Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 68

Weirdness at Alma Sundquist
Doesn't display the 1913a in the date. It does when you preview, but not in live version. Purging doesn't help. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Same at Likelike for 1883a (doesn't display live, but displays in previews). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange. The "a" displays when I copy that section to my sandbox. Is this a namespace difference? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonder if WP:THURSDAY is at play. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It amazes me sometimes how long it takes us to recognize that there is something not right in a rendering. This particular bug has been with us since auto-date formatting was established.
 * When an article has, cs1|2 cannot see that template if you are previewing a section that does not include the template.  So, because the bug is related to the  reformatting, previewing the entire page will render the date without the anchor ID disambiguator.  Because the date format in the template is the same as specified by , it is not obvious that something is wrong except that one little character is missing.  In a sea of characters, detecting a missing character is difficult.
 * This discussion has  so this should render a disambiguated date in dmy format:
 * This one should not render a disambiguated dmy date, but the anchor ID will be disambiguated:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I half-remember discussions about this going way back. The obvious solution would be to use a custom harvid. Because I am not fond of disambiguating full dates, unless it involves the (I assume) very rare instance of referencing two separate works by the same author and same full date. I would consider a full date to be its own disambiguator. 64.9.245.162 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates have to be disambiguated in print too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I half-remember discussions about this going way back. The obvious solution would be to use a custom harvid. Because I am not fond of disambiguating full dates, unless it involves the (I assume) very rare instance of referencing two separate works by the same author and same full date. I would consider a full date to be its own disambiguator. 64.9.245.162 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates have to be disambiguated in print too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I half-remember discussions about this going way back. The obvious solution would be to use a custom harvid. Because I am not fond of disambiguating full dates, unless it involves the (I assume) very rare instance of referencing two separate works by the same author and same full date. I would consider a full date to be its own disambiguator. 64.9.245.162 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates have to be disambiguated in print too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pages updated frequently
Re the Cite web and similar templates citing a date: some Web pages cited are kept up-to-date, or updated frequently. When citing a source, it is usual to set the date parameter value to the date when the page was last updated (if stated), with an access-date. It would be useful to have a date value of "updated periodically" or similar (at present I achieve this with a note after the cite web template, e.g. Web page updated continuously.) The purpose of this is to encourage the reader needing latest information to go to the source, rather than accepting that only old information is available. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The opposite is true in citations: The edition that was consulted to support a wikitext claim is the one that should be used for verification. If the information in that edition is no longer valid, the citation should be removed. Unless the wikitext claims that sometime in the past, such information was accepted as true. 172.254.241.58 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Need to clarify. Non- material updates are basically reprints and can be substituted for the original. Content-related updates may edit the verifying info and imo should be considered editions. In that case, the new version may or may not support the wikitext. 172.254.241.58 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Need to clarify. Indeed I do. I'm thinking here (following a recent edit I did) not of sources that are updated as and when new information happens to come to hand, but of sources that are updated routinely. For example, System of Rice Intensification said "as of 2019 there are over 1,000 articles ... published in ... journals", citing a Web page. While editing I modified the text to report 1,200 articles in 2020; the Web page cited already had this figure. Someone reading the article needed to be encouraged to follow the source for the current figure. However, the arguments against my suggestion being adopted for general-purpose use have merit; I now think the best solution is what I already do, to append "Frequently updated" to the citation, instead of allowing the date parameter to say this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * archive-url can be a useful parameter to show the state of a given web page on a given date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Is valid for reports issued by private corporations?
Is actually limited to reports issued by governmental entities, or is it permissible to use it for reports issued by non-governmental corporations? Using for scanned images of such reports doesn't feel right, and some such reports are available only on paper. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The first sentence, "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for reports by government departments, instrumentalities, operated companies, etc.. ", in seems to exclude non-governmental entities. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There are bigger reliability problems with private-entity reports, both commercial & non-profit. Public-entity reports usually undergo a higher level of scrutiny, and are supposed to be impartial. Emphasis on "supposed to be". There is NO source that is a priori reliable. Some sources have been proven to be retroactively more reliable than others, in past cases. 64.61.73.83 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * However, that is completely irrelevant in regard to our citation templates. They are just a vehicle to display in a standardized fashion what contributors to an article decide to include in an article. It is not up to a template or template editors or template documentation writers to recommend one type of source over another. If there are issues with WP:RS that is something that should be dealt with on article talk pages, not by "disallowing" certain types of sources (in the template documentation or even programmatically). Template documentation and help pages have zero "binding power" in this respect, only our policies and guidelines have. Ideally, template documentation should not discuss anything beyond just the technical matters, but where (for the convenience of the users) it overlaps into areas which are covered by our guidelines, it should just neutrally reflect what is written there.
 * Cite journal can be used for any kind of journal-like periodicals, even for magazines, newsletters, bulletins etc., it is just that the output is optimized for how most people expect citations from "classical" scientifical journals to look like, and we may have alternative cite templates better suited for other similar types of documents (e.g. cite newspaper, cite magazine, cite conference...).
 * The somewhat misleading documentation should be reworded accordingly.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed the underlying reliability is irrelevant. As noted, there is no source that should be considered inherently reliable or unreliable. However there are some things that should be signaled in citations that may have an impact on perceived reliability. An example would be a self-published source. Sorry if this veers off-topic. 64.9.245.152 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cases like this seem so rare that you might as well just write out the citation in plain text. New templates or parameters shouldn't be created for every single imaginable situation; doing that only serves to complicate things. Glades12 (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't use cite report; instead I prefer to use cite book with Report as appropriate. Most reports are long enough that the title should appear italics, and all cite report seems to do is not italicize the title and add a default type indicator.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do that myself because not all reports, even offline ones, are published in a book format. Another difference is that most reports aren't available in libraries (and instead have to be found in circulation or ordered directly from the publisher). Glades12 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC) The latter unless they exist online, of course. 16:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cite report is quite anomalous in the CS1 scheme. All other templates render the main title of a source in either italics or quotation marks. CS1 is heavily based on the APA style of citation in that the elements (author, title, date, publisher, etc) appear in roughly the same order and formatting, but it was modified to handle URLs and source identifiers (ISBN, etc) more elegantly for our purposes. Reports in APA are rendered like books, so I find it entirely appropriate to render report citations here like books, regardless of how they may or may not be held in libraries or how their bindings may be constructed. (P.S. many government reports are deposited in libraries.)  Imzadi 1979  →   17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How to cite a news magazine segment?
I've been reviewing a draft concerning a company and it has references to a 2-3 minute news segment that has played on NBC Today show and later repeated on NBC Nightly News. Should it be cited with cite news (since it's news), cite AV media (since it's a video), cite episode (as part of a broadcasted news show)? It isn't a live segment, but on one of the shows, it was given like a 30-second introduction by the host. It also has its own producer, editor, and narrator/feature reporter. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For me, (presuming that the source is a news piece and not merely talking-head jabber).  supports time and minutes so you can specify when in the video the source supports our article.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend Cite episode. In my view, Cite news is only for actual (printed) newspapers, and Cite AV media is chiefly for recordings on other media than radio and TV. Glades12 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

named dates: Easter
Because of this discussion at the help desk, I have added Easter as a named date:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Translated encyclopedia title
Could a parameter for translated title of the encyclopedia be added to Cite encyclopedia? Right now the only translated title parameter available is for the article within the encyclopedia. I noticed this issue at Angel Savov. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rewrite it:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But what if someone wants translations for both entry title and encyclopedia title? Seems like that could be needed/helpful fairly often. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Use trans-entry:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated previously at, I think , which works in other templates, should work in this one too. Glades12 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated previously at, I think , which works in other templates, should work in this one too. Glades12 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated previously at, I think , which works in other templates, should work in this one too. Glades12 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

url-status=usurped or unfit displays "cs1 maint: unfit"
I don't know if this is an error or intended, but if url-status is set to usurped or unfit, hovering the mouse over a

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC) "Not really clear..." Sorry, I thought that this would display consistently. Before clarifying, I add that the issue also arises on an Android tablet (Android 7; same in Opera Mini and Firefox); while there is no mouse cursor to hover, the "maint" message is displayed following the reference in the list. What is shown (mouse hover in Windows, numbered ref in Android but not Windows) is:
 * Not really clear to me what it is that you mean. When I hover over the superscript [1] in your post, I get a pale-blue highlight over the entire citation rendered inside the  template.  Included in that is the CS1 maint: unfit url (link) message because I have maintenance message display enabled – because these messages are, for me, enabled, I see them all the time.  This with current version chrome.
 * In and of themselves, the messages do no harm and may prompt an editor do do something about that particular citation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response.
 * Thanks for response.

"'Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Main Page'. English Wikipedia. Archived from the original on 31 March 2018. Retrieved 28 June 2020.CS1 maint: unfit url (link)"
 * The link points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_unfit_url.
 * This on a system that is not set up to display maintenance messages, and never otherwise shows them.

"The messages do no harm": I don't think they are desirable; they are displayed to any reader, the only such messages displayed, but do not display in edit mode; clicking the link takes a reader to the technical Category:CS1 maint: unfit url. I think the issue is not merely "do no harm" (a matter of opinion), but "is the message there intentionally?". If it is (or is an artefact of my incorrect Wikipedia configuration), I withdraw my comment; I disagree but comply. If it isn't intended to be there, though, it shouldn't display.

By the way, where is the best place to discuss this (here or elsewhere), if it turns out that there is indeed something needing discussing? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When I disable maintenance-message display, on the desktop view of this page, I do not see the maintenance message. When I then shift to mobile view (link at bottom of this page) and select this discussion, I see the unstyled maintenance message.  The html produced by cs1|2 and MediaWiki for the message is exactly the same for both views (taken from right-mouse→View page source):
 * cs1|2 includes two classes in the wrapping tag:
 * – a user definable class that is used to hide or show all error and maintenance messages on a per-user basis from the user's personal css page
 * – defined in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css:
 * But, when I do this same experiment with pages listed in (and other maintenance categories), I do not see the maintenance messages in desktop view (as one would expect) nor do I see the maintenance messages in mobile view.
 * Where, exactly, did you first see this? Name the page and the reference.
 * If this is a recent occurrence, then the problem is likely not with cs1|2 (there have been no changes to cs1|2 since 18 April 2020) unless there are new requirements for mobile css that we are not aware of. You might raise this issue at WP:VPT.  If you do, post a link to that discussion here.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, did you first see this? I saw it first maybe months ago; I don't remember the page or date (I think well before 18 April 2020), but am quite sure it was as I described it here. I worked around it by setting url to the archived URL, and not using archive-url (after searching unsuccessfully for a better reference to the text sourced). I didn't see it again for a long time, but probably never used usurped/unfit. Name the page and the reference. Last night I used this status in reference 7 of this edit of "Tissot", and got the message as I described. The Wikipedia Main Page example I give above behaved exactly the same as the Tissot page for me (and still does).
 * If this is a recent occurrence, then the problem is likely not with cs1|2 (there have been no changes to cs1|2 since 18 April 2020) unless there are new requirements for mobile css that we are not aware of. You might raise this issue at WP:VPT.  If you do, post a link to that discussion here.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, did you first see this? I saw it first maybe months ago; I don't remember the page or date (I think well before 18 April 2020), but am quite sure it was as I described it here. I worked around it by setting url to the archived URL, and not using archive-url (after searching unsuccessfully for a better reference to the text sourced). I didn't see it again for a long time, but probably never used usurped/unfit. Name the page and the reference. Last night I used this status in reference 7 of this edit of "Tissot", and got the message as I described. The Wikipedia Main Page example I give above behaved exactly the same as the Tissot page for me (and still does).
 * Where, exactly, did you first see this? I saw it first maybe months ago; I don't remember the page or date (I think well before 18 April 2020), but am quite sure it was as I described it here. I worked around it by setting url to the archived URL, and not using archive-url (after searching unsuccessfully for a better reference to the text sourced). I didn't see it again for a long time, but probably never used usurped/unfit. Name the page and the reference. Last night I used this status in reference 7 of this edit of "Tissot", and got the message as I described. The Wikipedia Main Page example I give above behaved exactly the same as the Tissot page for me (and still does).

It sounds as if this might be due to my setup, or at least is infrequent enough not to have been raised before. It seems not to be the simple issue I thought it might be, and probably not worth bothering with unless others report it. If it's an error in my setup, I certainly don't want to waste anyone's time looking for it. Thanks again and best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, with maintenance messages enabled, I see the styled maintenance message at ref 7 of in both desktop and mobile views.  When I disable maintenance messages, I do not see the maintenance message in either view.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue on this talk page is phab:T251024. If you cannot reproduce elsewhere, then it is likely the issue was corrected elsewhere. (To wit, there was a time where indeed this was an issue for some views, whether app, mobile, or desktop, sometimes in hover cards and sometimes elsewhere. Each of these has been fixed as its been exposed.) --Izno (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

trans-title ignored?


This should not give an error. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed in the sandbox:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Red link ISBN resulting from cite book
Several instances of Cite book isbn parameters are now showing up as red links in my Wikiversity pages. See, for example: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Transcending_Conflict#Further_Reading These have been in place for some time, so I suspect it has something to do with the recent CS1 to CS2 conversion. How can I correct these errors? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Create a redirect? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The module suite is looking for a redirect ISBN → International Standard Book Number (this is true for all identifier labels). Without a redirect there will be a redlink.  The change was implemented here at the 2020-04-18 update and by Evolution and evolvability at wikiveristy on 2020-05-31.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * by creating redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * by creating redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help citing a document
I would like to cite this document that I found via this page at the National Archives and Records Administration. (The specific use is to cite the high school on page 3 that the subject attended.) It appears as though the NARA acquired the records from the CIA, and there is a bunch of identifying information for the document such as "record number", "record series", "agency file number", and a "DocId" at the bottom of the page. I am wondering which of all that information I should cite. Also, should I use ) as it appears to have replaced  ? Should I note that the document came from the NARA or CIA? Thank you! - Location (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the paper ("Form: Personal history ...") is part of a certain issue (a dated release) of a report series ("JFK assassination system etc"). The papers originator ("author") is the CIA. The issue (and entire report series) compiler ("editor") is the short-lived Review Board. The disseminating entity ("publisher") is NARA. You could use cite report. Or, citation. Or, custom-cite manually. 64.9.245.153 (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To add: Use the publisher's id, since that is the way the in-source location is classified. That would be the NARA docid. You can include the identifier for the including source too (the release-batch). The pub date is the date NARA made it public. The work date is the date the Review Board presented the release batch. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! This is a document from the JFK Assassination Records Collection at NARA. These documents are usually cited by the 13 digit record number at the top (AKA a RIF number). One example of how this might be done is in Michael Dobbs' book One Minute to Midnight where he uses styles like "JFKARC record no. 104-10324-1003". Perhaps you could add "NARA" in front of JFKARC to clarify. Or just explain the whole mess in your citation note. I don't think you need to explain what the CIA document is. Sometimes it can be quite hard to tell; in this case, the personal history statement is just one form in Conein's OP (Office of Personnel) file. Do not worry about citing dates on ARC docs, it can get very messy. Rgr09 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources should be cited so they can be found easily. The OP already has a clue: The way s/he found it in the first place, by visiting the publisher. Drilling down, it was found that this belonged to a certain department, which issued a series of reports. The document, produced by a certain agency, is an in-source location of one such report issue. If one comes to this page to ask about formatting a citation, it is presumed one wants to follow the related guidelines. 64.9.245.153 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your feedback! Much appreciated! - Location (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all of your help. I'm wondering if what I have below is sufficient? I have not used this link that led me to the pdf.
 * Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say Lucien Emile Conein is the author, not the CIA. It isn't really settled for Citation Style 1 whether organizations involved in the creation of a work should be listed as an author/editor, or whether the organization should just be listed as the publisher. In this case, I agree with listing National Archives and Records Administration as the publisher. Since the report says deletions were made, if you can determine it was the CIA that controlled the deletions, I would but a note after the citation that the CIA censored it, thus:
 * Censored by Central Intelligence Agency
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the particulars again. The document is a form produced by the Review Board responsible for making certain records of the JFK assassination public. These records were/are in possession of different government agencies. The form was published by NARA on 06-14-2017 classified with document id 32399265. This "JFK Assasination System Identification Form" identifies one such record: another originating with the CIA whose  is one "Conein, Lucien". As it happens with many if not all government agencies, the form's designer (and the completed form's sole proprietor) is the form's issuer. The applicant is not the "author" of anything. Nor imo could he be listed as a contributor: he contributed nothing to the authorship of the form. He could be listed as the form's subject (as identified in the NARA cover page), or a bit clumsily, I think, as the applicant in others. But the form's title includes that information. All of this is an approximation of course. The forms native to cs1/2 do not offer a perfect fit for such a citation. That is why it was suggested that a manual free-form citation may be a good option. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the particulars again. The document is a form produced by the Review Board responsible for making certain records of the JFK assassination public. These records were/are in possession of different government agencies. The form was published by NARA on 06-14-2017 classified with document id 32399265. This "JFK Assasination System Identification Form" identifies one such record: another originating with the CIA whose  is one "Conein, Lucien". As it happens with many if not all government agencies, the form's designer (and the completed form's sole proprietor) is the form's issuer. The applicant is not the "author" of anything. Nor imo could he be listed as a contributor: he contributed nothing to the authorship of the form. He could be listed as the form's subject (as identified in the NARA cover page), or a bit clumsily, I think, as the applicant in others. But the form's title includes that information. All of this is an approximation of course. The forms native to cs1/2 do not offer a perfect fit for such a citation. That is why it was suggested that a manual free-form citation may be a good option. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A pattern years in the making
Sorry, bad jokes.

I've been seeing, especially a lot of non-anglosphere articles, the practice of placing a year in publisher. I think it might be useful to have a tracking category for this practice. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is truly no limit to ways editors misuse citation templates. Glades12 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

DOI prefix limit increase
has a legit DOI. The prefix limit should be increased to 10.50000. Or at least 10.46234. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Needs exception for unusual-format dates (2)
The original discussion has been archived without resolution. Are we keeping quarterly dates in some form? If we are keeping them, what is the definitive list of quarterly date formats that cs1|2 should accept?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no formal resolution, but adequate guidance, imo. Quarter-based dates were supported. Ordinals to be avoided. People like both the abbreviated & full forms. The main thing is to have at least one option for entering such dates that does not return an error. 172.254.241.58 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I know all that. The question was: what is the definitive list of quarterly date formats that cs1
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "#Q [year]". "Q# [year]". "# Quarter [year]". "Quarter # [year]". "Month range may be substituted". 172.254.241.58 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should there not be a comma between '#' and '[year]' when the two are adjacent? Isn't that the same as Month #, [year]?  The issue of month-range-substitution is not something that the module should be doing because the module cannot know when a publisher's quarter begins and ends.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Before I am willing to entertain what is the definitive list of quarterly date formats that cs1 I request the metadata be resolved.

The previous discussion used the emission of metadata as a justification for not adding some kind of flag to tell the module to just take the date as-is, and not check it. If we're going to use metadata as an excuse to scream false error messages, we should at least emit correct metadata. I remind all of a comment from the previous discussion by Trappist the monk:
 * COinS is a layer on top of OpenURL. COinS, from the documentation that I have been able to scrape from various places (see ), uses a subset of OpenURL to which it adds certain constraints (for example, the   key/value pair is restricted to journal objects in COinS but may be used for all other objects in OpenURL).
 * Because we already parse months, seasons, and proper names into dates usable by COinS, it wouldn't be that difficult to parse  into  .  We went to great effort to eliminate date parts from cs1|2 (day, month) so we should not return to that method with 1.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I therefore request specification of what metadata will be emitted and under which circumstances. I suggest that the metadata from the 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) post be emitted, but only if the citation is recognized by the module as a citation to a journal (or at most, some periodical, such as a magazine). Otherwise only the year should be emitted. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Objects that cs1|2 does not treat as periodicals do not render the quarter metadata:
 * Objects that cs1|2 treats as periodicals may emit the quarter metadata if the date is a properly formatted quarterly date:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the prior discussion there seems to be a rough consensus for comma-less rendition. 69.193.187.30 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have checked Chicago, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, and The Associated Press Stylebook 2019. I can find nothing about writing quarters, neither in running text, nor in citations.
 * My thoughts are
 * We should specify what will be accepted as input, what will be rendered, and what will be emitted as metadata.
 * We should decide if the rendered output will be capitalized. In the case of seasons, we decided that even though they aren't capitalized in running text, they are in CS1|2, because some style manuals capitalize seasons in citations. We have no such guidance in this case.
 * In documentation, if we need to specify whether suffixes like "st" and "rd" are to be added, we shouldn't use the word "ordinal" or related terms, because ordinal indicates that a set of things has an inherent order. Dates have an inherent order whether we add one of those suffixes or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Re:
 * Date validation is just that: validation. If the date format is a 'valid' format, that is what cs1|2 renders.  If the date format is invalid, cs1|2 does nothing with it except to render as-is and to emit an error message.  When dates do not validate, metadata for that date is not emitted.  When cs1|2 emits journal-object metadata, and when date (only) holds a quarterly date, cs1|2 will emit   with a digit  –  specifying the quarter and   specifying the year-portion of the date; no date metadata when date holds an invalid date.
 * Capitalized because it is part of a date just as seasons are capitalized when they are part of a date.
 * We don't accept ordinal suffixes with dmy / mdy dates so we should not accept ordinal suffixes with quarterly dates. I don't follow your argument against ordinal suffixes because quarterly [dates] have an inherent order whether we add one of those suffixes or not: 1st quarter precedes 2nd quarter precedes 3rd quarter precedes 4th quarter precedes 1st quarter ...  Or, are you saying that we should not support spelled-out forms: 'First', 'Second', 'Third', 'Fourth'?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A set of ordinal dates: {Christmas 2010; July 4th, 1976; 2020-06-2020}. They're ordinal because there is an inherent order. In order, the first element is July 4th, 1976. The second element is Christmas 2020. The third element is 2020-06-2020.
 * A non-ordinal set: {6642, 8K901173, J784901}. These are serial numbers of various pieces of hardware near my computer. There is no inherent order. But the cardinality is 3, because there are 3 elements in the set.
 * Oh by the way, ISO defines an ordinal date to be a year and day of year; today is 2020-178. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why "ordinal" is not a good word to use while documenting anything to do with dates.
 * We don't accept ordinal suffixes with dmy / mdy dates so we should not accept ordinal suffixes with quarterly dates. I don't follow your argument against ordinal suffixes because quarterly [dates] have an inherent order whether we add one of those suffixes or not: 1st quarter precedes 2nd quarter precedes 3rd quarter precedes 4th quarter precedes 1st quarter ...  Or, are you saying that we should not support spelled-out forms: 'First', 'Second', 'Third', 'Fourth'?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A set of ordinal dates: {Christmas 2010; July 4th, 1976; 2020-06-2020}. They're ordinal because there is an inherent order. In order, the first element is July 4th, 1976. The second element is Christmas 2020. The third element is 2020-06-2020.
 * A non-ordinal set: {6642, 8K901173, J784901}. These are serial numbers of various pieces of hardware near my computer. There is no inherent order. But the cardinality is 3, because there are 3 elements in the set.
 * Oh by the way, ISO defines an ordinal date to be a year and day of year; today is 2020-178. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why "ordinal" is not a good word to use while documenting anything to do with dates.


 * Date formats are fungible, and each format may have its own inherent order. It is correct to write 2020-06-25 and also June 25 2020. The ordinal here, as far as I understand it refers to the natural order of the date elements, not the entire date. Specifically, in the rendering of a Quarter's position. And even that may be arbitrary. Let's not get lost in detail. Pick the 3-4 most commonly used formats and apply them.
 * The original impetus for this was the fact that a certain publication date could not be rendered satisfactorily, presumably making it harder for readers to discover the source. That is what matters. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 65.88.88.69, thanks for providing yet another plausible meaning for "ordinal" in regards to dates. I regard "ordinal" as unusable in date discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and while I support the addition of Quarters, what David suggested (in the old thread) originally was a way to suppress the error messages. I think we need both:
 * As many cases as are reasonally possible should be detected and supported by the code, but there will always be cases, which don't fit and starting discussions for individual things like "Easter" above seems inefficient to me (many people would never start a discussion about things like this and try to work around the issue - so we would never learn about areas where the templates lack support).
 * Instead, we should support the "((take this as it is))" syntax also for dates, and then put these cases into a maintenance category for evaluation. As it fills up we will see which patterns still need to be supported and so we can add direct support for them (probably in a more coordinated way than for individual examples like Easter. What about Christmas? What about Carnival? What about Summer holidays? What about Fiscal years? etc.) If not emptied manually a bot could occasionally clean up meanwhile supported formats by replacing the "((date))" by "date" in the corresponding citations.
 * And while we are in the process of adding support for Quarters, I think we should also add Quadrimesters and Semesters (following the example of EDTF).
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Url-access=limited
How can I clarify by using this template that the url-access are only limited to a geographically area like norwegian IP-addresses ? Best regards and a safe and happy summer from Migrant (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A cs1|2 template itself cannot do that. You can add explanatory text following the template and before the closing  tag to explain the limitation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tried a version on Bjørge Lillelien and that article section for bibliography (Bjørge Lillelien). Hopefully that one is okay. Best regards Migrant (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Help needed: Weird garbage in authors/titles
Please take a look at Village pump (technical). If you can help, please do. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that this will be responsible for a great deal of errors in Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation, on the order of ~1500. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

extra punctuation
Any of the &lt;name-list>-mask parameters, when given text, may include a semicolon name-list separator character so the extra punctuation test inappropriately adds the page to.

Fixed in the sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ... That's a use of the mask parameter I hadn't thought of. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And why should you? Such usage is incorrect. Masking parameters are there to mask other parameters. They should not be used for novel information. The documentation contortions needed to fully justify this inconsistency should be interesting. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

chapter/work clash
Gives

This should recognized work as an alias of title here. Or process things correctly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Module:Citation/CS1 uses the presence of any one of the work aliases as a control to shift from 'book' mode to 'periodical' mode.  This is necessary for proper rendering of both types of citations and for the proper creation of the citation's metadata.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial issue. The bad design stems from the very first citation templates which badly mangled the meaning of "work". The resulting inconsistent treatment of title in serials vs one-offs continues. So every so often a similar question is asked. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to |script-xx= parameters
I propose that the namespaces of the parameters,   and   be changed to use ISO 15924 codes instead. This has the benefits of eliminating ambiguity (for instance, whether a Chinese-language source is written in traditional or simplified characters, or whether a Mongolian one uses the Cyrillic or Traditional Mongolian writing system) as well as making it easier to properly display obscure scripts which are not presently known by CS1, but coded by the ISO. (See Category:Indonesian scripts for starter examples of the latter.) Glades12 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC), updated 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The HTML standard requires BCP 47 (see ). --Izno (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? The scripts are what may be rendered wrong, not the languages themselves, right? Or am I completely mistaken? Glades12 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not mistaken. The proposal seems beneficial and uncontroversial. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Izno: You still haven't explained. Glades12 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the provided links. If you still have questions, please let me know. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read both of them several times, and still do not understand how either supports the current system. Is the problem that the title needs to be pronounced correctly or accommodate users of different fonts? If that was the case, we would logically also require specific language codes in,  , etc.. The fact that we don't leads to the conclusion that only the scripts themselves are necessary to specify. Glades12 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The specification requires BCP 47. The syntax we output and accordingly require as input should conform to BCP 47 accordingly. Is that fact confusing? How so? --Izno (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:MongolUnicode seems to work pretty well without it. Glades12 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment does not answer my question. --Izno (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but to me it shows that ISO 639 codes are not absolutely necessary just to display a script correctly. Glades12 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not argue that ISO 639 codes are necessary. Nor did you, until just now, indicate what you were attempting to do. I have no objection to BCP 47 codes, but the overhead associated with MongolUnicode is frankly unnecessary for this template for all languages and I would oppose on that basis an implementation of CSS in these templates. I suspect if you had actually comprehended BCP 47 you would have observed that ISO 15924 is included as valid in the BCP, so the request to add accepting those codes seems valid, but you somehow have not brought that up yet. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be happy to read ISO 15924 just as $61.63 in the form of United States currency or a United States postal money order arrives in my physical mailbox. Until them I'm opposed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC) There is literally no way to know that from your links (do you expect everyone you meet to be a HTML genius?), and the way you replied made it seem like you did disagree. Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding. Glades12 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Date ranges with seasons
I've suddenly seen several cite errors for citations with dates that use season ranges, for example in Franz Kafka: These were not edited recently, so why would any recent change make this a new error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethaw88 (talk • contribs)
 * This looks like a bug possibly introduced by the work done for the addition of quarters that was made. looks to be working on it. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm about to turn into a pumpkin so I'll get to it tomorrow morning. I know the cause, the issue is how to best fix it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Live module updated.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't add a doi.org link if you're using the parameter
To our citation template documentation such as Cite journal/doc#URL, could we add a sentence explaining that one should not add  if there's already   defined, as was for instance here? Same goes for JSTOR or Worldcat (OCLC), where we don't need  if there's already , as here. --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem like a common enough error to warrant yet another addition to a group of pages that are already so bloated with instructions that they're barely navigable. We should focus on cutting the CS documentation down. Glades12 (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Depends on your definition of "common." I've been fixing this issue over the past couple of days with AWB. The DOI-in-URL issue alone affects about 2,000 articles, and I was just scanning for the outdated dx.doi.org scheme. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There may be issues here. See and the related RfC. 64.61.73.83 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on what issues you expect? The way I understand the linked RfC (which I missed, unfortunately, but in retrospect wholeheartedly support) a link is being placed under the article title if  and   is set, but it does not mean we actually need to place anything in the   parameter. In fact, anything put in there would overwrite the DOI link. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainly that the AWB edits may be at cross-purposes with the new auto-linking feature, or perhaps redundant. I see similar/additional concerns are discussed directly below. Not disputing the merit of your proposal, however. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe it's enough then. Glades12 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This only holds true if the url added would be exactly the same as the link provided by doi. For example, if
 * 10.1145/360569.360660
 * is already present in a citation, it does not make any sense to add:
 * https://doi.org/10.1145%2F360569.360660
 * In many cases, it also would not make sense to add
 * https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/360569.360660
 * (the link the doi resolves forwards to at present), because the forwarding might go down in the future or resolve to something else, so the links are not exactly redundant - however, that's debatable.
 * However, even with 10.1145/360569.360660 being present in a citation (and with DOI auto-linking enabled in the future), it still makes a lot of sense to add url if it points to a better source or even the actual document rather than only a metapage, so
 * https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/360569.360660
 * (a very similar looking link, but pointing to the PDF, rather than only to the metapage) is still appropriate to add, in particular since
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200624113752/https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/360569.360660
 * can be added as well then (it cannot for doi alone).
 * Example without url (in the future with DOI auto-linking):
 * Preferred example with url:
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I was in fact referring to URLs that are exactly what the DOI (or OCLC, or PMID, etc.) parameter creates. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's consensus to remove (or not add) exact matches, however, some people incorrectly assume this would also apply to "similar" links. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is already covered in Template:Citation Style documentation/id2 per long-standing consensus. Where else would you like to write it? Nemo 06:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

module suite update 11–12 July 2020
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 11–12 July 2020. Here are the changes:

Module:Citation/CS1:
 * Vancouver Style non-Latin character error message fix; discussion
 * add cs1 and cs2 class attributes; discussion TODO: currently disabled because breaks every test at Module talk:Citation/CS1/testcases; restore before next update
 * remove separate contribution alias support; discussion
 * separate encyclopedia parameter aliases from periodical aliases; discussion
 * remove separate section alias support; discussion
 * provide default value for url if doi and free are present; discussion and discussion
 * tweak error messaging; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
 * remove separate contribution alias support
 * separate encyclopedia parameter aliases from periodical aliases
 * moved identifier limits into handler tables; discussion
 * remove separate section alias support
 * tweak trans-missing-title error messaging; discussion
 * add limited support for quarterly dates; discussion and continued
 * add Easter as a named date; discussion (linked discussion)

Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
 * template-specific args table for ; discussion
 * add trans-title to limited param list; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
 * fixed disambiguated-date reformat bug; discussion
 * add limited support for quarterly dates

Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
 * moved identifier limits into handler tables
 * ISMN label to use redirect; discussion
 * wikidata code optimization; discussion
 * increase doi-registrant limit; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/COinS —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * add limited support for quarterly dates


 * And a few tweaks to parameter suggesting from Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the class attribute, do we also want to have them populate Category:Pages using CS1/Category:Pages using CS2 or something, so we can do category intersections to easily find pages that use a mix of styles? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can more or less already do this with special:search with a little guess and check e.g. citation and cite book. --Izno (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which won't detect those with  or   properly. The categories would. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So the cs2 cat would have roughly 300k pages (all current templates + some hand-waved-number of cs1 templates with cs2) and the cs1 cat would have 4500k - 300k = 4200k pages?  I'm not really seeing the benefit of that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if there's benefit, there is a significant cost to most pages where we would now be including a category in every citation when output. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So? It's just another hidden category. If you don't like it, ignore it. Because the benefits would be tangible, and we'd have a way to keep track of articles with a mix of CS1 and CS2. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the visible cost, I'm talking about using a template to include, in an article with 300 citations, 300 x category links (that the skin will process to 1 in its output but which are still counted against the page in the template transclusion cost). Regardless, at this point I think this request is reasonably outside the scope of this update. If you would like to pursue further discussion, please feel free to break this into a new section like I did below. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In regard to the requested auto-linking feature (Proceeding), while I understand that some people want to see this being rolled out as soon as possible (to the extent of suppressing concerns and making snarky remarks), I do consider the current implementation half-baked as it does not provide any means to override the automatic behaviour in cases where this would become necessary. As even supporters of the feature suggested some possible override (in the current discussions, but also in discussions going back to 2016), I consider it important to implement this before rolling out the feature. Using Trappist's original parameter suggestion for this as an example (which I consider to be even more future-proof than my own proposal due to the postponed chapter-url issue), what would be needed as a minimum now is to let url take three additional values:,   and  .   and   would select the corresponding identifier link even if auto-linking based on its "priority ruleset" would select a different identifier, and   would disable auto-linking for this citation. For other url values, the parameter's argument would be used as a link target. And without url at all, auto-linking would work according to the ruleset discussed (which has already been implemented for normal titles in journals the least).
 * Question is if someone could still implement this reliably before the weekend, if the rollout should better be delayed a week or two until this has been implemented, or if this should be rolled out without override facility for now?
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * doi/pmc/none would be great. Supporting all the free identifiers (of record) would be even better. But I wouldn't delay the update just for that, with the understanding that this templates should be updated way more often than it currently is for major features like this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, for a coherent interface the idea is to be able to address other identifiers as well in a consistent way in the future, although IMO only with "manual" auto-linking instead of through some arbitrary automatic rule-set.
 * You really suggest a new parameter auto-link for this? So far, I took your parameter name as a quick "discussion handle" or "prototypical name", only...
 * I was suggesting to overload title-link with this functionality in order to avoid introducing yet another parameter, and Trappist originally proposed to overload url instead. Could you live with that as well? The basic idea behind that is to make existing parameters more functional in a "smart", coherent and easy-to-remember way rather than to introduce new narrow-purpose parameters. Overloading existing parameters is a bit more difficult to code than using new parameters, but I think what is more important is the user-interface side - what is more intuitive to use and easier to document?
 * While using title-link (or auto-url) rules out any possible problems with bots needing an update after rolling out this feature, url has the advantage that (at a later point in time) the feature could be extended to auto-link chapters (this was already requested in the discussions above) by overloading the already existing chapter-url parameter in the same way we'd do it for url (whilst we don't have nor need an equivalent chapter-link parameter, and given that title and chapter could point to different identifier links (e.g. book and chapter DOIs) it would be difficult to control this behaviour with a single parameter like auto-url only).
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not fussy on the actual name of the parameter, nor do I see big downsides to using the existing one. And automatic linking should be done whenever possible (and that it makes sense to do so). If there are multiple free identifiers of records just have a default order, which can be overiden by auto-url/whatever. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification of your position. The default order is exactly what I have issues with (in particular if more than two identifiers will be involved), that's why I am in favour of "manual" auto-linking at least any further supported identifiers. What might appear as an obvious and convenient order of priorities to some might appear as completely non-sensical and counter-productive to others. However, what is most important is that it will be possible to override any automatic behaviour where necessary. Good that we agree on this. It will help to implement this feature in a way which is acceptable for anyone.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the 'default' order, then override it for whatever article the default order is not ideal. That we're linking via the DOI or via the PMC is really inconsequential to the reader, which will have access to the same full free version of record either way. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine and that's what I will do if I run into the situation (and there will be an override facility).
 * However, my point was that I think an automatic rule-set doesn't scale. It might still make a reasonably good selection for PMCs and DOIs, but with more auto-link identifiers added to the list in the future there will soon be a point where no reasonable priority order can be found any more for a generic audience, it will just be arbitrary and appear as pseudo-random to people. Consequently, there will be a growing number of people who need to override the automatic order, to the point that it does not make sense to auto-select one identifier in the first place, but just let editors manually select the desired one.
 * Either way, that's future stuff, what we need now is to consolidate the current implementation.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Better URL error detection


This should throw an error. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed in sandbox? There are uris that do not use the authority indicator ;   is one such that cs1|2 supports.  I have used that one as a test: if scheme is not   then authority indicator is required.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template to warn that other template is not safe for use in citations
Where's the template that we use in the /doc of various utility templates (I'm having trouble remembering a specific one) that warns people not to use that tagged template inside a citation template, because it pollutes the COinS metadata? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as seen on Interlanguage link. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankee. That's just what I was looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bogus long volume
The following reference generates a "CS1: long volume value" error, but the volume is correct. We need to accept volumes of reasonable length with a hyphen or en dash.

Please let me know when this is fixed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an error. What makes you think that it is?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Long volume is not something to be corrected at this time; that's why it is listed neither as an error nor as a maintenance category but instead as a property. We have not had a conversation since instituting the check for these pages whether we want to do anything about them. --Izno (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this was an error, the text about it would have been red on most devices, like in the following example: . Glades12 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Trappist the monk: Do you mean:
 * "I don't see the problem, please explain it."
 * "It's not an error, it's supposed to treat  as a long volume."
 * "For an article to be in Category:CS1: long volume value is not a sign of any actual error."
 * Something else ...
 * My point is that because of the citation given here, and for no other reason, Irish elk is included in Category:CS1: long volume value, even though this volume is correct, and this category is an error category. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that what you have written (generates a "CS1: long volume value" error and this category is an error category) is not correct. is not an error category but is a properties category.  What is it, or what have you read, that makes you think that the category is an error category?  If it is something that you read, we can fix that when you tell us where you read it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What we (why did you only ping TPM?) mean is that this property may constitute an error, but is not one in all cases. Thus, it is separated from the error categories because the latter always contain real errors that should be corrected in any case. This is intentional, and you are correct in that 326–327 is a real volume. Glades12 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, Category:CS1: long volume value is not an error category, and neither you nor the creators of it made any mistake here. Glades12 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there something about the text at that is confusing? I tried to be as clear as possible when I wrote it, but if it can be improved, please improve it or let us know how it was confusing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Emoji HTML help
I know there's been a previous help issue located here, so my quick question/help is how to get the emoji from this tweet working since I'm also getting the zero-width joiner error. I've tried looking up the different HTMLs for emojis, but was unable to fix it. The tweet is currently cited on this article. Thanks in advance! Magitroopa (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed those this way:
 * copy the emoji
 * go to this tool
 * at the right, paste the emoji into the 'text area' box → 👨‍🍳
 * click the A># button below the text area →
 * delete  (zero width joiner character) →
 * click the #>A button below the text area → 👨🍳
 * insert  html entity between the two emoji → 👨&amp;zwj;🍳
 * replace the emoji in wikitext with the two-emoji-and-html-entity string:
 * Crude example; the original emoji:
 * the modified emoji:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the modified emoji:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead link in a Featured Articles
I have tried to implement this diff] but it is being reverted for reasons: the article is a featured article, FA are not allowed to have dead links in them (!), so the archive.org is placed in the url field so that it is not apparent the link is dead (!!) thus ensuring the FA won't get delisted (!!!). I have tried to explain to User:Neutralhomer that this is nothing to be concerned about, but have not been successful. Turning it over to the community should anyone be interested in helping Neutralhomer and correcting this citation. -- Green  C  01:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? On the day of its, that article had four  templates that use archiveurl and archivedate (78, 79, 80, 85).  It appears that those same four are in the article as I write this (84, 85, 86, 91).  Neither of the terms archive nor dead appear in Featured article criteria.
 * If the objection is to the inclusion of dead, that can be omitted (when any value is assigned to archiveurl, cs1|2 assumes that url is dead).
 * Certainly the use of archive-url and archive-date is normal day-to-day business with cs1|2 templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer is in the wrong here. A proper citation much include the original link, marked as dead, and give the archived link (with the archive date). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer is in the wrong here. A proper citation much include the original link, marked as dead, and give the archived link (with the archive date). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)