespaces that cs1|2 does not categorize. The namespace names there are the canonical (English) names that appear to work in all other wikis when used in a wikilink or url. But, when cs1|2 fetches the namespace name from a non-English wiki, the non-English wiki returns the name in its own language. That means that editors in those other-language wikis must translate (replace) the English names with local names.

I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to fetch the list of talk namespace identifiers from MediaWiki. The namespace list is specific to the local wiki in that local namespace names are the local language names but the namespace identifiers are the same for all wikis: namespace 2 at en.wiki is 'User' and at sq.wiki is 'Përdoruesi'.

This has the further benefit of making sure that the list of talk pages remains up-to-date; for example, at some point, apparently, the 'Book talk' and 'Education Program talk' namespaces and associated subject-namespaces disappeared.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk, shouldn't we also allow a way for foreign wikis to add add/remove untracked NS to wish? Or advise how to do so with a comment? That's how I was envisioning the change initially when I proposed it, even though maybe it won't be as much of a problem anyway. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I watch this page, no need to ping me.

A custom list of uncategorized namespaces is possible. If, for example, you don't want to track errors in the 'Kategoria' namespace, change:

uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2]=true};

to:

uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2]=true, [14]=true};

I suspect that most wikis are content with the default that we use here. If they are not, they can change uncategorized_namespaces_t to suit their needs.

This change should resolve the issue at sq:Diskutim:Lasgush Poradeci that you mentioned on my talk page.

Documentation will come...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. I was thinking that they would have to figure that out on their own so I was suggesting either to have most NS numbers there and commented out and advise how to comment/uncomment at wish or advise on doing what you propose, which is more elegant but heavier on the comments' side.

PS: Generally speaking, I find your sense of irony amusing, at least. This was a bit bland though. :P - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

documentation

I've tweaked Module:cs1 documentation support to add an uncategorized namespace lister function. This function is intended for use in Help:CS1 errors § Notes. After the next cs1|2 update, add this in place of the manual list:

{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister}} →

Talk (1), User (2), User talk (3), Wikipedia talk (5), File talk (7), MediaWiki talk (9), Template talk (11), Help talk (13), Category talk (15), Portal talk (101), Draft talk (119), TimedText talk (711), and Module talk (829)

For convenience, I added one parameter to that function. |all= when set to any value will emit a simple unordered list of all namespace names and their identifiers. Namespace names with identifiers less than 1 (currently Mainspace (0), Special (-1), and Media (-2), are omitted from the list:

{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister|all=1}} →

• Talk (1)
• User (2)
• User talk (3)
• Wikipedia (4)
• Wikipedia talk (5)
• File (6)
• File talk (7)
• MediaWiki (8)
• MediaWiki talk (9)
• Template (10)
• Template talk (11)
• Help (12)
• Help talk (13)
• Category (14)
• Category talk (15)
• Portal (100)
• Portal talk (101)
• Draft (118)
• Draft talk (119)
• TimedText (710)
• TimedText talk (711)
• Module (828)
• Module talk (829)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite book states at Parameters » Description » URL: "Do not link to any commercial booksellers, such as Amazon; use isbn= or oclc= to provide neutral search links for books."

However, if you use the very helpful

The rationale for this categorization is that Worldcat.org contains self-published books, which are usually not reliable sources. Thus, one should not assume that a book found in a union catalog such as Worldcat.org is necessarily a reliable source. Stated differently, one should not assume that an OCLC link always constitutes a "neutral search".

At the same time, Worldcat.org listings serve important functions, such as helping readers find a book in a nearby library. And editors can identify vanity books (one form of self-published texts) as an unreliable source and not cite them in the first place.

I therefore suggest adding a brief explanatory note {{efn}} at the end of the sentence quoted above that reads something like this:

Keep in mind that an OCLC number, which corresponds to the book's listing on Worldcat.org, does not convey any sort of special status for a book. Editors should first determine if a book is a reliable source, and then cite the book with (among other data) an OCLC number. Hyperlinking book titles to Worldcat.org, or simply including the (automatically hyperlinked) OCLC number, helps readers find books in nearby libraries, so it is a desirable component of a citation.

Thank you for your kind consideration,

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the note you're proposing is needed. That's true of ISBNs as well. The current note is to favour neutral link over commercial links. Whether or not a source is reliable is hardly related to citation templates.

b

} 21:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb, and thought of ISBNs, ASINs, and even DOIs. Pretty much all identifiers are just that, identifiers, and do not necessarily convey information about the reliability of the linked item. They are finding aids. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

When I see the title of a source linked, meaning someone supplied a value for |url=, then my assumption is that the link will take me to a digital copy of the source. Since Worldcat is not hosting the book, but instead providing the ability to find a copy of the book in a library, the URL for the book's listing at Worldcat shouldn't be provided in |url=. If I see that it is, I assume it's an errant attempt to supply |oclc= and edit the citation accordingly to remove the URL and make sure the OCLC is listed instead. I take similar action when someone links a book to a publisher's catalog listing/sales page for a book or for third-party sales page like Amazon. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Imzadi1979, that is very helpful.

Headbomb said, "Whether or not a source is reliable is hardly related to citation templates." If that is true, why does your script identify the source (Worldcat.org) as potentially unreliable? Excuse my ignorance if the answer is obvious (to everyone but me). :^\

- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

See

b

} 11:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - pithy, helpful explanation. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 23:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Does Worldcat actually host books though, like Google Books? Or is it just cataloging them? That's an important distinction, I think. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

AFIACT, it's just a catalog listing. Some people mentioned that it showed a Google Book embedded preview, but I've never seen that one myself.

b

} 00:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Worldcat used to link to Googlebooks for some catalog entries. But when Google shifted to the 'new' books, that stopped working. I delete |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/<id> on sight when |oclc=<id> matches. If only ve would stop adding the worldcat url when it writes a template with |oclc=<id>...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Might be time to propose a bot run to purge those links (and replace them with |oclc=). Same for pubmed links that can be handled by PMID.

b

} 01:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Another discussion elsewhere got me wondering why we don't trap the use of CITEREF disambiguators in date-holding parameters that don't contribute to the citation's anchor ID. The parameters that contribute to the anchor ID are:

• |date=
• |year= – promotes to |date= when |date= not present in the template
• |publication-date= – promotes to |date= when both of |date= and |year= are not present in the template

All other date-holding parameters should not have CITEREF disambiguators. I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation to catch CITEREF disambiguators in parameters where they are not appropriate:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical situation:

A dynamic webpage updated >1 daily

on the same date

citation0 (cites update0) archived in archive-snapshot0

citation1 (cites update1) archived in archive-snapshot1

?: Keep dab on archive dates?

50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Citation anchor IDs are composed of up to four author/contributor/editor surnames and the year portion of the publication date with optional disambiguator. The date assigned to |archive-date= plays no part in that and shouldn't; it should only hold the date of the archived snapshot. If an editor must cite the same dynamic webpage updated >1 daily then multiple cs1|2 templates each with a different |archive-url= and |date= appropriately disambiguated. If required, |ref=CITEREF<something>a, |ref=CITEREF<something>b, etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The hypothetical case has nothing to do with the CITEREF anchor, it was remarked upon because of the proposed disallowance of disambiguated archive dates. It is admittedly a far-edge case, and its only function would be to visibly signal a match between the update URL and the archive URL (via the respective dates of both). This may be useful, especially (but not solely) when/if one or more of the original URLs are marked as not live. Additionally, allowing dab in |archive-date= is probably a small net positive. The code will not have to error-out any and all disambiguated archive dates except the ones with matching disambiguators, likely a very small percentage of a very small percentage of cases. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see value to supporting anything but the parameters Ttm originally identified here. There is no edge case here; disambiguation has always been documented as expected to be in |date=. |archive-date= isn't |date= and is never promoted as such in the module or in documentation. Izno (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The status quo now is that |archive-date= accepts disamibuators. This would be useless, unless there is a case of two or more citations which cite updates of the same webpage on the same day (dab date), with corresponding archives on the same day (dab archive date). Can such a case be ruled out? Does it cost anything to leave the status quo as is regarding dab archive dates? If anything, leaving |archive-date= out of the particular error-checking routine may be a net plus. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

unless there is a case of two or more citations which cite updates of the same webpage on the same day So use the already supported "same day" mechanism we have in place for anything else. Izno (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"author=Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4" is generating a warning. What is wrong with the format? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

cs1|2 is not smart enough to distinguish a comma separated list of human names from a corporate or organizational name that contains commas. |author= must hold only one name. cs1|2 allows one comma in |author= (for Last, First names). Any more than one comma in |author= (or any semicolon) is presumed to be a list of human names so cs1|2 emits the maintenance message.

When citing a corporate or organizational author with commas, you can do this (described at Help:Citation Style 1 § Accept-this-as-written markup):

{{cite book |author=((Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4)) |title=Title}}

Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4. Title.

It may not be the case here but I very often encounter corporate or organizational 'authors' that are essentially duplicates of the publisher. For those citations, |author= can be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been searching through the archives, as well as the documentation at {{cite web}}. What is the correct value for |website=? For example, if I had the following citation {{cite web |url=https://news.xbox.com/en-us/ ... is the domain name |website=news.xbox.com correct, or should it be |website=Xbox Wire?

The {{cite web}} documentation for this is kinda opaque. It says that website is an alias for work, and that work should be the name of the source. But it doesn't give any examples. Template:Cite web#Examples says that for my example you'd use |website=Xbox Wire, as does Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher. However in the archives for this talk page, I found the following conflicting discussions; Archive 82:Cite web Website parameter being misused?, Archive 81:website or publisher parameter, Archive 77:Bad value in website= field

If the value should be |website=Xbox Wire, could we get that more clearly spelled out at

Note: URL was picked at random, and obviously I wouldn't cite the index page of that website. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The current instructions at Template:Cite web now say website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". That's pretty clear, but the underlined text could be added so it says "website: Title of website (not the domain name, unless that is also the name of the website); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". It's always seemed clear to me, but I run into this error frequently. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way I've always used it, or tried to use it myself. But I wanted a sanity check, especially after seeing an edit war about it yesterday. After finding conflicting information in the archives, I thought it best to ask and possibly see if we can improve the documentation at {{cite web}} to make it clearer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Same. So, |website=New York Times, not: |website=nytimes.com. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, except that we shouldn't be using cite web for the NYT; that goes under cite news, with newspaper= rather than website=. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:David Eppstein here; my example was not the best. But yes, in this case it should be |newspaper=New York Times. If it's a web site, then |website=PayPal. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The underlined text doesn't have consensus I'd say; our preference might be for the English text, but we do (or at least should) still accept the domain name if the plain English doesn't feel right (for example, I've used the domain for citations to faculty spaces hosted on a university website, when the name of the faculty's space was not otherwise clear). Izno (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Previously, the doc stated that the website name would be the home page's title tag. Or top heading if the title is non-sensical or generic (such as "Home", "Index" etc.). There may also be (increasingly rare) situations where the domain suffix is included in the trade name ("Company.com Inc.") and would be also included in the website name. 64.18.11.64 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems that there's agreement that |website= should not be the domain name when the website has a clear name. I frequently see people using domain names, e.g. |website=rottentomatoes.com instead of |website=Rotten Tomatoes, and I think it should be discouraged. I suggested some language above and I'll try again. How about "website: Title of website (not the domain name when the website has a clear name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work" ? SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think something like that would bring some clarity to the parameter part of the documentation. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the confusion and bad practice is because the text at Template:Cite web#Website doesn't actually state how to use it in practice, just that it's a alias for |work=. Expecting editors to look at the Examples or Help:Citation Style 1 where it is clearer what the value should be, is not a good information flow to inform editorial practice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

How about phrasing it to suggest what to do rather than saying what not to do, e.g. "When the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name"? Kanguole 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th and Kanguole: Yep, much better. How about "website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work" ? Any suggestions for how to modify Template:Cite web#Website? SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As this has sat here for a while and had no objections, I've gone ahead and edited Template:Citation Style documentation/web, which seems to have inserted the text above into various Template:Cite ... documentation pages. It's not perfect, but it's a step forward. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

One of the pages I'm wanting to edit uses the {{cite news}} template, but the news article URL that the page links to 404s - the site in question has changed its layout. I've found the new URL on the site, and I'm assuming (but am not completely sure) that the access-date parameter should be changed in the template, since the new URL was accessed on the date I'm editing. Is this correct?

Obviously, the old archive-url link still works, since it's, well, an archive. Should I leave the archive URL as-is, or update it to match the new URL? --TheSophera (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

However you like, so long as the links verify the cited fact. If there no fact being cited, IMO prefer the newer link in both url and archive-url .. the main thing is

WP:V -- GreenC

23:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded that, per Editor Jonesey95, we should have a formal discussion to fully remove support for:

• |booktitle=
• |chapterurl=
• |episodelink=
• |mailinglist=
• |mapurl=
• |nopp=
• |publicationdate=
• |publicationplace=
• |serieslink=
• |transcripturl=

All of these, if used in a cs1|2 template, will emit the unknown parameter error message, |transcripturl= excepted which is deprecated in {{cite episode}}.

The only vestiges of these parameters are found in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration except for |transcripturl= which is also in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist.

Shall we remove support for the above named parameters?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I support this cleanup. To elaborate on the above description, the function of the canonical versions of these parameters is not being removed; we are only removing the unhyphenated aliases of the parameters. We have slowly standardized on hyphenation of multi-word parameters over the years. In other words, |chapter-url= will continue to work fine, but |chapterurl= will not. The above parameters currently emit an "unknown parameter" error message in preview as well as assigning Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. That category contains only 69 pages currently, so finally removing the above parameter aliases should not affect the display of articles beyond those 69 pages. Trappist, please correct any of this if it is incorrect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This search should find articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter that use any of the above listed parameters except |transcripturl= for which use this search.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

One other category where use of these parameters might be found is Category:CS1 errors: empty unknown parameters. Use this search to look there (includes |transcripturl=).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've gnomed that category down to empty and none of the errors that I fixed were caused by the parameters in question. Tangent alert! There were, however, a lot of errors caused by |deadurl=. Is there currently a bot fixing these, and if not might Monkbot be interested in them? They're a bit tedious to do by hand but a bot should find them tasty. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Support the cleanup, per Jonesey95. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The documentation for

Citation Style Vancouver suggests the opposite convention to CS1|2 – not using hyphenated parameter aliases – for the sake of getting out every bit of performance. Will CSVAN's documentation change to encourage using to hyphenated parameter names? Is CSVAN still even maintained? SamuelRiv (talk

) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Those templates use a mishmash of parameter styles: |trans_chapter=, |chapter-url=, and |chapterformat= are listed in the documentation for {{Vcite book}}. CS1 started moving away from this mishmash long ago, and is almost done. {{Vcite book}} has only 123 transclusions, and {{Vcite web}} has only 93. It would be an interesting exercise to determine if those templates could be converted to {{cite book}} with appropriate style parameter values without changing their rendered appearance. If so, it would probably make sense to merge them with their corresponding CS1 templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Small-caps is going to be a hard stop. Izno (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is CSVAN still even maintained? No, and the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time now. Izno (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that I would oppose merging Citation Style 1 with Citation Style Vancouver. cs1|2 is complex enough that attempting to support CSVAN would be a nightmare. Perhaps best to simply let existing {{vcite ...}} citations fade away and then remove support for the templates via TFD.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time now Who might that be? The templates {{Vcite book}}, {{Vcite journal}}, {{Vcite news}} and {{Vcite web}} were all created by Eubulides (talk · contribs), who is no longer around, this is true; but their block log is clean. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking of Wikid, who I recall pushing these as if they were sliced bread. Izno (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Who also has a clean block log, and moreover, zero edits in template space. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I think "Wikid" refers to Wikid77. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Performance may have been one of the reasons that the {{vcite ...}} templates were created but that 'advantage', if it were an advantage, pretty much went away when MediaWiki enabled mw:Extension:Scribunto and Lua.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm only now trying to learn this stuff and searching through the forums gives all the discussions of the old performance issues of COinS but only hints as to what extent that was resolved (other than people stopped talking about it). CSVAN still features prominently in {{Wikipedia referencing}} which is on the CS1 Help page, so if it's old and dead (as are a lot of citation templates) then some cleanup is warranted just to let people know what the current standards are. I'm still curious if it's possible to "switch off" the metadata tags with say a wrapper for CS1|2-based templates which may have some fields that might not be suitable for inheritance, such as if the data in the field will likely always be considered polluting. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of the {{vcite ...}} templates in mainspace:

• {{vcite book}} ~30
• {{vcite conference}} none
• {{vcite journal}} ~25
• {{vcite news}} ~20
• {{vcite web}} ~35

These numbers suggest that the popularity of the {{vcite ...}} templates is on the wane. No doubt the primary reason is that bots, visual editor, RefToobar, Diberri Boghog template filler, etc create cs1|2 templates. If I'm not mistaken,

WP:MED

used to be one of the primary users of the {{vcite ...}} templates. The above searches suggest that WP:MED has moved away from {{vcite ...}}.

Wrapping cs1|2 templates gives you the benefits of the cs1|2 module suite which includes metadata, error checking, presentation, etc. If you don't want metadata or if you think that the metadata provided by a wrapped cs1|2 template would be bogus, it would probably be best to write your template from scratch. If you expect such a template to be used in articles that are predominantly cs1|2-cited articles, be mindful of presentation because editors care about that; that includes differentiating between cs1 and cs2 presentation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Significant opposition to the proposed changes was raised in the RfC, and it does not appear that anything has changed since then.

Pinging participants in that RfC who have not yet commented here, apologies if I've missed anyone: @

Fram, Wham2001, Hawkeye7, Gonnym, Tol, Levivich, JohnFromPinckney, Andrew Davidson, Finnusertop, and MGA73:. Nikkimaria (talk

) 01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the objection to this specific change, which will have zero effect on any articles? Deprecation of the above parameters happened in February 2021, all of the parameters were updated shortly thereafter, and any stray instances of those parameters have been generating error messages (and have been quickly fixed) since April 2021. Additional factual information appears in this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The problems with this effort were outlined in the two previous RfCs, plus there is the concern raised by Hog Farm/Nosebagbear below. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal—since these unhyphenated forms don't do anything anymore except generate errors, why are we keeping them around any longer. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Thank-you for the ping Nikkimaria – my watchlist is currently an unusable tire-fire so I would have missed this discussion otherwise. I support (if we're doing bold !voting) removal of these aliases largely per Jonesey95. They appear not to be in use anywhere in the encyclopedia (unlike, say, |accessdate= which was controversial in the RFC). As such I think that standardisation on the hyphenated variants is only beneficial. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal - it is much easier to maintain (and copy to other wikis) if there are not a bunch of variants that are really not needed. And thank you for the ping. --MGA73 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• There is a rough consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates (option C). That's April 2021. What did I miss? Levivich^[block] 16:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is confusing. What you missed is the link to a subsequent January 2022 RFC at the top of this thread; in that RFC, the above parameters remained deprecated, but complete removal of support for them was pushed to a new discussion. This is that discussion. What you and many participants in that April 2021 discussion missed is that the above parameters did not exist in article space at the time of the discussion. They had already been deprecated, and removal of support for them was to be a mere formality. Unfortunately, they were one of the babies thrown out with the bathwater and remained in a sort of limbo. This discussion is finishing that cleanup work in the formal way required by the January 2022 RFC closure. Support for or deprecation of the six remaining active unhyphenated parameter aliases, |accessdate=, |airdate=, |archivedate=, |archiveurl=, |authorlink=, and |origyear=, is not being contemplated in this discussion, and I beg everyone here not to mention them again in this thread, lest it go off the rails. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am confused. Thanks for the link, but what you linked to does not appear to be an RFC. What I linked was an RfC from a year ago where we decided not deprecate any unhyphenated parameters. So where is the RfC that changed that consensus? Because from where I'm sitting, since April 2021, there are no deprecated unhyphenated parameters. I don't think there's been another RfC since there, has there? Even this isn't tagged RfC. So what gives? Why are editors referring to deprecated parameters after the April 2021 RFC? Levivich^[block] 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  The January 2022 RfC here. -- GreenC 03:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where in that RFC was it decided to deprecate anything? Can you quote it for me? Levivich^[block] 03:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  That RFC found no consensus to remove deprecated parameters, and though it's not stated in the closing, the reason is because there aren't supposed to be these deprecated parameters in the first place. chapterurl should be an alias for chapter-url, booktitle should be an alias for book-title, and so forth. That's what the April 2021 RFC decided, and as far as I can tell, that hasn't changed. People are pointing to a (non-RFC) discussion in Feb 2021 as the place where it was decided to deprecate these parameters, but that local consensus was overridden by the global consensus of the April 2021 RFC that said "There is a rough consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates." That global consensus wasn't changed by the January 2022 RFC. This is all highly irregular. Levivich^[block] 03:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  The January 2022 RFC said that there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out. This is that necessary discussion, a year and a half after the January 2022 RFC. The parameters above have been deprecated since February 2021, have not been used anywhere since March or April 2021, and the proposal now is to remove them from the citation module code entirely. This is how deprecation works, when it works; parameters or methods are deprecated, then removed from use, then discontinued entirely. Historically, with these modules, the process has happened much more smoothly and with a lot less drama. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  What does "non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated", from the April 2021 RFC mean, and why doesn't that override the earlier Feb 2021 decision to deprecate? I'm sorry that my questions are too "drama" for you, I'll try to ask them in a less dramatic way. Can we just do this where you pretend I'm not stupid and explain in plain English why the words "non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated" doesn't mean that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated, and why you're saying that any non-hyphenated parameters are deprecated if there was an RfC that resulted in consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated. Because that's how RFCs work. Levivich^[block] 06:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  When the closer said that "non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated" in April 2021, they were referring to the remaining six unhyphenated multi-word parameters: |accessdate=, |airdate=, |archivedate=, |archiveurl=, |authorlink=, and |origyear=. Those six parameters are not at issue here; the beginning of mass bot modification to hyphenated parameters prior to a deprecation discussion about those six was the main cause of that RFC and the main objection of participants. Maybe that is the main source of your confusion? That would be understandable, because that discussion got pretty convoluted.

  As of April 2021, the parameters at the top of this discussion were already deprecated and had been removed from all namespaces that assign CS1 tracking categories. They were not undeprecated by the April 2021 discussion. Now, go forward in time to January 2022. In that month's RFC, there was a long list of code changes proposed, including remove support for previously deprecated parameters |booktitle=, |chapterurl=, |episodelink=, |mailinglist=, |mapurl=, |nopp=, |publicationdate=, |publicationplace=, |serieslink=, |transcripturl= (note that this is the list of ten parameters, deprecated since February 2021, at the top of this July 2022 discussion). Those changes were generally approved for implementation, but there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out, so those ten parameters remained in the deprecated state. Now we are having that further discussion, with the goal of moving those ten parameters from deprecated, non-standard, and unused (where they have been since February 2021) to completely unsupported, i.e. removed from the code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please quote where in the April 2021 RFC it specified certain parameters and not others. The RfC question was Should non-hyphenated parameters be fully removed from the CS1/2 family of templates? The background section said In 2014 an RFC determined that all parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates should have an alias...This meant, for example, that access-date= would be shown as the preferred parameter while accessdate= was shown as acceptable but discouraged from use. In the following years there have been various trends and discussions formally deprecating many of the non-hyphenated parameters, from a small handful (2019 example) to the current list which contains over 70 entries. Many of these are the non-hyphenated variants of the preferred/hyphenated versions, which are being removed to decrease the maintenance burden and increase the uniformity between templates (i.e. "ease of use")...In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list" linked above. Option C was Option C: Non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated; deprecation should not be continued and bot approval should be revoked. This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters. And the close was: There is a rough consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates (option C). This means that existing hyphenated (e.g. access-date) and non-hyphenated (e.g. accessdate) parameters should both continue to be supported by the templates. Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus. Where does any of that specify some deprecated parameters and not others? In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list" and This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters. means, to me, that ALL non-hyphenated parameters were un-deprecated in April 2021. @Joe Roe: am I misreading this close? Levivich^[block] 14:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is clear to me that my multiple attempts to use words to explain the timeline have not been effective for you, so I will either leave it to someone else to help you, or leave it to the person who summarizes this discussion to determine what the next step should be. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal - been deprecated for a long time, and are essentially unused now. Time to clean them up. --PresN 19:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal it's high time to cleanup.
  b
  } 20:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal. Was pinged to this discussion. These parameters are not used and the convention is to use hyphenated versions. Gonnym (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal for these few as they've been essentially trace fossils for quite some time, with the understanding that this discussion should not be claimed as a consensus for removal of other non-hyphenated parameters. Hog Farm _Talk 06:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur with removal for these without precedent - as with Hog Farm, I back the removal here without wanting the risk for it to act as a precedent across all paramaters. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This is trying to justify something that the community agreed should never have been done based on a fait accompli * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal and thank you for your efforts in maintaining citation templates. 19:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata3 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose because this is going to be used as evidence to remove the other non-hyphenated parameters --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  That is not a valid reason for any opinion, pro or con. A discussion result is not evidence of anything except of the existence or absence of consensus among participants of said discussion. Apart from that anything can be used to promote or oppose anything. And that is irrelevant. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of these parameters for better standardisation. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support only for those that generate errors - What is the point of keeping them if they generate errors? I opposed ditching the hyphenated parameters in the previous RfC, and still think there are too many hyphenated parameters that people actively use. I don't mind deprecating them, but they shouldn't be removed. Just have a bot/AWB/whatever go around and clean them up if they're functional-but-not-ideal. The idea is to to maximize user functionality. Lots of people have used hyphenated parameters for a long time, so getting rid of them... is just going to generate errors or not show up. Of course, if some are already only generating errors, that ship has sailed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  @

  ☖

  06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  All of the parameters listed at the top of this discussion generate error messages and error-tracking categories. They have been deprecated since February 2021. Deprecated (and unsupported) parameters in CS1 templates generate error messages and error-tracking categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand that, but they're not hyphenated (eg. |booktitle= is unhyphenated). –

  ☖

  19:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, after thinking about it a bit, because instead of removal, what should happen is that these unhyphenated parameters should be aliases to their hyphenated counterparts. |booktitle= should be an alias to |book-title=, |chapterurl= should be an alias to |chapter-url=, and so on. That these parameters currently give errors isn't a reason to remove them, it's a reason to fix them and return them to the aliases they used to be. The April 2021 RFC found consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates and that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters. Assuming that was done, there should be no non-hyphenated parameters on the deprecated parameter list; they should not be throwing off errors; support for these parameters should not be removed; they should be returned to functioning aliases. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not sure what the best option is here, since I can come up with decent arguments in favor of either. On one hand, removing them would be kind of a pain in the ass. Having the templates break entirely when given unhyphenated parameters would cost us something, in that everyone trying to insert a reference would have to go back and dick around with the template to fix huge red error messages. In a big article with a lot of references, this can be a significant amount of work. On the other hand, keeping them would also be kind of a pain in the ass -- it would populate the citation error category, requiring someone to go through and gnome the errors out. On the third hand, though, this seems a lot easier than having people fix the parameters while writing the article (you could probably just have a bot go through every few days and fix the errors). In conclusion... who knows. jp×g 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is possible that JPxG misunderstands the proposed change and its effects. These unhyphenated multi-word parameters, like |chapterurl=, have been deprecated for a year and a half, currently display error messages, do not (or should not, at least; we may have missed a couple) appear in the documentation, and are not in use in the spaces that are categorized by the citation templates. Nobody is going to have to do any work to implement or clean up after this change. Standard hyphenated multi-word parameters, like |chapter-url=, will continue to work without any problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I wrote this ass-backwards. I meant to say "unhyphenated". jp×g 07:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this worth adding to the module, or should I create a new citation template for JIPA?

We will be citing several hundred illustration of the IPA in JIPA, linked via DOI to their host publisher site at CUP. They are subscription for the first 3 years, then free public access. It would be nice if the template could handle this. E.g., something like doi-access= {{#ifexpr:(({{CURRENTYEAR}} - {{{date}}}) > {{{freeage}}})|free}}, where we could set freeage to 3. (Since for the URL link 'free' is the default, there shouldn't be any confusion that 'freeage' applies to the DOI link.)

See Qaqet language#Further reading, where I used the 'translation' parameter to add a note about the article. It is -- or will be -- in the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal, and that is the standard wording used in the lit to refer to these JIPA articles, so that phrasing should be included but isn't part of the title. Also there is supplementary material (sound files) online which are a good publicly accessible resource and should be mentioned, but I don't see a param designed to handle that info.

Please ping. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

For pmc identifiers we have |pmc-embargo-date=. But, embargoed pmcs are relatively common and not constrained to any particular journal. Are there other journals or publishers that have similar doi embargos? I'm not enthusiastic about creating and maintaining code in the cs1|2 module suite that will support only one journal. If doi embargos are a common practice among multiple journals/publishers then we might consider creating |doi-embargo-date=.

|trans-title= has a defined purpose. Do not misuse cs1|2 parameters for purposes that do not fit with the parameters' defined purposes. Use |department= for the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Okay, thanks. That meaning of "department" isn't in my vocabulary. What param should I use for notes/comments, such as 'includes supplementary material'? 'Pages', maybe? — kwami (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

|doi-embargo-date= has some merit as an idea. The issue is mostly that this is a very hard thing to keep track of manually, since it varies a lot by journal and publisher.

b

} 02:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

cs1|2 does not have any parameters for notes/comments. |pages= has a defined purpose. Do not misuse it for something else. If you want to append notes/comments to a citation, they can go at the end – after the template's closing }} and before the reference's closing </ref>.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For your consideration:

• ISAN
• ISRC [agency website]
• ISWC

May have enough critical mass to be included in the Identifiers group. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Accept zero padding in dates

Currently the template does not accept a date such as 09 July 2022, giving an unhelpful error message. Instead one must write 9 July 2022. I think it's silly to bother editors with this, the template should accept both styles and silently reformat it. I thought it would be better to ask here before changing it because this template is so widely used. Tercer (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

See

MOS:DATESNO: "Do not zero-pad day". – Jonesey95 (talk

) 20:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that we should always display 9 July 2022, but allow editors to input 09 July 2022. Tercer (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not get people to do it right in the first place? If they get into the habit of using it in cite templates then they will use it in other places in the text which will not get autocorrected. Keith D (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tercer, I understand what you are saying, but it is a bad idea, as Keith D explains. For the same reason, we also emit error messages when editors type 1/15/2003 or 01-15-03 or 2004-05. Editors should type valid dates so that there is a better chance that the date they type is correct and will not have to be checked or fixed by others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dates in M/D/Y format, two-digit years, or "2004-05" are ambiguous (though technically speaking, 1/15/2003 isn't). 09 July 2022 isn't ambiguous, though. (On a side note: Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation seems to have the code already written to support leading zeros, though it is commented out.) isaacl (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, annoying editors with a pointless error message in order to teach them a minor stylistic point? You guys are a lost cause. I'm sorry I tried to help. Tercer (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, and such pointless error messaging has caused problems in the past. Also agree this increasingly looks like a lost cause. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with @Tercer. I do a lot filling of refs, and for accuracy's sake I copy-paste the date from the article where possible. Many date formats are unambiguous, but need to be re-formatted to avoid error error messages. These other formats are easily parsed; why trigger an error message when the date is unambiguous?

e.g. for 9 December 2014, the templates should accept:

• 09 December 2014
• 9 December, 2014
• 9 DECEMBER 2014
• 9 DECEMBER, 2014
• 9 DEC 2014
• 9 Dec. 2014
• 09 Dec., 2014
• 09th DEC, 2014
• ... and many other variants.

The current demand for conformity is just a make-work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC) By all means trigger a warning, but not an error.

Cite document emits a missing periodical maintenance message. It shouldn't

Case in point:

• Amos, David (January 2017). "Controversies in Coal: Internment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913–1924)" (Document). pp. 10–11. {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |access-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |via= ignored (help)

Pinging

b

} 12:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It also does not have the page identifier (pp.) Keith D (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

{{cite document}} is not a cs1|2 template. It is merely a redirect to {{cite journal}}. As such, cs1|2 sees the template as a {{cite journal}} template and renders whatever it has been given as a journal-style citation. {{cite journal}} requires |journal= so when that parameter is empty or omitted, cs1|2 emits the error message. Pagination rendering follows the {{cite journal}} format (<colon><space><pagination>).

The source in the example template is clearly not a journal so were it me, I'd rewrite the example template:

{{cite web |last=Amos |first=David |url=https://www.academia.edu/40640025 |title=Controversies in Coal: Internment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913–1924) |date=January 2017 |pages=10–11 |access-date=5 October 2020 |website=Academia}}

Amos, David (January 2017). "Controversies in Coal: Internment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913–1924)". Academia. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 5 October 2020.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

cite document is meant for things that aren't journals and should behave accordingly. The solution can't also be to redirect it to cite web instead of cite journal because it should also not require a url.

b

} 13:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Documents should be cited only when published. Unless published as pamphlets, i.e. standalone which would fall under {{cite book}}, they are mostly published as parts of other works, including collections, repositories and websites. The citation should follow the conventions of the including entity, so {{cite web}} seems proper here. The logical treatment would be to delete so-called citation templates that contravene these simple guidelines, or at a minimum to strongly emphasize that editors should not expect support for such templates here if they insist on using them. This page should not waste time every time an editor gets a fancy redirect idea. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with

cite techreport

}}. "Cite report" documentation says

[it] is used to create citations for reports by government departments, instrumentalities, operated companies, etc. Examples include: government printed reports which lack ISSN or ISBN numbers, and reports from major semi-governmental instrumentalities that are freely circulating and available for verification, but which lack a formal ISBN/ISSN publication process.

It isn't spelled out what it is about "cite report" that make it unsuitable for any report, published by anybody, that isn't in the domain of one of the other CS1 templates. If it's a paper report published by the Committee to Use Customary American Units of Measure (which I just made up) why would and somehow manages to satisfy

WP:IRS, why couldn't you use "cite report"? Jc3s5h (talk

) 15:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Although all reports are documents, not all documents are reports (technical or otherwise). CS1 definition is narrow, but correct. Published government reports are generally easily available and are usually subject to higher scrutiny before and after publication, at least in countries with some semblance of working democratic institutions. There are specific reasons why government publishers may not care for an ISBN, ISSN or any identifier other than their own, or perhaps an id from a catalog of record which in the US is the Library of Congress. Like published court opinions, government reports are authoritative records, not just reliable ones. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we just redirect {{cite document}} to something other than {{cite journal}} as journal appears to be the wrong target. Keith D (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The nomenclature {{cite document}} is wrong, because it suggests that documents are self-contained, stand-alone publications. From the purview of the reader they rarely are, they are locations in another source. When they are published as stand-alone they fall (as a citable publication) under {{cite book}}. Perhaps the fit is not 100%, but it is good enough. We are discussing templates (forms) not custom-tailored solutions with a perfect match. Also, anyone is free to not use templates and structure a citation as they see fit. Or maybe a non-CS1 template can offer a better application. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

{{

WP:RFD first. This would not be necessary if somebody were to alter it to be a full CS1 template in its own right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 13:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the bloodstained t-shirt: see

talk

) 15:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is the difficulty? As was suggested in the previous conversation (and similar, much older ones) there is no such thing as a "document" citation class in the real world. A "document citation" template is as untenable as an "article citation" or a "song citation". As for the misdirected redirect, anyone can redirect a template to a citation template. That does not make the underlying template responsible for any misalignment, or for the waste of time these recurring discussions are. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

So by that logic, the United States Declaration of Independence is a collective hallucination of millions of Americans since 1776. It is clearly not a journal. It is clearly not a web page. Nor a book. So Magna Carta is obviously a hoax! And Luther never wrote the Ninety-five Theses? Need I continue? --

talk

) 23:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that is your interpretation, which is fine, but it has nothing to do with citing sources in general, or using structured citations in particular. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The full publication information is on page 4: This article is a result of the research and subsequent book produced as part of the AHRC funded project ‘Controversies in Coal: Interment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913-1924) through the Centre for Hidden Histories at the University of Nottingham. The Project ran from September 2016 to April 2017. So find the book bib info and then you have several options: you could do a construction like: "{cite report}, published in {cite book}"; or you could put the two together in cite journal or cite encyclopedia, though the latter might be more appropriate since its effectively a collection of articles. (By the way, speaking of redirects, we really need a {cite collection} redirect and |collection= alias for encyclopedia, since that makes up a huge amount of (intended) use cases, which is not obvious at all from the documentation.) SamuelRiv (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This does not seem correct. As quoted above, and in the article, this was not "originally published in", and neither is it a research report. It is an article resulting from both, published in an unrelated platform, the Academia website. The closest existing matching template, if one wishes to use CS1 templates, is still {{cite web}}. We cannot make up a probable imaginary provenance for it and retrofit into any other template. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Imaginary provenance? The wording in the report is not precise -- to do diligence you would look up the book, and if it's an article in a collection then the above is the appropriate citation format. If a standalone article that later is published in a collection can't be cited in this way, that goes against the running consensus for why we allow preprints to be linked for journal citations and Google Books excerpts from eBooks to be linked for print books.

That being said, I looked up the book and in this particular case the book seems to be cited less than the paper. It must have been an institutional publication, because I've only found two citations to the book and some mentions on museum websites. Also for some reason it's missing on AHRC's projects page, though the project lead is there. So at the end of the day I couldn't find even a table of contents to verify if the book is the same as or contains the article, though they have the exact same title, author, and date. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems you presume there was no due diligence related to the previous post? You would be wrong. You duplicated the steps taken to formulate the previous post, and all that is still irrelevant. The article is not a "report", "preprint", "paper" or whatever other label is wrongly assigned. It is based on the book (and the related research), according to the author. It is not a reprint or an extract from that book, and it should not be assigned to that source. It is content of a webpage in a website that includes similar items. Making it something that is not, will likely make it harder to find for readers who want to verify whatever wikitext it supports. 71.105.141.131 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As an experiment, I edited 50 of the articles that used the {{cite document}} redirect. I replaced the redirects with:

{{

cite arxiv

}}

{{cite book}}

{{

cite citeseerx

}}

{{cite conference}}

{{cite encyclopedia}}

{{cite journal}}

{{cite news}}

{{

cite periodical

}}

{{cite report}}

{{

cite ssrn

}}

{{cite tech report}}

{{cite thesis}}

{{cite web}}

By far the most common replacement was {{cite web}} (24×) followed by {{cite citeseerx}} and {{cite ssrn}} (7× each). It is unlikely that there is a simple 'automated fix' that converts a {{cite document}} redirect to some other, more correct template. There may be some small subsets of {{cite document}} use that are amenable to fixes-by-script but, to be fixed properly, most {{cite document}} redirects will need humans to do the fixing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Generic title

Hello, can "Page Title" at the start of a |title= be added to the generic title list. Currently about 25 occurrences. Thanks, Keith D Keith D (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox and citation tag translation across wiki's

Has there been any thought to making sure the various infoboxes and citation tags across different wiki's are the same? I've translated a few items from and to English using the translation tool and more often than not it makes a mess of the citation tags being translated (to a lesser extent, infoboxes). It's a pain in the butt to try and figure out how to fix the citation tags after doing a translation. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxen are out of scope here. What do you mean by citation tags? Did you mean to write 'citation templates'? What citation templates? What languages? We do have some crude 'translation' templates that are automatically subst'd to a more-or-less appropriate cs1|2 template. For example, the German template

Literatur}}) to {{cite book/German}}. If you copy a {{Literatur}} template from de.wiki to en.wiki and save, User:AnomieBOT will subst that template with a 'translated' equivalent ({{citation}}). No guarantee that such translations are correct, they often aren't. For other available 'translators' see {{Non-English citation templates

}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Such things can only be harmonised across all language Wikipedias if all can first agree on a common policy reagrding

verifiability. German Wikipedia, for example, has nothing matching our {{BLP sources}} and {{Citation needed}} tags. Does that mean that they insist on sources for everything - or that they don't care if something is sourced or not? Looking at sections like de:Michael Schumacher#Kontroversen, I suspect the latter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 18:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the topic of how to write a citation is more or less separate from whether a citation is needed or not.

The citation templates in the English Wikipedia are based on English-language citation guides such as the

APA Style. I don't know how much citation customs in other languages resemble English-language customs. Jc3s5h (talk

) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Section ≠ chapter

Is there a proper way to cite a particular section from a particular chapter from a particular part of a particular book, which is a particular supplement to a particular volume of a particular encyclopedia? Namely, there is a NASA publication called "Computers in Spaceflight: the NASA Experience", formally being "Volume: 18, Issue: Supplemet 3" of "Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology", but in fact it is a book and is also published on the Web, with separate webpages for each section. The structure is:

• Book: "Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience"
  • Part II: "Computers On Board Unmanned Spacecraft"
    • Chapter 6. "Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo" [no separate URL]
      • Section: "Voyager – The flying computer center"

I need to cite that section, and preferably without losing the rest of the structure information (chapter, part, book title and its location within the encyclopedia). Can this be done? {{cite book}} doesn't even allow specifying |chapter= and |section= at the same time. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the chapters are sequential across the parts (of which there are only 3), and I don't think the parts would be published in separate print volumes, I'd suggest omit the part name and just do |title=(book title), |chapter=[Chapter 6: Distributing ...], and |at=(section title) (it appears the sections are each bold title, not each separate webpage). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(Sections there are separate webpages, as can be seen within the "Part II" link above. Bold titles within each section webpage correspond to subsections – which are not important here.)

Using |at= looks strange:

• Tomayko, James E. (1988). "Ch 6. Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo". In Kent, Allen; Williams, James G. (eds.). Computers in Spaceflight: the NASA Experience. Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology. Vol. 18. NASA. Voyager – The flying computer center.

and |issue= is not shown at all (without any warnings). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The pdf version at archive.org uses the term 'issue' 15 times; none of which refer to an issue of an encyclopedia. The term 'Encyclopedia' is used only once (in §Foreword):

The Editors have taken the unusual step of devoting an entire Supplement volume of the Encyclopedia to a single topic: "Computers in Spaceflight: the NASA Experience."

Comparing these google-books scans, Volume 17 Supplement 2 and Volume 18 Supplement 3, it seems obvious that Supplement n is merely a subtitle of the volume number.

Two options I think, If you are citing the html version, {{cite web}}:

{{cite web |title=Voyager - The flying computer center |website=NASA History |url=https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch6-2.html}}

"Voyager - The flying computer center". NASA History.

if you are citing the book-length pdf, cite it as a book and forget about the encyclopedia:

{{cite book |last=Tomayko |first=James E. |date=March 1988 |chapter=Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo §Voyager-The Flying Computer Center |title=Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience |page=173 |id=NASA-CR-182505 |url=https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916005338/https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-date=2020-09-16}}

Tomayko, James E. (March 1988). "Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo §Voyager-The Flying Computer Center". Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience (PDF). p. 173. NASA-CR-182505. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-09-16.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mikhail Ryazanov To add to Ttm, the encyclopedia can still be named in {{cite book}} per the |series= parameter (its usage in the template documentation is at "Complex usage showing effect of using volume parameter and lastauthoramp parameter (with volume and lastauthoramp)"). I agree that in this case "Supplement 3" belongs as part of the volume parameter. You should limit yourself to linking to either the pdf (from the NASA citations page or the one Ttm found) or the the web version, as both are free and readily accessible and you generally want to minimize ambiguity of which source was originally used. The |at= parameter is supposed to be for any kind of pinpoint (except page), so you would have to denote "sec.", "subsec.", "§", "para.", or whatever you need to do to (ideally) get as precise or as broad a pinpoint as is best for verification. The form Ttm shows is fine too. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, since {{cite book}} also complains about external links in |section=, the best I could do was to use |section=chapter § section and |section-url=URL (instead of more logical |section=chapter § [URL|section]). But it would be much better if the template could handle |chapter= and |section= together, with corresponding |...-url=. Regarding "limit to linking to either the pdf or the the web version", the problem is that the PDF is really huge, so linking to a lightweight web page makes much more sense, but the web version doesn't have proper bibliographic information, thus it also makes sense to link to the NASA bibliographic page for the whole book. After all, {{cite journal}} allows multiple simultaneous links (doi, pubmed, jstor, ...) and wiki-linking the journal itself, and {{cite book}} also has |isbn= "linking" to the whole book record even when |url= is much more specific. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The approach is incorrect. Instead consider this: when a wikitext claim is made, it is hopefully supported by a source known to the editor. The only thing citations are concerned with is revealing that source to the reader in the least-complicated way possible. The location of bibliographic information is not entirely relevant, as what is cited in this case is not a bibliographic record, but the specific content and way(s) to find it. The reason behind multiple content identifiers is redundancy with as little clutter as possible. Classification/marketing identifiers such as ISBN or OCLC help in finding the content, not exposing it, and serve a different purpose. And do not forget that in many cases, online PDFs allow page-linking. 24.103.63.182 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

automatic live v. sandbox suggestions-module selection tweak

Unlike all other modules in the cs1|2 module suite, the list of suggestions (Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions or Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox) is only loaded when it is needed. Editor Tholme points out that the mechanism that decides whether to load ~Suggestions or ~Suggestions/sandbox needs improvement. That editor offered one solution that I knee-jerk reverted. Correctly, my revert was reverted and I have since improved on Editor Tholme's fix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, your fix was off course a lot better :) Would it also be possible to move the sandbox i18n variable to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration? This way we can import the Module:Citation/CS1 to other languages without doing any changes in this module. Tholme (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that that is possible because Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox doesn't know to load the sandboxen submodules until it examines its own invoke. So to do what you suggest, Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox would need to load Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to know that it needs to load Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. An alternative might be to do something like I have done at this edit to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This requires all templates that invoke Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to have a new parameter |SandboxPath=. At {{cite book/new}} the new parameter is |SandboxPath=/sandbox. At no.wiki the templates that invoke no:Modul:Citation/CS1/sandkasse are listed here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is off course a problem... Thanks for your suggestion with a new parameter, but I think this is more work than just updating sandbox = '/sandkasse' in Module:Citation/CS1. I do think it would be ok if this module checked for variable sandbox in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and not Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. There would be need to be a comment that the sandbox variable needs to be correct in the live module and not only in the sandbox. This would also mean that the sandbox module will need to load Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration first, and then afterward read all the other configuration from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. I think this should work. Would you be ok with an implementation like this? Tholme (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe load it from cfg['sandbox-subpage'] in Module:Documentation/config? It seems like most wikis uses this. Tholme (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting notion, that. But, at present, 187 MediaWiki wikis use Module:Citation/CS1 (see Module:Citation/CS1 (Q15403807)) but only 111 use Module:Documentation/config (see Module:Documentation/config (Q15506579)). Yeah, updating 12 templates at no.wiki (36 here) is a bit of extra work but that work only needs doing once – there are wikis out there that do not sandbox their cs1|2 module suite so no extra work for them ... I'm not so much in favor of borrowing code from outside of cs1|2 because that code is not beholden to us so can be modified to suit its primary purpose which might break cs1|2.

I've tweaked my prospective code a bit to protect against |SandboxPath= (parameter present without assigned value which returns an empty string; which would make sandbox module name same as live module name):

local sandbox = ((config.SandboxPath and '' ~= config.SandboxPath) and config.SandboxPath) or '/sandbox';

The way the prospective code is written, when a sandbox {{cite <whatever>}} template doesn't have |SandboxPath=, Module:Citation/CS1 will use whatever default sandbox name is provided in the module.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It occured to me that something like this might work:

local sandbox = frame:getParent():getTitle():match ('/.+$');

This returns whatever text follows that last / in the invoking template's name. But, there is no guarantee that whatever text follows the last / will be the 'sandbox'. For example, at en.wiki we have a series of (very) crude translator templates that have the form {{cite <whatever>/<country name>}} so the above will return /<country name> to the live module. Not a good idea...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC) (strike)

Well that's not quite true. {{cite <whatever>/<country name>}} wraps a cs1|2 template and it is that template name that is returned by frame:getParent():getTitle() so if the wrapped template is a sandbox template then perhaps this mechanism will work. At en.wiki there is of course the {{cite <whatever>/new}} variant that we have used for a very long time in place of {{cite <whatever>/sandbox}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I think I will just stick with changing the sandbox variable in Module:Citation/CS1 after import. Tholme (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

ISBD reference

International Standard Bibliographic Description. May be used as an authoritative reference in discussion of structured citations.

• ISBD 2011
• ISBD 2021 Update

68.132.154.35 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 August 2022

This edit request to Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link

ISBN (identifier) in {{cite book}} to ISBN. Kailash29792 (talk)

11:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This would require a full RFC not just for ISBNs, but all identifiers.

b

} 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I think Kailash29792 is asking for the wikilinks in the documentation to be changed from

ISBN (identifier) to ISBN. Not sure why though as the identifier page is already a redirect to ISBN. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 14:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the request to change the output of the template, not the documentation. The templates intentionally link through the redirect so that they can be filtered out in the Special:WhatLinksHere page for the article on ISBN. (Ditto all of the other identifiers.) Linking directly to the article in this way would break this filtering technique. It would require an RfC to overcome the past decisions on this topic. Imzadi 1979 → 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

PMC numbers have gone beyond 9300000

See tecovirimat where a citation to pmc=9300470 is now showing an error. Please increase limit in the validation code. Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, whoever fixed that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure

• "Certification - American Institute of Parliamentarians". American Institute of Parliamentarians. Archived from the original on 2015-09-27. Retrieved 2016-03-08.

Whats the issue with this citation?

b

} 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

ALL citations seems to be broken.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia broken ☹️ Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia broken^{[Citation needed]} Simeon (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration&diff=1101715557&oldid=1096144888 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought that, but if you see the section above the error preexists that edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it seems fixed now.

b

} 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Well that was nasty, but the sea of red I was seeing across all articles using sfn is now gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sea of red still there for me, for example on Cycloheptatriene. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@

Purging the page resolved the issue. GoingBatty (talk

) 13:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

GoingBatty Yes, thanks. Now you only have to purge 6 million+ other pages! (I jest). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks

Just a heads up that my little handy dandy guide on Citation bot finally got in the Signpost, as intended years ago. Feel free to leave a comment (or make suggestions for other guides on different topics).

b

} 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

url-status parameter invalid

The instructions indicate the use of |url-status=deviated, and when the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped. And, at Category:CS1 errors: invalid parameter value it says that these values are valid. However, at Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values. Can this be fixed so that green hidden "One or more {{cite news}} templates have maintenance messages" for their use can be avoided? --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

See also Category talk:CS1 maint: unfit URL which hasn't been addressed. --Bejnar (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what it is that you are saying. |url-status=deviated, |url-status=unfit, and |url-status=usurped are all valid:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=deviated}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-08-03. – the rendered citation links to the url assigned to |url= as a secondary link

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=unfit}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-08-03.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) – the rendered citation does not link to the url assigned to |url=

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=usurped}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-08-03.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) – the rendered citation does not link to the url assigned to |url=

Were these parameter values invalid, cs1|2 would return an error message:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=USURPED}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-08-03. {{cite book}}: Invalid |url-status=USURPED (help) – all keywords used in cs1|2 templates must be lowercase

What do you mean by: at Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values? There are 33,845 articles in that category so something must be happening.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: See, for example, this citation:

Masi, Alessandria (14 December 2015). "Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 4 October 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) [Cite news|last=Masi |first=Alessandria |date=14 December 2015 |title=Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire |newspaper=International Business Times |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161004172106/http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-date=4 October 2016 |url-status=unfit ] at December 2015 Taiz missile attack which yields an error. I marked it as unfit, because the article is occluded at the original website. If "unfit" needs to be checked, then how is the error cleared? --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance messages are not error messages.

For me, the url http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 is not unfit. There is no mechanism to mark urls that are geographically limited – is that your issue? I think that we have discussed this before; if we have, we did not decide to do anything about geographically limited urls. Marking a geographically limited url as unfit does not seem to me to be a good idea; the url is fit to be viewed – it isn't spam or porn or a phishing site, etc – so should not be labeled as unfit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: It was not geographically limited. When access was attempted this morning, the article was occluded by a "please subscribe" overlay with no "close" function. Now when I access it, it displays properly, and the url-status can be reset to live. But that was just an example, my question still is, as modified, if maintenance is required for those 21 thousand articles, how is it to be accomplished? That is, what is the review procedure that affirms a valid use of the value "unfit" for that parameter? --Bejnar (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If the site requires a subscription then |url-access=subscription is the correct parameter to use.

There is no required action for most maintenance messages. Alas, some maintenance categories (Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (54,388),‎ Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter‎ (0), Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (74,722)) should emit error messages but those categories apply to so many articles that making them error messages would cause a torches-and-pitchforks uprising; we've seen that kind of uprising before and it isn't pretty.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

url-status = deviated

What is the recommended action when a cite with |url-status=deviated is converted to a dead link. Normally it is flipped to |url-status=dead. -- GreenC 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If a deviated url becomes dead (returns 404) then |url-status=deviated should be removed. No need to replace it with |url-status=dead because cs1|2 assumes that the url in |url= is dead when |archive-url= has an assigned url.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

pmid limit

"If the value is correct and larger than the currently configured limit of 35900000, please report this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, so that the limit can be updated."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918775/ Aethyta (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)