Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NewFavicon icon.svg           Other talk page banners
Citation templates
... in conception
... and in reality

Updating the live version[edit]

Is there a timeline for when the CS1 modules get updated? If there isn't one, could we update them with the sandbox changes? Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

|location= without |publisher=[edit]

More often these days I have noticed that {{cite book}} templates created through visual editor have |location= but omit |publisher=. For example, this template, created at this edit, at Bipedidae:

{{Cite book |last=Vitt |first=Laurie J. |url= |title=Herpetology : an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles |date=2014 |others=Janalee P. Caldwell |isbn=978-0-12-386919-7 |edition=4th edition |location=Amsterdam |oclc=839312807}}
Vitt, Laurie J. (2014). Herpetology : an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles. Janalee P. Caldwell (4th edition ed.). Amsterdam. ISBN 978-0-12-386919-7. OCLC 839312807. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

It isn't just visual editor, using WP:RefToolbar and autofilling from the ISBN will also create a {{cite book}} template with |location= but without |publisher=.

{{cite book |last1=Vitt |first1=Laurie J. |title=Herpetology : an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles |date=2014 |location=Amsterdam |isbn=978-0-12-386919-7 |edition=4th}}
Vitt, Laurie J. (2014). Herpetology : an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles (4th ed.). Amsterdam. ISBN 978-0-12-386919-7.
It was my understanding that both ve and reftoolbar both use citoid but if that is true, it is interesting that the results are astonishingly dissimilar.

I begin to wonder if cs1|2 should emit an error message for {{cite book}} templates and for {{citation}} templates without a |work= alias when |location= has a value but |publisher= is omitted or empty.


Trappist the monk (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree; I'm not coming up with a situation where it's valid to have location and not publisher. I suppose there are questions around the best way to represent self-published books, but even then publisher should say something (self-published, privately printed, whatever). Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the error message for any template and not just {{cite book}}. But only after csdoc regarding § Publisher is written properly. The documentation includes a rarely-useful (for discovery purposes) author-related parameter (|place=created/written at) under the publisher section, and erroneously calls it an alias of |location=/|publication-place=, both of which refer to the publisher/imprint location. The latter parameters are very often included in bibliographic records and although their usefulness in discovery is marginal and their presence not necessary, they make no sense without |publisher=. (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation has long discouraged the use of |publisher= in some CS1 templates like {{cite news}} (Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work ...), so applying this requirement to templates other than {{cite book}} is probably not a good idea. Even for books, I suspect that this requirement would turn out to be overly fussy, with many situations in which publisher information is unavailable. We don't want unfixable error messages. What would our recommendation be in that case? |publisher=none would have to be accepted, but I think there would be complaints of the type "there was clearly a publisher of some kind, but the information doesn't exist, so 'none' is untruthful." – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed error message as I understand it, is to point out the error of including |location= without |publisher=. Unless Trappist means something else. Also, assuming the documentation re: place etc. is corrected, the module could be edited to make the location arg conditional on publisher. (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, {{cite book}} and, without |work= aliases, {{citation}} though {{cite conference}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite map}}, {{cite report}}, {{cite techreport}}, and {{cite thesis}} might also be checked. For the nonce, {{cite book}} and {{citation}}. I can imagine a sort of similar case for {{cite web}} which should not need and really shouldn't support, |location=.
It is relatively easy when using cirrus search to find something but not so easy to find the absence of something. I've asked at Wikipedia:Request a query § cite book template with |location=<location> and without |publisher=<publisher name> to see if there is a way to discover the magnitude of the issue beforehand. We can always start out with a maint cat and at a later date migrate to error messaging.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is not possible to do quarry searches of wikitext so that idea has fizzled.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: self-published works. The majority of modern self-published works are rarely self-published. Professional services are contracted by authors (instead of the normal, other way-around) and they may be involved in both the physical/digital technical, distribution and marketing of the work. In these cases, the parameter |via=publishing service is likely useful, as something similar would be included in cataloguing/classifiications of the work. (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed use of |via= conflicts with our documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
? Where is the conflict? The content-deliverer (the publishing service) is different from the publisher (the author, in self-published works). Also, in the real world, the names of such services are recorded for cataloguing purposes. (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mis-use |via= that way. We should still list the vanity press as the publisher. Imzadi 1979  16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way in an unreliable platform like Wikipedia. Wikitext statements and their supporting references have reliability, notability and neutrality requirements. As self-published sources are not prohibited in Wikipedia, such sources must explicitly identify as such. Omission slants reader evaluation of the offered information. I don't see any mis-use of |via= here. Not only is the formulation factual and within the use-cases, it provides important information about the nature of the source to the reader. (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not only for modern books. I have seen plenty of 17th and 18th-century book citations where the city of publication is known but there is no specific publisher listed. This continued push to make the citation templates as inflexible as possible is unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm drawing a blank on which established citation style said so, but one (or more) say to list location on old works such as that and omit the publisher, if known. Imzadi 1979  16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do an extensive search but, according to these websites:
  • APA uses '(n.p.)' when missing publisher or when missing both publisher and location
  • Harvard style uses '[no publisher]' and '[no place]'
  • Chicago style uses 'n.p.' (for both) or abbreviation of the Latin sine loco and sine nomine, 's.l.' and 's.n.'
No doubt, cs1|2 can adopt something similar if given, for example, |publisher=none and/or |location=none. This is not an insurmountable problem.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem at all. You are only making it a problem, by making it harder for anyone but a bot to properly format a correct citation, when a problem does not already exist. Instead just make a tracking category and check the results manually. It doesn't need to be an error. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had the same thoughts regarding old books, so I'm glad you made that point. Umimmak (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, sources must also be available as far as possible. How is a reader to verify text in an 18th-century book? If the work is notable, modern editions/reprints/fascimiles should be more generally available. Even assuming that the editor has access to such rare originals it is probably better to cite an available, trusted modern reprint. (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the reference is verifiable, then just that it is old shouldn't preclude it from being used as a reference. For example there are plenty of old works on the Internet Archive, and in major libraries.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But for a reference to be verified the source must first be discovered. Obviously facsimiles such as those provided by the Internet Archive's official archivists should probably be considered reliable reprints (sorry, I have found scan errors/missing sections in in-house IA scans as well). In contrast, third-party uploads to IA are questionable and should not be considered a priori reliable. I wonder how many libraries have original issues of 18th-century works... Isn't it just easier for everybody to use a readily available trusted reprint? Citations in Wikipedia are not there to support research on a subject, but to help someone quickly verify the text. (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:SOURCEACCESS - "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." - citation tools should not be used to overrule Policy, but should support it.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases old books can be found online at That does not make them new publications with as the publisher. They are still the same old book they were; is at best a |via= parameter rather than a publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not disputed, assuming the content delivery source is trusted. There was also the valid point of older works with a location and not publisher. The proposed solution was to use a modern, accessible reprint, which should be available if the original was in any way notable. Unless of course the original edition was specifically referred to in text (eg in an article about the original). Nobody is rejecting valid sources. But if the source cannot be consulted by verifiers in any form, original or reprint, the text cannot be verified and WP:V is violated. (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here. Trappist, the specialized citation systems you refer to above follow the classification shorthand of the cataloguing/trade/bibliographic resources they were based on, which for the US was mainly (but not solely) the Library of Congress cataloguing system. Publishers had to provide bibliographic information to LoC as one of the requirements in order to be quickly assigned copyright, based on a Library-assigned identifier. That was before the British SBN system became a global standard. For the purposes of Wikipedia (general audience) it is better to not use such shorthand whenever possible, or at least to provide a parallel formulation more understandable to the reader. (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, specialized? APA and Chicago are two of the external style guides from which cs1|2 gets its style. I was thinking that we could do something like |publisher=none rendering like this:
{{cite book |title=Title |location=San Francisco |publisher=none}}
Title. San Francisco: [no publisher]. – simulation
I was not suggesting that we adopt |location=(n.p.) etc as something for editors to write. Editor confusion has been seen with |date=n.d. and |date=n.d. so it might be better if we deprecate n.d. and nd and replace those keywords with none so:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=none}}
Title. [no date] – simulation
{{cite book |author=EB Green |title=Title |date=none}}
EB Green ([no date]). Title. – simulation
In {{cite book}}, leaving |publisher= blank when |location= has a value might be automatically treated as if |publisher=none were present plus an attendant category and maint/error message (non cat / no message when |publisher=none and / or |location=none explicitly stated).
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unfortunate that a citation style for general readership (a first) has to follow systems geared to an expert readership, with Chicago styles geared to either the humanities sector or the sciences sector, and APA having an even narrower focus. The entire basis is wrong, but it can be fixed to match the readership. Whether that happens is a different story. (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can sfn pull data from a CS1 template?[edit]

I was curious: Is it possible for {{sfn}} to pull metadata from a parent citation like {{cite book}}? I.e., if there was a parameter at the parent citation level for the Google Books or Internet Archive identifier, could sfn, which holds a specific page number, generate a direct link? E.g., |gbooks=d4v3QgfhPKwC in the parent template, and |p=243 in sfn, would together output "" in the short footnote. This would safe a lot of manual text in how page numbers are currently linked in sfn templates and make breakages easier to fix. czar 01:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is something MediaWiki does not support and any such attempts to "cross-talk" between templates even of the same kind have been removed in the past by the developers (i.e. are definitely not supported). At best with getContent you're talking something fragile as heck, and I don't even think that could do it today. Izno (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Out of curiosity and at risk of going off-topic, how is CS1 able to format its dates based on the existence of another date template elsewhere in the article, or is that an exception? czar 04:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Lua function called (roughly?) getContent, which gets the wikitext content of the page. Then it looks for the wikitext of interest. This is reasonably cheap because those are usually at the top of the article, and it's only done once a page in our case. It's probably something that won't be supported at some point in the indeterminate future, at least for same-page use, due directly to aforementioned issues, but on top of that the sfn version of the same would be much more expensive probably. Izno (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Series volume vs. volume[edit]

I suggest the {{Cite book}} template needs a |series-volume= parameter. Many series are organized in volumes, and some editors are changing |title=The Odyssey|series=Masterworks, vol. 152 (-> The Odyssey. Masterworks, vol. 152.) to |title=The Odyssey|series=Masterworks|volume=152 (-> The Odyssey. Masterworks. Vol. 152.), which is misleading. The problem becomes worse, and beyond the template's capability, if the work itself is published in volumes: Kenilworth. Masterworks, vol. 123. Vol. 2.. Our German colleagues have implemented that at de:Vorlage:Literatur with |BandReihe= [volume series]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand where the problem is. Why is the second rendering misleading? Isn't the series name "Masterworks"? It is pretty obvious that "volume" refers to the series volume. (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I constructed the examples not clearly enough. If |series-volume= and |volume= are closer in value to each other, the problem is more obvious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022[edit]

@VJV7: This is a blank edit request, please advise if amend is requested? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: add |since= or |since-date= parameter[edit]

Some web pages have a precise beginning date but are continuously updated. It makes no sense in these cases to use the |date= parameter, but it would make much more sense to implement a |since= or (alternatively) a |since-date= parameter. This would be displayed, using 15 January 2022 as an example, as “(since 15 January 2022)”. --Grufo (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you just use |access-date=? The original date, if known, doesn't seem relevant. Indagate (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If pages are constantly updated and the website is maintained properly, then it is likely that the update date will be published on the page. In this case, |date=update-date. If an update date is not listed, the options are not good. You can use a copyright date if available on the page. If the latter is not available you can use |date=n.d. or similar. The access date signals the date you accessed the information; it may or may not coincide with the publication date, and should be used independently of the latter whenever it is appropriate. You may also want to add a {{link note}} outside the citation such as [continuously updated source], especially if you have used a no-date date such as "n.d.". (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the argument against |since=? For example, this page is used in 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis for the number of Ukrainian refugees that reached France. The page was published on April 22, but the actual number of refugees gets updated every couple of days. Currently the following text is shown:

French Government (22 April 2022). "Foire aux questions – Accueil des réfugiés ukrainiens" [Frequently asked questions – Reception of Ukrainian refugees]. Ministry of the Interior of France (in French). Retrieved 29 April 2022."

I am proposing a way to show this text instead,

French Government (since 22 April 2022). "Foire aux questions – Accueil des réfugiés ukrainiens" [Frequently asked questions – Reception of Ukrainian refugees]. Ministry of the Interior of France (in French). Retrieved 29 April 2022."

in which “22 April 2022” becomes “since 22 April 2022”. --Grufo (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although editors have a choice of formats for the publication date, they have no choice for the date itself. You must use the publication date that appears in the source. "22 April" is one date (type:exact). "Since 22 April" is a different date (type:open range). If the source uses the exact date (as in this case) then you must use that date, as this is how the work will be best discovered. The |access-date= will indicate which version was actually accessed. If you want to "freeze" that version in the resulting citation, you should preemptively archive the page and add the archive information and relevant parameters to the citation, so that the archived version would be linked by default. An additional option is to present the source's fuzziness in wikitext, e.g. "according to frequently updated information, the number of heads on a pin was between zero and infinity on (citation-access-date)." (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The |access-date= parameter will indicate which version was accessed, but will not indicate that the page is constant update and different versions exist by design. Instead, |since= – i.e. “(since 22 April 2022)” – will indicate that the page was created exactly on 22 April with the explicit design of being constantly updated. --Grufo (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not concerned with bibliographic information such as the design characteristics of the source, unless they directly impact discovery. In the example you provided, the source has an exact publication date. That is the date that the source will subsequently be classified with, and therefore the date by which it will most efficiently be found. There were several options given above to add the update information outside the citation, where it belongs: a {{link note}} and/or explanatory wikitext in the body or a footnote. These, combined with |archive-url=, |archive-date=, |access-date= and the implied default value of |url-status= will both give the update information and capture the version the article requires. (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose as an alternative to |since= does not provide the reader with the information that the referenced page is in constant update. Newspapers often have “Live updates” pages, and these are usually treated differently (for example, the information that the page is in constant update normally accompanies the link to it). I understand that this is a new habit, born after internet was created, but this is precisely the time we live in. --Grufo (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood. The purpose of the citation is to provide the source of the material the editor used in wikitext, so that the reader can verify it. The fact that the source is dynamic has nothing to do with it. The editor is supposed to cite the version accessed. This is presently covered by the methods described above. (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a reference is to provide a source, together with its context (is it a book? a newspaper? a conference? a constantly updated webpage?). What I do fail to understand is what kind of inconvenience the |since= parameter would create according to you and why you oppose it. --Grufo (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context is evident from the source one uses, and citations do not need to make it explicit. You can do this in accompanying text, if it is needed e.g. "according to CNN..." etc. Citations in Wikipedia exist to satisfy WP:V. The source information included must satisfy one requirement: it must help in some way to discover the source. Anything else is inconvenient, as clutter. Sources, especially continuing resources are often classified by date, and that is one way to be found. In my experience, I have not seen ever a date field anywhere that accepts "since" as part of the date. (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I came here proposing this solution, maybe there are situations where the context is not evident at all, as shown also by Peter coxhead. This page says that it was published on 22 April and that in France there are 51 375 refugees. The problem is that some days ago the same page published on 22 April said that the number of refugees was less than 50 000. The page does not say anywhere that it is constantly updated; I found out only by visiting it again after some days. Once again, you fail to explain why you oppose a |since= parameter, and limit yourself only to saying that you oppose it (“period”). P.S. “(since 22 April)” is a date, and does qualify as a means for classifying sources, if needed. --Grufo (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal. There are sources that I use that explicitly say to use "since DATE", when I am forced to use a manual citation in order to respect their statement. (E.g. the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website – see here.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good example. There are several things to note here:

If you want to cite this site, "Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 14, July 2017 [and more or less continuously updated since]." will do.

Note that the offered citation format is about the work (website), not a specific webpage (in-work location). Notice also that the update info is in [brackets], as an editor interpolation. The webpage itself (the in-work location) has an update date, just before the "Introductory" section

Page last updated: 01/10/2022 15:17:01

CS1/2 uses a different format, in which the version publication date (July 2017) should be used as the publication date of the website. The value |orig-date=originally published 2001 can be used, but it is not necessary. You may also add the info re:updating in that value. However, since the update date for the in-work location is given, and since presumably the wikitext depends on the updated information, then I would use the update date as publication date, and as you are citing a specific "edition" (version 14), I would probably use the version's date (July 2017) as the |orig-date=. Some of the acrobatics could be avoided by the use of pre-emptive archiving as discussed above.
The bottom line is, can the source be easily found with the way CS1/2 formats citations now? And what is the relative need and cost of adding yet another field, or of expanding the allowable date formats? (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Since' just makes no sense. Since what? Since when? What since? What does it even mean to have say [Reference, Since 2009]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed parameter is not warranted because editors adding citations will usually not be able to determine when the website, or the portion of the website providing the information that supports the Wikipedia article claim, began operation. Even if it is possible, by the time the reader goes to the page to confirm the accuracy of the Wikipedia article or obtain more details the information about when website operation began may no longer be present or may be very difficult to find. The purpose of the citation is not to describe the source for the benefit of the reader who doesn't intend to read the source; it is for the benefit of the reader who does intend to read the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is not very clear to me. Currently Wikipedia does not forbid to use “live” sources (like this one, for example). It seems you are suggesting that the |since= parameter will make it difficult to find an information due to it coming from a live source, and therefore the parameter should not be implemented. The problem is that not implementing the |since= parameter will not prevent editors from linking live sources – we already do that and the |since= parameter does not exist yet – but instead will only prevent editors from describing the source as “actively updated”. Both with and without a |since= parameter, the only way to make sure that an information remain easily findable is to use the |archive-date= parameter. --Grufo (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "via" to Template:Cite AV media[edit]

How do we do it to the cite template's TemplateData? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792  Done by Sophivorus in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template parameter assistance[edit]

At {{Cite web}}, I am having trouble with the "|url-access=" parameter to say it requires a subscription at Jordan Poole citation 82.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks moderately correct:
{{cite web|url=|title=How Warriors’ Jordan Poole beat Steph Curry in the NBA’s biggest mind game|accessdate=May 3, 2022|date=April 29, 2022|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|author=Kroichick, Ron|quote=The ever-cool Poole finished the season by sinking 28 consecutive shots from the line.|url-access=subscription}}
Kroichick, Ron (April 29, 2022). "How Warriors' Jordan Poole beat Steph Curry in the NBA's biggest mind game". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved May 3, 2022. The ever-cool Poole finished the season by sinking 28 consecutive shots from the line.
Using {{cite news}} is probably a better choice. Instead of |section=Sports (an alias of |chapter= which is not supported in {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}) use |department=Sports
Since what you wrote is moderately correct, what is the problem that you are having?
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I mouseover citation 82 in the text, I don't see the red lock. Now that I am thinking to look down in the references, I see what you are saying. I guess my problem is that the mouseover does not present the same as the refence section at the bottom and I did not know that there was a difference. I guess it is working correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 01:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, yeah, you won't see the access icon. That tool, apparently, doesn't understand css.
Trappist the monk (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 – TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite AV media: more params to match {{Cite episode}} ?[edit]

For stuff that airs on TV that is not part of a episode of a show, it seems like there should be additional parameters for Cite AV, to allow specifying airdate and network. If one is referencing a TV special, a telefilm documentary, or such, it would seem that network and airdate would be useful to have around. -- (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also need the parameter "via" added to this cite template. Trappist the monk, can something be done about this? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already supported:
{{cite av media |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |via=Via}}
Title. Publisher – via Via.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What of "airdate" and "network" ? -- (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

standard templates question[edit]

Hello. I'm sure these things are set in stone since we are 20+ years in to this project, but I'm curious if there have ever been attempts to add a field for "Volume" to the standard book citation template, or a field for "Section" to the standard news template. A suggestion was made to use "Department" for "Section", although "Department", to me, has more to do with the organization of a newspaper as a business entity, and not as much to do with the organization of the physical newspaper itself. Thank you! Caro7200 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For attempts to add a field for "Volume" to the standard book citation template: Yes, and the attempt was successful:
{{cite book |title=Title |volume=123}}
Title. Vol. 123.
The rendering has, of course, changed over time.
The |department= option came from me at a discussion at User talk:Trappist the monk § Newspapers. Another option I mentioned was use to combine section and page enumerators in |at=.
I don't recall any specific discussion about making |section= be anything other than an alias of |chapter=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Department" ... has more to do with the organization of a newspaper as a business entity, and not as much to do with the organization of the physical newspaper itself. This seems correct, but for citation purposes the terminology is interchangeable in news sources. However as a field name "section" may be ambiguous. Does it refer to paginated sections, e.g. "Sports" section pp. x–y? A section in a page, e.g. "Weather" p. x col. y? A titled section in an article e.g. "X did Y", § "Reaction from Z"? A bunch of paragraphs in an article, e.g. "A bashes B" ¶¶ 2–3? (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number and issue[edit]

  • "MacKenrot's Memoirs". Niles' Weekly Register. Baltimore. 9 (4): 53. 23 September 1815. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)

Is there a way to display both the issue in volume and the overall number, of a publication? I'm getting a CS1 error by specifying this. -- (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you are trying to cite. (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, fixed the missing journal line -- (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 212th publication of this journal, which occurs as volume 9 number 4, published on 1815-09-23. I would think there should be a way to indicate the overall number (no. 212) as well as the number in volume (no.4 of vol.9) -- (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in library science terminology the 212 is called a "whole number". More about whole numbering. According to that source, it's a good idea to provide both if available to allow matching more easily. If we did support whole numbering it would need to be indicated as being a whole number. It is implied if no volume. In this case there is both volume+number and a whole number. -- GreenC 03:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep in mind that citations in Wikipedia are not bibliographic records, and not all bibliographic systems may use the whole number. Library systems may also use their own classifications, and not all of these may use a whole number. The issue in question can be discovered easily with the available CS1\2 facility, the combination date+volume/issue. There are several OCLC records for this source, including OCLC 1012039238, which provides links to the magazine's archive at IA, uploaded by the Boston Public Library. The specific in-source location is here: in-source location. Use {{cite magazine}}, and do not use the "whole number", which is mostly for the use of librarians. (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could hack it a bit if you feel that both items are useful:
  • "MacKenrot's Memoirs". Niles' Weekly Register. Vol. 9, issue 4, no. 212. Baltimore. 23 September 1815. p. 53.
Or something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect use. The "volume" parameter should only have volume information, not whatever the editor thinks it should have. Secondly, and more important, it is confusing to readers. What does it even mean? Is this the 4th issue of the 9th volume? If the issue number refers to a magazine issue number, what does the other number stand for? Is the issue actually 4 or is it 212? Why is it there in the first place, and should I use it to discover the source? Or use both? Will it help? Confusion. Citations are there for readers, not editors, and readers are not supposed to agonize over them. It is interesting that this simple fact has to be pointed out again and again and again. (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Showing both would help in finding the resource, should one or the other be used but not the other -- (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "What does it even mean?", you would have to ask the magazine's publisher. If the issue states that it is volume 9, issue 4, number 212, then that information may be needed to locate the issue on a library shelf or database, or to verify by looking at the magazine cover that you have the issue you seek. Citations exist to help readers verify information by finding the cited sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The particular source is classified by volume and issue number only. The main bibliographic provider for this publication seems to be the US Library of Congress, their catalog entry is here. Notice that the secondary numbering ("Whole number" and alternate volume/issue numbers) are in a "Description" field. This format is used by several other downstream metadata providers supplied by the LoC. The New York Public Library, another primary biblio provider, has the additional numbering in a "Numbering notes" field in its Research catalog (here, scroll to "Details"). The Boston Public Library, which uploaded the publication to Internet Archive as authoritative scans, adds that info in a "Notes" field (here, click on "Full details"). Most downstream metadata providers whose product is freely accessible by Wikipedia readers (via Amazon searches, Google searches etc) do not index these fields for quick retrieval. If they do, they are secondary indices whose search results may appear in the first results page or the 34th. The descriptions and notes themselves are terse and likely confusing to the average reader. They are there for people whose job is to retrieve this information for lay readers, when the lay person may know any of these numbers without knowing "better" information that is always indexed: the date, article title, author, or issue number+volume. So the additional numbering info is of secondary value in discovering the source. However, all of the above are moot, because the source exists online on the web, at a stable repository, uploaded by a reliable provider as a free resource. Which makes this the most important information to be included in any citation of the source. That is how the reader will find it fast to verify the article wikitext.
Including the secondary information in a citation without further explanation is confusing: the proposed "volume 9, issue 4, no. 212" could mean anything. Perhaps volume 9 has been issued 4 times and includes 212 (or more) issues? Does the "no." refer to the 212th part of issue 4 instead? To disentagle all that an outside note would be required. But the editor should fill in the |volume= and |issue= fields as they are most likely to be found: |volume=9 |issue=4. (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine the actual cover page, it includes all 3 numbers, the volume, the issue, the whole number. It is not an exercise in mathematics figuring out what the whole number is. It is published right on the printed page. So, I would expect that some people might just classify it that way -- (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Citation bot's formatting of various citation templates[edit]

There is currently a discussion at the Citation bot's talk page in regards to how the bot/tool formats certain websites/content publishers within specific citation templates. The discussion can be found here: User talk:Citation bot#Automatic cite magazine conversions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use a "|" within a cite web template[edit]

I am trying to use a "|" character in a {{cite web}} template. It is causing problems I have tried to wrap it in ""{{}}" which undoes the break but does not present cleanly. See Duncan Robinson (basketball).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{!}} Izno (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Locate what it is that you want to cite and then use |page=. The writers of "Michigan Basketball History & Records" couldn't be bothered to use the 'Section <nn> | <title>' headings anywhere but on the first page so those 'headings' are useless as search terms. Fortunately the document is paginated so use |page= or |pages= and ignore the headings.
{{|}} is not a template but {{!}} is.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken re "couldn't be bothered": the link in this citation goes only to a single section of a larger document. So the reason the other section headings do not appear is that the other sections themselves do not appear. A vertical bar within a title is usually a mistake caused by software that automates the conversion of urls to citations. Splitting it out into separate pieces of metadata in separate parameters and standardizing the punctuation is usually a better choice. Because this is a part of a larger work, it is reasonable in this case to use |title= for the part and |work= for the larger work:
  • {{cite web|url=|work=Michigan Basketball History & Records|title=Section 1: All-Time Records|accessdate=May 7, 2022|publisher=Board of Regents of the University of Michigan}}
  • "Section 1: All-Time Records" (PDF). Michigan Basketball History & Records. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved May 7, 2022.
David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chapter in cite conference[edit]

The existence of |chapter= in {{cite conference}} should be an error that CS1/2 tracks. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That parameter is used in roughly 500 pages. Are they all errors? It appears that |chapter= and |title= are interpreted as |title= and |book-title=, which is a clever bit of processing and makes sense, given that conference proceedings are essentially a book. Here's one that appears to be working fine: Liskov, Barbara; Zilles, Stephen (1974). "Programming with abstract data types". Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Very High Level Languages. SIGPLAN Notices. Vol. 9. pp. 50–59. CiteSeerX doi:10.1145/800233.807045.
That is from Abstract data type. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but some. When |chapter= |title= and |book-title= are all set, then error. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Custom note[edit]

How to add custom note if user has to click something to access content? Should I use "format" parameter? Eurohunter (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misuse parameters. |format= is to be used to identify the electronic file format of the associated url; nothing else. To add a note:
<ref>{{cite web |title=Title |url=//}} <important note goes here></ref>
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: I think there should be separate parameter for custom note. Eurohunter (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new idea but it has not gotten sufficient support to be implemented. Here are two previous conversations:
There may be other discussions in the archives that I didn't find.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why can't author names which are presented in normal order, same as our article titles, not be wikilinked? The instruction says: author: this parameter is used to hold the complete name of a single author (first and last) or to hold the name of a corporate author. This parameter should never hold the names of more than one author. Do not wikilink—use author-link instead.

I always assumed that author-link was used when the template was being used as a alphabetical source link so the author names were presented surname first, and so couldn't be linked. But that it was OK to wikilink when the template is being used for numbered citations and so the author parameter is used to present the name in normal order, same as our article titles. The result appears to be the same - a wikilink takes the reader to the article, and author-link takes the reader to the article. So, does author-link do something extra that I'm not aware of? SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to wikilink |author<n=:
{{cite book |title=Title |author=[[Abraham Lincoln]]}}
Abraham Lincoln. Title.
The "Do not wikilink..." text was added to the documentation at this edit for a confused editor. Perhaps Editor Jonesey95 can clarify...
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, Trappist the monk, it was one of your edits that prompted me to look into the author-link situation - you delinked a wikilink in order to add an author-link: [1]. I wondered why you did that, but rather than troubling you, came to the template documentation to see what the rule was. According to the rule, what you did was correct. I assume the edit was semi-automatic. SilkTork (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the archives of this talk page and my own talk page in the date range surrounding that edit (Feb 2020), and I did not find a relevant discussion. I do not know why I added that text. I see that many parallel parameters have the same admonition. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For |last= (assuming that the value assigned to |last= is a family name) and |first=, the 'do-not-wikilink' wording is appropriate. For author? Not so much, I think. If the source author is a corporate name or mononym, wikilinking that name is acceptable. Because we have historically equated |last= with |author= as full and complete aliases, those parameters get identical handling in Module:Citation/CS1. Over time, we have become more strict on wikilinking |first= so we might consider enforcing the do-not-wikilink for |last= and |surname= and similarly for |contributor-last=, |editor-last=, |interviewer-last=, |translator-last=...
Or somehow change the documentation so that it better describes the intent of |author= v. |last=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. You changed this:
{{cite web | last = Chaucer | first = Geoffrey |url= |title=The Prologe of the Reves Tale|author-link = Geoffrey Chaucer | at= line 3906 |publisher= Harvard University| access-date= 20 June 2019}}
Chaucer, Geoffrey. "The Prologe of the Reves Tale". Harvard University. line 3906. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
to this:
{{cite web | author = [[Geoffrey Chaucer]] |url= |title=The Prologe of the Reves Tale|author-link = Geoffrey Chaucer | at= line 3906 |publisher= Harvard University| access-date= 20 June 2019}}
Geoffrey Chaucer. "The Prologe of the Reves Tale". Harvard University. line 3906. Retrieved 20 June 2019. {{cite web}}: Check |author= value (help)
which, as you can see, causes Module:Citation/CS1 to emit an error message. It was that error message that attracted my attention so I changed your edit by removing the wikilink in |author=[[Geoffrey Chaucer]] and by moving the existing |author-link=Geoffrey Chaucer so that is followed |author=, changed |publisher= to |website=, added |archive-url= and |archive-date=, and fixed |title=.
The edit was a manual edit augmented by a cleanup script that converted curley quotes to straight quotes.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that explains it. My own edit was prompted by the previous edit [2] which had replaced the natural name author parameter with a reversed author name plus adding the author-link parameter. I hadn't tidied up properly by removing the author-link parameter, so thanks for doing that.
"Or somehow change the documentation so that it better describes the intent of |author= v. |last=" - that makes sense. |last= is applicable only when the template is being used to create an alphabetical list of authors used as sources, such lists being placed after the references section; while |author= is applicable when the template is being used to create a numbered list of sources for the references section. I don't think this usage is made clear, and quite commonly |last= is used for all citations, so authors' names are frequently reversed in the numbered references section as well as the alphabetical list, so the author names in the numbered list read awkwardly; and it doesn't make sense because the numbered list is not alphabetical, so there is no point in reversing people's names. As an existing error it is somewhat tolerable, but when editors deliberately change |author= to |last= it becomes irksome. SilkTork (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a correct understanding. We prefer but do not require the use of the last/first parameters for multiple reasons, wherever they appear. The author parameter should be used almost exclusively when last would be an inappropriate description, such as for organizational names. Izno (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Izno's reply. Two additional points: short references use the last name as common practice, when there is one (there are uncommon exceptions). The related long citation list is very often arranged by alpha. Secondly, most listings of citable material, whether these are marketing lists, repository lists, library lists etc. mainly arrange/index their lists by author's last name if there is one. By offering that information first, a Wikipedia citation signals the reader the easiest/fastest way to find the source. (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make "original" unclickable for archived dead links?[edit]

I'm frequently confused when I quickly want to access an archived link. If the link is (likely) dead, I can click the second link in the citation ("Archived"), and if the link is live, I want to click the first link (not "original"). Example live link with archive:[1] Example dead link with archive[2]

I often find myself clicking on the 'original', which leads to the dead link. It's very rarely a link anybody would want to click, so why give them the option?

The Italian Wikipedia has a better display here in my opinion, with something like {{hover title}}, which prevents you from clicking the url but still displays it: [3] (or see an example on itwiki)

Do other people have the same issue? And would this be an improvement here too?


  1. ^ "The Ozone Hole". British Antarctic Survey. 1 April 2017. Archived from the original on 4 March 2022. Retrieved 2022-05-07.
  2. ^ Leslie, Mitch (December 2007). "The Strange Lives of Polar Dinosaurs". Smithsonian Magazine. Archived from the original on 30 January 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
  3. ^ Leslie, Mitch (December 2007). "The Strange Lives of Polar Dinosaurs". Smithsonian Magazine. Archived from the original on 30 January 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2008.

Femke (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When hovering over a link, it shows up in the lower bar of the browser. I find it clear and consistent. The Italian way is interesting, but changes the location of where to look during hover which adds a new level of complexity. It also makes it hard to copy-paste the URL with right-click-copy-link which is useful at times. I think the main reason for the Italian way is to prevent users from clicking on the presumed dead link. But it's not always accurate the primary link is dead - sometimes it is incorrectly marked dead, sometimes they come back alive - by hiding behind a hover it makes it less likely this problem will be detected and fixed. -- GreenC 21:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of pre-emptive archiving, both links are live, and the default link is the archive link. This way, when/if the original link becomes unavailable there will be no effect on verifiability. In the meantime, it is not a good idea, for both semantic and presentation reasons, to replace the still-live original with a non-linking URL. (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite letter with no author[edit]

{{Cite letter}} is based on {{Cite press release}}, anyway the absence of an author (optional according to template documentation) returns a maintenance error, even if the latter template suggests |author=<!--Not stated-->. Is there a workaround? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation is confusing, as it shows "first" and "last" among the required patameters, but as optional in the TemplateData rendition. I would use |author=[Unknown] (or Anonymous), if it works. In general, letters need attention. They should be treated as primary sources with the corresponding reliability & notability issues. Their publisher is very important, for the same reasons. 2603:7000:2B42:BB00:ED36:A005:6AE4:C278 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion worked, thank you.--Carnby (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation span tags[edit]

Ive noticed that when a citation error is produced (E.g. "example". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)), the resulting html has the error split across 2 or more <span>s, as seen below (Ive split the 2 spans wih a newline).

<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>: </span>
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> (<a href="/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#cite_web_url" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>

However, when a maintenance notice is produced (E.g. "example". 1970.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)), the resulting html is always across 1 entire <span>, as seen below

<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>:  CS1 maint: date and year (<a href="/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_date_and_year" title="Category:CS1 maint: date and year">link</a>)</span>

Ive also noticed the function for adding errors in the module /Utilities is significantly more advanced than for adding maintenance messages. Is there at all any reason for this? Id assume it would be easier for both to be across 1 entire span, as the same class is used throughout, but there might be some underlying reason im not aware of. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance messages are always default hidden. Most error messages are visible but some are default hidden. Error messages are always emitted, hidden or not. For example, {{cite journal}} requires |journal= so when that parameter is empty of omitted, cs1|2 emits an appropriate error message. But, due to politics, that error message is hidden:
{{cite journal |title=Title |date=November}}
"Title". November. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_journal" title="Template:Cite journal">cite journal</a>}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-hidden-error citation-comment">Cite journal requires <code class="cs1-code">&#124;journal=</code> (<a href="/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#missing_periodical" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">&#124;date=</code> (<a href="/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#bad_date" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>
User css can override the cs1-hidden-error class.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the discussion where this was decided? I don't remember it. Omitting the source from a citation is not trivial. (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the decision to hide work-missing errors. (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This update:
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60 § update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019
spawned this drama:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313 § Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint there was about {{cite web}} requiring |website= and {{cite news}} requiring |newspaper=, both of which were subsequently reverted. No-one objected to {{cite journal}} requiring |journal=. Kanguole 16:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That and the deprecated |dead-url= error messages were the biggest parts of the complaints, sure. But there was a vocal crowd advocating a complete reversion of the 3 September 2020 update. To forstal that, I disabled missing-news and missing-website tests and hid deprecated and missing-periodical (journal, magazine) error messaging. We did not have to revert the whole damn thing but as a result, missing periodical error messages are still hidden.
And this is all that I am going to say on this sub-topic.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up some of these discussions, I forgot I had actually participated. Sordid re-reading... On a personal note, I do not think that Wikipedia will ever produce proper citation system(s) for its readers. Nobody is asking them, or even bothers to educate them to the fact that they must verify everything they read in article space. The problem is not Wikipedia per se. In general imo, article/story writers rarely make good article/story editors, and neither make good designers of either the presentation or its technical aspects. A different approach may be needed here. (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: This conversation above has actually made me notice what could be a bug. Due to the way ive got my css setup, not only are all errors shown, but i have seperate background highlighting for each, and I noticed the ; in the journal example was unhighlighted, and therefore not inside any span tags. I checked with default css (AKA not being able to see the hidden error), and yep, to other people theres just a magically appearing semicolon in the citation error output. Aidan9382 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that semicolon is there. It's there to separate items in a list of error messages. Could be removed or some code could be written to move the semicolon into the spans, I suppose, but the better solution, from the editor point of view, is to fix the cause of the error messages – then no stray semicolons...
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]