Help talk:Citation Style 1

(Redirected from Template talk:Cite web/Italian or Spanish)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Dhrm77 in topic url-status request

    |agency not working in Cite book template?

    edit

    Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I suspect that you meant to write: [[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]here.
    Support for |agency= in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion. |agency= is defined for {{cite news}}, {{cite press release}}, and {{cite web}}. Also supported by {{citation}} when that template has |newspaper= or |work=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have encountered several of these |agency= in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been |publisher=. I have seen no evidence that |agency= is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In this particular case I was looking for a way to reflect the Philological Society's contribution to the work.
    Obviously there are two reasons for citing a work, one to identify where the source material can be found and the second to give credit to the creators of the work. The OED is atypical for a book in that there were a myriad of contributing authors and the publisher came into the process 20 years after the start of the work.
    If not |agency= would you have another option for crediting the Society within the citation? — Skullcinema (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As the work was based on materials they helped collect would |others= be appropriate? e.g.
    Murray, James A. H.; Bradley, Henry; Craigie, W. A.; Onions, C. T., eds. (1933). The Oxford English Dictionary; being a corrected re-issue with an introduction, supplement and bibliography of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. The Philological Society (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198611013. LCCN a33003399. OCLC 2748467. OL 180268M. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, that will work fine. — ROU Skullcinema (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{cite report}} citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If one is to believe the results of this search there are ~355 articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter with {{cite report}} templates that have |agency= and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.
    Some cases, like this from Weather of 2021, the value in |publisher= us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=:
    {{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}
    Others, like this one from the same article, appear to use some sort of made-up 'agency' name:
    {{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}
    ('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).
    @Trappist the monk: It's not obvious, but it actually does appear. Individual Storm Data event entries (of which the link above to the Storm Events Database is one) are created by the over 100 National Weather Service WFOs (Weather Forecast Offices) across the country and are then compiled together / released by the National Centers for Environmental Information. There are multiple ways of accessing these entries, including in the form of massive monthly Storm Data PDFs (printed versions may also be available but I think for a price) and from individual links like the one above. PHI, as shown in the WFO field of the table at that link, is the code of the WFO that created this event entry. The intent of the citation (even if formatted weirdly or wrongly) is to both attribute the NCEI and the WFO that created the entry. Master of Time (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The category CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=?.--Auric talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    |agency= is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of |publisher=. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use |via= to hold the name of the provider.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That makes sense, thanks.--Auric talk 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To be fair, it appears to have been frequently misused as an alias or synonym of publisher. That does not mean that there has ever been a time when citations that did so were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There may have been some confusion when the publisher of a source is a government agency. Rather, |agency= has been a shorthand name for a parameter holding the wire agency of a news story, to properly credit that the origin of a news article in a paper was the Associated Press/United Press International/Agence France-Presse/etc. and not the cited newspaper itself, with or without any additional reporter byline. Imzadi 1979  22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    As the parameter |agency= has been removed, how should the entry for it on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData be corrected? Should it just be deleted from the table? — Skullcinema (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've removed it. Izno (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Relatedly, Citation bot has recently been adding agency= to cite book templates: see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 38#Adds unknown parameter to CS1 and Special:Diff/1221981567. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    'Others' parameter for 'Cite magazine' template

    edit

    While looking through the parameters of Template:Cite magazine, I noticed that the 'others' parameter is the recommended means by which illustrators should be listed. As the 'authors' parameter was deprecated for not contributing to the citation's metadata, shouldn't a separate, optional 'illustrator' (aliases 'illustrator-last', 'illustrator-surname', 'illustrator1', 'illustrator1-last', 'illustrator1-surname', 'illustrator-last1', 'illustrator-last1'), 'illustrator-first' (aliases 'illustrator-given', 'illustrator1-first', 'illustrator1-given', 'illustrator-first1', 'illustrator-given1'), 'villustrators' (Vancouver style), and 'display-illustrators' (to determine when et al. is added) parameters be added, to ensure documented magazine illustrators are searchable as metadata in a format similar to the ones established for authors and editors?

    The 'others' parameter would still be kept, of course, as a catch-all parameter for any additional contributors. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There is also photographer. Some books the photography is the main content or the most notable contributor.
    Looking at {{cite book}} it says:
    others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith
    So I guess if you free form Illustrated by Name, it would be possible to search the metadata. In practice editors might say things like: Illustrator: Name or Name (illustrator) etc.. the main thing is the ability to search on the word "illustrator" or "illustrated" in the others field. This is messy I agree and makes parsing error prone. OTOH how to deal with a couple dozen common occupations without blowing up the complexity of citations. Maybe if the keynames were associative arrays eg. |others[illustrators]=Joe Smith, Bill Barn |others[photographers]=Mary Sue .. -- GreenC 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    |others= is a free-input parameter. If you want the very reader-unfriedly Vancouver style, you just do |others=Jones VT, Smith AM (illustrators). These templates are already excessively complex, and we do not need a whole new multiplying set of parameter variants for every imaginable kind of "other", especially as it also leads to a bunch of numbered variants of them: |illustrator5-last=, etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    text collection of one author in a book

    edit

    I had this problem several times before, the actual is the following in Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures: Erwin Panofsky (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6. The link is on the whole collection instead of the chapter, although the link goes to the specific page. It is also confusing for the reader, he does not realize, that the link actually goes to the specific excerpt of the text. With {{cite encyclopedia I could probably solve the link issue. But "encyclopedia" is obviously the false term for this sort of text compilation. "Compilation" would be a good term for it (like in music, or short stories in literature, I suppose), with "title" for the particular text, and "compilation-title" for the book itself. MenkinAlRire 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A couple options with some best practices:
    1. Panofsky, Erwin (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". In Lavin, Irving (ed.). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6.
    2. Panofsky, Erwin (1995). "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures". In Lavin, Irving (ed.). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-262-16151-6.
    Note the placement of |last= as the first argument, which makes it easier to find when citations are in a list. The use of |author-link= and |editor-link=. The use of |chapter-url= in #1 and |page= for #2 depending which you prefer. I prefer #2 when linking mid-chapter and #1 when linking to a chapter. -- GreenC 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I missed "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures" has its own Wiki article, it could look like this:
    -- GreenC 17:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, you missed, that the reference is in that lemma. It would just redirect to itself. But, ok, for other articles. Thanks again. MenkinAlRire 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I know, I did not mention Lavin as editor, if I remember correctly, because of the given example in the article. Since the book is correctly referenced above I thought it's ok.
    The editor is the deciding factor here, or not? I don't see another possible cause for the correct linking now. Cool, that was simple. Thanks. (I hope there are no cases, where it would be still a problem. I wanted to pose a subsequent question, but I can't remember now. I'll come back. Correct citation is a bunch of work, I just began to collect them for later use.) MenkinAlRire 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @MenkinAlRire: |url= links the title of the whole book. |chapter-url=, |contribution-url=, or |section-url= links the chapter/section/entry/article within it. Rjjiii (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I knew it, I am a dummmy. I just recently used chapter-url. Thank you for reminding me. I have to better organise myself and create my own 'help pages' with these solutions, instead of each time searching all over again. Thank you. - (I am certainly locked in, on the website, just did an edit, and I have the notification in the app, but the app won't recognise me at the moment. It displays my ID number and can't complete the edit. That's a first. On the website it's totally fine. ?/ ) MenkinAlRire 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @MenkinAlRire: Yes, the editor makes the difference: with it, |first= and |last= describe the author of a chapter. Without it, they are taken as the author of the book. It's awkward, but would be hard to change now. Kanguole 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Kanguole, at least, there is some logic behind it. Only when the author himself edited his texts, it is kind of redundant. (I don't like the look of |first= and |last= , but you all seem to stress it. I'll contemplate on that.) MenkinAlRire 07:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Request url-status 'regional' for geographic IP restrictions

    edit

    Some government websites have IP range restrictions to prevent international (intergovernmental in particular) spamming. I just came across the official law site for Georgia, which despite being linked on the main government site and having extensive English translations, appears to be at least intermittently down for US IPs and several other countries I tried via VPN. Though that proves nothing itself about this site in particular, I've seen similar behavior in websites of many countries seeking to prevent outside spam, including those of US states. Additionally, for legal reasons, a smaller news outlet might block access outside its key local market (such as happened with with several local US newspapers and GDPR).

    For these reasons, a site may be seen as dead when it is just inaccessible for some region. If this region is a significant en.wp market, then it is appropriate to have an archive-url be the main title link. However, it would be inappropriate for a bot or other editor to interpret the original url as dead or otherwise problematic -- the original editor should instead be able to set an explicit parameter that the url has restricted access by IP. (Currently I just use an html comment). Since the main purpose is to prevent a bot from incorrectly flagging a dead link, it should go in |url-status=, and I suggest the term regional (or something similar but not identical to limited so as to not cause confusion with the |url-access= parameter). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    These kinds of policy-based outages are beyond the ability and control of Wikipedia to maintain. They can change on a whim. As soon we we set the url-status to one thing it will need to be updated to something else. Given the scale of 10s of millions of links and growing, it's not practical and will end up being a perpetually inaccurate mess. Often times these policies are domain-specific eg. Amazon.com works on country X by not country Y. For 3 years, then it works again. Then 2 years later Amazon.com blocks another country. None of this is advertised anywhere. Users report outages and believe it's due to a blockage, but really it's due to their upstream ISP blocking for one reason or another. It goes on like this. Ultimately, all we can do is provide archive URLs, and if users want to use them, if the primary link is not working relative to their location, they have the option to try the archive URL. -- GreenC 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is a routine request and as unworkable as prior requests. Izno (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is one solution, but it would require completely changing how we do archives. It's the way they do it on French Wikipedia. Every new link added is "born dead" so to speak, automatically a "[archive]" link appears next to the URL (Example in "Notes" section). Every link has one, regardless if it's dead or alive. No bots, it's built into the MediaWiki software as a module or something (not sure exactly how they do it). This method solves a lot of problems, is clean, simple, comprehensive and efficient. The politics of doing it are daunting to say the least, there are many stake holders. -- GreenC 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    PDF page number parameter

    edit

    PDFs often have page numbers printed on each page, but these are offset from the page numbers of the digital PDF file due to title pages, forewords, etc. Normally we only cite the page number printed on the page we're citing. Could we add another page number parameter for the digital page number in such a document? Maybe we could call it "digital page", "PDF page", "digital document page", or "digital version page". Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I frequently add the page number to the URL as described at WP:PAGELINKS. (Further documentation: [1][2]).
    {{harvtxt|Abate|1998|p=[https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=thd#page=10 2]}}
    
    Abate (1998, p. 2)
    I'd be reluctant to add this to the visible citation, since I don't presume that future readers will be looking at the exact same PDF that I am. PDFs may eventually become deprecated and readers will view some other file format. The publisher may use OCR software to detect the printed page numbers and add it to the PDF file. In the latter case, the URL doesn't change, but the way page numbers are displayed to users will change, which could make notes about PDF page numbers to users confusing. Daask (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. Also different PDF readers might give different page numbers, depending which page it considers #1 and how it counts - there is an internal algorithm that can't be assumed to be universal for every reader. -- GreenC 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is another routine request that has fair objections, as above. Izno (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To add to the objections, the PDF-format e-book pagination of something is not likely to match other e-book formats (ePub, etc.). And if the document is replaced later with a new version, the PDF pagination may completely change, because whoever generated it use a different print-to-PDF tool. There are means of linking to specific "PDF pages" in documents, that are respected by some (not all) browsers, and I suppose such a link culd be used around the page number in |page=. But even that's kind of iffy, for the aforementioned reason: if the document is later updated, that link might go to the wrong spot in the document. My practice has been to give the visible page number in the work, and if it lacks such numbering, then identify the in-document location some other way, e.g. |at="Dallas, Texas" entry, or |at=§ 8.52.7.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Prioritize publisher URL over third-party repositories

    edit

    I propose that we prioritize linking to articles provided by the publisher over third-party repositories when both are open access.

    When a citation template doesn't supply |url=, the URL linked by the title text is supplied instead by identifiers when an open access version is known to be available. My proposal only changes which open access version is linked when multiple options are available.

    Consider the following citations of the same work:

    When |pmc= is given, then a link is provided to PubMed Central because all PubMed Central articles are open access.

    When |doi-access=free, a link is provided to that DOI.

    • {{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239}}
      Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 30224994.
    • {{cite journal | last=Pashler | first=Harold | last2=Heriot | first2=Gail | date=2018 | title=Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias | journal=Royal Society Open Science | volume=5 | issue=8 | page=172239 | issn=2054-5703 | pmid=30224994 | doi=10.1098/rsos.172239 | doi-access=free}}
      Pashler, Harold; Heriot, Gail (2018). "Perceptions of newsworthiness are contaminated by a political usefulness bias". Royal Society Open Science. 5 (8): 172239. doi:10.1098/rsos.172239. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 30224994.

    When both |doi= and |pmc= are provided, PubMed Central is linked

    I am proposing a change only for the very last example, when both |pmc= is given and |doi-access=free. Currently, it links to PubMed Central. I think we should link to the DOI, since this is more likely provided by the publisher rather than a third-party repository.

    My primary reason for this change is that some articles in PubMed Central appear to be preprints rather than the final published version, eg. PMC 6688940. (Note the text change following the mention of Salpiglossis sinuata.) Additionally, I think its worthwhile to encourage traffic to open access publishers.

    Minor considerations:

    1. Both PubMed Central's HTML version and the publisher's HTML version sometimes have formatting issues that the other one does not. eg. In this publisher's version, quotes lack italics or sufficiently different indentation to clearly differentiate from body text. Not an issue in PubMed Central.
    2. The DOI sometimes, but rarely, links directly to a PDF, whereas PMC always links to an HTML, with a PDF usually available, eg. PMC 5780623
    3. Are publishers more likely to have supplementary data? A quick glance at some sample articles didn't indicate this, but I suspect it is sometimes true.

    Daask (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The reason PMC takes precedence over DOI is historical and rooted in PMC autolinking before (free) DOIs did. Possibly because PMC version is lightweight, reduces data consumption (important on mobile and pay-per-GB internet plans) and does not require a PDF reader. Not saying this shouldn't be changed, just why this is currently the case.
    Really we should have a hierarchy of priority for when multiple identifiers are free (like if |doi-access=free and |jstor-access=free) so that autolinking apply to all version of record identifiers (i.e. not arxiv/ssrn/s2cid, etc...), which should be manually overridable i.e. |auto-url=jstor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That sounds reasonable, other than I'm skeptical we really need an override once a "cascade" of preference is established; the reasons to do an override would probably be very subjective. If we did implement one, |auto-url= doesn't make much sense to me, since if you're doing a manual override that's the opposite of automated. (Plus as semantic/pedantic matter, auto- actually means 'self-'; an autoimmune disorder is an immune-system response to some of one's own cells, not an immune response to automation or brought about by automata.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    DOI number

    edit

    Hello,

    The hyperlink behind the DOI number is DOI (identifier) which should be changed to Digital object identifier since this is the current title of the article. I can't find the source code responsible for the link, would be helpful if someone could change that who knows those templates better. –Tobias (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Tobiasi0, the CS1/2 templates deliberately use non-standard internal links for identifiers like DOI and ISBN so Special:WhatLinksHere will still return meaningful results for those articles instead of being flooded with hundreds of thousands of links from template transclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I mean the replacement of DOI with DOI, that's no flooding in any way. –Tobias (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Folly Mox lays out that this was deliberate. DOI is a disambiguation page so that is no good either. In other words, please establish a consensus for the change you're requesting, and consider that it applies not just to DOIs. Izno (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Did you even read my message? I never mentioned the disambiguation page. –Tobias (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please see the explanation at {{R from citation identifier}}, and maybe also have a look at Category:Redirects from identifiers. Folly Mox (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Citation issue still broken

    edit

    As mentioned, the template continues to be broken, failing to display |issue= content in most instances. As mentioned by other editors, no, this isn't how it used to work and I wasn't insane/delusional to think so. As mentioned by other editors, no, there is no benefit or reasonable purpose to shutting it off. As mentioned by other editors, yes, it's generally beneficial to add the functionality even if (which wasn't ever the case) I had been delusional and just imagined the template worked better during a fever dream. Anyone who wants fiddlely use-specific coding can already choose between {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{whatever}}. This should be a decent multipurpose default template and there's no reason not to allow it to be.

    Now, y'know, go ahead and actually fix it. Please. Thank you. — LlywelynII 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This is a feature, not a bug. Books have no issues, so they shouldn't support |issue=. Same for websites. Journal have issues, so cite journal supports that parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe the template under discussion here is {{Citation}}, which is not exclusively used to cite books. Folly Mox (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think the previous discussion said all that needed to be said. Llywelyn bringing it up again as if their point of view had consensus is simply disruptive. Izno (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that there should be a multipurpose template that displays every parameter you feed it, but I'm not upset that there isn't. Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Here's {{cite magazine}} with |mode=cs2, which should meet the OP's need: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. And here's {{citation}} with the same parameters: "Article title", Magazine title, vol. 42, no. 69, Spring 2004. Works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is one, but it's based on what parameters you feed it. If you feed it book parameters then it will format as a book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't want to put words in LlewellynII's keyboard's mouth, but it seems like that's part of the problem: {{Citation}} overthinks things, and requires editors to learn and remember which parameters it considers "book parameters" and which it considers "serial / periodical parameters", and that it cares if you try to mix and match them.
    If, for some reason, an editor has a preference for |contribution= + |title= over |title= + |work=, and supplies |issue=, maybe it's not necessary to assume that the |issue= was unintentional / unimportant / impossible, and just display it anyway.
    I understand this probably would require rewriting some subroutines and would also probably negate the ability to output clean metadata, but it would flatten the learning curve. My gnoming job security is based on citation templates being fiddly and algorithms doing a bad job at filling them out properly, so maybe I shouldn't be supporting changes like this, but I did want to demonstrate that there's more than one person in favour of an easy to use catchall template that behaves as expected even if the parameter aliases chosen are non-standard. Folly Mox (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think it's to difficult to understand that using |journal= is required if you citing a journal. The issue I see with displaying any parameter is what formating and placement should be applied to random parameters, and should that vary depending on what other parameters are supplied. The issue is that a certain set of formating / placement is desired but without supplying the information required to do that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, but this is just sort of the price we pay for continuing to support {{Citation}} (CS2), despite it being used less than 1% of the time in our citations, and almost never consistently within the article. Per WP:CITESTYLE, if we encounter an article with a mixture of citation styles, that mess should be normalized to a single style. For my part, I normalize always to CS1 (and cite the guideline as the rationale). To date, I have never been reverted on it. CS2 is basically doomed. The fact that nearly no one uses it (in part because of its "I have to remember a bunch of quirks" issues), and a large number of casual editors aren't even aware it exists, means inevitably that articles that maybe started out using it, or more-or-less-predominantly using it, become more and more CS1 over time (unless at some super-obscure page no one touches), then the more inconsistent they get the more likely it is they'll get normalized to a single style, which will usually be CS1. This is a set of effects causing a synergistic not just linear shift toward CS1. PS: The only real rationale I've ever seen offered for CS2 is that CS1 weirdly uses "." as a separator, and produces a "choppy fragments" effect that some people don't like. So, just switch to ";" and the problem goes away, along with any further inspiration to use CS2 at all. For an off-site project, I use a lot of more-or-less-WP-style citations, and have been using ";" as the citation parameter separator, and it's perfectly fine for this purpose. Even if you have mutiple "last1, first1; last2, first2;" authors in series, it's clear that they're authors and when you encounter "The onomastic heritage of Strathclyde" or whatever, you've moved on from the author list to the title of the paper/whatever. Sticking a grammatically nonsensible "." in there is a solution in search of a problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since CS1 and CS2 are quite similar in output, I've suggested that the two styles be merged together to eliminate the need to support two. For those who like using {{citation}}, they could continue to do so, and for those who prefer the other templates, they could continue to use them, and we'd get harmonious output in the end. Imzadi 1979  00:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Works with multiple volumes

    edit

    Used to be simple to handle with |vol=I, II, &c. . The template currently throws out errors when |vol= has a URL in it. Surely it isn't necessary to run entire citation template for every volume of a multivolume work. I assume there's a workaround for the reduced functionality, but it's not obvious or clear from the documentation what it is. So... what is it? — LlywelynII 23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and perhaps other guidance, cite the volume that supports the claim you are making in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Indeed. Citing 2+ volumes of a work and making the reader try to guess which one is pertinent is "user-hateful". People keep getting confused into thinking that our citations and the templates we use for them serve some kind of bibliographic-catalogue purpose, and keep listing things like total number of volumes, total number of pages, form-factor of the edition/printing ("hardback", etc.), and even trying to list out all the different editions. This is not what they are for. They are for and only for helping the reader find the specific material in the specific source being cited by our article so that the claims in the material can be verified.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Displaying the name of the collaboration when the primary authors are not known

    edit

    The description of the collaboration parameter says:

    collaboration: Name of a group of authors or collaborators; requires author, last, or vauthors listing one or more primary authors; follows author name-list; appends "et al." to author name-list.

    When collaboration is supplied, but author is not, the current behavior is to not display the name of the collaboration at all.

    The problem is that there are studies for which the primary authors are not known. For example, the following rather important study, referenced in Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian, has 397 authors, none of them marked as primary: "Measurement of e+e Momentum and Angular Distributions from Linearly Polarized Photon Collisions". Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. The current behavior forces me to use author for the name of the collaboration.

    I propose to change the description and the behavior of collaboration so that it only requires supplying the primary authors if they are known, still displaying the name of the collaboration if author is empty. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I agree. I have encountered this situation multiple times. In some cases the publication doesn't even list the authors, it merely names the collaboration. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. It is nonetheless standard practice (or was, at least, until fairly recently) to cite as Adam, J. et al. (STAR Collaboration).
    That said, there is no reason for why you can't have a collaboration as a single author. Or two authors + a collaboration, that does not require et al to be displayed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If there's no principal investigator named, what's wrong with putting the name of the collaboration into the |author= parameter? Corporate authorship is pretty normal in a lot of areas. Unless I'm misunderstanding something – always a strong possibility – it seems like the behaviour requested here would render on the page exactly the same as |author=Collaboration Name. What probem am I missing here? Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just think it would be better to always put the name of the collaboration in the collaboration parameter, whether the names of the principal authors are available or not.
    A more general solution would be to rename collaboration to collective-author and require that collective authors (such as corporate authors, commissions, collaborations, etc.) always go there, so that the authorn parameters are only used for single humans. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have suggested a |org-authorn= before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of ((name_triggering_checks)). Izno (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Or just use authorn as normal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense isn't really true here. It makes less sense in the minds of various academics (concerned primarily with credit) than it does here, but even in the academic world and especially here, listing the first few names enables one to easily find the paper (or whatever it is) via various means, in most cases, because such a work will typically be indexed in various dabases, bibliographies, card catalogues, etc., by a partial or complete list of named authors, alphabetically by family name. It is crucial to remember that our citations exist for helping our readers find and make use of the sources, not for making academics happy about the frequency of their names appearing.
    PS: a |collective-author= or |org-author= parameter would simply be a redundant alias of |author= (or |authorn=), which already serves that purpose. This entire discussion makes me question the necessity or wisdom of a |collaboration= parameter in the first place. I have yet to run into it "in the wild" (despite over 18 years and 200K+ non-automated edits) and have never used it. There has never been a case of a citation I needed to build, no matter the complexity of the authorship, editorial process, and publishing, that I could not do entirely sensibly with other parameters, even if it ends up being something like: ... |last1=Chen|first2=Xie-luan|author1-mask=Chen Zie-luan|last2=Smith|first2=J. P.|author3=Legume Projectiles Workgroup|display-authors=etal|translator-last=O'Brien|translator-first=Maeve|others=McNabb, John (illustrator)|editor1-last=Gutierrez|editor1-first=Selena|editor2=Foostuffs Momentum Committee|publisher=X. Y. Zedman & Co., for the Ministry of Foodfights ....  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's because you don't edit in particle physics. See Quark#cite_note-PDGTetraquarks-14, Quark#cite_note-Belletetra-15 or Quark#cite_note-LHCbtetra-17 for example, amongst several others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Man, two people above who just skimmed right over why I said what I said: I have suggested a |org-authorn= before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of |author=((a_name_triggering_checks)). I would love for |author= to fill the role of "only organizational names", but it's not that today, it's a template-level synonym for |last= and a lot of people also use it for |author=last, first, which maybe at some date we can instead have a more strict change to support catching those uses also, in favor of moving to |org-author= parameters........... Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    FAQ

    edit

    I started an FAQ for this page at Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ because of this discussion. IDK if we even actually need a separate page for the FAQ or if we can just put it on Help:CS1 or something. But I do think it would be valuable to have something for recurring comments/requests. Izno (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There are templates for integrating FAQs into pages like this; see, e.g., the top of WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Placement of ISSN in Citation Style 1

    edit

    I'm seeking clarification on the placement of the ISSN parameter in {{cite journal}}. Specifically, what are the arguments for displaying the ISSN after the DOI and other article identifiers, rather than directly after the journal name?

    For context, the ISSN is an identifier for the journal as a whole, not the individual article. Here are two examples to illustrate my point:

    Example 1 - ISSN as Part of Article Identifiers
    Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal''. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, ISSN 1234-5678.
    Example 2 - ISSN as Part of Journal Identifier
    Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678.

    In Example 1, the ISSN is listed after the DOI, suggesting it is an identifier for the article. In Example 2, the ISSN is placed after the journal name, clearly indicating it is an identifier for the journal.

    I believe that if we display the ISSN, it should be positioned to reflect that it identifies the journal. This would avoid confusion and provide a clearer reference structure. Alternatively, we could consider not displaying the ISSN at all in citations.

    What are the current reasons for the existing placement of the ISSN, and would it be possible to revise the format for better clarity?

    Thank you for your input. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Identifiers are rendered as a group that is alpha ascending sorted by down-cased identifier names. So, 'ISSN', down-cased to 'issn' follows 'doi' in the rendering. It used to be that the identifiers were rendered in random order because of how Lua deals with associative tables. There were complaints about the randomness so we sort the identifiers; no more randomness.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for the clarification on the current sorting mechanism for identifiers. While I understand the rationale behind grouping identifiers and sorting them alphabetically to avoid randomness, I believe this approach conflates two fundamentally different types of identifiers. The ISSN identifies the journal, while identifiers like DOI are specific to individual articles. This distinction is crucial for accurate citation and reference clarity. Consider the following points:
    Clear Distinction of Identifiers
    Placing the ISSN with the DOI and other article-specific identifiers can mislead readers into thinking the ISSN is also specific to the article. However, the ISSN is a unique identifier for the journal itself, not the article. Separating these would enhance clarity:
    Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678. Here, the journal identifier (ISSN) is clearly linked to the journal name, and the article identifier (DOI) follows as part of the article-specific details.
    Enhanced Citation Accuracy
    Academic standards and citation guidelines typically differentiate between journal and article identifiers. Aligning Wikipedia’s citation style with these standards would improve the accuracy and professionalism of our citations. For example, many style guides (e.g., APA, MLA) do not group ISSN with article identifiers.
    Improved Reader Experience
    For readers and editors, a clear and structured citation format is easier to read and understand. Grouping identifiers by their type (journal vs. article) can prevent confusion and ensure that the citation components are immediately recognizable:
    Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, PMID 12345678.
    Consistent Identifier Grouping
    If the goal is to avoid randomness and ensure consistent ordering, we can achieve this while still distinguishing between journal and article identifiers. We could establish a format where journal identifiers (e.g., ISSN) always appear directly after the journal title, followed by article identifiers (e.g., DOI, PMID) in alphabetical order.
    By acknowledging the inherent differences between these types of identifiers and reflecting this distinction in our citation templates, we can provide clearer, more accurate citations. I propose revisiting the grouping strategy to separate journal identifiers from article-specific identifiers, ensuring each is clearly defined and appropriately placed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ISSN is best omitted because it is rarely a relevant identifier. You cite the article, not the journal as a whole. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It is unfortunately added as default if you use the VisualEditor's cite tool "Citoid", as well as e.g. "ProveIt", to generate the reference code. So I doubt many (at least not me) takes the time to actively remove the ISSN when included in the generated reference. Do we have a count of how many articles/references cite ISSNs currently (and how many of these are really needed to e.g. disambiguate the journal)? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    95%+ of the time, it's automated garbage. Same type of garbage that will add |publisher=Elsevier BV to journal citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe these tools no longer adds publisher to journals though (only e.g. web and book). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe Citoid and ProveIt (which uses Citoid) will ignore ISSN for a template if you remove it from the "citoid" section of the template's /doc or /TemplateData subpage. Should it be ignored for {{cite journal}}, and should it be ignored for the other citation templates? Rjjiii (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If we're going to retain an ISSN parameter, I would agree with the OP that this is a serial-publication-level identifier, not an article/paper identifier and would be better right after the title of the serial publciation, so it is not confusable with a pointer to the specific article/paper being cited. There's a minor wrinkle in that ISSNs are also sometimes issued for series of books, in which case the ISSN should come right after |series= if present. It not present (e.g. because the books in the series all share the same title and are only distinguished by volume number), then I guess it belongs after |title=, and sorted with other book-level identifiers like ISBN or a whole-book DOI. If the chapter/contribution has its own DOI, then that should adhere right after the chapter/contribution, I would think. In short: the desire to group and sort identifiers is reasonable, but only to the extent they are the same type and that grouping and sorting them does not confuse or mislead our reader.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In principle I agree with separating article-level and publication-level identifiers. In practice it is not always easy. How do you distinguish book-level dois from chapter-level dois? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Or any book-level identifiers from chapter-level identifiers in general, especially when many can be either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Unflagged free DOI, add a time component to some DOIs

    edit

    DOI prefix 10.1155's registrant is Hindawi, an open access publisher. However, Hindawi became open access in 2007, and some (rare) DOIs from prior to 2007 are not free, e.g.

    There should be a way to specify that for 10.1155, the template should only flag those from year 2007 and up, and not all of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

    De-archived. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Taking it off the list seems simpler and doesn't require special casing. Izno (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    True, but special casing lets us automatically detect ~4000 cases sans the 20 or so false positives. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Archival website question

    edit

    Hello, re this section: Template:Cite_web#Using_"archive-url"_and_"archive-date"_(and_optionally_"url-status")_for_webpages_that_have_been_archived. I realize I can just test this if mechanically possible, but are we allowed as policy to use archival sites beyond archive.org, such as for public records of the US Federal government, for redunant or backup citation functionality? Such as archive.is or to put such collateral on Wikimedia Commons, and thus use it as that secondary link reference? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The field is meant for web archives which are large general purpose archives of the web. The web archives in use on Enwiki include those listed at Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia. The type of site you refer to for the Federal Government is not a web archive, its a site-specific archival collection. In general you want to stick with archive.org, archive.today and a couple other smaller ones. If you want to include a non-archive link + the federal government archive link in the same citation, you could do something like:
    ..But I would need to see the actual URLs to say for sure, it might be the Federal Govt archive link is the primary URL. -- GreenC 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've got the basic web cite template narrowed down, but I was thinking about like this on the government site here vs the archive.org link here for the same. I was especially curious about putting copies of such PDFs onto Commons, so as to have a backup to the backup, or to simply place them on 'our' servers to help preserve them in tandem with the article(s) that may use them. Basically, to make sure that even if the source .gov/.mil sites remove the content or archive.org does/goes down, we'd have redundancy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Generally those links (nro.gov and Commons) would be considered the primary link within the citation template ie. |url= and not the |archive-url=. The way you can tell: if the link has a web archive URL, such as at archive.org, we would prefer that web archive URL to be in the |archive-url= field. If there is a third layer, like a primary to the primary, then use something like I did above, or create a second citation. The concept is that every link is paired with a web archive link, no matter where the primary link is hosted. -- GreenC 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ah--I think I got that nailed down, like if you look at Invention_Secrecy_Act#References.
    Sorry if I was being unclear. I was asking about using non-archive.org options like Commons for Federal stuff, putting an extra copy there, and also using that in the citation, or as an alternative to archive.org, to close the loop and keep the assets on our servers entirely, with no external reliance. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What citation(s) at Invention_Secrecy_Act#References are you referring to? -- GreenC 20:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Like if you control-f on DMA RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM there. That's a government PDF--while it's on the government site and archive, I had wondered if a copy of that can (or should) go on Commons, citing there where it was gotten from, and then we use it from Commons as a source or as the archival link itself. Essentially, archive it ourselves? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. You could upload to commons, no |url= or |archive-url=, instead |title=Document title. Normally there is no |archive-url= for content hosted at Commons, so just link to the File: in the |title=. -- GreenC 22:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    MediaWiki changes to citation parsing

    edit

    Just saw this in "Tech News: 2024-24":

    •   The HTML markup used for citations by Parsoid changed last week. In places where Parsoid previously added the mw-reference-text class, Parsoid now also adds the reference-text class for better compatibility with the legacy parser. More details are available. [3]
    • ...
    •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 June. It will be on all wikis from 13 June (calendar). [4][5]
    •   The new version of MediaWiki includes another change to the HTML markup used for citations: Parsoid will now generate a <span class="mw-cite-backlink"> wrapper for both named and unnamed references for better compatibility with the legacy parser. Interface administrators should verify that gadgets that interact with citations are compatible with the new markup. More details are available. [6]

     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    No issues. Izno (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    CS1 wrapper templates using "mode"

    edit

    Several templates have the same issue with formatting, so I'm posting here. I'll leave a link at the less-watched talk page of each template below.

    There are many specific-source templates that wrap a CS1/CS2 template. Previously, template formatting could be set with the |mode= parameter in each template. Now, the formatting can be set for the whole article using {{CS1 config|mode=}}. Some specific-source templates wrap the general purpose CS2 {{Citation}} and use |mode=cs1. Because this emits the message "{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: overridden setting (link)" and adds the page to a tracking category, the templates should be converted into CS1 wrapper templates. (Or fixed in some other way.)

    Template Proposed wrapper Result
    {{Calflora}} {{Cite web}}
    {{Cite form 990}} {{Cite document}}
    {{Cite Transperth timetable}} {{Cite web}}
    {{Cite UN World Population Prospects}} {{Cite web}}
    {{EFloras}} {{Cite web}}
    {{FEIS}} {{Cite web}}
    {{Jepson eFlora}} {{Cite web}}
    {{Minnesota Wildflowers}} {{Cite web}}
    {{Silvics}} {{Cite book}}
    {{Tropicos/main}} {{Cite web}}

    Side note: the handful of CS2 map templates like {{Cite gnis2}} have a similar issue, Rjjiii (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There's a problem, because the choice of the wrapped template is often dictated by pre-existing parameters accepted by the wrapping template. So changing the wrapped template may break existing functionality in a hard-to-detect way. Would it be possible for the wrapping templates to (somehow) detect the mode that is set by {{CS1 config}}? That seems like the cleanest solution (if possible). I will investigate, but open to other ideas. — hike395 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think having all of these templates obey the mode specified {{CS1 config}} may be possible with a helper template calling Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. I'm busy IRL, but can get to this in the next 1-2 days. Please hold off making changes to these wrapper templates as I attempt a fix. — hike395 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Or, once again, why aren't we merging CS1 and CS2 together? They're very similar in overall output, and if we could just agree to harmonize them the little that we'd need, we could remove this dichotomy once and for all. Imzadi 1979  22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Before we get into that can of worms, maybe we can first forbid Vancouver style? That's a bigger variation in citation style than CS1 vs CS2, and one that I think causes more difficulties (because the abbreviated author names make it difficult to distinguish authors with similar names, for instance when trying to find which Wikipedia articles cite someone's work). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @David Eppstein: yes, that too. I know the medical editors like it because they're used to that in academic literature, but I find it too terse for a general readership. Imzadi 1979  23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

      Fixed @Rjjiii: I created Module:Citation mode which suppresses a mode argument when {{CS1 config}} is set. I edited all of the templates you listed, above, to call the module for the mode argument that they pass to their inner {{Citation}} template. For a simple example of usage, see {{cite gnis2}}.

    I'm not seeing any changes in the overriden-setting tracking category: I suspect that the current members of that category are caused by some other problem.

    Feel free to use Module:Citation mode or let me know if you see any problems. — hike395 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks Hike395! That fixed the problem without causing any unexpected changes. This worked way better than my plan. Would it be a good idea to link Module:Citation mode in the documentation at Template:Citation Style documentation/display for future specific-source templates? Rjjiii (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    IIUC, Template:Citation Style documentation/display is part of the documentation for all citation templates for general editors, is that right? If a user is setting the mode in an article, I'm guessing you still want the article to show up in the tracking category. The module should probably only be used for wrapping citation templates. Is there a documentation or help page specifically for editors who are wrapping these kind of templates? — hike395 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    url-status request

    edit

    I came across a case where an legitimate article was archived at archive.org. The original article was subsequently moved to a different website with a completely different path, and the original website (about.com) became black-listed by wikipedia (assuming unfit for citation). Shouldn't we have parameter "url-status = moved", or something like that to reflect what happened? Because the other parameters don't seem to apply (the new site isn't dead or unfit, or usurped), and "live" would apply, except that the archived link no longer matches the live link because of the move. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There are many scenarios that could have a url-status flag. Soft-404s. Soft-redirects. Soft-200s. etc.. This is a soft-redirect ie. a dead link that is live at a different URL but lacks a redirect. Ok so we flag those. But why? |url-status= has one purpose, to change the appearance of the primary link. A soft-redirect situation would not require a change in how the URL is displayed that is not already done with existing modes like live and dead. The new URL has a "live" status. That it doesn't match the archive-url is not really a problem this happens frequently, sometimes when a page moves, sometimes when the citation is created editors use a different archive URL from the primary URL. -- GreenC 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. That was helpful. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply