Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

|Editor= (capital "E") not flagged in {{Cite book}}?[edit]

This capitalized |Editor= appears to work just fine. I believe that it should be flagged as unsupported.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | Editor=James Wilson | publisher=On the Line Inc. | year=2006 | place=Seattle | title=Book about super trains | chapter=All the great shows }}
Old "All the great shows". Book about super trains. Seattle: On the Line Inc.. 2006. 
Live James Wilson, ed. (2006). "All the great shows". Book about super trains. Seattle: On the Line Inc. 

I haven't looked at the code yet to see why this capitalized parameter is accepted, but I will do so if I have time.Jonesey95 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's on the Whitelist. That's odd. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's also been in the main module for years; I've just never noticed. It looks like we also allow |Author= and |Ref= and |DoiBroken=, with all other parameters, except for initialisms, in lower case only. I think we should deprecate the capitalized form of all of these parameters. Are they in our documentation anywhere? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The supported alternative capitalizations were each part of one or more of the pre-Lua templates and hence were pulled in to maintain backward compatibility. Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. It's been two years since then, however, and I think it's time to bid them farewell. Maybe a maintenance category to ease into this transition? I have a nice AutoEd script that I use to clean up unsupported parameters (usually capitalization and misspelling errors), and it would work just fine on such a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
insource:/\| *Author *=/ 25 instances
insource:/\| *Editor *=/ 332 instances; |Editor= is used by {{Infobox television episode}}
insource:/\| *Ref *=/ 47 instances; |Ref= is accepted by the {{harv}} family of templates
insource:/\| *DoiBroken *=/ none found
insource:/\| *EditorGiven *=/ none found
insource:/\| *EditorSurname *=/ 2 instances
insource:/\| *Embargo *=/ none found; we might want to think about removing |embargo= in the cases where the embargo has expired
insource:/\| *PPrefix *=/ none found
insource:/\| *PPPrefix *=/ none found
Presumably there are numbered versions: |Authorn=, |Editorn= and perhaps |EditorGivenn= and |EditorSurnamen=.
Given these low numbers, I don't have a problem deprecating the author and editor parameters and killing the others.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that I have fixed all of the instances of the above parameters that needed to be fixed, i.e. they were in citation templates and were populated with a value. It has been my experience that the insource search doesn't always find everything, so there may be a few more that crop up in the deprecated parameter category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

These are now deprecated:


and these are invalidated:


For PMCs with |embargo= that have expired, a new maintenance category:

Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | title=Title | embargo=3 June 2015 | pmc=12345 | journal=Journal }}
Live "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. 
Sandbox "Title". Journal. PMC 12345. 
embargo expired today
Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | title=Title | embargo=4 June 2015 | pmc=12345 | journal=Journal }}
Live "Title". Journal. PMC: 12345. 
Sandbox "Title". Journal. PMC: 12345. 
embargo expired today

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that |Ref= is still a valid parameter name. Is there a reason to keep it? I can think of none. It's probably still valid merely because of mistake on my part.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This capitalized parameter should be changed to deprecated or unsupported, per the discussion above. It looks like we all missed removing it in the last round, even though it was discussed above.
Would you be willing to create a Monkbot task (or would GoingBatty be willing to create a BattyBot task) to scan the deprecated parameters category for these capitalized parameters and change them to lower-case? The category is so overwhelmed with |coauthors= that it is hard for a human editor to find |month= and Ref and other rare deprecated parameters in there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have an AWB script that works on these plus others listed in the table at Help:CS1_errors#Cite_uses_deprecated_parameters. I have just added |Ref= to it.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB volunteer to clean up Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language?[edit]

Now that multiple languages are recognized in |language=, do we have an AWB-savvy volunteer who can fix up articles in Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language?

There are many articles that have multiple valid languages that just need some cleanup, converting usages like "English & German" and "English / German" to comma-delimited format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the code in the module already handles the examples you give above - many of the articles in that maintenance category don't show the green text maintenance tag, and a WP:NULLEDIT clears the article from populating the category. And in the case of usages with English as one of multiple languages, I've found that using a comma-delimited list actually puts it back into another maintenance category.
Consider the following edits of 3D pose estimation (reference #1 in each case) - an article originally with |language=English / German [1] doesn't show a green text tag. If you try to use comma, |language=English, German [2] causes the reference to then receive a green maintenance tag and it goes into Category:CS1 maint: English language specified. Changing to |language=English & German [3] clears the maintenance tag again. Stamptrader (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I got the impression from the discussion above that only comma-separated values would be accepted. Two languages (or non-languages) separated by an ampersand or a slash seems to render without emitting an error message, however:
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=foo & bar | title=Book title }}
Live Book title (in foo & bar). 
Sandbox Book title (in foo & bar). 

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=foo / bar | title=Book title }}
Live Book title (in foo / bar). 
Sandbox Book title (in foo / bar). 

Something is not quite right here.
And an article in "Latvian and English" should not be placed in Category:CS1 maint: English language specified, in my opinion. A bilingual or mixed-language article should be able to be described as such, even if one of the languages is English. I don't feel strongly about it, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The failure to categorize the two above examples is caused by a bug that I introduced when I moved static text out of Module:Citation/CS1 into Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Fixed in the sandbox.
Without some opinion either way I left the English language detector code alone. I think it's relatively simple to limit English language categorization to the single language case.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Over the past few days I ran an AWB script that changed |language= parameters with multiple languages to the comma delimited form on about 1750 pages. I have come to believe that multiple language sources that include English as one of the languages should not add the category Category:CS1 maint: English language specified. I have tweaked the sandbox accordingly.

|language= used to categorize into the same categories as those used by {{icon xx}} templates (Category:Articles with xx-language external links). The {{icon xx}} templates only categorize from article space. As I think about it, this constraint ought not apply to CS1/2. We have a defined set of name spaces that we don't categorize, I see no real reason to treat |language= in a special manner. That being the case, I have adjusted the code so that the |language= uses the same categorization rules as every other parameter.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en,fr | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English and French). 
Sandbox Title (in English and French). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English). 
Sandbox Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through this list and I'm not seeing the CS1 maintenance message on some of the pages. For example, Anton incident (last edited 2014) contains |language=English ([ Finnish]) and is currently on the 1st page of Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language, yet I fail to see an unknown language error anywhere on the page. My common.css has the appropriate line of code to see maintenance messages, and I've null-edited the page. Is this a bug, a feature, or my fault?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The bug that I introduced fails to categorize unrecognized languages. That whole long string is considered to be one language name because there isn't a comma separator.
{{Cite web/new | title = Stubb Defends Father and Consulate in Custody Battle | url = | publisher = [[YLE]] | date = 15 May 2008 | accessdate = 2009-05-16 | language = English ([ Finnish])}}
"Stubb Defends Father and Consulate in Custody Battle" (in English (Finnish)). YLE. 15 May 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-16. 
The bug is fixed in the sandbox.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion at Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter has me wondering if we should adopt something similar to what is done at fr:WP. There, when |language=français or |language=fr, they simply don't display the language annotation. We could do the same thing here when |language=English or |language=en.

Should we?

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If we do this, it has been proposed at Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter that the practice of deleting |language=en and |language=English be stopped. If we are to hide English language annotation and leave |language= in the templates then use of Category:CS1 maint: English language specified should be discontinued and instead, we should create a new subcategory of Category:CS1 properties that is not a subcategory of Category:CS1 foreign language sources. Perhaps Category:CS1 English language sources. I don't know to what purpose we could put such a category because use of |language=English will not be universal and it would be inappropriate for the module to assume that a source is English unless specified otherwise.

Without someone speaks up and tells me unequivocally not to, I think that I shall proceed.

Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is a category necessary? It should be a simple matter to test for either |language=en or |language=English, and do nothing - no output, no category. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it's there if someone thinks of a use for such incomplete information? Of course if that happens, it is easy enough to add the category later.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, English is not displayed when used alone but is displayed when listed with other languages. The middle example to show that I didn't break single language rendering. No categories.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=fr, en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in French and English). 
Sandbox Title (in French and English). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=fr | title=Title }}
Live Title (in French). 
Sandbox Title (in French). 
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=en | title=Title }}
Live Title (in English). 
Sandbox Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with "cite episode" template?[edit]

I've been editing on Wikipedia for a while, but I'm new to attempting to clean-up CS1 errors that appear. Lately, dozens of "cite episode" templates appear to be generating a CS1 error because the editor included a "writers" parameter. Is this a parameter that used to appear in the template? Has it been eliminated? And can someone suggest an alternate method for including the information (which is critical in television and radio episodes), especially when other parameters are being used for the episode's director(s).JimVC3 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I had this same question, so I looked in the history of the documentation for {{cite episode}}.
It looks like the |writers= parameter was added to the template on 7 March 2006 and then marked as deprecated on 12 June 2006. It was officially deprecated but displayed in the template from that point until 25 May 2009, when it began to be silently ignored (and not displayed) with this major change to the template code. I found no discussion in the {{cite episode}} talk page archives about this |writers= parameter.
On 18 April 2015, with the change of the template to use the CS1 Lua module, the parameter's presence started to generate an error message, as do all unsupported (and deprecated) parameters.
The previous documentation recommended using |credits= for all credited people associated with the episode, so I would write something like |credits=Joe Smith (producer); Ellen Brown (director); Jane Doe (writer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspected this is what happened. Thanks so much for your research and verifying the situation. Eliminating the parameter probably deserved more discussion. Anyway, your work-around looks like a very good alternative. Thanks again. JimVC3 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Far better to have separate parameters for each role, for improved data granularity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cite episode - bogus error[edit]

The instance of {{Cite episode}} in Lisa Lynch is giving a "missing title" error, even though the title parameter has content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not bogus, but yeah, confusing. As {{cite journal}} uses |title= to name an article, so {{cite episode}} uses |title= to name an episode. What is missing from that citation is |series=.
"The C Word". <series name goes here>. 3 May 2015. BBC. Retrieved 3 May 2015. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Confusing indeed. I modified the help documentation a couple of weeks ago after figuring out this quirk. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Should have used {{Cite serial}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Why, given that, it's not a serial? And why have you removed the date of first transmission from that reference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Saying there is no title, when there is a title, is bogus. The error should presumably say "Missing series name". However, there is no series name, as the programme was a one-off. I note that its documentation says "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for television or radio programs and episodes." Why is the parameter required? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk and AManWithNoPlan:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing newspaper insert[edit]

I think I've asked this one previously, but I cannot find the old discussion. I would like to cite a weekly insert (i.e. Time Out) that appears in a newspaper (i.e. The Ledger). Which parameter should I use for the insert? Unlike Parade, the insert is published by and only for the main newspaper it appears in. Thanks! - Location (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you want |department=. Documentation here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to ISBN[edit]

I noticed an inconsistency in display when ISBN is given via |isbn= and when given in plain text. For example:

  • A Whited, Lana (2004). The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9. 
  • A Whited, Lana (2004). The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9

The first one (use of |isbn=) contains an extra link to ISBN. The second one is given in plain text. I think this link is unnecessary. Moreover, it's overlinking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All of the identifier parameters, PMC, doi, zbl, issn are linked to their Wikipedia articles. Why should ISBN render differently?
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9 in plaintext is just autoformatted by the wiki (one of those legacys; RFC 1918 is another that is similar) to provide the link in question, whereas we override that functionality by deliberately inserting a link in the template, per Trappist. --Izno (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk I mean we could just unlink all of PMC, doi, zbl, issn as common links and instead of having a wikilink followed by an (almost) external link just inherit the behaviour of ISBN 978-0-8262-1549-9 (plaintext, autoformatted by mediawki). I am just saying my opinion and underlying an inconsistency for viewers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


The topic of |vauthors= support periodically pops up. It has done so again at Module talk:Citation/CS1#Author parsing and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical FA maintenance. |vauthors= is a parameter that is used in {{vcite2 journal}} to hold a strictly formatted Vancouver system-style author name list. {{vcite2 journal}} invokes Module:ParseVauthors which extracts the author names from |vauthors= into a series of |firstn= / |lastn= parameters that it then passes with |name-list-format=vanc and |display-authors=6 along with all of the other parameters to {{cite journal}}.

I have added support for this parameter to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. These examples are {{cite book/new}} but the parameter works for the other cs1|2 templates:

A simple case:

First FM, Second FM (2015). Title. 

Supports |author-maskn= and |authorlinkn= as well as CITEREF:

——, Lincoln A (2015). Title. 

allows |vauthors= to contain et al. without adding the page to Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. because the PMID cite tool, heavily used by WP:MED, did, in the past, and reportedly will again in the future, create citations that include the text:

First FM, Second FM et al. (2015). Title. 

default display of 6 authors even though seven are listed: :First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM (2015). Title. 

to display all seven, set |display-authors=7. Category:CS1 maint: display-authors suppressed because in this case there is legitimate need to set |display-authors= to a number equal to or greater than the number of authors: :First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM (2015). Title. 

{{citation}}, name list contains an illegal character

First FM; Second FM (2015), Title  Vancouver style error (help)

{{cite journal/new}}, first name's intials not properly capitalized:

First fm; Second FM (2015). "Title". Journal.  Vancouver style error (help)

As currently configured, |vauthors= has priority over |lastn= / |firstn= which has priority over |authors=. Is this the correct hierarchy? Still to do is error reporting when a template includes |vauthors= with any of |lastn= / |firstn= / |authors=.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if we keep this, we should extend it to support editors with |veditors=.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to support this given that vauthors has a format which can be parsed in an expected way (and which can be error checked). I am concerned about not including all authors (to some extent). --Izno (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing about this parameter will prevent you from including a gross of authors if that is your desire. To be compatible with {{vcite2 journal}} which itself complies with this recommendation (at 1), {{cite journal}} should display a maximum of six authors unless otherwise directed by |display-authors=.
Lifting that restriction for the other cs1|2 templates may be 'correct' but may also confuse editors. I think that if we define a standard 'vauthors rule' (up to six authors are displayed unless overridden by |display-authors=), we won't have so many confused editors. If there is sufficient need for a different or no default for other templates, we can address that need as it arises.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I was commenting more about the linked WT:MED discussion regarding that second sentence. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A slight revision of the code that handles |display-authors=:

First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM (2015). Title. 
First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM (2015). Title. 
First FM, Second FM, Third FM et al. (2015). Title. 
|display-authors=etal (four authors listed)
First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM et al. (2015). Title. 

And to make sure I didn't break the |display-authors= handling for the |authorn= type of author name list:

First FM; Second FM; Third FM; Fourth FM; Fifth FM; Sixth FM; Seventh FM (2015). Title. 
First FM; Second FM; Third FM; Fourth FM; Fifth FM; Sixth FM; Seventh FM (2015). Title. 
First FM; Second FM; Third FM et al. (2015). Title. 
|display-authors=etal (four authors listed)
First FM; Second FM; Third FM; Fourth FM et al. (2015). Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is fantastic! Vancouver style authors have been and continue to be widely used in medical and scientific articles. Adding |vauthors= support to CS1 will make it much easier to maintain a consistent citation style in these articles while at the same time producing clean metadata. Thank you Trappist! Boghog (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • So why can we implment this but not the citation styles that use small caps for authors names...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    Because that doesn't have consensus per WP:SMALLCAPS? --Izno (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It was REMOVED without consensus! And it has consensus aslong a WP:CITEVAR is in effect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that setting the artificial limit to the number of authors to be displayed (6) is inconsistent with the other author-holding parameters. I think that imposing such a limit on editors will just be confusing. If editors wish to constrain the display, they should do it with |vauthors= in the same way that they would for |authorn= and for |lastn= / |firstn=: use |display-authors=. So, I've removed the 6-author display constraint from the sandbox.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The default should be set to what most editors prefer. Editors that use |vauthors= presumably prefer compact Vancouver style output. Since the original ICMJE recommendation is to display only the first six authors, I suspect that many of these same editors would support following this recommendation. The whole idea |vauthors= is to reduce the number of required citation parameters. If most editors end up adding |display-authors=6, it partially defeats the purpose of using |vauthors=. Boghog (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: The tool will return to its default (list all authors if there are five or less, and truncate to three plus et al if there are six or more). Since the tool will be artificially limiting the number of authors, and because the tool is apparently commonly used, shouldn't that be sufficient? The template should not impose an artificial limit on one author-name-holding parameter that it doesn't also impose on |authorn= and |lastn= / |firstn= parameters. When editors desire to include more authors in the template than are to be displayed, they should use the same mechanism (insofar as is possible – it won't work on |authors=) that is used with other author-name-holding parameters. If compactness is desired, there is nothing to prevent editors from simply reducing the number of authors listed in |vauthors=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There is developing consensus over at WT:MED (and also supported by Izno above) that all authors should be included in the author list. As I subsequently wrote, the tool's default has been changed to include all authors and will only truncate the author list if the "Use et al. for author list" option is selected. The "et al." option is retained for FA MED articles and for citations with "hyperauthorship". Boghog (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, there is some support at WT:MED (here and here) for listing all and truncating the list with |display-authors=. If a consensus develops outside of WP:MED to artificially limit the displayed length of a Vancouver-style author-name list, then we should consider doing that but I think that it isn't quite right to allow WP:MED to define this parameter's functionality based on WP:MED's unique preferences when such preferences may not match those of other projects or other editors.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
By far, the widest use of the citation filling tool and {{vcite2 journal}} has been within the WP:MED and WP:MCB projects and the participants within these two projects largely overlap. Hence the consensus at WP:MED is significant and carries at least as much weight as this talk page. Finally {{vcite2 journal}} has been transcluded into ~2600 pages and has included |display-authors=6 from the beginning. Not one editor has objected to this setting. Boghog (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not doubt that. But, {{vcite2 journal}} is not {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} nor any of the other 20-some cs1|2 templates. For editors who use those templates, there are no artificial limits such as those that WP:MED have imposed upon themselves. I suspect that a requirement to add |display-authors=n to show more than 6 authors is going to be confusing because editors don't need to do that with |author= or |authors=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Corporate authors and |vauthors=[edit]

What to do about corporate authors? This cite throws two errors because '16' is not in the set of letters allowed by the Vancouver name test and because the 'first name', 'Consortium' is not one or two uppercase letters. A quick search of the Vancouver system documentation for the terms 'corporate' and 'institutional' was unproductive. The corporate author in this citation renders correctly:

European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium (1993). "Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16". Cell 75 (7): 1305–15. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z. PMID 8269512.  Vancouver style error (help)

but, the metadata are flawed:


This is because there isn't a mechanism in place to identify this author as a corporate author.

There are citations in article space that list both individual and corporate authors using the existing author-holding parameters. If a corporate or institutional author is listed separately in |authorn= or |lastn=, the citation renders correctly and the metadata are not corrupted. |authors= almost always produces corrupt metadata. It should be expected that editors will create citations that will include both individual and corporate authors in |vauthors=.

One possible solution might be to require that corporate authors be 'wrapped' in some sort of simple markup:

|vauthors=[European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium], First FM, Second FM

The wrapping bypasses the usual Vancouver name test so any character is allowed within the brackets. This should not be used to defeat the test for individual author-names.

Using this scheme, this citation:

[European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium], First FM, Second FM (1993). "Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16". Cell 75 (7): 1305–15. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z. PMID 8269512.  Vancouver style error (help)

produces this correct metadata:


I have added code to trap the expected case when editors write [[ and ]].

European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium, First FM, Second FM (1993). "Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16". Cell 75 (7): 1305–15. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z. PMID 8269512.  Vancouver style error (help)

An opening [[ without a closing ]] does not produce an error because WikiMedia never finds the ending ]] so the template's }} is never found.

While this example uses square brackets, perhaps a better markup would be doubled parentheses in this fashion:

|vauthors=((European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium)), First FM, Second FM

Doubling the parentheses is closely akin to other doubled markup used in Wikitext but it is not used anywhere else that I know of. Parentheses are not allowed by the Vancouver name test so their presence won't be confused as a proper part of a name.

Opinions? Is there a better way to detect or define corporate or institutional authors?

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about this. The ICMJE recommendations suggest that individual and organization authors be separated by a semicolon. This recommendation is followed by PubMed (see for example PMID: 12771764). However I don't think we should follow this particular recommendation as it would make error checking less robust (one of the most common vauthors errors is likely to be the use of standard CS1 rendered author format).
Another possibility is to use |vauthors= for the individual authors and |authorn= for the organization author. For example:
  • {{vcite2 journal | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ | author5 = Alf-One Study Group | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }} renders as:
  • Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ, Alf-One Study Group (2003). "Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms". J. Urol. 169 (6): 2257–61. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73. PMID 12771764. 
This does not currently work with {{cite journal/new}} however. Please note that citations with organization authors are not very common. Furthermore I don't object to using extra parameters to cover special cases that occur infrequently. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Also if there is a single author and that author is an organization, it would be much more practical to use |author1= instead of |vauthors=. Boghog (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that for a single corporate author, |author= should be preferred. I suspect that editors will use |vauthors= for single author names whether they are human or corporate.
The mix of |vauthors= and |authorn= intentionally doesn't work in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The Module currently disallows the combination of |authors= with |authorn= (and its alias |lastn= with |firstn=) because the former is not formatted by the template and the latter is and because |authors= is not an alias of |authorn=. Similarly, |authorn= is not an alias of |vauthors= so mixed use would blur the line between those two styles. This is why I suggested that corporate authors should be included in |vauthors= with appropriate markup to render the visual presentation and the metadata properly.
I agree that corporate authors and individual authors should not be separated by semicolons.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the corporate or institutional mark up from single square brackets to doubled parentheses because single square brackets have meaning as external link markup:
{{cite journal/new | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ, ((Alf-One Study Group)) | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }} renders as:
Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ, Alf-One Study Group (2003). "Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms". J. Urol. 169 (6): 2257–61. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73. PMID 12771764. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

|vauthors= and |authorn= and |authors=[edit]

Because there are now three possible sources for authors, I think that we should choose one of the three and emit an error message when more than one of these sources is present in the template. The hierarchy in the sandbox is: |authorn= (includes |lastn=, an alias and |firstn=|vauthors=|authors=. The current live version of the module emits an error message when |authors= and |authorn= are both detected.


First LF, Second LF, Third LF (2015). Title. 


First VF, Second VF, Third VF (2015). Title. 


First AF, Second AF, Third AF (2015). Title. 

|vauthors= and |author1=:

  • Fourth LF; Fifth LF; Sixth LF; Seventh LF (2015). Title.  More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (help)

|vauthors= and |authors=:

  • First VF, Second VF, Third VF (2015). Title.  More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (help)

|author1= and |authors=:

  • First LF, Second LF, Third LF (2015). Title.  More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (help)

|vauthors=, |author1=, and |authors=:

  • First LF, Second LF, Third LF (2015). Title.  More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (help)

There is a limit to this. When |vauthors= or |authors= are used with |authorn=, n must be 1 or 2 to be detected. This is because n could conceivably be any number greater than 0 and there are 6 aliases of |authorn=. The test is similar to the test that is used to detect missing |lastn= which uses a 'hole' size of 2 to decide that the test is done.

Trappist the monk (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


A first hack at |veditors=. I cloned the code that does the author selection to do editor selection from |editorn= (and its aliases), |editors=, and |veditors=. Except for names, the code is identical to that used for authors so I need to figure out how to combine the two into a single function. The code that interprets |vauthors= and |veditors= and then creates the name list that is later rendered as an author list or an editor list is the same. These example show that the sandbox code is capable of properly rendering a |veditors= name list.


First LF, Second LF, Third LF, ed. (2015). Title. 


First VF, Second VF, Third VF, eds. (2015). Title. 


First AF, Second AF, Third AF, eds. (2015). Title. 

|veditors= and |editor1=:

  • Fourth LF; Fifth LF; Sixth LF et al., eds. (2015). Title.  More than one of editor-name-list parameters specified (help);

|veditors= and |editors=:

  • First VF, Second VF, Third VF, eds. (2015). Title.  More than one of editor-name-list parameters specified (help)

|editor1= and |editors=:

  • First LF, Second LF, Third LF, ed. (2015). Title.  More than one of editor-name-list parameters specified (help)

|veditors=, |editor1=, and |editors=:

  • First LF, Second LF, Third LF, ed. (2015). Title.  More than one of editor-name-list parameters specified (help)

Trappist the monk (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing youtube and online video sites[edit]

Apologies if this question has been asked a gazillion times already. What is the preferred cite AV media parameters for citing a youtube or other online video: 1) from the direct site itself, and 2) from a wrapper site / news article that embeds the video? Should I use work=YouTube, medium=YouTube, or via=YouTube? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It probably hasn't, but I'll throw a suggested answer out:
  1. If you are citing content in the video itself, I would recommend clicking through to the origin website ( in your example) and using that URL. This is cite AV media.
  2. If you are citing content outside the video, the URL you are on at that time. In this case I don't see a need to mention YouTube or a video or media at all in the context of the citation so I would use cite web/cite news.
  3. If for some reason you need both (I can't think of one), then provide two citations.
work = YouTube is fine. medium as a parameter does not exist in the documentation (using ctrl + F). via would be appropriate in the 3rd case. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

titlelink oddity in cite encyclopedia[edit]

According to the cite encyclopedia documentation, |title-link= is "Title of existing Wikipedia article about the source named in title" – yet it actually links the text in |encyclopedia=, not |title=:

Cite encyclopedia compare
{{ cite encyclopedia | via=[[Wikisource]] | title=Gopher | year=1879 | encyclopedia=The American Cyclopædia (1879) | titlelink=s:The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Gopher }}
Live "Gopher". The American Cyclopædia (1879). 1879 – via Wikisource. 
Sandbox "Gopher". The American Cyclopædia (1879). 1879 – via Wikisource. 

|url= works as expected, but full urls shouldn't be necessary when wikilinks are available

Cite encyclopedia compare
{{ cite encyclopedia | via=[[Wikisource]] | title=Gopher | year=1879 | encyclopedia=The American Cyclopædia (1879) | url= }}
Live "Gopher". The American Cyclopædia (1879). 1879 – via Wikisource. 
Sandbox "Gopher". The American Cyclopædia (1879). 1879 – via Wikisource. 

Can this be fixed? Thanks - Evad37 [talk] 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is perhaps fixed in the sandbox. I have no more time to think about it for a couple of days.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

access-date usage definition[edit]

I notice that on many cite template related pages that the given usage for |access-date= varies. I believe that "full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article" (as given in the cite book documentation) best captures what is intended for |access-date=. Yet many places (like on Help:Citation Style 1 itself or places like Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL give differing definitions, mostly because the authors who wrote them probably weren't trying to be as precise as they should have been. I intend to start tweaking the usage definition for accessdate whenever I see it saying something too unlike that of Template:Cite book. If you can think of CS1 examples where |access-date= really should not use "full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article", let me know. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have copy-edited the |access-date= documentation just now. I fixed some grammar and changed the word "required", since "required" has a specific meaning for template parameters, and |access-date= does not meet that definition.
All of the CS1 core templates that display the |access-date= help text in their documentation should be using the exact same text to describe the parameter, since they (should) transclude Template:Citation_Style_documentation/url.
I support your changing of Help:Citation Style 1. The category page linked above I'm not as sure about. It has a pretty good explanation that has been developed over time to be helpful. Feel free to be bold and change it, but don't be offended if one of us swoops in after you with changes to your changes. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

enumerated parameters[edit]

I started doing the searches identified in the following tables so that I might have some idea of how to better order the search for enumerated author and editor names. But, the search also shows general editor preferences for certain parameter styles and for certain parameter names.

|first= aliases
parameter search string count
|author-firstn= insource:/\| *author\-first[0-9]* *=/ 227
|authorn-first= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+\-first *=/ 96
|firstn= insource:/\| *first[0-9]* *=/ 51,274
|givenn= insource:/\| *given[0-9]* *=/ 473
|last= aliases
parameter search string count
|author-lastn= insource:/\| *author\-last[0-9]* *=/ 236
|authorn-last= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+\-last *=/ 94
|lastn= insource:/\| *last[0-9]* *=/ 43,262
|surnamen= insource:/\| *surname[0-9]* *=/ 800
|authorn= insource:/\| *author[0-9]* *=/ 42,398
|subjectn= insource:/\| *subject[0-9]* *=/ 14,880dagger

dagger used by {{cite interview}} but also used by {{infobox book}}, {{In-universe}}, {{databank}} so this number is essentially meaningless

|author-link= aliases
parameter search string count
|author-linkn= insource:/\| *author\-link[0-9]* *=/ 19,139
|authorn-link= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+\-link *=/ 10,044
|authorlinkn= insource:/\| *authorlink[0-9]* *=/ 53,345
|authornlink= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+link *=/ 50
|subject-linkn= insource:/\| *subject\-link[0-9]* *=/ 47
|subjectn-link= insource:/\| *subject[0-9]+\-link *=/ 1
|subjectlinkn= insource:/\| *subjectlink[0-9]* *=/ 679
|subjectnlink= insource:/\| *subject[0-9]+link *=/ 0
|author-mask= aliases
parameter search string count
|author-maskn= insource:/\| *author\-mask[0-9]* *=/ 710
|authorn-mask= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+\-mask *=/ 7
|authormaskn= insource:/\| *authormask[0-9]* *=/ 511
|authornmask= insource:/\| *author[0-9]+mask *=/ 22
|editor-first= aliases
parameter search string count
|editor-firstn= insource:/\| *editor\-first[0-9]* *=/ 32,889
|editorn-first= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-first *=/ 23,224
|editor-givenn= insource:/\| *editor\-given[0-9]* *=/ 0
|editorn-given= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-given *=/ 0
|editor-last= aliases
parameter search string count
|editorn= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]* *=/ 33,883
|editor-lastn= insource:/\| *editor\-last[0-9]* *=/ 33,442
|editorn-last= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-last *=/ 21,130
|editor-surnamen= insource:/\| *editor\-surname[0-9]* *=/ 0
|editorn-surname = insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-surname *=/ 0
|editor-link= aliases
parameter search string count
|editor-linkn= insource:/\| *editor\-link[0-9]* *=/ 7,988
|editorn-link= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-link *=/ 5,183
|editorlinkn= insource:/\| *editorlink[0-9]* *=/ 297
|editornlink= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+link *=/ 41
|editor-mask= aliases
parameter search string count
|editor-maskn= insource:/\| *editor\-mask[0-9]* *=/ 19
|editorn-mask= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+\-mask *=/ 6
|editormaskn= insource:/\| *editormask[0-9]* *=/ 16
|editornmask= insource:/\| *editor[0-9]+mask *=/ 1

I have never really liked parameters where the enumerator is in the middle of the parameter name: |authorn-first= and |editornlink= for example, regardless of hyphenation. For many of the same reasons that we settled on hyphenated parameter names and have deprecated capitalized and camel-case parameter names, I think that we should settle on one standard form of enumerated parameter name. From the tables above, common usage would seem to suggest that editors generally prefer parameter names with the enumerator at the end of the name. Except when it comes to enumerated editor parameters. While enumerator-at-the-end is still preferred, enumerator-in-the-middle runs a close second.

These tables also show that some of the available enumerated parameter are rarely if ever used. Perhaps we should consider deprecating:



Trappist the monk (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As frequent readers here know, I am often in favor of change, but I think this change is not necessary. It's cleaner, for sure, but it's actually less consistent across the parameters. If we do it, I expect that someone will come along at some point and say "We have parameter X, but we don't have the obvious parallel parameter Y." And then it's a big discussion. I don't know.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There are really two items for consideration here: standardized enumeration and deprecating some rarely/never used parameters. Which of these are you saying will be less consistent across the parameters?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Having |editorn-link= but not |subjectn-link= makes the parameters less standard. I would rather have both or remove both than just have one of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that you are only focusing on the proposal to deprecate the short list of parameters and ignoring the proposal to standardize enumerated parameters. Were we to not standardize, then perhaps you are right.
If I had my way, the standard for enumerated parameters would be enumerator-at-the-end so both |editorn-link= and |subjectn-link= would be deprecated (even were we to not deprecate the latter because of disuse). We would still have as active and supported parameters: |editor-linkn= and |subject-linkn=. Parameters in the form |xxxxnyyyy= or |xxxxn-yyyy= would be deprecated and ultimately replaced with the extant |xxxx-yyyyn= form. I don't see much point in keeping both forms which I think is supported by the data in the tables above.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Now I see what you're saying, I think. I support standardizing on |parameter-namen= as the canonical form of two-word-plus-number parameters in our documentation (I haven't checked to see what the docs currently say). I don't see the point of deprecating the |parametern-name= form on what appear to be aesthetic grounds. I won't die on that hill, though; if others feel strongly, go for it, but please do show up on this page to respond when people complain that we are constantly changing things for no good reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How is deprecating enumerator-in-the-middle parameters different from deprecating capitalized parameters?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I would argue for keeping |givenn= and |surnamen= (and their editor versions), and adding them to the documentation. Having recently edited a lot of citations with East Asian authors, I find it confusing to have to put an author's first name into |last= and their last name into |first=, and I have seen editors erroneously "correcting" them. Kanguole 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have said nothing about deprecating |givenn= and |surnamen=. Certainly, if I had my way we would deprecate |editorn-given= and |editorn-surname= because of enumerator-in-the-middle syndrome and because of disuse. Because of disuse, I'm inclined to deprecation of |editor-givenn= and |editor-surnamen= but could be persuaded to keep them, at least for a time.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would argue to keep |editor-givenn= and |editor-surnamen= for the same reasons as above: they provide an alternative that is less confusing and error-prone. Kanguole 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Get first1 and last1 parameters to work in Wikiversity too[edit]

The corresponding template in Wikiversity (Wikiversity:Template:Cite journal) does not support the parameters first1, last1, first2 etc. How can this functionality be copied from this template to that one? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikiversity already has Wikiversity:Template:Citation/core, it might be simplest to copy {{cite journal/old}} from en:WP to Wikiversity:Template:Cite journal/sandbox to prove that it works (because the Wikiversity version of {{citation/core}} is somewhat older) and then, assuming that it does work, update the live {{cite journal}} from the sandbox. That will give you up to 9 author names.
Wikiversity also has very old version Wikiversity:Module:Citation/CS1 so using that instead of {{citation/core}} is another alternative. A rather bigger job would be to upgrade the module to use the current version of Module:Citation/CS1 from en:WP.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It does work now, after copying {{cite journal/old}} from en:WP to {{cite journal}}, thanks! It would be even better, however, if the author presentation had Wikipedia's style (First L instead of First, L;). Would that be achieved by performing any of the latter methods you described? Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia style is to put a comma between an author's last and first names and to separate consecutive authors with a semicolon. cs1|2 does not render author names in italics (nor does it render first name followed by last initial):
{{cite book/old |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}
Last, F; Last2, F. Title. 
If you are looking to mimic Vancouver system style you can do this:
{{cite book |author-separator=, |author-name-separator=&#32; |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}
Last F, Last2 F. Title. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! Face-smile.svg Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Can parameters be passed to a nested cite web?[edit]

I'm trying to modify the Airreg template so that it produces in-line citations instead of external links, but when I try to nest a {{cite web}} into it, the parameters taken by Airreg and passed to {{cite web}} don't seem to get processed by it, and the output is just {{{1}}}, {{{2}}} etc..

Instead, the same parameters passed, for example, to a nested {{conversion}} are processed normally, as expected. Is there something peculiar about {{cite web}} that, when nested, prevents it from accepting parameters?

See an example from my sandbox template, which takes one parameter, e.g. 'N4739N', outputs it as it is and then passes it to cite web, which seems to ignore it. This:


produces this:

Aircraft registration: N4739N[1]

--Deeday-UK (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


There are a several templates that feed various parameters to {{cite web}} or other cs1|2 templates (see Category:Citation Style 1 meta-templates or Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates) so that shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried your test without the <ref>...</ref> tags?
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Good hint TtM, yes, without the <ref>...</ref> tags the parameters are processed as expected. Only trouble is that without the ref tags, it doesn't produce a superscript reference to a footnote, and instead it outputs the footnote text directly into the article body, right where the {{cite web}} template is. Is there any way around it? --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Try wrapping {{cite web}} in {{#tag:ref|{{cite web |...}}}}.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Major thanks, Trappist tm; that worked. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to put a comma before "et al."[edit]

There is a proposal to put a comma before "et al." in author and editor lists. See this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Journal article titles[edit]

I've always assumed that the titles of both journal articles and book chapters should be in 'sentence case' (rather than in 'title case') but I cannot find any guidance on the wiki MOS pages. Have I missed it? If there is a recommended style, perhaps it would be useful to include guidelines in the cite journal documentation. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Title case, I think. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of works.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept that CS1 follows the MOS. Only certain specific guidance has been adopted; the only guidance I know of adopted from MOS was date format, and that was a problem, because MOSNUM date guidance was being changed faster than the templates could be edited to keep up. As far as I know, there is no guidance whether to use sentence case or title case for journal article titles in citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Absent any declaration of specific style to the contrary, it is appropriate to fall back on MOS: for style guidance. Style for titles is not defined for cs1|2 templates because there is no provision to detect deviation from a defined style and so enforce adherence to that style. As an aside, I have been wondering of late, about detecting and categorizing templates that have titles and other information in all capital letters.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the whole concept that only style matters that can be checked by programming language in a template are defined for CS1. If CS1 is a citation style in its own right, then style matters can be prescribed in the documentation even though they are not enforceable with software. Likewise, style prescriptions can be made in the documentation that, for the time being, are incorrectly implemented in the software (February 29, 1700, Julian calendar). In such cases it is the software that is faulty, not the editor who filled out the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, but cs1|2, if it is a style, does not have documentation that defines that style. You will recall that I have previously asked both you and the community if we aught not create a style guide for cs1|2. Those suggestions have been met with ambivalence. So that leaves the cs1|2 'style definition' in the code or, as in the case for dates, a mention that dates for the most part comply with WP:DATESNO. Template documentation describes what the tempate parameters mean and how the contents are rendered, but that is not a style guide.
At present, cs1|2 has no defined title style except that, de facto, it accords with MOS:TITLE: chapter titles and article titles are quoted; book, journal, encyclopedia titles are italicized. cs1|2 does, to an extent, check certain components of style: dates, of course, but also Vancouver system author and editor names (when |name-list-format=vanc and in future with |vauthors=).
The documentation for cs1|2 dates says "Module:Citation/CS1 cannot know if a date is Julian or Gregorian; assumes Gregorian" which is both correct and incorrect. In fact, dates before 1582 are Julian and dates from 1582 are Gregorian and the module knows this:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=29 February 1500}}
Title. 29 February 1500. 
I'll tweak that documentation.
I did a quick search for Julian leap day dates in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 using these insource: search strings:
insource:/February *29 *, *1[7-9]00/ – 3 results, none of which were dates in references (all about Microsoft Excel)
insource:/29 *February *1[7-9]00/ – 3 results, one is a free-form reference where the date 29 February 1900 is mentioned
insource:/1[7-9]00-02-29/ – this search produced nothing
It would seem then that there is not much call for cs1|2 to support Julian leap days in the overlap period of 1582 – c. 1923. To do so would require some sort of mechanism to specifically identify those three dates as Julian dates; which can be done if there is ever a need.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I usually tend to sentence case for journal entry/article titles since these seem to have uncommon capitalization (Or Use Capital Letters For Obvious Emphasis, something which is on the Do Not Do list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis; WP:BADEMPHASIS is also relevant).

Regardless, I would recommend asking this question at WT:MOS with a note to that discussion from WT:Citing sources or similar (or vice versa as desired), since I don't think this is a question particularly specific to CS1. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I've taken Izno's advice and asked the question at WT:MOS. Aa77zz (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone is missing the point here. MOS applies to text, not citations. MOS is irrelevant to this discussion. Journal article titles and journal names typically use title case, not sentence case. We should follow the case that is used in the original sources, not the MOS. Boghog (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, citations to journal article titles generally use sentence case, regardless of how the journal formatted the title. This is also how the titles are represented in some databases, for example MathSciNet. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I agee that MOS applies to text, not citations. WP:CITE applies; it allows the style to be determined on an article-by-article basis, but "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." This consistency requirement agrees with every printed style guide and every university instructor I have ever encountered. So it would be wrong to change from sentence case to title case from one entry to the next, depending on how the title was printed in the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
APA says use sentence case.I think that is stupid, but that is what they say. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to an author page, without breaking "first1, last1 separate" convention?[edit]

Is there a way to have an author name linked to a page about that person, yet still retain the use of the separated "first1" and "last1" parameters (useful for bots searching wikipedia I suppose)? On the page Unknot, there's a reference to a paper by Godfried Toussaint. I had wanted to put this (with separate names):

{{cite journal |author = [[Godfried Toussaint]] |last1 = Toussaint |first1 = Godfried Toussaint |title = A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6 | [...] }}

but had to settle for the slightly less-informative:

{{cite journal |author = [[Godfried Toussaint]] |title = A new class [...] }}

to avoid getting a "double author" error. Is there some other way to do this? Perhaps an additional "author-link" parameter? (But then you could have problems with multiple authors, so you'd need "author-link", "author-link1") Jimw338 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

|first=Godfried|last=Toussaint|author-link=Godfried Toussaint Kanguole 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as the documentation already states and Kanguole cryptically implies, the authorlink, author1-link, etc parameters you are asking for are already in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The documentation should help you. If not, here's an example with two linked authors:
{{cite journal |author-link1 = Godfried Toussaint |last1 = Toussaint |first1 = Godfried |last2=Newton|first2=Isaac|author-link2=Isaac Newton |title = A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6 }}
Toussaint, Godfried; Newton, Isaac. "A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6". 
Is that what you were looking for? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Foreign author name[edit]

If the author's name uses a non-Latin script, should it be romanized? Where should the original form and romanization go? --Djadjko (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be preferable to use the Latin-alphabet spellings plus the other language in parentheses brackets, perhaps as in "author=Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn)" but ideally, we wanted translation parameters to hold the translated author name, similar to trans_title for the title parameter.
      • Example: {cite book |title=Demos |trans_title=People |author=Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn) |year=370 BCE}}
      • Result: Plato (Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn) (370 BCE). Demos [People].  Check date values in: |date= (help)
The idea is to focus on the English-speaking readership. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've manage to do it the following way for Russian:
И. И. Иванов [I. I. Ivanov] (2010). Книжка [Book] (in Russian). Moscow: Издательство. ISBN 000 Check |isbn= value (help). 
({{Cite book|ref={{sfnref|Ivanov|2010}}|title=Книжка|trans-title=Book|language=ru|authors=И. И. Иванов [I. I. Ivanov]|date=2010|publisher=Издательство|place=Moscow|isbn=000}}). --Djadjko (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Citation Style 1 is based on APA style with a dose of The Chicago Manual of Style thrown in along with our own innovations. So looking at the APA style for advice, they say to transliterate the names in the source to produce the final citation. CMOS says that for sources with titles in non-Latin alphabets to use the transliterated names/titles first and optionally follow them with the non-Latin versions second.
Wikid77's example, using our existing template parameters would be:
  • Plato (370 BCE). Demos [People].  Check date values in: |date= (help)
Note, there's really no reason to give the Greek translation of an author so well known in English.
For Djadjko's example:
  • Ivanov, I. I. (2010). Kniga Книжка [Book] (in Russian). Moscow: Izdatelystvo. ISBN 000 Check |isbn= value (help). 
|script-title=ru:Книжка will add the non-transliterated title, and where necessary, it handles right-to-left coding (Hebrew, Arabic, etc). Imzadi 1979  03:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

|script-chapter= ?[edit]

We have |script-title=, but not |script-chapter=. Can we get it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Parameter order for cite conference[edit]

Hi. I'm using Template: Cite conference in the Gateway Protection Programme article. The template documentation states "If authors: Authors are first, followed by the included work, then "In" and the editors, then the main work", but the order it's displaying in is author name, editor name, title, main work (see footnote 17, for instance). Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's that reference, so you don't have to look for it in the article:
Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it's because I didn't use the "book-title" parameter. Any ideas what I should do when the book title is the same as the conference title? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Date error[edit]

I was surprised to get a date error when I copy and pasted a Date from a New York Times article

I believe the problem is that it doesn't like all caps for the month. Given the ubiquity of the New York Times (surely one of the most cited sources) I am surprised this issue hasn't arisen before, in fact, so surprised, I wonder if I am missing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not with the templates but with the Wikipedia manual of style. All-caps is not one of the date styles listed as acceptable in MOS:DATEFORMAT. The citation templates check for that, and prevent you from using dates that are not in compliance with the MOS. The solution is to properly capitalize the date. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The help link in the date error leads directly to a list of common errors, including "improper capitalization".
If you are patient, BattyBot's task 25 will fix this kind of error (along with dozens of other bot-fixable formats) during its periodic sweep of the date error category (roughly once a month). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: condense archive-date and access-date when they are identical[edit]

Where any citation has been both retrieved and archived on the same day (i.e. accessdate = archivedate), the footnote in the References section and the pop-up footnote display should be customized for that circumstance.  Rather than the cumbersome:

Archived from the original on June 2, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2015.

a more succinct version should automatically be used; perhaps:

… Retrieved and archived on June 2, 2015.

which would become something like:

… Retrieved and archived from the original on June 2, 2015.

once |deadurl=yes was true.

This would make the References section, on pages where all the external articles are archived and properly defined in the ‘Cite’ templates, much cleaner looking and easier for users to read. — Who R you? Talk 17:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Who R you?, I have retitled this section and removed the protected edit request template, because you have not specifically provided code changes for the code that generates {{cite web}} and other templates. This means that a specification would have to be developed here first.
Thank you for starting this conversation about a feature request. Some thoughts:
  • Interesting idea. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement, though I am not a programmer.
  • Right now, we have "Archived" before "Retrieved". You have "Retrieved" before "Archived". Is that change intentional? If so, is there a reason for it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Putting "Retrieved" before "Archived" would actually be useful for references using {{cite archives}} after a cite template, so that all the archives are grouped together at the end of the reference - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: "|total_pages="[edit]

Could this optional parameter be added, especially to the "cite book" template? Editors sometimes want to indicate the total number of pages in a reference work, since this allows readers to distinguish short pamphlets from weightier tomes. This is particularly the case when the template is used in "Further reading" sections of Wikipedia articles.

The ambiguous "|pages=" parameter sometimes gets filled in with total page counts instead of page number references, as intended. I initially made this error myself, and I see other editors doing this fairly often, when adding reference works without specific page references. The "|total_pages=" parameter would divert editors away from making this error, and would also be helpful to interested readers trying to evaluate the size of reference works.

While I don't know how to program templates myself, I hope that adding this feature would be straightforward to an experienced template editor. Reify-tech (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)