Help talk:Citation Style 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 21 February 2023 (→‎module suite update 14–15 January 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Citation templates
    ... in conception
    ... and in reality

    module suite update 14–15 January 2023

    I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 14–15 January 2023. Here are the changes:

    Module:Citation/CS1:

    • ~/Suggestions v. ~Suggestions/sandbox selection tweak; discussion
    • added support for |article-number= in journal and conference cites; discussion
    • moved list of single-letter second-level TLDs to ~/Configuration/sandbox; discussion
    • annotated namelist entries when interwikilinked; discussion
    • fixed unexpected 'preprint' parameter required error; discussion
    • inhibited leading punctuation when |display-authors=0 / |display-editors=0 and |others= has a value; discussion
    • kerned leading and trailing quotes in |quote=; discussion

    Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration

    • i18n change for uncategorized namespaces; discussion
    • add script tags pa, tt;
    • add 'allmusic' to 'generic_names' list; discussion
    • added support for |article-number= in journal and conference cites;
    • created list of single-letter second-level TLDs from main module; added 'foundation';
    • updated emoji list; discussion
    • added 'Reuters', 'Business', 'CNN', 'Inc' and 'Inc.' to 'generic_names' list; discussion
    • changed Valencian-language tag from 'ca' to 'ca-valencia';

    Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

    • added support for |article-number= in journal and conference cites;

    Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation

    • limited CITEREF dab to |date=, |year=, |publication-date=; discussion

    Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

    • catch 1 & 2 digit doi registrants with subcode; discussion

    Module:Citation/CS1/COinS

    • added support for |article-number= in journal and conference cites;

    Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css

    • Removed linear-gradient on icons, not necessary when serving SVGs

    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this update. It's been too long since the previous one (July 2022, if I am reading the notes correctly). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk: pages are now appearing in Category:CS1 errors, specifically Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. Is this intentional? User-duck (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of this writing there are no Talk: namespace pages in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. There is (was) Special:Permalink/1133695137 which has (had) this citation:
    {{cite web|https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iu13xdDmBd8&feature=youtu.be = It's The End of the World as we Know it and I Feel Fine |website = [[youtube]]}}
    youtube. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |https://m.youtube.com/watch?v= ignored (help
    )
    I copied that citation into Talk:List of people with narcolepsy and previewed. Previewing does not indicate that the page will be added to Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. Can you provide evidence that Talk: pages are being added to cs1|2 error / maintenance categories?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are gone. the only evidence I have is a snapshot from a page I hadn't refreshed but it is not worth the effort to figure out how to include it here. One thing is constant on Wikipedia, thing change. It has been over 3 hours since I observed the situation. Thanks to whoever changed the code. User-duck (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I edited the errant cite in List of people with narcolepsy. User-duck (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    updated emoji list - these 🐱‍👤🐱‍🚀 🐱‍🐉🐱‍💻🐱‍👓 🐱‍🏍 emoji are not included and will throw an error if used in citations:
    McDonnell, Charlie (2022-10-07). "🐱‍👤🐱‍🚀 🐱‍🐉🐱‍💻🐱‍👓 🐱‍🏍". Instagram. {{cite web}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help) Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not completely true. These two do not cause an error message to be emitted because the zero-width joined code points (those that follow 200D) are listed in https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/15.0/emoji-zwj-sequences.txt from which emoji_t{} was derived:
    • 🐱‍🚀 (1F431 200D 1F680 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, ROCKET); 1F680 is in emoji_t{}
    • 🐱‍💻 (1F431 200D 1F4BB – CAT FACE, ZWJ, PERSONAL COMPUTER); 1F4BB is in emoji_t{}
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍🚀}}🐱‍🚀.
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍💻}}🐱‍💻.
    These four cause error messages because the zero-width joined code points are not listed in emoji-zwj-sequences.txt:
    • 🐱‍👤 (1F431 200D 1F464 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, BUST IN SILHOUETTE); 1F464 not in emoji_t{}
    • 🐱‍🐉 (1F431 200D 1F409 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, DRAGON); 1F409 not in emoji_t{}
    • 🐱‍👓 (1F431 200D 1F453 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, EYEGLASSES); 1F453 not in emoji_t{}
    • 🐱‍🏍 (1F431 200D 1F3CD – CAT FACE, ZWJ, RACING MOTORCYCLE); 1F3CD not in emoji_t{}
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍👤}}🐱‍👤. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍🐉}}🐱‍🐉. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍👓}}🐱‍👓. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)
    {{cite book |title=🐱‍🏍}}🐱‍🏍. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)
    So far as I know, emoji-zwj-sequences.txt is still at version 15.0.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are emojis that Microsoft created and are not part of the official Unicode standard. That said, since they exist, they can still appear in titles and cause errors. Not sure how the two that are on the list got there, but I don't believe they appear in the document (I couldn't find them, but I might have missed). Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    🐱‍🚀 (1F431 200D 1F680 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, ROCKET) and 🐱‍💻 (1F431 200D 1F4BB – CAT FACE, ZWJ, PERSONAL COMPUTER) don't exist in https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/15.0/emoji-zwj-sequences.txt. But, these two are recognized because emoji_t{} has entries for U+1F680 ROCKET (line 970) and U+1F4BB PERSONAL COMPUTER (line 969).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: Hi, it looks like the user field in the cite tweet template is being checked, which is a little unexpected. This is probably more likely because of how cite tweet (mis)uses the parameter, more than anything else.
    {{cite tweet}} is not a cs1|2 template so this talk page is not the correct place to discuss that template's problems.
    {{cite tweet}} is a wrapper template around {{cite web}}. |user= is checked because {{cite tweet}} concatenates |last=/|first= or |author= with |user= which forms a value that is assigned to the {{cite web}} |author= parameter. Seems to me that the |user= value and its attendant markup don't belong in |author=. Instead, the {{cite tweet}} |first=, |last=, and |author=, should be passed to {{cite web}} unmolested. Those same parameters plus |author-link= could be assembled into |author-mask=. For example, rewriting your demonstration citation as a {{cite web}} template:
    {{cite web |first=Zach |last=Cohen |author-mask=Cohen, Zack [@ZcohenCNN] |url=https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1625249963897679878 |date=February 13, 2023 |title=Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. |type=Tweet |via=[[Twitter]]}}
    Cohen, Zack [@ZcohenCNN] (February 13, 2023). "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
    Perhaps you should raise this issue at Template talk:Cite tweet.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a naive implementation demonstrating of course; some users don't provide their real name so there would need to be some support for that in the template. But that can be Over There. Izno (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding multiple editors with cite book

    How do I add multiple editors to cite book? Mucube (talkcontribs) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Either 1) preferred: |editor1-first= and |editor1-last=, or 2) acceptable: |editor1=. Increment the number as appropriate. Izno (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In citations of books, should wikilinks or URLs have primacy?

    I personally would prefer that the templates be redesigned so that they can support a URL and a wikilink at the same time, with the URL becoming a "read online" link (like how FRwiki has "voir en ligne" links).

    Until that happens, the question is whether citations of books should have general URLs (not page number specific URLs but general URLs) as supreme over wikilinks (in the case the book has a Wikipedia article) or whether the wikilink should be supreme (with the general URL to the book being taken out of the template and/or being listed on the external links section of the book's Wikipedia article).

    The reason why I prefer wikilinks is that it encourages the Wikipedians checking the sources to consider in-depth information about the book itself when evaluating claims made by the source (for example academic book reviews on a book may reveal weaknesses in the book's methodology, minor errors, etc. and such would be covered in a Wikipedia article on the book). WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been a settled question in Citation Style 1 for ten years or so. If a book citation template contains both a wikilink and a URL intended to link the title, the template will generate an error message, "URL–wikilink conflict". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged above that both a URL and a wikilink won't work ("I personally would prefer that the templates be redesigned[...]"). The question is which one should be selected: URL or wikilink. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have both, if you put the url on the page numbers rather than on the book title. If we have an article about a book, I think that article should be linked, because the link will often contain useful information about the reliability of the source that might not be easily found otherwise. Example: our article The Symmetries of Things, heavily used as a source in some mathematics subtopics, includes sourced material (published book reviews) according to which we need to use it with caution as a source, because of its use of neologisms and its failure to give proper credit for previous work. When we cite this book without including this link, it makes it look more authoritative than it should. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose that because a fundamental principle of website usability is that interactive things that look the same should always behave the same. If readers are used to the title in a footnote being linked to the cited source, then it's going to surprise and frustrate them when one title leads, instead, to a Wikipedia article about the source. In that case, what is the likelihood that that reader who was looking for the source and got thwarted will (a) guess that the source is also available via a link, rather than assuming that they've been denied and walking away, and (b) notice that the page number is a link and try it on the off-chance that it'll take them where they wanted to go? More concisely, take it as given that the imperative of every web user is "Don't make me guess." Largoplazo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be why I wouldn't mind having the French-style "lire en ligne"/"read online" style normalized, and/or make wikilinks show up as a distinctly different color compared to external links, or both. When I did push URLs out of templates to accommodate wikilinks (prior to this discussion), I added the URLs to "read online" links to mimic what FRwiki does. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of page-specific citations I do put in the URLs for those. I was wondering though in a choice between a general (non-page specific) URL or a wikilink. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s something like
    WP:GOOGLEBOOKS where there isn’t free access to the entire book, I’m not sure that’s necessary. Some books online would perhaps be better linked to via an identifier such as a hdl or doi. But I kind of generally think if it’s important enough to wikilink a title in a citation to contextualize a citation, just name the book in the article text and wikilink it there? You can also have a link to the book outside the citation template but still part of the citation. Umimmak (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If there's a url where the book can be read freely, it should be linked from our article on the book. Why try to read the minds of readers about which kind of resource they want, when we can provide both, by including an internal wikilink that in turn provides the extlink? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option is also to have a link to the chapter in the chapter field and wikilink the title in the title field if it’s all coming from one chapter, but this won’t always be an option. Umimmak (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Book references should always include page numbers. So putting the extlink on the page numbers is always an option. I don't understand the opposition to wikilinking titles. If you wikilink the title, readers can find both the article about the source and the source itself (either through a link elsewhere in the reference or an extlink from the article on the book). If you don't, you are blocking readers from finding the article about the source, and forcing them to only look at the source itself. Why would you want to constrain the readers in this way? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure where you’re getting opposition… I’m just saying in some cases it might make sense to include a wikilinked title of the book in the article text if it’s that important to contexualize a particular source, and providing suggestions for ways multiple options both could be included. Umimmak (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I advise people not to link to Google Books. The links are not stable, and a page that may be available one day might not be available the next. See
    WP:GOOGLEBOOKS for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I linked that page above and explicitly said that Google Books links probably werent necessary, yes. Umimmak (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Always prefer a wikilink. This also is a settled point in CS1. Izno (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, cause
    WP:CS1 says the exact opposite: A link to the actual source is preferred to a link to a Wikipedia article about the source. Umimmak (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I also checked the history of WP:CS1 and the phrase there has been on the page for years. see this revision from 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, the documentation is outdated. What else is new? :) Every time this question has ever come up in the past half a decade I've been watching this page the answer has been "prefer a wikilink to the article about the source" because you should be able to access the source the same way from the wikilinked page. And as David says up the page, if you need the precise source location linked, there are other places you can add that link. Izno (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The original form of that sentence was created at this edit 16 December 2011: A link to the actual source is better than a link to a Wikipedia article about the source.. The current version was created at this edit 18 October 2013: A link to the actual source is preferred to a link to a Wikipedia article about the source.
    The original |titlelink= was added to Module:Citation (the now-defunct predecessor of Module:Citation/CS1) at this edit 7 September 2012. Before that, linking |title= to a wikipedia article about the title could only be accomplished by wikilinking the value assigned to |title= (|titlelink= is not supported by {{citation/core}}).
    No doubt, no doubt, I am in the minority here, but I believe that |url= should take precedence over |title-link=. The purpose of a citation is to identify for the reader where the editor found the information that is included in the en.wiki article. If you want the reader to visit the en.wiki page about the title, add a wikilink at the end of the citation: [[<en.wiki article title>|About this source]] or some such.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, what an ugly way of suggesting to format citations when no such workaround is needed.
    The point is to not tell the reader what to visit; it is to allow the reader to decide where to go.
    URLs for book citations are often a clumsy choice anyway, because the same book can be provided by multiple sources, many of which are not canonical. Suppose you have a book that is available online paywalled from the book publisher, available online to subscribers from archive.org, maybe some of its pages previewable online from Google books, and also available for piracy on Z-library. The question you are probably asking is "which one do you link" but I think it's the wrong question. We should instead ask "how can we format citations so that the choice of which link to use can be made by the readers, not by the editors". (Well, and maybe not include the Z-library one per
    WP:ELNEVER, but even so.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I suppose the OP is asking about CS1 templates specifically, not about citations in general. Forgive the preamble: For citations in general, the objective is directly related to
    WP:V
    . This means that a verifying reader should be able to discover and retrieve the source as quickly and easily as possible. The citations themselves are immaterial. What matters is to verify the wikitext and keep reading, because that's what Wikipedia is for. Related requirements follow logically: The title link should be in order of preference, 1. the freely accessible one 2. the partially-freely accessible one 3. the one with least onerous requirements (e.g. free registration) 4. further choices with increasing access requirements. Among two or more links with the same access pick the most relevant: that is the one with the most concise and precise information about the title (book) as it pertains to finding it. Let the reader get over it quickly.
    When it comes to CS1 templates, the same should apply. But. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what
    WP:V says. It says the exact opposite: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Instead, it talks about the reliability of sources. That can be verified by looking up the book, the creator and the publisher. That's why we have author-link and title-link. That's why the Wikipedia article on the book is so relevant. As it happens, the links you are describing would be of little use to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you replying to some other comment? Nobody said anything about rejecting sources, "reliable" or not. It is about making it easy for the reader to verify the particulars of a source. One does not link the entire book just to verify specific context. That is what inline citations with in-source locations are for. Both (title) |url= and |title-link= are lookup parameters, not access ones. They should help the reader to quickly find the correct source so s/he can verify the wikitext and move on. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is a reader may read a citation of Hmong: History of a People and think "oh, it's verified, let's move on." But that overlooks that the work is deeply flawed and maybe it shouldn't be cited in that way. Having Wikipedia articles of books allows readers to check for the reputation of the work itself, which is an important ingredient in verifiability. Also even reliable source works occasionally make minor errors, and the book reviews document these minor errors. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a citation issue. Proper sourcing happens before citations are formatted and it should be dealt there. Citations deal with identifying and locating sources that support the wikitext. If wikitext uses dodgy sources to support otherwise unsupported claims then the issue is with the wikitext. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is the readers won't know the source is dodgy unless they are in the habit of clicking wikilinks to the sources themselves; the wikilinks are there to nudge the reader into doing so. And the issue is with the source being used, which is the root of the wikitext. Think of sourcing as making a foundation of a house. If the underlying sources (foundation) are bad, the entire house (article text) is not good. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the other way round. You claim something in Wikipedia and find sources to support that claim. In order to make the source available you use in this case, a citation. Whether the source is appropriate or not is not a citation issue, and will not be resolved there. If the claim has no proper sources remove the claim. If the claim is ambiguous, note the ambiguity in wikitext, and support the claim of ambiguity with the appropriate (ambiguous) sources. Then cite those sources (last step). Citations are not value statements, they are discovery and access aids. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement about citations being the foundation of the article content stems from this from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." People can and do think of a statement and then look for a source to support it, and oftentimes that practice is okay. However I do not agree that citations are only ways of supporting statements; they are the content that we want to direct readers to, and articles are more or less summaries of the sums of reliable sources. Also it's important that the reader knows that they should check if the source is proper or not, and if no wikilinks are to be found, the reader may not know to check, for example Hmong: History of a People. A link like Hmong: History of a People makes it more obvious that the reader should check out the claim. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that readers would read anything because, or prompted by, its citations is certainly a novel one. Citations are not even considered part of the copy of any material. Like indices, TOCs, bibliographies, etc. they are back matter or foot matter. Wikipedia isn't a research facility, it is a tertiary information provider. Citations are important because Wikipedia articles are inherently unreliable, and publish claims that must be supported. Here we deal with the presentation and formatting of that support. The quality of the support is a different matter that should ideally be dealt with before the citation is written, taking into account the context. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that maybe readers should be prompted to read the citations and read what the citations say to get a handle on the topic. I remember a guy on a bus telling me to read the citations, and then read what those cite, etc: follow the rabbit trail. Of course not everyone has the time and patience to do that, but people who do should be encouraged to do so. Also, I see Wikipedia as the starting point for research; don't cite Wikipedia directly, but use it to case out a topic and get the key reliable sources on the topic so that those can be read directly. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations ideally do two things: 1. identify a source 2. provide sufficient information to locate it. The citation is supposed to verify some claim in wikitext. The claim may be a bold-faced lie: A citation that provides a source for that lie and the means to locate it is a good (i.e. "reliable") citation. Why the wikitext says what it says has nothing to do with citation formatting and presentation. The wikitext writer may be malicious; or, the writer may be stating the lie as an actual, important event; or may be stating the lie as an event that was debunked. In all cases, a citation proving that the lie actually happened is needed. An additional citation proving the lie as a lie will also be needed in a properly wrtten article. That citation may be from the same work, or from another one. The second citation, if it provides a debunking source and the means to locate it, is also a good (i.e. "reliable") citation. Do not confuse citations with § Bibliography, § Further reading, or § External links. All of these provide avenues for further information. The verification tool (citation) has narrow, vital scope: is the source identified/identifiable? Can it be easily and quickly located it so readers verify the claim and keep on reading the article? Because the point is reading the articles, not dwelling in citations. 65.88.88.237 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the goal of "reading the articles" is best accomplished through the page number field (in regards to large books). The "general URLs at title" for books would only link to a cover page or something to that effect, and we wouldn't expect a drive-by reader to just read the whole book. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for others, but I have encountered quite a few inaccurate or unclear articles where the only useful part was the references. IMHO, providing references on a topic is valuable in itself, not just for verification. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the importance of references is underestimated in this thread. But I fail to understand how an article can be inaccurate or unclear if its references are the opposite. If this is so, there may a
    WP:INCITE. Or perhaps more serious formatting issues regarding grammar and context, or preponderance of things like editorializing, jargon, NPOV etc. It would be the wikitext that needs fixing. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't believe this is a question that needs an answer. Use URLs or use wikilinks, we shouldn't be deciding what others should use nor making an issue of it. Copying a title to search online is extremely simple, a link to the Wikipedia article about the book can be useful. A URL to the correct version, that may have differing page numbers, may be required when used with short form refs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue though is it may not occur to them that they should copy the title and check the reputation of the work. Having the wikilink there is a reminder to people that there is more information about the work cited and they should check the wikilink to check the reputation of the book. Hmong: History of a People partly exists to let Wikipedians know about the reputation of that source. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s that important to do to contextualize a source, do so in the article itself; wikilink it in the text, and explain any possible issues there. An article should stand on its own; you shouldn’t need to expect a reader will click on a wikilink in a citation to know there’s a caveat with a source being cited. Umimmak (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While one should try to contextualize in the article when possible, I would prefer to ensure book sources are linked even if the writers choose not to/cannot plausibly link the title of the book in the body of the article. The article is effectively built on a foundation of sources, and knowing whether the article has good foundations (such as not being sourced to the likes of Hmong: History of a People) is important. Also, the goal is to encourage readers to examine the sources themselves, something they should be doing. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is up to the person creating the cite. This thread shows there is no correct way, because there is no argreement on what that should be. Wikipedia allows an extremely broad range of how referencing should be done, and there shouldn't be any concerted effort to formalise this in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 14:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this issue some more. If the statement "A link to the actual source is preferred [...]" was changed to "either is fine", that would be okay with me. I would like to see more emphasis of adding wikilinks into the citation brackets, but whether the citation template itself has a URL or whether it has a wikilink (with the other being outside the template) is not as important as whether there is a wikilink within the citation (that may be outside of the citation template). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can do so with citations you create if you wish. But I would be against any change, I just don't see the issue you do. If anything it seems to conflict with the idea that Wikipedia is never a valid source for referencing. What Wikipedia says about a source, positive or negative, is user generated content.
    Editors are expected to use reliable sources, not whatever they can find to support their statements. It is that second behaviour that ends up with bad sources being used, well that and those pushing a POV (they will generally use anything to push their idea). Pushing wikilinks won't change that, nor I believe encourage more validation of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 11:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles about books aren't strictly speaking all about the user generated content: they link to book reviews. It's really each collection of book reviews, and not the user-generated content per se, which are meant to validate the sources which in turn validate articles (the reviews say the book is good, and therefore the book is a good source, or the reviews say the book like Hmong: History of a People is deeply flawed, and therefore the book shouldn't be used). The user generated content of course is meant to summarize the reviews and/or express highlights in the reviews, but the articles are also meant to give attention to the various book reviews themselves.
    I am keenly aware that there are POV pushers who use biased sources, but book reviews may also ferret out sources that are flawed, or do not represent mainstream science.
    The one issue with book reviews is that many of them are paywalled. Wikipedians in academic institutions or who have access to the Wikipedia Library are often able to read them, but I wish the general public was more easily able to do so.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having editors add the book reviews doesn't get round the UGC concerns, as the editors are choosing which book reviews to add. Concerns about the reliability of a citation should be discussed at the article talk page, or at
    WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 12:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I try to deal with that concern by adding all of the book reviews I can find to the "Further reading" page, and as I use the book reviews I move them up to the references section. Often I can find four, six, eight, ten or so book reviews for each book at a university library search engine (I typically use
    WP:RSN for consideration. The article talk page may be a good place to discuss the reliability of specific information pertaining to the book in general, while the talk page of an article about the book can be used to document issues concerning the book as a whole (which can then be moved to RSN). WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    while the talk page of an article about the book can be used to document issues concerning the book as a whole (which can then be moved to RSN). 100% against this. All discussions should be at RSN, as that is the place people will be watching for such discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is I can't open an RSN thread every time I find content about a factual inaccuracy in an other-wise reliable book within an academic book review (authors are human, and they do make mistakes!). That would fill RSN with threads where there is no active sourcing issue, yet. For example: Talk:The Jew in American Cinema. I haven't yet seen somebidy actively cite the book in regards to the use of the words "anti-hero" and "semitism", so it would be pointless at this time to open an RSN thread. But it could come up in the future, and this is why I'm making notes of it now on the talk page, so another Wikipedian can check that, directly read the book review, and then cite the book review in RSN if the issue does arise. Another example is Talk:Dealing with Disaster in Japan, though instead of the book reviews (the reviews don't themselves tell about the usage of scientific information), it's about the Wikipedia aviation community choosing not to use the book for sourcing on scientific/technical info. It could come up at RSN if someone tries to use the book to source such when they shouldn't. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You only need to go to RSN when discussing it's usage in Wikipedia. If it's not been used yet, it doesn't need to be discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 23:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel though that it's important to get research done beforehand so people starting/doing RSNs dont have as much work to do. If a bunch of sources/notes are already listed, it'll take less time for them to get through a literature review on a book. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally would prefer that the templates be redesigned so that they can support a URL and a wikilink at the same time, with the URL becoming a "read online" link (like how FRwiki has "voir en ligne" links). While I'm not sure that the French Wikipedia model of placing links to sources right at the end of all citations (regardless of whether there is an internal link) is desirable, I think it's worth exploring how we could potentially accommodate both an internal and an external link. Do we have any ideas what this could look like? Graham (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Quote page in AV media citations

    Case A:

    • {{cite AV media|title=Media-Title|transcript=Transcript|quote-page=Quote-location from transcript|quote=Quote.}}
    • Media-Title. Transcript. Quote.

    Case B:

    • {{cite AV media|title=Media-Title|quote-page=[[Title sequence]]|quote=Quote.}}
    • Media-Title. Quote.

    What happened here? It was working a few days ago. Please fix. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bug fix. From {{cite AV media}}:
    This
    citations
    for audio and visual works. – emphasis added
    Choose a more appropriate template or, for locating a point in time in the media playback, use |minutes= or |time=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? What bug was that? When was it reported on this page? The discussion?
    What is cited is AV media. Case A involves the media transcript (quoting text from a transcript page). Case B involves the media credits. Specific text metadata (from the title sequence) is cited. So this is the exact template for both.
    Timetable for the erroneously removecd parameter to reappear? It's absence is a bug that should be dealt promptly. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was clear opposition to the removal of quote-page by itself, or as an alias of quote-time, one of the few aliases that make sense as functionally they both describe in-source locations. I was one of those against it, and reasoning was given. Unilaterally you went ahead and changed it anyway. This is a disruptive change as it removes attribution specifics from a quote (the location where the quote can be verified). Two valid cases for the parameter were offered in the OP. This parameter has to be restored. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, restricting editor choice by presenting this as a bug is disingenuous. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trappist the monk: ?? this needs fixing. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Add parameter |eudml=

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

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

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

    Edit Request

    Request restoring parameter |quote-page= in the {{cite AV media}} templates. The parameter was withdrawn without acknowledgement in the latest module update, advertised here: § module suite update 14–15 January 2023.
    The diff in question: January 2023 diff
    An informal request was made above, in § Quote page in AV media citations. Note the indicated use-cases.
    Previous discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media
    This unheralded removal of the parameter is not trivial. Quoted material must always be attributed, and its location must be made available to the reader.
    The relevant module lines (current version):
    	local QuotePage;
    	local QuotePages;
    	if not utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, cfg.templates_not_using_page) then		-- TODO: rewrite to emit ignored parameter error message?
    		Page = A['Page'];
    		Pages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['Pages']);	
    		At = A['At'];
    		QuotePage = A['QuotePage'];
    		QuotePages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['QuotePages']);
    	end
    
    Note that audiovisual templates are erroneously included in the templates not using page array in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration line 673
    local templates_not_using_page = {'audio-visual', 'episode', 'mailinglist', 'newsgroup', 'podcast', 'serial', 'sign', 'speech'}
    
    The template in question uses (text) transcript parameters that often are published with some sort of pagination or sectioning. Video also uses "pages" (frames/frame sequences) as location indicators.

    104.247.55.106 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a
    Edit protected}} template. You know how it works around here. Izno (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There was no consensus, warning, or discussion for the change that removed |quote-page=. It should be reverted and then consensus should be established for its removal. Revert immediately, as this affects verification.
    This is not a case of
    WP:BRD. The removal was unilateral and hidden. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The requested changes can be put in the sandbox for the next quarterly update and discussed. Due to the nature of the citation template suite and their wide usage collectively on millions of articles, we traditionally only make updates to them in batches. Otherwise we'd be dumping millions of pages into the job queue for every edit to the suite, large or small. Imzadi 1979  20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that someone can make a unilateral change that affects core attribution and verifiability, surreptitiously hide it in a module update, and then present it as a done deal because otherwise Wikipedia's job queue will be ruffled? Don't think so. Revert the undocumented, undiscussed change now. It affects citations now, in a material way. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying that what is asked is not the revert of the entire update, only the revert of the unilateral change regarding |quote-page=. A simple edit in the main module to remove move lines 2686 and 2687, highlighted in the OP outside the conditional "if" statement. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All module updates need discussion and consensus. The issue here is a change that had neither. Reverting such a change needs no consensus. This edit request is for such a non-controversial revert. Do not mark the request as answered by insisting on non-applicable consensus. That is not an answer, and is also incorrect. Before the formal request was made, a section discussing the issue was added. It should have been resolved there. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it was announced at #module suite update 14–15 January 2023 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not. When it was pointed out in the related thread § Quote page in AV media citations it was brushed off as a "bug". 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trappist the monk: please can you comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is true that this particular change was (unintentionally) omitted from the summary of changes listed in #module suite update 14–15 January 2023; I have never claimed to be perfect in all things that I do. The change was, however, discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85#Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media in particular Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85#|quote-page= and |quote-pages= support removal. I think that this edit request should be declined.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is not a serious answer. When the change was discovered and pointed out, the response was that it was a "bug fix". Doesn't exactly sound "unintentional". Secondly, there was no consensus to remove the parameter in the discussions referenced above. The first discussion was the opposite: enhancing the parameter with aliases. In both discussions there was opposition to the removal. And why should the parameter be removed? There is no real argument presented. There is ample reasoning for retaining and enhancing the parameter, some of which was put forth in these discussions. As a first step the non-consensual change should be reverted, and soon, as it has policy implications re:attribution & verifiability. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    65.88.88.216: It seems that Trappist the monk wrote that omitting this change from the summary list was unintentional. GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Unfortunately, second-guessing one's intentions is easy when the arguments are so flimsy. And when emoji presentation questions get prompt responses but something as important as properly attributing quotes is treated as a trivial issue. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the question of how a template designed to cite an audio-visual work can have page numbers. Based on a strict application of the title, that's just not possible. Perhaps citations to transcripts, which would have page numbers, should be handled using different templates? Imzadi 1979  02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with this, you should be citing what you are reading/watching, if it's from a transcript then it's not AV media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 12:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get hung up on a badly named template. The fact that the entire CS1\CS2 is illogically designed and misnamed (it is much more than a "style" to begin with) has some bearing on this, but let's put it aside for the moment. A proper citation system cites classes of works, not media. That is why a book citation should use {{cite book}} and not {{cite web}} even when the book is online. Publishers of AV works often publish transcripts and other accessibility aids. These are integral parts of the work on another medium or format. We are not going to rehash arguments about accessibility regarding citations. Properly, the accessibility parameters belong in a citation of the work (in this case the transcript parameters), to be used at the discretion of citation writers. Secondly, it has been proposed previously to rationalize the quote-location parameter. An argument 'quote-location' could have aliases depending on the medium quoted from: 'quote-page' (text) 'quote-time' (AV streams) 'quote-frame' (continuous visuals) 'quote-section' (static visuals, maps or text) etc. It is up to the citation writer to make the choices so that the citation is understood and is relevant to the related wikitext. 24.103.101.218 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Add: generally most aliases should be avoided. However in situations like the above the aliases have semantic significance. They signify different data types that have equivalent application (the location of the data). Programmatically they make sense and rationalize data-entry. Separate static-text labels could be provided. 24.103.101.218 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry none of that changes my opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to change anybody's opinion. The facts are presented and one can recognize them or hold an opinion instead. Such as, the fact that the change that is the subject of the edit request had no consensus, and it is ok to be reverted on that basis alone. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The facts are presented and one can recognize them or hold an opinion instead. No you opinion of the facts is presented, I don't think its presented very well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is not a fact? That the removal of quote-page from the AV template was non-consensual? That quotes from the source may be given to support wikitext? That transcript parameters exist in templates for accessibility reasons and may be quoted? That quote locations are needed to find and verify the quote? That citations cite sources, and the medium/media of the source is secondary? 208.253.152.74 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also a fact that if you are not citing AV media you should not be using {{
    cite av media}}, but something appropriate to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's not the case here. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    information Administrator note While the consensus for this change may not have been initially established clearly, subsequent discussion in this thread shows that this change does have general support. To help me decide whether this change needs reverting, please can you answer the following questions as succintly as possible:

    • Are any citations in the article namespace currently broken or otherwise unusable?
    • Is it possible to achieve what you are trying to do using the workarounds described above? If not, please give a simple example of something that you want to do which is not now possible.

    — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In the archived discussion, I wrote (16:59, 21 August 2022):
    At the time of this writing, {{
    cite av media}} is used on 32,473
    articles. Of those:
    • five use |quote=
      • of those, one uses |time=
      • of those, none use |quote-page= or |quote-pages=
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course none show the use of quote-page since it is ignored. I have used it in several references where the quote location is not now shown. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is a misunderstanding of how search works. Izno (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it seems you misunderstand my comment, which is not a reply to any regex search or more specialized template-parametet search. The comment is about what citations show to readers. Basically a quote that just hangs there. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how does Of course none show the use of quote-page since it is ignored. pertain to Trappist's comment? He posted results of a search which identifies where the parameter is used. You either understand what those searches do and so that comment is irrelevant, or you don't understand what they do and so that comment is incorrect. Izno (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, you could stop making assumptions. My comment was directed at user Martin who asked a related question. Trappist interjected while I was still formulating an answer. It was certainly not a response to a 5 month old search. If I'm guilty of anything is not indenting for clarity. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason, you don't like the quote parameters in full citations. And obviously the related quote-location parameters. Your dislike, including the section you started (in the same archive) to remove it, found no support but there was opposition, with proper reasoning, based both on existing policy, practices, and common sense. But then you went ahead and removed the quote-page parameter anyway. So that is where we stand. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your search is bad. A broader search finds 9 potential articles. Of the 9, only 2 (Krishnamurti's Notebook, and Choiceless awareness) have quote-page in AV media. Neither of these two uses are implicated by the two questions that MSGJ asked. Izno (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, two articles. My search did not find them because the {{cite AV media}} templates in those articles have this:
    {{cite AV media|ref={{harvid|J. Krishnamurti|2018a}}|last=Jiddu|first=Krishnamurti...
    where the closing } of the {{
    harvid}} template terminates the regex match before it gets to |quote-page(s)=. Not clear to me why {{harvid}} is needed nor why the values assigned to |first= and |last= appear to be swapped... Fixing that would, it seems, negate the need for {{harvid}}. Editor Izno
    's search finds seven false positives because .* is greedy so it finds the start of a {{cite AV media}} template and then continues to consume text until it finds \| *quote\-page in the same template (a true match) or in some other template (false positive).
    The templates in these pages appear to be attempts to shoehorn two sources (the video and an edited transcript) into a single citation template. To me, the rendered results are too complex to be useful to readers. The obvious workaround is to simplify by creating a separate transcript citation using {{cite web}}, marking the transcript citation with |type=Transcript, and setting |ref=none so that the short-form references link to the video citation.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The change was undisclosed and had no consensus. It should be reverted on that basis, and then anyone can start a discussion on whether to remove the parameter from the AV template. The burden is on those who want to change the template.
    There have been ample statements above about the necessity of the parameter, which directly implicates
    WP:BURDEN, and it has been a fundamental requirement that all quotes should be attributable and verifiable. The parameter in question promotes attribution & verifiability. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

     Not done I am satisfied that reverting this change is not necessary nor desirable, for the various reasons given — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you realize that removing the parameter is liable to leave a quote in place without the means to directly locate it. This contravenes policy.
    The idea that the transcript, linked in the citation with the appropriate parameters, cannot be quoted in the same citation is novel, and never discussed.
    The removal of quote-page affects quotes from the non-text rendition too. The parameter |time= is equivalent to the parameter |page=. There is no parameter |quote-time= in AV media templates as an equivalent of |quote-page= in other media templates
    I believe an RFC will be required so this may have wider discussion 65.88.88.70 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Which version to cite?

    This may not be the proper forum for this inquiry, so I apologize in advance. I wonder if I should cite the original article in French or the translated article in English for material I read in the English version. I only read/speak English, it is the English version that I read, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. If I use the English version, do I link to the French version in {{cite journal}}? Thus far I have:

    {{cite journal |last=Marchant |first=Alexandre |year=2012 |title=The French Connection: Between Myth and Reality |url=https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_VIN_115_0089--the-french-connection-between-myths.htm |journal=Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire |language=French |volume=115 |issue=3 |pages=89-102 |doi=10.3917/vin.115.0089 |access-date=January 31, 2023}}
    Marchant, Alexandre (2012). "The French Connection: Between Myth and Reality". Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire (in French). 115 (3): 89–102. . Retrieved January 31, 2023.

    Thanks! -

    Location (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If you read the English version then cite the English version. Especially as the source provides an English translation, which is likely better than say Google translate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    "Cita web" errors

    As noted at

    cita web}} causes the actual cite information to be erased and an error to be put inappropriately into the wikitext. I have today encountered several cases where someone wrote "cita web" where "cite web" would have been correct. User:Anomie suggested changing the template so it does the right thing if the English "title" parameter is detected. Would that be feasible, and is there anyone who knows how to do that? -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @
    Template talk:Cita web. GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    psst that a redirect to this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Wow - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A brief history:
    • 3 January 2010 – {{
      cita web}} changed from a nonsense template to a simple redirect to {{cite web}} with this edit
    • 13 November 2022 – original {{cita web}} citation added to 2022 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix at this edit; at the time, {{cita web}} was still a simple redirect to {{cite web}}. I wonder if Editor Island92 copied that template from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Anexo:Gran Premio de Abu Dabi de 2022 and then modified it to fix the unrecognized parameter errors but did not change the template's name
    • 25 December 2022 – {{cita web}} repointed to {{cite web/Italian or Spanish}} – this invokes the auto-translation supplied by Module:CS1 translator. In this case, auto-translator cannot know which language (Italian or Spanish) it should translate because the indicators, |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian), have been replaced with |title= (English) so it emits the {{cita book/news/web}} requires |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian) error message. The error message is visible to editors before substing so they have the opportunity to fix the template. This of course presumes that editors preview their work...
    • 27 December 2022 – AnomieBOT substs the {{cita web}} template with this edit
    This is a case of
    GIGO
    because the 'manual' translation (if the template was copied from es.wiki) was incomplete. AnomieBOT did nothing wrong.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the "manual" translation presumably worked when the template was inserted, according to the timeline, so the editor would not have seen any errors. What could have happened before 25 December, in order to avoid this problem, was that all instances of "cita web" could have ben renamed to "cite web". This step was skipped.
    I see this as an opportunity to improve the translator module. In the past, when the template was a redirect, the foreign-language parameters generated error messages, and English-language parameters worked fine. If someone using AWB wanted to sweep by and do an auto-replacement of the redirect and/or the parameters, it worked fine. Now, if editors go to the trouble of inserting the correct parameters, the template does not work. What if the module recognized English-language parameters as well as the foreign-language parameters so that substing would not discard useful information? In addition, foreign-language versions of these templates sometimes have additional parameters that are not supported by our CS1 templates, but which have useful information in them; AFAIK, that information is discarded upon substitution, which is not ideal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of Module:CS1 translator is to make it so that editors don't have to manually translate non-English cs1|2-like templates. For example, this template (which could have been the original of the template identified in the AnomieBOT discussion) taken from es:Anexo:Gran Premio de Abu Dabi de 2022:
    {{Cita web|título=Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP|url=https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.ricciardo-handed-3-place-grid-drop-for-final-mclaren-outing-after-magnussen.3ZOlOOLHp34z24z2oZwIi5.html|obra=[[Fórmula 1]]|editorial=Formula One World Championship Limited|fecha=13 de noviembre de 2022|fechaacceso=19 de noviembre de 2022|idioma=en}}
    translates to (|expand=yes added to get this rendering):
    {{cite web/subst |access-date=19 November 2022 |date=13 November 2022 |language=en |publisher=Formula One World Championship Limited |title=Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP |url=https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.ricciardo-handed-3-place-grid-drop-for-final-mclaren-outing-after-magnussen.3ZOlOOLHp34z24z2oZwIi5.html |work=[[Fórmula 1]]}}
    and renders as:
    "Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP".
    Fórmula 1
    . Formula One World Championship Limited. 13 November 2022. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
    For the most part, the translation is transparent. When a non-English template has parameters that are not supported by cs1|2, those parameters are retained as-is so that cs1|2 can emit an appropriate error message notifying editors to manually fix those parameters. English language parameters are also retained as-is though they may be overwritten if a non-English parameter translates to the same name.
    The only time that anything is discarded is when an Italian or Spanish {{
    cita web
    }}
    was placed in the article before the auto-translation and substitution was activated.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Today I finished fixing several dozen of the same type of error. If I'm understanding correctly, we're thinking all of them were probably caused by changing the redirect without properly examining the unsubstituted uses, so this is a one-time wave that probably won't repeat? You can see my recent contributions if you want more examples. -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot to notify users when they add CS1 errors

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

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

    "Staff"

    Staff should be added as a generic name for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_errors:_generic_name BhamBoi (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @BhamBoi: A few years ago, I tried commenting out "Staff" from author parameters, and ended up reverting all those edits - see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Procedure when author is "Staff" for the discussion. Unless there is a new consensus to remove/hide "Staff" from references, then I don't recommend adding an generic name error to those references.
    There are over 37,000 pages in Category:CS1 errors: generic name. I'd like us to work on reducing that volume before adding many more pages to it. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Double quotes in titles and quotes

    So the issue of double quote marks in fields that are automatically enclosed in double quote marks (like "title" and "quote") seems to come up periodically:

    Intending to enforce

    MOS:DOUBLE I had been using a regex to replace lots of single quote marks with double quote marks. I didn't realize that doing this in {{cite web
    }} and friends renders as double-inside-double quote marks, which I agree looks bad. I disabled that and was going to write a new regex to fix my mistakes (and I guess everyone else's) but then I had the same question as those who came before - should this instead be fixed by just making the template smarter?

    If that's not in the works and it's "only" 60K instances or so, I can start slowly normalizing all instances. User:Trappist the monk mentioned this nice search, but that's not something I can use when I'm grepping surface-level wikitext in Python without Mediawiki. If anyone can produce a complete list of which templates and parameters this kind of fix should be applied to, I can put that to good use; otherwise I'll probably just start with the "title" and "quote" parameters of {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite journal}}, and the "chapter" parameter of {{cite book}}. -- Beland (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you make the template "smarter"? What should it do with a copy-pasted title with double-nested quote marks like title=Song Review: "They Call Me 'Buddy' and I Like It"? And what if an editor uses the correct syntax and writes title=Song Review: 'They Call Me "Buddy" and I Like It'? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is template:cite thesis, if not a giant violation of Wikipedia's policy against original research? By definition a thesis is original research, as it is something submitted by a student to the head of a department at a university. Am I missing something? Are we now considering what is effectively a very large homework assignment to be on equal footing with peer-reviewed research? Soap 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They are covered by the third point of
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    ;
    Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. It goes on with other details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 00:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    S2CID limit needs to be increased

    March 29 has a cite journal ref with S2CID error. The S2CID is 256374391 and it was added by the Citation bot. The link also works correctly.

    • Khoai, Ha Huy (March 2020). "Le Van Thiem—the Founder of Contemporary Mathematics in Vietnam". Acta Mathematica Vietnamica. 45 (1): 3–10.
      S2CID 256374391
      .

    The limit needs to be increased. Ciridae (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Magazine issue parameter

    The |issue= field in {{cite magazine}} automatically adds a "no." before the issue number. Sometimes, however, there are unnumbered and named issues (like a special issue for a trade show) or issues are named things like January-March 1983. Could we add either a new field (I suggest |issue-name=) or add a parameter akin to |no-pp=? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mr.choppers In those instances where issues are named things like January-March 1983, I would use |date=January–March 1983 instead of |issue=. GoingBatty (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty - thanks, that works for the dated ones. Well, it didn't work for me at first because the date ranged over two years, but once I realized that it has to be formatted with spaces around the dash I got it to work: |date=October 1883 – March 1884.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific parameter guidance for cite conference

    The text in {{cite conference}} is mostly generic, and it is not clear which parameter to use for which datum, e.g., should the name of the paper be in |section= or in |title=. If there is a conference with published proceedings, what is an appropriate citation for a paper given at that conference, assuming that there is a URL for the paper and for the proceedings? Should there be parameters for the conference editors, or only for the authors of the cited paper? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    {{cite conference}} is peculiar and should be deprecated and replaced with a new design. Don't hold your breath for that to happen; when I've said that before, the response from the community has been indifference.
    Proceedings title goes in |book-title=; paper title goes in |title=. |url= is the url of the paper; there is no url-holding parameter for |book-title=. Free-form information about the conference can go in |conference= (which can be supported with |conference-url=) but why bother? we aren't citing the conference itself but rather a published paper in a proceedings. Consider using {{cite book}} instead.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a similar issues. See Grothendieck existence theorem#External links (URL:https://indico.ictp.it/event/a0255/session/14/contribution/9). I don't understand which parameters to use for Organizer. Would you help me with this ? I understand that using cite book instead is a good idea, but it is not open access. --SilverMatsu (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like you are trying to cite the source using bibliographical bits and pieces from two separate publications of the source. The url points to a free-to-read copy of the paper at the seminar's website (Advanced School in Basic Algebraic Geometry) hosted by Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. The other 'source' is a copy of the paper in Fundamental Algebraic Geometry: Grothendieck's FGA Explained, volume 123 of 'Mathematical surveys and monographs' published by American Mathematical Society. This copy too is available on line but is behind a paywall.
    Cite the source that you consulted. If you consulted the version available at ICTP, cite that source (consider a simple {{cite web}} template). If you consulted the version published by AMS, cite that source (consider a simple {{cite book}} template).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: Thank you for teaching me. I fixed it.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump PMC limit

    b} 19:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Addition to generic titles

    Could "PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions" be added to the generic titles list. There are currently 409 articles with this title in the references. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Cite book

    Allowed Template:Cite_book keywords for Named-identifier access-indicator parameters: |bibcode-access= |doi-access= |hdl-access= |jstor-access= |ol-access= |osti-access= |s2cid-access= should include free and open

    0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Open should not be added as an option. Free covers everything important, no need for needless duplication/forks.
    b} 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Looking at the details about Berghahn's open access, found here, it doesn't look like we need do anything. It's an option for the author to make the work freely available, so if the author posts it elsewhere "free" should suffice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suffixes in names

    How do you split a name in {{cite book}} when it contains an honorific or suffix, e.g., |author=John Stuart Stutz, 3rd? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:JR
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. What about honorifics?
    Shouldn't the documentation for, e.g., |first=, |editor-first=, link to
    WP:JR? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think that honorifics (titles, ranks, degrees, etc) should be omitted from citations. You can add a link to
    MOS:JR
    (not [[WP|JR]]) to the documentation if you think it important to do so.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Help requested with date range

    I don't know how to format this date range correctly. I have used an ndash and capitalised the seasons correctly, by still getting a CS1 error:

    {{cite magazine |title=Fulton, Penicillin and Chance |magazine=Yale Medicine Magazine |date=Fall 1999–Winter 2000 |url=https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/fulton-penicillin-and-chance/ |access-date=16 February 2023}}

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    {{cite magazine |title=Fulton, Penicillin and Chance |magazine=Yale Medicine Magazine |date=Fall 1999 – Winter 2000 |url=https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/fulton-penicillin-and-chance/ |access-date=16 February 2023}}
    -> "Fulton, Penicillin and Chance". Yale Medicine Magazine. Fall 1999 – Winter 2000. Retrieved 16 February 2023.
    Needs to be a spaced dash as a range with spaces on both sides. It is the 4th row in Help:CS1 errors. Izno (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uggh. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    New maintenance category: Category:CS1 maint: bibcode

    Just like Category:CS1 maint: Zbl tracks temporary Zbl assignments, so should Category:CS1 maint: bibcode track temporary bibcode assignments, e.g. [1].

    You can tell it's a temporary assignment when tmp is found in positions 11-13 (or more strictly, .tmp. in positions 10-14).

    b} 16:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    This page doesn't describe .tmp. as a temporary assignment. Is there 'official' documentation that does?
    There are only a few articles with .tmp. in positions 10-14
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No official documentation for that, but the practice is that some articles are published 'online first' and they get those temporary bibcodes. And once they are official published (i.e. in print, or in a finalized volume), then the bibcode gets updated to its finalized version. The temporary code is kept up for a while, but it's taken down after some time.
    "There are only a few articles with .tmp. in positions 10-14" that's because I just ran citation bot against most of the existing cases (~40) [2].
    b} 18:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    {{cite book/new |title=Title |bibcode=2022NatAs.tmp..273S}}
    Title.
    Bibcode:2022NatAs.tmp..273S.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bibcode (link
    )
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "et al." in Cite web

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

    That documentation is apparently ancient. That limit has not existed for a long time. Izno (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite ODNB

    Template:Cite ODNB/doc says:

    If date and year parameters are both set then date parameter value is displayed but year parameter value is used by templates such as {{

    harvnb
    }}.

    But setting both adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. Is this still true, or should it be replaced with a note advising avoiding setting both? ‑‑YodinT 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The text you quote is true. It reflects a holdover from the old wikitext versions of the cs1|2 templates to support CITEREF disambiguation. Since the adoption of Module:Citation/CS1 as the engine that renders cs1|2 templates, use of both |date= and |year= for CITEREF disambiguation is not needed except when when the date in |date= is written using the YYYY-MM-DD format because disambiguation is not supported in that format. When the year portion of |date= (in any allowed format except YYYY-MM-DD) is the same as the year in |year= (ignoring disambiguation), Module:Citation/CS1 adds the page to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. When the year portions of |date= and |year= are different, Module:Citation/CS1 emits an error message and adds the page to the appropriate error category.
    Could the documentation be improved? No doubt. If you think that you can improve the documentation, please do.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think I can improve it, but I might be wrong! I've had a go; please trout if necessary. ‑‑YodinT 16:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    date reformatting tweak

    Editor حبيشان has tweaked function reformat_dates() in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox so that the code breaks out of the for when the date is reformated. This seems a sensible change that should cause no problems.

    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Error or Maint message if archive date doesn't match url

    Nearly every archive-url is from archive.org and all of these links always have the archive date built into the url. I'd imagine then it should be possible to compare the url with the entered archive-date and if they don't match, throw up either an error or maintenance flag. – Mesidast (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WAYBACKMEDIC has been fixing date mismatches for years (Fix #3, #8, #13 in the preceding link) for all 20+ archive providers. It's gone through every article at some point so old problems are resolved. I have not processed the entire site in many years, it takes so long Medic is semi-automated. A tracking category for these errors would help target where to run Medic. GreenC 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sandboxen hacked:
    valid |archive-date= does not match timestamp in Wayback Machine urls:
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |archive-date=November 1, 2005}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. Archived from the original on November 1, 2005. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; November 10, 2005 suggested (help
    )
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |archive-date=1 November 2005}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 10 November 2005 suggested (help
    )
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |archive-date=2005-11-01}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2005-11-01. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2005-11-10 suggested (help
    )
    One of the things I've been meaning to fix: we emit errors when |archive-url= does not have |archive-date= but we don't emit an error message when |archive-date= does not have |archive-url=. Fixed that:
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-date=2005-11-10}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help
    )
    Another thing: |archive-date= should only accept single-day dates (the same restriction applies to |access-date=) so I've fixed that:
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |archive-date=November 10–11, 2005}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. Archived from the original on November 10–11, 2005. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archive-date= (help
    )
    And to make sure that previous error detection isn't broken, here is |archive-date= with valid |archive-url=:
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |archive-date=November 10, 2005}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. Archived from the original
    on November 10, 2005.
    and previous error detection of |archive-url= without |archive-date=:
    {{cite news/new |author=John Roach |date=July 17, 2003 |title=Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html |work=[[National Geographic News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110174949/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_bajarockart_2.html}}
    John Roach (July 17, 2003). "Baja California Rock Art Dated to 7,500 Years Ago".
    National Geographic News. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help
    )
    All of these errors categorize to Category:CS1 errors: archive-url.
    Keep? Discard? Better error messages? Different categorization?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: Thank for creating these errors. Instead of using the word "timestamp mismatch" in the error (which is technically correct), I believe it would be more clear to use "date mismatch", since there is no time in the archive-date field. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have a mismatch error message:
    {{cite book |title=Title |date=21 February 2022 |year=2023}}
    Title. 21 February 2022. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
    I wanted to avoid confusion... Is there a better way to note what is mismatched than the way I have done it and still avoid possible confusion with the year/date mismatch error?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Trappist the monk, that should help catch any mistakes at source when they're being made.
    Not the most commonly used word but would "datestamp mismatch" work better?
    I'm fine with it being one category although maybe splitting them into different subcategories would help
    WP:WAYBACKMEDIC, I'll support whatever @GreenC's call is in that case. – Mesidast (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Single cat works as waybackmedic is general purpose for anything related to archives, if it can't fix something in the cat maybe it should. User:Mesidast, if you can remind me after the cat is populated to run the bot. -- GreenC 18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this only apply to archive.org URLs? I did not see where it did, but I did not look closely. Theirs is one of the few services guaranteed to have a timestamp in the field; several that we use do not. Izno (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, only Wayback Machine urls – they are the most common, right? I suppose that we might think about other timestamped archive-snapshot urls if there is sufficient need...
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend archive.today if possible, it has a large number. After that the numbers drop off sharply. Its about 94% Wayback, 5% archive.today and 1% everything else. -- GreenC 19:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding archive.today wasn't difficult:
    {{cite news/new|url=http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/newton.htm|title=Sir Isaac Newton's Unpublished Manuscripts Explain Connections He Made Between Alchemy and Economics|publisher=Georgia Tech Research News|date=12 September 2006|access-date=30 July 2014|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130217100410/http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/newton.htm|archive-date=1 February 2013|url-status=dead}}
    "Sir Isaac Newton's Unpublished Manuscripts Explain Connections He Made Between Alchemy and Economics". Georgia Tech Research News. 12 September 2006. Archived from the original on 1 February 2013. Retrieved 30 July 2014. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 17 February 2013 suggested (help)
    Is that the only format that archive.today uses?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed they are. I just wanted to make sure we would not have errors show up for non-archive.org URLs rather than suggesting to support other archivers (which I wouldn't hate either). There's an argument to be made (which I think has been made previously) that we should just support auto-archive dates for those archivers that have the date in their URL, but if a archiver should change how their URL structure, we could be left with a lot of archive URLs without dates. Which could feasibly be cleaned up easily either way at that time, I suppose, we'd just need to differentiate between pre- and post-change somehow, if it ever came to that. I don't think archive.org is likely to change like that either way, so definitely something to consider. Izno (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    SSRN limit excess report

    A cited journal paper in

    talk) 10:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]