Help talk:Citation Style 1

Citation templates

... in conception

... and in reality

Vancouver

Hi. Question about Vancouver-style fields (vauthors/veditors): can you point me to documentation or demonstration about reformatting the parser output? I'm looking for reasons to avoid enclosing the whole content in double parentheses:

Special markup can be used to enforce that a value will nonetheless be accepted as written. The markup for this is ((<value>)), i.e., wrap the entire parameter value in two sets of parentheses.

Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: I have moved your question to a page where it may be answered. --Izno (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, if you still have a question, an example citation, or a link to a page and a citation number about which you have questions, would help us answer your query. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 this issue came up in the context of developing a citation style language file (CSL) using Wikipedia's citation template: [1]. fgnievinski (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Fgnievinski Would it help to use |author1= etc. with |name-list-style=vanc? That way you can wrap individual authors with accept-this-as-written markup without sacrificing checks for the others. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding spaces between parameters

Right now, the citation filler in the 2010 wikitext editor adds spaces between parameters. The TemplateData for Template:Cite journal tells the visual editor to use editor-hostile wikitext instead. Would anyone mind if we changed the TemplateData so that the visual editor will use the same style that the 2010 wikitext editor is already using?

(See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Suggestion for more background. No, I don't mind if we make this change for all CS1 templates; I'm only asking about {{cite journal}} because it's the one that causes the most problems for WPMED folks.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think no one would object for any of the citation templates (change all of them!), but I am not sure anyone knows how off hand, else it would have been done. :) Izno (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

See mw:Help:TemplateData#Custom formats. The next to last, minus the initial \n bit, should do it.

(That \n style should probably be considered for infoboxes, the templates that create tables, and any other templates that we normally want to begin on a separate line.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

To match the style suggested at Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary § editor-hostile wikitext, wouldn't the format string be: {{_ |_=_}}?

I don't (won't) use ve and am loath to play-around in TemplateData so I'll leave this to others to fix as they see fit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would do it.

(I very strongly recommend the visual editor if you ever find that you need to insert or delete a column from a wikitext table, or if you need to swap the order of columns in a table.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been a week. Any objections? If not, then I'm going to make this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unrecognized languages

Would it be possible to set up a Lua table as a final fallback for language checking (or if the table exists already, point me to it) so that we can clear out Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language (at least the mainspace ones)? I would expect to provide the IETF/ISO code of interest as the key (i.e., support the key only as input in the wikitext of a citation) and the name of the language as the value, so that in the future if MediaWiki comes to support a certain code, we will not be using the wrong name (unless deliberately set in the relevant table that exists as an override). Izno (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The ISO 639-1 code for Irish is supposed to be “ga” but if I use the parameter “lang=ga” in a citation, it shows as “(in Ga).” Using the ISO 639-2 and -3 code of “gle” also fails. Xenophore; talk 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That happens because Ga (gaa) is also a language name. I'll think about how best to address this.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, this works:

{{cite book |title=Title |language=ga-IE}} → Title (in Irish).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What's the right way to fix these references to prevent CS1 maintenance messages?

Hi everyone? What's the correct way to fix references like these that contain templates, so they don't generate the CS1 extra punctuation and multiple authors maintenance messages?

1) From Azmi Bishara, which uses the {{lrm}} template:

{{cite book|author=عزمي بشارة{{lrm}}|script-title=ar:من يهودية الدولة حتى شارون{{lrm}}|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4V9XRAAACAAJ|year=2005|publisher=دار الشروق للنشر والتوزيع{{lrm}}|isbn=978-9950-312-16-6|trans-title=From the Jewishness of the State to Sharon|language=ar}}

• عزمي بشارة‎ (2005). من يهودية الدولة حتى شارون‎ [From the Jewishness of the State to Sharon] (in Arabic). دار الشروق للنشر والتوزيع‎. ISBN 978-9950-312-16-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

2) From Alec_Douglas-Home, which uses the {{long dash}} template:

{{citation|ref={{harvid|Home|1979}} | author = {{long dash}} | year = 1979 | title = Border Reflections – Chiefly on the Arts of Shooting and Fishing | location = London | publisher = Collins | isbn = 0-00-216301-2 }}

•  ———  (1979), Border Reflections – Chiefly on the Arts of Shooting and Fishing, London: Collins, ISBN 0-00-216301-2{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

3) From Flake (band), which uses the {{sic}} template:

{{Citation | author1 = Flakes {{sic}} | title = How's your mother | date = 2006 | publisher = Du Monde Records | url = http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/31592804 | access-date = 10 January 2017 | via = [[National Library of Australia]] }} Note: source has band named, Flakes.

• Flakes [sic] (2006), How's your mother, Du Monde Records, retrieved 10 January 2017 – via National Library of Australia{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Note: source has band named, Flakes.

4) From New Way (Jewish newspaper), which uses the {{lang}} template:

{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=[[Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia]]|script-title=ru:Электронная еврейская энциклопедия|url=https://eleven.co.il/jewish-literature/periodical-press/13190/|language=ru|edition=Electronic ORT|publication-date=1992 |volume=6, 'КЕЭ'|entry=Periodicals|script-entry=ru:Периодическая печать|version=chapter {{lang-ru|Еврейская литература и публицистика|translation=Jewish Literature and Journalism|label=none|links=no|cat=no}}|oclc=256540824|pages=402–443|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719082704/http://eleven.co.il/jewish-literature/periodical-press/13190/|archive-date=2018-07-19|url-status=live|quote=Until October 1917, the publication of the weekly Novy Put continued in Moscow (1916–17, editor and publisher S. Kogan with the participation of O. Gruzenberg and others) dedicated to issues of Jewish life.|script-quote=ru:До октября 1917 г. в Москве продолжалось издание еженедельника «Новый путь» (1916–17, редактор и издатель С. Коган при участии О. Грузенберга и других), посвященного вопросам еврейской жизни.}}

• "Periodicals" Периодическая печать. Электронная еврейская энциклопедия. Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia. chapter Еврейская литература и публицистика, 'Jewish Literature and Journalism' (in Russian). Vol. 6, 'КЕЭ' (Electronic ORT ed.). 1992. pp. 402–443. OCLC 256540824. Archived from the original on 2018-07-19. Until October 1917, the publication of the weekly Novy Put continued in Moscow (1916–17, editor and publisher S. Kogan with the participation of O. Gruzenberg and others) dedicated to issues of Jewish life. До октября 1917 г. в Москве продолжалось издание еженедельника «Новый путь» (1916–17, редактор и издатель С. Коган при участии О. Грузенберга и других), посвященного вопросам еврейской жизни.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1) I don't have any good ideas. The use of the template is for the benefit of editors, and is correct. What kind of message does it generate? One possible solution would be an invisible comment stating, "This citation contains bidirectional text". That is an ugly solution.

2) Needs the author-mask instead of using the template

3) Citations to catalogs (such as this one) are to be avoided. Citations should point to a source, not to an intermediate location. Unless the point of the citation is to prove that a certain work existed in that catalog. If that is the case (and note the catalog proposes a Wikipedia citation format) more editor info should be inserted in {{sic}} through the parameter |expected=Flake, and the reader info should be moved outside the citation.

4) There is an incorrect use of |version= here. That input seems to belong to |at=. Also, no comma between vol # and vol title.

172.254.222.178 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

For most of these: don't write malformed cs1|2 templates; do not misuse cs1|2 parameters:

1) there isn't really a best solution for rtl names preceding a wholly numerical date in the rendering. Two options are: write |author=<bdi>عزمي بشارة</bdi> or include the unicode U+200E character as the rightmost character in |author=عزمي بشارة‎. Both contaminate the metadata. If the source has a romanization of the Arabic name, use that instead.

2) do not write malformed citation templates. |author= is to hold the author's name. When it is desirable to mask the name, two options: |author-mask=n or |display-authors=0

3) do not write malformed citation templates. do not use {{sic}} in cs1|2 template parameters (see its documentation). Flake (or Flakes) is not the author of the Trove catalog page so does not belong in |author=; Du Monde Records is not the publisher of the Trove catalog page so does not belong in |publisher=. National Library of Australia is the publisher so |via= is misused. Perhaps rewrite like this:

{{Citation |title=How's your mother |date=2006 |website=Trove |type=Catalog record |publisher=[[National Library of Australia]] |url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/31592804 |access-date=10 January 2017}}

"How's your mother", Trove (Catalog record), National Library of Australia, 2006, retrieved 10 January 2017

4) do not write malformed citation templates. Too much detail is too much detail. The encyclopedia entry title appears to be ПЕРИОДИ́ЧЕСКАЯ ПЕЧА́ТЬ so that is the text that belongs in |entry=. Do not misuse |version= to hold something that is not a version indicator. Do not use {{lang}} or {{lang-??}} templates in cs1|2 template parameters except |quote=. Perhaps rewrite like this:

{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia]] |entry-url=https://eleven.co.il/jewish-literature/periodical-press/13190/ |language=ru |edition=Electronic ORT |publication-date=1992 |volume=6 'КЕЭ' |trans-entry=Periodicals |script-entry=ru:Периодическая печать |oclc=256540824 |pages=402–443 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719082704/http://eleven.co.il/jewish-literature/periodical-press/13190/ |archive-date=2018-07-19 |url-status=live |quote=Until October 1917, the publication of the weekly Novy Put continued in Moscow (1916–17, editor and publisher S. Kogan with the participation of O. Gruzenberg and others) dedicated to issues of Jewish life. |script-quote=ru:До октября 1917 г. в Москве продолжалось издание еженедельника «Новый путь» (1916–17, редактор и издатель С. Коган при участии О. Грузенберга и других), посвященного вопросам еврейской жизни.}}

Периодическая печать [Periodicals]. Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia (in Russian). Vol. 6 'КЕЭ' (Electronic ORT ed.). 1992. pp. 402–443. OCLC 256540824. Archived from the original on 2018-07-19. Until October 1917, the publication of the weekly Novy Put continued in Moscow (1916–17, editor and publisher S. Kogan with the participation of O. Gruzenberg and others) dedicated to issues of Jewish life. До октября 1917 г. в Москве продолжалось издание еженедельника «Новый путь» (1916–17, редактор и издатель С. Коган при участии О. Грузенберга и других), посвященного вопросам еврейской жизни.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

GoingBatty, in general, I would completely disregard what is stated above about metadata. Any metadata transmission should respect the citation data, not the other way around. There is no policy or guideline indicating that citation metadata are to be allowed to dictate what citation data would be, neither is this a burden of citations editors.

As for #3, it has to be made clear that sources have to be cited directly, not as catalog items. A catalog record may be cited when the record itself is considered the source referenced by wikitext. In that case, Trappist's citation is correct. In the particular article, the reference is supposed to support the following wikitext: "In November 2006 Du Monde Records re-issued the album on CD." In the context of the article, this may not be cited as a catalog record. It is better to have a footnote along the lines of "See release information at the Trove catalog, National Library of Australia [note misspelling of band name]: (insert link to catalog record)."

65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input. My bot has gone through Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation and fixed all the low hanging fruit. Your help to fix the rest would be appreciated. GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

How to I use cite web to create inline citations?

Like how it looks like in the examples. One of them is a news article, but I don't want the [1] box, I want something like, "Jake, Paul (Jan 1 2022). 'Lorem Ipsum'. Is that possible? Tet (talk to me) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tet: Hi there! You could use {{cite web}} without using the <ref>...</ref> tags, like this. Jake, Paul (Jan 1, 2022). "Lorem Ipsum". Is that what you're looking for? In what Wikipedia article would you want to use {{cite web}} without the [1] box? GoingBatty (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tet If you're considering Parenthetical referencing (Harvard referencing) then please be aware this format is now deprecated on Wikipedia. So while it's ok to use it on articles that used this referencing style before 2020, it shouldn't be used on new articles. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation questioned

Why were the transcript= and transcript-URL= fields deprecated in this and the {{cite AV... templates? These are useful fields, and their recent removal from use forces editors to use other fields contrary to their designs in order to place transcript information. RSVP here, thanks. 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. |transcript= and |transcript-url= are not deprecated. |transcripturl= (not hyphenated) is deprecated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"In"

The template puts the word "In" before the name of the editors, which seems illogical. Instead, it seems like it should be the name of the encyclopedia. Is this correct?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is illogical then it has been so since this 27 June 2007 edit at {{Citation/core}} (which has long-since been superseded by Module:Citation/CS1). I don't think that it is illogical. Encyclopedia are not cataloged by article-author name but by editor name so an author's article is in the editor's work.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ERIC ID

Good day. I ran across a reference using the cite report template that contained only a title plus some parameter errors. While fixing the parameters I looked up the title in Google Scholar and found it was in a US educational system called ERIC. ERIC has IDs that correspond directly to URLs. Example: ERIC ID ED148298 maps to https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED148298 so I'm wondering if there should be a CS1 parameter for ERIC ID? I know id= exists. Thanks Jamplevia (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is {{ERIC}}. If one believes this search, that template isn't used much in cs1|2 templates. Creating, maintaining, documenting an |eric= identifier for such a small number of uses doesn't seem worth the effort when |id={{ERIC|ED148298}} works.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jamplevia (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Redundant" identifiers?

Is there any benefit to having, say, a |pmid= or |s2cid= in a citation when the only links they have to a source are the same as what the |doi= is? Citation Bot added a few of these to an article where the preexisting citation style was not to make use of these identifiers. To me, they just (inconsistently) clutter up the citations with extra links that don't provide the reader with any additional ways of accessing the source. Ditto adding a |doi=10.2307/[JSTOR ID] when there already is |jstor= going to the exact same location. Curious if there's any sort of policy that says "if there is a pmid or s2cid, a citation should use it even if it provides no further assistance for a reader locating a source" or if WP:CITEVAR can encompass things like "this is not a journal about a medical topic so |pmid= won't be used". Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The examples you gave certainly look like redundancies. Multiple content identifiers are useful when they lead to different content hosts and if not, obviously clutter up the citation. I suspect the problem is the bot's writer(s) did not take such cases into account. A bot can only do what the writer codes. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no such policy.

Having all identifiers on the table may help some ad hoc user to find it at a local library. Even though we provide the links, remember that the text itself can be valuable for finding the source of interest. Izno (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that "|doi=10.2307/[JSTOR ID] when there already is |jstor=" often point to different locations as journals are purchased and sold. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the value of s2cid, but including any/all of bibcode/pmid/doi/jstor when a paper has them is definitely useful for readers who have easier access through one type of id than through another. (I tend to see papers that are on both Taylor & Francis and JSTOR fairly often, for instance, and have an easier time accessing the JSTOR versions than through the doi when that happens.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

David Eppstein have easier access through one type of id than through another -- to clarify I'm only talking about when the |doi= goes directly to JSTOR. I think it's fine for a citation to have (ex. 1) doi:10.2307/4077718 (goes to OUP) and JSTOR 4077718, but I don't really see the benefit to having (ex. 2) doi:10.2307/3503648 (goes to JSTOR) and JSTOR 3503648 or (ex. 3) PMID 33206276, which has a link to the full text... but it's at SpringerLink which is where doi:10.1007/s10739-020-09622-5 goes. It's examples (2) and (3) which feel like clutter to me -- I don't see the benefit of the Citation Bot adding these and which I'm tempted to remove them. But if an identifier provides another way for someone to access the text, that I have no issue with. Umimmak (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Where the doi goes to is not permanent. It may not even be the same location for different people who access the doi at the same time. That's the point of doi's: the resource can move to a different url and the doi should follow it, and there is supposedly a mechanism for directing people to the most appropriate copy of the resource for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Self-transclusion, again

That the usage of these templates causes the page in question to transclude itself has come up at least twice before:

• Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_55#Self_transclusion
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 64#Template causes a page to transclude itself?

This is maddening behavior when working on unused template cleanup, because any otherwise unused template that includes a citation template on its page (Template:Glasgow–Aberdeen line is one example) will be excluded from standard reports. I understand the reasoning and good intentions behind this behavior but I really think that this has to be considered a bug. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how to implement the article-level date format templates without transcluding the article in this way, so that the citation templates can see the date format template? If there is no workaround, the bug is in the limitations of the wiki software, not in the template. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an important distinction between a limitation of the mediawiki software (no inherent page properties) and a bug (any page using a particular type of template unexpectedly transcludes itself). Maybe this feature is important enough to justify that outcome, though I don't think (from reading past discussions) that people realized it would do that. Offhand, if I were doing this anew I'd consider proposing a Wikidata property (e.g. "topic's date format") and having the module look at that instead. Wikidata already tracks other bits of article meta, like related categories. I can see all kinds of semantic objections to that approach, not the least that MOS:DATERET creates all kinds of problems with standardization. Still, it would work, and we'd trade a technical hack for a procedural one. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic's date format would be rejected because it was single-wiki specific, most-likely.

There is a future on en.wp where there are similar separate fields for page-wide meta-data. Until then, adjusting the query of interest such that single use self-transclusions are reported separately seems like a good idea to me. Alternatively, since we know this particular module is both widely used and the most likely to do so, separate out low use templates that include a transclusion of Module:Citation/CS1.

Just some thoughts. I'm pretty sure the query system can handle that. Izno (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather see article date format become a reader preference, in the long term, instead of having to encode it in any kind of structured data on a per-article basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just a shot in the dark, but would it be possible to use or adapt Module:Excerpt, or some portion of it, for this purpose? If a page is configured correctly, {{use dmy dates}} should be in the lead section, which is where Excerpt looks by default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt fundamentally uses the same API as we do, they just end up displaying the content instead. Izno (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Auto date formatting was a user preference and subsequently removed by our request because it has negative parsing performance for users logged in and simple inconsistency for users logged out (because users logged in didn't know things were inconsistent for users logged out). So I don't expect that to happen. Izno (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No url warning when doi is present

At Volkswagen emissions scandal a new reference was added with |url=https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac007 . I naturally changed this to {{{doi|10.1093/restud/rdac007}}} and also added |url-access=subscription . To my surprise, the template showed a warning about the url-access field requiring a url, so I had to put the url field back in. The doi field can always be automatically translated to a url (the template even does this), so shouldn't the doi field count as having a url field?  Stepho  talk  23:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

With the exception of |isbn= and |issn=, every identifier is automatically translated to a url. Most identifiers link to a source that lies beyond a paywall. Because of that, no identifiers support |<identifier-name>-access=subscription (or limited or registration). URL-holding parameters, like |url=, are presumed to be free-to-read unless marked otherwise so, for them, |url-access=free is not allowed. Documentation for this is at Template:Cite journal § Subscription or registration required.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific: if you change a url to a doi, you should also change the url-access to doi-access. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Which for this case is not necessary because the example doi points to a source beyond a paywall. |doi-access=free does not apply and |doi-access=subscription is not allowed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out |doi-access=. That means my choices are:

1. Use |doi-access=subscription - not allowed !
2. Do not use |url-access= and/or |doi-access=- doesn't tell the user about needing a subscription.
3. Use |url-access=subscription - requires duplicating the unchanging doi with a url which can change at the website owner's whim - surely this is against the purpose of using the doi.

Of course I can use the last option (use both doi and url) but that does seem to go against the grain. Is there a reason why |doi-access=subscription is actively disallowed ?  Stepho  talk  05:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we don't highlight the norm. Most doi identifiers lie beyond a paywall. That is the norm. Most urls are free-to-read. That is the norm. If we highlight the norm, medical- and scientific-article reference sections will bleed red; similarly, general interest article reference sections will bleed green – just so much visual clutter. The access icons highlight source-links that are not the norm: a free-to-read |doi=-linked source; a |url=-linked source behind a paywall.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hanging/orphaned quotation marks

Noticed one today in a citation with |quote= where the line broke at the opening mark. Can a word joiner (U+2060) be used to rectify this? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Where? In simple experiments I am not able to duplicate your claim: opening quote mark always stayed adjacent to the first letter of the text when I resized the window to force line breaks.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it is tricky to reproduce. It may also be a browser artifact, it was there in Edge (Windows 10) and Tor (Ubuntu 20), but not in Safari (Big Sur 11.6.4). Since these are separate machines with different monitors, I will try to fix the pixel width required for an example and update this. 65.88.88.62 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It could. However, this is a normal artifact of browsing. We shouldn't try to control wrapping here much less in general. (This comes up regularly between here and WP:VPT.) Izno (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it is not a general case, my mistake. It happens when {{interp}} is used before the actual quote in the data field (pls adjust the window to see result, happens in all browsers/OS referred to above. Examples padded with extra fields to ease resizing).

{{cite book|last=Authorlast|first=Authorfirst|editor-last=Editorlast|editor-first=Editorfirst|title=Title|location=Location|publisher=Publisher|quote={{interp|Interpolation before}} quote {{interp|and after}}}}

• Authorlast, Authorfirst. Editorlast, Editorfirst (ed.). Title. Location: Publisher. [Interpolation before] quote [and after]

Maybe specific to the interaction with that template. E.g. {{vanchor}} doesn't break.

{{cite book|last=Authorlast|first=Authorfirst|editor-last=Editorlast|editor-first=Editorfirst|title=Title|location=Location|publisher=Publisher|quote={{vanchor|VisibleAnchor}} inserted in quote}}

• Authorlast, Authorfirst. Editorlast, Editorfirst (ed.). Title. Location: Publisher. VisibleAnchor inserted in quote

(Demonstrate VisibleAnchor)

Oh well. 65.88.88.62 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh. It's the bracket...

{{cite book|last=Authorlast|first=Authorfirst|editor-last=Editorlast|editor-first=Editorfirst|title=Title|location=Location|publisher=Publisher|quote=[Bracket before] quote}}

• Authorlast, Authorfirst. Editorlast, Editorfirst (ed.). Title. Location: Publisher. [Bracket before] quote

Tried it with {{!(}} and html encoding, still breaks. Abandon ship? or fix is visible in the far horizon? 65.88.88.62 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, WJ works, but I was looking for a programmatic solution:

{{cite book|last=Authorlast|first=Authorfirst|editor-last=Editorlast|editor-first=Editorfirst|title=Title|location=Location|publisher=Publisher|quote=U+2060 WORD JOINER{{interp|Interpolation before}} quote {{interp|and after}}}}

• Authorlast, Authorfirst. Editorlast, Editorfirst (ed.). Title. Location: Publisher. ⁠[Interpolation before] quote [and after]

65.88.88.62 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. The quotation mark stays with all of the example left-bracket characters in my browser, Firefox for Mac. File a bug against your browser, I guess. Quotation marks should be nowrapped with the following character by the HTML renderer, IMO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Just installed Tor 11 (built on Firefox 91.6) on a Mac 11 and the problem disappeared. It is still there for both Safari & Edge on the Mac 11, and Edge on Win 10. Will update Tor on the Linux machine and see if it resolves the issue. Thanks for pointing it out. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple quotes of source

It appears impossible to add more than one |quote= per cite template right now; can it (of course it can technically) be made possible please? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a real-world example in which someone would need more than one quotation to support a given claim in an article. If you really need to provide two quotations, you may need two citations. Also, you are free to add material after the close of the cite template but before the closing ref tag if necessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the efficiency of the reuse of named refs for e.g. an interview which supports multiple claims. Multiple refs is the obvious alternative, but can lead to clutter. I will get back to you with a real-world example later. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

On second thoughts; I don't see the value of providing a real-world example other than to provide a narrow lane within which to argue. There are millions of possible cases of potential usage and each should be evaluated on a per case basis, therefore hypothetical evaluation of the potential pros and cons should suffice. Example: a single interview may cover multiple subjects covered by an article; currently if |quote= is used, the citation cannot be sensibly reused and, instead, the same source must be separately cited in support of other article claims. Having the ability add multiple quotes (as with authors e.g. |quote1=, |quote2= and so on) would allow the same source to be reused, reducing clutter and making clear to readers that the same interview is cited multiple times for various article claims (as is the current state of affairs when |quote= isn't employed (sensibly at least)). If |quote= has any credible value, it seems like a no-brainer to me that multiple quotes should be possible per citation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A good old ellipsis works for most simple cases. If you're quoting significant passages in this parameter, you should probably rethink that. Izno (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

An ellipsis to truncate a single quote is fine when the quote is entirely about one subject, but if a single source covers multiple subjects, it would be wildly improper to separate the various subjects with ellipses. Example: An interview with a pop singer who also breeds race horses; interviewer asks "What was your last single about?" to which the singer responds "... sunshine and cookies ...". Then later in the same interview the interviewer asks "Why are all your horses so short?" to which the breeder responds "... selective breeding ... short horses are cute ...". The resulting citation's |quote= would read "... sunshine and cookies ... selective breeding ... short horses are cute ...". If that would be acceptable, I'd argue |quote= should probably be deprecated and eventually removed as it's likely to be more confusing than useful.

I don't think I've ever actually used |quote= (if I have; hardly ever if at all) so don't have anything to rethink at this juncture. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no; I have used |quote= a few times for The Partisan. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: A possible solution could be to use an {{sfn}} template for each quote - see Template:Sfn#Adding_additional_comments_or_quotes. GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted (pun intended). Thanks. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Better to use the other examples there and avoid {{sfn}} simply because dumping quoted text into a parameter designed to name a location, |loc=, is semantically incorrect. See Template:Sfn § Location in the source text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If a quote is important to an article, put the quote in the article body (or in a separate 'quotes' section) and cite it. A single interview quoted multiple times for different purposes in an article needs only a single citation. I think that |quote= should never have been invented because it clutters reference sections and is too often abused; enumeration of that parameter would multiply the clutter and opportunity for abuse.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would use block-level quote markup rather a special section to bundle all quotes. I agree that {{{quote}}} may be abused, and unless brief, uglifies (new word?) the citation. I try to only use the parameter to quote interesting/disambiguating aspects of the citation itself, sort of a stand-in {{{note}}} parameter. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A Quotes section is an interesting idea. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. There will be the inevitable tendency towards adding more quotes than subtracting, possibly resulting in quote farms. Also, any such quotes would need to be given context, which involves more complex attribution/footnoting than an inline context-based quote would need. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I envisaged a section like Notes with complete quotations from sources that are not suitable for inclusion inline, such that the citation can be applied to the statements in the article body and the quote, allowing the reader to see the specific part of the source cited right there on the article (the entire purpose of |quote=; correct me if I'm wrong) and as such, the context exists in the article body. I think a quote farm isn't a nice idea. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the use of |quote= ever valid (insofar that it solves a problem only it can solve)? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a proper question, as Trappist discussed above, but it is quite embedded into this citation system to change now, I believe. Perhaps more emphatic guidance can be given to include quotes in short citations, or in full citations only when necessary in context. Programmatically, I would suggest limiting the character-size of the field (gently) so that quotes in full citations remain brief and do not distract/overwhelm the citation itself. As noted above I believe there are justified uses relating to quotes in the citation itself. For instance, to point out an alternate spelling in the source by quoting it; to point out a source characteristic such as (previously) "classified" etc. if the source is so marked; to disambiguate a contributor role if again this can be quoted from the source, for example to point out that the cited editor in a journal/book is the editor of a particular department or article. And so on. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's even a proper question. It conflates "valid use" with "only way to solve a problem", and sets an impossible hurdle (there is no citation template parameter that solves a problem only it can solve, because it is always possible to format citations as plain wikimarkup without citations). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple urls of source

I couldn't resist riffing off the previous section heading. In Special:Diff/1075110483, I added two {{cite web}} templates. It's a two-part article for which I wanted to include the URLs for both parts. What I really wanted to do is a single citation but with two links for the two parts. Is that possible? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. cs1|2 templates are not designed to cite more than one source at a time. You can always write:

{{Cite web |title=The Pelham Park and City Island Railway, part 1 |work=Forsyth's Compendium of Curious Contraptions |access-date=3 March 2022 |url=https://feorag.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/the-pelham-park-and-city-island-railway-part-1/}} ([https://feorag.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/the-pelham-park-and-city-island-railway-part-2/ part 2])

"The Pelham Park and City Island Railway, part 1". Forsyth's Compendium of Curious Contraptions. Retrieved 3 March 2022. (part 2)

That looks ok, but the part 2 url does not make it into the citation's metadata. You can spoof {{citation}} and do this:

{{Citation |mode=cs1 |title=The Pelham Park and City Island Railway |work=Forsyth's Compendium of Curious Contraptions |at=[https://feorag.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/the-pelham-park-and-city-island-railway-part-1/ Part 1], [https://feorag.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/the-pelham-park-and-city-island-railway-part-2/ part 2]}}

"The Pelham Park and City Island Railway". Forsyth's Compendium of Curious Contraptions. Part 1, part 2.

That method also looks ok, but in this case, neither url makes it into the metadata.

It is best to do it as you have done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Or use short ref templates, and add both in-source locations in |loc=:

{{harv|Authorlast|2022|loc=[http://www.part1.com Part1], [http://www.part2.com Part2]}}

(Authorlast 2022, Part1, Part2)

69.203.140.37 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Online news sources - clarity between "work=" and "publisher="

I think it may be appropriate to note in the documentation that news agencies or publishers that primarily publish online or distribute news, such as CNN, NBCNews.com, Associated Press, etc. should use the "publisher=" parameter instead of the "work=" parameter. This should also apply to state organizations such as BBC News. However, news sites that are primarily associated with a newspaper, magazine or journal should use "work=", e.g. The Times, Los Angeles Times, TIME.com, etc. This would only put it in italics as far as I can tell. Thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. This discussion again.

No. We cite the published works, not the organizations that publish the work. An organization's online presence is their 'published work' even when that online presence has the same name as the corporate entity that owns it.

cs1|2 templates create COinS metadata which allows the rendered citations to be machine readable. COinS does not support rft.pub (publisher) for 'periodical' templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}). Because of that, 'periodical' templates that use |publisher= when they should be using |work= (or an alias), produce incomplete metadata. That important bit of information is not available to those readers who consume our citations via the metadata.

There are editors who will disagree with everything that I have just written... and so it goes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No (agree with Trappist). A related question: why is it so hard for people to realize that |work= and |publisher= refer to entirely different properties? They cannot be substituted for each other even when their names are identical. If Mr. X publishes a continuing autobiographical series titled "Mr. X" that has certain things in every issue, Mr. X the person is not "Mr. X" the autobiography. Don't approach Mr. X to find out what is in his bio, it's too complicated etc. Get the bio itself. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Turning it around, why is it so hard for people like Trappist to realize that CNN, Associated Press, etc. are actually the correct names of organizations that publish things, and that it is a valid choice to put the name of an organization that publishes things in the |publisher= field instead of putting the thing they publish (which may or may not have exactly that name) into a different field? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess for the reason stated about COinS, and doing it one way because standards have many benefits. Speaking as a programmer, who consumes this metadata at scale and tries to automate matching of records elsewhere (library catalogs) with cites on Wikipedia, it's useful to have less complexity and standards, as far as possible, I realize this is cat herding and the burden ultimately falls on application developers like myself to untangle the data. -- GreenC 02:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

? I cannot speak for Trappist or anyone, but what keeps an editor from entering the publisher info? There is no suggestion that one should not use |publisher=. The problem arises when editors do not use |work= or its aliases because they mistakenly give |publisher= preference. A citation must provide the work where the proving info exists. For cosmetic reasons, the guidance suggests that if the work name is the same or almost identical to the publisher name, then the publisher info (as a secondary citation item) may be omitted. And again, nobody stops an editor from using it anyway, aesthetics be damned. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

65.88: Template:Cite_web#Publisher states "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.).... Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)." GoingBatty (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but I believe what you point out (editors using publisher name for work name) may be exactly because of confusion when the names are identical or very similar. And perhaps also because they don't read the documentation properly. But notice the OP: publishers that primarily publish online or distribute news, such as CNN, NBCNews.com, Associated Press, etc. should use the "publisher=" parameter instead of the "work=" parameter. This is plain wrong. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Encourage linking of "work" and "publisher" in all occurrences in references?

In the new age of a substantial amount of news coming from worldwide online sources, it may be appropriate to encourage linking the work or publisher in all occurrences in citations to allow readers perusing the "References" section of an article to quickly find more information on the source of the news. Since citations only appear in References, this shouldn't be excessive (as noted in MOS:REPEATLINK) for the reader. Thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems a 'article-level' recommendation so, to me, is out-of-scope for cs1|2. Perhaps this topic is better raised at WT:CITE.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Why no extlink in department= ?

Today, I ran across a publication I wanted to cite, where

• It is an individually authored contribution within a larger ongoing department of a periodical. Whenever this department appears in its periodical, it consists of multiple separate contributions.
• Each contribution within the department has its own authors, and the department has an editor, who is not the editor of the whole periodical.
• For the contribution I wanted to cite, I could find a url for an online copy of the whole department from the issue it appeared in, on the personal web site of the editor of the department.
• I did not find a freely available online copy of the individual contribution I wanted to cite, separated from its department. It does have a paywalled copy, linked from a doi at the publisher's web site.

I wanted to cite this using {{citation}}/{{cite journal}}, with |title= for the title of the contribution, |department= for the title of the department, |journal= for the title of the journal, and with a link to the online copy going onto the department parameter (also with a doi pointing to the individual contribution). However, the citation templates not only do not provide a way to put a link there, they go out of their way to prevent a link being put there. There is no |department-url= parameter, where I would expect a link to go. And in the absence of a parameter, the obvious workaround is to put a url in the |department= parameter itself, but the citation templates specifically look for any links there and flag them as errors rather than passing them through to the formatted output.

(The periodical in question is an academic newsletter rather than a peer-reviewed journal or popular-press magazine, and we have no specific citation format for that class of periodical, but that's a separate issue; citing it as a journal works well enough.)

Why is this an error? How can I put a link on the department of a publication, going to an online copy of the department that I want to link to? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Hi there! If you could please provide the URL, it may help people to provide a suggestion for you. GoingBatty (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Fletez-Brant, Kipper (September 2014). Gasarch, William (ed.). "Review of Basic Phylogenetic Combinatorics by Andreas Dress, Katharina T. Huber, Jacobus Koolen, Vincent Moulton and Andreas Spillner". The Book Review Column. ACM SIGACT News. 45 (3): 26–28. doi:10.1145/2670418.2670427. MR 3266629. Url for department: https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/gasarch/bookrev/45-3.pdf Please note, however, I am not looking for suggestions on how to format this specific reference. I am looking for answers to my question on why the citation templates appear to have been deliberately made so inflexible. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Because virtually nothing is done to the cs1|2 module suite without it gets talked about here, there was a discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 77 § url in name parameters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

unfit url maintenance message

I keep seeing more and more of these green maintenance messages and I have been making an effort to fix them as I see them. But there is one type that cannot be fixed and that is url-status=usurped because I can't make the URL stop being usurped, e.g. this is the archive and this is the the original URL which surely meets the definition of "usurped" consisting of both spam and porn. So what do I do to make the green maintenance message go away? Otherwise I or others are going to keep seeing and try and fix it, again and again and again. I think a maintenance message has to be for things that can be fixed and where they can't be fixed, a way needs to exist to suppress the maintenance message to avoid the rework by others. The other thing is that such citations have some extra text appearing at the end of citation which isn't in the citation, which I would like to suppress. In the case of the URL above, it is "OurToowong page for BBC". The citation title is "BBC" and the citation website is "Our Toowong" so what is purpose of this extra text? I see it on the "Archived copy" title citations, where it makes sense (as it is usually a good guess for what the title should be), but I don't see its relevance when there is a genuine title in the citation. I note it appears to me when logged-out so the readers are seeing it too.Kerry (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is about Brisbane Boys' College and Toowong? Always good to say where you are seeing something so we don't have to guess... On both of those pages the text 'OurToowong page for BBC' has been appended after the cs1|2 template's closing }} and before the reference's closing </reg> tag. That text is not something the the template adds. For Brisbane Boys' College, the 'OurToowong page for BBC' text was added at this edit. Later, you converted the simple external link reference to use {{cite web}} at this edit. Today, you added a reference and the 'OurToowong page for BBC' text to Twoong at this edit.

I think that you are the first to complain about lingering maintenance messaging.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"green maintenance message" .. I don't see a green message for cites with |url-status=usurped. They don't really need fixing. Also in this edit you added |url-status=deviated but the source URL is "404" - ie. dead, not deviated. -- GreenC 02:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This example template has a green maintenance message:

{{cite web |title= Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-03-06 |url-status=usurped}}

"Title". Archived from the original on 2022-03-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

User:GreenC/common.css does not have the css to enable the message display (I did not look at your various skin css pages). Without that css the maintenance messages will be hidden:

<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: unfit URL ([[:Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL|link]])</span>

The classes cs1-maint and citation-comment are defined in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. To show maintenance messaging, see Help:CS1 errors § Error and maintenance messages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. If by default the green messages are hidden from users, that's good because usurped URLs are not in need of maintenance and we shouldn't encourage users to do anything about it (by default). There might be an argument the cite or URL should be deleted entirely, but there are counter-arguments such as usurped URLs over time revert to 404s once spammers stop funding the domain name. My only thought is maybe we shouldn't green message usurped cites, however it's not a big deal either way. -- GreenC 14:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Using cite web or cite book or whatever for an ebook...

What is considered a WP Best Practice for when one must cite an ebook? I read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books and print articles and all it says is

If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title.

But what do folks do when the only copy of a book available to an editor - I am trying to improve the Zapruder film article, it is in really sad shape, maybe a "C" - trying to use an ebook...how do you actually, really fill out a cite web? It is kind of hard to get specific for verifiability purposes... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

An ebook is a book published in one of many available media. Use {{cite book}}. If the book is online, add the proper parameters to that template (|url=, etc.). 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I know about cite web but I am asking what is considered best practice and what are fellow editors' boots on the ground/actual editing practices...how can we render an ebook when there are no pages, how can we get as specific as possible. Do people ever just use quotes along with the chapter/section title? Actual experiences, y'know? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If you use a section/chapter title in |chapter= you have already quoted from the source. In the highly unlikely situation where a book-length work is not sectioned you can instead use |at=At "quote from source" or |no-pp=y |quote-page=At |quote=quote from source. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

A book online is still a book so {{cite book}}:

{{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |title=On the Origin of Species |chapter=Variation under Nature |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/onoriginspecies00unkngoog/page/n60/mode/2up |location=New York |publisher=D. Appleton |date=1883}}

Darwin, Charles (1883). "Variation under Nature". On the Origin of Species. New York: D. Appleton.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't include a quote to anchor the reference? I always feel like I should include a quote or something... Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't because I think that quotes in a citation are an abomination. If the quote is important to the en.wiki article, put the quote in the en.wiki article and cite it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you will usually need a suitable in-work location. If a quote is the best you have, a quote is reasonable. Izno (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Help wanted

Sally Ride is giving me a "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help)." warning, but I have no idea what the problem is. Could someone have a look at it for me? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. It was an extra comma in a citation author name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sally_Ride#cite_note-columbiareportvol1-36. Too many commas, Names only, don't include degrees, rank, title or other extraneous stuff.

To show maintenance messages, see Help:CS1 errors § Error and maintenance messages

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried that, but it didn't work for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not obvious from the history at User:Hawkeye7/common.css that you ever added the css to show maintenance messages. That css is this:

.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I see. I enabled error messages instead of maintenance messages. Another editor fixed the article for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There are now Dozens and Dozens of Mainstream News Apps, Why no specific Citation Template for them?

This is maddening. News apps do not provide URLs, yet the Wikipedia citation templates penalize you for not including a URL-- with unattractive red bold-faced error messages in any citation added without a URL.

Wikipedia needs to quickly develop a citation that accommodates news apps, as they are very widely used. It mystifies me as to why this hasn't been done yet.

And also-- why has no reference citation that includes a space for detailing the specific "News app" been completed? Millions of people now use news apps.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

CS1 citation templates cite works, not media. Use {{cite news}}. All stories in such apps resolve to a URL. Have ever tried sharing one? News apps are no different from any other delivery format. If you want to make a specific-source template for a particular news app, you can do so. 74.64.150.19 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion of articles to themselves

On Danish Wikipedia someone asked at da:Wikipedia:Teknisk_forum#Hvorfor_transkluderes_en_artikel_i_sig_selv? why articles are transcluded to themselves. Example the article about Nordea where Nordea is listed under "Transcluded templates". Someone believe it is the CS1|2 module that is the reason. Is it supposed to be like that? --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at line 592 in da:Modul:Citation/CS1/Configuration is this:

local content = mw.title.getCurrentTitle():getContent() or '';

getContent() counts as a transclusion. See mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#Title objects.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Checking for date format on template pages

Related to the above section, is it necessary for the date format to be set at Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration#L-574 when the current page is a template and not an article page which transcludes it? The reason I'm asking is that using getContent() causes the page to transclude itself, which when it happens on templates, prevents the templates from appearing on unused reports if they are unused. Since the format of a reference in the template itself is dependent on where it is being transcluded, it seems that it really is unnecessary to check for the date format here. I propose adding a namespace check to see and not continue if it is on the template namespace. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems directly relevant to #Self-transclusion, again. Adding a check for template namespace seems like a reasonable solution since auto-formatting is only really necessary for mainspace/draftspace. Izno (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The {{use xxx dates}} templates are used in template space or so say these searches:

{{use dmy dates}} → ~150

{{use mdy dates}} → ~170

Do those templates use the {{use xxx dates}} templates to instruct editors in the desired format? Are the {{use xxx dates}} templates present so that cs1|2 will auto-format the dates in any included citations? Are the {{use xxx dates}} templates present in those templates for some other reason?

Where they are used in template space, is it ok to disable auto-date formatting?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A template should not be linked to but transcluded, when it is transcluded then the date format of the transcluding article should be used over any date format present in the template page. There really isn't much to gain from having these there. Additionally, the very small usage size (~320) compared the issues it is causing, is more of a sign that these should not be handled by the module. Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that I agree with what you just wrote but I'm having trouble understanding A template should not be linked to but transcluded and how that applies to what I wrote.

cs1|2 reads the article's unparsed wikitext when looking for a {{use xxx dates}} template. The wikitext of transcluded templates does not appear in the article's unparsed wikitext. Any {{use xxx dates}} template that is transcluded into a template that is itself transcluded into an article is not visible to cs1|2.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Gonnym. Additionally, the number of interest is actually the intersection, 69 use dmy and 48 use mdy. And I'm finding that most of your search's set are entirely unnecessary. Izno (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my search is flawed, and yeah the templates that I looked at may have just been using the {{use xxx dates}} template to make the template's documentation page look pretty, and yeah, putting in a namespace restriction is going to spoil that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox tweaked so that getContent() not called and global_df is not set when the 'article' is in template namespace.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bug in Citation/CS1/Date validation

I am currently localizing the CS1 module for Estonian Wikipedia and found a bug. In Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation, in function reformatter:

if t.a then t.y = t.a; end

If the date has two years, as is the case for 'My-My', 'dMy-dMy', 'Mdy-Mdy' formats, it erroneously replaces the first year (y) with the anchor year (a). What you want to do instead is to replace the second year (y2). This works for me:

if t.a and t.y2 then t.y2 = t.a; elseif t.a and t.y then t.y = t.a; end

Kaniivel (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've implemented a fix in the sandbox:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021|df=mdy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021.
Sandbox	Title. December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021a|df=mdy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021.
Sandbox	Title. 25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 25, 2020 – January 25, 2021a|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. 25 December 2020 – 25 January 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 2020 – January 2021|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 2020 – January 2021.
Sandbox	Title. December 2020 – January 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 2020 – January 2021a|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 2020 – January 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. December 2020 – January 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 25, 2021|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 25 December 2021.
Sandbox	Title. 25 December 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 25, 2021a|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 25 December 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. 25 December 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=25 December 2021|df=mdy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 25, 2021.
Sandbox	Title. December 25, 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=25 December 2021a|df=mdy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 25, 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. December 25, 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 2021|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 2021.
Sandbox	Title. December 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=December 2021a|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 2021a.
Sandbox	Title. December 2021a.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2021-12-25|df=mdy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. December 25, 2021.
Sandbox	Title. December 25, 2021.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2021-12-25|df=dmy|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 25 December 2021.
Sandbox	Title. 25 December 2021.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

cite episode complains about formatting errors that dont exist

For some reason, when defining |format in a cite episode, itll produce the error "|format= requires |url=", even when the |url parameter is defined. Also, the format doesnt even appear anywhere. Is this meant to be disabled for this citation format or something? (Originally found this while editing Evanna Lynch, check reference 12).

Example:

"Title" (Format). Series. (<-- Error in question - url IS defined)

If anyone knows about this, please tell me why or if its intended. Thanks. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

When the new lua versions of the templates were created, the goal was to make them render in exactly the same form as their wikitext predecessors. Because the old {{cite episode}} did not support |format=, the new {{cite episode}} did not support |format=. The new {{cite episode}} template was created nearly seven years ago (18 April 2015). I don't recall anyone complaining about |format= not working in {{cite episode}} between then and now. Fixed in the sandbox:

Cite episode comparison

Wikitext	{{cite episode|air-date=23 April 2009|credits=Presenter: [[Ryan Tubridy]]|format=MP3|network=[[RTÉ Radio 1]]|series=[[The Tubridy Show]]|title=Evanna Lynch|url=http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-230409-28m27s-tts.mp3}}
Live	Presenter: Ryan Tubridy (23 April 2009). "Evanna Lynch" (MP3). The Tubridy Show. RTÉ Radio 1.
Sandbox	Presenter: Ryan Tubridy (23 April 2009). "Evanna Lynch" (MP3). The Tubridy Show. RTÉ Radio 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Error with url-status=live if no archive-url

The documentation says url-status: this optional parameter is ignored if archive-url is not set. However, if url-status=live is included in a Citation template, the error message {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) is displayed if the mouse is hovered over the citation number, in the "This is only a preview" box, and sometimes in the list of references. I have WP:boldly added a note to that effect in the documentation (it was quickly reverted); either the documentation must be changed, or the template must be changed to allow url-status=live without error message.

I suppose this could conceivably be an artefact of my particular setup, but it definitely happens.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What you wrote was this:

[Note: as of 15 Mar 22, if url-status=live is included in a citation template without an archive-url, the error message {{cite web}}: Invalid |url-access=live is displayed.]

and that is not correct. It is possible to get a similar message:

{{cite book |title=Title |url-status=Live}} → Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |url-status=Live (help)

cs1|2 templates emit a lot of maintenance messages. I don't know if it is worth the effort to note each message in the documentation of every parameter where that message might apply, but if we do, then the documentation must be correct.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for response. As I've drawn attention to this issue amongst those who know the system, I won't do anything more. My opinion is that "this optional parameter is ignored if archive-url is not set" should be removed from the url-status documentation, as it generates the warning when the mouse is hovered over a ref number in read mode, and as there is absolutely no point in adding url-status=live to a reference without an archive-url. But I'm not going to do anything or to argue, whatever is done. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pol098: Note that the red messages are errors, while the green messages are maintenance messages. GoingBatty (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's of course true. I should have made the distinction in my comment. I find it a bit disconcerting to see a maintenance message when hovering over a ref number in read mode, and seeing that maintenance warnings are reported when previewing an edit. But I have nothing else to say. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

archive-url and identifier-created urls

When |url= is omitted or empty, |title= in {{cite journal}} will be linked from the value assigned to |pmc= or, alternatively, |doi= (requires |doi-access=free). These identifier-created urls are not |url= so when |access-date= is present, cs1|2 emits an error message:

{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |pmc=12345 |access-date=2022-03-16}}

"Title". Journal. PMC 12345. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

That same rule should apply to |archive-url= which also requires |url= but, in the live module, it doesn't. Fixed in the sandbox.

Cite journal comparison

Wikitext	{{cite journal|archive-date=2022-03-16|archive-url=//archive.org|doi-access=free|doi=10.4234/sommat|journal=Journal|title=Title}}
Live	"Title". Journal. doi:10.4234/sommat. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help)
Sandbox	"Title". Journal. doi:10.4234/sommat. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that using access-date and archive-url for publications accessed in ways other than through their url is a mistake, so in philosophical terms I don't disagree with this change. But I am curious about two points. (1) We still support access-date when there is a nonempty chapter-url, contribution-url, or other url parameter, not just the main url= parameter, right? Will there be any way to supply an archive-url for those parameters, after this change? (2) Do you have any data on how many articles this will cause errors in? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

|chapter-url=, |conference-url=, |contribution-url=, |entry-url=, |map-url=, |section-url=, |transcript-url= are not supported by {{cite journal}}. Similarly, these url-holding parameters are not supported by {{citation}} when |journal= is set.

I don't know how many {{cite journal}} templates do not have |url= but do have |doi= and |doi-access=free; or do have |pmc=; and do have |archive-url=. Relatively easy to find templates with something; not so easy to find templates without something. I only discovered this because I found a template that had |pmc= and |archive-url= where the archived url was the url in |lay-url= (which has never been supported by |archive-url=) but wasn't showing the archive-url-requires-url error message. I doubt that that example is the only one of its kind but I cannot say how many more are out there.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They may not be supported by cite journal, but they are supported by cite book and cite conference, which also allow references to have auto-linked doi but no url. I was assuming that you would want those other citation templates to remain consistent with cite journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Auto-linking |title= from |pmc= or from |doi= (when |doi-access=free) is only supported by {{cite journal}} and by {{citation}} (when |journal= is set). Here are two {{cite book}} without |url=; one with |pmc= and the other with |doi= and |doi-access=free:

• {{cite book |title=Title |journal=Journal |pmc=12345}}
  • Title. PMC 12345. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
• {{cite book |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi-access=free |doi=10.4234/sommat}}
  • Title. doi:10.4234/sommat. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

and the same for {{cite conference}}:

• {{cite conference |title=Title |journal=Journal |pmc=12345}}
  • Title. Journal. PMC 12345.
• {{cite conference |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi-access=free |doi=10.4234/sommat}}
  • Title. Journal. doi:10.4234/sommat.

None of the four examples above auto-link |title=. I included |journal= just in case, but the result is the same if your take it away. Can you give examples of any cs1|2 templates other than the cases I've demonstrated that auto-link |title=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I take this answer to be a denial of my assumption that you would want those other citation templates to remain consistent with cite journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My answer was an attempt to show that your statement:

They may not be supported by cite journal, but they are supported by cite book and cite conference, which also allow references to have auto-linked doi but no url.

is inaccurate. If that is not what I have accomplished then I have failed to communicate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for generic author name

Regarding CS1 errors, I've noticed some incidences of "web master"/"webmaster"/"web-master" (and the capitalised variants). It may be useful to also detect those in the author, etc., fields. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC) (please ping me if you respond)

Should argument to via parameter allowed to have a url?

@Izno and Trappist the monk: Given the January update to Module:Citation/CS1, I see that urls supplied to |via= now generate an error. However, common usage (e.g., {{FEIS}} and {{Calflora}} before I fixed them) and the documentation seem to imply that |via= should contain urls. In fact, I'm not sure how you can have non-url arguments?

Can we include |via= in the list of url-enabled parameters? — hike395 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Umm, common usage is not so common, at least according to these searches:

~700 articles with |via=http...

>219000 articles with |via=<anything> (search times out)

I don't read anything in the documentation that [implies] that |via= should contain urls.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Via should not contain urls, no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, Trappist, that is not the right search query to use. If you look for where editors have used |via=something url-like, you get

>16,000 articles.

A very common pattern is to refer to websites by name: if we look through your second query, you'll see usage like |via=Yahoo News or |via=Google Books (which are also suggested by the documentation). The main example in the documentation is [[Dictionary.com]], which is a wikilink to partial url (a name of a website).

If |via= is being filled with partial URLs or names of external sites, why should links to external sites be excluded? Alternatively, if you want to maintain purity between name parameters and url parameters, I would suggest that we would need a |via-url= parameter. I think allowing URLs in |via= is simpler, but I'm open to either. — hike395 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The parameter is commonly used when there is an existing |url= in order to clarify the url's provenance (if not at the publishing entity) or the content's format (if different from the published-as-cited version). It may also be used to add clarity to a non-CS1-defined identifier. And it may wikilinked. Providing another url is clutter without obvious benefit. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I also use the parameter for clarity in citable self-published works whether |url= exists or not. The publishing provider is inserted and optionally wikilinked. But even in these cases, I don't think a via-based url adds anything useful to the citation. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you care about the provenance of a citation, and it's not obvious from the url or publisher string, then it would seem providing an external link to the delivery site would be helpful, yes? That way readers can assess the delivery mechanism. Also, I'm not sure why a wikilink in a via argument would be acceptable while an external link would be clutter? — hike395 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the provenance of the citation, the provenance of the url. A reader who links to the url may be understandably mystified to see the work published by somebody other than the cited publisher. The presence of |via= indicates this is not accidental or erroneous. It is to be presumed that there are no copyvio issues and that the url publisher is at least as trustworthy as the cited publisher. Their treatment should be the same. Izno, below, elaborates. 64.18.9.194 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

|via= as a parameter is essentially |publisher=, in which we do not allow URLs. I see no reason to do so here either. As for your [hike395]'s modified query, no, Trappist's is more correct. Yours finds a whole bunch of domain names with TLDs, when what you want is the URL to show what you think is a certain use. This is more correct than his, but still only some ~1500 uses, so that is not persuasive either.

I also do not see where in the documentation you believe that the documentation promoted using a URL in this parameter. Izno (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My original statement wasn't clear --- I meant to say "website" not a syntactically correct URL. But given that no one wants to implement this, I'll withdraw the suggestion, and leave |via= deleted from the various botany templates. — hike395 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

[u.a.]

Previous discussions:

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 2#What does [u.a] mean?

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 28#|location=Cambridge [u.a.]

I just stumbled across two citations in Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (references 1 & 25) that use '[u.a.]' in |location=. Apparently '[u.a.]' is an initialism of unter anderem ('among other things') or und andere ('and others').

Also, apparently, '[u.a.]' was at one time used by WorldCat so was copied from there to here by Citoid and/or its predecessors into |location=. At this writing, there are about 2700 articles that have '[u.a.]'.

What to do with '[u.a.]'? Continue to ignore? Should Module:Citation/CS1 add a maint cat when '[u.a.]' is found? If we do that, what is the recommended maintenance? I suspect that we should at least document '[u.a.]' somewhere so that editors can know what it means.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Assuming this is used exclusively for publisher |location=, I think it should be considered unnecessary and removed. We are well past the age where a publisher subsidiary would differentiate from another subsidiary of the same publisher and language. The primary lication of the imprint in the country of publication is sufficient. If the initialism is used (erroneously) in place of et al., that should be fixed.

Fire up the RfC for the required tracking category. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)