Help talk:Citation Style 1

Citation templates

... in conception

... and in reality

|location= without |publisher= (2)

A while ago I started a discussion Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 83 § |location= without |publisher= which, like many discussions, wandered off into the weeds. That discussion was brought to mind when I recently encountered a handful of citoid-created cs1|2 templates ({{cite book}} for the most part) that had |location= but did not have |publisher=.

I have hacked the module sandboxen to add a maintenance category when {{cite book}} and {{cite encyclopedia}} templates have |location=, |place=, and/or |publication-place= without |publisher=. Similarly, {{citation}} without a periodical (|work=) alias and with or without |encyclopedia= will also emit the maintenance category when |location= (or an alias) is missing |publisher=.

book citations:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |location=Denver}}

Title. Denver.

{{citation/new |title=Title |location=Albuquerque}}

Title, Albuquerque

encyclopedia citations:

{{cite encyclopedia/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Seattle}}

"Entry". Encyclopedia. Seattle.

{{citation/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Boise}}

"Entry", Encyclopedia, Boise

other citation types: {{cite report/new |title=Title |location=San Francisco}}

Title (Report). San Francisco. – not a 'book' cite so not checked for location-missing-publisher

{{citation/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |location=Portland}}

"Title", Journal, Portland – not a 'book' cite so not checked for location-missing-publisher

Keep? Discard? Other?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this change in production? Where would find the maintenance category in question? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. I wrote: I have hacked the module sandboxen.... When (if) the change is made to the live module, the category will be Category:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (unless there is a better name?) The maintenance messages are visible to those who enable them; see Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a useful issue to track, I've seen it happen a lot when isbn has been used to auto-populate the book details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I re-read the original thread, where I wrote: I suspect that this requirement would turn out to be overly fussy, with many situations in which publisher information is unavailable. We don't want unfixable error messages. What would our recommendation be in that case? |publisher=none would have to be accepted, but I think there would be complaints of the type "there was clearly a publisher of some kind, but the information doesn't exist, so 'none' is untruthful." If this change is approved by consensus here, I would like the change proposal to include new, explicit instructions for how to handle legitimate situations where publisher information is simply not available, and how that lack of publisher information would be displayed in the rendered citation. Those instructions would become part of the overall proposal to newly require |publisher= when |location= is present. I do not think we should backfill that sort of thing post-deployment of a change like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The original proposal was for an error message. The current proposal emits a maintenance message.

For older books, the publisher, if there was one, may not be known. I have seen examples where the book was printed for 'the Society' or for some nobleman but those are rare in comparison to the number of citations-sans-publisher that citoid churns out. To constrain the categorization so that only 'modern' books and encyclopediae are categorized, we could tweak the test to require |isbn= or |sbn= (c. 1966 onwards) or perhaps require that |date= specifies a year after some defined point in time (1850 onwards for example – Macmillan Publishers was founded in 1843).

You don't like |publisher=none? Suggest alternatives; perhaps |publisher=unknown? |publisher=missing? none has the advantage of familiarity because it is already used for |postscript=, |ref=, |title=, and |type=. In the other discussion, I linked to three external style guides showing how those guides handled missing publisher data. We could map |publisher=none to one of those renderings – I like the Harvard '[no publisher]' because interpretation is not required.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest unknown, it's not as succinct as none but wouldn't suffer the quibbles that Jonesey mentioned. I like the 1850 idea as it would suppress most cases where the issue was invalid, while using isbn would result in a new maintenance message if an isbn was added (which would be annoying). No opinion on how |publisher=unknown should be displayed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I hacked an awb script to trawl through a small (25,000) sample of the ~1.56 million articles that transclude {{cite book}}. The script inspected each page looking for {{cite book}} templates that:

1. have |location=, |place=, or |publication-place= with an assigned value and without |publisher= (missing or empty)
2. meet the conditions in 1 above and have |isbn= or |ISBN= with an assigned value
3. meet the conditions in 1 above and have |date= or |year= with an assigned value where the year portion of the date is 1850 or later

Of the 25,000 articles in the sample:

• test 1 above (unconstrained) found 2408 articles
• test 2 above (requires an isbn) found 1490 articles
• test 3 above (requires date 1850+) found 2195 articles

I guess that the result isn't all that surprising. Because isbn wasn't really in use before c. 1966, there are plenty of books that were published in the 1850–c. 1966 time period (115ish years v 57ish years).

Apply a constraint? Which one?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Like so many, this discussion faded away without any resolution. So, I have hacked the sandboxen again to implement the date-based limit (1850+) and for |publisher=none to suppress the maintenance message where appropriate. You will notice that the examples at the top of this discussion do not show maintenance messages. This is due to the date limitation; no date, no maint message. Repeating them here with dates:

book citations:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |location=Denver |date=1849}}

Title. Denver. 1849. – pre-1850; no maint message

{{cite book/new |title=Title |location=Denver |date=1850}}

Title. Denver. 1850.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

{{citation/new |title=Title |location=Albuquerque |date=1849}}

Title, Albuquerque, 1849 – pre-1850; no maint message

{{citation/new |title=Title |location=Albuquerque |date=1850}}

Title, Albuquerque, 1850{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

encyclopedia citations:

{{cite encyclopedia/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Seattle |date=1849}}

"Entry". Encyclopedia. Seattle. 1849. – pre-1850; no maint message

{{cite encyclopedia/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Seattle |date=1850}}

"Entry". Encyclopedia. Seattle. 1850.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

{{citation/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Boise |date=1849}}

"Entry", Encyclopedia, Boise, 1849 – pre-1850; no maint message

{{citation/new |entry=Entry |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |location=Boise |date=1850}}

"Entry", Encyclopedia, Boise, 1850{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

other citation types:

{{cite report/new |title=Title |location=San Francisco |date=1850}}

Title (Report). San Francisco. 1850. – not a 'book' cite so not checked for location-missing-publisher

{{citation/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |location=Portland |date=1850}}

"Title", Journal, Portland, 1850 – not a 'book' cite so not checked for location-missing-publisher

When |publisher= is set to the common keyword none, no maint message:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |location=Denver |date=1850 |publisher=none}}

Title. Denver. 1850. – maint message suppressed with |publisher=none

{{citation/new |title=Title |location=Albuquerque |date=1850 |publisher=none}}

Title, Albuquerque, 1850 – maint message suppressed with |publisher=none

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Discard. There are cases where a publisher is either unknown or is omitted, and there's no reason to throw an error if someone chooses to include a publication location. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading in some style guide the direction that citations to older books omit the publisher but still contain the location. To follow on with that, at least one guide I saw recently encouraged the use of "n.p." in citations when the publisher is unknown. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think location= without publisher= may be legitimate on rare occasions, such as in old books whose publisher is not clearly stated on the title page. I've also sometimes seen location= used on conference proceedings to describe the location at which a conference was held, unrelated to the publisher or the publisher location, but I think that may be an abuse of the parameters. We should fix those, if we find them, but first we would need an appropriate other parameter to use to hold this metadata, which should not just be omitted (conference location is not useful for library lookups, but it may be relevant to readers in understanding the context of a conference publication). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, using |location= to name the conference venue city is a misuse. {{cite conference}} has |conference= where venue city may be included.

The proposed categorization does not apply to {{cite conference}}:

{{cite conference |title=Paper |book-title=Proceedings |conference=Annual Conference 2023 Atlanta |location=New York}}

"Paper". Proceedings. Annual Conference 2023 Atlanta. New York.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Side discussion about templates other than cite book or cite encyclopedia

In terms of books, the above makes sense. But I have often cited magazine and news websites in the form of {{cite news}} with |url=https://drive.com.au/blahblahblah, |work=Drive and |location=Australia. The |publisher= field seems unwarranted in the this situation but it is quite useful to know which country the reference comes from because each country often has a certain bias - eg, reports of a car getting a new engine often differ between countries because that engine was not offered in all countries but the report often talks only to their own readers so it sounds universal when it isn't.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's common to include the location of a newspaper if it's not included in the title (compare "Daily News. New York." vs. "The New York Times.") without including the publisher for either of them. Thee first of my two examples shouldn't prompt an error. Imzadi 1979 → 04:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, |location= is used to disambiguate newspapers, magazines, etc. The proposal does not include periodical templates {{cite journal}} (see example under other citation types above), {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}. Here are the other two:

{{cite news |title=Story title |newspaper=Daily News |location=New York}}

"Story title". Daily News. New York.

{{cite magazine |title=Story title |magazine=Time |location=New York}}

"Story title". Time. New York.

No maintenance messages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Cite AV media and the use of |others=

A comment above made me think of something I come across a lot, that is the maintenance message {{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes). You will find this message repeated dozens of times on most discography articles. It's appears common pratice is to use |others= for the artist with no author fields being populated. Given that I'd like to suggest that this error is suppressed for "cite AV media notes", and it's alternative names. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This also makes the tracking category for these messages pretty pointless, as nearly every article tracked is just this type of use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The most recent collation of relevant discussions and another discussion since then, besides this one now. Please feel free to review. Izno (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Izno: I guess the sticking point, for me, is that all of those discussions have failed to produce anything beyond... discussion. In the "most recent collation", you write:

This maintenance category used to be part of Category:CS1 maint: others but was split out because we don't know the best way to deal with them.

...But, from the number of discussions that have already covered this ground, consensus seems to be that we're not going to deal with them, really. Which makes that maintenance category not actually a maintenance category at all, as there is no maintenance that can be performed on those entries, nor is that expected to change. (Maybe eventually. But the sun will burn out, eventually...) At best it's merely a tracking category, in the most fundamental sense, and nothing more.

But having that tracking category classified as CS1 maintenance causes side-effects not encountered with normal tracking categories. Editors get "Script warning" notices when using the template, and (as Actively... notes) those who've opted in to their display see green maintenance messages littering articles, despite those messages remaining inactionable. Which makes me think that keeping it there, just in some vague hope that a plan for dealing with those citations eventually emerges, is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. FeRDNYC (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

And a related discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86 § |people= parenthetical roles

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

deprecated parameters

This to note that sometime within the past 24 hours, Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters went empty for the first time since 2021-01-03. It wasn't me who did that. There were some objection to the deprecation of |lay-date=, |lay-format=, |lay-source= and |lay-url=, especially from WP:MED, so I stopped cleaning that category. Still, slowly over time, other editors have removed articles from the category. I intend to wait a while to see what happens, but I anticipate that the category will remain empty. If it does remain empty until say, this time next month, I'll remove support for the |lay-*= parameters.

Since it was deprecated, I have not seen |transcripturl= appear in Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters so I have removed support for that alias of |transcript-url= from the sandboxen.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The category has remained empty so I have removed support for |lay-date=, |lay-format=, |lay-source= and |lay-url= from the sandboxen.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Citations of manuals from online collections?

I frequently cite IBM publications that are organized into bookshelves or other collections. I would like to include a link to the web page for the collection, but |website=[url collection] and |work=[url collection] get CS1 error messages. Should there be |website-url= and |work-url= parameters? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rather than trying to misuse one of the fields, simply add the additional information after the cite but still inside the ref tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 2 May 2023

Please make this module be accessable from other modules without need for use of frame:preprocess(), frame:newChild(), or similarframe-related tricks. Animal lover |666| 11:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Gonna take a bit more in effort than an edit request, though I support such a change. Izno (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Izno, Where should I ask to get it done? Animal lover |666| 17:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the right place, it's just non-trivial work. Izno (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Unintentional double spaces in rendered output

CS1/2 templates produce double spaces that are rendered (you can locate them in the rendered output by ctrl+f, depending on your browser, but they appear as single spaces, not wide). It happens in the following scenarios: every time an editor + author/contributor is defined, and every time etal is used. It does not depend on whether the code has spaces or not, the spaces are always there. See for example:

• Smith, John; et al. (2020). "Double Spaces". In Doe, John; et al. (eds.). Book of Spaces. Translated by Roe, Jane; et al.

Surely this is unintentional? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it a problem? This still renders ultimately as one space. Izno (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a big problem, it's a small one. I think code sanitization is definitely the forte of CS1/2, and if something can be fixed, it should be fixed. Aside from a miniscule increase in page size, a practical problem is clutter when searching for actual double spaces when making wikitext more readable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

My browser compresses multiple space characters into a single space. To see the double spaces, I copied the example template into Special:ExpandTemplates and clicked Show raw HTML. The live module shows doubled spaces between the name-list separator character (semicolon) and 'et' (3×) and also between the chapter title's terminator (a dot for cs1, a comma for cs2) and 'In' (cs1) / 'in' (cs2).

I think that I have found where these extra characters are coming from and have tweaked the sandbox a bit to remove them. It isn't much of a big deal for the 'et al' insertions, but I remember Editor Dragons flight having a bit of a struggle getting the author/date/editor/chapter to line up and fly right. Since then I have been careful to avoid doing much of anything with that code so I'll stare at it tomorrow to make sure that I haven't buggered up some edge case that requires these extra spaces.

For your convenience, here is the sandbox version of the example template:

{{cite book/new |last1=Smith |first1=John |display-authors=etal |editor-last1=Doe |editor-first1=John |display-editors=etal |translator-last1=Roe|translator-first1=Jane|display-translators=etal |year=2020 |chapter=Double Spaces |title=Book of Spaces}}

Smith, John; et al. (2020). "Double Spaces". In Doe, John; et al. (eds.). Book of Spaces. Translated by Roe, Jane; et al.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this. Here is a template that uses |display-<name-list>=etal for all five name lists. No double spaces:

{{cite book/new |contributor=EB Green |display-contributors=etal |interviewer=CD Brown |display-interviewers=etal |last1=Smith |first1=John |display-authors=etal |editor-last1=Doe |editor-first1=John |display-editors=etal |translator-last1=Roe|translator-first1=Jane|display-translators=etal |year=2020 |contribution=Double Spaces: the interview |title=Book of Spaces}}

EB Green; et al. (2020). "Double Spaces: the interview". Book of Spaces. By Smith, John; et al. Doe, John; et al. (eds.). Interviewed by CD Brown; et al. Translated by Roe, Jane; et al.

Changing to {{citation/new}} or |mode=cs2 gives the same no-double-spaces result.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Trappist the monk. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata ID

It wound be nice to be able to tie a citation of a work to its Wikidata ID. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? We have too many useless junk ids cluttering up our references already, making it very hard for readers to guess which of dozens of links might actually lead them to the reference itself. How does adding one more junk id that definitely will not lead to the reference itself improve that situation? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Because all the data for the citation has to be entered locally on each page where the citation appears, instead of pulling the citation data from Wikidata. It would be nice to be able to cite by simply using the citation data from Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You can already autopopulate citation using DOI, URL, ISBN etc. Also having the details here allows editors to edit them without having to go to a separate site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That only works for books that have a DOI, URL, or ISBN. Most books I work with don't have those. Having the details here means that all the information has to be put in on every page where the citation is made. If it were on Wikidata, the citation would only require the WD ID, and any pages or chapter number cited. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Or you could create a template for the work, and only have to enter the template name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey@ActivelyDisinterested see Template:Cite Q. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Until the matter of transcluding Wikidata on Wikipedia is resolved (most likely with a huge and contentious RFC) usage of this template should be extremely vetted to ensure that all of the transcluded information is accurate.", as I have no interest in editting a separate project it's not something I would use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been previous discussed. Here are some simple searches: wikidata, QID. Izno (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Periodical title parameter in cite book

I just stumbled across this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Statistics. Apparently these statistics are based on the presence of |journal= in {{cite ...}} templates. What struck me right off was the number of {{cite book}} templates using |journal=. Is there any real reason that {{cite book}} should support |journal= or any of the other periodical parameters?

This crude search finds about 2000 articles that have {{cite book}} with |journal= – the search times out so who knows how may articles are involved. Examples from two of those articles:

from Early modern period:

{{cite book|editor-last=Newman|editor-first=Gerald|title=Britain in the Hanoverian Age, 1714–1837: An Encyclopedia|journal=History: Reviews of New Books|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZhaBz_5OZiUC&pg=PR11|year=1997|volume=27|issue=2|pages=51–52|publisher=Taylor & Francis|doi=10.1080/03612759909604247|isbn=978-0815303961|access-date=2017-09-27|archive-date=2020-08-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801041745/https://books.google.com/books?id=ZhaBz_5OZiUC&pg=PR11|url-status=live}}

Newman, Gerald, ed. (1997). Britain in the Hanoverian Age, 1714–1837: An Encyclopedia. History: Reviews of New Books. Vol. 27. Taylor & Francis. pp. 51–52. doi:10.1080/03612759909604247. ISBN 978-0815303961. Archived from the original on 2020-08-01. Retrieved 2017-09-27.

It is not at all clear what this reference is citing. Britain in the Hanoverian Age, 1714–1837: An Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia published by Garland Publishing, New York and London; |url= links to a Google book facsimile; the doi points to a review in History: Reviews of New Books to which |volume=, |issue= (not rendered by {{cite book}}), and |pages= refer; the value assigned to |publisher= is the current publisher of the journal; |isbn= is the ISBN of the encyclopedia, and the named editor is the editor of the encyclopedia

from Clovis culture:

{{Cite book |last1=Boslough |first1=M. |last2=Nicoll |first2=K. |last3=Holliday |first3=V. |last4=Daulton |first4=T. L. |last5=Meltzer |first5=D. |last6=Pinter |first6=N. |last7=Scott |first7=A. C. |last8=Surovell |first8=T. |last9=Claeys |first9=P. |last10=Gill |first10=J. |last11=Paquay |first11=F. |last12=Marlon |first12=J. |last13=Bartlein |first13=P. |last14=Whitlock |first14=C. |last15=Grayson |first15=D. |last16=Jull |first16=A. J. T. |s2cid=11274022 |title=Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event |journal=Geophysical Monograph Series |year=2012 |volume=198 |pages=13–26 |doi=10.1029/2012gm001209|isbn=9781118704325 }}

Boslough, M.; Nicoll, K.; Holliday, V.; Daulton, T. L.; Meltzer, D.; Pinter, N.; Scott, A. C.; Surovell, T.; Claeys, P.; Gill, J.; Paquay, F.; Marlon, J.; Bartlein, P.; Whitlock, C.; Grayson, D.; Jull, A. J. T. (2012). Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event. Geophysical Monograph Series. Vol. 198. pp. 13–26. doi:10.1029/2012gm001209. ISBN 9781118704325. S2CID 11274022.

Here, |journal= really should be |series=; |title= names a chapter in a book called Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations edited by Giosan et al. which title and editor name list are missing from the template; |isbn= points to the book title but that can confuse readers because the book title is missing in the citation; |doi= links to the chapter at the publisher's website

{{Cite book | last1 = Stanford | first1 = Dennis | last2 = Lowery | first2 = Darrin | last3 = Jodry | first3 = Margaret | last4 = Bradley | first4 = Bruce A. | last5 = Kay | first5 = Marvin | last6 = Stafford | first6 = Thomas W. | last7 = Speakman | first7 = Robert J. | title = New Evidence for a Possible Paleolithic Occupation of the Eastern North American Continental Shelf at the Last Glacial Maximum | journal = Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf | volume = 2014 | pages = 73–93 | doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-9635-9_5 | year=2014| isbn = 978-1-4614-9634-2 }}

Stanford, Dennis; Lowery, Darrin; Jodry, Margaret; Bradley, Bruce A.; Kay, Marvin; Stafford, Thomas W.; Speakman, Robert J. (2014). New Evidence for a Possible Paleolithic Occupation of the Eastern North American Continental Shelf at the Last Glacial Maximum. Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf. Vol. 2014. pp. 73–93. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9635-9_5. ISBN 978-1-4614-9634-2.

Here, |journal= is used to name the book title (without subtitle) and |title= is used to name the cited chapter; |isbn= points to the book title and |doi= points to the chapter at the publisher's website.

The first example should be rewritten to either cite a single source (the book or the journal) or split into two citations. In the latter two examples, the rendered result is wrong: chapter titles should be quoted in an upright font and book titles should be italicized.

It seems to me that we should prevent {{cite book}} and {{cite encyclopedia}} from accepting |journal= and the other periodical parameters in much the same way that we prevent periodical templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}) from accepting |chapter= and its aliases.

Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion. I fully support it.  — sbb (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Support, as long as there's a tracking category and a corresponding addition to the Help:CS1 errors page. Should it start as a maintenance message before making it an error, in case there are patterns we could quickly fix before making it a visible error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

as long as there's a tracking category and a corresponding addition to the Help:CS1 errors page. Of course; cs1|2 doesn't do error messaging without matching categories and help text.

I think that this is an error condition and should be noted as such. If there are patterns that can be quickly fixed, the patterns will be just as apparent (maybe more so) with error messages as they will be with maintenance messages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk - I just finished running a search against the May 1 database dump for \{ *[Cc]ite book[^\}]*\| *journal and found 7,789 matches. GoingBatty (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's ~0.12% of 6,662,363 articles. Just out of curiosity, I ran the crude search for the other 'periodical' parameters:

• |magazine=: ~50
• |newspaper=: ~175
• |periodical=: ~25
• |website=: ~2350
• |work=: ~5600

All of these searches time out. Results from the first three searches are, I think, negligible; the last two possibly not. Editor GoingBatty: Can you do similar searches against the database dump for {{cite book}} using |website= and {{cite book}} using |work=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: 10,699 with |website= and 23,819 with |work=. GoingBatty (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have hacked the sandbox. Here are examples of {{cite book}} with the various periodical parameter aliases:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|journal=Journal|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Journal.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|magazine=Magazine|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Magazine.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |magazine= ignored (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|newspaper=Newspaper|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Newspaper.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |newspaper= ignored (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|periodical=Periodical|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Periodical.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |periodical= ignored (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|title=Title|website=Website}}
Live	Title. Website.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|title=Title|work=Work}}
Live	Title. Work.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

and examples of {{cite encyclopedia}} with |journal= (the other periodical parameters produce the same sort of results); note the error messaging change:

Cite encyclopedia comparison

Wikitext	{{cite encyclopedia|journal=Journal|title=Title}}
Live	"Title". Journal.
Sandbox	Title. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |journal= ignored (help)

Cite encyclopedia comparison

Wikitext	{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|entry=Entry}}
Live	"Entry". Encyclopedia.
Sandbox	"Entry". Encyclopedia.

Cite encyclopedia comparison

Wikitext	{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|entry=Entry|journal=Journal}}
Live	"Entry". Encyclopedia. {{cite encyclopedia}}: More than one of |encyclopedia= and |journal= specified (help)
Sandbox	"Entry". Encyclopedia. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |journal= ignored (help)

and {{citation}} where the first three examples show that I haven't broken {{citation}} when it renders encyclopedia or journal references; note the error messaging change:

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|journal=Journal|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", Journal
Sandbox	"Title", Journal

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", Encyclopedia
Sandbox	"Title", Encyclopedia

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|entry=Entry}}
Live	"Entry", Encyclopedia
Sandbox	"Entry", Encyclopedia

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia|entry=Entry|journal=Journal}}
Live	"Entry", Encyclopedia {{citation}}: More than one of |encyclopedia= and |journal= specified (help)
Sandbox	"Entry", Encyclopedia {{citation}}: |journal= ignored (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. I also can't imagine any citation to a book where |journal= would be accurate or helpful. Glades12 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Others" parameter in Cite episode?

The documentation for {{Cite episode}} provides the following example, where "(host)" gets appended into |first=:

• {{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=8 October 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |last=Lipton |first=James (host)}}

  Lipton, James (host) (8 October 2007). "Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit". Inside the Actors Studio. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.

I think it might be good if there were a |others=, like there is for {{Cite AV media}}, so that other people (e.g., writer, director, producer) can be added and without having to pretend that "(host)" is part of the given name:

• {{cite episode |title=Episode |series=TV show |date=2000 |last=Writer |first=W. |others=D. Director (dir.)}}

  Writer, W. (2000). "Episode". TV show.

• {{cite AV media|title=Movie|date=2000 |last=Writer |first=W. |others=D. Director (dir.)}}

  Writer, W. (2000). Movie. D. Director (dir.).

Umimmak (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

{{cite episode}} does not support |others= because the wikitext version (before luafication) did not support |others=. |Other= in {{citation/core}} was usurped to support |transcript=. The real solution the |others= problem for {{cite episode}}, {{cite av media}}, and perhaps {{cite serial}} is to create a list of acceptable 'role' parameters usable only in these templates. Go to the en.wiki communities that use these templates and create a reasonably sized list of roles and bring that list here. That would allow us to render those templates with role annotation without corrupting the citation's metadata. Attempts to create such a list here have failed so it falls to the user community to create the list.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Detect placeholder volume/issue/pages

If |volume/issue/page/pages/at= are equal to "n/a", "forthcoming", "in press", "to be published", or "0", it would be good if we had a maintenance category for this. "0" will net a few false positives, but the majority of volume=0 (and similar) are problematic to should be flagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Example of '0' as a false positive?

It seems to me that |page=0 or |pages=0 is an error and should be marked as one. Without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think that |volume=0 or |issue=0 is also an error.

How do n/a, forthcoming, in press, and to be published comport with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT? Is a source marked with to be published a violation of WP:V?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: 75 examples of |volume=0 at these search results. GoingBatty (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already done that search. For the record:

• |issue=: ~105
• |page= and |pages=: ~290
• |at=: ~15 but none were cs1|2 templates

and composite case-insensitive searches for:

• n/a: ~660
• forthcoming: ~45
• in press: ~145
• to be published: none

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

access-url

The documentation for |url-access= in Template:Cite book includes "Suggested values", but Template:Cite book#Subscription or registration required indicates that only free, limited, registration and subscription are permitted. None of these match the case where the document is available as a purchased PDF. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Citing sections?

There doesn't seem to be a template for citing standards, e.g., FIPS PUB 60-1, ANSI X3.53-1976. Is {{cite report}} appropriate for that purpose? --

References

Issue number could be less ambiguous

For the periodical citation style, it's possible to specify issue number. This rather confused me today, as the issue number looked like a year of publication. I think it would be preferable to prepend 'issue' to disambiguate this; e.g. "(issue 1708)" rather than "(1708)". What do others think of this proposal? Seabass-labrax (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you citing an academic or scholarly journal or are you citing a magazine, a newspaper, or some other sort of periodical? How cs1|2 renders |issue= depends on which periodical template is being used. For academic and scholarly journals, cs1|2 follows the convention commonly used by those journals (issue number wrapped in parentheses):

{{cite journal|title=Title |journal=Journal |issue=1234}}

"Title". Journal (1234).

For the other kinds of periodical, cs1|2 renders the issue number with a prefix:

{{cite magazine |title=Title |magazine=Magazine |issue=1234}}

"Title". Magazine. No. 1234.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ISSN parameter use and documentation

For the |issn= parameter, should the ISSN or ISSN-L be used?

And whichever one should be used or is preferred, it should be reflected in the template documentation. Obviously not making a hard and fast rule against using one or the other, but more of a 'should' or 'when possible' thing. OfTheUsername (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if this has already been answered, I couldn't find anything. OfTheUsername (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

ISSN is not really a useful identifier because it isn't unique to a particular issue of a periodical. It might help to locate a library that holds some issues of the periodical – no guarantee that the library holds the issue that is being cited. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. If you think that an issn is important to the citation that you are creating, use the issn printed in the source that you are consulting. For myself, I think that issn is low-level noise that, in most cases, we can do well enough without.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

website

The current description of the parameter website = is:

Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name)...

Can we strengthen this to say something like:

Title of website (Use the domain name only when there is no clear title)...

I ask this because I see many instances where they value of the parameter is the URL of the website, even when there is an obvious name. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The template documentation is not protected. If you know how to make the documentation better, please do. Just like almost everything else on en.wiki, WP:BOLD applies.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd make it even clearer by saying: Title of website (Use the domain name only when that is the clear title)... SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unexpected CS1 maint from cite thesis location=

The citation {{cite thesis|{{ill|Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble!fr}}|...}} produces {{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: location (link). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Third ombox from the top at {{ill}} (the one with the ) pretty much says don't do that.

As to why that category appears is because Module:Citation/CS1 looks for digits in the value assigned to |location=. In this case, {{ill}} is expanded before {{cite thesis}} is processed so Module:Citation/CS1 sees the {{ill}} expansion. The expansion looks like this:

[[Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble]]<span class="noprint" style="font-size:85%; font-style: normal; ">&nbsp;&#91;[[:fr:Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble|fr]]&#93;</span>

the 85% font size and the html entities [ and ] cause the module to apply the maintenance message and category to the rendered citation.

Don't use {{ill}} in cs1|2 templates. And shouldn't it be |publisher= that gets the interwiki link?:

{{cite thesis |publisher=[[:fr:Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble|Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble]] |title=...}}

... (Thesis). Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds plausible; the citation is in ALGOL 60. However, the citation, {{cite thesis|title=Design and implementation of a compiler Algol60 on electronic calculator IBM 7090/94 and 7040/44|last=Boussard|first=Jean-Claude|date=June 1964|publisher=Université Joseph-Fourier - Grenoble I|location=Institut d'informatique et mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble}} already has |publisher=. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Only plausible? Do you have a better explanation?

If you follow the link at ALGOL 60 ref 15 (permalink), it takes you to the source landing page. On the left there is a 'Cite' box which lists 'Université Joseph-Fourier - Grenoble I' as the publisher. On the right is a blue box labeled 'Complete list of metadata' which, when clicked, opens an overlay that has as 'Establishment providing the course': 'Université Joseph-Fourier - Grenoble I'. So that would be the value I would use. |location= should get the city of the publisher but, in this case, because Grenoble is part of the publisher name, should be omitted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Trial registration

Seems we should add support for trial registration for those articles with registration. Adding a parameter for trial registrations would be easier on authors than asking them to add a second template such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ClinicalTrialsGov Badgettrg (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what |url-access=registration is for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mystery error

Hi, Jan and Herb Conn has a strange error reported by this template: " {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check date values in: |archive-date= (help)". Anybody knows how to fix it? Jarekt (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It took me three edits because my hands are shaky and I've been using a different date format all weekend, but the parameter didn't like Feb. 23, 2008. 23 February 2008 would have worked, but the article uses MDY format so it wanted the comma back between the day and the year, as February 23, 2008. Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ProQuest (or similar) as merely an alternative

I don't have a subscription to the NYT; thanks to the Wikipedia Library, I can read the NYT via ProQuest. Therefore in this edit, I changed | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/arts/jill-freedman-dead.html | to | url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 | via=ProQuest |Readers with access to ProQuest but not otherwise to the NYT (and surely there are many such readers) will thank me.

Readers with access to the NYT but not to ProQuest (and surely there are many of these too) will not thank me.

Various other approaches come to mind. I could have left the reference untouched, and let readers figure out for themselves that this article is somewhere at ProQuest. Or I could have left just the content of the "cite news" template untouched but added immediately after it (and within the reference) "Also available at ProQuest 2302935851.", or similar. However, I suspect that this matter has already been exhaustively discussed somewhere. Perhaps somebody could point me to such a page (or of course make a suggestion here). -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the reference as it was, as the reference was for the NYT. Simply add "Also available via [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 proquest]" after the cite, but before the ending ref tag, or use {{proquest}} in the |id= field (as |id={{proquest|2302935851}}). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"id=": Yes, that does it. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

what to do with {{cite document}}?

I would like to unhide the missing periodical error messages. The last time that I raised this topic, there were editors who objected because articles using {{cite document}}, a long-time redirect to {{cite journal}}, would suddenly be showing Cite journal requires |journal= error messages for references that are not to periodicals. At the time of the last discussion, Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical had about 52,000 articles. That number has increased to 54,700+ as I write this.

Resurrecting this topic came to mind because of a discussion about Editor Qwerfjkl's bot at User talk:Qwerfjkl § Qwerfjkl (bot) – Qwerfjkl (bot) 8. The bot notifies editors when they make an edit that adds an article to a cs1|2 error category (only some categories, apparently); Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical‎ was chosen to be one of those because it is listed at Help:CS1 errors § Most common errors. Because the error message is hidden, most editors are unaware that they have written a cs1 periodical template ({{cite journal}}, its redirects {{cite document}} and {{cite paper}}, or {{cite magazine}}, its redirect {{cite periodical}}) that requires a periodical parameter. Also, these same editors are unaware of preexisting missing-periodical errors because the error messages are hidden. Maybe unhiding the error message will help that...

Some history:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 58 § On requiring the journal parameter
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60 § Proposal to change redirects
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 64 § unhide missing periodical error message
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 74 § Does template:cite document need changes?
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 77 § cite document
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81 § "Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly.
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 84 § Cite document emits a missing periodical maintenance message. It shouldn't

According to this search there are ~6900 articles that use the redirect {{cite document}}; the {{cite paper}} redirect is used in ~10 articles.

Since editors objected to showing the error messages while {{cite document}} exists as a redirect to {{cite journal}}, we must create a real {{cite document}} template. Before we do that, we should attend to the instances of the redirect that exist in article space. The obvious first steps (to me) are:

• create a placeholder template {{cite document temp}} or some such that is a real cs1 template that renders like a periodical template (value from |title= is rendered upright quoted); requires |publisher=; does not support |url= (if a url is available use {{cite web}} or other appropriate template); perhaps the template accepts a subset of the usual cs1 parameters (we might start with the limited lists used by the preprint templates ({{cite arxiv}} etc) augmented by certain identifier and other appropriate parameters)
• convert the 600ish templates with periodical parameters to the appropriate periodical template or to {{cite document temp}}
• convert the templates that use identifier parameters to an appropriate template or to {{cite document temp}}
• convert the templates that use |url= to {{cite web}} or other appropriate template (not to {{cite document temp}})

That being done, the only remaining {{cite document}} templates should be those without |url=, identifier parameters, or periodical parameters. We can then replace the innards of {{cite document}} with the innards from {{cite document temp}} (which temporarily becomes a redirect to {{cite document}}). Once all instances of {{cite document temp}} in article space have been replaced with {{cite document}}, {{cite document temp}} will be deleted.

Will this work? I'm sure that there are things that I have not considered. What are those things? And, I guess finally, should we bother? Or, are we content to repeat the discussions listed at the top of this post ad nauseum?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite document/paper should just be it's own thing. No different than a cite journal/magazine, but without the requirement that a 'work' parameter needs to be set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that {{cite document}} should be a generic template for citing anything, depending on what parameters are given to it, exactly the same as for {{citation}} but Citation Style 1 instead of Citation Style 2. It should not assume that the document is of some specific subtype. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite document/paper should just be it's own thing. Yep, that is what I'm suggesting. By [its] own thing I mean that it should fill the gap between something that can be cited using {{cite web}} (requires a url) and a periodical (requires a work parameter) or a book or an encyclopedia... The purpose of the new {{cite document}} template is to cite published stand-alone sources that are not available through a url and are not published as part of a larger work (periodical, book, encyclopedia, proceedings, etc). These stand-alone sources may be available online via a persistent identifier (|doi= in particular) so the new {{cite document}} must support a subset of our identifier list.

I cannot support the idea of the new {{cite document}} being a {{citation}}-like template. cs1 templates are specific to things: books, magazines, theses, conferences, signs, etc. All of these templates are named accordingly; a {{citation}}-like {{cite document}} would violate that convention.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no necessary reason for cs1 templates to be specific to things. It is merely unnecessary work for people who edit references, and very frequently incorrectly classified. It is entirely possible now to write in cs1 using unspecific templates (citation with mode=cs1) and making cite document do the same thing would ease that. The difficulty with defining what kind of specific thing cite document should be should be a sign to you that it is not actually significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no necessary reason for cs1 templates to be specific to things but, interestingly enough, they are specific to 'things': {{cite book}} for books, {{cite arxiv}} for ArXiv preprints, {{cite journal}} for scholarly and academic journals, {{cite AV media}} for audio and visual works, {{cite conference}} for conference proceedings, {{cite sign}} for signs, plaques, gravestones, and other non-video visuals, etc. So, {{cite document}} is created for published standalone papers and other documents that are not published in a book or a periodical or an encyclopedia or online (as written the proposed template is a bit gray on that last point because it will accept certain named identifiers: doi, etc).

It is entirely possible now to write in cs1 using unspecific templates (citation with mode=cs1) Well, sort of. What you get is a rendering suitable for books but not correct for a standalone document:

{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |type=Document}}

Title (Document). Publisher.

cf {{cite document/new}}:

{{cite document/new |title=Title |publisher=Publisher}}

"Title" (Document). Publisher.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In what sense is it "correct for a standalone document" to use the article-within-larger-work double-quoted-upright style for its title rather than the unquoted-italic style that we use for other standalone documents, like books? These are made-up conventions with no justification for such dogmatism. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:MINORWORK. I did not make that up. My experience with existing {{cite document}} templates, when another template would have been the better choice, is that the cited source is short. There have been the rare occasions where {{cite document}} has been used to cite an entire book, of course such a source is better served with {{cite book}}. From that experience, and the lack of complaints that the current {{cite document}} isn't rendering the title in italic font suggested to me that the MOS:MINORWORK style is appropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: I like your proposal, but suggest using {{cite document new}} instead of {{cite document temp}}, and suggest we could agree on an edit summary that would explain why we're changing from {{cite document}} to {{cite document new}}. Would there be a benefit in seeing if Citation bot could convert some of the existing {{cite document}} templates with |url= to {{cite document new}} with the appropriate identifier instead of a URL? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk ...or convert them to {{cite journal}} with the appropriate parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but... cs1|2 uses, for example, {{cite book/new}} for rendering a reference using the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox suite. I think that {{cite document new}} is too close to that. We could use {{cite document in transition}} or some such.

If Citation bot can correctly change an existing {{cite document}} to another cs1 template, great. I emphasized correctly because I know that I've had to think about how best to convert {{cite document}} to some other template and it often requires adding to the chosen template. A common edit summary is a good idea.

And, you really don't need to ping me here...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are examples of the first hack to make {{cite document}} a real cs1 template:

{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |publisher=Publisher}}

EB Green. "Title" (Document). Publisher.

{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |access-date=2023-05-28}} – should be {{cite web}}

EB Green. "Title" (Document). {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |access-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |website= ignored (help)

{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |chapter=Chapter |title=Title |location=Location |publisher=Publisher |isbn=123456789X}} – should be {{cite book}}

EB Green. "Title" (Document). Location: Publisher. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |isbn= ignored (help)

{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=10.1234/sommat}} – should be {{cite journal}}

EB Green. "Title" (Document). doi:10.1234/sommat. {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (help)

{{cite document}} emits 'book'-type metadata format (the default for those references that don't have a specifically defined metadata format):

{{cite document/new |title=Title |author=EB Green |publisher=Publisher}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000E4-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFEB_Green" class="citation document cs1">EB Green. "Title" (Document). Publisher.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft.pub=Publisher&rft.au=EB+Green&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>

The template accepts parameters from these parameter lists in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox:

• limited_basic_arguments_t (link)
• limited_numbered_arguments_t (link)
• document_arguments_t (link)
• document_numbered_arguments_t (link)

Because this will be the only cs1 template that requires |publisher= there is a new error message and category: Category:CS1 errors: missing publisher

Comments invited.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite report issue parameter not displaying

{{Cite report}} used below does not appear to support displaying the issue number if no volume is supplied. I am not sure if 1/08 in the source below means volume 1, issue 08, so I had skipped adding the volume parameter. Any suggestions or insights on how to correctly fix the citation?

{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right, {{cite report}} does not support |issue= because reports are not periodicals. If your source is publisher periodically, as it appears to be since the publisher has attached a 'number' to it, you might rewrite like this:

{{Cite periodical |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |periodical=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). "Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0" (PDF). Conservation Gateway. TNC Coral Triangle Program. No. 1/08. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023.

Or, keep it as {{cite report}} and put the report number in |id=:

{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |id=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Report No. 1/08. Retrieved May 28, 2023.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking for tools to fix harv, sfn, and bibliography citations

Hi, this may be an odd place to ask this question but I feel like the people who watch this page are likely to have the answer. I recently did a large update to the Piri Reis map article which previously cited Atlantis books as sources. I now need to check which sources in the Bibliography are no longer used.

Is there a tool to check a bibliography for unused sources? And also is there a tool to check for shortened footnotes pointed at nonexistent sources? I feel certain that I have seen other editor use something like that before, but I don't know where to look. Thanks in advance, Rjjiii (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Yes, the script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors does what you are looking for. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You're awesome! That helped a lot, Rjjiii (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)