Help talk:Citation Style 1

Add topic
Active discussions
Citation templates
... in conception
... and in reality

Translation yearEdit

Hello there! A query. For a source like

Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C. Cambridge: Harvard University Press – via LacusCurtius.

It isn't really the case that Sallust (who died in 35 BC) wrote the thing in 1921. The year of (this specific Loeb) translation was 1921, but would it be possible to have something like a translation-date parameter which could place closer to the translator rather than perhaps implying that Sallust lived for two thousand years? (And if some parameter already does this, please direct me to it!) Maybe something like:

Sallust [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C (1921). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to read citations as text, or as part of article prose. They utilize shorthand, ideally according to the way works are classified, hopefully presenting the best & easiest way to find the source. Neither prose-related aesthetics or semantics enter into it. As part of the article's end matter, they have their own semantics. Works are often classified and found by author and date of publication as it appears in the cited edition, and/or also by title of publication. There is no classification system that utilizes the translation date as far as I know. Certainly not in the indexing of works. I would not expect that information will help in locating the source. (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Classical scholars do not classify by translation date; that is why I am asking as to how we can move the translation date from the front to the middle. In classical scholarship, the primary sources are cited entirely without dates. Not only because the dates are usually unknown (the publication date of Bellum Catilinae is still debated, the TAQ is 35 and TPQ is 44) but also because the primary sources are not organised that way. They are organised by author and title. See ; eg, the Oxford Classical Dictionary abbreviation (commonly used in English-language scholarship), for the cited material is merely Sall. Cat. without reference to any specific translation. There is usually no reference to any specific translation because classical scholarship assumes you do not need any specific translation. Ifly6 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The date provided in the |date= field should be the date of publication, not the date of translation, which (for citation purposes) is not relevant. I would not compare or contrast Wikipedia citations with any scholarly, academic, or expert reference system. They target very dissimilar audiences. (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I often see citations to ancient works and wonder just how they manage to slip through the RS dragnets. Consider carefully whether you should even be citing such works.
The first citation looks fine and exactly like what you need/want. It indicates the modern date of publication and the original date of authorship, which is the purpose of the parameters you've used. Izno (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Ancient works are primary sources, they are fine when the text is not based on them and only used as illustration.
"The first citation looks fine and exactly like what you need/want.", not really. Most ancient sources cannot be dated, and the translation date still appears before the date of writing, which is very confusing. T8612 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Then I'll refer you to IP50's commentary. I don't see a reason to make a change here. Izno (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Ifly6 and T8612: The citation is describing a published source, and the citation is structured so that interested readers can locate the cited source and verify its content for themselves. Saying that the source was published in 1921 is what we want, since that will help a reader go to a library or internet archive and find the matching source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The blanket statements of disdain for ancient sources here are Wikipedia:Recentism in its purest form. Some ancient sources such as Euclid's Elements are secondary, not primary, and are very reliable for what they source. Just like with modern sources, one must determine ancient source reliability individually and with care. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Linking to commercial publishers: Exception?Edit

The page currently reads: "Do not link to: [...] Commercial sites such as Amazon, unless no alternative exists."

Would it be alright to add an exception clause for open access books, often which are available on commercial sites?

See e.g. [here].

Even if this is stated or implied elswhere on the page (I didn't see it if it is, sorry), it'd be good to add a short clarification clause where the page talks about linking to commerical sites. Cameron.coombe (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the commercial link warning is that Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing or sales tool. However open access sources are free, and I would think it obvious they would be allowed irrespective of the platform. I would support such clarification, if one is needed. I don't think there is a problem with citations linking to the site in your example.
As an aside, I sometimes archive live webpages on sales sites such as online stores, and then cite the archive only, so a sale cannot be done from the link. Make sure that the archive is a true screenshot with all links/scripts disabled. (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Generic titleEdit

Hello, could |title=Login be added as a generic title, |title=Login • Instagram appears to produce the "Cite uses generic title (help)" but not just |title=Login. Keith D (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In my usage "Login" would be the title, while "Instagram" is either the work/website or the publisher, depending on this specific context. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

DOI questionEdit

I've had this problem before and anyone I have asked seems to know of no solution. I posted a query to the help desk to see if more eyes than my circle of editing people could find a solution and they referred me here. We have url and chapter-url, but as far as I can tell, there is no similar way to mark the doi and chapter-doi. And, yes, I know that it isn't required to have a link, but if you are preparing a GA or FA, its good to have them in the article for a review, besides which, as the writer, I may go back and recheck a ref. The case I am working on right now is book and chapter. The url links can't be used as they are proxied. (I am definitely challenged by wikitechnology, so I need step by step instructions that are easy to follow.) Thanks to anyone who might be able to help or offer a solution. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that for citations you only need to provide the DOI numbers. It's up to readers to work out how to access the text. In your case, doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015 works for the chapter, and doi:10.3138/9781487542122 for the book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
PS: If you're citing the chapter, simply use the chapter DOI and omit the book DOI. The ISBN is enough to identify the book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Please don't include urls that have wikipedialibrary subdomains in live articles; no reader can follow that url to its destination and I would suspect that most editors do not have privilege of the wikipedialibrary. I've been seeing more of those urls recently.
This question is about this?:
{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122 |date=2022 |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |location=Toronto |chapter=9 A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |chapter-doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |pages=189-225 |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2}}
No identifier used in cs1|2 template has separate work/subsection forms. Generally it is not necessary to supply the doi of the work if you are providing the doi of a subsection. For example, it is easy to get to the work from the chapter's doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015 landing page which has multiple links to the States of Liberation landing page.
If you must, you can add the work's doi this way: |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}}:
{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |date=2022 |chapter=A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}} |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2 |location=Toronto |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |pages=189–225}}
Huneke, Samuel Clowes (2022). "A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany". States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 189–225. doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015. ISBN 978-1-4875-4212-2. doi:10.3138/9781487542122.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Trappist the monk! That answers my question. For the life of me, I cannot understand why wikitechnology is not intuitive and requires so many hoops to be jumped through. I truly appreciate your help. And yes, I know not to use the proxied link, but the only way to give the example was to use it. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

wikipedialibrary urlsEdit

If anyone is looking for something to fix... this search returns about 180 articles that have wikipedialibrary urls.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

When the volume of a journal is the correct target for a linkEdit

The following reference from Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) throws an error, because we don't allow links to volumes of journals.

But in this case, the content of the link really is the volume of the journal, and the individual paper is more difficult to link. Any suggestions for how to format in a way that both makes sense and makes the templates happy? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed document editEdit

Currently the Work section contains the following sentence:

Aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website.

However, at least in the case of journal, the citation format can change from the layout for the 'work' option. For example:

work= : Gontcharov, G. A. (November 2006), "Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities for 35495 Hipparcos stars in a common system", Astronomy Letters, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 759–771, arXiv:1606.08053, Bibcode:2006AstL...32..759G, doi:10.1134/S1063773706110065, S2CID 119231169.
journal= : Gontcharov, G. A. (November 2006), "Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities for 35495 Hipparcos stars in a common system", Astronomy Letters, 32 (11): 759–771, arXiv:1606.08053, Bibcode:2006AstL...32..759G, doi:10.1134/S1063773706110065, S2CID 119231169.

I'm proposing the sentence be changed to the following:

Aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website. (The alias journal will modify the citation format.)

Praemonitus (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praemonitus I have no objection to you adding this clarification to the documentation. Be bold and make the edit! Thank you for your efforts to improve the documentation! GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change or changes to the link status parameterEdit

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Proposal_to_change_citation_templates_which_hurt_articles'_Google_ranking and was told about this page. I'm not sure if this discussion will move here, but if not at least there is a link to the VP discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen quite a few such template instances that have an archive link but are still active. Perhaps the bot is checking the links at a time when there is an outage or a certificate issue? Sometimes it can be as simple as the link changing from http to https. Praemonitus (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Among the suggestions at the Village Pump was to change the dead links to plain unlinked text. I haven't seen an example how that might look, but I suspect it would add considerable verbiage to the emitted text. I suggest that would be a bad thing; it would add horrible clutter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
There are inline googleoff and googleon tags that could be used. Praemonitus (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Like nofollow, this should probably be a mainspace-wide issue. Another problem with delinking the "original" url is the case of preemptive archiving. In such cases the original link is not dead, only pre-empted. This is an efficient way of handling possible link rot, as it requires no maintenance, without any degradation of the reader-facing info. (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The citation templates already have a parameter, |url-status=live, to indicate preemptive archival linking. When used, the citation will continue to link to the original article, with the archive link only being listed as a backup. As such, there is no reason to de-link the originals in those cases, and all of the information is available to disable de-linking for those citations. It shouldn't be a problem. FeRDNYC (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't quite what I'm envisioning, rather it was to add an extra parameter which could be used on some articles, and probably not much. There already is an extra parameter for inappropriate links. I would use it for articles where I'm concerned about Google ranking, because Google has changed and is apparently following links even when told not to. The discussion has since been archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_198#Proposal_to_change_citation_templates_which_hurt_articles'_Google_ranking. It seemed like a roughly divided response, but one that could change if views on the site got worse. I don't expect it to be accepted at the moment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite magazineEdit

This has both page= and pages= as required parameters. Is it possible to make the former unrequired as it is redundant to the latter, similar to the TemplataData of {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's one or the other, and they are different. Compare
"Foobar". Barfoo Monthly. p. 9.
"Foobar". Barfoo Monthly. pp. 9–10.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Why I brought this was, because the other two cite templates have only "pages=" which can be used even for single pages. So, consistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
??? Not true, both forms (singular & plural) exist as distinct parameters. Afaik there is no input validation to check if it matches the singular or plural form. (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I've always interpreted the singular form of the 'pages' parameter as listing the number of pages. Praemonitus (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
That is an incorrect interpretation; see |page= documentation (and |pages= documentation).
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
How then does one list the number of pages? Praemonitus (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|page= is used to list the singular page within a source that is being cited. |pages= is used to list the range of pages within a source that is being cited. For citation purposes, we do not care about the total number of pages within a work.
So for example, if I'm citing a magazine article that appears on just page 3 of the issue, I would use |page=3 to get "p. 3" listed in my citation. If instead that same article ran over to a second page, |pages=3–4 to get "pp. 3–4" or |pages=3, 7 to get "pp. 3, 7" in my citation. Imzadi 1979  16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
"...we do not care about the total number of pages within a work." Is this some undocumented tribal knowledge? Just curious. Some digital papers don't have a normal page range, so the number of pages can provide the equivalent information. Praemonitus (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: the documentation mentioned above for |pages= says: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". The citation style is based on elements from APA and CMOS styles, neither of which cite the total number of pages in a work in a citation. Imzadi 1979  02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but that only applies to the specific parameter, not to listing the total pages in general. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no parameter for a magazine's (or a book's or a newspaper's …) total number of pages, because it's of no importance. OTOH articles in journals are often cited with teir total page range and the page number for the cited instance: Doe, Jane (24 December 1968). "The wider application of paper clips". Science. 17 (42): 121–132 (125).. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
To add: Citation formatting developed/descended from bibliographic formatting, which developed/descended from catalog formatting (of works in libraries, mainly). Sources (works) have been generally classified by the published unit (book, periodical, website, audio/video recording etc.). So when citations point to specific locations within sources, the page or some other marker is necessary, in order to easily find the cited in-source item. For citation purposes, the total number of pages (or bytes, or minutes) is irrelevant. Bibliographies (like catalogs) sometimes include that information, mainly to further distinguish editions/versions. (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that explanation. I'll also repeat that the lack of need for this information doesn't appear to be explained to the editing community. Or at least I couldn't readily find it. The information about the number of pages is provided on some sources for citations, such as NASA ADS, so it seems appropriate to include it in a cite. Perhaps even a footnote on the topic would be useful? Praemonitus (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, footnotes and citations are different things and exist for different reasons. Also, it is not useful to compare citations in Wikipedia with any other formal system, or any institutional practice. Wikipedia articles (and their citations, if any) are written by anonymous contributors of uncertain expertise, and are geared to a general, non-expert audience. As for this citation "style" (a misnomer as it includes many non-style-related elements), it is highly structured as far as Wikipedia norms are concerned, and accepts the data that fit the project parameters. In CS1, if there is no reference to a certain property (such as work length), it is highly likely that such property is not part of the system, and should not be expected to make an appearance. Highly structured does not mean correctly structured, but in the particular case under discussion CS1 is codifying the correct approach imo. (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
|page= and |pages= are not required parameters for {{cite magazine}} nor for any of the other 20-ish cs1|2 templates. Are you seeing something somewhere that says that in {{cite magazine}} |page= or |pages= is required? If so, where are you seeing that 'requirement'?
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, it's one or the other, and they are different. Compare
"Foobar". Barfoo Monthly: 9-10.
"Foobar". Barfoo Monthly: 9–10.
The first has a hyphen, the second an endash. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Ya'll, see the end of the original sentence: TemplateData. $OP is not referencing what is actually required.
That said, {{cite magazine}}'s current documentation says suggested for both |page= and |pages=. Indeed, where are you seeing otherwise Kailash29792? Izno (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
By mistake. I confused suggested and required. Alright, is it okay to remove page= from suggested and retain pages=? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Not really, because it depends on whether or not you're citing one page or many. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. ¶ states

In notes, where reference is usually to a particular passage in a book or journal, only the page numbers pertaining to that passage are given. In bibliographies, no page numbers are given for books cited as a whole; for easier location of journal articles or chapters or other sections of a book, the beginning and ending page numbers of the entire article or chapter are given.

My recollection from university are that if one's own library didn't hold a particular journal, it might be possible to get another library to send a copy of an article, and it was expected to include the page range of the article so that the student-employee who actually made the copy would not have to judge where the article began and ended. When using citation templates, we could use cite xxx for the book or article in a bibliography and {{sfn}} with the page(s) that support the claim in the Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That's the practice that I follow and I do so for that very reason; inter-library loan is much easier when you know the page range. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Error in author parameterEdit

If you add {{Interlanguage link|Example|sv|Example}} for author "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" will pop up in web cite template. Eurohunter (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not an error. See the template documentation for {{ill}} in particular the Mbox with the   image.
To interwikilink an author's name, write |author-link=:sv:Example.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Yes but then people say they are surprised that article is Swedish and they want to see this Christopher Friman [sv]. Eurohunter (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This has been discussed here several times, and it seems that {{ill}} is not going to be supported. The obvious workaround is to construct a manual citation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Update the moduleEdit

I've asked 2 months ago and was ignored. Can the module be updated with the pending changes? Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous update to the modules was on 22 January 2022. We usually list the changes here for comment for about a week before updating. I propose that an admin update the modules no earlier than 1 July 2022, one week from today. In the interim, I have marked this request as "answered" so that it does not sit in the edit request queue. That does not mean it is actually answered; it should be reactivated on 1 July.
Updates to the modules, based on the notes in the sandboxes, will be:
I think that is all of the changes, aside from trivial changes to things like PMID limits that have already happened in the live modules. If not, please amend the list above. Corrections to the above are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reactivated this edit request, since a week has passed since I posted the details above. Can an admin please update the modules listed above? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Tracking (more) cites with generic author namesEdit

A couple of months ago, Jonesey95 pointed out the large number of citations using the author last name "By", and provided a handy search. I was able to expand that to capture a few more, by adding last1= through last4= to the regexp (and then remove a few by limiting it to the Article namespace). There are, nevertheless, nearly 200 such citations. Jonesey95 wondered if, perhaps, |last=By could be flagged as a generic name by the CS1 Module, as names like "Editors" and other generics already are.

David Eppstein correctly pointed out that By is a valid surname, particularly in Norway, as illustrated by three biographical article links to the Norwegian Wikipedia. Jonesey95 conceded that, in the original search, there were two cites to authors named "By" that appeared to be genuine.

Be that as it may, in looking over the results of my search, I noted a couple of patterns:

  1. The citation has an author |last[1234]?=By with no corresponding |first[1234]?= parameter at all.
  2. The citation has an author |last[1234]?=By with a corresponding |first[1234]?= containing a detectably generic string.
    • Overwhelmingly, the majority are citations to |last=By |first=Provided. (Such citations also comprise all of the |last2= |first2= matches I've seen so far.)
    • Occasionally, |last=By |first=Audio is used.
    • There's one instance of |last=By |first=Admin which is particularly bizarre (I could see if the first/last were reversed), but whatever..

As such, it seems to me that there's more than enough information available to detect abusive uses of |last[1234]?=By in citations, and to include them in Category:CS1 errors: generic name, without any of the false-positive flagging of real authors named "By" that David Eppstein was concerned about. There's no reason generic-name detection has to operate exclusively on a single citation parameter in isolation, when it can incorporate the other parameters (or lack thereof) to enable more advanced and accurate detection. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

One check that can also be useful is all-numeric / close to all numeric entries in last/first. Like if you have |first=2015-09 that's clearly an issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought there was already a CS1 error for "date in <non-date parameter>" or something like that, no? I'll have to check. If not, I can certainly agree that would be useful to watch for. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Aha! there's already a name_is_numeric check in the module, as it turns out. It actually looks for any string consisting entirely of non-alphabetic characters. (The actual code is this:)
if mw.ustring.match (name, '^[%A]+$')
Where %A is the Lua pattern-matching equivalent of [^a-zA-Z] in standard Perl-Compatible Regular Expression syntax.) So it should already detect "name"s like 2015-09. FeRDNYC (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
(Pretend I wasn't being a tedious American stereotype there, by acting as if names contain ASCII characters exclusively. Unicode letter glyphs like ä, ç, è, and etc. are undoubtedly also supported by the version of Lua pattern-matching implemented in mw.ustring.match.) FeRDNYC (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Trappist the monk to the discussion as the primary author of the current generics detection code. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at the current generic detection code (local function name_checks at line 1401 of the current Module:Citation/CS1), I see that generic-name detection is performed as either a pattern or simple string search on each of the last and first parameters in turn. So, detections that target specific paired uses of |last= & |first= probably aren't possible with the current code.
I would propose, to Trappist, the addition of a further ['full_generic_names'] list, against which a check is run on a joined representation of the entire author name. (So, effectively, undoing the splitting performed by extract_names before checking the name.) that would allow detection of joined names like these:
  • provided by
  • audio by
  • admin by
  • ^by$
Which would cover the vast majority, if not all, of the problematic uses of |last=By that Jonesey95 originally pointed out, without any false positives on valid uses of |last=By. And we'll probably find more instances where it's useful for detecting other generics, as well.
The ['full_generic_names'] list would hopefully be much shorter than the ['generic_names'] list used to check first/last names separately, so scanning it hopefully wouldn't have a severe impact on performance. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Could something like that be a workable approach to generic whole-name detection, where the individual first/last name(s) alone don't tell enough of the story? FeRDNYC (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand your proposal, but wouldn't adding say, "provided", "audio" etc. in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration's 'generic_names' list accomplish similar results? These terms would be considered generic whether they appear in |lastn= or |firstn=. (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It would accomplish results, but not necessarily similar ones. I guarantee there's someone, somewhere in the world with the first or last name "Audio". "Provided" isn't outside the realm of possibility, either. (Edit: And that still doesn't cover the question of "By" alone, which is insufficiently generic as a first or last name but is flaggably generic when used as the entire name. That's something the current code can't detect.) FeRDNYC (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but by the same token, any term or combination of terms may exist somewhere as a name. And there is the issue of code efficiency and code complexity. Perhaps a certain number/percentage of such generics should actually be detected in live citations before any list/code expansion is considered. (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, we have numbers on "By": Nearly 200 cites with the last name "By". A couple are seemingly genuine. A large percentage of them are of the (currently undetectable) form |last=By |first= (meaning, no first-name value provided). I'd guesstimate 80-90%, from looking through the matches. It's hard to be exact, because you can't search for the lack of a parameter without getting into unworkably complex regular expressions that the server will reject as too expensive. FeRDNYC (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Then again, a search for cites with "Audio" as the first or last name finds 17 matches, all of which are flaggably generic. (Mostly, they're cites from some audio website that use the name of the site as the author name.) So "Audio" may be a good candidate for generic_names regardless. FeRDNYC (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Meh. If we add ^by$ to the list and the test just happens to catch a real name (surname or given) we have the accept-this-as-written markup that will bypass the error detection. For example, Twitter and Google are both generic names so this cite emits error messages:
{{cite book |first=Google |last=Twitter |title=Title}}
Twitter, Google. Title. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
with the markup, no error messaging:
{{cite book |first=((Google)) |last=((Twitter)) |title=Title}}
Twitter, Google. Title.
I don't think that adding 'audio' is worthwhile if there really are only 17 hits; just fix them. A similar search for 'provided' returned 6 hits (timed out so there could be more) so, again, just fix them. I think that we rejected testing for 'admin' because it was suggested that there might be too many false positives where 'admin' really is the author.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. I find myself in agreement with Jonesey95's original proposal that ^by$ is a good candidate for the generics, then. The five or six false positives (now that I've looked through the entire list), as you say we can mark as accept-as-written, and there are still close to 195 more that are flaggable.
There are also a number of cites, I'm now seeing, that use |last=By |first=<entire_author's_name>, so it'd be nice to have the generics matching find those as well. I just fixed one... FeRDNYC (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding I don't think that adding 'audio' is worthwhile if there really are only 17 hits; just fix them.: While I understand and can appreciate that position, it does also sort of implicitly assume that no more instances will be created in the future.
If all of the "Audio" links were really old and just never got cleaned up, that'd be fine. We could just fix those 17, and that would be that. But this one was added in 2019, and this one in May 2020.
(The second one is actually a cite to a YouTube video, posted by the account "Madhura Audio". I'm not 100% sure what our policies are on that; perhaps it's even correct for the author to be listed as "Madhura Audio". But the cite is written as |first1=Madhura|last1=Audio which definitely feels wrong to me. Business YouTube accounts don't have first and last names, they're not people.) FeRDNYC (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

i18n Season YYYY–YYYY date fixEdit

Wikis that use the cs1|2 module suite and allow local names for Season YYYY–YYYY dates don't work. Fixed in the sandbox. To show that I have not broken anything here, these two should not display error messages:

  • {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2008–2009}}Title. Winter 2008–2009.
  • {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Summer 2008–2009}}Title. Summer 2008–2009.

these three should show error messages:

  • {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Spring 2008–2009}}Title. Spring 2008–2009. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Fall 2008–2009}}Title. Fall 2008–2009. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • {{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Autumn 2008–2009}}Title. Autumn 2008–2009. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If you intend this to go into production in a few days, can you please add this to the change log above for the upcoming module update? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions to expand "Cite uses generic title/name" errorsEdit

Could someone please expand the "Cite uses generic title" error to also include " - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions"? There seem to be 272 articles with this text in the |title= parameter. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Is this suggestion worth considering? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Not for me to say. The community appear to be indifferent so ...
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Not all of us. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Could you please consider expanding the "Cite uses generic name" error to also include |last=Admin and |author=Admin ("Admin" and "admin")? There seem to be over 3,300 articles with this text . Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Have a look in the archives. I think that we decided against 'admin' because it is too often a legitimate author name.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Aha - found Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79#Unlikely authors where "Admin" was already discussed. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Catalogue numbers in {{cite}} templatesEdit

Originally posted at Village pump (idea lab), it was suggested that here would be a better place.

Hi all, am I the only person who finds the layout of catalogue numbers (eg isbn, jstor, oclc, doi) a bit intrusive? I came across James Leasor#Bibliography, which is a good example of how they can dominate the screen. I find that small caps ISBN 9780552105866 are much less wearing on the eye than ISBN 9780552105866, and are the same size as a standard url link. I'm sure no-one would advocate url links this size. Would there be a case for incorporating this into all the the {{cite}} and similar templates? I imagine it would be trivial to implement, but what do others think? I should mention that my prefs/gadgets include "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference lists", but there is still an inconsistency in the relative 'importance' of the information. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A few observations:
  • Citation templates are not bibliographic records, and are not the proper tool for descriptive bibliographies like the one in the article you linked. Citations exist to help discover works that support article wikitext, not to populate work lists.
  • The "numbers" you mention can be very important in discovering works, and they are the most easily consulted information for this purpose, as they are always indexed.
  • Because of the above, where citations are concerned, it is not imo a good idea to diminish their screen real estate, and citation templates should adhere to that.
Bibliography lists are a different animal. Perhaps non-citation-template based lists can be formatted differently. But structured citation formats like CS1 have different approaches to presentation, where function is more important than form. (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
"Citations exist to help discover works that support article wikitext, not to populate work lists." Citations templates can definitely be used to populate lists of works though. It's a perfectly legitimate use case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You can use anything to list anything, but that is not why citations exist. They exist to cite sources. Citations, and their narrow representation as templates, can make for very stunted bibliographies. (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
MinorProphet, please see MOS:SMALLFONT for the reason we can't do this. Text in {{reflist}}, where the vast majority of cite templates exist, is already rendered at 90% of the nominal page size, and we can't go below 85%. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Why would reducing the size of important discovery items (relative to the rest of the citation) be even considered? Is this just an intellectual exercise? (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This can be worked around however. Today |format= takes a diminished size and could be even smaller than it is if someone wanted it. Izno (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Not relevant. |format= is a post-discovery helper parameter for |url=. Identifiers such as those mentioned by the OP are discovery parameters, and should not be visually demoted relative to the rest of the citation. Perhaps all these "ideas" are humorous and I am missing the joke. (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
A statement about the technical feasibility of a change, correcting another's misstatement, is not a judgement of the change itself, regarding particularly the identifiers.
As for |format=, before the TemplateStyles change, it was actually at 85%, but 85% times the 90% Jonesey makes a comment about was indeed much smaller than the 85% of total. Something in the realm of 76.5%. I bumped it up to 95% then having realized that we were missing the 85% mark. Izno (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions. Looks like that's a no, then. MinorProphet (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

vauthors bug for period saintsEdit

No, I'm not talking about CS1 being biased against Medieval Catholicism, although this bug did come up when editing the Quran article. The period in "St. Clair" throws an error (regardless of the hyphenation). Just for fun I tested some other possible problematic names I could think of but those seem fine.

{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St. Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url= |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}

Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS. "The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011. {{cite web}}: Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 2 (help)

{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url= |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}

Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS. "The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011.

Note this even fails if using the tag display-authors=1. My brief search didn't yield whether Vancouver says to not use such punctuation. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a bug. Vancouver style drops the dot from St. Whatever; see Surnames with hyphens and other punctuation in them.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Cool thanks, good to know. My google-fu black belt is apparently revoked. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news?Edit

If an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, or newspaper, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{Cite web}}, or {{Cite magazine}}, or {{Cite news}}? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Should you use {{Cite web}}, or {{Cite magazine}}, or {{Cite news}}?
Reasoning to use {{cite web}} Reasoning to use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}
  • The websites are not the same as the physical publication.
  • Content published exclusively on the website of a publication is not the same as content published in the publication.
  • Many publications separate print editions, digital editions, and website content.
  • Specialised templates should only be used for print or digital editions of a publication. Not content on their websites.
  • Content published exclusively on the website of a publication is the same as content published in a publication.
  • The only difference between print editions, digital editions, and website content is the delivery mechanism.
  • Specialised templates should be used for any content published by the publication, via any delivery mechanism.
  • Using a specialised template ensures that the correct COinS metadata is embedded for reference management software.
  • For readers consuming the content via a browser, there is no difference between the generic or specialised templates.
The full past discussion on this can be found at here.
Example URLs for website only articles

Which citation template should be used for:

{{Cite web |last=Romano |first=Nick |date=December 10, 2020 |title=Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into ''Spider-Man 3'' |url= |url-status=live |archive-url= |archive-date=December 11, 2020 |access-date=December 10, 2020 |website=[[Entertainment Weekly]]}}

Romano, Nick (December 10, 2020). "Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into Spider-Man 3". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.

{{Cite magazine |last=Romano |first=Nick |date=December 10, 2020 |title=Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into ''Spider-Man 3'' |url= |url-status=live |archive-url= |archive-date=December 11, 2020 |access-date=December 10, 2020 |magazine=[[Entertainment Weekly]]}}

Romano, Nick (December 10, 2020). "Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into Spider-Man 3". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.

Which citation template should be used for:

{{Cite web |last=MacMillan |first=Douglas |last2=Siddiqui |first2=Faiz |last3=Lerman |first3=Rachel |last4=Telford |first4=Taylor |date=April 25, 2022 |title=Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion |url= |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url= |archive-date=April 25, 2022 |access-date=April 26, 2022 |website=[[The Washington Post]]}}

MacMillan, Douglas; Siddiqui, Faiz; Lerman, Rachel; Telford, Taylor (April 25, 2022). "Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 26, 2022.

{{Cite news |last=MacMillan |first=Douglas |last2=Siddiqui |first2=Faiz |last3=Lerman |first3=Rachel |last4=Telford |first4=Taylor |date=April 25, 2022 |title=Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion |url= |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url= |archive-date=April 25, 2022 |access-date=April 26, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}

MacMillan, Douglas; Siddiqui, Faiz; Lerman, Rachel; Telford, Taylor (April 25, 2022). "Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 26, 2022.


  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}: I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that we should use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate for a source. I do not see a difference between content that appears in the print edition of, for example, Entertainment Weekly and content that appears on Entertainment Weekly's website. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}}: A website associated with a magazine or newspaper is a different entity from the print magazine or newspaper. Due to cost and space constraints, many articles are only published on the magazine or newspaper-associated website, but are not present on the print edition. As a result, it is inaccurate to state that an article that appears on a magazine or newspaper-associated is equivalent to an article from a print magazine or newspaper. Many print magazine and newspaper publishers also publish digital PDF-style editions of their magazines and newspapers, which would more accurately fit the description of an online magazine. A website associated with a magazine or newspaper is inherently a website, and websites should be cited using {{Cite web}}. Finally, {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} contain parameters not found on {{Cite web}} that are not applicable to articles published on magazine or newspaper-associated websites, such as |volume= and |issue=. There is therefore no substantial benefit to use those two templates over {{Cite web}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}}: much like online journals are journals, which should be cited with {{cite journal}}, online magazines are magazines, and should be cited with {{cite magazine}} template. This emits the correct metadata, and respects the principle of least surprise. It is also useful for our WP:MCW compilation, just like {{cite journal}} is useful for our WP:JCW compilation. {{Cite web}} is for general websites and other online sources that aren't covered by the other templates, per its documentation, and should ideally not be used for magazines. The same applies for {{cite news}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as WP:POINTy and malformed RFC by a small group of editors butthurt that their opinions were second-guessed by a bot, per earlier discussion. Also, the question is written in a way that presupposes that group's intended answer, that being published on a website is somehow different from being in "the print edition" of a magazine, as if such a thing always exists these days. And it fails to distinguish magazine content on the web site (for which the correct answer in my opinion is {{cite magazine}} regardless of print appearance) from other content that happens to be on the same site (like say an faq on subscriptions, which I think should use {{cite web}}) As such, the wording is too prejudicial to produce a meaningful result, and incapable of being answered in a way that would actually describe my position. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Nice try. There was consensus in the discussion above for an RfC (save for opposition from two editors) since participants were equally split on the issue. Falsely describing editors who disagree with your views as WP:POINTy and disruptive is deeply uncivil and not assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
A small group of people repeating the same points over and over and over and over again until everyone else gets tired and stops responding is not consensus for action, it is WP:BLUDGEONING. And this RFC is continued bludgeoning. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Multiple users expressed approval for an RfC, with only two dissenters with rather weak arguments. There is a legitimate reason to start an RfC, because the discussion above ended up with no consensus. To quote WP:BLUDGEONING, To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} in the cases likely to be of main interest: online magazines are magazines, and online newspapers are newspapers, just like online academic journals are online academic journals. The argument that a print newspaper is a different entity from its online version relies on distinctions that don't matter as far as our policies are concerned: their stories are by the same people, under the same editorial supervision, held to the same standards. {{cite web}} can be the better option for content that happens to share a domain name, as mentioned above (a "Contact Us" page isn't a news story, for example, and Forbes "contributor" blogs aren't Forbes magazine). I share the concern raised above that this is not a well-formed RfC, despite (or because of?) the lengthy discussion that apparently led up to it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
To test this out, I just ran Citation bot on my sandbox. Apparently, it doesn't even change Forbes or Scientific American citations from {{Cite web}} to {{Cite magazine}} even if it's an article, but for this non-article from the Entertainment Weekly website, it did. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the bot can't always make the right decision going by URLs alone. Film at 11. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I know Citation bot isn't technically part of this RfC question, but this whole issue came about because of Citation bot's automated changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}} by default, as the bot cannot work out whether the web article is actually part of a physical or digital magazine or if it is non-magazine web content. It should be on the user who is adding the source to determine whether {{Cite magazine}} should be used instead. I have already elaborated on my opinions a lot as part of the previous discussion, I won't repeat all of that here unless someone asks me to. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not use {{cite web}} for any sources that can be otherwise classified. CS1, like most citation systems, cites sources by type of work, not by type of media. An online periodical work is a magazine. An online news agency or newspaper is a work of journalism. Outside of the present case, an online book/encyclopedia/image is a book, an encyclopedia or an image. Something found in a corporate/institutional/government website is information in a corporate/institutional/government promotional publication. And so on. Citations are structured to follow these conventions. That is why they include authors of works, dates of publication of works, etc. Citing by medium has no analog in the real world, except in the rare cases that cannot be classified otherwise. (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Change templates and/or citation guidelines per my comment below. If templates are web-exclusive, those are at the top of the visual hierarchy and print-exclusive at the bottom. If print-vs-web is tagged, the proper usage of such tags must be explicitly clear to every editor. Either way, for a site that prides itself on verifiability, the fact that we've been completely ambiguous in templates so far about whether we cite print or web news is inexcusable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Cite news or cite magazine. cite web says it is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. Because we have cite news and cite magazine, cite web should not be used here. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


Note: So far I've only added the tech topic. I'm not sure if any of the other topics are appropriate, but if they are feel free to add em or let me know and I'll add them. We'll also want to notify any relevant WikiProjects if anyone has a list of those handy, and the village pump about this discussion, as it is relevant to a great many pages across enwiki. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Help talk:Citation Style 1, WikiProject Citation cleanup, WikiProject Academic Journals, WikiProject Magazines, WikiProject Newspapers Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC), updated Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: Updated the notices after the move, and I've struck the one for this page because that's now where we're holding the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Before I do so, do editors believe it would be considered WP:CANVASSING to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force of this RfC, as that is where this issue first arose? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because this is not specific to that WikiProject. WP:JOURNALS and WP:MAGAZINES should be notified though, since these are the projects associated with journals, magazines, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I've now notified WikiProject Academic Journals, Magazines, and Newspapers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Physical print media will always require a different citation than the same item posted online (unless perhaps if it's an image scan). Anyone who has ever looked up a recent news article online can see the "Updated on xx-xx-xxxx" date and know that there will be some, however slight, difference from whatever went out in print. That said, WP citations from print media will likely be extremely rare relative to online-access media (with the diminishing exception of long-form books). So I ask what is the point of having "news", "journal", and "magazine" citation templates presented so prominently when it would seem for all online publication the proper template would "cite web" (or some variant for journals – remember print can be different there too). Really this requires rethinking how the template options are presented to editors: almost always the sources will be either print books or web-accessible. After those are introduced, then you can show the exceptional cases, such as A/V media and from-print citations. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this could be accomplished with just a type=Print source or similar specification tag, but the rules on how to cite, use citation templates, and for these types of tag have to be made crystal clear. Verifiability is not an MOS issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

David Eppstein I wanted to address and query one point you raised above with respect to the RfC being malformed, specifically the question written in a way that presupposes that group's intended answer. As is clear from my contributions in the past discussion, I drafted a not insubstantial amount of the RfC and how it was presented. I did this because, per my comments in #Why do we need an RFC? I saw no other way to address an intractable dispute between editors that was spilling over into the article space. I was open to, and acted upon feedback from many contributors both in favour of the transformations of the bot and who are opposed to it. As there was a period of 30 days between the posting of the second draft, and the opening of the RfC, why did you not voice any concerns about the question being leading or presupposed towards an intended answer? I would happily have tried to address those concerns during the drafting period, as while my opinion is firmly in that the bot's edits are fine and correct, I wanted to be as fair as I possibly could to both sides of the argument. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

s2cid limit needs to be updatedEdit

I recently added a citation with the correct s2cid of 250118314, but received a "check value" error; the help directed me to report this here. Clicking the link generated in the citation confirms it is correct. The article I had edited was Linear Elamite. – Scyrme (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)