Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81

|subject-first=, |subject-last=?
Oughtn't we to have subject-firstn and subject-lastn? These would normally be used in and which does support interviewer-firstn and interviewer-lastn. subjectn is an alias of authorn.

I don't recall discussing this anywhere and a quick search of the archives seems to indicate that the topic has never been raised. Any reason why we aren't (shouldn't be) supporting these?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * When you added support for interviewer-first/last, you did not discuss it, which is when it would have made sense, if at all. I did not recommend adding it myself then because it seemed like totally unnecessary overhead for the templates. Izno (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that an expression of opposition or an expression of indifference?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Closer to indifference. Izno (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

orig-year or orig-date
Which is the canonical form? The docs seem to be self-contradictory. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing a contradiction?
 * orig-date is the canonical form.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the page use the orig-uear as the parameter in the lists. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which page?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The cite docs such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal/doc use orig-year in all the big lists of possible parameters. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The cite docs such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal/doc use orig-year in all the big lists of possible parameters. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Look for the docs in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns10=1&search=insource%3A%22orig-year%22&searchToken=2w083e4dr0dw1zo9x62k1hcsi AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that. I've tweaked the doc pages for all of the cs1|2 templates.  Someone else can do the wrapper templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Letter to the editor
I just modified a cite at HMS Sheffield (D80) (my bold additions):

The sinking of Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.

The documentation here does not properly cover letters to the editor from notable public figures. This is a bit annoying, because unlike most instance of cite news, it would make sense to annotate the professional association of the letter writer, in this case: President of Vested to the Hilt, Inc.

I skirted the issue by quoting his own sign-off attribution from the article itself. Felt a bit dirty, but it worked for me. In the absence of better documentation here, I fear it's the best you can hope for. &mdash; MaxEnt 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly better:

The sinking of Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.


 * We have department for cite news. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Providing what he does is not the point of a citation, which is to allow someone to find the source cited. Put simply, you shouldn't include it at all. Adding the department as suggested by Jonesey is a good way to indicate where the commentary was published. Izno (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, as noted, the affiliation of the letter writer does not belong in the citation. Even though technically there is nothing wrong with quoting the signature, as it is part of the source. It is best that the affiliation is clearly stated in wikitext. This is important in the sense that "Letters to the editor" are basically unsolicited op-eds that fall in the same grey area: opinions (primary sources) published in a secondary source. Especially in the context of the article. What is the article claiming? That a ship's sinking has been incorrectly blamed on aluminum parts. And you cite a letter by an aluminum executive as proof. This needs a bit better presentation at the very least. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[Template:Cite book] Contributions not working?
I cannot seem to find a way to add authors of prefaces or forewords. According to the documentation at Template:Cite book, this is done by the parameters,   and. However, those parameters do not seem to work and are not present in the Visual Editor's interface for Template:Cite book.

Is there a bug is did I fail to understand how it is supposed to work? Veverve (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is always good to provide a non-working example.
 * The above appears to work. What are you attempting to do that does not work?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you citing the preface or forward? That's what contribution, contributor / contributor-last, etc., is for. For instance, if you are citing John Smith's statement that "working with Jane Doe was a labor of love",, you'd use the following citation:
 * You can see that the citation is not quoting Jane Doe in her book, it's quoting the person who wrote the contribution (similar to an individual author's article in a collaborative encyclopedia, Cite encyclopedia cite the article entry & author, not the editor of the encyclopedia)
 * &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see that the citation is not quoting Jane Doe in her book, it's quoting the person who wrote the contribution (similar to an individual author's article in a collaborative encyclopedia, Cite encyclopedia cite the article entry & author, not the editor of the encyclopedia)
 * &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see that the citation is not quoting Jane Doe in her book, it's quoting the person who wrote the contribution (similar to an individual author's article in a collaborative encyclopedia, Cite encyclopedia cite the article entry & author, not the editor of the encyclopedia)
 * &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am trying to add: . Veverve (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that you wrote:
 * Brown, Daniel Quilter
 * Preface
 * When cs1|2 see two parameters that are aliases of each other, it chooses one of them and emits the More than one of contribution and chapter specified error message. Because cs1|2 chose chapter, it ignores contribution.  Because you wrote:
 * and because cs1|2 is ignoring contribution (which is required for any of the contributor parameters), cs1|2 emits the contributor requires contribution error message. Because there is no author (or last) parameter (which is required when using any of the contributor parameters, cs1|2 emits the contributor requires author error message.
 * You cannot cite two (or more) sections of a book in a single template.  If you want to cite both the chapter "Brown, Daniel Quilter" and the "Preface", you must do so separately.  And, since this source appears to be more of an encyclopedia than a book with chapters (to me, "Brown, Daniel Quilter" 'feels' more like an encyclopedia entry) then, for that entry, perhaps this:
 * and for the preface, perhaps this:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So again, what are you trying to cite/quote? Are statements made by J. Gordon Melton in the Preface being cited, or is the chapter/entry "Brown, Daniel Quilter" being cited? If the answer is both, then you either need 2 different templates, or if your article uses Harvard-style citations, you can use harvc to compactly cite and markup multiple entries in the same collection. If the Preface isn't being cited at all, just leave it out of the citation.
 * Note: For what you're doing, I'd use Cite encyclopedia over Cite book. c.f.:
 * With contribution
 * Without contribution
 * Notice with the contribution, the "Preface" is quoted (as a dictionary/encyclopedia article should be), whereas the article entry is italicized? I think the contribution is confusing the code. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first example attempts to cite both "Preface" and "Brown, Daniel Quilter" which cs1|2 really isn't designed to do. One source per template.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am trying to indicate that this book has a preface by J. Gordon Melton, and that the entry "Brow, Daniel Quilter" is being cited.
 * Cite encyclopedia would not be very useful in this case, as there is no indication as to which contributor wrote which entry inside the book. Veverve (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One source per cs1|2 template. If you are including "Preface" in the citation merely because the work has a preface, don't do that.  If you are citing something from "Preface", use a separate cs1|2 template and, I agree with Editor sbb that  appears to be the best choice here.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are including "Preface" in the citation merely because the work has a preface, don't do that. I think it is quite relevant to indicate if there is a preface to a work, which is why I tried to indicate it. It is especially important in this case, as J. Gordon Melton is a well respected encyclopedia editor in the religious field. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are citing the preface, cite the preface. The purpose of a citation is to help readers locate the source that supports the text in an en.wiki article.  If the text at Daniel Q. Brown is supported by the source named in the current citation (the "Brown, Daniel Quilter" entry) then that is all that is needed.  If the preface is not being used to support text at Daniel Q. Brown, tt really does not matter that J. Gordon Melton is a well respected encyclopedia editor.  When/if text at Daniel Q. Brown is supported by Melton's preface, then cite Melton separately.
 * You might write Preface by J. Gordon Melton. I do not recommend it because that is just so much extraneous text that doesn't aid a reader in locating a copy of the source.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mutually agreeing with Trappist the monk here. I get it, and sympathize with your goal from a "data completionist" standpoint. The information is there, why not include it, right? But please understand, that's not what the or Citation templates are really meant for. They are meant to support citations supporting references in en.wiki articles. The contribution and related parameters exist in support of citing material in the text. Think of it this way: if articles needed to cite a Preface or Forward of a work, how would they do so, given the current crop of  templates, if the templates worked the way you're trying to make them work? The answer is, they couldn't. That's what citation  contribution et. al provide: a way to cite material that's not part of the main body of the work.
 * BTW, it doesn't matter that there's no specific author that can be identified for the "Brown, Daniel Quilter" article. You should still be using Cite encyclopedia. The work you're citing is Independent Bishops: An International Directory. From the introductory sentence of the template's doc page:
 * If you want to note additional facts about the citation, just add it after the template, and use cs2 as an argument to suppress the final stop/period that the Cite encyclopedia template normally provides:
 * , with Preface by J. Gordon Melton.
 * edited: added none to the template to suppress the 'Harv warning' in this example. If you are using CITEREFs / reference templates (sfn, harvnb, etc.), then you don't need the none parameter to the Cite template. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 02:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, quibbles:
 * no such parameter as citation
 * cs2 also switches the element separator from dot to comma and changes some capitalization so templates with that parameter/value pair are stylistically different from adjacent cs1 templates. This can cause knickers to twist.  Better perhaps is to use none or, (or other single punctuation character).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dang it. Thanks for catching my citation mistake (I meant to say contribution, but I had Citation on my mind from the previous sentence). Edited with strike and ins.
 * And I should have known I was being a bit too cavalier with cs2, but I forgot it had other effects besides just final punctuation. Definitely agree, I shouldn't recommend CS1/CS2 mode switching; people go to a lot of effort to get articles self-consistent. Thanks. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mutually agreeing with Trappist the monk here. I get it, and sympathize with your goal from a "data completionist" standpoint. The information is there, why not include it, right? But please understand, that's not what the or Citation templates are really meant for. They are meant to support citations supporting references in en.wiki articles. The contribution and related parameters exist in support of citing material in the text. Think of it this way: if articles needed to cite a Preface or Forward of a work, how would they do so, given the current crop of  templates, if the templates worked the way you're trying to make them work? The answer is, they couldn't. That's what citation  contribution et. al provide: a way to cite material that's not part of the main body of the work.
 * BTW, it doesn't matter that there's no specific author that can be identified for the "Brown, Daniel Quilter" article. You should still be using Cite encyclopedia. The work you're citing is Independent Bishops: An International Directory. From the introductory sentence of the template's doc page:
 * If you want to note additional facts about the citation, just add it after the template, and use cs2 as an argument to suppress the final stop/period that the Cite encyclopedia template normally provides:
 * , with Preface by J. Gordon Melton.
 * edited: added none to the template to suppress the 'Harv warning' in this example. If you are using CITEREFs / reference templates (sfn, harvnb, etc.), then you don't need the none parameter to the Cite template. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 02:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, quibbles:
 * no such parameter as citation
 * cs2 also switches the element separator from dot to comma and changes some capitalization so templates with that parameter/value pair are stylistically different from adjacent cs1 templates. This can cause knickers to twist.  Better perhaps is to use none or, (or other single punctuation character).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dang it. Thanks for catching my citation mistake (I meant to say contribution, but I had Citation on my mind from the previous sentence). Edited with strike and ins.
 * And I should have known I was being a bit too cavalier with cs2, but I forgot it had other effects besides just final punctuation. Definitely agree, I shouldn't recommend CS1/CS2 mode switching; people go to a lot of effort to get articles self-consistent. Thanks. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dang it. Thanks for catching my citation mistake (I meant to say contribution, but I had Citation on my mind from the previous sentence). Edited with strike and ins.
 * And I should have known I was being a bit too cavalier with cs2, but I forgot it had other effects besides just final punctuation. Definitely agree, I shouldn't recommend CS1/CS2 mode switching; people go to a lot of effort to get articles self-consistent. Thanks. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

[Template:Cite encyclopedia] put the chapter along with the name of the entry
I am trying to add the following:

However, the name of the entry ("Hugh George de Willmott Newman") is italicised. The only I can get the entry name to be between quotation marks is by removing or emptying the chapter parameter. Is there any way I could have something like  to be displayed so that I can indicate clearly the name of the entry while also indicating the name of the chapter the entry is in? Veverve (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Veverve: Unfortunately, the Citation Lua code only recognizes the a pair of "location in reference" and "reference name" in templates. For books, it's (chapter, title); encyclopedias, journals, and magazines, it's (title, encyclopedia), (title, journal), and (title, magazine).
 * To do what you want, you'll need to put the chapter after the template. But really, given entry title of "Hugh George de Willmott Newman" and the page number, the chapter isn't really necessary; it's just a little bit over-specificity. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 19:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia is divided into chapters, with each chapter having its own alphabetical order from A to Z. Since this encyclopedia is updated every few years, I want to insure the reader will be able to find the entry I pointed to in the most recent editions in the future (and I am already one edition behind the current one). Do you think it is possible to edit the template so that it can do what I want? Veverve (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How peculiar. There are three entries on pp. 84, 85: Joseph Rene Vilatte → Hugh George de Willmott Newman → Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church.  I presume that there is some rationale for that organization?
 * Regardless, you can spoof to some extent:
 * Alas, the important bit that you are citing (the value in entry) will not be available to readers who consume cs1|2 citations by way of the metadata. Do not add quote marks to title because they are not stripped from the value when it is made part of the metadata.
 * I want to insure the reader will be able to find the entry I pointed to in the most recent editions in the future. This is contrary to WP:SAYWHERE.  We really can't future-proof citations.  In some future version of Melton's, the entry may no-longer support the text at en.wiki; the chapter organization may change; other stuff may change... but the 2009 edition does support the en.wiki text so that is how the citation should be constructed.  Were it me, I would write:
 * This points readers to the correct source in both the visual and metadata renderings.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a third level of titling, between individual entries and the whole encyclopedia, given by department:
 * That may be a better choice in this instance. I think the part that gets left out of the computer-readable metadata is the department but does anyone actually use that format? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @David Eppstein: Interesting. I guess I ignored that department was valid for Cite encyclopedia. I only use department with Cite newspaper or Cite magazine where the entry is something like an obituary, public notices, standing "letter from the editor", etc. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't sure it would work until I tried it in this example. I usually only use it for journal, magazine, or newspaper citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another alternative: at
 * All of the entry, chapter, and title are in the citation's metadata. Of course, the entry information is at the wrong end of the visual rendering...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have mistaken in Newman's case a paragraph title with an entry, which is why there is not alphabetical order in the items Trappist the monk listed. Still, your help will be valuable to me for other articles; you can see an example at Christ Catholic Church (Pruter). I used David Eppstein's version. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be a better choice in this instance. I think the part that gets left out of the computer-readable metadata is the department but does anyone actually use that format? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @David Eppstein: Interesting. I guess I ignored that department was valid for Cite encyclopedia. I only use department with Cite newspaper or Cite magazine where the entry is something like an obituary, public notices, standing "letter from the editor", etc. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't sure it would work until I tried it in this example. I usually only use it for journal, magazine, or newspaper citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another alternative: at
 * All of the entry, chapter, and title are in the citation's metadata. Of course, the entry information is at the wrong end of the visual rendering...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have mistaken in Newman's case a paragraph title with an entry, which is why there is not alphabetical order in the items Trappist the monk listed. Still, your help will be valuable to me for other articles; you can see an example at Christ Catholic Church (Pruter). I used David Eppstein's version. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the entry, chapter, and title are in the citation's metadata. Of course, the entry information is at the wrong end of the visual rendering...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have mistaken in Newman's case a paragraph title with an entry, which is why there is not alphabetical order in the items Trappist the monk listed. Still, your help will be valuable to me for other articles; you can see an example at Christ Catholic Church (Pruter). I used David Eppstein's version. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Internationalisation need
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration has local date information along with English language date information. This is a creating problem for Telugu Wikipedia users, as everytime this module is refreshed from enwikipedia, as part of import of Templates that use this module, the Telugu language information is getting overwritten. Then a manual update of Telugu language language dates is required to avoid check date errors being shown for Telugu dates. I request the maintainers to internationalise that portion. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * By doing what, exactly? We will not add all of every language's possible date names as that would be undue burden of page processing on English Wikipedia. I think it's fairly reasonable to expect users refreshing the configuration page to check what they are doing and refresh only the relevant parts. Izno (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Izno, I am hoping that the local dates information can be stored in a subpage with language suffix. If such a page is not available, the default English dates can be used as local dates as well.  On Telugu wikipedia, there are many admins who refresh the templates for their need, but do not have knowledge of template code or often forget to update the local date info. Hope that helps. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is on my TODO list for after the next update.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk, Glad to know that it is in your todo list. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk, Glad to know that it is in your todo list. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

addition of 'quote-p' and 'quote-pp' to citiation templates
Can someone please add 'quote-p' and 'quote-pp' as aliases of 'quote-page' and 'quote-pages' respectively? -- PK2 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

WTF is this? (templatestyles stripmarker in title= at position XX)
There's no issue in this citation. That error message needs to be suppressed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's old news that you shouldn't use templates in certain parameters. This is an outcome of someone's deliberate decision to do so.
 * See also a recent-enough archive that you can go looking for a discussion on a related topic. Izno (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "you shouldn't use templates in certain parameters" there's never been any such proscriptions on template use anywhere. Case in point
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been repeated here ad nauseum. I doubt you have somehow missed those discussions. Izno (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Something false repeated many times doesn't suddenly become true. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * has been marked with since  18 January 2015.   has been around since 18 May 2012‎ (Special:Permalink/493117278).  The COinS section of the cs1|2 template documentation was created 12 January 2012‎ (Special:Permalink/470891851) and incorporated at  (11 January 2012).  Yeah, the timing seems a little odd...  Still, we have discouraged the use of templates in cs1|2 parameters for nearly a decade now.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about replacing H3O+ with  and  tags, like this:
 * Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that this shouldn't throw an error at all, not that you can half ass a workaround. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, the old issue of the inferior coins scheme used here. As suggested, such errors (that have nothing to do with citations) should be suppressed. Instead, perhaps whoever maintains coins could be auto-pinged any time this happens. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't be Wikipedia without additional confusion: some templates do work anywhere including title. One common example is en dash. For more, you can turn to the imaginary list documenting such templates that do not blame the victims. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be related to tags. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't be Wikipedia without additional confusion: some templates do work anywhere including title. One common example is en dash. For more, you can turn to the imaginary list documenting such templates that do not blame the victims. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be related to tags. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This should bypass the error. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC) &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Current
 * Sandbox
 * Sandbox
 * If there is no list of CS1-safe templates, is there a list of coins-safe tags (if any tags are indeed compatible)? Until such issues are permanently resolved, template editors could consult that list and insert a notice re: usage in CS1 depending on the tags' existence in template code. 71.245.250.98 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that edit because it doesn't do what you think it does. The sandbox rendering above, appeared to work because the  template is not in the sandbox template (it was replaced with  ) so, of course, the 'fix' appeared to work.
 * The  markup is like  markup: the rendering that is visible is an image:
 * ← H3O+
 * We might want to handle  markup in the same way that we handle  markup – some sort of error message in the metadata instead of a non-sensical stripmarker. Discussion is appropriate, I think.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If  is like <math ></math>, then it should be handled like math. The revert is nonsensical even if it didn't fix the above issue. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that H3O+ uses chem (not <chem ></chem>), and Template:Chem's documentation includes, with a note stating that <chem ></chem> is an alternative to chem. GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking cursorily at the source code of chem and the subtemplates chem/atom and chem/link, as well as module:su nothing stands out as particularly offensive html-tag-wise. One wonders what trips COinS. Ten+ years in a row. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, none of the versions of the citation above are formatted correctly. The $$\nu_1$$ part is a mathematical equation and should be formatted as mathematics, either as $$\nu_1$$ or as $&nu;_{1}$ . Additionally, I'm pretty sure that letter in it is a Greek nu, not a Latin vee. The $$\nu_1$$ should always work in titles but will stay black even when the title is linked by a url or free doi. The $&nu;_{1}$ will look correct when linked and I think looks nicer here but may run into similar stripmarker issues.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, none of the versions of the citation above are formatted correctly. The $$\nu_1$$ part is a mathematical equation and should be formatted as mathematics, either as $$\nu_1$$ or as $&nu;_{1}$ . Additionally, I'm pretty sure that letter in it is a Greek nu, not a Latin vee. The $$\nu_1$$ should always work in titles but will stay black even when the title is linked by a url or free doi. The $&nu;_{1}$ will look correct when linked and I think looks nicer here but may run into similar stripmarker issues.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing equations in physics books
At Carnot cycle we want to reference https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50880/50880-pdf.pdf, specifically we want equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 and §137. I'm not sure of the best way to do this.  Stepho  talk 00:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Write something like or &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Although there's nothing wrong with doing it those ways, you could also use Equations 39, 40, and 65 in Sections 90 and 137 within the citation template. Doing it that way has the advantage that you can still specify pages as a separate parameter rather than needing to format the page numbers as part of the at parameter, and that you can provide a direct link to the starting page of the contribution (if you're using a source like archive.org or Google books that provides such links) in the contribution-url parameter. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went with equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 & §137, although I was tempted to use equations 39, 40 and 65 in sections §90 & §137. I was able to add page.  Stepho  talk 11:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Check pmc=value
"If the value is correct and larger than the currently configured limit of 8700000, please report this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, so that the limit can be updated."

Molecular mechanisms for understanding the association between TMPRSS2 and beta coronaviruses SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infection: scoping review has PMC=8709906

-- Ben Best:Talk 21:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

for archived pages?
For citations that are archived from the very start (i.e. cited only after the original website has lapsed), what should  in Template:Cite web contain: the last time the writer successfully accessed the original URL, or the last time the writer successfully accessed the archived URL? The documentation defines the parameter as “[t]he full date when the original URL was accessed” – so should the parameter perhaps not be present at all in that case? Obskyr (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally remove access-date when an archive is provided. Otherwise, it should be the date the original URL was last accessed. Izno (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Izno. I think having an access date in these circumstances is pointless and just causes confusion. -- Alarics (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, but wait a minute. I see a chart peak on Billboard's ever-changing site and add a cite to the "That Great Song" page. The weekly chart position changes, up or down, maybe, and then the page is archived. Billboard revamps their stupid site again and the page, as it once was, is gone forever, except at the archive (and maybe some other web site, and maybe in a paper magazine), although possibly with different chart placement. Is it really wrong to say, "I saw That Great Song charted at No. 9 on so-and-so date at this URL"? Isn't that we're supposed to do? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 2 dates at play here, if I understand you correctly. The event date and the access date of the archive. The event date is a week, as Billboard charts by week, and obviously is a dynamic date - even if the song charts at the same position for many weeks, this will eventually change. Your access date sometime later will most likely be the date you access an archive of the event. The archive is static, and therefore archive access dates are thought to be unimportant. However the archive date is important, as it relates the archive to the event you want to cite. archive-date will suffice in this case, obviously as long as it is later than the event date. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. access-date is the date that the web page at the original URL was used to verify the content in our article, and date is the date that this original web page was published; archive-date is the date that Wayback Machine (or whoever) made an archive copy of the web page concerned. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on the archive. Crawlers such as the Wayback Machine store snapshots for some time (it is not entirely clear to me how the inventory of snapshots is handled, but it is not unusual for snapshots to disappear). The archived content (ie snapshots) of a web page @ the Wayback Machine is not static; only the content of the snapshots is. The number of snapshots per archive is likely changing with every crawl of the page. When a citation calls an archive in the Wayback Machine, it actually calls a particular snapshot that includes the pertinent information. Therefore archive-date is important. There may be several snapshots on that date, but CS1 currently does not provide snapshot resolution. But the original question was about the access date of the archive. To answer this properly, we have to know how each service handles its archives. Empirically, most people accept archives as static, regardless of the service provider. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding Authors Wikidata ID
Given that a noted journalist or academic that authored the text thats being referenced will themselves be able to referenced, could we store their wikidata id (as well the first and surname) which in turn stores their various academic ID's (such as ORCID) and popularist ID's (such as twiter), perhaps linking to reasonator to make it readable? It would also solve the the variation in their names, for example they may use a formal version of their name in academic papers and casual for something in the popular press as well varations whether they use "special characters" in their name

The same could be used for the publicaton

So for example

Pöhls, Jan-Hendrik. "A new approach finds materials that can turn waste heat into electricity". The Conversation. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

Would become something like

Pöhls, Jan-Hendrik. "A new approach finds materials that can turn waste heat into electricity". The Conversation. Retrieved 2022-01-05.

Back ache (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of asking users to add even more data in references, I'd suggest that we could use the existing author-link and work parameters to provide links to articles about the authors and publications, create redirects for variations in their names, and add ID links in the External links section of those articles. Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That could work, in my earlier example then I'd add  Back ache (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You will want to review previous discussions (and there may be more where the phrase 'qid' is not uttered). Izno (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And the obvious search for Wikidata. Izno (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of adding ID links individually to articles, they should be handled through adding them to Wikidata and using the Authority control template on the articles. But in references, I tend to think that only authors with existing Wikipedia articles should be author-linked; we shouldn't instead link to Wikidata items for authors without articles. Also, I tend to think your proposed link style violates Manual of Style/Accessibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whilst there will always be a place for narrative-first (wikipedia), I also like to assemble facts (wikidata) first and let that tell a story that can be made into an artical, you could argue sufficient good-quality links tell a story in their right and with things like resonator and the semantic things coming that data-only entries will continue to increase Back ache (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is probably best not to consider citations "narrative". They are tools meant to ensure the actual narrative is factual. This is a vital undertaking that should be focused, uncomplicated, understandable and simply implemented. As was suggested above, overhead should be kept to a minimum. As you will see from the previous related discussions, there are also several as yet unanswered questions about Wikidata in general. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OPPOSE Wikidata author IDs do not belong in citations. This is complete clutter. The only thing that might belong in a citation is the Wikidata QID for the article/chapter/book being cited, if the article/chapter/book has a corresponding Wikidata entry. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2022
Could somebody add "archive-link" (correct to " archive-url)? Thanks in advance. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  09:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are asking for cs1|2 to support archive-link as an alias to archive-url, I would say that we ought not do that.   can be taken to mean more than just a url (a wikilink is a link...)  Editors know and understand archive-url so I see no benefit to adding archive-link as an alias.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added this to the Suggestions page, as requested. Someone who uses archive-link will receive a red error message with a helpful suggestion to use archive-url instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Error messages for non-usual date formats
The guidance of the CS1 help page states that 'Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source.' However, the templates as implemented do not appear to respect this, as the date errors are not suppressable. How should this be addressed? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An example would be helpful. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Continue reading, . In cases where the date as expressed in the source is not compatible with the template software, the citation should be created without using a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. Not sure how I missed that. Does anyone know how this advice originated? It seems rather suboptimal to abandon the templates altogether just because the dates don't fit. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, templates optimize common cases, sometimes with allowance for very few exceptions. The important item here is the citation, not how it is produced. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, templates optimize common cases, sometimes with allowance for very few exceptions. The important item here is the citation, not how it is produced. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Memento Project
This is not directly related to CS1, but it is something to be aware of. This project ("About Memento" link) is basically a meta-archive whose protocol (RFC 7089) includes logic to automatically access the optimal version of an archived page among different archives. Perhaps more importantly for CS1, there is no need for archive-url; the built-in logic in the Memento protocol parses the original URL and determines its status, and whether an archived version exists, which is then served transparently to the user. The current drawback is that the Memento protocol has to be called via a browser extension. It is conceivable that it may become a built-in feature. I am not aware of any Wikipedia template/script that applies this protocol currently. 65.88.88.62 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Publication date for journal references
accepts both year and date, but the former is discouraged. Since date can accept day, month, and year; this creates inconsistency in the references. I understand the full date is necessary for some references such as news articles, but it is really superfluous for scholarly journals. I suggest encouraging date=YYYY for journal references for the following reasons: (i) In scholarly referencing, the full date of publication is (almost) never used for journal articles. (ii) Full date of publication is technically useful for scholarly articles, as the dates of submission, acceptance, online publication, print publication are months apart in the best-case scenario. (iii) The guide says it is useful if an author publishes several articles in the same year, but Wikipedia references are numbered not sorted by authors' names in Chicago style. Even in the latter, YYYYa,b,c is used since there is no guarantee that one author has not several articles in the same month.

My suggestion is not to change anything but to encourage in the referencing guide using the year of publication.589q (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The date used in journal citations reflects the date of publication of the specific issue. This has to be so because this is one of the fields indexed by periodical reference/biblio database providers. Therefore it is an important aid in finding the source of the citation and verifying the wikitext. Wikipedia by its very nature demands this. It should not be compared to other projects that have different audiences, specifications, or demands. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (i) Nobody uses the issue to find an article. Every journal article is linked with DOI. (ii) 80% of journal articles in Wikipedia references are cited by year only. My suggestion is for consistency. (iii) The reset usually have a YYYY-MM format, which is not enough for finding an issue because most journals have more than 12 issues per year. (iv) Most journals do not even mention the publication date in the list of issues (only issue number).589q (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to say that every journal article is linked with a DOI. Not all of them are, for many different reasons. Secondly, you assume that the average Wikipedia reader would know what a DOI is, as it is generally considered scholarly/expert info. As a matter of course, registrants such as CrossRef assign part of the suffix by journal date and/or issue. Also, it doesn't matter how journal references are cited in Wikipedia; we are only discussing how they should be correctly cited. A reader wanting to verify a citation can see several non-cryptic pieces of information before the identifiers. This order of placement is not random. As noted before, reference databases index author/date/issue/article title/identifier per journal. That is the easiest way for the average reader to find them. Not coincidentally, DOI registrants may use the very same databases (among other information) to build DOI suffixes. The resulting DOI number will then be used to update the relevant databases. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You got me wrong on the DOI matter. I didn't say people use DOI to check the citations. I said (almost) every journal article referenced in Wikipedia has a hyperlink via doi.org which sends the reader to the article. For checking the reference, people simply click on the available hyperlink. Nobody finds the article via the table of contents when there is a direct link, whether you are familiar with DOI or not. All scholarly articles have DOI. My suggestion is all about the readability for both professional and average readers. I just suggest consistency for "Doe, J. (2021)", "Doe, J. (December 2021)", and "Doe, J. (23 December 2021)" referencing. Roughly speaking, 80% of journal articles in Wikipedia references use the first format. I just suggest having a recommendation for the preferred format. When I add a reference, I do not know which format is recommended. Thus, I pick one randomly. These random choices add to the unnecessary inconsistency.589q (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not trying to prove anybody wrong on anything, we are discussing a proposition. I know that date documentation suggests several different ways to input the date. Presumably, the source can be found whether the date is input as year only or as a more complete date. However it is best to input the date the way you see it in the publication itself, again because this is how the source will be found faster when one searches for it by date. The consistency proposition satisfies aesthetics but may hamper/delay discovery. In an inherently unreliable project like Wikipedia, ease of source discovery and therefore of verification is important. Consistency regarding dates is recommended where it will not affect discovery. And may I repeat that the idea that the average reader will see a citation and immediately click on an otherwise cryptic identifier is not a useful assumption, and imo highly unlikely. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am probably on a different page, as I have no clue what you are referring to. "this is how the source will be found faster when one searches for it by date". Could you please let me know how you search for a journal article by the date of publication? And when there is a direct hyperlink to the article, why should one search for the article?589q (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all of the references that are cited in Wikipedia are online, and some readers may have to resort to searching through physical journals at libraries (particularly for older works), in which case details of how the journal refers to the location etc of the article (i.e. how the journal presents the date of the issue and things like volume and issue number, and even page numbers) will be very helpful in finding the article in question. Your proposal merely strengthens FUTON bias.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even when the full text is available online, you may still have to search on the date, drilling down to the year, month, volume and issue. This occurs when the journal has been digitised by being scanned, but the text is not searchable. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (i) I have not come across a single journal article without a PDF version. If there is, it is almost impossible to find them in any library. (ii) If someone has access to a library with a physical archive of the scholarly journals, the library should have an online subscription too. (iii) I come from the generation of hardcopy and spent nights in libraries for finding references. I have never used the publication date for finding an article because it is technically impractical. Journal issues are bonded together and only the range of issues is printed on the cover. (iv) If I am wrong, and the date of publication is useful in finding an article, then, there should be a recommendation for providing the full date of publications for the 80% of the Wikipedia references, which have provided year only.
 * My suggestion was simple. I asked when I am adding a reference, which of the three formats (bolded above) is recommended? If your answer is: whichever you like, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If your answer is: whichever is available, I have the full date of thousands of (almost all) references with year only. Should we add the missing information? If your answer is: leave them the way they are, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia because the choice was based on personal preferences to include the full date or year only. 589q (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , please provide data for your claims about date formats and the presence of DOIs for journal citations in WP articles. Your claims are wildly inconsistent with my experience in editing tens of thousands of citations in articles. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't get what part was different from your experience. Do you mean the DOI is not available for most journal articles cited in Wikipedia? Or the date formats are not mostly years? For example, see Lithium as a general article with numerous similar ones.589q (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] The answer really is: whichever you like. I tend to use either year=2021 or date=December 2021; I don't think the full dates are useful, but the months sometimes are, for the purpose suggested above: tracking down articles in journals from the journal name and publication date in cases where the title isn't working well. Re the discussion above about journal publications with no online pdf: they're unusual but not unheard of. For instance I don't know where to find the following in its original form (I do know of a revised version in a 2019 book that is available online): Re your attitude that there can only be one format: See WP:CITEVAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein, it is very unlikely to find that article in physical form in libraries too. Does it help to find it easier? .589q (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The issues I can find online of that journal are labeled by month and year, but not by the day within the month. So the month and year are useful information to me; the day is not. Also, the issue with that paper appears to be available in a physical copy at the Stanford University library, very near where I happen to be now and where (as an alumnus) I would probably have access to it if it weren't a holiday, and I definitely would have access to photocopies of either that or the UC Berkeley copy through interlibrary loan from my home library at UC Irvine. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally, when looking up for an article in the physical archive, volume and page number is sufficient. Extra information is the issue number. The month of publication does not provide any information beyond the issue number. The issue number is usually mentioned in both the academic bibliography and Wikipedia reference (including your example). If we want to add more information, why not using one that is available, common, and more accurate (issue number), and just add extra data, which might be useful or not. By the way, if you travel to another institution (whatever close) to get an article, you wouldn't care to have the month of publication in hand to find it 10 seconds faster.589q (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of note, "YYYY-MM" is not an acceptable date format. This is because it is ambiguous if a date such as "2006-07" refers to July 2006, or the year range "2006–2007". &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 16:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement "if date is useful in finding a journal article" is incorrect. Journal dates are indexed by all metadata providers so that search queries can find a particular issue by date. There is no "if" here, this is one of the items that sources are classified by. So date has semantic significance in the context, and is not just a matter of aesthetics. It is also not an obtuse item for the average reader, unlike any identifier. That said, nobody forces anybody to use the complete issue date (even though they should). But it would be semantically diminishing to suggest a date abbreviation as the "preferred" date. If anything, the complete date should be suggested as the preferred option. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: above, it was not meant that editors should be obligated to use the complete publication date as it appears in the journal. It is just my opinion that they should, for the sake of faster/easier discovery. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost everyone is in favor of the month of publication. I still believe an article is looked up by its year, volume, and page number if DOI is not available. I just wonder if the month of publication is such useful, why is there no petition to add the missing date of publication in the references. I come to my second reasoning that the date of publication is misleading.

Let me clarify this through an example. How do you cite this article https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c08484? At the top of the page, it is written: Publication Date:November 28, 2021, but this article belongs to volume 143, issue 49 (December 15, 2021). Nowhere on the page, you can find December 15, 2021 unless you go to the issue page.

You may wonder what if the publication year is different from the issue. Here is an example: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.0c10943 Publication Date:December 15, 2020 belongs to volume 143, issue 1 (January 13, 2021). At the top of the page, it is clearly stated '''Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 1, 5–16'''

The problem is: for most publishers, the publication date is the date of (online) publication of the article, but the publication year is of the release of the whole issue. The latter must be used for citation. Usually, the latter is included in the former, but not necessarily (the second example I gave). 589q (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake: I should have used "issue date" where I used "publication date". Most (not all) journals have a set issue date schedule, but often the publication schedule diverges for whatever reason. For this reason, most biblio providers classify by "issue date" if it exists, rather than "publication date", which comes into play if it is the only date. If you look at the way providers structure the metadata, "date" almost always refers to issue date (usually a known in-advance property), with publication date commonly relegated to a "Notes"-like field. In CS1, a citation can provide both dates, although there is an opinion to do away with publication date, and use that info only when issue date is absent (confining this argument to journals for now).
 * In you first example, suppose one remembers part of an author's/editor's last name. It is also known that the work was published in late 2021. With that info, you will get a list of results. I suggest that in the great majority of queries the entry with the author and issue date will appear before any other date in a browser with no previously cached results, simply because that is how the info is indexed, and search engines use this same info. If you know the journal name, it is easier, because the issue schedule is set, and you can zero-in on the "December 2021" issue. And as you can see in the second example this correct procedure is given (cite by issue date), as this leads to the most efficient doscovery. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reiterating that this discussion is about serial publications. Other considerations apply in e.g. books, including book series. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have two independent parameters: date, for the date printed on the cover; and publication-date for the date that it became available to subscribers and other potential purchasers. These two need not be the same, see Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite journal. For example:
 * Is that way of showing both dates satisfactory? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the positer of this query likely doesn't write historical articles nor possibly on foreign topics. As someone who does, I can definitely state that it is less often than frequent that there is a DOI reference to the majority of articles I use as reference materials. Unequivocally knowing the date as well as volume and issue are incredibly important. Many journals which have existed for decades have altered their range numbers, thus you must tie both the date of the issue to the vol/no. I cannot even estimate how many times I have used the "ask a librarian" feature of world cat to retrieve and have e-mailed to me an article that exists in a publication that has not been digitized. In every single instance, I was asked to provide the issue date as well as the volume and issue number. While DOI may be common in the US/UK, it is less so in the rest of the world mainly because it requires that sources be digitized, which is much less frequent, especially for historic documents, in places that are not as affluent or digitally oriented. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the positer of this query likely doesn't write historical articles nor possibly on foreign topics. As someone who does, I can definitely state that it is less often than frequent that there is a DOI reference to the majority of articles I use as reference materials. Unequivocally knowing the date as well as volume and issue are incredibly important. Many journals which have existed for decades have altered their range numbers, thus you must tie both the date of the issue to the vol/no. I cannot even estimate how many times I have used the "ask a librarian" feature of world cat to retrieve and have e-mailed to me an article that exists in a publication that has not been digitized. In every single instance, I was asked to provide the issue date as well as the volume and issue number. While DOI may be common in the US/UK, it is less so in the rest of the world mainly because it requires that sources be digitized, which is much less frequent, especially for historic documents, in places that are not as affluent or digitally oriented. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with TemplateStyles in arguments?
As discussed above, TemplateStyles tags (or rather their strip markers) flag up as an error:. What exactly is the purpose of this? It makes it much more difficult for template editors to add TemplateStyles to any inline template, as there's a risk that someone has used that template in a citation and citations will then start issuing errors.

If it's a risk of corrupting COinS, why not just silently strip it from machine-readable parts of the output? By their nature the TemplateStyles strip markers only need to appear once to work. If even having it inside the displayed title (or wherever) is problematic, then it could be moved from there to before the rest of the citation. User:GKFXtalk 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is your example citation:
 * What cs1|2 gets (after has been processed is this:
 * '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000051-QINU`"' Wikipedia
 * (the '?' on either end of the stripmarker is the delete character, U+007F)
 * Of all of that, the only part that is the title, the only part that belongs in title, is 'Wikipedia'; the rest is extraneous junk that does not belong in title.
 * The strip marker detector is a relatively easy way to identify corrupted cs1|2 template parameter values. The detector looks for all flavors of strip marker.  When templatestyles strip markers are found in id or quote, they are ignored because those parameter values are not made part of the citation's metadata.  Math strip markers are removed from the metadata and replaced with 'MATH RENDER ERROR' message because Scribunto no longer allows modules to fetch the content of math strip markers.  A math strip marker remains in the rendered parameter value so that MediaWiki can replace it with an image of the equation.  cs1|2 can fetch the content of nowiki strip markers so it does so when creating metadata.  All other strip markers are considered erroneous.
 * Silently removing strip makers is easy. It is more difficult and time consuming to remove the rest of the junk that templates can add to a parameter value.  We had a relatively long and ultimately unproductive discussion about unnecessary html markup at.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was informative. I'm mostly interested in chem2; what did you think of the suggestion at Special:Diff/915129724/1046369074? If the citation templates accepted some indicator of the correct plain-text representation, it would be fairly straightforward to build a plain text representation within chem2 at the same time and put that out in an HTML attribute or equivalent. The input to chem2 is semi-readable to a chemist, which I think you asked, but not exactly presentable, so a specific plain text output would be necessary. Ideally that would also silence the strip marker error. User:GKFXtalk 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the markup-in-span scheme may be an idea worth pursuing. I think that it should be limited to only those kinds of templates that 'translate' markup-in-plain-text to some sort of standard presentation (as LaTeX or TeX is used for math).  I don't know if semi-readable is good enough.  I asked that question because en.wiki should never be in the business of making-up 'standards' for anything especially when there are already extant standards in the outer world.  We have <chem ></chem> tags so presumably what goes inside those tags (apparently some form of LaTeX) is standardized markup.  That is the markup-in-plain-text that should be used by  and supplied in the markup-in-span scheme so that readers who consume a cs1|2 template via its metadata can read and understand (because it is standardized) the markup that makes an equation in title.
 * I also think that the markup-in-span proposal is something that deserves (requires?) buy-in from more than just you and me. Is  one such template that might use the scheme?  And the templates that are used in it?  What about nesting of one (or more) markup-in-span template inside another markup-in-span template?  Are there other templates that might be suited to the scheme?  If not, then perhaps it is not worth the effort to create and maintain the markup-in-span scheme.  Styling templates like  have no reason to be included in the scheme because styling of cs1|2 citations is the responsibility of cs1|2.
 * In the markup-in-span scheme the span's  attribute would be sufficient to turn off the stripmarker error.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that the &lt;chem> tag's markup (LaTeX with the mhchem library) is that important of a standard; it's just one library. The notation it uses like HC#CH → is not something I encountered at university, and I wouldn't know that # meant triple bond if I hadn't read it in Wikipedia's documentation. It would be far better to output "HC≡CH" in that case, which is plain text and a correct notation. I think the question of what the exact plain text representation would be is one for WikiProject Chemistry; once you get to stuff like ^{16}O2(2-) it's less obvious; something LaTeX-ish in that case seems appropriate. For math, it looks like what matters is the templates inside math (e.g. radic) as math seems to just apply formatting. Nesting could be awkward, but if radic output "√(" (as the hidden plain text), then its first parameter, then ")", the citation template would just have to concatenate all the hidden plain text it saw and nesting would have worked successfully.
 * In terms of the HTML representation of this, I would have thought an attribute  would be more appropriate than putting it as document text in a span and then having to hide the span with CSS. User:GKFXtalk 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use "something LaTeX" for some of these notations, you need to use it for all of them, because of Wikimedia's bad choices to render LaTeX in a way that is visually incompatible with other formatting styles. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant, I meant that if I cited a paper called "Properties of O2(2-)", it might appear as "Properties of O2^{2-}" in the COinS metadata, as you can't output "O22-". On the article the appearance of chem2 would not change from its current HTML. User:GKFXtalk 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no experience writing chemistry equations. But, I find it very hard to believe that the chemistry world doesn't have a standardized way of creating chemistry equations.  Surely the researcher who submitted the paper called "Properties of O2(2-)" to the journal for publication, wrote that, and other, equations using a method that guaranteed that the publisher would typeset it correctly.  After all, that is all that  and like templates are doing here.  Some sort of mechanism is required to place all of the various parts of the equation in their proper positions.  Is that something that generic word processors do these days?  If not then what is the typesetting standard used by industry journals?  Whatever that standard is, that should be the standard used at en.wiki.  If there is no such standard then, I suppose, en.wiki can do whatever it wants when it comes to typesetting chemistry equations.  You don't like LaTeX with the mhchem library, suggest a better standard.
 * Please don't chastise me for something that I did not write. You asked for my comments about this .  That sandbox uses the   attribute.  Were we to implement something like that, regardless of whether it uses   or , cs1|2 would remove that attribute thing from its input parameter before rendering so no need to hide the span with CSS.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The major issue is not how to render chemical formulae, but rather how to generate correct metadata. That is an issue whether you are using, e.g., LaTeX, MarkDown, wiki. What about separate parameters for display title and reference titles? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, and as said below, this is not a CS1/2 issue. All such discussions should be redirected at the appropriate forum for metadata in Wikipedia, not here. This comes up over & over again, so there is no confidence that this is going to be resolved any time soon. Just one more time-wasting burden for editors who want to use CS1/2. The discussion above is proof enough - instead of removing the error, all kinds of unnecessary contortions are proposed to accommodate it. 65.88.88.47 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more difficult and time consuming to remove the rest of the junk that templates can add to a parameter value. This is not pertinent. Editors do not need templates to add junk to a parameter value, and the fact that it is indeed difficult to remove has nothing to do with this discussion. The main, longstanding issue is that COinS may interfere with legitimate citation editing. This is not new. A thorough search will discover complaints going back at least 12+ years, or ever since the introduction of the scheme in the defunct . Btw, the discussion on adding the metadata scheme (if memory serves, prompted by a request from Zotero-using editors) was minimal, as I recall. The problem is that COinS is based on OpenURL, which basically adds specific-content-location additions to a regular http address. Extraneous http artifacts will obviously generate unwanted results. It is incumbent on Wikipedia COinS to find a workable solution to that problem instead of limiting legitimate usage of templates that make editors' work easier. I've no idea what constituency of Wikipedia will agree to limit editors in favor of an external scheme, but it may be time to find out. Keeping also in mind that not all templates will generate COinS-based errors, which makes blanket statements about template use in citations somewhat arbitrary. Until Wikipedia COinS behaves, the suggestion of adding a switch to turn metadata off is an excellent one, and it should be implemented. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't chastise me for something that I did not write. You asked for my comments about this .  That sandbox uses the   attribute.  Were we to implement something like that, regardless of whether it uses   or , cs1|2 would remove that attribute thing from its input parameter before rendering so no need to hide the span with CSS.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The major issue is not how to render chemical formulae, but rather how to generate correct metadata. That is an issue whether you are using, e.g., LaTeX, MarkDown, wiki. What about separate parameters for display title and reference titles? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, and as said below, this is not a CS1/2 issue. All such discussions should be redirected at the appropriate forum for metadata in Wikipedia, not here. This comes up over & over again, so there is no confidence that this is going to be resolved any time soon. Just one more time-wasting burden for editors who want to use CS1/2. The discussion above is proof enough - instead of removing the error, all kinds of unnecessary contortions are proposed to accommodate it. 65.88.88.47 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more difficult and time consuming to remove the rest of the junk that templates can add to a parameter value. This is not pertinent. Editors do not need templates to add junk to a parameter value, and the fact that it is indeed difficult to remove has nothing to do with this discussion. The main, longstanding issue is that COinS may interfere with legitimate citation editing. This is not new. A thorough search will discover complaints going back at least 12+ years, or ever since the introduction of the scheme in the defunct . Btw, the discussion on adding the metadata scheme (if memory serves, prompted by a request from Zotero-using editors) was minimal, as I recall. The problem is that COinS is based on OpenURL, which basically adds specific-content-location additions to a regular http address. Extraneous http artifacts will obviously generate unwanted results. It is incumbent on Wikipedia COinS to find a workable solution to that problem instead of limiting legitimate usage of templates that make editors' work easier. I've no idea what constituency of Wikipedia will agree to limit editors in favor of an external scheme, but it may be time to find out. Keeping also in mind that not all templates will generate COinS-based errors, which makes blanket statements about template use in citations somewhat arbitrary. Until Wikipedia COinS behaves, the suggestion of adding a switch to turn metadata off is an excellent one, and it should be implemented. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more difficult and time consuming to remove the rest of the junk that templates can add to a parameter value. This is not pertinent. Editors do not need templates to add junk to a parameter value, and the fact that it is indeed difficult to remove has nothing to do with this discussion. The main, longstanding issue is that COinS may interfere with legitimate citation editing. This is not new. A thorough search will discover complaints going back at least 12+ years, or ever since the introduction of the scheme in the defunct . Btw, the discussion on adding the metadata scheme (if memory serves, prompted by a request from Zotero-using editors) was minimal, as I recall. The problem is that COinS is based on OpenURL, which basically adds specific-content-location additions to a regular http address. Extraneous http artifacts will obviously generate unwanted results. It is incumbent on Wikipedia COinS to find a workable solution to that problem instead of limiting legitimate usage of templates that make editors' work easier. I've no idea what constituency of Wikipedia will agree to limit editors in favor of an external scheme, but it may be time to find out. Keeping also in mind that not all templates will generate COinS-based errors, which makes blanket statements about template use in citations somewhat arbitrary. Until Wikipedia COinS behaves, the suggestion of adding a switch to turn metadata off is an excellent one, and it should be implemented. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding the Index Theologicus
Hello. I think it would be a good idea to be able to add the Index Theologicus identifier to the templates the way the DOI and the JSTOR identifier are shown. For example, "IxTheo 158777335X" would be displayed with IxTheo hyperlinked and an URL at 158777335X linking to here; so it would look like: "IxTheo 158777335X". This would be useful for articles which do not have a DOI or a JSTOR identifier such as the one used in my example. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The templates support general parameters in general. If you would like to add this as an identifier for a given use, you may use id, possibly in combination with some formatting template (like exists today with doi). Izno (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think integrating this possibility directly as a parameter (as with JSTOR) would be more helpful, as I feel most people are really tech-savvy to think about the workaround you described (at least it is my case). Veverve (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It will probably help your case to compare ixtheo to special-purpose identifiers like pmid or ssrn or zbl. jstor and doi are general-purpose ids. I suppose that ixtheo would be considered if there was a critical mass of editors and/or citations that used it. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently 29 uses of it in mainspace.
 * Show that it needs to be supported in the template first, in other words, that one can expect it to be needed on thousands of pages. Izno (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IxTheo is an index of article, not an article host like JSTOR, so of course it is very unlikely to be used as an URL.
 * Could you describe in details what workaround would you used to display the IxTheo identifier within the template? Veverve (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer to my comment from 07:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC). Izno (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Tracking category for issue= without volume= in Template:Citation
Can we get a tracker for citations with hidden issue/number? such as AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * For onlookers, the above is . Izno (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The example is a bit vague. Is it a book? "Issue" is irrelevant. Is it a serial? "Work" is missing. And so on. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , is this a real or hypothetical problem? Cite journal with issue works fine, as does cite magazine . It is always useful to provide a real-world example and link to an article where it is or would be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen it a couple times. Some book series use number so people will use that instead of volume.  Here is an example:

One could argue that volume is the correct parameter. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concrete example. It seems like issue should be displayed in that citation; maybe that's the real problem (I really want to write "issue", but I am resisting the urge) here. There are workarounds, of course, like using cite journal with cs2, but there is no obvious way to know that a workaround is needed unless there is an error message or a tracking category. I would rather see issue displayed in citation in this situation, which would obviate the need for tracking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Metadata only supports issue in the periodical templates. The above example looks like a book that is number 17 of the series.  Converting to  (or  with journal) will cause series to be dropped from the metadata; it's only supported by book citations.  At jstor, the sequence number becomes part of the title so one might rewrite the above citation:
 * or:
 * If there is a great quantity of issue in book citation templates, we might want to treat them as we do 'ignored' chapter (and aliases) parameters. This search (times out) suggests that we might want to do that because it will help to catch other misuses of.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * or:
 * If there is a great quantity of issue in book citation templates, we might want to treat them as we do 'ignored' chapter (and aliases) parameters. This search (times out) suggests that we might want to do that because it will help to catch other misuses of.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a great quantity of issue in book citation templates, we might want to treat them as we do 'ignored' chapter (and aliases) parameters. This search (times out) suggests that we might want to do that because it will help to catch other misuses of.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The example is malformed. The correct parameter is volume not issue. These are terms with specific, longstanding meaning in publishing and bibliography. A book series consists of volumes. Book series volumes however may or may not consist of issues. In periodicals, "series" has a different meaning, and periodical series volumes almost always consist of issues. In book series, "issue" is never classified (and therefore cited) without the enclosing volume. So "volume" is the necessary value. In periodical series, "volume" is never classified without the included issues. So "issue" is the necessary value. Instead of arbitrarily redefining longstanding practice that is unrelated to citations, ensure that the citation system conforms, and the documentation is clear regarding how and why. This is a simple error, that is made more complicated by the use of citation, which does not explicitly signal the type of work to the editor. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Like pretty much every dogmatic statement that one might want to make about the structure that bibliographic metadata must have, this one is wrong. There are definitely periodicals that use "issue" or "number" without a "volume" or "tome" or "heft" or whatever you might call it, and other periodicals that use "volume" without an "issue" or equivalent. (I just took part in setting up a new journal. As part of the setup, we had to choose whether to use only volumes, or both volumes and issues. We ended up choosing both but we could easily have ended up with volumes only and no issues. If it did, you could lie and say that each issue is issue 1 of its volume, but that would be a lie made to get the data to fit your Procrustean framework rather than an accurate representation of the data.) There are also book series that use "volume" for the number of a book within that series, in which there exist multi-volume books that also use "volume" as the number of a volume within the book. I don't remember ever seeing a book series that called the numbering of the books within that series "issues" without a volume, but I would be unsurprised to see one that did. In the example The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language, the source clearly states that it is "number" 17 in its series, "Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications". My preference for that would be to pretend that it is really a volume number and set Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 17, but I can easily imagine that other editors would prefer to hue more closely to what the source actually says about its metadata. When they do, our templates should be prepared to handle it and do something reasonable rather than just dropping the number on the floor. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose long-standing industry practice is dogmatic as agreed by the practitioners. When book series are classified, the components are known as "volumes". These volumes may consist of sub-volumes/sub-parts, which subdivisions may be also called "issues", "volumes" (again), "parts", or whatever else. The important item among these, as far as classifying the work, and therefore finding it, is the volume. The vague "number" in this case means "volume number". When periodicals are classified, the important item is the issue. These may be collected in "volumes", "annuals", "collections" or whatever. But "series" in periodicals means something different, and is not related to "volume" etc. the way book series are. You can name your periodical issue anyway you want, including "volume" or "summer" or "orange". For purposes of classification (and eventual citation) that is still the issue. The vague "number" in this case means "issue number". So do not be surprised if your journal is classified by metadata providers as "issue: 'Volume 1, for example. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on updating modules has been closed
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1065848427#rfc:_shall_we_update_cs1/2? The RFC on whether to update the CS1 modules] has been closed as "There is support for most changes proposed, and they may be rolled out. There is support for most changes proposed, and they may be rolled out. There is also support for the idea that most typical changes to cs1/2 are uncontroversial and don't need to undergo routine VPR RfCs to be rolled out." The exception to the approved changes is this: "there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out."

The list of proposed changes at that RFC is copied here (from that page):

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox


 * detect generic author, editor, etc names; discussion
 * emit error when first is wikilinked; first=|discussion
 * add properties tracking category; discussion
 * revise how date month-name auto-translation is enabled; discussion and discussion
 * add support to allow editors to see citations that emit properties cats; 2_citations_that_emit_properties_categories|discussion
 * url-status without archive-url maint cat: ; discussion
 * more consistent support of type with ; discussion
 * check all but url-holding and insource-locator parameters for inappropriate urls; discussion
 * recognize stand-alone script-chapter in ; script-chapter=_(and_aliases)_without_|chapter=_(or_aliases)_not_recognized_in_cite_encyclopedia|discussion
 * fix flaw in ref-duplicates-default detection; discussion
 * added error summary preview; discussion
 * reworked error messaging; discussion
 * fix archive-url preview url; archive-url=_is_broken|discussion
 * tweaked IETF-like language handling; discussion
 * changed formatting of volume and issue for non-journals; discussion
 * moved  to ~/Utilities; discussion
 * detect leading '=' as extraneous punctuation; discussion

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox


 * detect generic author, editor, etc names
 * add Category:CS1 tracked parameter: $1 properties tracking category
 * remove support for unused isbn13 and ISBN13; discussion
 * remove support for previously deprecated parameters booktitle, chapterurl, episodelink, mailinglist, mapurl, nopp, publicationdate, publicationplace, serieslink, transcripturl
 * add support for,   language codes; discussion
 * revise how date month-name auto-translation is enabled
 * add support to allow editors to see citations that emit properties cats
 * removed reliance on ; discussion
 * url-status without archive-url maint cat: Category:CS1 maint: url-status
 * add support for ssrn-access; discussion
 * add  to  ;
 * more consistent support of type with
 * check all but url-holding and insource-locator parameters for inappropriate urls
 * add  to  ;
 * added bogus name "Verfasser" to the list; discussion
 * add keyword "deviated" to url-status; discussion
 * added preview error summary
 * added 'Login • Instagram' to generic titles;
 * removed,  , and   from language override
 * added comma between volume and number; discussion
 * added Mr. Privacy Statement, Ms. Cookie Policy and Dr. Submitted Content to list of bogus names; discussion
 * revise kerning; discussion
 * i18n script-&lt;param> error message supplements; script-&lt;param>=_error_message_supplements|discussion
 * added 'Usurped title' to generic titles; discussion
 * added add bogus names: 'author', 'collaborator', 'contributor', 'editor', 'interviewer', 'translator'; discussion

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox (last update 2021-05-25)


 * removed deprecated parameter transcripturl
 * deprecated lay-date, lay-format, lay-source, lay-url; discussion

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox


 * extend allowed dates in pmc-embargo-date validation to two years; pmc-embargo-date=_validation|discussion
 * revise month-name validation;
 * add support to allow editors to see citations that emit properties cats;

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox


 * add support for ssrn-access;
 * reworked error messaging;
 * fix false positive doi error detection; discussion
 * strip accept-this-as-written markup from all identifiers for metadata; discussion

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox (last update 2021-01-09)


 * add support to allow editors to see citations that emit properties cats;
 * reworked error messaging;
 * added  moved from main module;

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/COinS/sandbox


 * strip accept-this-as-written markup from title;

changes in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css (last update 2021-01-09)


 * Removed reliance on ;
 * Removed extra kerning classes;
 * Removed unused cs1-subscription/registration styles;
 * Moved  styles from MediaWiki:Common.css;
 * Removed  selector;

To me, it looks like the next step is to possibly restore the sandboxes to their state as of 28 November 2021 (I think; this is the original RFC posting date), then back out the removal of support for the deprecated parameters. I encourage editors here to look at this outcome as positive. Removal of long-deprecated parameters has been delayed, but that is not a big deal. We will get our first module update in at least half a year, with many updates and improvements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes since 28 November 2021:
 * Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox – – no change needed
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox – – no change needed
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox – no changes
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox – no changes
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox – no changes
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox – no changes
 * Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css – no changes
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox – no changes
 * In the above list, [removal of] support for previously deprecated parameters booktitle, chapterurl, episodelink, mailinglist, mapurl, nopp, publicationdate, publicationplace, serieslink, transcripturl is only listed under ~/Configuration. Those parameters were listed above because support for them was withdrawn at  to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (not by me).  Removal of those parameters from ~/Configuration merely completes the process.  Restoring them to ~/Configuration/sandbox will not make those parameters work again.
 * Apparently, no one has noticed that these parameters don't work. An example with chapterurl, nopp, publicationdate, and publicationplace:
 * You should see four Unknown parameter error messages; do you?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do see unknown parameter errors. I think that it would be foolish of us to ignore the explicit guidance in the RFC close, so IMO we should, even though it may seem dumb, restore those deleted parameters as deprecated, and then go through a brief discussion here to formally remove them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But didn't we already do that? See .  The close says: So I think there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out.  What kind of discussion?  Another RfC?  A discussion here on this page?  Something else?  Where?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That discussion was about deprecating them. We did that. AFAICT, we have not yet formally decided to remove (unsupport) those parameters, or if we did, the RFC overturned it and says that "further discussion" is necessary to perform that removal. Rather than fight the hurricane, we should restore the parameters as "deprecated", and then have a new discussion about changing them to "unsupported". I don't want to jump through these absurd hoops either, but WP is run by consensus, and sometimes it is better to jump through hoops than to bite and growl. The only damage we take will be to our sense of what is right; we can handle it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * since these parameters are not used anywhere, I see no reason to add them back in. While removal might have been an error, adding them back is yet another one.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason to add them back in is that the RFC close says that we have to. It's that simple. This is not a hill we should die on; let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater; choose your metaphor. It should be simple to put them back in as deprecated, have a brief discussion here about removing them, and then remove them. It's just jumping through a couple of hoops. Let's not let our wounded pride and self-righteousness cause long-term damage. To be clear: I think doing these steps is wrong and dumb, but it's our best way through. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Before this thread started, I had thought to do a sort-of status-quo update where the nonfunctional parameters would remain in ~/Configuration as they are now but not reinstate them in ~/Whitelist. Then, after some period of time, raise a discussion somewhere about removal of these vestiges of the deprecation (letting the sleeping-dog lie, as it were).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also see removal of one deprecated parameter listed in the Whitelist section. If we undid that change (I have done so in the Whitelist sandbox) and the change to Configuration, I think that would meet with the letter of the RFC close. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, transcripturl switches back to deprecated:
 * The others remain as unknown which is consistent with the current status quo:
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox supports these unknown parameters whereas the live Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions does not.
 * So the question now is: When do we do this update?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ASAP. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now. The RFC approved the list of changes, and above discussion has been up for almost four days. The only functional risk I can see in doing it now is that we are getting a new version of MediaWiki right about now as well, and it might be a bit tricky to tease out cause and effect if something goes a little pear-shaped. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The others remain as unknown which is consistent with the current status quo:
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox supports these unknown parameters whereas the live Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions does not.
 * So the question now is: When do we do this update?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ASAP. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now. The RFC approved the list of changes, and above discussion has been up for almost four days. The only functional risk I can see in doing it now is that we are getting a new version of MediaWiki right about now as well, and it might be a bit tricky to tease out cause and effect if something goes a little pear-shaped. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ASAP. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now. The RFC approved the list of changes, and above discussion has been up for almost four days. The only functional risk I can see in doing it now is that we are getting a new version of MediaWiki right about now as well, and it might be a bit tricky to tease out cause and effect if something goes a little pear-shaped. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record: the modules were updated per the discussion above on 22 January 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

|citation= is not a valid alias of: |quote=
Is there a valid reason? Does it need to be added to the aliases in the template to remove this error? The purpose of adding it as an alias here is to make easier to find, not to allow users to use as in the template. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, citation has never been a cs1|2 parameter. I do not know what you mean by: The purpose of adding it as an alias here is to make easier to find, not to allow users to use as in the template.  Clarify?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean easier to find among the other template parameters. But users shouldn't be allowed to use it as a parameter (in source mode) instead of quote=. The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk: can you confirm that it has to be added in the template first? Is that a policy or just how the error detection works right now? The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "I mean easier to find among the other template parameters" But it's not a parameter to begin with. Why would a non-existent parameter need to be 'easier to find' when it doesn't even exist? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, these terms have different meanings and cannot alias each other. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In cs1|2 an alias of a parameter is a fully functional parameter in its own right. For example, the canonical form page has an alias p so
 * and
 * produce the exact same rendering. Adding yet-another-alias to a template suite that already has too many aliases is too many aliases.  But, if there is a semantic value in the alias for an editor reading a cs1|2 template as wikitext then we might consider adding another alias.  It is not possible to have non-alias aliases in cs1|2.
 * If you are asking about that abomination that is TemplateData, then perhaps another venue would be more appropriate; I don't know what that venue might be.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indeed actually talking about TemplateData, I didn't notice that Template talk:Cite book/TemplateData redirects here. Sorry for the confusion this created with an actual parameter alias, which I specifically didn't want to create. I created this discussion after adding a TemplateData alias for |quote in Template:Cite_book/TemplateData, which you actually reverted afterward with the message "not an alias". The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * TemplateData can be confusing. The MediaWiki developers erroneously decided that it should live in templates' documentation, even though it is programming code that affects how the Visual Editor interacts with templates. By adding an alias to that template's TemplateData code, you were telling Visual Editor something that was untrue. That is why you were reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * produce the exact same rendering. Adding yet-another-alias to a template suite that already has too many aliases is too many aliases.  But, if there is a semantic value in the alias for an editor reading a cs1|2 template as wikitext then we might consider adding another alias.  It is not possible to have non-alias aliases in cs1|2.
 * If you are asking about that abomination that is TemplateData, then perhaps another venue would be more appropriate; I don't know what that venue might be.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indeed actually talking about TemplateData, I didn't notice that Template talk:Cite book/TemplateData redirects here. Sorry for the confusion this created with an actual parameter alias, which I specifically didn't want to create. I created this discussion after adding a TemplateData alias for |quote in Template:Cite_book/TemplateData, which you actually reverted afterward with the message "not an alias". The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * TemplateData can be confusing. The MediaWiki developers erroneously decided that it should live in templates' documentation, even though it is programming code that affects how the Visual Editor interacts with templates. By adding an alias to that template's TemplateData code, you were telling Visual Editor something that was untrue. That is why you were reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indeed actually talking about TemplateData, I didn't notice that Template talk:Cite book/TemplateData redirects here. Sorry for the confusion this created with an actual parameter alias, which I specifically didn't want to create. I created this discussion after adding a TemplateData alias for |quote in Template:Cite_book/TemplateData, which you actually reverted afterward with the message "not an alias". The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * TemplateData can be confusing. The MediaWiki developers erroneously decided that it should live in templates' documentation, even though it is programming code that affects how the Visual Editor interacts with templates. By adding an alias to that template's TemplateData code, you were telling Visual Editor something that was untrue. That is why you were reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Block reFill until fixed
Village_pump_(proposals) -- Green  C  21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Bump PMID limits to 4000000
To prevent these bogus errors &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Institution parm needs documentation
It's featured in the examples but not documented. I'm not confident that I could properly do it, myself. Leotohill (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Which examples? That parameter does not exist so far as I know. Izno (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist which has a note wondering if we should constrain that parameter to and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration as an alias of publisher.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's on the techreport examples. Weird how its talk page is this talk page, but anyway, the examples are there.  Leotohill (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All cs1 template talk pages redirect here. It's easier to have all discussion about the family of templates in a single place.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cite map
Another case of the false positives, though this one might warrant discussions. I'm getting errors for uses of cite map with a link in the "inset" parameter, which I thought to be valid. A few examples are at Interstate 90.  Sounder Bruce  02:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain a URL has never been supported in that parameter and there is also no documentation to that effect; I doubt when it was integrated into the module some 5 years ago that was discussed either. External links are almost exclusively supported in  parameters (the only exception is pages off the cuff). Izno (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be worth adding the support, as quite a few maps I use have separate pages for the main map and inset(s).  Sounder Bruce  03:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Bump S2CID limits to 250000000
To prevent bogus errors in cases like &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Error from URL in via
An article I monitor has this passage:

A 2020 analysis of the schools that send the most students per capita to the highest-ranked U.S. medical, business, and law schools placed the college 10th for medical schools, 16th for business schools, and 10th for law schools.

It started throwing an error message today because of the URLs in via. I want to keep the URLs, as they are far more accessible than the book. But I don't see another place to put URLs to webpages that reproduce the content on three cited pages in a book. Is there a better way to structure this, or if not, is there a way to suppress the error message? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest the id parameter which is intended for links, unlike via which is not. Someone else might have a better idea. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to do that, as these aren't IDs, so it'd be a misuse of that parameter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now looked closer and at the URLs and ID is less than ideal - still better than via. Seems like each link is a different reference or kind of like a chapter/section of the same reference.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, abusing chapter also throws an error, since it's looking for me to use chapter-url instead. Maybe I'll just turn it into three refs so I can do that. That'll also allow better archiving, which as GoingBatty pointed out is a concern for something with annual updates. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found another solution, which is to use at. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * at is also not appropriate. That is for an in-source location. Izno (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Are you citing what you read in the book, or what you read on the web pages?  There's also a difference between 2020 archive of https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school and the current web page, so the Wikipedia article might have to be updated each year.  GoingBatty (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoingBatty, both. I appreciate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT but I wanted to include the book to help indicate that there's a publisher standing behind the work.
 * Looking at Help:Citation Style 1, via isn't currently supported. Could that be changed? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Via has one job - to describe the url. If one is going to abuse a parameter, id is historically the one abused, but as noted above, that is less than perfect. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , a citation template is meant for one citation, and is explicitly for "see also" links internal to the citation (we have in fact recently deprecated the lay-* parameters, which were hacked on in similar fashion). If these are of value, they should be in separate citation templates so they can be fully described for the appropriate reader. Izno (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Izno, thanks; I've split it into three citations (and also undid for the "editorial" thing above). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Surname vs last
Would it be considered valuable to convert surname/given to last/first on pages that contain a mix of both types. One of the tasks of citation bot has always been "harmonize" styles. Surname is used on a tiny fraction of a percent of pages compared to last/first. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this should be asked at WP:VP? I believe that is where CS1/2 development is discussed. First you would need an RfC to ascertain whether this is an uncontroversial change. If it is controversial a second RfC can decide its merits. Not joking, btw. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be against this change. Particularly if it were applied to an article that consistently used surname/given but had had a ref with last/first added. Kanguole 14:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing one alias or supported parameter name to a different alias or supported parameter name that is functionally equivalent will get you drawn and quartered in the public square if you get caught doing it, as we saw when we tried to deprecate accessdate and its five remaining unhyphenated siblings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it would would want to only be done if there was an overwhelming majority of first/last. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid argument when it comes to CS1/2, as Jonesey95 has suggested. Hence the earlier WP:VP proposition. Discussions here are more "theoretical", as in, what would actually happen if software development was unrelated to petulance. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've started doing this. Please stop. Kanguole 20:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I am only doing it on ones with a clearly dominant style. Although my method of counting had a bug, which resulted in a couple pages, with a majority, but not massive majority being done.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even so, you need to establish consensus to do this. Kanguole 20:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * CITVAR encourages converting the minority to match the majority, although my counter was off which resulted in a couple of minority wins. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * CITEVAR does not justify changing between parameter aliases – you need consensus for that. Kanguole 20:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It always amazes me what causes the most trouble on Wikipedia land. Flat-earthers get more respect than minor-editors 😀🤣😂.   I will not do such edits again. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that you weren't marking such edits as minor. Some editors get concerned with edits that flood their watchlist that don't change how the article is displayed.  GoingBatty (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * of course, then I would be accused of trying to hid them as "minor". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Standardizing parameter names is clearly a (minimally) valuable activity. There is a group of editors, however, who feel negatively about the addition of diffs to their watchlists caused by this sort of editing to improve CITEVAR consistency, and their view is that the negative value of their watchlist having more entries outweighs the positive value of the citation parameter improvements. That's the state of things as of last year, in any event. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it really as of last year? Seems like a continuing practice. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cite journal pages
The documentaion for cite journal in the TemplateData section indicates page and pages uses p. or pp. but this is not correct. Is there a way to get this to show as there is a no-pp to supress it? Keith D (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ?? There is a "no pp" param defined in TemplateData, further down. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * no-pp suppresses the 'p.' or 'pp.' annotation in a rendered citation:
 * Nothing wrong with the page, pages, no-pp text in.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe KeithD is concerned that the current rendering of pages in cite journal (default yes) should be made more explicit in TemplateData. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, Mea culpa. In  no-pp is ignored:
 * So, the no-pp entry in may (should) be removed.  Further, for page, the 'documentation' text might be changed from:
 * Page in the source that supports the content; displays after 'p.'
 * to:
 * Page in the source that supports the content; displays after a colon-space pair
 * and for pages, the 'documentation' text might be changed from:
 * Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source; displays after 'pp.'
 * to:
 * Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source); displays after a colon-space pair
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am looking for is a way to display p. or pp. when using cite journal, as bots modify cite magazine to cite journal thus loosing the p. or pp. which is there for consistency in article. Keith D (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent update to the cs1|2 module suite normalized volume, issue, page(s) parameter renderings for non-journal citations (which see). Journal citations continue with the style used for academic/scholarly journals.
 * If a bot is changing to  when the source is not an academic or scholarly journal, then the issue should be taken up with the bot's operators/maintainers.  If a bot is changing  to  when the source  an academic or scholarly journal, then the bot is doing the correct thing.   should not be used to cite academic or scholarly journals; use  for such citations.  The reverse is also true:  should not be used to cite general readership periodicals; use  for such citations.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that just using a page or pages just gives a single number which a reader has no idea that it is a page number. You need a way of getting the p. or pp. show to claify what the number is and to make the cite style consistent in an article, regardless of the template used. Using no would solve the problem or a new parameter to allow the output. Keith D (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Real life example please?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be about
 * the East Riding News in Brandesburton, Beverley and Holderness (UK Parliament constituency), Woodmansey and Middleton on the Wolds, and
 * The Times (Hull and Lincolnshire Times) in Welwick.
 * Those are magazines or newspapers rather than journals. Kanguole 21:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The consistency you apparently desire is not one that we have had issues with in the general, and certainly has not been an issue at e.g. FAC. Fundamental rule: Use the template the name of which matches the source you're citing and let the template do the rest.
 * Now, it might be reasonable to flip cite journal to render like the other templates, but we recently discussed that as pointed to by Ttm above ("which see"). If you would prefer that end goal, you can start another discussion specifically for cite journal (which we left as a possible future path therein), but I anticipate that will need to be an RFC. Izno (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that just using a page or pages just gives a single number which a reader has no idea that it is a page number. You need a way of getting the p. or pp. show to claify what the number is and to make the cite style consistent in an article, regardless of the template used. Using no would solve the problem or a new parameter to allow the output. Keith D (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Real life example please?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be about
 * the East Riding News in Brandesburton, Beverley and Holderness (UK Parliament constituency), Woodmansey and Middleton on the Wolds, and
 * The Times (Hull and Lincolnshire Times) in Welwick.
 * Those are magazines or newspapers rather than journals. Kanguole 21:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The consistency you apparently desire is not one that we have had issues with in the general, and certainly has not been an issue at e.g. FAC. Fundamental rule: Use the template the name of which matches the source you're citing and let the template do the rest.
 * Now, it might be reasonable to flip cite journal to render like the other templates, but we recently discussed that as pointed to by Ttm above ("which see"). If you would prefer that end goal, you can start another discussion specifically for cite journal (which we left as a possible future path therein), but I anticipate that will need to be an RFC. Izno (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Page parameter in Template:Cite journal
The "page has extra text" error is visible in situations like this:

The error also shows for p. 15, page 15, pages 15–19, and other varieties as expected.

However, it does NOT show an error for uppercase "Page" or "Pages":





And I checked the sandbox, just to be sure:





Would it be possible and reasonable to adjust the module to also identify these as errors? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Long-time known deficiency that will one-day get fixed. Today is not that day.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, this:
 * is
 * and,
 * is
 * There! (Almost)-instant fake "cite magazine". 50.74.109.2 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * is
 * There! (Almost)-instant fake "cite magazine". 50.74.109.2 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There! (Almost)-instant fake "cite magazine". 50.74.109.2 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There! (Almost)-instant fake "cite magazine". 50.74.109.2 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatting change to issue parameter breaking stuff
One of the changes in the recent update (I think this one) has caused problems. Some magazine instances have e.g. Fall 2020, which I had understood to be acceptable usage, and which previously displayed as Smith, Bob. "Title". Foobar Magazine (Fall 2020). Publisher. p. 4. They now display as Smith, Bob. "Title". Foobar Magazine. No. Fall 2020. Publisher. p. 4. It's not possible to enter "Fall 2011" into any of the date parameters, and some magazines use that system instead of numbers. How should we resolve this? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Formatting of volume/issue/page for has not changed.  It's not possible to enter "Fall 2011" into any of the date parameters  Why do you think that?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Formatting of volume/issue/page for has not changed. Hmm, maybe cite magazine was always that way, as I just converted the ref to that from cite news today. But I checked against an archived screenshot and it definitely did change from putting the issue in parentheses to putting it after a "No." that isn't always applicable. An issue name isn't always a number.
 * And hmm, I thought CS1 yelled at you for putting something it sees as a non-date in a date field, but I guess not. It's still questionable on MOS:SEASON grounds. The main point remains: An issue name isn't always a number, and this change forces it to be, potentially breaking thousands of articles that haven't been using it as such. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The "issue name" cannot be satisfactorily resolved without a dedicated parameter, but one has to measure its utility vs. increasing complexity and bloat. Empirically, a small minority of periodicals use issue names. A good number of those use "special" date-names such as seasons, holidays etc. Many reference resources also classify such issues by (scheduled) publication date. A biblio provider may also classify the "Summer 2022" issue as dated June 2022 if this is when the magazine is expected/scheduled to be published. So the cited source can be found by the publication date. I believe that CS1/CS2 strikes a good balance by allowing the date-name in date. Yet one more issue-related parameter such as "issue-name" seems overkill. And, if you can use an actual date in date or/and an actual issue number you can also add something like this:
 * 71.105.141.131 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The "issue name" cannot be satisfactorily resolved without a dedicated parameter, but one has to measure its utility vs. increasing complexity and bloat. Empirically, a small minority of periodicals use issue names. A good number of those use "special" date-names such as seasons, holidays etc. Many reference resources also classify such issues by (scheduled) publication date. A biblio provider may also classify the "Summer 2022" issue as dated June 2022 if this is when the magazine is expected/scheduled to be published. So the cited source can be found by the publication date. I believe that CS1/CS2 strikes a good balance by allowing the date-name in date. Yet one more issue-related parameter such as "issue-name" seems overkill. And, if you can use an actual date in date or/and an actual issue number you can also add something like this:
 * 71.105.141.131 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 71.105.141.131 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Handle rtl names
If I made citation to Arabic book like

The commas direction is left-to-right but the text is right-to-left in "أبو حيان الغرناطي," and "رجب عثمان محمد;". We can not change the commas in Configuration file to be right-to-left because we use the same templates to cite English books.

So I suggest 2 sets of separator configurations one for default left-to-right and another to right-to-left and using is_rtl function of Module:Unicode data to determine the direction of the name and putting the right separator.--حبيشان (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have moved your question to a page where it may be answered. --Izno (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about replacing  and   with their Arabic versions:   (U+‎060C ARABIC COMMA) and   (U+‎061B ARABIC SEMICOLON)?  ar:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration specifies   (U+‎0648 ARABIC LETTER WAW) as the separator used in lists.
 * I'm not sure that using Module:Unicode data is the best plan. Instead, because Lua is a native Latn-script language, it might be sufficient to do a simple   function that uses the built-in  .  Any Latn-script letter character would be sufficient to force cs1|2 to use Latn-script separator characters otherwise use the local language's separator characters which would be specified in ~/Configuration.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, But using  making the template universal. English Wikipedia may cite Arabic Book also Arabic Wikipedia cite English books how about citing 	Cyrillic, Thai or Chinese in Arabic Wikipedia these are not Latin-scripts but left-to-right?  --حبيشان (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, But using  making the template universal. English Wikipedia may cite Arabic Book also Arabic Wikipedia cite English books how about citing 	Cyrillic, Thai or Chinese in Arabic Wikipedia these are not Latin-scripts but left-to-right?  --حبيشان (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

English variants
I believe we made a change which makes it easier to display variants. This has had the knock on effect for English as well, which we normally hide.


 * ... set to English
 * ... set to English

We should probably hide the English variant as well. Izno (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed in sandbox I think:
 * ... set to zh-hans
 * ... set to en
 * ... set to en-us
 * ... set to es, en-us, de
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The adjustment that went out isn't catching unrecognized English codes; 21st New Zealand Parliament has en-NZ (New Zealand English) and .africa has en-ZA (South African English). I know you fiddled a bit with the implementation and from my glance earlier it looked like you were processing after transformation to the plain English name of the language. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From the examples above, MediaWiki recognizes :
 * but, MediaWiki does not recognize :
 * Because  is not recognized by MediaWiki, Module:Citation/CS1 declares it an unknown language and emits the maint cat and message; it does not extract the primary subtag for a retry.  This is the problem that I have described below.  Working on that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we should process the trimmed code's version if there is a subcode and the subcode is not yet recognized? If this checks true emit the trimmed version's language as well as a Category:CS1 maint: trimmed language or similar, and only if false proceed on to unrecognized. Izno (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that to categorize every unrecognized language/region pair is probably not a good idea until visual editor stops writing those unrecognized tags (, , etc).  These kinds of tags make up the majority of the articles listed in.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're agreeing with me? The results below seem to indicate it. Izno (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that we should have some sort of category.  Otherwise, I think we agree.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that we should have some sort of category.  Otherwise, I think we agree.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Came here to post about this. Looking forward to the fix! czar 21:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just English. Before the update, there were 109 articles with unrecognized languages. Now:. Apparently, visual editor adds region subtags to every language subtag whether needed or not. Apparently, ve sometimes makes up nonsense IETF-like language tags:  Spanish as spoken in Lao People's Democratic Republic (see ). As a guess, I suppose that  was supposed to mean Latin America but the subtag for that is   (see IANA language-subtag-registry file). MediaWiki recognizes  but not  :

It seems that ve gives every language subtag some sort of region subtag even when there is no need for the region subtag. Samples of the many many tags not recognized by MediaWiki:
 * ←  – German as spoken in Germany
 * ←  – Swedish as spoken in Sweden
 * ←  – Marathi as spoken in India

All of these and the many many others are categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language because MediaWiki does not recognize these tags as valid.

It is desirable to recognize regionally differentiated languages when they are supported by MediaWiki:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewritten in the sandbox:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Live updated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Redlink category on Help:CS1 errors
Could someone please replace or remove the redlink Category:CS1 tracked parameters at Help:CS1 errors? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * created with some draft text. Editors are welcome to flesh out the description there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Cite wikisource § Multiple scan pages?
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite wikisource § Multiple scan pages?. &#x0020;Also, should that talk page be merged to here? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the citation system was properly documented, the documentation for editors and readers would have appropriate help pages and the doc for this template should be merged in the respective pages. The technical documentation (for developers) would be in different pages because the peculiarities of cite wikisource utilize native MW scripting, not Lua. This includes the scan parameter, which right now can be called once per template, with guidance to apply a single value (therefore not multiple scan targets). 65.254.10.26 (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Example template suggestions
For author, editor roles following generic-name changes. As you can see they work, for now. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
 * 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

cite conference date/place written, presented, published
What is the proper markup for indicating all three datees and places in cite conference:
 * 1) Date and place the authors wrote the paper
 * 2) Date and place the authors presented the paper at the conference
 * 3) Publication date and place for the conference proceedings

Also, should conference include Proceeding of or a similar prefix, ot just the name of the conference itself? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of most importance is publication date and location (along with publisher). title is the title of the authors' paper, book-title is the collection of papers (often titled Proceedings ...).  conference is free-form so can hold the name, dates, and location of the conference (if not already part of book-title.  Where and when the authors wrote a paper that is presented at a conference seems to me of little value when an en.wiki reader is looking for a copy of that paper.  You are citing a published paper in a proceedings so the basics are the same as if you were citing a chapter in a book or an entry in an encyclopedia.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only one that's important is the publisher's location. The others are not bibliographically important, though in many cases the title of the book/proceedings will include the location of the confrence. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at VPT involving Cite Encyclopedia
See. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:CS1 Latin American Spanish-language sources (es)
I am seeing this redlinked category showing up at the bottom of Huaynaputina. As far as I know lang does not produce such a category with the parameters of the page, but perhaps someone here knows why it's showing up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This citation has es-419 which MediaWiki interprets as  → .  cs1|2 takes language names from MediaWiki.
 * Category created. But some work still needed to include all parts of the language tag in the category name.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Finding cite errors
When editing kernel (operating system), I get the message "Script warning: ; messages may be hidden (help). " and the hidden category CS1 errors: missing periodical. I can't find a broken cite journal; the Mark I Eyeball shows a journal for every cite journal. How do I associate the error message with the relevant markup? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The issue is the "Hansen, Per Brinch (2001)" reference in the "Sources" section.  It's hard to find if you look through the source code because it uses cite paper, which is a redirect to cite journal.  I also suggesting alphabetizing the "Sources" section.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Was the (help) link in the preview message box not helpful? If not, why not?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The help link did not provide context. When I followed, it landed on the first section of Help:CS1 errors. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The help link did not provide context. When I followed, it landed on the first section of Help:CS1 errors. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

templates have maintenance messages
Many pages now display the message Script warning: One or more templates have maintenance messages in the preview. For example nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and COVID-19 vaccine. The help page is not useful. What are the maintenance messages? Why don't they appear in preview mode. On the Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and COVID-19 vaccine pages there are also the messages Script warning: One or more templates have errors and again I don't see any messages in the preview. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you click the link at the end of the message? It should explain. What did you not understand about it if you did? Izno (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It says there that error messages are visible to all readers but there aren't any error messages shown. It also states users should make some changes to view the maintenance messages. That is a hurdle that should not be necessary. The maintenance messages should be visible in preview. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * On Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, do you see the messages/errors in references  #32 #31 and #34? On COVID-19 vaccine, do you see the messages/errors in references #99 & #189 & #208?  GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there are no messages/errors for those references. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the image on the right help you? Nirmatrelvir and COVID-19 errors.jpg and COVID-19 vaccine]]
 * I know editors have to include text in their CSS file to see the green maintenance messages. Do users who haven't changed their CSS file see Script warning: One or more templates have maintenance messages ?  GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of those. When I edit/preview the COVID-19 drug development article I see the message next to citation #19 about : Cite uses deprecated parameter but I don't see any other messages. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The message for citation #34 states that cite journal requires a journal but the citation is a cite document. It looks like the citation bot changed cite web to cite document --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since cite document redirects to cite journal, which requires the journal parameter, I submitted User talk:Citation bot to ask them to stop converting the citation templates from cite web to cite document. GoingBatty (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , Any thoughts on why some of the red error messages appear (e.g. lay-url) but not others (e.g. missing journal param)? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Missing journal parameter particularly is a hidden error. Lay-url is not. Izno (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I tried to include the relevant text in my CSS file to see the green maintenance messages, but it wouldn't accept a change in either my common.css or skin.css. (No change seen after the attempted edit.)  --David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you couldn't change your CSS file, or you successfully changed your CSS file but you don't see any difference in articles after making the change? If it's the latter, you might need to purge your browser cache.  GoingBatty (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The former. On trying to add that text to the CSS file, the "Changes" button shows no change, or saving then looking at the history shows no edit.  --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are talking about User:David Biddulph/common.css? Perhaps an editor with interface editing privileges can help.  Ping @User:Izno.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have sufficient CSS already in User:David Biddulph/common.css: . Your CSS needs no further change. In A_Different_Kind_of_Weather for example, you should see a green message after (current) citation 4 to The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Izno (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The preview messages (in the yellow box) are visible to anyone, logged-in or not.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the preview messages are a great way to help users who might otherwise not notice the red errors which everyone should be able to see, but may be buried in the references section. However, I suggest the preview messages only include the green maintenance messages for those who have added the CSS to see the messages after each citation template.  GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review the instituting discussion; I don't recall if that came up but I feel like it might have when I tried to use the standard classes for such things (and then was reverted? memory is bad). Izno (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

any help here? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And for those who don't know what we're talking about here, see this, which is what is shown upon previewing the current version of Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the same issue as in ? 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but not just yet.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW - it also happens when previewing an edit on CareCloud. The specific cite errors are not being shown, but the alerts are. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I like the new "... templates have maintenance messages" in the preview. It should alert editors if they introduce a maintenance issue. I have changed my CSS style sheet several times to see more messages when editing. I understand why there are different levels of messaging BUT I do not know what the levels are or how the messages are assigned to a level. I just realized the processing of cite templates changed. The process for changing and implementing templates is unknown to me. I just discovered there is a new url-status= value, "deviated". I will now need to reread the documentation (hope it has been updated). I attribute most of my frustration to differences in the way I and other (some, most) editors think. User-duck (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC) PS: I find the new "generic name" messages frustrating, why are they an "error" (red), too many false positives, Ed is a perfectly valid first name. I will not work on a category with 30,000+ entries, obviously not important enough for editors and too general to efficiently tackle. User-duck (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll give an example. Alan Shepard has "Script warning: messages may be hidden (help)."
 * Since what the nature of the error is is unknown, the message should not have been emitted. It must therefore represent an internal error in the CS1 code, and needs to be removed from it. (Where the faux error occurs is also unknown.) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly.
Sub-head: There are many genuinely free-standing documents that are not web pages and not reports.

An article that I watch (Backslash) cites some old documents that just happen to be accessible by https. They are PDFs. They are not journals, they are not reports, tech or otherwise, they are not web pages. They are documents. Take this one for example: Almost as a general principle, if the target is a pdf, then it is a document not a web page. The fact that (currently) we use http[s] to access the host directory is just coincidental: a while back we would have used FTP. Would anyone have suggested a template:cite ftp? (rhetorical question, they probably would).

The solution is simple: copy cite report changing "(report)" to "(document)".

raised this here in June last (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 77 ) and got a fatuous reply that I'm amazed they accepted. Pinging who previously complained at template talk:cite document and  who proposed that the redirect include R with possiblities. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I had replied to the user in the archived discussion. I thought I explained the issue, and if one finds the reply "fatuous", I can't help it.
 * Again, though, citations involve only published material. Therefore the publishing media are important. If the document was originally published online, by a website, that is how the citation editor should present it as. Notice that in this case the pdf icon gives further info about the source format, which also has its own dedicated parameter. A reader following such citation is looking for a webpage which embeds or links to a pdf document. That last technical detail is minor. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 71.247.146.98 - How would you suggest we cite the 1930s document mentioned above? How would you suggest we cite it if we did not have a URL?  GoingBatty (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My first reaction was to cite the document as a periodical because 'Bulletin 125 issue 2'. But that doesn't work because no periodical name.  So that makes me wonder if a wrapper template around  isn't a better solution.  An example (using  because it's handy and will serve as a crude demonstration – ignore the 'Lay summary in: ' prefix):
 * I left out ii because there is no page ii in the document; also date of the change-notice is not the date of the document
 * In a real version of the wrapper template, Document would be set internally; all other parameters are whatever an editor would want them to be.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the use of cite report. But this is not a lay source, it is from the actual manufacturer. So no need for a wrapper. I would also use loose leaf based on the visible perforations of the original. 65.88.88.47 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would that be impossibly editor-friendly? The proposal by is exactly what we need. The only problem is what to call it... Let me think... Oh, I've got it. Cite document. Trappist, have a Leffe on me. So how do we make this happen? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are over 9000 articles that transclude . Spend some time looking at other uses of  to make sure that a new  template is appropriate to the vast majority of uses.  We should not rely on a sample size of one.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Yes, I realise the minefield involved in recycling the name precipitously. So I how about giving it a temporary name like cite document2, then ask our friendly batch runners at User talk:Citation bot (who have been working through that list already, converting to cite journal or cite web) to add this as a third option of the conversion. When it is all done, another bot run could discard the suffix. I will now drop a message there to ask if this is doable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are over 9000 articles that transclude . Spend some time looking at other uses of  to make sure that a new  template is appropriate to the vast majority of uses.  We should not rely on a sample size of one.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Yes, I realise the minefield involved in recycling the name precipitously. So I how about giving it a temporary name like cite document2, then ask our friendly batch runners at User talk:Citation bot (who have been working through that list already, converting to cite journal or cite web) to add this as a third option of the conversion. When it is all done, another bot run could discard the suffix. I will now drop a message there to ask if this is doable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Yes, I realise the minefield involved in recycling the name precipitously. So I how about giving it a temporary name like cite document2, then ask our friendly batch runners at User talk:Citation bot (who have been working through that list already, converting to cite journal or cite web) to add this as a third option of the conversion. When it is all done, another bot run could discard the suffix. I will now drop a message there to ask if this is doable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 71.247.146.98 "Fatuous" might have been a little cruel, perhaps "mathematically trivial". In essence it said "it is what it is, because that is how it is".
 * To return to my example, the document was first published in 1938 as field support bulletin, on paper, possibly as a pamphlet or maybe just pages clipped together. Not a book, a document. It has been scanned and reproduced online, as PDF. In this case (as in many) the medium is not the message; in fact the medium is as irrelevant as whether it was first composed using a pen or a pencil, which typewriter was used to type it up and which kind of printing press used to print it.
 * Since hard cases make bad law, I would argue that any document distributed (or accessed) as a .pdf is not a web page. It is not formatted like a web page, it doesn't use HTML. In fact its only connection with web technology is the ubiquitous nature of the WWW as an easy distribution method. In fact I have seen quite a few PDFs that are clearly camera ready copy, complete with crop lines and colour balance verification marks in the outer margins.
 * I know wp:other stuff exists, but why is it reasonable to have cite technical report but no support for the far more common generic document? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we not split hairs? If a document is published online, that is what it is. The format is recognized because the publishing platform can accommodate various types of documents, pretty much like a printing facility can bound hardcover, softcover, leather etc. It was not suggested that cite web be used indiscriminately. Per the documentation, it should be used for online material when other options have been excluded. In the particular case, Trappist suggested a solution above, using cite report. 65.88.88.47 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If any hair splitting is being done, look in the mirror. The online-ness or otherwise of the document is entirely irrelevant, as I have already explained: the medium is not the message. I guess we shall just have to agree to differ and regard the argument as moot [en-us] given TtM's proposal. What is important now is to get it realised into a formal template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with . How could I properly cite a piece of paper kept in a folder on a shelf in a library (such a document does comply with WP:PUBLISHED). For that matter please cite the original United States Declaration of Independence - not some schoolbook copy, the actual document currently located at the National Archives in Washington DC. It can't be done correctly with CS1!
 * The "say where you got it" rule requires editors to properly cite the exact version they actually used. Substituting a potentially degraded umpteenth-generation copy in the citation just because it conveniently happens to be in a published book or website is not correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason for citations is discovery of a source, any source, that will verify wikitext. The editor has to structure the citation the way a user will find it, as they themselves found it originally. The type of citation used, whether templated or not, is immaterial. Whether one uses concerns only other editors and has nothing to do with the provenance of the source. When a source is online, other questions arise. Who put it there? If it's not the original publisher, how reliable is the publisher in this instance? If it's not an original, how accurate is the copy? And so on. I have no problem with a "cite document" citation, as long as it conforms to the general requirements about sources: that they are published as standalone items, that they are available, that are pertinent to wikitext and that they are reliable. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been more than a few citations when I've looked through the "cite journal needs journal" error category where a "cite document" or an adjusted (merged?) "cite report" is needed.
 * My worry is that legitimate issues of the same "missing journal" sort in journal/magazine/conference or encyclopedia citations will simply be worked around with such a "cite document" template, when that is suboptimal for overall citation health.
 * I do not find the "it's not HTML" argument persuasive as to why a "cite document" with a URL cannot use cite web instead. Izno (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it will be interesting to see whether a "document" citation class has any traction, or whether it will be just additional clutter in the sense that such citations could be perfectly well presented as reports, books/pamphlets, journal articles, webpages etc. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So cite web is a better solution? And you don't address documents that have no online presence?
 * My proposal at user talk:CitationBot is that batch runs to analyse existing cite document should try first to identify if the citation is a journal, then if it is credibly a document (such as a pdf or no URL given) and anything else goes to cite web.
 * I'm not at all convinced that there are many cases of anyone lazily using cite document rather than cite journal for serious academic journals but a bot can readily identify URLs that match one of the major journal publishers.
 * Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and do nothing, which is worst of all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced that there are many cases of anyone lazily using cite document rather than cite journal for serious academic journals but a bot can readily identify URLs that match one of the major journal publishers.
 * I hate pulling the "I've been there, done that" card out, but trust me, people will work around citation module requirements in the looniest of ways (just review some of the workarounds Sdkb tried to use in [in good faith, to boot]). This one isn't even loony in how easily it could go from "there's no journal in the citation? let me cite it as a document no-problem" and/or some enterprising semi-automated editor/bot runner deciding "oh, I know the easiest way to clear this error category! it's just to replace cite journal with cite document" (and yes, there is a specific user who did exactly that with a larger error category than the "missing journal" category and the fix was not an appropriate judgement). Izno (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And you don't address documents that have no online presence?, please review my first sentence: There have been more than a few citations when I've looked through the "cite journal needs journal" error category where a "cite document" or an adjusted (merged?) "cite report" is needed.
 * It plainly expresses support for a template that does something like what cite document should do.
 * So cite web is a better solution? For web-based citations, I think it ; the majority if not all the parameters a cite document would have are already in cite web. This is why I think I probably support, if cite document exists, that it should be the only template currently to accept URL parameters as a way to discourage such. But this idea can be open for discussion, because I'd hate to introduce an exception to how the CS1 system works. Izno (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So presumably you'd rather we all went back to citation and forget all this easy-to-use stuff for snowflake editors? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That presumption is wrong. Sources can and may be classified by medium/type, and such classes can and may be represented in custom forms (templates) for a variety of reasons. Is a "document" class necessary and viable? That presupposes that documents are distinct sources and not parts of other sources ("in-source locations" in ugly citation jargon). For the same reason there is a "journal" class and not an "article" class. For citation purposes, a journal article is meaningless as a standalone item; the published source is the journal, and contains the item in question. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 30, the size of the problem with existing [ab]use of cite document is substantial so I guess that work to sort out that mess will have to take priority. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I ran into another instance of this today where someone tried to "fix" a cite document citing a free-standing unpublished scientific paper by replacing it with cite report, causing the displayed citation to incorrectly include the text "(Report)" in the citation. Cite document should be made to work. We should not be required to pretend that citations are something they are not in order to make them error-free. In this case I replaced it by citation with cs1, so that at least it is using a generic template-type and still formatting as CS1. The actual formatting for this replacement makes it look like a book, in that the title is italicized, but that seems less problematic than explicitly calling it a book using cite book or formatting it as a periodical or report. I agree with the original post: cite document should be made to work. The generic case of citations is a case we need. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

website or publisher parameter
Hi all.. May i know which parameter should be used in this news:, "website=Badminton World Federation" or "publisher=Badminton World Federation"? Stvbastian (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that cite press release is better, if the original is live. If it is not live, your source is the archive. Use cite web with Wayback Machine. The publisher of that website is the Internet Archive. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Never put Wayback Machine in website. Ever. Use the original website name, which is Badminton World Federation. Izno (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. If the information is found in an web archive, not at the original website, that is what goes in the citation. That is how the reader will verify it, by visiting the archive's website. The archive is the work that contains the pertinent info. Your suggestion goes against any notion of citing verifiable information. Paramount is to show where the editor found the information, not where it may have existed some time in the past. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your particular opinion on the use of archives is known not to match the community's. give advice framed generally which does not. Izno (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion has nothing to do with the use of archives. It has to do with actual, real-world verifiability of a citation. The WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT guideline regarding second-hand sources is a mess of contradiction and assumptions, especially regarding web-based archives. Plus even that badly-worded guideline does not forbid citing such archives; it presumes that one does not need to. There is even the added qualification, "So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, ..." This is worse than CS1 documentation. Luckily, WP:V being a policy, trumps the vague nonsense. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd use cite press release with publisher (as "Badminton World Federation" does not need to be italicized), and include the live URL and archive-URL, like this:
 * GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is also incorrect. If a citation with the live URL pre-existed, but the URL is now dead, one may add the archive-related parameters. This is an editing convenience, rather than having to reformat/rewrite the citation. It is also true in the sense that the original had been visited when it was live. However, if this is a new citation with an archived URL, using the now dead original is misleading. The editor never actually found the information in the original website. It was found in a web archive that contains it. The verifiability of the wikitext depends on the archive website, not the original. The reliability of the cited information depends first, on the reliability of the archive. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The live URL is not dead - try clicking the link. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then your solution is fine. I followed the link given by the OP, which lands at the Wayback Machine. Also searched the section "News" on the BWF website, but found nothing prior to 2019. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The website and work parameters are useful in determining the reliability of the source only if they refer to the original web site, not to the archival site. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that so in fact? Or is it a convenient shortcut to consider archive services automatically reliable? Consider that this discussion is about online sources, which may be subject to change. These online sources are then archived via other online resources whose particulars may also be subject to change. Isn't it prudent to examine such relationships more closely and refrain from making blanket statements about reliability? Are even all online archive services of online sources similar in methodology? And how do any differences in archiving methodology affect an archive's validity and/or reliability? There are some aspects to consider. And then there are other questions, of a more technical sort. 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The website and work parameters are useful in determining the reliability of the source only if they refer to the original web site, not to the archival site. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that so in fact? Or is it a convenient shortcut to consider archive services automatically reliable? Consider that this discussion is about online sources, which may be subject to change. These online sources are then archived via other online resources whose particulars may also be subject to change. Isn't it prudent to examine such relationships more closely and refrain from making blanket statements about reliability? Are even all online archive services of online sources similar in methodology? And how do any differences in archiving methodology affect an archive's validity and/or reliability? There are some aspects to consider. And then there are other questions, of a more technical sort. 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is "Houser" a generic |last= name?
I recently encountered an erroneous warning at the Super Mario 64 article. Can someone explain why we have "Houser" listed as a generic name? I have suppressed the error for now. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * if I were to guess, I'd say that  contains within it the word , which is a generic name. If so, this would be a false positive.  Imzadi 1979   →   17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So we're using regex to detect generic names? — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For the most part, no. Simple string.find because it's faster and for most of the generic names is sufficient.  For 'user' and 'superuser', Lua patterns.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that↑. I've tweaked the sandbox some:
 * Also changed 'super' to various flavors of 'super user' because Super is also a surname:
 * Later this weekend, I update the live module.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also changed 'super' to various flavors of 'super user' because Super is also a surname:
 * Later this weekend, I update the live module.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also changed 'super' to various flavors of 'super user' because Super is also a surname:
 * Later this weekend, I update the live module.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Later this weekend, I update the live module.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Later this weekend, I update the live module.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

add "Nienhauser'" to the list?
"Nienhauser" is another false positive.

., which finds fault with "first= ".ch (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CWH: Umm, what? cs1|2 finds fault with this:
 * not because of 'Nienhauser' (doesn't exist in that template) but because first is wholly malformed and contains the word 'Editor'. The name holding parameter first should hold only the given names and/or initials of the person whose surname is in last.  One person per last / first pair.
 * Our article, Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, of which you appear to be the primary author, describes Boorman as an editor, not an author so perhaps this:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies - my bad. I should have made clear that I was bringing up two different things. Thanks for explaining the problem with more than one editor in the Boorman parameter. Is there another parameter that would get around the problem rather than re-working all the parameters in all the references in all the articles that have this and other edited books? Maybe "authors="?
 * The "Nienhauser" question came up at Dream of the Red Chamber. Following the directions, the I "solved" the problem here by adding "((Nienhauser))." In any case, thanks again for your help.ch (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CWH: Use of authors is discouraged. There used to be editors but support for that has been withdrawn and, someday, support for authors will also be withdrawn.  Individual authors should be named in individual lastn / firstn pairs or in authorn.  Same for editors, interviewers, contributors, translators.
 * I have reverted the 'fix' for Nienhauser because the underlying issue has been fixed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ” someday, support for authors will also be withdrawn.” That seems like a bad idea, considering first and last name are not universal concepts in the world (middlename, family name first, two familynames, no familyname are all concepts used by various cultures). There is a reason that ppl are advising developers to use a single namefield instead of a forced first name lastname, combo these days. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The enumerated authorn parameters won't be going away. All of those middlename, family name first, two familynames, no familyname ... concepts are easily handled by the enumerated parameters; one person per enumerated parameter.  authors (plural) is free-form and, as you note, human names aren't standardized.  To make authors usable by editors who consume cs1|2 citation via the metadata, some sort of code that is clever enough to extract the names of individual humans from the free-form list is needed.  Alas, because the list of names is free-form, one cannot rely on standardized name separators.  I do not have skill enough to write that code, perhaps you or someone you know has that skill.  Write that code and we'll implement it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be feasible to have author1, then author-others}}, or some such? In the Boorman example above, for instance, there were several other editors, but it would have taken more time than it was worth to me to list them all separately. OK, I was lazy, but it was a lazy man who invented the wheel. And the cites would still be to Boorman. ch (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the 'fix' for Nienhauser because the underlying issue has been fixed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ” someday, support for authors will also be withdrawn.” That seems like a bad idea, considering first and last name are not universal concepts in the world (middlename, family name first, two familynames, no familyname are all concepts used by various cultures). There is a reason that ppl are advising developers to use a single namefield instead of a forced first name lastname, combo these days. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The enumerated authorn parameters won't be going away. All of those middlename, family name first, two familynames, no familyname ... concepts are easily handled by the enumerated parameters; one person per enumerated parameter.  authors (plural) is free-form and, as you note, human names aren't standardized.  To make authors usable by editors who consume cs1|2 citation via the metadata, some sort of code that is clever enough to extract the names of individual humans from the free-form list is needed.  Alas, because the list of names is free-form, one cannot rely on standardized name separators.  I do not have skill enough to write that code, perhaps you or someone you know has that skill.  Write that code and we'll implement it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be feasible to have author1, then author-others}}, or some such? In the Boorman example above, for instance, there were several other editors, but it would have taken more time than it was worth to me to list them all separately. OK, I was lazy, but it was a lazy man who invented the wheel. And the cites would still be to Boorman. ch (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Google maps producing error
is producing This started happening within the last day or two. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing and requested a fix at Template talk:Google maps a little while ago. GoingBatty (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I can answer your question. It's because of a to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration that adds error messages for generic names. See this discussion. A template editor needs to fix Template:Google Maps. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, it's not a generic author as Google is the creator/author of this mapping product and not some spurious placeholder. The template has been fixed to avoid the error messaging.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with cite map, the parent template and/or the module. If it appeared recently, it may be related to the MW update being currently rolled out, or the (applied?) CS1 update. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an error, per se, but rather an error check that's producing a false positive in this situation.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as it seems that the module was updated today, this could have something to do with it. However GoingBatty had noticed the error earlier? 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: I based the wrong observation above in an example at cite map that is producing an error. However the example includes the generic term "contributors". Sorry for the mixup. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That situation is actually also correct: citations to OpenStreetMap should to attributed to the anonymous/pseudonymous editors of that website.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a need to attribute Google as author here; its inclusion in both publisher and work seems sufficient for citation purposes. Izno (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Similarly with the generic contributors at the cite map example. It is obvious that contributors to an open source contribute the info. If one feels strongly about that, they could use a hidden comment in the author field, per common practice. But it may seem as overkill. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that the other specific-source map templates follow similar practice. Bing maps forces "Microsoft"/"Nokia" if no author, and Mapquest insists on "AOL". They are not the map authors, surely? 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, take a look at and look through the suggested citations for this very talk page. All but one of the suggested citations use "Wikipedia contributors" as the author.  Imzadi 1979   →   00:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Other citation systems may need to state the obvious. Who else but an anonymous "Wikipedia contributors" would contribute to an anonymously authored Wikipedia article? But for Wikipedia, ease and speed in finding sources are important. And simply, trying to find a Wikipedia article by using "Wikipedia contributors" as an author keyword in any search facility is making it harder. Likely, thousands of unrelated hits will have the same "author". Much easier, and far less confusing to the average reader is to find the article by using the article name or part of it. This is a citation system for the average reader, not a specialist tool. This apart from the fact that such generic names are meaningless. 64.18.9.201 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

False positive on CS1 errors: generic name - Neuhäuser
Could someone please tweak the Lua pattern for  in Category:CS1 errors: generic name so it doesn't produce false positives like 10 Canis Majoris and 59 Sagittarii? Simplified version below:

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'ä' is not in.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This would benefit from  which does consider it part of %a. Izno (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At the expense of time for every name-holding parameter that has a value in the template.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also encountered this with "Hauser" on exception handling:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This would benefit from  which does consider it part of %a. Izno (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At the expense of time for every name-holding parameter that has a value in the template.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also encountered this with "Hauser" on exception handling:
 * I also encountered this with "Hauser" on exception handling:

Not sure what is going on, but this feature clearly is buggy. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there!  has kindly already fixed the *user author issue in the sandbox and will be pushing out the fix later this weekend:
 * Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. I added a notice to Help:CS1 errors, hopefully that will reduce confusion. please revert it when the template is updated. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. I added a notice to Help:CS1 errors, hopefully that will reduce confusion. please revert it when the template is updated. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Editorial
Hi again! Articles such as 6th State Duma and 109th United States Congress have references with "Editorial" in the author parameter, which are now included in Category:CS1 errors: generic name. Is there another parameter to use for "Editorial" to differentiate the reference from a news article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * department is probably the best parameter for it; type only if you must. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, I would look at such citations with deep suspicion per general V/RS principles. Izno (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, editorials in The Wall Street Journal are attributed to "The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board", so it wouldn't be surprising that and editor would attribute the board in a citation. Perhaps this generic author situation needs to be rolled back and discussed further.  Imzadi 1979   →   00:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I encountered this false positive, too, in an article where I had Editorial Board. I've switched it to department, but that's a very niche thing for us to police with something as strong as an error message. I'd recommend that the filter trigger only on "editor", not "editorial". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * department should be used as in the 'department' or section of a newspaper e.g. "Life" or "Editorials", hence why I suggested it in Batty's case. It should not be used for the author.
 * However, this is fixed in the sandbox:, so you should undo your change. Izno (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

False positive on CS1 errors: generic name - Creditor
Could someone please tweak the Lua pattern for  in Category:CS1 errors: generic name so it doesn't produce false positives for the last name "Creditor" as it does in Addisyn Merrick? Simplified version below:

I found 86 such articles. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this generic name flagging needs to be rolled back and discussed further before it's re-implemented.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There will be false positives. Before posting a note about a particular error, please check with the sandbox version to make sure that whatever you are seeing hasn't already been fixed.  I'll be updating the module suite later in the weekend.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

False positive on CS1 errors: generic name - Ruser
The flag on Uyghur genocide for the Ruser seems to be a false positive due the name containing "user". There's also a "One or more cite web templates have maintenance messages" error in the same article that I'm unable to figure out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Already fixed in the sandbox:
 * Two templates use live without archive-url.  live is meaningless without the template also has archive-url with an assigned value.  The two templates are here and here.  Follow the help link in the preview message to learn how to show maintenance messaging.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

False positive on CS1 errors: generic name - Ed
The name Ed is now popping up a CS1 generic name error at Australian green tree frog. This recent change had worse pre-run bug testing than damn Microsoft. Also, why is it necessary to produce a big red error message rather than just a hidden tracking category, which would do the job just as well? It's like some people would rather dick around with the citation templates and make things harder on real content editors than actually productively create content Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding your small question, hidden tracking categories don't get fixed. Simple as that. There's a whole batch of them at Category:CS1 maintenance that only the dedicated actually work on. Izno (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to run a warning like this when there's few false positives. But if you're literally just using a string search for "user" (if I read that above correctly), then there's clearly too many false positives to do deface thousands of pages like this.  This whole thing feels WP:POINTY. Hog Farm Talk 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or just naive. ;) I agree though, there was not enough testing on the new additions to the 'there's probably crap in your citation' filter. Izno (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Regarding your small question": hidden tracking categories DO get fixed. I have fixed hundreds if not thousands of meassages/warnings/errors. I have watched some of these categories go from thousands of entries to zero. Yes, it requires dedication. The "Script warning" messages do not "deface" the articles since they only appear when an article is being edited. Personally, I like the messages. They inform me when I have introduced an issue. Or when I should look at the hidden categories for additional issues. User-duck (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not know why this "generic name" edit was added. But if it is desired, please make it usable. The last time I looked there were over 30,000 articles with generic name "errors". Based on the string search approach, I would guess that a majority are false positives. Several years ago, I worked on articles in a category where the offending items were sub-categorized alphabetically. Maybe something similar could be done for generic names. I just looked it up; it was the Weather box template. The category is "Pages using weather box with unknown parameters". I had emptied this category. I see 19 articles have been added to the category because of "content" edits. User-duck (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can guess if you want. I just picked five articles at random from the category, and all five (100% of a tiny sample) had real errors like "author=John Smith, editor" or "author=edited by Jane Doe and Helen Brown" or "last=User | first=Super". They were all easy to fix by using parameters like editor1 or looking at the source to find the actual author name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

False positives with Template:Cite tweet
Using this template like this gives the generic name error, including when its  param isn't used. Examples from 2020 Twitter account hijacking:



The  as passed to Cite web is, respectfully,   and -Einstein95 (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The filter (Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration) is disliking  being present in the author, which these citations use. -Einstein95 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

propose to add 'news'
I've been picking away at where I have noticed quite a few News parameters. Searches:
 * News: ~2090 (times out)
 * News: ~400 (times out)
 * News: 5 (times out)

I propose to add:
 * {{code|lang=lua|1={['en'] = {'%f[%a][Nn]ews%f[%A]', false},}}

to the generic names list.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandboxed:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just "News", though:
 * Kanguole 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, fixed that. There are not so many but it would seem that 'BBC News' is another that ought to be added to the list:
 * BBC News: ~140
 * BBC News: ~15
 * BBC News: ~480
 * CLearly not enough 'News Corp.' results to worry about:
 * News Corp: 2
 * News Corp: 1
 * News Corp: no results
 * Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * News Corp: no results
 * Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Two CS1 messages for the same issue
When using "Editor" in the author parameter, two CS1 messages are now given: "|author= has generic name" and "CS1 maint: extra text: authors list". Could someone please tweak the modules to remove the overlap so only the error is displayed?

Thanks for your consideration. GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tweaked:
 * But that leaves the test for the abbreviated 'ed.' and 'eds.' annotations (real life example):
 * Should these be made errors as well? I'm inclined to say yes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response! I'm also inclined have those show as errors, as well as variations such as Joe Smith, ed., Joe Smith (ed.), SmithJoe, ed. and SmithJoe (ed.)  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tweaked again:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cateat lector: accepting this change (ed. and eds., etc) will shift all of the content of, , , , and to .  To my mind, not a bad thing.  Articles have been accumulating in CS1 maint: extra text: authors list since April 2017 but because very few editors have maintenance-message display enabled, relatively few of the that category's articles have been fixed.  Perhaps as errors, the tally will decrease...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with moving these, but it may be valuable to keeping the name lists categories separated so that the parameters without issues currently can be kept at low counts. Izno (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's possible but not contemplated in the current code. We might consider individual categories at another update.  For the nonce, I have promised to update sometime today so individual categorization will have to wait.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll live. Izno (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should these be made errors as well? I'm inclined to say yes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response! I'm also inclined have those show as errors, as well as variations such as Joe Smith, ed., Joe Smith (ed.), SmithJoe, ed. and SmithJoe (ed.)  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tweaked again:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cateat lector: accepting this change (ed. and eds., etc) will shift all of the content of, , , , and to .  To my mind, not a bad thing.  Articles have been accumulating in CS1 maint: extra text: authors list since April 2017 but because very few editors have maintenance-message display enabled, relatively few of the that category's articles have been fixed.  Perhaps as errors, the tally will decrease...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with moving these, but it may be valuable to keeping the name lists categories separated so that the parameters without issues currently can be kept at low counts. Izno (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's possible but not contemplated in the current code. We might consider individual categories at another update.  For the nonce, I have promised to update sometime today so individual categorization will have to wait.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll live. Izno (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cateat lector: accepting this change (ed. and eds., etc) will shift all of the content of, , , , and to .  To my mind, not a bad thing.  Articles have been accumulating in CS1 maint: extra text: authors list since April 2017 but because very few editors have maintenance-message display enabled, relatively few of the that category's articles have been fixed.  Perhaps as errors, the tally will decrease...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with moving these, but it may be valuable to keeping the name lists categories separated so that the parameters without issues currently can be kept at low counts. Izno (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's possible but not contemplated in the current code. We might consider individual categories at another update.  For the nonce, I have promised to update sometime today so individual categorization will have to wait.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll live. Izno (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cateat lector: accepting this change (ed. and eds., etc) will shift all of the content of, , , , and to .  To my mind, not a bad thing.  Articles have been accumulating in CS1 maint: extra text: authors list since April 2017 but because very few editors have maintenance-message display enabled, relatively few of the that category's articles have been fixed.  Perhaps as errors, the tally will decrease...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with moving these, but it may be valuable to keeping the name lists categories separated so that the parameters without issues currently can be kept at low counts. Izno (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's possible but not contemplated in the current code. We might consider individual categories at another update.  For the nonce, I have promised to update sometime today so individual categorization will have to wait.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll live. Izno (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll live. Izno (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:CS1 errors: extra text: volume
Editor GoingBatty has cleared. Error messages associated with that category are hidden. Without objection, I shall unhide those error messages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be doing this. The code to handle volumes correctly has not yet been implemented. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show a real-life example of an incorrectly handled volume parameter?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I had a look and the error was in the citation.I thought it wasn't working. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

When a generic author name is necessary
I have an article on my watchlist which has a reference whose authors are listed as "Editors". (I have reason to believe that more specific author names are possible in this case but verifying that would require finding the original 1938 publication, which appears to be offline and in Polish.) It is necessary to have an author for this reference, in order to link to the reference by the harvard citation templates. A "helpful" bot tried to fix the reference by removing its authors altogether, and in doing so broke the harv link, but I've discussed that elsewhere. Here, I want to consider instead the possibility that an author parameter like Editors should NOT be considered to be an error. It is a common way of indicating that a piece in a periodical is credited to the editorial board of the periodical rather than individually signed. That credit is still necessary, both for linking (above), and as a way of distinguish it from a malformed citation where the authors are accidentally omitted. I can work around it by using ((Editors)) but I don't think I should have to. My preference would be for the error message to be removed in this case. (Setting the author to "Someone's name, ed." should still be an error, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion:
 * Short ref:
 * 71.105.141.131 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not an editorial. It is a short research note whose author was listed as the editors of the research journal in which it appeared. Do not make up fake metadata to paper over the deficiencies of the template. That is not the way to get accurate citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the parenthetical markup is reasonable in this case. Well over 95% of the "generic author name" error messages that I have looked at have been real errors, so a little sacrifice may be needed to account for legitimate cases. There may be a way to adjust the error-detection mechanism so that it can account for cases like "Editors of Time-Life" or "Editors of Chase's", which occur with some frequency; perhaps someone could look at the code and suggest a tweak. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, while I hate our particular choice of escaping, an escape here is reasonable. Izno (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I find our particular choice of escaping deeply offensive. It is far too similar to the triple-parenthesis textual marking used by neo-Nazis to point out Jews. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like a rather-different issue entirely then, even if I agreed it was an issue, since we have few other reasonable alternatives for escaping things. (My kvetch is that we don't track uses of it with a maint or properties category, and the particular syntax is in the realm of difficult to search and find for the general user.) Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you have ever voiced the opinion that the accept-this-as-written markup should be tracked. We can certainly do that.  My preference would be for a properties cat but could be presuaded that a maint cat would be better.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have, but never as directly clearly. :) Izno (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The accept-this-as-written markup was initially as a way to escape the constraints imposed by Vancouver Style so that corporate names and the like could be supported within the vauthors and veditors parameters.  I chose the doubled parentheses because its form mimicked the doubled square bracket and doubled curly braces already in use for wikimarkup – something familiar to en.wiki editors.  Until today, I never knew that trippled parentheses had a meaning.  This crude search suggests that there are ~2,000 articles that have something wrapped in trippled parentheses; many of them associated with music so perhaps notice at WT:WPMU might be in order.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have simply removed "Editors" and equivalent multiple times; it tells us little of value that simply citing to the rest of the work would not. /shrug Izno (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The intention was to help, not to make metadata or to paper over anything. If you ask for help with a citation in an outdated foreign language publication that may or may not be discoverable you should provide all the available information. The generic names are useless when it comes to finding any source. More than that, they can lead inexpert readers on a wild goose chase. They do add unnecessary junk to any citation whether it uses these templates or not. If this is about an editor annotation, and research notes are common in that journal, you can use Ed. research notes. If the note has a title use it in title along with the article title. If notes are not common enough to be a regular section, use at. Again, if the note has a title you can insert it there, plus the interpolation . If no title you could just add the interpolation in at. Bibliographic providers often (not always) add such information in the biblio record, so in such cases it can be found relatively easily by somebody reading the annotation info in your citation. If the note has not been indexed anywhere, the information is still good in leading the reader to the exact location that verifies the wikitext. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not need help; as my original comment makes clear, I found a solution, just one I consider to highlight an inadequacy of our templates. And there are more purposes to citation metadata than making resources discoverable. In this case, it involved assigning credit for a research discovery. Just listing the publication without listing the fact that it was written by the editors of the publication takes away that credit from them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Avoiding use of generic names is not an inadequacy of the templates. They exist to apply WP:V (I invite you to reread it, I just did). And generic names do not help in finding verifying sources. Wikipedia citation metadata is never mentioned in the policy and why should they? They get a cursory mention in WP:CITE as an ancillary item. Because they don't help a Wikipedia reader find information. The examples were provided to show that the substance of the information you wanted to include in the citation could be entered in the templates as they exist now. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful repetition of unhelpful non-response noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The intention was to help, not to make metadata or to paper over anything. If you ask for help with a citation in an outdated foreign language publication that may or may not be discoverable you should provide all the available information. The generic names are useless when it comes to finding any source. More than that, they can lead inexpert readers on a wild goose chase. They do add unnecessary junk to any citation whether it uses these templates or not. If this is about an editor annotation, and research notes are common in that journal, you can use Ed. research notes. If the note has a title use it in title along with the article title. If notes are not common enough to be a regular section, use at. Again, if the note has a title you can insert it there, plus the interpolation . If no title you could just add the interpolation in at. Bibliographic providers often (not always) add such information in the biblio record, so in such cases it can be found relatively easily by somebody reading the annotation info in your citation. If the note has not been indexed anywhere, the information is still good in leading the reader to the exact location that verifies the wikitext. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not need help; as my original comment makes clear, I found a solution, just one I consider to highlight an inadequacy of our templates. And there are more purposes to citation metadata than making resources discoverable. In this case, it involved assigning credit for a research discovery. Just listing the publication without listing the fact that it was written by the editors of the publication takes away that credit from them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Avoiding use of generic names is not an inadequacy of the templates. They exist to apply WP:V (I invite you to reread it, I just did). And generic names do not help in finding verifying sources. Wikipedia citation metadata is never mentioned in the policy and why should they? They get a cursory mention in WP:CITE as an ancillary item. Because they don't help a Wikipedia reader find information. The examples were provided to show that the substance of the information you wanted to include in the citation could be entered in the templates as they exist now. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful repetition of unhelpful non-response noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What to put under url-access when linking a borrowable book on Archive.org?
Apologies since this was surely asked before, but a Wikipedia search through TP archives wasn't of any help. Should I put  or  ? Template:Cite book seems to imply  (since there are other constraints, i.e. the number of people who may borrow the book simultaneously), but the text of the tooltip for   fits the situation much better. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * InternetArchiveBot does (or did – don't know if it is still doing it) add registration.  for example.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I feel a little silly for forgetting about IABot... <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation is complex because there are different levels and types of access. It's needed if the book is borrowable ie. free registration required to read the entire book in-full. If the book is public domain, registration is not required at all. There is a middle road, where the book is borrowable, but, you are only linking to "page 42" and that is viewable without registration. Basically registration is required only if 1) it's a borrowable book and 2) your linking not to a page number rather the entire book. -- Green  C  01:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)