Template talk:Cite Q/Archive 6

Render archive URL d:Property:P1065
The module hasn't the functionally to render archive URL property d:Property:P1065. We need that very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRANSviada (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * could you give a concrete example of where or how it would be used, please? Just the entity-id (qid) of a Wikidata entry and the article where it would be used would be enough. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would ideally be rendered by default just like the parameter archiveurl is for the usual cite templates accordingly the url status of being live or dead. I've migrated most references on Shizuka (band) to Template:Cite Q to eliminate redundancy, but many URLs are dead. Even though I included archive-url for all the wikidata items, they're not rendered because the module hasn't this functionality.
 * Example: Q105485579 on Shizuka (band).
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So the only appears as a qualifier? That means we would really need to know the property it qualifies in order to retrieve it without wasting a lot of resources. If it is always going to be a qualifier of, then we can add the ability to pass on the parameter. Is that the case, or might it be a qualifier of another property?
 * The problem will be that CS1/2 templates require both the archive-url and archive-date parameters:
 * Finally, what do you want the module to do when there are multiple values for on Wikidata? The citation templates give an error if more than one archive-url is passed.
 * Would it be okay to just use the first value? --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For my use case, yes, only as qualifier. Also yes if considering how archiveurl is defined and used in the traditional cite templates of Wikipedia. For my use case, it should be the qualifier for and maybe for  and other of its subproperties.
 * Maybe parsing the date from the archive-url string when possible since there doesn't seem to be a way to link that to the qualifier? On wikipedia there are archive bots that are able to get the archive-date. Maybe we should look them.
 * For my use case I would need just the value of the first archive-url qualifier that is linked to the URL property or subproperty which is being rendered. But for this there should be a way to get the archive-date value of this first archive-url.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada
 * What's a subproperty? and how do you link a qualifier to it? I can only work from concrete examples.
 * Unfortunately, although I can extract the archive-date from web.archive.org archives, there are other archive sites used that don't offer the same facility in the archive-url. Should we limit the functionality to web.archive.org archives then? The archive bots run on client computers, not the server, and have the resources and time to parse archive pages to extract a date. I am forced to write the leanest code I can because there are potentially hundreds of citations on a page and there is a ten-second timeout on running the Lua on any given page. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Subproperty on Wikidata is when a property has the statement.  has this statement and its value is the property.
 * I think we should limit support to known archive services we can get the date. Besides Wayback:
 * archive.today sites have the date in the long link form. Example: http://archive.today/2020.04.21-201055/https://rt.live/. Maybe we could look for the Memento-Datetime response header as well.
 * Perma.cc URLs haven't the date, but it's possible to get that from their API (creation_timestamp): curl https://api.perma.cc/v1/public/archives/W5MF-N9EV
 * I think supporting those 3 services, if viable, should be good enough.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your description of a subproperty - it doesn't seem to make sense with what you wrote earlier. Could you please give a real example of where we would need to check it?
 * We can't look at headers, we can't interrogate APIs, and we don't have curl available. This is Lua, not php or python, and it's running on the MediaWiki server as an extension, which strongly circumscribes the functionality we have available.
 * So we could support web.archive.org and archive.today, Are there any other archive services that have the date embedded in the url (as that is all the information we can conveniently retrieve)? --RexxS (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The code checks for as a statement in the Wikidata entity and falls back to  and then, returning the first one it finds. The sandbox code now checks if it finds a url for the qualifier  and attempts to construct a date from the url if it has a substring like 20160704 or 2016.07.04 or 2016-07-04, etc. If successful, it passes   and   to the citation template. If multiple values exist, it picks the first best one.
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't look at headers, we can't interrogate APIs, and we don't have curl available. This is Lua, not php or python, and it's running on the MediaWiki server as an extension, which strongly circumscribes the functionality we have available.
 * So we could support web.archive.org and archive.today, Are there any other archive services that have the date embedded in the url (as that is all the information we can conveniently retrieve)? --RexxS (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The code checks for as a statement in the Wikidata entity and falls back to  and then, returning the first one it finds. The sandbox code now checks if it finds a url for the qualifier  and attempts to construct a date from the url if it has a substring like 20160704 or 2016.07.04 or 2016-07-04, etc. If successful, it passes   and   to the citation template. If multiple values exist, it picks the first best one.
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please ping me if you get a chance to test and you find find any problems. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Record citation style of various articles
In theory an article should consistently use the same citation style throughout. Therefore you could record (somewhere) the citation style used on various articles, and when Cite Q is used on one of those articles its format would default to that defined style. Does this idea make sense? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to me. Editors are free to make up whatever style of citation they want, and once that's done, it gets hard-baked into the article by dint of WP:CITEVAR. The result is that there is no way of knowing what the "style" is in order to make a record of it, and we can't just change the style of the article to suit our preference for one of a standard number of citations. That's why it's impossible for me to retrieve references from Wikidata for each statement, because I have no way of formatting the reference accurately. If we scrap CITEVAR or adopt a "house style" for references, I'll be able to do something, but until then, it's a waste of time. --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Functionality like this was mentioned when we created support for the cs1|2 templates to render dates according to . Never really got any further than a mention.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, some months ago I had code for various article-wide default citation settings (so they could be added as "global parameters" to reflist, the or likewise templates and picked up to be used by CS1/CS2 templates unless overridden by local parameters) but then got distracted and it was never added to the sandbox for evaluation:
 * Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_70
 * Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_72
 * Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73
 * Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_72
 * Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73


 * Don't have the time for it at present, but if there would be interest in this, I could adapt this to the current code when I find the time for it.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Progress on WS links?
Hi. An example of a work where I want the WS link,. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Default behaviour of Cite Q for books
appears as:

However, I would like it to appear as

Is there any way of editing the wikidata to achieve this reult? (I tried using the qualifier "stated as" for both publisher and location statements.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think display-authors works if no value is provided
Template says, "using that parameter with no value displays them all" but that is not the case. Unfortunately, if I enter the number of the final author, it returns an error. See this example where I'm trying to display all 13 authors.


 * No parameter, it truncates and provides "et al." ...


 * With no value, it still truncates and provides "et al." ...


 * With value set at 13, it shows all 13 authors, but with error. ...

Trilotat (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * display-authors (present but empty) is more-or-less the same as omitting the parameter. The correct way for editors to tell  to ignore the automatic namelist truncation is to do something like unset.  The   keyword is already used to 'unset' values taken from wikidata so might be the correct keyword for unsetting the automatic 3.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I use Cite Q, but remove article title?
I'm working on a ENWP article that uses a reference variety that excludes the article title. Is there a way to use Cite Q but exclude the article title? Thank you. Trilotat (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Solid sorbents for carbon capture? The predominant citation style established by the first major contributor in that article is decidedly not templated so WP:CITEVAR would suggest that the two cs1|2 templates, four  templates, and one  template (which all have styles distinctly different from the hand-crafted citations already present in the article) must not be used without a discussion at the article's talk page to change the citation style.  If there is a discussion to change the style, leaving out the article name from journal cites does a disservice to readers.  Since space on en.wiki is not a limiting factor, there are really very few good reasons to establish a style that omits article titles.
 * Still, if the decision is taken to omit article titles, cs1|2 (and so ) supports none (journal cites only):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion of citation styles is WAY above my skills. I'm hesitant to confuse matters at that article. Would you be willing to start the discussion so we can address the issue appropriately? Trilotat (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no real interest in changing that article's style. I think that the existing style is far from optimal but I fear that if I start that discussion, the responsibility to do the work necessary to make the change (if a change is agreed) will fall on me even though I have no experience or knowledge of the article's topic.  So, that leaves it to you or some other interested editor.  Since you, apparently, are not comfortable starting the discussion, I suggest that you decompose the cs1|2 and  templates and then reconstitute them in the article's established style.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made this mistake countless times, replacing references with Cite Q for what I thought were apparently not so good reasons. For my edification, is it appropriate to simply replace with Cite Q references or should I start with a discussion about it in the article's talk page? Trilotat (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not enough information. What are you replacing?  Why are you replacing whatever it is that you are replacing?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replaced citations with Cite Q references (to the same reference). Trilotat (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I correctly removed the two cs1|2 templates. I also remove the Cite Q template that I mistakenly I added. I didn't know how to fix the template reference. I thank you for your time spent helping me work through this. I'll leave it as it is and move on to other projects with some new knowledge. Thanks!!Trilotat (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replaced citations with Cite Q references (to the same reference). Trilotat (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I correctly removed the two cs1|2 templates. I also remove the Cite Q template that I mistakenly I added. I didn't know how to fix the template reference. I thank you for your time spent helping me work through this. I'll leave it as it is and move on to other projects with some new knowledge. Thanks!!Trilotat (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in sources
Non-breaking spaces may be present in the source: in titles, authors names, quotations, &c.


 * 1) NBSPs shouldn’t throw an ugly error message at the reader, disrupting readability. Especially if the error can only be fixed in Wikidata. If there’s an error message responding to data, it should only appear in preview and the visual editor.
 * 2) However, non-breaking spaces should be passed through for display because are a normal and mandatory part of text, in English and other languages (including, , and probably other special characters used for typographical effect). They should not return an error. They should not be altered.



[Note: I contrived these examples by editing their labels in Wikidata, but they are all formally correct. There’s no reason to expect the absence of such text.]

I’ve already brought this up at Template talk:Citation, and it was pointed out that NBSPs must be entered as the Latin entity &amp;nbsp; in Wikipedia. So it looks like this is a in citation. Nevertheless, we have to accept any data transcluded from Wikidata for cite q.

[P.S., shouldn’t important data like author’s name and title come from Wikidata statements rather than labels meant for presentation?] —Michael Z. 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Text displayed at the English Wikipedia is obliged to comply with en.WP's MOS, so hidden NBSP characters stored at Wikidata should either be translated by this template, or they should be adjusted at Wikidata, or the template should pull from en.WP-specific labels that are formatted per MOS, or some other option. This thread is similar to the CITEVAR discussions related to first and last names in this page's archive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re right, the template must convert Unicode NBSPs to character references, to fulfil MOS. —Michael Z. 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that is not the only option I suggested. There are many ways to solve most problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the data has nothing wrong with it, so I’m not sure why Wikidata would choose to change the text format, but that seems to be a conversation for over there.
 * Anyway, having looked at WP:NBSP, it looks like the guideline requires character references in wikitext to avoid errors in editing. Is there any convention or reason not to transclude perfectly normal Unicode text, including its whitespace characters, into rendered references on the page? Editors don’t edit them as text. It seems this template could just hide those error messages which are the only actual problem. —Michael Z. 07:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite Q in other languages
Just wondering what other languages this lovely template now exists in, and whether in such languages, it is permitted to use the current English override parameters...MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the left sidebar under "Languages". I see 26 links to this template in other languages at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No issue parameter has been entered in wikidata
For I get issue (89), but no issue parameter has been entered in wikidata:
 * MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's coming from . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Yes someone has named a single issue of the journal by the journal title, and called it an instance of a scholarly article!! I have now managed to find and use the correct wikidata item: MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

TfD warning
Re, quit it, please. It was a TfC, not an RfC, and nothing requires that notice to be on the template page. It is outdated and misleading. The link to the TfD is above, which is sufficient. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing outdated or misleading about the notice, the conclusions are still as valid as they were then. The burden is upon those wanting to change the conclusion to get consensus from uninvolved editors that it is no longer valid, not some fiat declaration from the most ardent supporters that the notice is no longer valid. This is useless on the talk page, where 99% of the people coming to look at the template will never see it. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on you to show that the notice is still needed, not just to declare your opinion. The TfD was over 3 years ago, the template has been substantially rewritten since then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then get consensus to change it. You want to overturn a TfD conclusion and long-standing consensus, then it is up to you to do the necessary. Fram (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to remove the notice, not overturn the TfD absence of consensus. Where is the consensus that we should have such a notice? Mike Peel (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In December 2020, there still was a majority for labeling this template as Alpha (Template talk:Cite Q/Archive 4), with reference to actual problems and to the TfD. There is no reason to believe that this has changed suddenly less then 6 months later. The actual notice is a form of "Alpha" labeling, with some text from the TfD. You tried to remove the template in December as well, clearly against consensus. Waiting a few months and then trying again is not really looking good, so please self-revert to the long-standing consensus version, as affirmed in December. Fram (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus in that discussion. Keep trying. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For Alpha:
 * Against Alpha:
 * You need a new consensus that the previous problems are solved and the notice obsolete: what you have instead is a small majority thinking it should be labeled "Alpha" instead. It is up to you to find a consensus to overturn previous discussions, not a declaration by fiat that your template is now good enough to make earlier (and recent) objections invalid. Fram (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, that discussion could not overturn the TfD per WP:CONLEVEL policy even if it did show consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, no consensus (5 vs 4 != consensus). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, your strawman argument still stands. In December, there was clearly no consensus to consider this template seriously improved, after you tried to remove the notice. It is up to you (the people wanting to get rid of the notice) to establish a good consensus that it can go, not the other way around. Fram (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the TfD was 'no consensus', it can't arbitrarily place restrictions on use, so 'the TfD closure places restrictions on use of the template' makes absolutely no sense. Even if it did, it wasn't stated as a restriction, it was part of a narrative that has been selectively quoted from here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's "no consensus to delete", not "no consensus for the wording of the notice"; the wording of the notice is the reading of the discussion by the closing admin, as a position between "delete" and "just keep using it": so "no consensus" for either position, with an explanation of the middle ground, the situation; and that explanation is the basis for the notice. Feel free to spin that closure differently though. Fram (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So why did you cherry pick just part of the closing admin's comments - that part that supports your view - and not quote whole lot? Mike Peel (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did I do something 4 years ago? I wanted to keep it concise and to the point. Adding wording about why the template wasn't deleted was hardly relevant advice for editors looking at the template. Feel free to suggest a better summary of the original comments, I never claimed that my notice is infallible or unimprovable, but it sure is better than nothing. Fram (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This template is still used in only 1,400 non-settlement articles, and it is being added to FA pages in violation of CITEVAR, presumably by well-meaning editors who do not understand the (minor) problems that they are causing. Even minor CITEVAR problems can cause an article to fail at FAC. I think that a beta tag, along with a clear explanation of the template's limitations, is still needed. The current RFC link does not help editors understand the problems or edit in a way that is consistent with CITEVAR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to explain the issue with the FAC usage, please? I see you just reverted it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's the same old problem that this template has had for a long time: The unmodified Cite Q rendered the citation in Firstname Lastname order, like this, while the original citation template, which matched the style used in this and most other articles, was rendered with last names first. It looks like it also replaced some of the author names with "et al.", again changing the dominant citation style (there are no other uses of "et al." in that FAC). We need some basic advice at the top of this template's documentation that tells editors to modify this template as needed to avoid CITEVAR violations. This documentation addition should not be controversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To solve the Lastname, firstname obstacle to acceptance of this great template, we need a new qualifier for the "author" parameter. Currently  uses the "stated as" qualifier, which when one goes to the article is always Firstname lastname order.  (somewhere) has told us that it is difficult if not impossible to unscramble the "stated as" string (nor the "author" string) to give the order which would satisfy those who are unhappy with the template. How does one suggest a qualifier to a property (for that is what is needed)? MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting on d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Author last names and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Author first names before proceeding with this specific issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the proposals . Now supported. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

debug=yes
Is the yes option no longer available? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yes
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Author links
It would be a courtesy on the part of those who do not wish to use  to restore all the clear author links given by , when they insert their firstname, lastname parameters, by adding all the necessary authorlink parameters. But even then, they fail to restore the template to its extraordinary usefulness. If an identified author (not author string) of an article finally gets a wikipage, the cite Q citation will link to him/her automatically, whereas the fiddlers with firstname, lastname and authorlink parameters would need to go into every place that article has been cited to achieve the same result. A person's notability is demonstrated time and again by being cited in articles and such links show up against the author, and let the reader see yet again the breadth of someone's scholarship. If, for you, lastname firstname trumps citeQ, at least have the courtesy to include all the current author links, while you are destroying part of the utility of cite Q (in the case of modern articles where there are often several authors, many of whom may not yet have an article.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is someone removing ? From where? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Not systematically, no. But on occasion, I have had  removed, and replaced with  with no authorlinks, which I thought discourteous.  What bugs me about thelastname, firstname replacement insistence is that the lovely utility of citeQ referring to future author pages is lost.  However, perhaps that fanaticism will no longer be so fierce when the lastname, firstname, proposal is accepted and implemented, and hopefully that will allow cite Q to be accepted by all. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit that I've done the reverse of this, replacing with  in order to provide more the additional identifiers, correct errors in the citation or to provide link to an erratum. Is that consider discourteous? Trilotat (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. No. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource
Mike Peel (coding; thank you, Mike) and I (nagging and testing) have implemented links to Wikisource, in the sandbox; please see Template:Cite Q/testcases.

We are considering:


 * For works like d:Q42854406, do we want to link to a PDF on Internet Archive, when we have a cleaner, HTML version on Wikisource?
 * Do we need to link to works on non-English Wikispecies projects? If so, how do we decide precedence?

Please let us know your thoughts, and if you spot any issues. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think linking to Wikisource is preferable because Wikisource typically includes rich metadata such as hyperlinks to other works or Wikipedia, unlike typical pdf files. Since it is HTML, it's also more accessible. ~ ★ nmaia d 23:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No objections, so synced. Thank you, Mike Peel. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Usage =>  Will it be possible to wikilink to the underlying whole work, not solely to the article in question? Thanks for your work to get this into place. Long awaited. :-) — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And being site-absorbed, is there half a chance that we can get the iconography at some point? As happens with cite wikisource. Thanks.

update wikidata calls
Implement Special:Diff/1027030223 I made an change to the module, which does not change the functionality at all, but rather it makes the module both quicker and use less memory. The testcases page uses 1 million bytes in lua usage less and is quicker by more than one second. It makes the whole page parse, which it did not do.--Snævar (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Done with slight further optimization - you were calling a function twice which used marginally more memory than necessary. User:GKFXtalk 22:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing feature: obvious way to edit the ref
Because I know what Cite Q is and that the "Wikidata" link takes me to the actual reference, I can easily jump from an article to the ref itself and edit it. But unless one knows these things (especially the latter), there's no obvious way for someone reading an article to jump to editing the ref at wikidata, comparable to clicking the [edit] link to edit the article here on enwiki. And once in the source-editing mode of the article, it's even more hopeless. Could this template please add EditAtWikidata? DMacks (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

issue=
I’m trying to cite an article in an annual. For some reason  won’t appear.



—Michael Z. 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That citation returns a 'book'-style citation:
 * In cs1|2, books don't support issue. I suspect that the problem is that the wikidata doesn't have d:Property:P1433; just a guess, that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The item is a serial, not an article, and so I made it an instance of . Any idea what makes a journal interpreted as a book?
 * Or is it impossible to cite an issue of a journal, but requires creating an item for every article? —Michael Z. 02:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The item is a serial, not an article, and so I made it an instance of . Any idea what makes a journal interpreted as a book?
 * Or is it impossible to cite an issue of a journal, but requires creating an item for every article? —Michael Z. 02:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikidata" link points to a redirect
Is it intentional that the "Wikidata" link towards the end of the rendered display points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDQ_(identifier) (which is a redirect) rather than pointing directly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikidata? Or, was this overlooked when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDQ_(identifier) was changed from being a redirect to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43649390 in March 2021? Nurg (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Intentional. This template uses cs1|2 and all cs1|2 identifier labels use redirects.  See, for example Doi (identifier).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was introduced by  - originally it did just link to Wikidata, which personally I prefer... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is intentional. All such identifier links go through specially crafted redirects typically starting with the abbreviated/symbolic name of the identifier followed by the fixed disambiguator "(identifier)" since a couple of years. This is supported by catalog lookup link templates, CS1/CS2 citation templates, authority control templates and infoboxes. The reason for routing those links through the redirect is to group them more intelligently among the incoming links of the target article. This allows users of "What links here" to set the focus on identifier links specifically (when they want to look up instances of an identifier in articles) or to filter them out when they are looking for "normal" content-type links. This helps to stop clogging up the list of incoming links with an endless mess of incoming links which most readers are not interested in when doing normal article work or content research. It thereby improves reverse lookup significantly.
 * Personally, I would have called the redirect "QID (identifier)" rather than "WDQ (identifier)" to also match the name of the QID template, but Uzume felt that QID could be ambiguous. Whatever the name, it is important that all templates linking to it use the same redirect.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Automatically recognize open access sources
Instead of manually adding, it'd be neat if this template noticed the use of ,  or even  to indicate that the source is not behind a paywall. ~ ★ nmaia d 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be much better. Sometimes I have to use sources with paywalls, so it would be much better if paywalls and free access articles have a better configuration in cite Q. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue when trying to retrieve the pt-br title of a work
I'm trying the following

I get the following (even in wiki-pt)

I expected to get the title of the book in pt-br, but that's not the case. How can I get the title in Brazilian Portuguese? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 12:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you should cite a specific edition, not the general work. That way you also get the localized name. ~ ★ nmaia d 14:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do I do it in this example? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 09:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to create an item for that specific edition. For example,
 * ~ ★ nmaia d 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ~ ★ nmaia d 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Current misbehaviour of publication dates
(and others) Please note the ugly behaviour of publication dates in Global Species List Working Group. I have chacked the wikidata entries and fail to see any problem with the "publication date" property. It would be good to see this fixed.... MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Another example: adamant.pwn — contrib/talk 18:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a problem in Module:WikidataIB as  yields . adamant.pwn — contrib/talk 18:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the problem's gone away now, can you confirm? Also, note that RexxS is no longer editing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks fixed on my side. adamant.pwn — contrib/talk 10:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Last names
I am used to using citation with last and first names, e.g.

and referring to this by e.g.

I see in Suffix automaton the short sfn is sort-of achieved by adding to the citation e.g.

This shows how to sequence the entries alphabetically, which has some value. But would there be a way to somehow put the names into last/first format too? Maybe some markup inside the names? Or always having a QID for each author with last and first, and using that? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The template supports last and first. Do a find in the archives of this page for the word "last", and you will find many discussions about it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to have to enter first and last names when the full name is available in Wikidata, but I suppose there is no choice... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Subtitles
I’m trying to render. However, my implementation attempt appears to make no difference for the testcase, despite purging the cache. Do you see what I’m doing wrong? Thanks for your help. --Sascha (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely the problem is in how you are calling .  The subtitle is available because this works:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, after adopting your snippet, the module seems to work! (Curious, how could you debug this without editing the Lua code for the sandbox module?) Anyhow, let me now formally file a request that this gets merged into the production module. See sub-section below. --Sascha (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, after adopting your snippet, the module seems to work! (Curious, how could you debug this without editing the Lua code for the sandbox module?) Anyhow, let me now formally file a request that this gets merged into the production module. See sub-section below. --Sascha (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Formal edit request
Please apply this change to the Lua code in Module:Cite Q, which displays subtitles as in the test case. Rendering of subtitles is on the To do list for Template:Cite_Q, and the new test case gets displayed as expected without disrupting other tests, so I believe it’s an uncontroversial change. However, this the first time that I’m modifying this module, so please apologize if I’m not correctly following the process. --Sascha (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please feel free to update the to do list.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 05:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I’ve updated the to-do list. --Sascha (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure!  Paine  09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Publisher
It would be good if the qualifier "stated as" could be used where it is given. Institutions and publishers change their names.. Hence for, the publisher at the time was the "Technological Museum". MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that this suggestion might be implemented. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this is the most pressing change at present. It will apply to author, other contributors, publisher and possibly other fields. I wonder if it needs to be applied at the WikidataIB level, rather than here? (pinging several recent contributors) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion counts
As of 31 October 2021; measured using https://templatecount.toolforge.org/


 * en: 51126
 * fr: 4738
 * cy: 2065
 * pt: 1313
 * ru: 1001
 * da: 654
 * sv: 18
 * id: 13
 * fa: 6
 * bn: 3
 * it: 2

Other languages not tested. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Bug: Category links
As noted above, on Commons  sets journal. We need to fix this for all projects, such that any value that is currently set to  is instead set to.

This may, perhaps, need to be done in Module:Wd. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oddity on Commons
On Commons,  renders  (links excluded) as:

"“﻿An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves vetted to plant family for human and machine learning”, in (in en), volume 187, 16 December 2021, DOI:10.3897/PHYTOKEYS.187.72350, ISSN 1314-2003, Wikidata Q110218751, pages 93-128"

By comparison, the rendering here is:



Where is the spurious "(in en)" coming from? And why is the publication name missing? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Archaic Commons:Template:Citation and Commons:Template:Citation/core.
 * At commons, sets journal.  You can see this by previewing   at commons.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've asked at c:Commons:Village pump/Technical to see if we can update them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and see below for the category-link bug. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and see below for the category-link bug. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Edition should use 'stated as'




has the edition is shown as "unknown". This would be fixed if the template used the 'stated as' qualifier from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Theses and other "types"
For a thesis, we can use, which renders as:



Do we want to populate type automatically or instances of, , and possibly other types? Could we use Wikidata labels, or do we need to hard-code our preferred versions ("doctoral thesis" vs "PhD thesis")? How would we handle internationalisation? How do we wish to deal with ? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "dissertation submitted to" needs to be rendered; shouldn't it be the same as the publisher, which is already rendered? Should the curly quote marks shown in the example above be fixed in Cite q or at Wikidata? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually publisher is only rendered on that particular thesis because I was trying that out this morning to see if it would show up (I've just deleted it, so the citation above is back to how it would normally look)! Adding publisher to a Wikidata thesis renders a constraint violation currently, so I don't think there would be many (any?) other thesis items that have one. The institution name would be far more commonly recorded using the property P4101 "Dissertation submitted to", which does not show up in the citation. DrThneed (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what those technical terms mean, but in Cite thesis, we put the university name in publisher, so if P4101 "Dissertation submitted to" is meant to contain the university name, you should probably feed it to publisher in Cite q. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that wasn't clear. I assume the confusion is around Wikidata terminology. P4101 "Dissertation submitted to" is the name of a property in Wikidata. Pretty much every dissertation in Wikidata will have a statement for P4101 citing the institution name. (None or very few will have a statement saying who the publisher is, because entering that statement breaks the current Wikidata rules about what items are published).
 * A citation to a thesis should definitely include information about the institution it was submitted to (e.g. Harvard, APA, MLA and Chicago styles all include it). So the question is whether we could/should allow CiteQ to use that P4101 information, rather than every individual citation having to have a publisher parameter added by the editor making the citation. If CiteQ could do it it cuts down on the variability in citations, automatically links the institution name, and saves editors having to know or remember that a parameter needs adding. I don't know if there would be any downsides to doing it though. DrThneed (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on the above, Here is how the four main citation styles render a thesis:

Harvard

Raj, Tilak. 2021, ‘The effect of yoga on sports performance and health’, PhD thesis. Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand, https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/14452

APA

Raj, T. (2021). The effect of yoga on sports performance and health, [Doctoral thesis. Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand]. Research@Lincoln. https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/14452

Chicago

Raj, Tilak. "The effect of yoga on sports performance and health." PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Research@Lincoln, 2021. https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/14452

MLA

Raj, Tilak. The effect of yoga on sports performance and health. 2021. Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand, PhD thesis. Research@Lincoln, https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/14452


 * Although they differ in italics and ordering, there needs to be an institution listed, the institution's location, the online repository name, and its URL. There's no agreement on whether it's "doctoral thesis" or "PhD thesis". —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia
I would like to request this template be ported to the German Wikipedia. It's one of the largest Wikipedias and I am coming across scholars that have only German articles, e.g. Philip Felgner, a notable person re mRNA vaccines. Seems an odd Wikipedia to not have this template. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This template is a wrapper for Template:Citation. That does not seem to exist on German Wikipedia, so you first need to ask an administrator on that project to import it from en.Wikipedia. It will then need to be localised for use in the German language. Then, an administrator there can import this template and the Lua modules on which it is dependant. All of this, of course, requires consensus among the German-Wikipedia community to do so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

trans-title
Is there a Wikidata item property to use for the "trans-title" parameter of Citation i.e. an English translation of the title? This is probably necessary for e.g. Albert Einstein since many of his publications' titles are in German and the current citations have translated titles. Ditto for non-English Wikipedias like e.g. 本庶佑 / who is a Japanese 2018 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine: his preeminent works are in English (or so we think!) but his Japanese Wikipedia article should have translated titles into Japanese so they can understand them. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Display all authors
The documentation states that "using that parameter [ ] with no value displays them all". It doesn't. I propose adding something along the lines of  or   which displays all authors. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 03:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * For which QID are you seeing this issue? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing: Try . I've done so in my sandbox. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I presume it used to work, but my memory is hazy.  is a work-around, in the short term.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing: That doesn't work either.  gives an error if it "is greater than or equal to the number of [authors]" (CS1 help).  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It gives an error message, but it does work, in that it displays all the authors. As I said, it's a work-around. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 00:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * all and all implemented in the sandbox. cs1|2 does not recognize blank parameter values so  shouldn't either.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Trappist the monk! It looks good to me. Should we wait a few days for objections and then implement it? Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the change. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 22:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Tol. Now the template documentation needs to be updated (I'm not sure about the change to do it by myself). Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexcalamaro: (diff)  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"novalue" for author causes error
currently renders as:



We could, perhaps, treat this as ? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no value for the author, why is the author being rendered incorrectly by this template as "Anonymous"? For CITEVAR consistency with other citations in the article, which will presumably use cite news and other templates in that family, it should be rendered with no author, like this:
 * I also don't know why "5" is rendered without an indication that it is a page number. Does this template have a style guide? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * is creating a template so 5 doesn't render as 'p. 5'.
 * What I'm perplexed about is where 'Anonymous' is coming from. What is the value assigned to author1 that cs1|2 thinks is a generic name ('Anonymous' is not considered to be a generic name)?  Module:Cite Q does not contain 'Anonymous' as a string:
 * rendering that gives this:
 * No error. So where does 'Anonymous' come from?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Anonymous' comes from wikidata via line 225 and line 13. Line 225 is also what causes the generic name error because it adds  which contains the word 'author', a generic name, so we get Anonymous which, because it is a category, is invisible to us (not rendered visibly) but is present in the call to Module:Citation/CS1 and visible to the generic name detector.
 * Don't do that. Don't add stuff to cs1|2 parameter values.  If you want to add categories and error messages and the like, append them after cs1|2 rendering.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cite Q should make use of Cite news for this source rather than Cite journal, per the documentation for those templates. The template should probably also limit the namespaces from which it assigns tracking categories, in the same way that the CS1 templates do. There is little point in assigning tracking categories when the template is used on User or Talk space pages, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No error. So where does 'Anonymous' come from?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Anonymous' comes from wikidata via line 225 and line 13. Line 225 is also what causes the generic name error because it adds  which contains the word 'author', a generic name, so we get Anonymous which, because it is a category, is invisible to us (not rendered visibly) but is present in the call to Module:Citation/CS1 and visible to the generic name detector.
 * Don't do that. Don't add stuff to cs1|2 parameter values.  If you want to add categories and error messages and the like, append them after cs1|2 rendering.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cite Q should make use of Cite news for this source rather than Cite journal, per the documentation for those templates. The template should probably also limit the namespaces from which it assigns tracking categories, in the same way that the CS1 templates do. There is little point in assigning tracking categories when the template is used on User or Talk space pages, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cite Q should make use of Cite news for this source rather than Cite journal, per the documentation for those templates. The template should probably also limit the namespaces from which it assigns tracking categories, in the same way that the CS1 templates do. There is little point in assigning tracking categories when the template is used on User or Talk space pages, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not a pen instead of QID
Why not replace the QID with a pen linked to the Wikidata object? Who is interested in the number? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked a related question 7 months ago...nobody seems to care. DMacks (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Same reason as why we display journal information rather than just using a link. If you print out the page, a link is useless, but the number is still useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike. The exception would be that when in visual editor mode, eventually it'd be ideal to either easily go to wikidata, or edit the wikidata item from within visualeditor, but that's a larger project. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem in Rob van Soest
The cite Q for is not happy. Does some work need to be done behind the scenes? MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All good now... MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the authors appears to have had a non-breaking space in their name, Christopher B. Boyko, author # 14 - I placed a normal space between 'Christopher' and 'B." (that is, at position 12). I believe that's the desired fix and the error stopped being reported when I refreshed an older edit of the page.
 * I see that you took out these cite Q instances in a more recent edit to the Rob van Soest page. Is your All good now because you excised the annoying problem or because you saw a fix - perhaps mine, perhaps someone else's?  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for cluing me in as to what the problem was. I will now know what to look for should it occur again. (I removed all the publication stuff as I thought the article was overburdened with publications... ) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

How to avoid duplicate references?
The following citation is repeated twice using : It reuses the same reference as intended! Any recommended ref tag naming convention?

A potential advantage of cite_Q is that it in the future may reduce the number of duplicate references originating from the body text (where Cite_Q may be used) and from infoboxes based on module:Wd, provided that the citation at Wikidata has a QID. The reason is that Cite-Q generates Module:Wd calls, right? Currently, the Cite Q documentation gives another reason, that Module:WD sometimes generates Cite Q calls. Please provide an example.

The following example code should import two values from Wikidata, both with the same reference QID as above, using module:Wd:. It should give two footnotes to the same reference, but currently none is showed. Why?

The following example gives a value with a reference that has no QID, imported twice from Wikidata using module:Wd:. Now it works - and the reference is reused. However, cite_Q can not be utilized to reuse the same reference in the body text since the reference has no QID. I can reuse it in the article body text using : But it is hard for ordinary users to find out the ref tag name, and people don't want to see complex codes in the article body wikitext. Can Cite Q somehow help in the future?

, which could be followed by, unless there is some way to do it with existing options. An option like that would be confusing for non-wikidata-savvy editors and bots, however, since there is no obvious initial version of the named reference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cite Q does not use Module:WD, it uses Module:WikidataIB. But Cite Q just generates the citation template you can use in a ref tag. As long as you use ref tags in the normal way and with same name for the ref tag, then MediaWiki merges them in the references section. I think the problem is that WD creates a long string that's not easy to find - that's a problem you'd have to raise at Module talk:WD, since that's not related to Cite Q. BTW, it would be nice if WD automatically used Cite Q where appropriate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Cite Q appears to be the cause of a no target error
On 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash...

It appears that although the link from sfn to cite Q works, whatever is checking for errors doesn't resolve the link and throws a false positive. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, templates are incompatible with the "no target" errors. I can't remember where I read that, but you can read something about it over on Module talk:Footnotes where I've requested "whitelisting" certain templates. This transclusion template seems like it's too generic to be whitelisted in a meaningful way, though. On some days, it seems like Wikipedia is built from things that break Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I found the whitelist, I've asked for a load of templates/author combinations to be added. As you say this could be anything for any author, and none of it checkable on Wikipedia. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)