Help talk:Citation Style 1

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

    work parameter ignored[edit]

    I keep seeing cases where the work parameter is ignored in {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. Latest example, there are two occurrences in List of music students by teacher: G to J: Hagen, S. A. E. (1900)... and MRS. ROBINSON-DUFF VOCAL TEACHER, DIES... (that citation needs other attention too). The documentation for cite encylopedia says that |work= is an alias for |encyclopedia=, so I guess either there is a coding problem or a deprecation has not been correctly handled. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    For Mrs Robinson, {{cite work}} is a redirect to {{cite book}} but the source is The New York Times so {{cite book}} is inappropriate; use {{cite news}}.
    The template documentation for |encyclopedia= at {{cite encyclopedia}} does not say that |encyclopedia= is an alias of |work=. See Template:Cite encyclopedia § Title. That documentation has problems (mentions of |script-title= and |title=) but claims that |encyclopedia= is an alias of |work= is not one of them.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Trappist the monk: for {{cite book}}, the documentation indeed requires |title= and does not suggest |work= as an alias, so that is OK. I recently had to make this change which explains the confusion here. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The encyclopedia line in the Template parameters table in the Templatedata section in the documentation for {{cite encyclopedia}} says "Encyclopedia ... Title of the source; may be wikilinked; displays in italics; alias of 'work' "
    Here is an example of a recent correction for {{cite encyclopedia}}. The previous version had been working correctly with |work=. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The template data is incredibly out of date, it also suggests setting |ref= to 'harv' to generate an anchor point for short form refs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess you know that the previous version had been working correctly with |work= because you switched those templates away from |encyclopedia= with this edit. Why did you do that? That would have been a pointless edit except that you also changed a {{cite web}} to {{cite encyclopedia}}.
    Some of us have gotten our asses chewed enough that we are gun-shy when it comes to touching TemplateData. I don't use the abomination that is Visual Editor so I don't bother looking at TemplateData. The TemplateData are not protected so if they are out of sync with the real template documentation (such as it is), feel free to apply the necessary fixes.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've come to prefer |work= to the alternatives, it is shorter and one name for the equivalent information.
    I can try to bring the template data more up to date...
    There really is a problem with cite encyclopedia as shown in the following expansions:
    using |encyclopedia=: "Gerbils". Too Much Information.
    using |work=: Gerbils. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
    in the latter case, citations which used to be correct are now missing the work/encyclopedia information in the display. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A search for the error text "{{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored" (with the quotes) currently shows 759 matches.
    The corresponding search for cite book "{{cite book}}: |work= ignored" shows 17790 matches. -- Mirokado (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately the cite book errors have no easy fix, it's been stuffed with all kinds of things other time. Having an error message to show that something is wrong is definitely a good thing. Whether it's title, series, or even the website used in the courtesy url, they all need to be corrected. Gnomes will do so over time, as with other error messages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Taking a quick look at the cite encyclopedia errors it appears editors have been misusing {{cite contribution}} (a redirect of cite encyclopedia) to cite chapters in a book. But with so few errors it won't take long to clear them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mirokado, this problem in general was discussed on this page a few months ago at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Enabling |work= as a |title= alias in Template:Cite book, where I was the editor arguing most similarly to your current position. Following that thread, I actually undertook to start fixing errors in Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (27,375).
    It turns out that – although I share your fondness for the |work= parameter for ease of entry – nobody knows what |work= is for. In addition to the "name of broader work" the source appears in, I've seen |work= hold the value of – I think – literally every other parameter: publisher, author, editor, translator, date, volume, chapter, page, quote, location, series, edition, via, and probably some I've forgotten. Maybe not url or doi.
    About half of the errors in the linked maintenance category seem to have been introduced by Citation bot changing template type without changing parameter names.
    Anyway now I'm broadly in agreement with the thread somewhere above about deprecating {{cite encyclopedia}} entirely, converting them all to {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} as appropriate, and would further support deprecating the |work= alias in every template once the maintenance categories are a bit more cleaned out. It's apparently too confusing. Folly Mox (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you Folly Mox for the detailed reply. I fully agree with your comments in the linked section. Clearly, as usual, things are more complicated than I expected. I've started looking through these errors (currently 681 left): this is not a completely futile exercise as some of the articles have other more substantial problems, and I learn about all sorts of things as I go. -- Mirokado (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mirokado: If |work= is being ignored in {{cite journal}}, please link to an example. It's working for me: "Title". Work.. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Jonesey95: you are right, sorry. The errors I have been seeing are all in {{cite encyclopedia}} and {{cite book}} and I have also confirmed that cite journal works in the sandbox. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, |work= is not valid in {{cite book}}. |title= or |series= is typically what is needed. If you link to a specific example in an article, I can help you fix it. {{Cite encyclopedia}} is sometimes above my pay grade, though; it's a strange little beast. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Mirokado:  Fixed the references in the List of music students by teacher: G to J article in these edits. GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello GoingBatty, thanks for those corrections. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See also #cite encyclopedia thread, above; I think a good argument can be made to just get rid of {{cite encyclopedia}}. Every instance of it should be replaceable with {{cite book}} for an actual book-form encyclopedia or {{cite web}} for an online-only work. It's a strange and useless thing that isn't identifying a publication by medium/format but by what "societal purpose" or "editorial intent" its publishers declare it has.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like that idea. Are there any substantial formatting differences in the visible output versus the output of the two more common template types? Folly Mox (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here's test data, using every parameter that is documented for {{cite encyclopedia}} (other than mutually exclusive ones like |page= and |pages= and |at= that can't all be used at once; and just enough authors to test the functionality): User:SMcCandlish/Cite encyclopedia test. If you "translate" the parameters correctly, the output from {{cite book}} is exactly identical. However {{cite web}} moves the editor name, for unknown reasons, and it also drops |volume= which is probably not desirable, since some online works can be released with volume numbers, even if it's not common. Until that were resolved, the way to preserve a volume number for an online-only encyclopedia that had such numbering (if there are any) would probably be to combine it with the |page[s]= data, as something like |at=Vol. 3, pp. 123–125, though it will not appear in exactly the same spot in the citation as it would with {{cite book}}. I was pleasantly surpised that if you do |chapter-url= in {{cite book}}, the |archive-url= automatically works with it, including for |url-status=dead (at least if there's not a competing |url=; didn't test what happens then, since the {{cite encyclopedia}} test doesn't involve multiple URLs; it possible that template can handle them somehow, but there's no documentation suggesting this).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: I have not pored over the COinS metadata in the output; it's possible there are one or more other differences that are not visible to human readers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was mistaken about changing to {{cite book}} affecting anything. I don't fully understand the COinS, but a text comparison tool shows both templates giving the same output (with some displayed parameters from {{cite web}} seeming to be absent in the COinS).
    Regarding "However {{cite web}} moves the editor name, for unknown reasons", that's default rendering given by {{Citation}}, I think.
    Regarding, "it also drops |volume= which is probably not desirable", I think {{cite web}} has never supported |volume= or |issue=. The documentation for it, says to use a different template.[1] I would guess a preference for |access-date= which is harder to get wrong?
    Unrelated, but while trying to see why {{cite web}} doesn't support |volume=, I came across several discussions (like this one[2]) showing a strong consensus to have {{cite magazine}} as a separate template for how it renders page/volume/issue. Rjjiii (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    title-link[edit]

    So, what exactly is the use case of |title-link= in {{cite book}}? Why would we do {{cite book |title=The Elements of Style |title-link=The Elements of Style |...}} instead of {{cite book |title=[[The Elements of Style]] |...}}? The latter seems to overwhelmingly dominate; I hardly ever see |title-link=.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    My vague impression is that splitting them out in this way makes it easier for the template to generate the zotero structured metadata that nobody actually uses. Why we need to generate this metadata and why the template can't split the link from the text itself are obvious questions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    |title-link= was apparently new with the lua version of cs1|2:
    Cite book comparison
    Wikitext {{cite book|title-link=The Elements of Style|title=The Elements of Style}}
    Old The Elements of Style. 
    Live The Elements of Style.
    I found this (malformed) template in Global Positioning System which may (or may not) illustrate a reason that |title-link= exists:
    {{cite book|title=The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 ''Satellite Navigation''|author=Nathaniel Bowditch|publisher=United States government|year=2002|title-link=s:The American Practical Navigator}}
    '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000039-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFNathaniel_Bowditch2002" class="citation book cs1">Nathaniel Bowditch (2002). <span class="cs1-ws-icon" title="s:The American Practical Navigator">[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Practical_Navigator ''The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 ''Satellite Navigation''<span></span>''&nbsp;]</span>. United States government.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=The+American+Practical+Navigator+%E2%80%93+Chapter+11+Satellite+Navigation&rft.pub=United+States+government&rft.date=2002&rft.au=Nathaniel+Bowditch&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>
    Nathaniel Bowditch (2002). The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 Satellite Navigation . United States government.
    Here, I have rewritten to omit |title-link= by including the link in |title=:
    {{cite book|title=[[s:The American Practical Navigator|The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 ''Satellite Navigation'']]|author=Nathaniel Bowditch|publisher=United States government|year=2002}}
    '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000003D-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFNathaniel_Bowditch2002" class="citation book cs1">Nathaniel Bowditch (2002). <span class="cs1-ws-icon" title="s:The American Practical Navigator">[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Practical_Navigator ''The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 ''Satellite Navigation''''&nbsp;]</span>. United States government.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=The+American+Practical+Navigator+%E2%80%93+Chapter+11+Satellite+Navigation&rft.pub=United+States+government&rft.date=2002&rft.au=Nathaniel+Bowditch&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>
    Nathaniel Bowditch (2002). The American Practical Navigator – Chapter 11 Satellite Navigation. United States government.
    The COinS metadata are the same for both of these templates. The visual renderings are not the same.
    This search finds about 26,000 articles that use |title-link=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It's not like |author-link= which is required due to |first= and |last=. It opens Pandora's Box, do we also have |publisher-link=, |location-link=? It's added complexity, unless really needed like authors. -- GreenC 02:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    And I can't see any pratical purpose at all to including a cutesy icon. Is it pulling a favicon from the site or something? We shouldn't have any images in citation unless we really, really, really think we badly need them, e.g. to indicate paywalled resources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Cite interview via field?[edit]

    The documentation for {{Cite interview}} says it supports a via= field, but when I edit the template in the visual editor, there's no via listed. What's wrong? RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @RoySmith: Hi there! {{Cite interview}} does indeed support |via=
    {{cite interview |title=Title |via=ViaTest}} generates "Title" (Interview) – via ViaTest.
    Therefore, I added |via= to the Template data in this edit to Template:Cite interview/doc, so you should now see it when adding the template in the VisualEditor. I haven't checked, but there are probably additional opportunities to improve the documentation and/or TemplateData. GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yup, it now shows up as "Published Via", although calling it just plain "Via" would be more in line with the name used in other templates. Thanks for fixing this! RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RoySmith: I attempted to make the Template data in Template:Cite interview/doc consistent with Template:Cite web/doc, which uses "Published via", but I see I got the capitalization wrong. Feel free to change Template:Cite interview/doc and/or Template:Cite web/doc to whatever you prefer. GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it, thanks. I see now that the actual field name is indeed "via", it's just the display name in the UI, so that's no big deal. RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Cita web errors[edit]

    This week I'm cleaning up dozens of edits like this one where User:AnomieBOT mangles a {{cita web}} reference that is missing (due to a previous human error) the title field and displaying a red error message that requires manual attention. This is difficult to recover from, because the edit often cannot be undone due to later edits, and I'm sure for most editors it's not obvious that they need to dig through the article history to recover the URL and find a title for it. I can see three fixes for this:

    1. Edit the template so that when it experiences an error of this type it returns more suitable output that retains the original parameters but only displays the error message to readers. (Maybe adding "|nosubst=1" so bots don't keep trying to change it, if it's not converted to {{cite web}}?)
    2. Add logic to AnomieBOT to detect red or orange error messages and refrain from subst-ing those instances.
    3. Remove Template:Cite web/Italian or Spanish (to which Template:Cita web redirects) from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted.

    @Anomie: Do you have stats on how many times a month or whatever this particular template is subst'd? That would help decide if doing 3 would just make a ton of work for editors or if it would be better on balance. Also especially interested in your thoughts on 2. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This is not the fault of AnomieBOT. {{cita web}} calls Module:CS1 translator which attempts to translate what it expects is a more-or-less properly formatted template with Spanish- or Italian-language parameter names. The module uses |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian) to choose which language to use when translating the other parameters in the template. In this case, the editor apparently manually translated everything except the template name (or committed that most heinous of sins, a typo).
    I'll think about how to fix this problem (which will also apply to {{cita news}} and {{cita libro}}).
    As I write this, there are seven articles displaying the error message (search)
    Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Five a few hours later, 4 where from a cite webb with a typo and the last was unrelated to this issue (junk copied from itwiki without the editor doing any checks). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AnomieBOT's logs for January so far show 135 mentions of substing that template, and the logs for December show 160. I don't keep logs further back than that. IMO the best solution would be to either turn off bot-substing for the template or fix it so its substed output in this situation is more useful. Note that adding |nosubst=1 to the output might eventually result in over 100 unsubsted transclusions, which would stop the bot from substing that template entirely until someone cleans it up. Anomie 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given the high likelihood of typos as the cause for {{cita web}} and {{cita news}}, wouldn't it be more prudent that bots not attempt to "fix" these? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not a bot issue. AnomieBOT just does substing that MediaWiki can't (apparently won't ever) do.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there anyway for AnomieBOT to check for |title= before doing the substitution, and if it does just correct the typo (cita -> cite)? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not AnomieBOT's responsibility to do such checks. AnomieBOT's purpose in all of this is to subst an English cs1|2 template in place of the original non-English template and nothing more.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have hacked Module:CS1 translator so that when {{cita libro}}, {{cita news}}, and {{cita web}} do not have either of |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian), the module translates the template name to {{cite book/subst}}, {{cite news/subst}}, or {{cite web/subst}} as appropriate. If, as in the example case, the template was properly translated by hand except for the template name, AnomieBOT will subst the template name to the canonical {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite web}} as appropriate.
    This version of my sandbox has the originally offending template. The error message that the previous version of the module emitted is not present. A subsequent version of my sandbox shows the template after AnomieBOT has done the substing.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great work thanks Trappist the monk, and apologies for misunderstanding the technical situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Woo, thanks for the quick fix! -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    unflagged 'free' dois that aren't really 'free'[edit]

    I just stumbled upon doi:10.3410/f.736364175.793573144 in List of biological databases. I had to fix this reference (missing |journal=) and discovered that the source requires 'free' registration. To my mind, any source that requires me to give over personally identifying information, is not 'free'. So, I think that doi registrant 3410 should be removed from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and any template with that registrant in article namespace should be edited to remove the |doi-access=free parameter (currently ~85 articles).

    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm note sure about that link, but doi:10.1093/molbev/msz147 should be the DOI used. I'll investigate a bit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seems free registration is required to read free non-F1000 papers (e.g. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz147) with F1000 DOIs (doi:10.3410/f.736364175.793573144) – an abhorrent practice – and that actual F1000 papers with F1000 DOIs don't require registration (e.g. doi:10.3410/M2-49). The fix here seems to update the papers to use their legit DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    {{citation}} with |mode=cs1 and |postscript=none[edit]

    {{citation}} should be able to accept |mode=cs1 and simultaneously |postscript=none without emitting a maintenance message. Alas, that is not what is happening now. I discovered this when attempting a fix at {{NDB}} because that template, when written with |mode=cs1, emits .; as the postscript separator.

    I have hacked on the module sandbox so that {{citation}} with both |mode=cs1 and |postscript=none works properly:

    Citation comparison
    Wikitext {{citation|mode=cs1|postscript=none|title=Title}}
    Live Title{{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
    Sandbox Title

    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Doi throws error[edit]

    If this citation is included in an article

    [1]

    it gives the following message that can be seen in page preview mode: "Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help)."

    I have determined (through the time-wasting process of commenting out citations individually to find the offending source) that it is the doi that creates the error; if the doi is left out of the citation, the warning message does not appear. The doi appears to be unremarkable and functional, so I have no idea what the issue is. This is not the only time I've had this problem, so I can dig up more examples if needed. The affected article for the above example is Cladoniaceae. Esculenta (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The script warning message that you quote has a help link. When you click that link you end up at Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display. Normally hidden maintenance messages can be unhidden by following the instructions on that page.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Next time it happens, check the categories for unusual behaviour; in this case you'd have seen Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI, and the solution is to set the "doi-access=free" parameter. Esculenta (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Esculenta: The hidden maintenance message states "CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI". To remove it, try adding |doi-access=free, like this.[2] GoingBatty (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Pino-Bodas, Raquel; Blázquez, Miguel; de los Ríos, Asunción; Pérez-Ortega, Sergio (2023). "Myrmecia, not Asterochloris, is the main photobiont of Cladonia subturgida (Cladoniaceae, Lecanoromycetes)". Journal of Fungi. 9 (12): e1160. doi:10.3390/jof9121160. PMC 10744234. PMID 38132761.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
    2. ^ Pino-Bodas, Raquel; Blázquez, Miguel; de los Ríos, Asunción; Pérez-Ortega, Sergio (2023). "Myrmecia, not Asterochloris, is the main photobiont of Cladonia subturgida (Cladoniaceae, Lecanoromycetes)". Journal of Fungi. 9 (12): e1160. doi:10.3390/jof9121160. PMC 10744234. PMID 38132761.

    Generic name warning for organizational author value passed to param "last" and alias "author"[edit]

    I think I'm seeing this same error on Impact factor (remoteref: [40], reproduced below[1] for convenience)

    The reference uses the author parameter, but I've found that using last results in the same error message.[2] If I'm reading the docs correctly, author is supposed to be a valid alias for last, and the latter is the parameter one is supposed to use for e.g. "The PLoS Medicine Editors":

    Authors

    last: Surname of a single author. Do not wikilink—use author-link instead. For corporate authors or authors for whom only one name is listed by the source, use last or one of its aliases (e.g. |author=Bono). Aliases: surname, author, last1, surname1, author1.

    • author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of |first= and |last=. This parameter should never hold the names of more than one author.

    Also, I checked the archives, but please let me know if I missed an existing thread about this (or if I can improve my post in general)!


    Sources

    1. ^ The PLoS Medicine Editors (June 2006). "The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature". PLOS Medicine. 3 (6): e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. PMC 1475651. PMID 16749869. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)
    2. ^ The PLoS Medicine Editors (June 2006). "The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature". PLOS Medicine. 3 (6): e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. PMC 1475651. PMID 16749869. {{cite journal}}: |last= has generic name (help)

    spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Help:CS1 errors#generic name reads False positives are possible. When the name is valid, wrap the parameter value in the accept-this-as-written markup: :|author=((Super User)), so I guess you could just have:
    • {{cite journal |author=((The PLoS Medicine Editors)) |title=The impact factor game |journal=PLoS Medicine}}
    • The PLoS Medicine Editors. "The impact factor game". PLoS Medicine.
    Umimmak (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    Kind of unclear what you want from us. Yes, |author= is an alias of |last=. Use |author= for corporate or 'group' names. The error message appears because |author=The PLoS Medicine Editors contains Editors which is considered to be a generic 'name'. When a generic name is actually legitimate, rewrite the parameter value to suppress the error message using the accept-this-as-written markup: |author=((The PLoS Medicine Editors)).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The accept-as-written is relatively new - perhaps added when error checking became more aggressive. There is no mention at {{cite journal}} that this applies to the author or editor fields. What is the best way to update the individual citation templates involved? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not really 'new'. The markup was first proposed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8 § Corporate authors and |vauthors= 10 May 2015 and implemented 25 July 2015.
    Including a statement about what the ((..)) markup does for each parameter seems like documentation bloat. Perhaps for each affected parameter, we add a simple link to the documentation at Help:Citation Style 1:
    Supports accept-this-as-written markup.
    or somesuch. If you know of a better way, say it.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    plus Added in this edit. Adjust as you see fit. GoingBatty (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't recognized that was the trigger for the "generic name." And I had meant to ask why this is happening and what I should change to fix or head off the error. Thank you. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Spida-tarbell: Another option is to remove "The PLoS Medicine Editors" from the citation. I don't see what value it provides to the reader of the Wikipedia article. GoingBatty (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because it lets them know who wrote the article, and that it was specifically the PLoS Medical editors. Why would it ever be useful to the reader to remove information from a citation; that makes it ambiguous between an editor forgetting to add a parameter in the citation and having no credited author (which is not the case here; there is an explicit byline). Umimmak (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is the standard for citations in this area to include whatever the journal says the authors are. Part of what we do is attribution, crediting authors, even if they are a committee. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Point taken. Then you'd want the formatting to be the same as whatever the journal says the authors are:
    • {{cite journal |author=((The ''PLoS Medicine'' Editors)) |title=The impact factor game |journal=PLoS Medicine}}
    • The PLoS Medicine Editors. "The impact factor game". PLoS Medicine.
    GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except that doing so produces corrupt metadata:
    &rft.au=The+%27%27PLoS+Medicine%27%27+Editors
    We allow italic markup in |title= so no doubt, we can use the same or similar mechanism for name-list parameters. Is there sufficient need to do that? It ain't free; every name would have to be tested.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: Thank you. I've updated the documentation according to the information you provided. GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you all! I've updated the reference and, in case it's helpful, added a comment noting that italics corrupt metadata. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Citing original author of reprint[edit]

    I want to cite the author of the Introduction to this reprint of an old book. I have this format, {{cite book |last1=Widmer |first1=Randolph J. |title=Exploration of Ancient Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida |year=2000 |publisher=The University Press of Florida |location=Gainesville, Florida |isbn=0-8130-1791-2 |pages=i-xxii |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gRiwKU4ikkkC&q=van+beck+key+marco&pg=PR10 |author2=Frank Hamilton Cushing |author-link=Frank Hamilton Cushing |orig-date=1896 |chapter=Introduction}} in the article, but I cannot figure out how to show Cushing as the author of the original book without making it look like Widmer and Cushing are co-authors. My apologies if this has been covered before, but I haven't figured out a search term that finds such a discussion in the archives. Donald Albury 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    {{cite book |contributor-last1=Widmer |contributor-first1=Randolph J. |title=Exploration of Ancient Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida |year=2000 |publisher=The University Press of Florida |location=Gainesville, Florida |isbn=0-8130-1791-2 |pages=i-xxii |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gRiwKU4ikkkC&q=van+beck+key+marco&pg=PR10 |first=Frank Hamilton |last=Cushing |author-link=Frank Hamilton Cushing |orig-date=1896 |contribution=Introduction}}
    Widmer, Randolph J. (2000) [1896]. Introduction. Exploration of Ancient Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. By Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Gainesville, Florida: The University Press of Florida. pp. i–xxii. ISBN 0-8130-1791-2.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Really? Surely Widmer is the author, the only author. Cushing just wrote a new intro. So (unless the chapter cited is the intro, which it isn't) I see no reason to even mention Cushing unless it would be reasonable to declare him as an editor? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So (unless the chapter cited is the intro, which it isn't) Umm, are you sure? First sentence of OP's post (emphasis added):
    I want to cite the author of the Introduction to this reprint of an old book.
    In cs1|2, a separately authored contribution (the introduction) to the work of a primary author (Cushing) goes in |contribution=. The author of the contribution (Widmer) is named using |contributor= parameters. OP's template is a bit misleading in that it specifies a broader page range than it should: |pages=i-xxii when it should be |pages=ix-xxii (for the whole introduction) or perhaps better |page=x which agrees with the template's |url= value.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's it! Thank you. Donald Albury 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Cite journal bibcode param[edit]

    When you set the bibcode parameter as well as postcript, the bibcode does not display or link properly in the created citations: {{Cite journal |last=Bomford |first=G. |author-link=Guy Bomford |date=1967-09-01 |title=James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary) |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society]] |volume=8 |pages=292–293 |bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292. |postscript=;}} displays:

    This is clearly not displaying correctly, and it gets even worse when you add text after the template; see {{Cite journal |last=Bomford |first=G. |author-link=Guy Bomford |date=1967-09-01 |title=James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary) |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society]] |volume=8 |pages=292–293 |bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292. |postscript=;}} also published in ''[[Survey Review]]''. ''' 19''' (144): 50–51. {{doi|10.1179/sre.1967.19.144.50}}.

    Now the link works, but also adds the link to the following text. And the doi at the end of the following text does not link properly. BhamBoi (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Some bugs just take a while to show themselves. This one has been a sleeper since March 2013 (diff).
    What is happening is that when there is a postscript, following a bibcode identifier and the identifier's last character is a dot, the code indiscriminately removes the bibcode link's closing ]. That, of course, breaks the rendering. If the last character of the bibcode identifier is not a dot, the live code works as it should:
    {{cite book |title=Title |bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292a |postscript=;}}
    Title. Bibcode:1967QJRAS...8..292a;
    The code in the live module was supposed to remove the terminal separator character (for cs1, a dot). I have tweaked the sandbox so that the code will only remove a terminal dot:
    Cite journal comparison
    Wikitext {{cite journal|author-link=Guy Bomford|bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292.|date=1967-09-01|first=G.|journal=[[Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society]]|last=Bomford|pages=292–293|postscript=;|title=James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)|volume=8}}
    Live Bomford, G. (1967-09-01). "James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 8: 292–293. Bibcode:[https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967QJRAS...8..292. 1967QJRAS...8..292.;
    Sandbox Bomford, G. (1967-09-01). "James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 8: 292–293. Bibcode:1967QJRAS...8..292.;
    Citation comparison
    Wikitext {{citation|author-link=Guy Bomford|bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292.|date=1967-09-01|first=G.|journal=[[Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society]]|last=Bomford|pages=292–293|postscript=;|title=James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)|volume=8}}
    Live Bomford, G. (1967-09-01), "James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 8: 292–293, Bibcode:1967QJRAS...8..292.;
    Sandbox Bomford, G. (1967-09-01), "James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 8: 292–293, Bibcode:1967QJRAS...8..292.;
    {{citation}} comparison to show that I didn't break anything.
    For i18n, the internal variable sepc can be something other than a dot. The module will remove that terminator when sepc is not defined as a dot in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I'm including the citation in an article, what should I do for now? BhamBoi (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The obvious workaround is:
    {{Cite journal |last=Bomford |first=G. |author-link=Guy Bomford |date=1967-09-01 |title=James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary) |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society]] |volume=8 |pages=292–293 |bibcode=1967QJRAS...8..292. |postscript=none}};
    Bomford, G. (1967-09-01). "James de Graaff-Hunter (obituary)". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 8: 292–293. Bibcode:1967QJRAS...8..292.;
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks BhamBoi (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Issue citation currently broken[edit]

    * {{citation |last=Grafton |first=A.T. |author2=N.M. Swerdlow |display-authors=1 |ref={{harvid|Grafton & al.|1986}} |date=April 1986 |jstor=269789 |contribution=The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome |title=Classical Philology |volume=81 |issue=2 |pp=148-153 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago }}.

    and

    * {{citation |last=Grafton |first=A.T. |author2=N.M. Swerdlow |display-authors=1 |ref={{harvid|Grafton & al.|1986}} |date=April 1986 |jstor=269789 |contribution=The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome |title=Classical Philology |volume=81 |number=2 |pp=148-153 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago }}.

    are both currently displaying as

    • Grafton, A.T.; et al. (April 1986), "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome", Classical Philology, vol. 81, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 148–153, JSTOR 269789.

    instead of providing the issue number either "correctly" (no. 2) or in the uglier compact formatting in parentheses after the volume. Kindly fix it or undo whatever 'fix' told the base template to stop displaying the field. No, the vast majority of users do not want to bother with memorizing ever shifting subsets of templates when there's a single underlying citation format we can use (and should be able to use) for everything. — LlywelynII 18:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I can't confirm if any change has happened recently but would this not work:
    * {{citation |last=Grafton |first=A.T. |author2=N.M. Swerdlow |display-authors=1 |ref={{harvid|Grafton & al.|1986}} |date=April 1986 |jstor=269789 |title=The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome |journal=Classical Philology |volume=81 |number=2 |pp=148-153 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago }}.
    * Grafton, A.T.; et al. (April 1986), "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome", Classical Philology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 81 (2): 148–153, JSTOR 269789.
    As I understand it 'citation' dynamically formats depending on which fields you use. Contribution/Title cause it to beleive your cite is for a book rather than a journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)asd
    There is nothing new here. Here is how both of your examples actually render:
    Grafton, A.T.; et al. (April 1986), "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome", Classical Philology, vol. 81, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 148–153, JSTOR 269789
    {{citation}} is and has been for a very long time sort of automatic in that it will render a correct citation if you, the editor, give it the correct parameters. Apparently, Classical Philology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. As such, when citing an article in that journal, it is incumbent upon you to tell {{citation}} that you are citing a journal by providing a value for |journal=. This is how {{citation}} knows to render |issue=. So, slight tweaks (|title=|journal= and |contribution=|title= gives this rendering:
    {{citation |last=Grafton |first=A.T. |author2=N.M. Swerdlow |display-authors=1 |ref={{harvid|Grafton & al.|1986}} |date=April 1986 |jstor=269789 |title=The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome |journal=Classical Philology |volume=81 |issue=2 |pp=148-153 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago }}
    Grafton, A.T.; et al. (April 1986), "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome", Classical Philology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 81 (2): 148–153, JSTOR 269789
    Without |journal=, {{citation}} assumes that the source being cited is a book so renders the citation accordingly.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But none of this is correct. It's a contribution to a work with a title and what is the possible benefit of suppressing the issue fields when they are provided? It's not a misapplied syntax. It's just a badly formatted template that previously worked and now doesn't because the word "title" is being misparsed as "book" for no apparent reason. It is something to fix, not something to lecture on. — LlywelynII 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shouting and moving this discussion to the bottom of this talk page does not bolster your argument. TLDR: nothing needs fixing; feel free to ignore the following 'lecture'.
    In all of en.wiki, Grafton & Swerdlow's article "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome" from Classical Philology (journal) is mentioned in this discussion and in three other places (this search):
    Your claim that the Grafton & Swerdlow template previously worked is incorrect. Here is that template as rendered by {{citation/old}}, the wikitext (pre-Lua module) version:
    {{citation/old |last=Grafton |first=A.T. |author2=N.M. Swerdlow |display-authors=1 |ref={{harvid|Grafton & al.|1986}} |date=April 1986 |jstor=269789 |contribution=The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome |title=Classical Philology |volume=81 |issue=2 |pp=148-153 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago }}
    Grafton, A.T. et al. (April 1986), "The Horoscope of the Foundation of Rome", Classical Philology, 81, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, JSTOR 269789 
    For completeness, some history:
    There have been no recent changes that affect the suppression of |issue= in cs1|2 book citations (which includes {{citation}} without a periodical parameter).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For journal articles, the OP might consider using {{cite journal}} with |mode=cs2 to achieve their desired output more easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OP would like a single template that works for all formats, which is what {{citation}} used to do, regardless of Trappist's claims. Title should handle all actual titles of complete works; contribution should handle all sectional titles within such works; and volumes and issues should display correctly when listed. OP specifically does not want to have to enter entirely separate templates for each separate form of work, which is needless bother.
    All that needs to happen is that the code doesn't preemptively ignore the |issue= field. It's currently broken, easily fixed, and should be fixed. If it's been broken since 2015 without my noticing it, fine, but it's still needlessly broken and should still be corrected now. — LlywelynII 05:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here is a link to the very first version (permalink) of {{citation}} from 15 November 2005. {{{issue}}} (and its alias {{{number}}}) appear only where {{{journal}}} (and its alias {{{periodical}}}) appear. I can find no evidence that {{citation}} ever supported |issue= when the template did not include |journal= or other 'periodical' parameter.
    Your claims to the contrary require evidence. So far all you have done is to make declarations about what {{citation}} used to do without supporting those declarations with evidence. Produce the evidence.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You definitely used to be able to use {{citation}} and have |issue= when citing a book, not a journal. I’m not sure what “proof” would be but in 2017 I wrote (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 37 § Example of book with journal-like properties, chapter authors and issue plus number indicators): Yeah I agree, it'd be nice to have issue number for books; right now a workaround is just to do {{citation|mode=cs1|...}}, which seems to allow more options. I remember not being able to use |issue= when a book has both a volume and issue associated with it, but for a time I could use {{citation}} to get around that limitation. And in 2019 (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 58 § Books with volumes and parts) you acknowledged this workaround's existence saying Don't rely on that work-around remaining. It is a bug that should be fixed. Umimmak (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not shouting. Just highlighting the important bit in what's become a textwall post inside a textwall talk page. I get it that you're opposed and will either ignore me or revert changes if I implement them myself, since you seem to be the caretaker around here. (And thanks for that!) It's still important that this stand out for other posters when they come here for their own problems so they can add their +1 until you realize it's a template problem instead of a "rando schlub" problem and, y'know, actually fix it/allow it to be fixed. — LlywelynII 05:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What you're shouting about has never existed as has been explained. {{citation}} has always auto-formated cites based on the fields it is supplied. If you don't supply the expected fields it won't format as you expect.
    If you want something new maybe you should discuss the matter as a request for something new. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not broken; it simply needs |journal= instead of |title=. If it were wanted to do something about this to make it more flexible and intuitive (without any arguments about "what used to happen" which can't be demonstrated and don't matter anyway), then clearly the thing to do would be to have |title= resolve to |work= ("the italicized thing"), any time both of these conditions apply simultaneously: 1) |chapter=, |contribution=, or any other alias for "the quotation-marked thing" is present with a value, and (not "or") 2) |work=, |journal=, |website=, or any other alias for "the italicized thing" is not also present with a value. This would actually have mutiple benefits. If something has both |chapter=, etc., and |journal=, etc., plus also a third thing in |title=, then that's an error and should be flagged as such, since there is no way to resolve it without human judgement.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Exporting Module:Citation/CS1 to my own wiki[edit]

    Okay, I think this is where my technical expertise falls short, but I have been trying to export the Module:Citation/CS1 system to my own wiki. However, when I do, I get an error at https://nsindex.net/wiki/War, which states:

    [6161720f6cfbf54ba3955ec6] /wiki/War MediaWiki\Storage\NameTableAccessException: Failed to access name from content_models using id = 4

    The extensions and version info I am using are listed at: https://nsindex.net/wiki/Special:Version. I don't know changes I need to make to the modules, to make it work on an independent wiki. --Minoa (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This appears to be a technical import issue that is outside the cs1|2 bailick. Having never done an import, I have only a passing knowledge of the process. Perhaps your best source of help is at WP:Village pump (technical). I would suggest that you describe, in full, the steps that you took that got you to where you are now. The cs1|2 module suite is routinely imported by other wikis so it would seem that the issue is in your particular wiki's setup.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would guess that you have misconfigured Scribunto or TemplateStyles or one of their dependencies, or lacking one of the latter (I note that you do not have LuaSandbox installed). Either way, this error is an issue for normal MediaWiki support channels like #mediawiki on mw:IRC or mw:Support. Izno (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry about choosing the wrong section. It's not like I am an expert at the nuts and bolts of MediaWiki and I had to rebuild the database since it appeared to be a database issue that caused the CS1 module to crash, thankfully I backed up everything but it's still annoying and frightening when an unforeseen error like that suddenly occurs. --Minoa (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    What does "vice" include?[edit]

    Regarding: Template:Citation Style documentation/url

    Firstly, this is not an issue for me, I just happened to be reading this section and wondered about this. But hopefully a clarification could be helpful for others in the future.

    Under url-status, it says the values unfit or usurped are used when the URL/domain links to "vice", but it's not clear what that means. Is there a help page that could be linked there to clarify?

    For me, when I hear "vice", I think, say, gambling, drugs, and pornography, but I'm not sure that's what it's referring to. (Funny enough, the reason I was reading this section was regarding a link to a liquor company, which could be considered "vice" under some definitions.)

    An obvious case is a URL that used to point to a news article but now points to pornography; obviously we shouldn't keep that link to avoid any unpleasant surprises for people clicking the "original link", but I can imagine more complicated cases.

    By the way, in the same section, I believe "reseller" refers to domain resellers specifically. That should maybe be clarified too.

    W.andrea (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @W.andrea: I think that in this context "vice" does include gambling and pornography, as those are two common types of content we are redirected to when a web domain is no longer live. GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've boldly modified unfit and usurped in the doc; feel free to revert or edit. Actual change to guideline rather than just wording; the distinction between unfit and usurped wasn't clear (and they actually do exactly the same). Quicker to do it and if necessary revert than long discussion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is vice not clear? It's just a 1 word label instead of having to write out "pornography, gambling, etc.." every time in the document. If the word vice is curious ("what does vice mean?"), then we can make a footnote listing some examples.
    Secondly, the change made by Pol098 is not what we have agreed on. There is a difference between an entire domain being usurped. And individual URLs within a domain being inappropriate, but otherwise not usurped. For example, a news aggregator site might have lots of safe URLs. But one of its stories contains blatant pornography or gambling spam. So we individually suppress URLs from legitimate domains using |unfit=. Or we can suppress an entire domain that has been usurped. In effect both of these do the same thing, but they are operating at different levels and mean something different. In brief: usurpation occurs at the domain level. Unfit at the page level. -- GreenC 01:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is vice not clear? Vice is a culturally informed topic with differing interpretations; one prominent example is the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Another example is that my grandfather considers it a vice to go shopping on Sunday, but I do not. Please consider another word if brevity is the concern here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because this is yet another discussion about this topic, I'm beginning to wonder if we wouldn't be better off defining unfit and usurped as equal aliases. Editors can then choose the one that seems best to them. That might remove the apparent need to quibble over the individual meanings of the keywords. If we do that then, the definition might be rewritten like this:
    • unfit or usurped – selects |archive-url=; used when |url= links to vice (gambling, pornography), advertising, a domain reseller or other unsuitable page; links to |url= are suppressed in the rendering. If an entire domain is unsuitable, consider instead usurpation or blacklist.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The question still exists, when is it appropriate to use the word "unfit" vs "usurped". We can provide guidance as noted, the difference is between an entire domain being a problem, versus a page being a problem within an otherwise fine domain. -- GreenC 02:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "the difference is between an entire domain being a problem, versus a page being a problem" - great, that makes sense, but the documentation needs to make that clear. Very much a storm in a teacup, the distinction has no effect on the reader, and the editor can see where the page now links. My edit doesn't make this point, but it doesn't make the guideline worse so I won't withdraw it, and hope it will be improved upon. Even the name is vague, unfit-page, usurped-domain is better. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought the documentation does make that clear? One says page, the other says domain. -- GreenC 17:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with merging them and making one an alias of the other. They don't do anything distinct, and it's silly to argue about a distinction that doesn't matter for any practical purpose. Something that does matter would be to shop generating a warning message when these parameters are used. What good is it if it's interpreted as if an error? If I used that parameter, I did so on purpose, and I don't need a pseudo-warning to try to convince me something is broken every time I edit the page. Just inspires someone else later to think it is broke and mess with it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do these do the same thing? I can't tell any difference when using them, from the maintenance category, or from the sandbox. Agree that it make sense for them to be aliases. Can we go ahead and present them as aliases in the documentation now? Rjjiii (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Category:CS1 maint: location[edit]

    |location=Honolulu, Hawai{{okina}}i adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: location and |location=Honolulu, Hawaiʻi does not. There is ~6,000 articles in the category.

    I have obviously figured out a workaround. Personally, I think both forms should work. Also, this is probably one example of problems using character templates in location parameter values.

    Is there a consensus solution for resolving this situation? Thanks in advance. User-duck (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Fix {{okina}}? The category addition occurs because {{okina}} uses the html numeric entity &#x02BB;. What cs1|2 sees is Honolulu, Hawai&#x02BB;i.
    The related templates, {{'eta}} and {{fakau'a}} use the unicode characters U+02BC ʼ MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE and U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA. This is the 21st century, I see no reason why {{okina}} can't use U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA instead of &#x02BB;.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed [3]. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "conference" parameter in CS2[edit]

    Right now the only way to include separate conference-related metadata about a conference paper (conference name, dates, location) is to use the {{cite conference}} template. This leaves pages otherwise using {{citation}} needing to use {{cite conference |mode=cs2 |conference=...}}. Instead of doing this, many pages using CS2 style just leave off the conference metadata entirely, or arbitrarily mash it into the existing parameters, e.g. using the publication location parameter to hold the conference location, even when the conference proceedings were published somewhere else, or using the title parameter to hold the conference name even when the published proceedings are titled differently.

    Would it be possible to add conference=... (or some more generic free-form field that could be used for the same purpose) to the {{citation}} template, so we could write e.g. {{citation |conference=...}}? –jacobolus (t) 22:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Citation access icons are sometimes clipped on MonoBook[edit]

    Hi, @TechnoSquirrel69 reported this bug on Phabricator, but it seems to be a problem with the templates. Please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T356831 for screenshots.

    Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):

    What happens?:

    • See that the icons are getting clipped on the top, bottom, or both.

    Other information (browser name/version, screenshots, etc.):

    • I'm getting this issue on Firefox and Chrome. It seemed to turn up most reliably on Monobook, sometimes on Vector 2010, but neither of them had a 100% reproducibility rate.

    Matma Rex talk 12:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The size of the access icons was chosen to fit the font size that readers see with the default skin (at the time, that was Vector – since renamed as Vector legacy 2010). It appears that the Monobook skin has a smaller default font size (not in MediaWiki:Monobook.css so I don't know where the Monobook default font size is set). The issue is exacerbated by use of {{reflist}} and {{ref begin}} which render references at 90% of Monobook's already smaller default font size.
    sometimes on Vector 2010 Examples of where you see this? I use Vector 2010 and have never noticed clipped access icons.
    I'm not inclined to do anything about this. So long as the access icons display correctly for our readers, I see no reason to expend the time and effort for those relative few editors who use Monobook. Is it even possible for us to know the skin that a reader is using? I suppose that some Monobook css can include overrides for the access-icon css in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. I notice that Monobook uses PDF icons that are different from those used in Vector 2010 so wherever the Monobook PDF icon is defined might be an appropriate place to override the cs1|2 access-icon css. Doing that is outside the cs1|2 bailiwick and will no doubt require the services of an interface administrator.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you know that TemplateStyles selectors can begin with something like body.skin-monobook? Also, did you know that a contain keyword exists for the CSS background-size property? Either of those could potentially be used to resolve this. Anomie 12:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did not. I did not. Thank you for that; I have little knowledge and experience with css. I used both in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css. Here are permalinks to my sandbox using the various skins:
    Anyone know how to get rid of the duplicate warnings like this one:
    Warning: Background image '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg' was used multiple times, first declared at line 51, col 2.
    There are four such warnings: line 57, line 79, line 95, and line 112.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) 18:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Found a solution.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Please add publisher1= and place1= parameters for multiple publishers[edit]

    For example in this book Following the Equator, there are two different publisher company credited in two different place.

    While using this Template:Cite book however, there are only publisher= and place= parameter for one value despite there are two values. Therefore, for now it coded like this: " |publisher=American Publishing Co. and Doubleday & McLure Co. |place=Hartford and New York ",

    and displayed like this: " Hartford and New York: American Publishing Co. and Doubleday & McLure Co. ",

    where it should have displayed like this: " Hartford: American Publishing Co., and New York: Doubleday & McLure Co. "
    EdhyRa (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Please add hal= parameter[edit]

    This should be similar to various ID parameters like doi. See Nubian ibex for a citation with this parameter. "hal=hal-00888596" or "hal=00888596" (implementer's choice) should link to https://hal.science/hal-00888596 - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You can use the {{HAL}} template and the |id= field to achieve this, see my edit[4] to Nubian ibex. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's usually a re-existing template you can use, {{BNF}} for links to Bibliothèque nationale de France for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hrm. Ok. But I was hoping, after a doi-like implementation, that I could then poke on User:Citation bot's maintainer AManWithNoPlan to scrape for additional data. Is that possible with "id="? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry that's something you'd need to ask AManWithNoPlan. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {{HAL}} is used in only ten articles right now. That's not enough to add a whole new parameter, with all of the support that entails. Putting the template in |id= is usually what we recommend until usage reaches a higher level (vague mumbling about what constitutes a "higher level"...). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yay for vague mumblings! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Does fixing a cs1 error or a cs1 maintenance constitute a cosmetic change or a substantive change?[edit]

    There is a section WP:COSMETICBOT that explains differences between a cosmetic change or a substantive change. Does fixing a "cs1 error" or a "cs1 maintenance" issue constitute a cosmetic change or a substantive change?

    There are pages in the "CS1 errors" and "CS1 maintenance" category:

    There are multiple subcategories of CS1 errors and CS1 maintenance. From the first sight, some of which look like cosmetic, while other look like substantive.

    It is explained in the WP:COSMETICBOT that a substantial change is considered the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs (e.g. changing "citation needed" to "citation needed|date=September 2016").

    If there is no general answer on whether "CS1 errors" and "CS1 maintenance" categories are cosmetic or substantive:

    • "CS1 maint: PMC format",
    • "CS1 errors: access-date without URL",
    • "CS1 errors: archive-url"?

    Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It is technically a substantive change, since it removes a category, and often an error or maintenance message, from the rendered page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    auto date formatting inquiry[edit]

    Why doesn't |orig-date= format its output IAW the article's implementation of {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} (like |date= does)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Because the assigned value is not constrained to date-only.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    cite thesis[edit]

    Question for the citation team: Is there a reason cite thesis doesn't have a page/pages field? I know we're not supposed to cite anything below a Ph.D. thesis (a rule that I may or may not selectively ignore but never mind) but is it wrong to include thesis page numbers for some reason? I am not a professional academic so this might be a known thing with theses or bibliographies. (Shorter: I'm asking out of ignorance/curiosity/good faith.) I usually just tack them between the ref tags after the cite thesis template but I always get the distinct feeling I'm doing something wrong. Thank you in advance for guidance. jengod (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It does. Are you using the VisualEditor? We probably need to fill out the TemplateData. The TemplateData for {{cite book}} and {{citation}} are much more complete. The parameters unique or specific to {{cite thesis}} could be added to one of those and then the unsupported parameters can be removed. Regards, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cite thesis page is undocumented parameter
    I am so sorry to be a difficult patient but I have no idea what I use to edit other than "my phone" and I toggle back and forth between desktop and en.m as needed. When I add a page to a cite thesis template and then use the little citations gizmo it tells me "unsupported parameter." See image. "unsupported parameter" seems like it might make the robots mad and I want to be supportive of our robot buddies. But you're saying I can ignore? jengod (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jengod: It's all good. That's the VisualEditor (Wikipedia:VisualEditor). You can ignore that message beside "page". "undocumented parameter" is meant literally. It is supported by the template but not documented. If you scroll down to the bottom of any template's documentation page, you will probably see a big table of parameters or a link to a page with a big table of parameters. Those tables are the JSON data that the VisualEditor uses. It's called Wikipedia:TemplateData, and many less-used templates lack it completely. It honestly seems like a pretty weird system. I have just added the parameters from {{Citation}} that cover page, pages, at, no-pp, and chapter. Rjjiii (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Rjjiii awesome. I've been double-taking at that for a while now. Thanks for the fix. Much appreciated. best, jengod (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    CS1/2 English language parameter documentation and TemplateData[edit]

    Could we clarify the meaning of the description for |language= in the CS1/2 TemplateData section? The current text states The language in which the source is written, if not English; use a two-letter language code or the full language name, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Either it is a description of the output of the parameter, where if the parameter is |language=en it will not be displayed in the text delivered to the reader of an article, or as one user recently said to me it is an instruction not to use |language=en for citations to English language articles. My understanding of the longstanding consensus is that we include the |language=en to make it easier for non-English language wikis to directly use our citations when translating our articles.

    Additionally, the interpretation that the TemplateData entry is an instruction doesn't seem to match with the template documentation's usage section. The usage section states that When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation, however it does not recommend against using |language=en when it is appropriate per the cited source. If the consensus is that we should still include |language=en for English language citations, could we update the text in the TemplateData section to make it less ambiguous? Or if the consensus has changed, and that we shouldn't use |language=en could we update the usage section text to make that more explicit? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    English
    IMHO, language=en and en-gb or en-nz or en-pk is harmless and/or is often automatically pulled from whatever bibliographic database you're using and the path of least resistance is to leave it. I personally like it, it adds nice detail to citations, and this is a vast international project and the same way we use regional English language templates (e.g. {{use Sri Lankan English}}), in part as a gesture of inclusivity and respect, I think acknowledging regional variations is appropriate and certainly not wrong. My layperson's understanding is that maxing out metadata is central to excellent information systems management, which is what we do.
    not!English
    If your source is not in English, include the appropriate language code, and where appropriate include regional variation codes where they exist, for example I believe Flemish is nl-be (Dutch, but in Belgium!), Brazilian Portuguese is pt-br, Mexican Spanish is es-mx, etc. The languages are probably very similar, if not identical, especially "in print", but the most descriptive possible tagging is beneficial and again it's a respectful gesture that acknowledges linguistic and cultural diversity.
    jengod (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Untitled items[edit]

    {{Cite journal | first=Deborah Dash | last=Moore | title=none | department=Review of Daniel Morris, ''After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers'' (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011) | work=American Jewish History | volume=97 | number=1 | date=March 2013 | pages=93–94 | doi=10.1353/ajh.2011.0012}}

    unfortunately (for my purpose) renders

    Moore, Deborah Dash (March 2013). "none". Review of Daniel Morris, After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011). American Jewish History. 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.

    with an unwanted title of "none". How does one do away with titles?

    (Additionally, "Review of Daniel Morris, After Weegee [blah blah]" is hardly a "department". The department might well be "Book reviews" [plural], though I haven't looked. A superior alternative replacement for "department" would be welcome.)

    I'm pretty sure that this is a question I asked, and that was expertly answered, a few months ago. Sorry! (I did look for the older Q&A, but couldn't find it.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Brackets "untitled" - I wish it supported "[no title]" to be consistent with n.a. for no author, n.d. for no date, and no pag. for "no pagination" but close enough!
    Moore, Deborah Dash (March 2013). "[untitled]". Review of Daniel Morris, After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011). American Jewish History. 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.
    jengod (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In this case I think you're good to put mostly any "title not original the source" in brackets and slot it into the title slot. The brackets indicate it's created by the cataloger or bibliographer and not what the original author named their artwork.
    Moore, Deborah Dash (March 2013). "[Review of Daniel Morris, After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011)]". Reviews. American Jewish History. 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012. jengod (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    jengod, thank you, that's definitely an improvement. But I remember, or misremember, that there's an even neater fix. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe you and I'm over here with my popcorn. I love all these cite templates--they have so many cool secrets and nooks and crannies! jengod (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your citation shows "none" because you used |work=American Jewish History when you should have named the journal as a journal: |journal=American Jewish History:
    {{Cite journal |first=Deborah Dash |last=Moore |title=none |department=Review of Daniel Morris, ''After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers'' (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011) |journal=American Jewish History |volume=97 |number=1 |date=March 2013 |pages=93–94 |doi=10.1353/ajh.2011.0012}}
    Moore, Deborah Dash (March 2013). Review of Daniel Morris, After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011). American Jewish History. 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)
    Do not misuse cs1|2 parameters (|department= in place of |title= etc). Consider writing the review title as the title is written on the journal page and specify |type=Review. Omit the more-or-less unnecessary bibliographic detail for the avoidance of confusion (sometimes such titles contain ISBN identifiers, price, physical dimensions... that are not relevant when citing the review):
    {{Cite journal |first=Deborah Dash |last=Moore |title=''After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers''. By Daniel Morris |type=Review |journal=American Jewish History |volume=97 |number=1 |date=March 2013 |pages=93–94 |doi=10.1353/ajh.2011.0012}}
    Moore, Deborah Dash (March 2013). "After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers. By Daniel Morris". American Jewish History (Review). 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there a way to get "type" (or a similar parameter) to render after the contribution title instead of after the journal name? This would be clearer if it said:
    Moore, Deborah Dash (2013). "After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers, by Daniel Morris" (Book review). American Jewish History. 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.
    jacobolus (t) 19:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Related: it would be very helpful if "language" could attach to just the contribution name instead of the journal name. For example, many old math journals routinely included a mix of papers in English, French, German, etc., which make it confusing to have a citation like Last, First (1850). "Title in German" [English translation]. French Journal Name (in German). 4 (5): 72–90. Indeed arguably the "language" and possibly "type" parameter should always attach to the chapter/contribution name, rather than the book/journal name. –jacobolus (t) 21:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For book reviews, "Consider writing the review title as the title is written on the journal page" is very bad advice. That leads to titles like "Siobhan Roberts.King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry. xv + 399 pp., illus., figs., apps., bibl., index. New York: Walker & Company, 2006. $27.95 (cloth)." Nobody sane wants that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or in this case, "After Weegee: Essays on Contemporary Jewish American Photographers. By Daniel Morris. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011. xxxvi + 299." But I think the idea would be to cut to just the book title + author, not including publisher, ISBN, price, page count, etc. The purpose of the citation is to identify the source [here the review], not dump a pile of unnecessary noise on the reader. Personally I sometimes shorten long book titles in such citations to just the first part, along the lines of just:
    Moore, Deborah Dash (2013). "After Weegee, by Daniel Morris". American Jewish History (Book review). 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.
    But it would be clearer still if "type" was attached to the review title rather than the journal name. –jacobolus (t) 20:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pretty obvious that you failed to read all that I wrote. Let me give it to you again:

    Consider writing the review title as the title is written on the journal page and specify |type=Review. Omit the more-or-less unnecessary bibliographic detail for the avoidance of confusion (sometimes such titles contain ISBN identifiers, price, physical dimensions... that are not relevant when citing the review)

    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good morning (where I am); and thank you, all. I'll follow the monk's suggestion. Of course the template's semantics are important but I'm also fairly happy with the appearance. However, I second jacobolus' request/suggestion that the value (here, "review") of the "type" attribute is appended not to the journal title but instead to the title [if it even is a title] of the piece that's being cited. ¶ Though [opens can of worms] actually I'd prefer output such as
    Deborah Dash Moore (2013). Review of After Weegee, by Daniel Morris. American Jewish History 97 (1): 93–94. doi:10.1353/ajh.2011.0012.
    (with no quotation marks around what I think is a description rather than a title; and no inversion of the order of the author's name, as it's not within an alphabetically ordered list of surnames). But I imagine that such proposals have already been suggested, discussed, and rejected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (If you feel strongly about a particular citation, you can always use plain wiki-markup instead of a template. If you need to link to it from shortened footnotes use {{wikicite}}.) –jacobolus (t) 23:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    jacobolus, yes, I know. For a long time I didn't use cite templates (other than when working on articles that already used them), because they seemed not to cater for a lot of bibliographic peculiarities that I'd often encounter -- notably books with two or more parallel texts (perhaps one in Dutch and one in French) and thus two or more titles. An enormous amount of work has gone into the templates and I understand the value of using them (for machine-parsability, etc). I use them, but I still have niggles (as is to be expected for any complex system). Anyway, I've gratefully implemented the suggestion above. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    New initiative: Data Citation Corpus[edit]

    Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Data_Citation_Corpus -- GreenC 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The solution is via= but[edit]

    Lybarger, Donald F., ed. (August 1942). "Angier House (1854–1866), Kennard House (1866–c. 1940); Lincoln Hotel (1940—)". Historic Sites of Cleveland: Hotels and Taverns (Report). Columbus: Ohio Historical Records Survey Project. pp. 366–437 – via Ohio Works Progress Administration Publications, University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
    {{cite report |title=Historic Sites of Cleveland: Hotels and Taverns |location=Columbus |publisher=Ohio Historical Records Survey Project |editor-last=Lybarger |editor-first=Donald F. |date=August 1942 |pages=366–437 |chapter=Angier House (1854–1866), Kennard House (1866–{{circa|1940}}); Lincoln Hotel (1940—) |author-link=Historical Records Survey |url=https://exploreuk.uky.edu/catalog/xt7vt43j1895 |ref={{harvid|Historical Records Survey|1942}} |via=Ohio Works Progress Administration Publications, University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections}} {{PD-inline}}

    So. This is a fairly obscure government report. The only place it's online is this university library. As part of wikiloving our friends the librarians and archivists, I like to include as much "repository" credit as I can jam into citations. If it was just an inaccessible box I would use {{cite archive}} but I think it's appropriate to treat this as a book/report/website etc.

    Anyway, I would've loved to steal the institution= and collection= attributes from {{cite archive}} for this ref, except it says that publisher and institution can't be used simultaneously, and collection is not a supported attribute. *So* via= is doing a fine job handling this task, but I would love if there were archive attributes like repository= and/or collection= attribute in the main cite template.

    Another example where I would have used this is on Chicano Liberation Front. I think I emailed three libraries before someone had a copy of this obscure local underground paper; once I found it they were so cool and scanned it and sent it right over. So definitely wanted to give credit. But the citation for the *article* doesn't really accommodate the additional archival detail that sometimes I would like to include.

    Blake, Michael (1971-08-13). "Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front)". Los Angeles Free Press. Vol. 8, no. 33. pp. 1–2. ISSN 0024-6573. Issue 369 – via Center for Southwest Research at University of New Mexico - Underground Newspaper Collection, MSS 514 BC, Box 48.
    {{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Michael |date=1971-08-13 |title=Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front) |volume=8 |pages=1–2 |work=[[Los Angeles Free Press]] |issue=33 |issn=0024-6573 |id=Issue 369 |via=Center for Southwest Research at [[University of New Mexico]] - Underground Newspaper Collection, MSS 514 BC, Box 48}}

    To make a long story long, in a perfect world designed around me me me (LOL), the "main" cite template would also allow more "physical location" attributes like are included in cite archive, like so:

    {{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Michael |date=1971-08-13 |title=Barrio Bombers Speak Out: Walking softly in the barrio with a big stick...of dynamite (Communique from Chicano Liberation Front) |volume=8 |pages=1–2 |work=[[Los Angeles Free Press]] |issue=33 |issn=0024-6573 |id=Issue 369 |repository=Center for Southwest Research |institution=University of New Mexico |location=Albuquerque, N.M. |collection=Underground Newspaper Collection |series=MSS 514 BC |box=48 |collection-url=https://nmarchives.unm.edu/repositories/22/archival_objects/196279 }}

    I guess another way to do it would be to have a {{cite book}} and a {{cite archive}} side by side within the ref tags, but that might...break something?

    I'm probably writing this all out as procrastination from the transcription I need to do for this Kennard House draft but I wanted to float this idea and see if anyone else had asked about this before or if there were any recommended workarounds. THANK YOU! jengod (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    jengod, See {{Cite archive}}. Param |via= is definitely not the place for it. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @mathglot so could I do {{cite book}} and {{cite archive}} side by side in one ref? jengod (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK I tried it, linked by the word "at". So far so good. Thank you!! jengod (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    tcommon assignment cleanup[edit]

    In this discussion (permalink) an editor asked: Is there a way to get "type" (or a similar parameter) to render after the contribution title instead of after the journal name?

    That question got me wondering about cleaning up the mess that is tcommon assignment. tcommon is an internal variable in Module:Citation/CS1 that is used when assembling a cs1|2 citation rendering. For example, the tcommon assignment for the standard {{cite book}} template looks like this:

    tcommon = safe_join( {Title, TitleNote, Conference, Periodical, Format, TitleType, Series, Language, Volume, Others, Edition, Publisher, Agency}, sepc );

    where Title, TitleNote, Conference, etc are metaparameters associated with |title=, |department= (or |title-note=), |conference= etc. – this is how cs1|2 deals with aliases.

    In the above assignment, Conference, Periodical, and probably Agency do not apply to book citations so there is no real reason for those metaparameters to be in the tcommon assignment.

    Since I am thinking about these assignments, now would be a good time to revisit parameter positioning in the citation renderings. I guess my gut feel is that |type= should not be moved closer to |title= in journal citations but I suppose that I might be convinced otherwise. Are there other parameters that ought to be repositioned?

    Current live-module renderings can be seen in my sandbox (permalink).

    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    In {{cite map}}, a map that is a stand-alone document has its title rendered in italics, using |title= to hold that title. That title is then followed by the "(Map)" type. If the map is contained within another work, such as citing a map within an atlas, the title of the map is held in |map=, rendered in quotation marks and has the type following it. To wit:
    • Bureau of Public Roads; American Association of State Highway Officials (November 11, 1926). United States System of Highways Adopted for Uniform Marking by the American Association of State Highway Officials (Map). 1:7,000,000. Washington, DC: United States Geological Survey. OCLC 32889555.
    • Rand McNally (2023). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas 2024: United States, Canada Mexico (100th Anniversary Special Collector's ed.). c. 1:1,267,200. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. § Q9. ISBN 978-0-528-02718-5.
    Having that type indication shift positions like that makes sense to me. The atlas isn't the map, the map within it is the map. In another context, take a look at:
    • "Road Shift with State Well-Planned". The Mining Journal (Editorial). Marquette, Michigan. April 27, 2005. p. A6. ISSN 0898-4964.
    The implication there is that the newspaper itself is the editorial, as the type in parentheses is qualifying or describing the paper instead of describing the cited content within. If instead it renders as:
    • "Road Shift with State Well-Planned" (Editorial). The Mining Journal. Marquette, Michigan. April 27, 2005. p. A6. ISSN 0898-4964
    then we'd be clearing stating that the article cited is an editorial. The same could be said for any number of common descriptors of journal articles. Imzadi 1979  06:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello! As part of this discussion, can we move source generation to a separate page and break it down into types/variants? To make it easier to edit the sources display in other wiki projects? Iniquity (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand what it is that you are asking. cs1|2 doesn't do source generation whatever that is.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm mostly talking about the code that starts at line 3951. We talked to you a few months ago that it would be cool to be able to customize the display of sources to local standarts. You advised to use local templates, but it seems to me that this does not make sense since this module provides too many useful functions. Iniquity (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Another render of the source template? That is outside of the scope of this discussion but briefly, the code beginning at line 3951 is only part of the final rendering. If I understand what it is that you are asking, we must scour the code for anything that does any part of the rendering and somehow move those pieces to a new submodule without breaking the current renderings. If you want to discuss that, start a new discussion.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, thanks! :) Iniquity (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have removed Conference, Periodical, and Agency metaparameters from the book and journal tcommon assignments. I have also removed Format from all tcommon assignments because by the time execution reaches that point, Format (if it had been set) has been unset to empty string so inserting an empty string in the tcommon assignment is pointless.
    I wonder about how {{cite journal}} handles |others=. When the author and editor name-lists are empty, |others= is the first element of the rendered citation; when either or both author and editor name-list present, they immediately precede |others=:
    {{cite journal |author=Author-name-list |editor=Editor-name-list |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
    Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). Other-name-list. "Title". Journal. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)
    {{cite journal |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
    Other-name-list. "Title". Journal.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
    Compare to {{cite magazine}}:
    {{cite magazine |author=Author-name-list |editor=Editor-name-list |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |magazine=Magazine}}
    Author-name-list. Editor-name-list (ed.). "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list. {{cite magazine}}: |author= has generic name (help)
    {{cite magazine |others=Other-name-list |title=Title |magazine=Magazine}}
    "Title". Magazine. Other-name-list.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
    For consistency it seems to me that {{cite journal}} should render |others= in the same way as all other cs1 templates (same as {{cite magazine}}).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    archive-date mismatch error[edit]

    In footnote #3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asin_Road&oldid=1175617230

    There is a date mismatch between the archive URL and archive-date - the error was not being displayed or reported in the tracking category. I fixed the timestamp Special:Diff/1207477051/1208956488 and then it was reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asin_Road&oldid=1208956488

    This variation of timestamp for archive.today was in about 4,000 articles, and there were date mistmatch errors in about 100 of them not showing up in the tracking category. It should be cleaned up for now on enwiki, but likely exists in higher volume on other wikis. This variation is copy-pasted by users because archive.today uses it when clicking the "share" button. -- GreenC 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Fixed in sandbox:
    Cite news comparison
    Wikitext {{cite news|access-date=December 17, 2018|archive-date=May 23, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/2018.12.16-230102/https://www.manilatimes.net/dpwh-opens-new-road-to-baguio-2/483841/|first=William|last=Depasupil|publisher=Manila Times Publishing Corp.|title=DPWH opens new road to Baguio|url-status=dead|url=https://www.manilatimes.net/dpwh-opens-new-road-to-baguio-2/483841|work=[[The Manila Times]]}}
    Live Depasupil, William. "DPWH opens new road to Baguio". The Manila Times. Manila Times Publishing Corp. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved December 17, 2018.
    Sandbox Depasupil, William. "DPWH opens new road to Baguio". The Manila Times. Manila Times Publishing Corp. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved December 17, 2018. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 16, 2018 suggested (help)
    Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Refactoring the code for the final rendering[edit]

    Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.

    I attempted to fix the render [5], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.

    I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.

    In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.

    Source {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
    APA/CMS Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy36 (6): 1858—1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021.
    GOST Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021.

    Iniquity (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Typo in headline[edit]

    What do I do if the headline for a source appears to contradict the information in that source?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Vchimpanzee, can you give a specific example? Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could ask CBS to correct it, but after a year ...
    Text used as a source: "'Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades' will allow fans to vote on their favorite ads of the last 40+ years."
    James, Derek (February 7, 2023). "'Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades' to reflect on best ads of the last 4+ years". CBS News. Retrieved February 19, 2024.Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per MOS:TYPOFIX However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically).. That said, 4+ is not obviously a typo for 40+ without seeing the line Super Bowl Greatest Commercials: Battle of The Decades" will allow fans to vote on their favorite ads of the last 40+ years. from the article itself, so it might be worth adding a comment clarifying what the text actually says in the citation. Umimmak (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's still a draft and I haven't found enough for a comprehensive article, but it might become part of a larger article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't use the template, though this is what I was advised to do in a similar situation. That was recommended by someone here. I also contacted WCCO-TV (not sure whether they or CBS News is the "work") to see if they will correct it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When I click through to that CBS article, it says "40+ years", which appears to match the article content. If, hypothetically, the headline had said "4+ years", as it does at archive.org, and I were confident that "40+ years" was intended, I would probably write "[40+] years" in my citation, maybe with a note after the cite template explaining the notation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apparently after I reported the problem it was corrected.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Web citation (RefToolbar) - asking for Additional fill-in[edit]

    Asking for change to Web citation (RefToolbar) popup box.

    At the URL box, when the magnify glass is clicked, and it fills in additional (such as Title and Website name), can it also fill the Access date? This will be a time-saver as one-less thing to click on.

    Asking here, but wondering if I should request at VPT instead? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This is not the correct venue for that request. Try WT:RefToolbar. Don't expect much of a response.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. You're right-last talk there was in October 2023. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Questions about Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI[edit]

    The documentation at Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI states that this issue can be resolved by adding |doi-access=free, but "Exception are pages with {{Academic peer reviewed}} or {{Cite Q}} on them, where the update needs to be done in Wikidata."

    1. What specifically is the update that needs to be done in Wikidata?
    2. Is it OK to simply add |doi-access=free to {{Cite Q}} templates? (e.g. this edit and this edit)

    Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Cite book problem where "work" is not allowed[edit]

    I'm not sure what was intended. I went to the archived source and it seems to be part of a book. Pearl Milling Company#cite note-BIA-1Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Looks like a junk citation to me:
    {{cite book|last=Kern-Foxworth|first=Marilyn|title=Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus: Blacks in advertising, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow|publisher=Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press|year=1994|url=http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books/greenwood|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192836/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books%2Fgreenwood|archive-date=April 24, 2014|work=Public Relations Review|volume=16 (Fall):59}}
    • template uses {{cite book}} but seems to be citing something (a review?) in Public Relations Review
    • template links to what appears to be the book publisher: Greenwood Press
    • at the bottom of the archive snapshot of the chapter(?) the publisher provides MLA and CMOS citations; neither mention Public Relations Review though the author does have an article in that journal that is used as a source for the 'cited' article/chapter/whatever. Note that the referenced article is is from the same journal issue as is mentioned in the junk citation:
      —— (Autumn 1990). "Plantation kitchen to American icon: Aunt Jemima". Public Relations Review. 16 (3): 55–67. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(05)80069-4.
    Have you discussed this with the editor who created the junk citation? (perhaps this edit at Aunt Jemima?) What is it that they are really trying to cite? A chapter in a book? A book review? A journal article?
    Regardless, the citation is junk so the error message is correct and not the fault of {{cite book}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They've combined two refs that are for different works. One is for a book called "Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" and the other is an article titled "Plantation kitchen to American icon: Aunt Jemima". The article ref was being used to support a quote that is no longer used in either article, so the |work= and |volume= details can just be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]