Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Consider the following citations of the same work:

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

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

Minor considerations: Daask (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Both PubMed Central's HTML version and the publisher's HTML version sometimes have formatting issues that the other one does not. eg. In this publisher's version, quotes lack italics or sufficiently different indentation to clearly differentiate from body text. Not an issue in PubMed Central.
 * 2) The DOI sometimes, but rarely, links directly to a PDF, whereas PMC always links to an HTML, with a PDF usually available, eg.
 * 3) Are publishers more likely to have supplementary data? A quick glance at some sample articles didn't indicate this, but I suspect it is sometimes true.


 * The reason PMC takes precedence over DOI is historical and rooted in PMC autolinking before (free) DOIs did. Possibly because PMC version is lightweight, reduces data consumption (important on mobile and pay-per-GB internet plans) and does not require a PDF reader. Not saying this shouldn't be changed, just why this is currently the case.
 * Really we should have a hierarchy of priority for when multiple identifiers are free (like if free and free) so that autolinking apply to all version of record identifiers (i.e. not arxiv/ssrn/s2cid, etc...), which should be manually overridable i.e. jstor. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, other than I'm skeptical we really need an override once a "cascade" of preference is established; the reasons to do an override would probably be very subjective. If we did implement one, auto-url doesn't make much sense to me, since if you're doing a manual override that's the opposite of automated. (Plus as semantic/pedantic matter, auto- actually means 'self-'; an autoimmune disorder is an immune-system response to some of one's own cells, not an immune response to automation or brought about by automata.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * This is a feature, not a bug. Books have no issues, so they shouldn't support issue. Same for websites. Journal have issues, so cite journal supports that parameter. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the template under discussion here is Citation, which is not exclusively used to cite books. Folly Mox (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the previous discussion said all that needed to be said. Llywelyn bringing it up again as if their point of view had consensus is simply disruptive. Izno (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a multipurpose template that displays every parameter you feed it, but I'm not upset that there isn't. Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's cite magazine with cs2, which should meet the OP's need: . And here's citation with the same parameters: . Works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one, but it's based on what parameters you feed it. If you feed it book parameters then it will format as a book. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in LlewellynII's keyboard's mouth, but it seems like that's part of the problem: Citation overthinks things, and requires editors to learn and remember which parameters it considers "book parameters" and which it considers "serial / periodical parameters", and that it cares if you try to mix and match them.If, for some reason, an editor has a preference for contribution + title over title + work, and supplies issue, maybe it's not necessary to assume that the issue was unintentional / unimportant / impossible, and just display it anyway.I understand this probably would require rewriting some subroutines and would also probably negate the ability to output clean metadata, but it would flatten the learning curve. My gnoming job security is based on citation templates being fiddly and algorithms doing a bad job at filling them out properly, so maybe I shouldn't be supporting changes like this, but I did want to demonstrate that there's more than one person in favour of an easy to use catchall template that behaves as expected even if the parameter aliases chosen are non-standard. Folly Mox (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's to difficult to understand that using |journal= is required if you citing a journal. The issue I see with displaying any parameter is what formating and placement should be applied to random parameters, and should that vary depending on what other parameters are supplied. The issue is that a certain set of formating / placement is desired but without supplying the information required to do that. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this is just sort of the price we pay for continuing to support (CS2), despite it being used less than 1% of the time in our citations, and almost never consistently within the article. Per WP:CITESTYLE, if we encounter an article with a mixture of citation styles, that mess should be normalized to a single style. For my part, I normalize always to CS1 (and cite the guideline as the rationale). To date, I have never been reverted on it. CS2 is basically doomed. The fact that nearly no one uses it (in part because of its "I have to remember a bunch of quirks" issues), and a large number of casual editors aren't even aware it exists, means inevitably that articles that maybe started out using it, or more-or-less-predominantly using it, become more and more CS1 over time (unless at some super-obscure page no one touches), then the more inconsistent they get the more likely it is they'll get normalized to a single style, which will usually be CS1. This is a set of effects causing a synergistic not just linear shift toward CS1. PS: The only real rationale I've ever seen offered for CS2 is that CS1 weirdly uses "." as a separator, and produces a "choppy fragments" effect that some people don't like. So, just switch to ";" and the problem goes away, along with any further inspiration to use CS2 at all. For an off-site project, I use a lot of more-or-less-WP-style citations, and have been using ";" as the citation parameter separator, and it's perfectly fine for this purpose. Even if you have mutiple "last1, first1; last2, first2;" authors in series, it's clear that they're authors and when you encounter "The onomastic heritage of Strathclyde" or whatever, you've moved on from the author list to the title of the paper/whatever. Sticking a grammatically nonsensible "." in there is a solution in search of a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since CS1 and CS2 are quite similar in output, I've suggested that the two styles be merged together to eliminate the need to support two. For those who like using citation, they could continue to do so, and for those who prefer the other templates, they could continue to use them, and we'd get harmonious output in the end.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Works with multiple volumes
Used to be simple to handle with. The template currently throws out errors when  has a URL in it. Surely it isn't necessary to run entire citation template for every volume of a multivolume work. I assume there's a workaround for the reduced functionality, but it's not obvious or clear from the documentation what it is. So... what is it? — Llywelyn II   23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and perhaps other guidance, cite the volume that supports the claim you are making in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Citing 2+ volumes of a work and making the reader try to guess which one is pertinent is "user-hateful". People keep getting confused into thinking that our citations and the templates we use for them serve some kind of bibliographic-catalogue purpose, and keep listing things like total number of volumes, total number of pages, form-factor of the edition/printing ("hardback", etc.), and even trying to list out all the different editions. This is not what they are for. They are for and helping the reader find the specific material in the specific source being cited by our article so that the claims in the material can be verified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

FAQ
I started an FAQ for this page at Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ because of this discussion. IDK if we even actually need a separate page for the FAQ or if we can just put it on Help:CS1 or something. But I do think it would be valuable to have something for recurring comments/requests. Izno (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are templates for integrating FAQs into pages like this; see, e.g., the top of WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

|agency not working in Cite book template?
Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you meant to write:  → here.
 * Support for agency in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion. agency is defined for, , and .  Also supported by  when that template has newspaper or work.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have encountered several of these agency in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been publisher. I have seen no evidence that agency is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In this particular case I was looking for a way to reflect the Philological Society's contribution to the work.
 * Obviously there are two reasons for citing a work, one to identify where the source material can be found and the second to give credit to the creators of the work. The OED is atypical for a book in that there were a myriad of contributing authors and the publisher came into the process 20 years after the start of the work.
 * If not agency would you have another option for crediting the Society within the citation? — Skullcinema (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the work was based on materials they helped collect would others be appropriate? e.g. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will work fine. — ROU Skullcinema (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will work fine. — ROU Skullcinema (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time  ( talk ) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If one is to believe the results of this search there are ~355 articles in with  templates that have agency and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.
 * Some cases, like this from Weather of 2021, the value in publisher us unnecessarily duplicated in agency:
 * Others, like this one from the same article, appear to use some sort of made-up 'agency' name:
 * ('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).
 * It's not obvious, but it actually does appear. Individual Storm Data event entries (of which the link above to the Storm Events Database is one) are created by the over 100 National Weather Service WFOs (Weather Forecast Offices) across the country and are then compiled together / released by the National Centers for Environmental Information. There are multiple ways of accessing these entries, including in the form of massive monthly Storm Data PDFs (printed versions may also be available but I think for a price) and from individual links like the one above. PHI, as shown in the WFO field of the table at that link, is the code of the WFO that created this event entry. The intent of the citation (even if formatted weirdly or wrongly) is to both attribute the NCEI and the WFO that created the entry. Master of Time   ( talk ) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).
 * It's not obvious, but it actually does appear. Individual Storm Data event entries (of which the link above to the Storm Events Database is one) are created by the over 100 National Weather Service WFOs (Weather Forecast Offices) across the country and are then compiled together / released by the National Centers for Environmental Information. There are multiple ways of accessing these entries, including in the form of massive monthly Storm Data PDFs (printed versions may also be available but I think for a price) and from individual links like the one above. PHI, as shown in the WFO field of the table at that link, is the code of the WFO that created this event entry. The intent of the citation (even if formatted weirdly or wrongly) is to both attribute the NCEI and the WFO that created the entry. Master of Time   ( talk ) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The category CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for agency. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for publisher?.-- Auric   talk  13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * agency is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of publisher. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use via to hold the name of the provider.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks.-- Auric   talk  17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it appears to have been frequently misused as an alias or synonym of publisher. That does not mean that there has ever been a time when citations that did so were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There may have been some confusion when the publisher of a source is a government agency. Rather, agency has been a shorthand name for a parameter holding the wire agency of a news story, to properly credit that the origin of a news article in a paper was the Associated Press/United Press International/Agence France-Presse/etc. and not the cited newspaper itself, with or without any additional reporter byline.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

Displaying the name of the collaboration when the primary authors are not known
The description of the collaboration parameter says:

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

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

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


 * I agree. I have encountered this situation multiple times. In some cases the publication doesn't even list the authors, it merely names the collaboration. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense. It is nonetheless standard practice (or was, at least, until fairly recently) to cite as Adam, J. et al. (STAR Collaboration).
 * That said, there is no reason for why you can't have a collaboration as a single author. Or two authors + a collaboration, that does not require et al to be displayed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's no principal investigator named, what's wrong with putting the name of the collaboration into the author parameter? Corporate authorship is pretty normal in a lot of areas. Unless I'm misunderstanding something – always a strong possibility – it seems like the behaviour requested here would render on the page exactly the same as Collaboration Name. What probem am I missing here? Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just think it would be better to always put the name of the collaboration in the  parameter, whether the names of the principal authors are available or not.
 * A more general solution would be to rename  to   and require that collective authors (such as corporate authors, commissions, collaborations, etc.) always go there, so that the   parameters are only used for single humans. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have suggested a org-authorn before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of . Izno (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just use authorn as normal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Listing the first few names from an alphabetically sorted list of authors makes no sense isn't really true here. It makes less sense in the minds of various academics (concerned primarily with credit) than it does here, but even in the academic world and especially here, listing the first few names enables one to easily find the paper (or whatever it is) via various means, in most cases, because such a work will typically be indexed in various dabases, bibliographies, card catalogues, etc., by a partial or complete list of named authors, alphabetically by family name. It is crucial to remember that our citations exist for helping our readers find and make use of the sources, not for making academics happy about the frequency of their names appearing.PS: a collective-author or org-author parameter would simply be a redundant alias of author (or authorn), which already serves that purpose. This entire discussion makes me question the necessity or wisdom of a collaboration parameter in the first place. I have yet to run into it "in the wild" (despite over 18 years and 200K+ non-automated edits) and have never used it. There has never been a case of a citation I needed to build, no matter the complexity of the authorship, editorial process, and publishing, that I could not do entirely sensibly with other parameters, even if it ends up being something like: ... ChenXie-luanChen Zie-luanSmithJ. P.Legume Projectiles WorkgroupetalO'BrienMaeveMcNabb, John (illustrator)GutierrezSelenaFoostuffs Momentum CommitteeX. Y. Zedman & Co., for the Ministry of Foodfights ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because you don't edit in particle physics. See Quark, Quark or Quark for example, amongst several others. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Man, two people above who just skimmed right over why I said what I said: I have suggested a org-authorn before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of ((a_name_triggering_checks)). I would love for author to fill the role of " organizational names", but it's not that today, it's a template-level synonym for last and a lot of people also use it for last, first, which maybe at some date we can instead have a more strict change to support catching those uses also, in favor of moving to org-author parameters........... Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Placement of ISSN in Citation Style 1
I'm seeking clarification on the placement of the ISSN parameter in cite journal. Specifically, what are the arguments for displaying the ISSN after the DOI and other article identifiers, rather than directly after the journal name?

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


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

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

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

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

Thank you for your input. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Identifiers are rendered as a group that is alpha ascending sorted by down-cased identifier names. So, 'ISSN', down-cased to 'issn' follows 'doi' in the rendering.  It used to be that the identifiers were rendered in random order because of how Lua deals with associative tables.  There were complaints about the randomness so we sort the identifiers; no more randomness.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification on the current sorting mechanism for identifiers. While I understand the rationale behind grouping identifiers and sorting them alphabetically to avoid randomness, I believe this approach conflates two fundamentally different types of identifiers. The ISSN identifies the journal, while identifiers like DOI are specific to individual articles. This distinction is crucial for accurate citation and reference clarity. Consider the following points:
 * Clear Distinction of Identifiers:
 * Placing the ISSN with the DOI and other article-specific identifiers can mislead readers into thinking the ISSN is also specific to the article. However, the ISSN is a unique identifier for the journal itself, not the article. Separating these would enhance clarity:
 * Here, the journal identifier (ISSN) is clearly linked to the journal name, and the article identifier (DOI) follows as part of the article-specific details.
 * Enhanced Citation Accuracy
 * Academic standards and citation guidelines typically differentiate between journal and article identifiers. Aligning Wikipedia’s citation style with these standards would improve the accuracy and professionalism of our citations. For example, many style guides (e.g., APA, MLA) do not group ISSN with article identifiers.
 * Improved Reader Experience
 * For readers and editors, a clear and structured citation format is easier to read and understand. Grouping identifiers by their type (journal vs. article) can prevent confusion and ensure that the citation components are immediately recognizable:
 * Consistent Identifier Grouping
 * If the goal is to avoid randomness and ensure consistent ordering, we can achieve this while still distinguishing between journal and article identifiers. We could establish a format where journal identifiers (e.g., ISSN) always appear directly after the journal title, followed by article identifiers (e.g., DOI, PMID) in alphabetical order.
 * By acknowledging the inherent differences between these types of identifiers and reflecting this distinction in our citation templates, we can provide clearer, more accurate citations. I propose revisiting the grouping strategy to separate journal identifiers from article-specific identifiers, ensuring each is clearly defined and appropriately placed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ISSN is best omitted because it is rarely a relevant identifier. You cite the article, not the journal as a whole. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunately added as default if you use the VisualEditor's cite tool "Citoid", as well as e.g. "ProveIt", to generate the reference code. So I doubt many (at least not me) takes the time to actively remove the ISSN when included in the generated reference. Do we have a count of how many articles/references cite ISSNs currently (and how many of these are really needed to e.g. disambiguate the journal)? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 95%+ of the time, it's automated garbage. Same type of garbage that will add |publisher=Elsevier BV to journal citations. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe these tools no longer adds publisher to journals though (only e.g. web and book). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe Citoid and ProveIt (which uses Citoid) will ignore ISSN for a template if you remove it from the "citoid" section of the template's /doc or /TemplateData subpage. Should it be ignored for cite journal, and should it be ignored for the other citation templates? Rjjiii  (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going to retain an ISSN parameter, I would agree with the OP that this is a serial-publication-level identifier, not an article/paper identifier and would be better right after the title of the serial publciation, so it is not confusable with a pointer to the specific article/paper being cited. There's a minor wrinkle in that ISSNs are also sometimes issued for series of books, in which case the ISSN should come right after series if present. It not present (e.g. because the books in the series all share the same title and are only distinguished by volume number), then I guess it belongs after title, and sorted with other book-level identifiers like ISBN or a whole-book DOI. If the chapter/contribution has its own DOI, then that should adhere right after the chapter/contribution, I would think. In short: the desire to group and sort identifiers is reasonable, but only to the extent they are the same type and that grouping and sorting them does not confuse or mislead our reader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle I agree with separating article-level and publication-level identifiers. In practice it is not always easy. How do you distinguish book-level dois from chapter-level dois? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or any book-level identifiers from chapter-level identifiers in general, especially when many can be either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or any book-level identifiers from chapter-level identifiers in general, especially when many can be either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki changes to citation parsing
Just saw this in "Tech News: 2024-24":

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


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

CS1 wrapper templates using "mode"
Several templates have the same issue with formatting, so I'm posting here. I'll leave a link at the less-watched talk page of each template below.

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

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


 * There's a problem, because the choice of the wrapped template is often dictated by pre-existing parameters accepted by the wrapping template. So changing the wrapped template may break existing functionality in a hard-to-detect way. Would it be possible for the wrapping templates to (somehow) detect the mode that is set by CS1 config? That seems like the cleanest solution (if possible). I will investigate, but open to other ideas. — hike395 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Regarding archive dates parsed from URLs in Cite web template(s)
Not sure if this is the correct place for a suggestion for the template. I am not comfortable with sending edit requests for templates (yet), so I figured I'd put it here.

If you insert an archive link into web templates, such as https://web.archive.org/web/ 2024061   5 012051/http://example.com/, you can see in the url in the highlighted area that the date is present in the url. Given so, why is the archive date field required when the date is provided through the url? If you input the wrong date into the template, a mismatch error is thrown and it shows the correct date. If it knows the correct date, why not correct the error?

I am aware that not all archiving services provide the date handily in the url, but since the Internet Archive is the largest one, can't the template make an exception for the Archive? I know it's not a huge deal, but it is still another thing to type and check.

Sorry if I'm not making very much sense, I am still learning about how all of this works. Thank you. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 05:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitespace in `CS1 config` and `bots`
I'm not quite clever enough to figure out how and  don't emit a linebreak, but  and  presently do. Does it have to do with Module:Unsubst somehow? In any case, would it be possible to have the same behavior for the latter templates, as I presently have to put them on the same line at the top of articles. Remsense 诉  12:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sub-titles, numeration, parts and request
I need several sub title parameters for  because the template as it now exists is difficult to work with.
 * Sub-titles for  and accompanying numbering

For example, if I'm citing the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions:
 * the actual series is Series in Indo-European Language and Culture,
 * while the title is Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions,
 * the 1st volume is Inscriptions of the Iron Age,
 * and its first part is Text Introduction, Karatepe, Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Maraş, Malatya, Commagene,
 * its second part is Amuq, Aleppo, Hama, Tabal, Assur Letters, Miscellaneous, Seals, Indices,
 * and its third part is Plates,
 * the 2nd volume is Karatepe-Aslantaş
 * the 2nd volume is sub-titled The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition,
 * the 3rd volume is Inscriptions of the Hittite Empire and New Inscriptions of the Iron Age,
 * the 3rd volume is itself divided into a part III/1 and a part III/2.

Despite the recommendations I have received during my previous requests here, this is not working for me. I am having trouble adding proper titles in the template for several publications whose titles and sub-titles are similarly extensive.

Along with this, there also needs to be accompanying series numeration, volume numeration, and parts numeration.
 * Numeration

I would also need  to also have a numbering or part accompanying the titles.
 * Parts for

For example, the entry for Que in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie has a part A written by J.D. Hawkins and a part B written by D. Syrmington.

And several more sources I cite have similar entries divided into several parts, which are either labelled with a letter of the alphabet or a number.

I need a parameter to add this numeration.

I also need a translation option for series names in languages other than English.
 * Need for

Additionally, which citation template should I use when citing a dictionary?
 * Which citation to use when citing a dictionary

For example, if I am citing the eDiAna Dictionary, which has sections for various languages and entries that are divided into several parts written by multiple authors, which citation template should I use? Antiquistik (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In the first case,  will give
 * Replace  with "Text Introduction", "Tell Ahmar", or whatever. Similar for Vol 2/Vol 3.
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is still very unwieldy. Can't additional sub-titles be added to the template instead? Antiquistik (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no need for them. Put subtitles with titles. Put series into series. Put (series) volume into volume. Put chapter into chapter. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This unfortunately doesn't work, especially with sources that have multiple levels of sub-divisions. I really need an expansion of the template. Antiquistik (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just shown you. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I appreciate the help. But this solution doesn't solve the issues that I am facing with using the template in its current state. Antiquistik (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the issue you are facing then? Give me a specific case of what you want to cite, and I'll show you how to use the template. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've seen bots change cite dictionary to cite encyclopedia, so I suppose that's the one to use for dictionaries. Agree that trans-series would be helpful; I come up against this periodically, and it feels weird to cram the translation into the same parameter after splitting it out for the previous two.As to the subtitle idea, I do low-key agree that adding one could be helpful, but not for reasons of unwieldiness (any solution where the source is "Chapter" in Title: Named Volume, Part something is going to be unwieldy).My experience has been that I'll sometimes want to use title-link for a source we have an article about, but multiple named volumes comprise the title, so I end up with Science and Civilization in China: vol. 4 Physics and Physical Technology, part 1: Physics, with the entire title linking the article Science and Civilization in China.The other use case I would have for subtitle is for links to old books on Internet Archive or HathiTrust (or, decreasingly commonly, Project Gutenberg), where the title is something fashionably lengthy for the turn of the twentieth century like Travels and researches in Chaldæa and Susiana; with an account of excavations at Warka, the Erech of Nimrod, and Shúsh, Shushan the Palace of Esther, in 1849–52 or Bismya; or The lost city of Adab : a story of adventure, of exploration, and of excavation among the ruins of the oldest of the buried cities of Babylonia, and the whole dang thing gets bluelinked across three lines by the url parameter, because there's no way to cordon off the main part of the title for linking or put an external link inside the title parameter, and any other parameter I try to kludge the subtitle into doesn't concatenate next to the title but instead is separated by other information.Anyway I don't really see a pressing need for this, but it would be nice for those sorts of situations. Folly Mox (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PMID limit needs updating
Looks like PMIDs started ticking over 38900000 in the past couple of days. An article referencing 38900028 showed up in the tracking category and it is valid. Masterzora (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

generic name warning on "The Antisemitism Policy Trust"
"The Antisemitism Policy Trust" causes a generic name error (here). I marked it accept-this-as-written. Was that correct? I can't find any other author on the report. What is causing it to be flagged? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The error occurs because author includes the word policy. I would have written that template this way:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I failed to notice "policy" in the list in Help:CS1_errors. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I failed to notice "policy" in the list in Help:CS1_errors. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)