Help talk:Citation Style 1

Citation templates

... in conception

... and in reality

Book belonging to multiple series?

Are there provisions in the template for referring to multiple series when a book is listed as part of more than one series? For example, Itineraria Phoenicia is the volume 127 of the Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta series and the volume 18 of the Studia Phoenicia series. But I am not sure how to add both of these to the template when using it in articles. Antiquistik (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, one should list the one that is more readily available, which usually is the one more often classified in providers' metadata. For example, at the WorldCat entry the work is classified under "Series: Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta". 67.243.247.14 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I would still request for provisions to be added to the template so that multiple series can be mentioned when using the template, because doing so would in fact facilitate doing research regarding citations as well as navigation. Antiquistik (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Antiquistik. --Ooligan (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

CS1 errors: URL

Category:CS1 errors: URL has about 6,500 pages even after I run my bot through them. Is there a way to generate a report with the most common errors, so we can see if we can fix them via bot? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can separate out the text warnings with url and archive-url, but there's nothing else in the output today to indicate which of the errors triggered. Izno (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for that suggestion. Some of the |archive-url= errors occur when |archive-url= is a duplicate of |url=, so that's something to look into. There's also a few chapter-url and contribution-url issues. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dates: first, reprint and PDF

If a book is published on foo, reprinted on bar and scanned from the bar printing on baz, what date parameters are appropriate for citing the baz PDF of bar? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the specifics might be helpful here instead of variables, I could see it either being the original publication date if the reprint is just a later impression within the same edition (or some sort of print on demand type thing), or the reprint date if, say, this is an entirely new publication (e.g., a facsimile production of a historical book, in which case also use |orig-date=). Umimmak (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above. If I understand correctly, you are citing a reprint edition of a book that is bound digitally. The content is provided by the "printer". I would do something like this:

{{cite book|year=2022|orig-year=oroginally published 2021 by Foo|title=Title|url=http://www.example.com/example.pdf|edition=reprint|publisher=Bar|via=Baz}}

• Title (PDF) (reprint ed.). Bar. 2022 [originally published 2021 by Foo] – via Baz.

The (media/binding) |type= here would be "pdf", but this is preformatted in the citation (the parameter |format= would be superfluous for the same reason). Even though binding info is not included in CS1/2 metadata, you may want to include one of these parameters anyway, in case some aggregator imports the citation texts themselves, in which case the format/binding icon will not display.

50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In my question, foo, bar and baz were all dates, so |orig-year=oroginally published 2021 by Foo and |via=Baz would be inappropriate. What inspired my question was edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newline&curid=238775&diff=1131455576&oldid=1121592635, which includes the comment PDF date=1 August 2002 in the {{cite book}} template Qualline, Steve (2001). Vi Improved - Vim (PDF). Sams Publishing. p. 120. ISBN 9780735710016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2023..

Well here it might be that the |url= is just a convenience link for the reader. The book itself was published in 2001 as far as I can tell from WorldCat OCLC 247896918. Kind of frustrating that this PDF seems to lack the frontmatter with the actual date and copyright information, but the comment I guess got the date from metadata and is just making a note on the off chance this PDF is not the exact same as the book. Umimmak (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. Again I agree with Umimmak. Assuming the PDF is a fascimile transfer to digital, its creation date is immaterial for the reader. The useful date info is the publication date of the edition the PDF was based on. Also. for long works it is important that the title URL points to a location where the correct metadata is easily available: compare the landing page on Google Books. It seems the content in that citation is offered in "reader mode", which is perfect for in-source locations, but the front matter that includes relevant metadata is missing. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

module suite update 14–15 January 2023

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

Module:Citation/CS1:

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

Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration

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

Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

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

Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation

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

Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

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

Module:Citation/CS1/COinS

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

Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css

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

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I support this update. It's been too long since the previous one (July 2022, if I am reading the notes correctly). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk: pages are now appearing in Category:CS1 errors, specifically Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. Is this intentional? User-duck (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

At the time of this writing there are no Talk: namespace pages in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. There is (was) Special:Permalink/1133695137 which has (had) this citation:

{{cite web|https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iu13xdDmBd8&feature=youtu.be = It's The End of the World as we Know it and I Feel Fine |website = [[youtube]]}}

youtube. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |https://m.youtube.com/watch?v= ignored (help)

I copied that citation into Talk:List of people with narcolepsy and previewed. Previewing does not indicate that the page will be added to Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. Can you provide evidence that Talk: pages are being added to cs1|2 error / maintenance categories?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are gone. the only evidence I have is a snapshot from a page I hadn't refreshed but it is not worth the effort to figure out how to include it here. One thing is constant on Wikipedia, thing change. It has been over 3 hours since I observed the situation. Thanks to whoever changed the code. User-duck (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: I edited the errant cite in List of people with narcolepsy. User-duck (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

updated emoji list - these 🐱‍👤🐱‍🚀 🐱‍🐉🐱‍💻🐱‍👓 🐱‍🏍 emoji are not included and will throw an error if used in citations:

McDonnell, Charlie (2022-10-07). "🐱‍👤🐱‍🚀 🐱‍🐉🐱‍💻🐱‍👓 🐱‍🏍". Instagram. {{cite web}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help) Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not completely true. These two do not cause an error message to be emitted because the zero-width joined code points (those that follow 200D) are listed in https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/15.0/emoji-zwj-sequences.txt from which emoji_t{} was derived:

• 🐱‍🚀 (1F431 200D 1F680 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, ROCKET); 1F680 is in emoji_t{}
• 🐱‍💻 (1F431 200D 1F4BB – CAT FACE, ZWJ, PERSONAL COMPUTER); 1F4BB is in emoji_t{}

{{cite book |title=🐱‍🚀}} → 🐱‍🚀.

{{cite book |title=🐱‍💻}} → 🐱‍💻.

These four cause error messages because the zero-width joined code points are not listed in emoji-zwj-sequences.txt:

• 🐱‍👤 (1F431 200D 1F464 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, BUST IN SILHOUETTE); 1F464 not in emoji_t{}
• 🐱‍🐉 (1F431 200D 1F409 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, DRAGON); 1F409 not in emoji_t{}
• 🐱‍👓 (1F431 200D 1F453 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, EYEGLASSES); 1F453 not in emoji_t{}
• 🐱‍🏍 (1F431 200D 1F3CD – CAT FACE, ZWJ, RACING MOTORCYCLE); 1F3CD not in emoji_t{}

{{cite book |title=🐱‍👤}} → 🐱‍👤. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)

{{cite book |title=🐱‍🐉}} → 🐱‍🐉. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)

{{cite book |title=🐱‍👓}} → 🐱‍👓. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)

{{cite book |title=🐱‍🏍}} → 🐱‍🏍. {{cite book}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 2 (help)

So far as I know, emoji-zwj-sequences.txt is still at version 15.0.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

These are emojis that Microsoft created and are not part of the official Unicode standard. That said, since they exist, they can still appear in titles and cause errors. Not sure how the two that are on the list got there, but I don't believe they appear in the document (I couldn't find them, but I might have missed). Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

🐱‍🚀 (1F431 200D 1F680 – CAT FACE, ZWJ, ROCKET) and 🐱‍💻 (1F431 200D 1F4BB – CAT FACE, ZWJ, PERSONAL COMPUTER) don't exist in https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/15.0/emoji-zwj-sequences.txt. But, these two are recognized because emoji_t{} has entries for U+1F680 ROCKET (line 970) and U+1F4BB PERSONAL COMPUTER (line 969).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Podcast dates range

If you want to cite the dates a podcast runs from, how do you do that? Like |date=18 December 2020 – present? The field does not like that parameter and throws up errors. How do you do that without causing a problem? Eievie (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You should be citing a specific episode of the podcast, not the entire series. Izno (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's for a bibliography listing someone's various different works. Using the {{cite book}} template in the list of someone's books is common practice; why not use the associated templates for rest of a person's works as well? Eievie (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Books also don't have continuing dates. :) This series of modules is primarily intended for citations and its use for bibliographies has kind of been grafted on.

There is no way to add the date as you would prefer. You can probably cheat and use {{today}} but that will update somewhat sporadically, and also does not reflect specific publication dates. You could probably be relatively safe with {{year}} as in |date=2020–2024. Izno (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Using 2023 as a stand-in for "present" still requires updating, and implies an end, which isn't great. This suggests only including the start date and leaving the end unsaid, so I tried |date=from Dec 2020 and that threw an error too :/ Is there any way to just silence the error in the template? Eievie (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't use 2023, use the template indicated. Izno (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And no, you cannot silence the error. Anyway, MOS:DATETOPRES says to include the end date regardless, so in the context of a citation template I do not think it is too onerous to use something like {{year}} to indicate your intent. You can always choose not to use the template, but I think that work around is sufficient, perhaps with an in-wikitext comment. Izno (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Mark as accessible through Wikipedia Library

I know not all users have access to Wikipedia Library, but especially with its recent expansion, many previously pay-for or institution-locked journals etc. are completely accessible for users meeting requirements. Would it be possible, then, to add a parameter (or an option for the url-access parameter) that says a source is free through Wikipedia Library? Kingsif (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

|via=Wikipedia Library. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that would work, if the link in citation is specific to the Wikipedia Library, but most are not. For example, I have a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library, and if I cite a newspaper article from those archives, I'd be using |via= to indicate that website, not the library because the library didn't republish the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

At least from my past experience, a bunch of the URLs for Wikipedia library sources are either rejected by the insert citation tool in the source editor, or are soon "anonymized" by a bot, so I'm not sure that basing something off of the link itself will be of great use, unless something has changed recently. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What TWL has access to at any given point varies. I would not support an actual parameter on the point.

Here is a 2018 RFC which permits its use in |via=, which is certainly sufficient to me. There's other discussion in the archives about the utility in general of using |via= to indicate libraries (short answer is don't, which I think is also either directly in WP:Citing sources or similarly discussed on its talk page) as well as a few other discussions directly pertinent mostly under "TWL" but all older than that RFC. Izno (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps hastily, mine was the initial reply. Thinking it through, it seems the TWL is not an alternate provider or a content aggregator, but a facility/conduit to the former.

So now I agree with replies that suggested that |via= may not be proper (even though allowable), and the citation should be silent on the matter. I also agree with Izno that a specific parameter adds nothing to the citation's purpose. With well-established rationale, citations don't credit other physical or virtual libraries; I don't see why TWL should be an exception. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are primarily written for readers, no? I sort of was under the impression that the vast majority of people who read Wikipedia articles do not have an account, let alone one which meets all the requirements for the Wikipedia Library. A Wikipedia editor might have to click on a DOI before realizing they won't have access to it via the Wikipedia Library, but the alternative is adding clutter to a citation that goes in and out of date. Umimmak (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I agree with the replies above that citation metadata is primarily for the benefit of readers, I do think there's potential scope for a gadget or user script which could add highlighting or links to the library next to the relevant resources. It's not something we have capacity to work on at the moment but if someone was interested we'd be happy to advise/support with data or maybe even APIs from the library. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

doi: avoiding crossref

The following doi lands on a Crossref disambiguation page: doi.org/10.1515/9780823287437

Is it possible to bypass it? The actual object can be directly accessed as: www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html

Adding /html at the end of |doi= is not clever:

{{cite book|title=Expanded cinema|doi=10.1515/9780823287437/html}}

• Expanded cinema. doi:10.1515/9780823287437/html.

65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing that cs1|2 can do about this; modules cannot follow external urls to their ultimate destinations. If you wish to avoid the disambiguation page you can do either (or both) of these:

|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html |url-access=subscription

|jstor=j.ctvnwbz7q

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Actually I wanted to add both ids. Resolved as follows:

|id=[[Doi (identifier)|doi:]][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html 10.1515/9780823287437]}}:

• |id=doi:10.1515/9780823287437

172.254.255.250 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it really that bad if the DOI goes to a disambiguation page? The whole point of a DOI is that it's a permanent identifier for the document, even if it ends up moving websites; putting a URL there defeats the purpose. Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is good for a doi to go to a disambiguation page like that. Some readers may have subscription access to the document through one or the other of the choices, but not both (it looks like in this case I have neither). A disambiguated doi like this allows them to try the one they have access to. Shortcutting it to avoid the disambiguation would disallow them that choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sceptical. Unlike ISBN or issn, doi is a content identifier. It should lead directly to the cited material, not to another page from an unrelated entity. As a reader I expect citations to lead me to verifying material as easily as possible, not to have me do the research the citation writer should have done when explicitly offering a doi as the source-content resolver. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

not to have me do the research the citation writer should have done — what "research"? Both links in the crossref disambiguation page go to the same source; one's just on JSTOR and one's on DeGruyter. As David Eppstein says it's good to include both in case a reader has access to one versus the other. Umimmak (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The doi system (incorporating an object identifier) was specifically created to unambiguously and directly provide access to source material at the discretion of publishers. If CS1 is going to formally use this facility and the label "doi", it should adhere to the norms of the object's retrieval. It is up to the citation writer to find a way to offer the right target for any given doi. Alternately, don't call a dab page "doi". It is not that. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The "norms of the object's retrieval" are that you use the link targeted by doi.org, not try to make up your own version because you don't believe them when they say that you could get the document in more than one way. It is a specific goal of the doi system to provide flexible access to documents for which different people might need different access methods. This sort of disambiguation page works towards that goal. We should not circumvent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the point of |doi= to retrieve the source? unlike |title= or |issn= that are used to find it. If the consensus is to accept |doi= as a (sometime) lookup parameter rather than an access/retrieval one, that should be explicitly pointed out. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

edit module issn lookup

Switch lookup to The ISSN Portal (or its advanced search facility [1]). Far less likely to return multiple targets compared to Worldcat. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How does that help readers locate the periodical though? A worldcat link immediately tells me which libraries have it, the issn portal just gives the periodical title (presumably already in the citation) and publisher information. Umimmak (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a valid point, but can't the same argument be used for say, ISBN? 69.193.161.90 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The ISBN identifier links to Special:BookSources which, conveniently, has a link to WorldCat among others.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

Template Interlanguage link doesn't works in author parameter. Eurohunter (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From {{Interlanguage link}}:

Archer1234 (t·c) 21:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it in our documentation, but this works:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|author-link=:de:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|author=Goethe|title=Wandrers Nachtlied}}
Live	Goethe [in German]. Wandrers Nachtlied.

Someone will post here if this advice is misguided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It is discussed in the error message help text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it say the entire name of the language unlike {{ill}} which uses standard language abbreviations?

• Gerhard Radke
• Radke, Gerhard [in German] (1900). Title.

Having the full language name takes up a lot of space; it used to just be a different color text was used to signal a non-English Wikipedia link. Was the idea that [de] would be too opaque in some situations but not others? Umimmak (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The current implementation, as shown above, is an improvement on the previous situation, and I don't think space is at a premium in citations. If you prefer the way {{ill}} works, you can always write a citation manually. Let's be grateful for small mercies – thanks to Trappist for implementing this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple publishers/ISBNs/series

According to its copyright page, this book was "[p]ublished jointly by Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Institute of Archaeology, Beaumont Street, Oxford and UCLA Institute of Archaeology Los Angeles, California". In keeping therewith, it has two ISBNs (ISBN 0-947816-19-4, 0-917956-66-4), and is part of two series (University of Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Monograph No. 19; UCLA Institute for Archaeology, Archaeological Research Tools 5). Is there a way to record all of this information in the {{cite book}} template? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to try to stuff all of that into a single template. Just WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, or put the second version in a second template after the first one (e.g. "Also published as..."). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In the case where you have the ISBN of the source you used and an OCLC (WorldCat) link but no available preview, please add the oclc parameter, perhaps a chapter/section title and or short relevant quote as well as the pagination. WorldCat will show other editions & formats, as will google books most of the time. Worldcat should assist in finding the referenced section in future editions. RDBrown (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

publisher/series order

In a cite book like

• Smith, J. (2022). "Chapter". Title. Series. Vol. 10. Location: Publisher. pp. 1–13. doi:10.4321/987654321. ISBN 978-1-01234-012-4.

the order of presentation is a bit messed up, with the location/publisher inserted between volume and pages. Contrast with cite journal which keeps such information together

• Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Journal. Series. 10 (11). Location: Publisher: 1–13. doi:10.4321/987654321.

This is extremely jarring, as opposed to the more natural presentation that would keep like information together (series, volume, issues, pages, then publisher). I believe we should follow cite journal and present things in this order instead

• Smith, J. (2022). "Chapter". Title. Series. Location: Publisher. Vol. 10. pp. 1–13. doi:10.4321/987654321. ISBN 978-1-01234-012-4.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While discussing this, let's also consider the situation of cite magazine:

• Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Magazine. Series. Vol. 10, no. 11. Location: Publisher. pp. 1–13.

For that, we have the same issue of location/publisher separating volume/issue from pages, and that should be fixed. (I've mentioned it several times without any traction on a fix.)

Now going back to books, I disagree. At least to me, the volume is a function of a book's title and should be kept in its current location. It's not uncommon for a volume to have its own name that would be included, and moving that away from the title would be jarring. Thus this looks correct to me:

• Smith, J. (2022). "Chapter". Title. Series. Vol. 10: Name. Location: Publisher. pp. 1–13.

With a periodical, the volume number is part of the in-source location along with the issue number and page numbers, so I agree that they should be clustered together, as cite journal does and cite magazine should do:

• Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Magazine. Series. Location: Publisher. Vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1–13. (note that volume, issue and pages are separated by commas as a single grouping my example.)

Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everything said here. {{cite magazine}} could def be changed; the inelegance you point out luckily doesn't happen too often since it's rare to include publisher and location for magazines, but for the odd time where either of those would be necessary to help a reader identify a periodical, I agree for magazines it should be as you say. Also agree with your reasoning about book volumes being different. Umimmak (talk) Umimmak (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about it being extremely jarring, plenty of citation styles have the volume number before the publication information, not next to the pages:

APA:

• Strong, E. K., Jr., & Uhrbrock, R. S. (1923). Bibliography on job analysis. In L. Outhwaite (Series Ed.), Personnel Research Series: Vol. 1. Job analysis and the curriculum (pp. 140–146). doi:10.1037/10762-000
• Katz, I., Gabayan, K., & Aghajan, H. (2007). A multi-touch surface using multiple cameras. In J. Blanc-Talon, W. Philips, D. Popescu, & P. Scheunders (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 4678. Advanced Concepts forIntelligent Vision Systems (pp. 97–108). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74607-2_9

Chicago:

• The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, vol. 9, Contra Keynes and Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 44–45.
• The Complete Tales of Henry James, ed. Leon Edel, vol. 5, 1883–1884 (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1963), 32–33.

MLA:

• Rampersad, Arnold. The Life of Langston Hughes. 2nd ed., vol. 2, Oxford UP, 2002.
• Wellek, René. A History of Modern Criticism, 1750–1950. Vol. 5, Yale UP, 1986.

Umimmak (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Umimmak: as CS1 was heavily based on APA with influences from other guides like CMOS, I'm glad you brought up this point. (I was going to mention it, but felt my posting was already getting long.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Imzadi and disagree with Headbomb on book series. I would find it very jarring to have the volume within a series separated from the series title. I don't so much care whether the series+volume go before or after the publisher, but they should not be separated. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about where (as in before/after) the publisher information is, but volume/issue/pages should be together. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For books, we're going to have to agree to disagree. For books, the volume should be considered an extension of the title of the book along with series and edition, not an extension of the page number like it is with a periodical. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For book series, the volume isn't an extension of the title. It's the series volume. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all multi-volume books have series titles, and the volume would be an extension of the book title absent an intervening series title. Books aren't periodicals, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there are slightly different formats at work. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In order of importance (re: discovering the source): the publisher information block (which includes the edition) should be kept together. After that, the series/volume information. Then, page ranges of |title= (journal/magazine) or |chapter= (book). In-source locations such as page numbers, sections etc. are secondary search elements that can also be presented in short cites. When in full citations, their position could be part of the series/volume block I suppose. 184.74.237.158 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

ISBN wikilink is redirected

On Template:Cite book the output links to the old ISBN (identifier) article via a redirect from a page move instead of directly to the updated article name of ISBN. See David_Crosby#Publications for an output example of the ISBN redirect link. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 10:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is by design. Izno (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's so the Special:WhatLinksHere/ISBN can clearly delineate which Wikipedia pages are actually linking to the article about ISBN and which are just using a citation with an ISBN. Umimmak (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Which template to use?

I would like to cite this pdf which contains material related to the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I initially thought it was an excerpt from a book due to the appearance and page numbers noted, however, I could not identify an author or book title. Trying to locate title page information, I found that the pdf could be accessed through this page at dea.gov which has a few other sections in pdf format, but the earliest one began with page 12. There is nothing prior to page 12 or a title page. I then found that material was hosted by the United States Department of Justice here almost 18 years ago. This material may never have truly been a book, so I am wondering which template to use to cite the material in the pdf. My initial impression was to use {{cite book}} but I don't have a book title. Thanks! - Location (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a coffee-table book published by the FBI/DEA, but since you can't identify the title, I'd probably just use {{cite web}}. Izno (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on a text search, it looks like a reformatted version of this book. Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2003. United States. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 2003. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the feedback! - Location (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding multiple editors with cite book

How do I add multiple editors to cite book? Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This has been a settled question in Citation Style 1 for ten years or so. If a book citation template contains both a wikilink and a URL intended to link the title, the template will generate an error message, "URL–wikilink conflict". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledged above that both a URL and a wikilink won't work ("I personally would prefer that the templates be redesigned[...]"). The question is which one should be selected: URL or wikilink. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You can have both, if you put the url on the page numbers rather than on the book title. If we have an article about a book, I think that article should be linked, because the link will often contain useful information about the reliability of the source that might not be easily found otherwise. Example: our article The Symmetries of Things, heavily used as a source in some mathematics subtopics, includes sourced material (published book reviews) according to which we need to use it with caution as a source, because of its use of neologisms and its failure to give proper credit for previous work. When we cite this book without including this link, it makes it look more authoritative than it should. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose that because a fundamental principle of website usability is that interactive things that look the same should always behave the same. If readers are used to the title in a footnote being linked to the cited source, then it's going to surprise and frustrate them when one title leads, instead, to a Wikipedia article about the source. In that case, what is the likelihood that that reader who was looking for the source and got thwarted will (a) guess that the source is also available via a link, rather than assuming that they've been denied and walking away, and (b) notice that the page number is a link and try it on the off-chance that it'll take them where they wanted to go? More concisely, take it as given that the imperative of every web user is "Don't make me guess." Largoplazo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That may be why I wouldn't mind having the French-style "lire en ligne"/"read online" style normalized, and/or make wikilinks show up as a distinctly different color compared to external links, or both. When I did push URLs out of templates to accommodate wikilinks (prior to this discussion), I added the URLs to "read online" links to mimic what FRwiki does. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In the case of page-specific citations I do put in the URLs for those. I was wondering though in a choice between a general (non-page specific) URL or a wikilink. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If it’s something like WP:GOOGLEBOOKS where there isn’t free access to the entire book, I’m not sure that’s necessary. Some books online would perhaps be better linked to via an identifier such as a hdl or doi. But I kind of generally think if it’s important enough to wikilink a title in a citation to contextualize a citation, just name the book in the article text and wikilink it there? You can also have a link to the book outside the citation template but still part of the citation. Umimmak (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If there's a url where the book can be read freely, it should be linked from our article on the book. Why try to read the minds of readers about which kind of resource they want, when we can provide both, by including an internal wikilink that in turn provides the extlink? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option is also to have a link to the chapter in the chapter field and wikilink the title in the title field if it’s all coming from one chapter, but this won’t always be an option. Umimmak (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Book references should always include page numbers. So putting the extlink on the page numbers is always an option. I don't understand the opposition to wikilinking titles. If you wikilink the title, readers can find both the article about the source and the source itself (either through a link elsewhere in the reference or an extlink from the article on the book). If you don't, you are blocking readers from finding the article about the source, and forcing them to only look at the source itself. Why would you want to constrain the readers in this way? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure where you’re getting opposition… I’m just saying in some cases it might make sense to include a wikilinked title of the book in the article text if it’s that important to contexualize a particular source, and providing suggestions for ways multiple options both could be included. Umimmak (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I advise people not to link to Google Books. The links are not stable, and a page that may be available one day might not be available the next. See WP:GOOGLEBOOKS for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I linked that page above and explicitly said that Google Books links probably werent necessary, yes. Umimmak (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Always prefer a wikilink. This also is a settled point in CS1. Izno (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Funny, cause WP:CS1 says the exact opposite: A link to the actual source is preferred to a link to a Wikipedia article about the source. Umimmak (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also checked the history of WP:CS1 and the phrase there has been on the page for years. see this revision from 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool, the documentation is outdated. What else is new? :) Every time this question has ever come up in the past half a decade I've been watching this page the answer has been "prefer a wikilink to the article about the source" because you should be able to access the source the same way from the wikilinked page. And as David says up the page, if you need the precise source location linked, there are other places you can add that link. Izno (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The original form of that sentence was created at this edit 16 December 2011: A link to the actual source is better than a link to a Wikipedia article about the source.. The current version was created at this edit 18 October 2013: A link to the actual source is preferred to a link to a Wikipedia article about the source.

The original |titlelink= was added to Module:Citation (the now-defunct predecessor of Module:Citation/CS1) at this edit 7 September 2012. Before that, linking |title= to a wikipedia article about the title could only be accomplished by wikilinking the value assigned to |title= (|titlelink= is not supported by {{citation/core}}).

No doubt, no doubt, I am in the minority here, but I believe that |url= should take precedence over |title-link=. The purpose of a citation is to identify for the reader where the editor found the information that is included in the en.wiki article. If you want the reader to visit the en.wiki page about the title, add a wikilink at the end of the citation: [[<en.wiki article title>|About this source]] or some such.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Gah, what an ugly way of suggesting to format citations when no such workaround is needed.

The point is to not tell the reader what to visit; it is to allow the reader to decide where to go.

URLs for book citations are often a clumsy choice anyway, because the same book can be provided by multiple sources, many of which are not canonical. Suppose you have a book that is available online paywalled from the book publisher, available online to subscribers from archive.org, maybe some of its pages previewable online from Google books, and also available for piracy on Z-library. The question you are probably asking is "which one do you link" but I think it's the wrong question. We should instead ask "how can we format citations so that the choice of which link to use can be made by the readers, not by the editors". (Well, and maybe not include the Z-library one per WP:ELNEVER, but even so.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the OP is asking about CS1 templates specifically, not about citations in general. Forgive the preamble: For citations in general, the objective is directly related to WP:V. This means that a verifying reader should be able to discover and retrieve the source as quickly and easily as possible. The citations themselves are immaterial. What matters is to verify the wikitext and keep reading, because that's what Wikipedia is for. Related requirements follow logically: The title link should be in order of preference, 1. the freely accessible one 2. the partially-freely accessible one 3. the one with least onerous requirements (e.g. free registration) 4. further choices with increasing access requirements. Among two or more links with the same access pick the most relevant: that is the one with the most concise and precise information about the title (book) as it pertains to finding it. Let the reader get over it quickly.

When it comes to CS1 templates, the same should apply. But. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what WP:V says. It says the exact opposite: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Instead, it talks about the reliability of sources. That can be verified by looking up the book, the creator and the publisher. That's why we have author-link and title-link. That's why the Wikipedia article on the book is so relevant. As it happens, the links you are describing would be of little use to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you replying to some other comment? Nobody said anything about rejecting sources, "reliable" or not. It is about making it easy for the reader to verify the particulars of a source. One does not link the entire book just to verify specific context. That is what inline citations with in-source locations are for. Both (title) |url= and |title-link= are lookup parameters, not access ones. They should help the reader to quickly find the correct source so s/he can verify the wikitext and move on. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is a reader may read a citation of Hmong: History of a People and think "oh, it's verified, let's move on." But that overlooks that the work is deeply flawed and maybe it shouldn't be cited in that way. Having Wikipedia articles of books allows readers to check for the reputation of the work itself, which is an important ingredient in verifiability. Also even reliable source works occasionally make minor errors, and the book reviews document these minor errors. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a citation issue. Proper sourcing happens before citations are formatted and it should be dealt there. Citations deal with identifying and locating sources that support the wikitext. If wikitext uses dodgy sources to support otherwise unsupported claims then the issue is with the wikitext. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is the readers won't know the source is dodgy unless they are in the habit of clicking wikilinks to the sources themselves; the wikilinks are there to nudge the reader into doing so. And the issue is with the source being used, which is the root of the wikitext. Think of sourcing as making a foundation of a house. If the underlying sources (foundation) are bad, the entire house (article text) is not good. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the other way round. You claim something in Wikipedia and find sources to support that claim. In order to make the source available you use in this case, a citation. Whether the source is appropriate or not is not a citation issue, and will not be resolved there. If the claim has no proper sources remove the claim. If the claim is ambiguous, note the ambiguity in wikitext, and support the claim of ambiguity with the appropriate (ambiguous) sources. Then cite those sources (last step). Citations are not value statements, they are discovery and access aids. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

My statement about citations being the foundation of the article content stems from this from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." People can and do think of a statement and then look for a source to support it, and oftentimes that practice is okay. However I do not agree that citations are only ways of supporting statements; they are the content that we want to direct readers to, and articles are more or less summaries of the sums of reliable sources. Also it's important that the reader knows that they should check if the source is proper or not, and if no wikilinks are to be found, the reader may not know to check, for example Hmong: History of a People. A link like Hmong: History of a People makes it more obvious that the reader should check out the claim. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea that readers would read anything because, or prompted by, its citations is certainly a novel one. Citations are not even considered part of the copy of any material. Like indices, TOCs, bibliographies, etc. they are back matter or foot matter. Wikipedia isn't a research facility, it is a tertiary information provider. Citations are important because Wikipedia articles are inherently unreliable, and publish claims that must be supported. Here we deal with the presentation and formatting of that support. The quality of the support is a different matter that should ideally be dealt with before the citation is written, taking into account the context. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel that maybe readers should be prompted to read the citations and read what the citations say to get a handle on the topic. I remember a guy on a bus telling me to read the citations, and then read what those cite, etc: follow the rabbit trail. Of course not everyone has the time and patience to do that, but people who do should be encouraged to do so. Also, I see Wikipedia as the starting point for research; don't cite Wikipedia directly, but use it to case out a topic and get the key reliable sources on the topic so that those can be read directly. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Citations ideally do two things: 1. identify a source 2. provide sufficient information to locate it. The citation is supposed to verify some claim in wikitext. The claim may be a bold-faced lie: A citation that provides a source for that lie and the means to locate it is a good (i.e. "reliable") citation. Why the wikitext says what it says has nothing to do with citation formatting and presentation. The wikitext writer may be malicious; or, the writer may be stating the lie as an actual, important event; or may be stating the lie as an event that was debunked. In all cases, a citation proving that the lie actually happened is needed. An additional citation proving the lie as a lie will also be needed in a properly wrtten article. That citation may be from the same work, or from another one. The second citation, if it provides a debunking source and the means to locate it, is also a good (i.e. "reliable") citation. Do not confuse citations with § Bibliography, § Further reading, or § External links. All of these provide avenues for further information. The verification tool (citation) has narrow, vital scope: is the source identified/identifiable? Can it be easily and quickly located it so readers verify the claim and keep on reading the article? Because the point is reading the articles, not dwelling in citations. 65.88.88.237 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I have encountered quite a few inaccurate or unclear articles where the only useful part was the references. IMHO, providing references on a topic is valuable in itself, not just for verification. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the importance of references is underestimated in this thread. But I fail to understand how an article can be inaccurate or unclear if its references are the opposite. If this is so, there may a WP:TSI issue among others, or more generally misapplication of/insufficient WP:INCITE. Or perhaps more serious formatting issues regarding grammar and context, or preponderance of things like editorializing, jargon, NPOV etc. It would be the wikitext that needs fixing. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a question that needs an answer. Use URLs or use wikilinks, we shouldn't be deciding what others should use nor making an issue of it. Copying a title to search online is extremely simple, a link to the Wikipedia article about the book can be useful. A URL to the correct version, that may have differing page numbers, may be required when used with short form refs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue though is it may not occur to them that they should copy the title and check the reputation of the work. Having the wikilink there is a reminder to people that there is more information about the work cited and they should check the wikilink to check the reputation of the book. Hmong: History of a People partly exists to let Wikipedians know about the reputation of that source. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If it’s that important to do to contextualize a source, do so in the article itself; wikilink it in the text, and explain any possible issues there. An article should stand on its own; you shouldn’t need to expect a reader will click on a wikilink in a citation to know there’s a caveat with a source being cited. Umimmak (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

While one should try to contextualize in the article when possible, I would prefer to ensure book sources are linked even if the writers choose not to/cannot plausibly link the title of the book in the body of the article. The article is effectively built on a foundation of sources, and knowing whether the article has good foundations (such as not being sourced to the likes of Hmong: History of a People) is important. Also, the goal is to encourage readers to examine the sources themselves, something they should be doing. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is up to the person creating the cite. This thread shows there is no correct way, because there is no argreement on what that should be. Wikipedia allows an extremely broad range of how referencing should be done, and there shouldn't be any concerted effort to formalise this in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought about this issue some more. If the statement "A link to the actual source is preferred [...]" was changed to "either is fine", that would be okay with me. I would like to see more emphasis of adding wikilinks into the citation brackets, but whether the citation template itself has a URL or whether it has a wikilink (with the other being outside the template) is not as important as whether there is a wikilink within the citation (that may be outside of the citation template). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do so with citations you create if you wish. But I would be against any change, I just don't see the issue you do. If anything it seems to conflict with the idea that Wikipedia is never a valid source for referencing. What Wikipedia says about a source, positive or negative, is user generated content.

Editors are expected to use reliable sources, not whatever they can find to support their statements. It is that second behaviour that ends up with bad sources being used, well that and those pushing a POV (they will generally use anything to push their idea). Pushing wikilinks won't change that, nor I believe encourage more validation of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The articles about books aren't strictly speaking all about the user generated content: they link to book reviews. It's really each collection of book reviews, and not the user-generated content per se, which are meant to validate the sources which in turn validate articles (the reviews say the book is good, and therefore the book is a good source, or the reviews say the book like Hmong: History of a People is deeply flawed, and therefore the book shouldn't be used). The user generated content of course is meant to summarize the reviews and/or express highlights in the reviews, but the articles are also meant to give attention to the various book reviews themselves.

I am keenly aware that there are POV pushers who use biased sources, but book reviews may also ferret out sources that are flawed, or do not represent mainstream science.

The one issue with book reviews is that many of them are paywalled. Wikipedians in academic institutions or who have access to the Wikipedia Library are often able to read them, but I wish the general public was more easily able to do so.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Having editors add the book reviews doesn't get round the UGC concerns, as the editors are choosing which book reviews to add. Concerns about the reliability of a citation should be discussed at the article talk page, or at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I try to deal with that concern by adding all of the book reviews I can find to the "Further reading" page, and as I use the book reviews I move them up to the references section. Often I can find four, six, eight, ten or so book reviews for each book at a university library search engine (I typically use University of Houston Libraries). I would encourage people to list all of them so there can be the most holistic overview possible. I've also sometimes made notes in the talk page of the article in the book, like Talk:Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese, and often I flat out tell people to look at the book reviews. Any of the content can be then brought to WP:RSN for consideration. The article talk page may be a good place to discuss the reliability of specific information pertaining to the book in general, while the talk page of an article about the book can be used to document issues concerning the book as a whole (which can then be moved to RSN). WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

while the talk page of an article about the book can be used to document issues concerning the book as a whole (which can then be moved to RSN). 100% against this. All discussions should be at RSN, as that is the place people will be watching for such discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is I can't open an RSN thread every time I find content about a factual inaccuracy in an other-wise reliable book within an academic book review (authors are human, and they do make mistakes!). That would fill RSN with threads where there is no active sourcing issue, yet. For example: Talk:The Jew in American Cinema. I haven't yet seen somebidy actively cite the book in regards to the use of the words "anti-hero" and "semitism", so it would be pointless at this time to open an RSN thread. But it could come up in the future, and this is why I'm making notes of it now on the talk page, so another Wikipedian can check that, directly read the book review, and then cite the book review in RSN if the issue does arise. Another example is Talk:Dealing with Disaster in Japan, though instead of the book reviews (the reviews don't themselves tell about the usage of scientific information), it's about the Wikipedia aviation community choosing not to use the book for sourcing on scientific/technical info. It could come up at RSN if someone tries to use the book to source such when they shouldn't. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You only need to go to RSN when discussing it's usage in Wikipedia. If it's not been used yet, it doesn't need to be discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote page in AV media citations

Case A:

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

• Media-Title. Transcript. Quote.

Case B:

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

• Media-Title. Quote.

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

Bug fix. From {{cite AV media}}:

This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for audio and visual works. – emphasis added

Choose a more appropriate template or, for locating a point in time in the media playback, use |minutes= or |time=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh? What bug was that? When was it reported on this page? The discussion?

What is cited is AV media. Case A involves the media transcript (quoting text from a transcript page). Case B involves the media credits. Specific text metadata (from the title sequence) is cited. So this is the exact template for both.

Timetable for the erroneously removecd parameter to reappear? It's absence is a bug that should be dealt promptly. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There was clear opposition to the removal of quote-page by itself, or as an alias of quote-time, one of the few aliases that make sense as functionally they both describe in-source locations. I was one of those against it, and reasoning was given. Unilaterally you went ahead and changed it anyway. This is a disruptive change as it removes attribution specifics from a quote (the location where the quote can be verified). Two valid cases for the parameter were offered in the OP. This parameter has to be restored. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, restricting editor choice by presenting this as a bug is disingenuous. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Add parameter |eudml=

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

• Fontaine, Jean-Marc (1985). "Il n'y a pas de variété abélienne sur Z". Inventiones Mathematicae. 81 (3): 515–538. doi:10.1007/BF01388584. S2CID 122218539.
• Fontaine, Jean-Marc (1985). "Il n'y a pas de variété abélienne sur Z". Inventiones Mathematicae. 81 (3): 515–538. doi:10.1007/BF01388584. S2CID 122218539. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |eudml= ignored (help)

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

My mistake. I believe you mean eudml after all. It seems to have a bit of a narrow scope at the moment. I would wait to see if the concept matures/expands. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If it is adopted it would be better to use it as with the |jstor= field, so |eudml=143270 for the example above. That way it becomes another way that editors can look to gain access to the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I noticed that the European Digital Mathematics Library is a red link. So, would it be better to ask at the WP:WPM whether the EuDML meets WP:GNG ? --SilverMatsu (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a good idea, just on the basis of prominent partners such as the European Mathematical Society. The identifier website is very well designed and the identifier itself thoroughly explained, with extensible development. The "Reference Lookup" screen is a clever idea and a big plus, imo. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Request restoring parameter |quote-page= in the {{cite AV media}} templates. The parameter was withdrawn without acknowledgement in the latest module update, advertised here: § module suite update 14–15 January 2023.

The diff in question: January 2023 diff

An informal request was made above, in § Quote page in AV media citations. Note the indicated use-cases.

Previous discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media

This unheralded removal of the parameter is not trivial. Quoted material must always be attributed, and its location must be made available to the reader.

The relevant module lines (current version):

	local QuotePage;
	local QuotePages;
	if not utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, cfg.templates_not_using_page) then		-- TODO: rewrite to emit ignored parameter error message?
		Page = A['Page'];
		Pages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['Pages']);	
		At = A['At'];
		QuotePage = A['QuotePage'];
		QuotePages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['QuotePages']);
	end

Note that audiovisual templates are erroneously included in the templates not using page array in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration line 673

local templates_not_using_page = {'audio-visual', 'episode', 'mailinglist', 'newsgroup', 'podcast', 'serial', 'sign', 'speech'}

The template in question uses (text) transcript parameters that often are published with some sort of pagination or sectioning. Video also uses "pages" (frames/frame sequences) as location indicators.

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. You know how it works around here. Izno (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus, warning, or discussion for the change that removed |quote-page=. It should be reverted and then consensus should be established for its removal. Revert immediately, as this affects verification.

This is not a case of WP:BRD. The removal was unilateral and hidden. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)