Help talk:Citation Style 1

Citation templates

... in conception

... and in reality

Double quotation marks within title of minor work

Is there a reason why double quotation marks in such cases are not automatically displayed as single quotation marks? E.g.

{{cite web |title=Title with "quotation marks" in it |url=http://www.example.com/}}

"Title with "quotation marks" in it".

Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that this topic has ever been raised before. Has it? If so, where was that discussion?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason being that this was probably never brought up. It has been up to editors to follow WP MOS on this. It is a rare, minor case and there are probably other, more material issues that could be addressed. At some point it would make sense to implement this. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any previous discussion. It seems clear to me from MOS that double quotation marks should not enclose double quotation marks. It also stuck to me like something that could be mended by the CS1 templates. I think it is not that rare actually. I keep seeing these and sometimes fix them. I'm sure somebody could run a check of some kind to see just how many there are. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I make fixes like that frequently. If it could be taken care of at a software level, that would save a bunch of time and generally make Wikipedia more consistent and credible. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

According to this search, 64kish articles more-or-less. That search only finds cs1|2 templates where |title= includes at least one double quote mark so the search includes templates like {{cite book}} that don't wrap |title= in quote marks and ignores |chapter= (and aliases) parameters that do.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to MOS:QWQ, above. Any programmatic solution should be complete, i e. include the rendering of works (which as Trappist said are slanted), not just of in-work locations such as chapters which are quoted. This will lead to unavoidable inconsistent presentation of quote marks. Therefore it is imperative the rationale for the inconsistency is explained clearly in the doc. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration / et al behaviour

There's always been a weird behaviour when |collaboration= is set. E.g.

• {{Cite book |last1 = Van Dijk |first1 = Peter Paul |last2 = Iverson |first2 = John |last3 = Shaffer |first3 = H. Bradley |last4 = Bour |first4 = Roger |last5 = Rhodin |first5 = Anders |collaboration=Turtle Taxonomy Working Group |year = 2012 |chapter = Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status |title = Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises |doi = 10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012 |isbn = 978-0965354097}}

gives

• Van Dijk, Peter Paul; Iverson, John; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Bour, Roger; Rhodin, Anders; et al. (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group) (2012). "Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status". Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. doi:10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012. ISBN 978-0965354097.

but it should instead give

• Van Dijk, Peter Paul; Iverson, John; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Bour, Roger; Rhodin, Anders; et al. (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group) (2012). "Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status". Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. doi:10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012. ISBN 978-0965354097.

Et al should not be applied automatically when collaborations are set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You accepted in the third of 3 originating discussions that most collaborations are likely to be cited as et al (The majority of cases would have the et al. though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)), and we're now some 6 years down the road. Has your assessment given then changed for some reason? Do you want to track down and add it to all the citations that rely on the current behavior? Izno (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You'll note there that I also was against it back then. Yes the majority will have et al., that doesn't mean it's something that should be automatically added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So, do you plan to sort out the uses of |collaboration= which rely on an automatic et al? Izno (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you plan to sort out the uses of |collaboration= which inappropriately adds et al? The vast majority of uses requiring an et al. to be displayed already have a manually set display-authors. The vast majority of uses which don't have a display authors shouldn't have the et al. There are very, very few citations with a collaboration parameter set that need an automatic et al to be added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If something is wrong, the fact that it will take a lot of work to fix is not a good reason for keeping it. I'm a gnome type; I'd be happy to work on the project. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

As stated below this seems to be an inappropriate (imo, because undocumented) default, applying when there are more than four authors. In Headbomb's example, |display-authors=4 works properly, but |display-authors=5 returns an error. This should be handled at the source. I suppose when/if development on the module collection resumes, this could be tasked, following discussion. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, either document that |display-authors= cannot be set manually for authors>4, or remove default-value rendering. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get the four authors default? |collaboration= does not count author names. The documentation does say that 'et al.' will be appended to the author-name list when |collaboration= is used. If you believe that the documentation can be improved, please do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not document what I do not code. When the documentation is correctly split into reader, editor, and developer doc pages, I will be happy to help with the reader doc. I remember that in the past anything above four authors would be truncated with the et al. suffix. So I assumed this was still the case, because in the present case:

• {{Cite book |last1 = Van Dijk |first1 = Peter Paul |last2 = Iverson |first2 = John |last3 = Shaffer |first3 = H. Bradley |last4 = Bour |first4 = Roger |last5 = Rhodin |first5 = Anders |collaboration=Turtle Taxonomy Working Group |year = 2012 |chapter = Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status |title = Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises |doi = 10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012 |isbn = 978-0965354097|display-authors=4}}

renders

• Van Dijk, Peter Paul; Iverson, John; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Bour, Roger; et al. (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group) (2012). "Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status". Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. doi:10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012. ISBN 978-0965354097.

but

• {{Cite book |last1 = Van Dijk |first1 = Peter Paul |last2 = Iverson |first2 = John |last3 = Shaffer |first3 = H. Bradley |last4 = Bour |first4 = Roger |last5 = Rhodin |first5 = Anders |collaboration=Turtle Taxonomy Working Group |year = 2012 |chapter = Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status |title = Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises |doi = 10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012 |isbn = 978-0965354097|display-authors=5}}

returns

• Van Dijk, Peter Paul; Iverson, John; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Bour, Roger; Rhodin, Anders; et al. (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group) (2012). "Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status". Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. doi:10.3854/crm.5.000.checklist.v5.2012. ISBN 978-0965354097. {{cite book}}: Invalid |display-authors=5 (help)

So something changes when authors>4. Will have to look at the code regarding |display-authors= and |collaboration=. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Again notice that when the display option is set to 4, the rendering is correct (4 authors+et al). 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is invalid to have X names and have display-names >= X, by design. Izno (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure I skipped over this when I was reading the doc. Bad puns aside, I semi-remember this when originally discussed. I believe it was mentioned in an older iteration of the doc, but I am not certain. In any case, |display-authors=etal is a de facto default when |collaboration=some value. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Back in the days when the CS1 templates were wrappers for {{citation/core}}, there was provision for no more than 9 authors, but the ninth (if supplied) was never displayed. By default, the first 8 were always displayed, and if you supplied either |last9= or |author9=, the first 8 would be followed by "et al". This cut-off could be adjusted by means of the |display-authors= parameter, which accepted an integer in the range 1-8, so you could show fewer than 8 (but not more) before the "et al". Regardless of the number actually displayed, all 9 would be put into the COinS. All this changed in 2013 when Module:Citation/CS1 was introduced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if anything is actually 'wrong' but here are some crude data:

• ~1180 articles with cs1|2 templates using |collaboration=
• ~75 articles with cs1|2 templates using |collaboration= followed by |display-authors=
• ~225 articles with cs1|2 templates using |display-authors= followed by |collaboration=

As I understand it, a named collaboration is shorthand for a large number of individual authors. If an editor chooses to include all of the names associated with a named collaboration in the citation, is there any need for, or is it even proper to include, |collaboration= in that citation? My gut reaction is that the collaboration's name should be included and the list of individual names truncated to one or a few primary names because I suspect (without any evidence to support this) that it will be easier for a reader to locate the source by primary authors and the name of the collaboration than by the names of all n author names (when n is a relatively large number).

One thing that does seem 'wrong' to me is that |collaboration= without any |author=, |last=, or |vauthors= is silently ignored:

{{cite book |collaboration=The Writers Group |title=Title}} → Title.

|collaboration= requires at least one author name so templates without that name should declare a missing-name error.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Another fix I have previously suggested re missing authors in that context is an |org-author=, which is what that is semantically. Izno (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, it's a simple yes or no answer. Do you plan to fix it? If not, say so; if so, say so. A commitment to fixing uses after a change can help ensure the change gets made in the first place. Izno (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Izno, likewise, do you plan on fixing the cases where et al. isn't needed if the status quo remains? If so, how, because no mechanism exists within CS1/2 to do so. Neither of us have any way of detecting problem cases. Like the IP below said, |display-authors=etal is the default. It should not be so, per POLA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You don't get to deflect instead of answering the question when you were asked a question first. Please answer it. I have no personal issue with either answer, but there may be others who do. Izno (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And you don't get to badger me into being responsible for thousands of articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A commitment to fixing uses after a change can help ensure the change gets made in the first place.

"I want a change but I'm not willing to work on the problem it causes" isn't a good look. Basically, your answer is "no, I will not work on the issue". Thanks for your answer. Izno (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not my answer. I'll work on the issue as my time allows it, but I will not be responsible for anything overlooked, undetected, or which remains "unfixed". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That also would have sufficed a half-dozen responses ago. Be honest next time. Izno (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And I assume Principle of least astonishment is the preferred link. Izno (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems that |display-authors=etal is the default. It should not be so. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither of us have any way of detecting problem cases. is true, but that also means we have no data to support any suggested implementation. I do agree that the current default, "et al", probably reflects more citations to collaborations than the "we named all named authors so we don't need the et al" case.

There is another possible implementation which exists for the problem: permitting |display-authors= to be set to some reasonable value/key to indicate that no et al should be displayed from the current default.

Still another implementation that Ttm almost mentions above is to always display just a single author in the case of a citation to a collaboration. I support this even if I am unsure about the other two. Izno (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to have no default for the parameter in all cases. It is the easiest to implement and easiest to document. When the editor uses the parameter (for authors<lastn) et al. should be appended. 63.117.211.42 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is the easiest solution to implement in the modules. It is not the "simplest solution" when you consider that this will add (probably more) wikitext into articles (than all three alternatives, do-nothing plus the other two presented). Izno (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would not call citations wikitext. They are (published as) endmatter that verifies wikitext, and are not part of the article per se. (Some verification material is very rarely included in footnotes in print media, and there are e-media examples of that as well, but this is considered non-standard). Is there anything stopping an editor from eschewing display-authors and adding |authorn=et al. as the last author in an arbitrarily shortened author list? Or is ""et al." a bogus name? Such citation may be convenient but it is not correct. The correct form is to give all authors as they appear on the source (subject to module limits) and then optionally truncate the list by using |display-authors=. This way both verifiability and attribution ate satisfied. Any other concern (additional text, more cumbersome editing, etc) comes in a distant last. 65.204.10.232 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Some citations are present as sources of details not included in the article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations are just pointers, they cite verification material and nothing else. They include the source and ways to find/identify the source, plus factual/technical notes regarding the source (such as dead links, or embargo info etc), and perhaps verbatim quotes (short). Anything outside of that would require its own citation. This can be convoluted. Notes expanding on a citation should ideally be listed separately, and should very closely match the cited material, or nest further citations proving the note text. But that is a different issue (verification), not strictly speaking a citation-format issue. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not call citations wikitext, I said that there will be additional wikitext as a result of a change which requires it to be explicit with every use of |collaboration= and all authors in the collaboration are also provided in the citation of interest.

As for your definition of what qualifies as wikitext, that is not the definition (and I won't spend time arguing why not; I don't think anyone will side with you on that one). You are welcome to make a reasonable (according to WP:LAYOUT) argument that they are part of the end matter or not part of the article-proper, but whether some content is part of the article proper and the serialization that content has are orthogonal and/or completely unrelated.

anything stopping an editor from eschewing display-authors and adding Yes, an error displays: Last1; et al. Title. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link), subsequently cleaned up by gnomes.

I am not particularly interested in continuing this discussion; I was simply pointing out that there is a cost to that direction, and it is a cost that users of the templates have been sensitive to before. Izno (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

|subject-first=, |subject-last=?

Oughtn't we to have |subject-firstn= and |subject-lastn=? These would normally be used in {{cite interview}} and which does support |interviewer-firstn= and |interviewer-lastn=. |subjectn= is an alias of |authorn=.

I don't recall discussing this anywhere and a quick search of the archives seems to indicate that the topic has never been raised. Any reason why we aren't (shouldn't be) supporting these?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

When you added support for interviewer-first/last, you did not discuss it, which is when it would have made sense, if at all. I did not recommend adding it myself then because it seemed like totally unnecessary overhead for the templates. Izno (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that an expression of opposition or an expression of indifference?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Closer to indifference. Izno (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

allow c. (circa) in cite book's publication-date

Note, for example, Template:Cite Blomefield, which throws a "Check date values in: |publication-date=" error, but the c. works fine for the |year= parameter. Could the cite book template be modified so "c." is valid for |publication-date=? = paul2520 💬 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been raised before, for the "native" cs1 templates. You can join the queue, but prepare to wait. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to clarify that cite book is what should be updated! Thanks. = paul2520 💬 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In {{Cite Blomefield}} consider removing the 'when written' date (currently in |year=) and replacing |publication-date= with |date=. The 'when written' date doesn't really aid a reader in locating a copy of the source and may, in fact, cause some confusion because the 'when written' date appears first in the rendered citation. There has been some discussion here about changing Module:Citation/CS1 so that |publication-date= becomes a complete alias of |date=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

orig-year or orig-date

Which is the canonical form? The docs seem to be self-contradictory. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a contradiction?

|orig-date= is the canonical form.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Some parts of the page use the orig-uear as the parameter in the lists. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Which page?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The cite docs such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal/doc use |orig-year= in all the big lists of possible parameters. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Look for the docs in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns10=1&search=insource%3A%22orig-year%22&searchToken=2w083e4dr0dw1zo9x62k1hcsi AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, thanks for that. I've tweaked the doc pages for all of the cs1|2 templates. Someone else can do the wrapper templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Letter to the editor

I just modified a cite at HMS Sheffield (D80) (my bold additions):

The sinking of Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.

References

The documentation here does not properly cover letters to the editor from notable public figures. This is a bit annoying, because unlike most instance of cite news, it would make sense to annotate the professional association of the letter writer, in this case: President of Vested to the Hilt, Inc.

I skirted the issue by quoting his own sign-off attribution from the article itself. Felt a bit dirty, but it worked for me. In the absence of better documentation here, I fear it's the best you can hope for. — MaxEnt 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Possibly better:

The sinking of Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.

References

We have |department= for {{cite news}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Providing what he does is not the point of a citation, which is to allow someone to find the source cited. Put simply, you shouldn't include it at all. Adding the department as suggested by Jonesey is a good way to indicate where the commentary was published. Izno (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, as noted, the affiliation of the letter writer does not belong in the citation. Even though technically there is nothing wrong with quoting the signature, as it is part of the source. It is best that the affiliation is clearly stated in wikitext. This is important in the sense that "Letters to the editor" are basically unsolicited op-eds that fall in the same grey area: opinions (primary sources) published in a secondary source. Especially in the context of the article. What is the article claiming? That a ship's sinking has been incorrectly blamed on aluminum parts. And you cite a letter by an aluminum executive as proof. This needs a bit better presentation at the very least. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[Template:Cite book] Contributions not working?

I cannot seem to find a way to add authors of prefaces or forewords. According to the documentation at Template:Cite book, this is done by the parameters contribution, contributor-last and contributor-first. However, those parameters do not seem to work and are not present in the Visual Editor's interface for Template:Cite book.
Is there a bug is did I fail to understand how it is supposed to work? Veverve (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It is always good to provide a non-working example.

{{cite book |title=Title |contribution=Foreword |last=Smith |first=CD |contributor-last=Jones |contributor-first=AB}}

Jones, AB. Foreword. Title. By Smith, CD.

The above appears to work. What are you attempting to do that does not work?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you citing the preface or forward? That's what |contribution=, |contributor= / |contributor-last=, etc., is for. For instance, if you are citing John Smith's statement that "working with Jane Doe was a labor of love",, you'd use the following citation:

• {{Cite book |contributor-last=Smith |contributor-first=John |contribution=Forward |last=Doe |first=Jane |date=2021 |title=Fake Book I Made Up }}
• Smith, John (2021). "Forward". Fake Book I Made Up. By Doe, Jane.

You can see that the citation is not quoting Jane Doe in her book, it's quoting the person who wrote the contribution (similar to an individual author's article in a collaborative encyclopedia, {{Cite encyclopedia}} cite the article entry & author, not the editor of the encyclopedia)

 — sbb (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

@Sbb: I am trying to add: Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan, eds. (1990). "Brown, Daniel Quilter". Independent Bishops: An International Directory. Apogee Books. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9. {{cite book}}: |contributor= requires |author= (help); |contributor= requires |contribution= (help); More than one of |contribution= and |chapter= specified (help). Veverve (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In that you wrote:

|chapter=Brown, Daniel Quilter

|contribution=Preface

When cs1|2 see two parameters that are aliases of each other, it chooses one of them and emits the More than one of |contribution= and |chapter= specified error message. Because cs1|2 chose |chapter=, it ignores |contribution=. Because you wrote:

|contributor-last=J. Gordon |contributor-first=Melton

and because cs1|2 is ignoring |contribution= (which is required for any of the |contributor= parameters), cs1|2 emits the |contributor= requires |contribution= error message. Because there is no |author= (or |last=) parameter (which is required when using any of the |contributor= parameters, cs1|2 emits the |contributor= requires |author= error message.

You cannot cite two (or more) sections of a book in a single {{cite book}} template. If you want to cite both the chapter "Brown, Daniel Quilter" and the "Preface", you must do so separately. And, since this source appears to be more of an encyclopedia than a book with chapters (to me, "Brown, Daniel Quilter" 'feels' more like an encyclopedia entry) then, for that entry, perhaps this:

{{Cite encyclopedia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EpXjAAAAMAAJ&q= |encyclopedia=Independent Bishops: An International Directory |date=1990 |publisher=Apogee Books |isbn=978-1-55888-307-9 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=Gary L. |page=63 |language=en |entry=Brown, Daniel Quilter |editor-last2=Persson |editor-first2=Bertil |editor-last3=Bain |editor-first3=Alan}}

Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan, eds. (1990). "Brown, Daniel Quilter". Independent Bishops: An International Directory. Apogee Books. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9.

and for the preface, perhaps this:

{{Cite encyclopedia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EpXjAAAAMAAJ&q= |encyclopedia=Independent Bishops: An International Directory |date=1990 |publisher=Apogee Books |isbn=978-1-55888-307-9 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=Gary L. |page=63 |language=en |section=Preface |editor-last2=Persson |editor-first2=Bertil |editor-last3=Bain |editor-first3=Alan}}

J. Gordon, Melton (1990). "Preface". In Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan (eds.). Independent Bishops: An International Directory. Apogee Books. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So again, what are you trying to cite/quote? Are statements made by J. Gordon Melton in the Preface being cited, or is the chapter/entry "Brown, Daniel Quilter" being cited? If the answer is both, then you either need 2 different {{Cite xxx}} templates, or if your article uses Harvard-style citations, you can use {{harvc}} to compactly cite and markup multiple entries in the same collection. If the Preface isn't being cited at all, just leave it out of the citation.

Note: For what you're doing, I'd use {{Cite encyclopedia}} over {{Cite book}}. c.f.:

With |contribution=

Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan, eds. (1990). "Preface". Brown, Daniel Quilter. Independent Bishops: An International Directory. Apogee Books. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |contributor= ignored (help)

Without |contribution=

Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan, eds. (1990). "Brown, Daniel Quilter". Independent Bishops: An International Directory. Apogee Books. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9.

Notice with the contribution, the "Preface" is quoted (as a dictionary/encyclopedia article should be), whereas the article entry is italicized? I think the contribution is confusing the {{Cite xxx}} code.  — sbb (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your first example attempts to cite both "Preface" and "Brown, Daniel Quilter" which cs1|2 really isn't designed to do. One source per template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: I am trying to indicate that this book has a preface by J. Gordon Melton, and that the entry "Brow, Daniel Quilter" is being cited.

{{Cite encyclopedia}} would not be very useful in this case, as there is no indication as to which contributor wrote which entry inside the book. Veverve (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

One source per cs1|2 template. If you are including "Preface" in the citation merely because the work has a preface, don't do that. If you are citing something from "Preface", use a separate cs1|2 template and, I agree with Editor sbb that {{cite encyclopedia}} appears to be the best choice here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: If you are including "Preface" in the citation merely because the work has a preface, don't do that. I think it is quite relevant to indicate if there is a preface to a work, which is why I tried to indicate it. It is especially important in this case, as J. Gordon Melton is a well respected encyclopedia editor in the religious field. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are citing the preface, cite the preface. The purpose of a citation is to help readers locate the source that supports the text in an en.wiki article. If the text at Daniel Q. Brown is supported by the source named in the current citation (the "Brown, Daniel Quilter" entry) then that is all that is needed. If the preface is not being used to support text at Daniel Q. Brown, tt really does not matter that J. Gordon Melton is a well respected encyclopedia editor. When/if text at Daniel Q. Brown is supported by Melton's preface, then cite Melton separately.

You might write |others=Preface by J. Gordon Melton. I do not recommend it because that is just so much extraneous text that doesn't aid a reader in locating a copy of the source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mutually agreeing with Trappist the monk here. I get it, and sympathize with your goal from a "data completionist" standpoint. The information is there, why not include it, right? But please understand, that's not what the {{Cite xxx}} or {{Citation}} templates are really meant for. They are meant to support citations supporting references in en.wiki articles. The |contribution= and related parameters exist in support of citing material in the text. Think of it this way: if articles needed to cite a Preface or Forward of a work, how would they do so, given the current crop of {{Cite xxx}} templates, if the templates worked the way you're trying to make them work? The answer is, they couldn't. That's what |citation= |contribution= et. al provide: a way to cite material that's not part of the main body of the work.

BTW, it doesn't matter that there's no specific author that can be identified for the "Brown, Daniel Quilter" article. You should still be using {{Cite encyclopedia}}. The work you're citing is Independent Bishops: An International Directory. From the introductory sentence of the template's doc page:

This ... template is used to create citations for articles or chapters in edited collections such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, but more generally any book or book series containing individual sections or chapters written by various authors, and put together by one or more editors.

If you want to note additional facts about the citation, just add it after the template, and use |mode=cs2 as an argument to suppress the final stop/period that the {{Cite encyclopedia}} template normally provides:

• {{Cite encyclopedia |mode=cs2 |title=Brown, Daniel Quilter |encyclopedia=Independent Bishops: An International Directory |date=1990 |publisher=Apogee Books |isbn=978-1-55888-307-9 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=Gary L. |pages=63 |editor-last2=Persson |editor-first2=Bertil |editor-last3=Bain |editor-first3=Alan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EpXjAAAAMAAJ&q= }}, with Preface by [[J. Gordon Melton]].
• Ward, Gary L.; Persson, Bertil; Bain, Alan, eds. (1990), "Brown, Daniel Quilter", Independent Bishops: An International Directory, Apogee Books, p. 63, ISBN 978-1-55888-307-9, with Preface by J. Gordon Melton.

edited: added |ref=none to the {{Cite encyclopedia}} template to suppress the 'Harv warning' in this example. If you are using CITEREFs / reference templates ({{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, etc.), then you don't need the |ref=none parameter to the Cite template.  — sbb (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Umm, quibbles:

• no such parameter as |citation=
• |mode=cs2 also switches the element separator from dot to comma and changes some capitalization so templates with that parameter/value pair are stylistically different from adjacent cs1 templates. This can cause knickers to twist. Better perhaps is to use |postscript=none or |postscript=, (or other single punctuation character).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dang it. Thanks for catching my |citation= mistake (I meant to say |contribution=, but I had {{Citation}} on my mind from the previous sentence). Edited with strike and ins.

And I should have known I was being a bit too cavalier with |mode=cs2, but I forgot it had other effects besides just final punctuation. Definitely agree, I shouldn't recommend CS1/CS2 mode switching; people go to a lot of effort to get articles self-consistent. Thanks.  — sbb (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Publication date for journal references

{{cite journal}} accepts both year and date, but the former is discouraged. Since date can accept day, month, and year; this creates inconsistency in the references. I understand the full date is necessary for some references such as news articles, but it is really superfluous for scholarly journals. I suggest encouraging date=YYYY for journal references for the following reasons: (i) In scholarly referencing, the full date of publication is (almost) never used for journal articles. (ii) Full date of publication is technically useful for scholarly articles, as the dates of submission, acceptance, online publication, print publication are months apart in the best-case scenario. (iii) The guide says it is useful if an author publishes several articles in the same year, but Wikipedia references are numbered not sorted by authors' names in Chicago style. Even in the latter, YYYYa,b,c is used since there is no guarantee that one author has not several articles in the same month.

My suggestion is not to change anything but to encourage in the referencing guide using the year of publication.589q (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The date used in journal citations reflects the date of publication of the specific issue. This has to be so because this is one of the fields indexed by periodical reference/biblio database providers. Therefore it is an important aid in finding the source of the citation and verifying the wikitext. Wikipedia by its very nature demands this. It should not be compared to other projects that have different audiences, specifications, or demands. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(i) Nobody uses the issue to find an article. Every journal article is linked with DOI. (ii) 80% of journal articles in Wikipedia references are cited by year only. My suggestion is for consistency. (iii) The reset usually have a YYYY-MM format, which is not enough for finding an issue because most journals have more than 12 issues per year. (iv) Most journals do not even mention the publication date in the list of issues (only issue number).589q (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that every journal article is linked with a DOI. Not all of them are, for many different reasons. Secondly, you assume that the average Wikipedia reader would know what a DOI is, as it is generally considered scholarly/expert info. As a matter of course, registrants such as CrossRef assign part of the suffix by journal date and/or issue. Also, it doesn't matter how journal references are cited in Wikipedia; we are only discussing how they should be correctly cited. A reader wanting to verify a citation can see several non-cryptic pieces of information before the identifiers. This order of placement is not random. As noted before, reference databases index author/date/issue/article title/identifier per journal. That is the easiest way for the average reader to find them. Not coincidentally, DOI registrants may use the very same databases (among other information) to build DOI suffixes. The resulting DOI number will then be used to update the relevant databases. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You got me wrong on the DOI matter. I didn't say people use DOI to check the citations. I said (almost) every journal article referenced in Wikipedia has a hyperlink via doi.org which sends the reader to the article. For checking the reference, people simply click on the available hyperlink. Nobody finds the article via the table of contents when there is a direct link, whether you are familiar with DOI or not. All scholarly articles have DOI. My suggestion is all about the readability for both professional and average readers. I just suggest consistency for "Doe, J. (2021)", "Doe, J. (December 2021)", and "Doe, J. (23 December 2021)" referencing. Roughly speaking, 80% of journal articles in Wikipedia references use the first format. I just suggest having a recommendation for the preferred format. When I add a reference, I do not know which format is recommended. Thus, I pick one randomly. These random choices add to the unnecessary inconsistency.589q (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to prove anybody wrong on anything, we are discussing a proposition. I know that |date= documentation suggests several different ways to input the date. Presumably, the source can be found whether the date is input as year only or as a more complete date. However it is best to input the date the way you see it in the publication itself, again because this is how the source will be found faster when one searches for it by date. The consistency proposition satisfies aesthetics but may hamper/delay discovery. In an inherently unreliable project like Wikipedia, ease of source discovery and therefore of verification is important. Consistency regarding dates is recommended where it will not affect discovery. And may I repeat that the idea that the average reader will see a citation and immediately click on an otherwise cryptic identifier is not a useful assumption, and imo highly unlikely. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am probably on a different page, as I have no clue what you are referring to. "this is how the source will be found faster when one searches for it by date". Could you please let me know how you search for a journal article by the date of publication? And when there is a direct hyperlink to the article, why should one search for the article?589q (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not all of the references that are cited in Wikipedia are online, and some readers may have to resort to searching through physical journals at libraries (particularly for older works), in which case details of how the journal refers to the location etc of the article (i.e. how the journal presents the date of the issue and things like volume and issue number, and even page numbers) will be very helpful in finding the article in question. Your proposal merely strengthens FUTON bias.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Even when the full text is available online, you may still have to search on the date, drilling down to the year, month, volume and issue. This occurs when the journal has been digitised by being scanned, but the text is not searchable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(i) I have not come across a single journal article without a PDF version. If there is, it is almost impossible to find them in any library. (ii) If someone has access to a library with a physical archive of the scholarly journals, the library should have an online subscription too. (iii) I come from the generation of hardcopy and spent nights in libraries for finding references. I have never used the publication date for finding an article because it is technically impractical. Journal issues are bonded together and only the range of issues is printed on the cover. (iv) If I am wrong, and the date of publication is useful in finding an article, then, there should be a recommendation for providing the full date of publications for the 80% of the Wikipedia references, which have provided year only.

My suggestion was simple. I asked when I am adding a reference, which of the three formats (bolded above) is recommended? If your answer is: whichever you like, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If your answer is: whichever is available, I have the full date of thousands of (almost all) references with year only. Should we add the missing information? If your answer is: leave them the way they are, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia because the choice was based on personal preferences to include the full date or year only. 589q (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

589q, please provide data for your claims about date formats and the presence of DOIs for journal citations in WP articles. Your claims are wildly inconsistent with my experience in editing tens of thousands of citations in articles. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I didn't get what part was different from your experience. Do you mean the DOI is not available for most journal articles cited in Wikipedia? Or the date formats are not mostly years? For example, see Lithium as a general article with numerous similar ones.589q (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The answer really is: whichever you like. I tend to use either year=2021 or date=December 2021; I don't think the full dates are useful, but the months sometimes are, for the purpose suggested above: tracking down articles in journals from the journal name and publication date in cases where the title isn't working well. Re the discussion above about journal publications with no online pdf: they're unusual but not unheard of. For instance I don't know where to find the following in its original form (I do know of a revised version in a 2019 book that is available online): Datta, Bibhutibhusan; Singh, Awadhesh Narayan (1992). "Use of permutations and combinations in India". Indian Journal of History of Science. 27 (3): 231–249. MR 1189487. Re your attitude that there can only be one format: See WP:CITEVAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, it is very unlikely to find that article in physical form in libraries too. Does it help to find it easier? Datta, Bibhutibhusan; Singh, Awadhesh Narayan (24 December 1992). "Use of permutations and combinations in India". Indian Journal of History of Science. 27 (3): 231–249. MR 1189487..589q (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The issues I can find online of that journal [1] are labeled by month and year, but not by the day within the month. So the month and year are useful information to me; the day is not. Also, the issue with that paper appears to be available in a physical copy at the Stanford University library, very near where I happen to be now and where (as an alumnus) I would probably have access to it if it weren't a holiday, and I definitely would have access to photocopies of either that or the UC Berkeley copy through interlibrary loan from my home library at UC Irvine. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally, when looking up for an article in the physical archive, volume and page number is sufficient. Extra information is the issue number. The month of publication does not provide any information beyond the issue number. The issue number is usually mentioned in both the academic bibliography and Wikipedia reference (including your example). If we want to add more information, why not using one that is available, common, and more accurate (issue number), and just add extra data, which might be useful or not. By the way, if you travel to another institution (whatever close) to get an article, you wouldn't care to have the month of publication in hand to find it 10 seconds faster.589q (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Point of note, "YYYY-MM" is not an acceptable date format. This is because it is ambiguous if a date such as "2006-07" refers to July 2006, or the year range "2006–2007".  — sbb (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The statement "if date is useful in finding a journal article" is incorrect. Journal dates are indexed by all metadata providers so that search queries can find a particular issue by date. There is no "if" here, this is one of the items that sources are classified by. So date has semantic significance in the context, and is not just a matter of aesthetics. It is also not an obtuse item for the average reader, unlike any identifier. That said, nobody forces anybody to use the complete issue date (even though they should). But it would be semantically diminishing to suggest a date abbreviation as the "preferred" date. If anything, the complete date should be suggested as the preferred option. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: above, it was not meant that editors should be obligated to use the complete publication date as it appears in the journal. It is just my opinion that they should, for the sake of faster/easier discovery. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost everyone is in favor of the month of publication. I still believe an article is looked up by its year, volume, and page number if DOI is not available. I just wonder if the month of publication is such useful, why is there no petition to add the missing date of publication in the references. I come to my second reasoning that the date of publication is misleading.

Let me clarify this through an example. How do you cite this article https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c08484? At the top of the page, it is written: Publication Date:November 28, 2021, but this article belongs to volume 143, issue 49 (December 15, 2021). Nowhere on the page, you can find December 15, 2021 unless you go to the issue page.

You may wonder what if the publication year is different from the issue. Here is an example: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.0c10943 Publication Date:December 15, 2020 belongs to volume 143, issue 1 (January 13, 2021). At the top of the page, it is clearly stated Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 1, 5–16

The problem is: for most publishers, the publication date is the date of (online) publication of the article, but the publication year is of the release of the whole issue. The latter must be used for citation. Usually, the latter is included in the former, but not necessarily (the second example I gave). 589q (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake: I should have used "issue date" where I used "publication date". Most (not all) journals have a set issue date schedule, but often the publication schedule diverges for whatever reason. For this reason, most biblio providers classify by "issue date" if it exists, rather than "publication date", which comes into play if it is the only date. If you look at the way providers structure the metadata, "date" almost always refers to issue date (usually a known in-advance property), with publication date commonly relegated to a "Notes"-like field. In CS1, a citation can provide both dates, although there is an opinion to do away with publication date, and use that info only when issue date is absent (confining this argument to journals for now).

In you first example, suppose one remembers part of an author's/editor's last name. It is also known that the work was published in late 2021. With that info, you will get a list of results. I suggest that in the great majority of queries the entry with the author and issue date will appear before any other date in a browser with no previously cached results, simply because that is how the info is indexed, and search engines use this same info. If you know the journal name, it is easier, because the issue schedule is set, and you can zero-in on the "December 2021" issue. And as you can see in the second example this correct procedure is given (cite by issue date), as this leads to the most efficient doscovery. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating that this discussion is about serial publications. Other considerations apply in e.g. books, including book series. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We have two independent parameters: |date=, for the date printed on the cover; and |publication-date= for the date that it became available to subscribers and other potential purchasers. These two need not be the same, see Template:Cite journal#csdoc_date and Template:Cite journal#csdoc_publication-date. For example:

• Feifan Wang; Yongping Fu; Ziffer, Mark E.; Yanan Dai; Maehrlein, Sebastian F.; X.-Y. Zhu (January 13, 2021). "Solvated Electrons in Solids—Ferroelectric Large Polarons in Lead Halide Perovskites". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 143 (1) (published December 15, 2020): 5–16. doi:10.1021/jacs.0c10943.

Is that way of showing both dates satisfactory? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

[Template:Cite encyclopedia] put the chapter along with the name of the entry

I am trying to add the following:

Melton, J. Gordon (2009). "Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition". Hugh George de Willmott Newman. Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7876-9696-2.

However, the name of the entry ("Hugh George de Willmott Newman") is italicised. The only I can get the entry name to be between quotation marks is by removing or emptying the chapter parameter. Is there any way I could have something like ('Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition') to be displayed so that I can indicate clearly the name of the entry while also indicating the name of the chapter the entry is in? Veverve (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Unfortunately, the Citation Lua code only recognizes the a pair of "location in reference" and "reference name" in {{Cite xx}} templates. For books, it's (|chapter=, |title=); encyclopedias, journals, and magazines, it's (|title=, |encyclopedia=), (|title=, |journal=), and (|title=, |magazine=).

To do what you want, you'll need to put the chapter after the template. But really, given entry title of "Hugh George de Willmott Newman" and the page number, the chapter isn't really necessary; it's just a little bit over-specificity.  — sbb (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: This encyclopedia is divided into chapters, with each chapter having its own alphabetical order from A to Z. Since this encyclopedia is updated every few years, I want to insure the reader will be able to find the entry I pointed to in the most recent editions in the future (and I am already one edition behind the current one). Do you think it is possible to edit the template so that it can do what I want? Veverve (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

How peculiar. There are three entries on pp. 84, 85: Joseph Rene Vilatte → Hugh George de Willmott Newman → Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. I presume that there is some rationale for that organization?

Regardless, you can spoof {{cite encyclopedia}} to some extent:

{{Cite encyclopedia |entry=Hugh George de Willmott Newman |encyclopedia=Melton's encyclopedia of American religions |publisher=Gale Cengage Learning |url=http://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt |last=Melton |first=J. Gordon |date=2009 |publication-place=Detroit |edition=8th |page=84 |isbn=978-0-7876-9696-2 |title=''Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition''}}

Melton, J. Gordon (2009). "Hugh George de Willmott Newman". Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition. Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7876-9696-2.

Alas, the important bit that you are citing (the value in |entry=) will not be available to readers who consume cs1|2 citations by way of the metadata. Do not add quote marks to |title= because they are not stripped from the value when it is made part of the metadata.

I want to insure the reader will be able to find the entry I pointed to in the most recent editions in the future. This is contrary to WP:SAYWHERE. We really can't future-proof citations. In some future version of Melton's, the entry may no-longer support the text at en.wiki; the chapter organization may change; other stuff may change... but the 2009 edition does support the en.wiki text so that is how the citation should be constructed. Were it me, I would write:

{{Cite encyclopedia |entry=Hugh George de Willmott Newman |entry-url=https://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt/page/84/mode/2up |encyclopedia=Melton's encyclopedia of American religions |publisher=Gale Cengage Learning |url=http://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt |url-access=registration |last=Melton |first=J. Gordon |date=2009 |location=Detroit |edition=8th |page=84 |isbn=978-0-7876-9696-2}}

Melton, J. Gordon (2009). "Hugh George de Willmott Newman". Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7876-9696-2.

This points readers to the correct source in both the visual and metadata renderings.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a third level of titling, between individual entries and the whole encyclopedia, given by |department=:

• {{Cite encyclopedia |entry=Hugh George de Willmott Newman |encyclopedia=Melton's encyclopedia of American religions |publisher=Gale Cengage Learning |url=http://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt |last=Melton |first=J. Gordon |date=2009 |publication-place=Detroit |edition=8th |page=84 |isbn=978-0-7876-9696-2 |department=Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition}}
• Melton, J. Gordon (2009). "Hugh George de Willmott Newman". Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7876-9696-2.

That may be a better choice in this instance. I think the part that gets left out of the computer-readable metadata is the department but does anyone actually use that format? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Interesting. I guess I ignored that |department= was valid for {{Cite encyclopedia}}. I only use |department= with {{Cite newspaper}} or {{Cite magazine}} where the entry is something like an obituary, public notices, standing "letter from the editor", etc.  — sbb (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure it would work until I tried it in this example. I usually only use it for journal, magazine, or newspaper citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet another alternative: |at=

{{Cite encyclopedia |chapter=Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition |encyclopedia=Melton's encyclopedia of American religions |publisher=Gale Cengage Learning |url=http://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt |url-access=registration |last=Melton |first=J. Gordon |date=2009 |location=Detroit |edition=8th |at=p. [https://archive.org/details/meltonsencyclope0008melt/page/84/mode/2up 84: Hugh George de Willmott Newman] |isbn=978-0-7876-9696-2}}

Melton, J. Gordon (2009). "Chapter 2 - Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition". Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning. p. 84: Hugh George de Willmott Newman. ISBN 978-0-7876-9696-2.

All of the entry, chapter, and title are in the citation's metadata. Of course, the entry information is at the wrong end of the visual rendering...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk and David Eppstein: I may have mistaken in Newman's case a paragraph title with an entry, which is why there is not alphabetical order in the items Trappist the monk listed. Still, your help will be valuable to me for other articles; you can see an example at Christ Catholic Church (Pruter). I used David Eppstein's version. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Internationalisation need

Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration has local date information along with English language date information. This is a creating problem for Telugu Wikipedia users, as everytime this module is refreshed from enwikipedia, as part of import of Templates that use this module, the Telugu language information is getting overwritten. Then a manual update of Telugu language language dates is required to avoid check date errors being shown for Telugu dates. I request the maintainers to internationalise that portion. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

By doing what, exactly? We will not add all of every language's possible date names as that would be undue burden of page processing on English Wikipedia. I think it's fairly reasonable to expect users refreshing the configuration page to check what they are doing and refresh only the relevant parts. Izno (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Izno, I am hoping that the local dates information can be stored in a subpage with language suffix. If such a page is not available, the default English dates can be used as local dates as well. On Telugu wikipedia, there are many admins who refresh the templates for their need, but do not have knowledge of template code or often forget to update the local date info. Hope that helps. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is on my TODO list for after the next update.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk, Glad to know that it is in your todo list. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

addition of 'quote-p' and 'quote-pp' to citiation templates

Can someone please add 'quote-p' and 'quote-pp' as aliases of 'quote-page' and 'quote-pages' respectively? -- PK2 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

WTF is this? (templatestyles stripmarker in title= at position XX)

Tang, Jian; Oka, Takeshi (1999). "Infrared spectroscopy of H₃O⁺: the v₁ fundamental band". Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. 196 (1): 120–130. Bibcode:1999JMoSp.196..120T. doi:10.1006/jmsp.1999.7844. PMID 10361062. {{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 26 (help)

There's no issue in this citation. That error message needs to be suppressed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It's old news that you shouldn't use templates in certain parameters. This is an outcome of someone's deliberate decision to do so.

See also a recent-enough archive that you can go looking for a discussion on a related topic. Izno (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"you shouldn't use templates in certain parameters" there's never been any such proscriptions on template use anywhere. Case in point

Smith, J. (1999). "Fake title NO³⁻
". Journal of Stuff. 1 (2): 3–4.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been repeated here ad nauseum. I doubt you have somehow missed those discussions. Izno (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Something false repeated many times doesn't suddenly become true. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Su}} has been marked with {{COinS safe|n}} since this edit 18 January 2015. {{COinS safe}} has been around since 18 May 2012‎ (Special:Permalink/493117278). The COinS section of the cs1|2 template documentation was created 12 January 2012‎ (Special:Permalink/470891851) and incorporated at this edit (11 January 2012). Yeah, the timing seems a little odd... Still, we have discouraged the use of templates in cs1|2 parameters for nearly a decade now.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: How about replacing {{H3O+}} with <sub>...</sub> and <sup>...</sup> tags, like this:

Tang, Jian; Oka, Takeshi (1999). "Infrared spectroscopy of H₃O⁺: the v₁ fundamental band". Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. 196 (1): 120–130. Bibcode:1999JMoSp.196..120T. doi:10.1006/jmsp.1999.7844. PMID 10361062.

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The point is that this shouldn't throw an error at all, not that you can half ass a workaround. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the old issue of the inferior coins scheme used here. As suggested, such errors (that have nothing to do with citations) should be suppressed. Instead, perhaps whoever maintains coins could be auto-pinged any time this happens. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This wouldn't be Wikipedia without additional confusion: some templates do work anywhere including |title=. One common example is {{en dash}}. For more, you can turn to the imaginary list documenting such templates that do not blame the victims. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be related to <chem></chem> tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This should bypass the error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Current

• Tang, Jian; Oka, Takeshi (1999). "Infrared spectroscopy of H₃O⁺: the v₁ fundamental band". Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. 196 (1): 120–130. Bibcode:1999JMoSp.196..120T. doi:10.1006/jmsp.1999.7844. PMID 10361062. {{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 26 (help)

Sandbox

• Tang, Jian; Oka, Takeshi (1999). "Infrared spectroscopy of H₃O⁺: the v₁ fundamental band". Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. 196 (1): 120–130. Bibcode:1999JMoSp.196..120T. doi:10.1006/jmsp.1999.7844. PMID 10361062. {{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 26 (help)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is no list of CS1-safe templates, is there a list of coins-safe tags (if any tags are indeed compatible)? Until such issues are permanently resolved, template editors could consult that list and insert a notice re: usage in CS1 depending on the tags' existence in template code. 71.245.250.98 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit because it doesn't do what you think it does. The sandbox rendering above, appeared to work because the {{H3O+}} template is not in the sandbox template (it was replaced with H<sub>3</sub>O<sup>+</sup>) so, of course, the 'fix' appeared to work.

The <chem>...</chem> markup is like <math>...</math> markup: the rendering that is visible is an image:

${\ce {H3O+}}$ ← <chem>H3O+</chem>

We might want to handle <chem>...</chem> markup in the same way that we handle <math>...</math> markup – some sort of error message in the metadata instead of a non-sensical stripmarker. Discussion is appropriate, I think.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If <chem>...</chem> is like <math>...</math>, then it should be handled like math. The revert is nonsensical even if it didn't fix the above issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It appears that {{H3O+}} uses {{chem}} (not <chem>...</chem>), and Template:Chem's documentation includes {{COinS safe|n}}, with a note stating that <chem>...</chem> is an alternative to {{chem}}. GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking cursorily at the source code of {{chem}} and the subtemplates {{chem/atom}} and {{chem/link}}, as well as module:su nothing stands out as particularly offensive html-tag-wise. One wonders what trips COinS. Ten+ years in a row. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing equations in physics books

At Carnot cycle we want to reference https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50880/50880-pdf.pdf, specifically we want equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 and §137. I'm not sure of the best way to do this.  Stepho  talk  00:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Write something like <ref>See equations 39, 46 and 65 in {{cite ...}}</ref> or <ref>{{cite ...|at=Eqs 39, 40, 65}}</ref> Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Although there's nothing wrong with doing it those ways, you could also use |contribution=Equations 39, 40, and 65 in Sections 90 and 137 within the citation template. Doing it that way has the advantage that you can still specify pages as a separate parameter rather than needing to format the page numbers as part of the |at= parameter, and that you can provide a direct link to the starting page of the contribution (if you're using a source like archive.org or Google books that provides such links) in the |contribution-url= parameter. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I went with |contribution=equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 & §137, although I was tempted to use |section=equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 & §137. I was able to add |page=.  Stepho  talk  11:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)