Help talk:Citation Style 1

|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: [[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]] → here.

Support for |agency= in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of this discussion. |agency= is defined for {{cite news}}, {{cite press release}}, and {{cite web}}. Also supported by {{citation}} when that template has |newspaper= or |work=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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.
Murray, James A. H.; Bradley, Henry; Craigie, W. A.; Onions, C. T., eds. (1933). The Oxford English Dictionary; being a corrected re-issue with an introduction, supplement and bibliography of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. The Philological Society (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198611013. LCCN a33003399. OCLC 2748467. OL 180268M. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 {{cite report}} citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan. Master of Time (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If one is to believe the results of this search there are ~355 articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter with {{cite report}} templates that have |agency= and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.

Some cases, like this from Weather of 2021, the value in |publisher= us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=:

{{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}

Others, like this one from the same article, appear to use some sort of made-up 'agency' name:

{{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}

('National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' does not appear on the Storm Events Database page linked from the citation).

@Trappist the monk: It's not obvious, but it actually does appear. Individual Storm Data event entries (of which the link above to the Storm Events Database is one) are created by the over 100 National Weather Service WFOs (Weather Forecast Offices) across the country and are then compiled together / released by the National Centers for Environmental Information. There are multiple ways of accessing these entries, including in the form of massive monthly Storm Data PDFs (printed versions may also be available but I think for a price) and from individual links like the one above. PHI, as shown in the WFO field of the table at that link, is the code of the WFO that created this event entry. The intent of the citation (even if formatted weirdly or wrongly) is to both attribute the NCEI and the WFO that created the entry. Master of Time (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

—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#Adds unknown parameter to CS1 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:

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

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

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

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

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. 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 |author=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 collaboration parameter, whether the names of the principal authors are available or not.

A more general solution would be to rename collaboration to collective-author and require that collective authors (such as corporate authors, commissions, collaborations, etc.) always go there, so that the authorn parameters are only used for single humans. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have suggested a |org-authorn= before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of ((name_triggering_checks)). Izno (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Or just use author_n as normal. 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: ... |last1=Chen|first2=Xie-luan|author1-mask=Chen Zie-luan|last2=Smith|first2=J. P.|author3=Legume Projectiles Workgroup|display-authors=etal|translator-last=O'Brien|translator-first=Maeve|others=McNabb, John (illustrator)|editor1-last=Gutierrez|editor1-first=Selena|editor2=Foostuffs Momentum Committee|publisher=X. Y. Zedman & Co., for the Ministry of Foodfights ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's because you don't edit in particle physics. See Quark#cite_note-PDGTetraquarks-14, Quark#cite_note-Belletetra-15 or Quark#cite_note-LHCbtetra-17 for example, amongst several others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Man, two people above who just skimmed right over why I said what I said: I have suggested a |org-authorn= before which would also skip our checks for commas and semicolons and allow us to remove a lot of uses of |author=((a_name_triggering_checks)). I would love for |author= to fill the role of "only organizational names", but it's not that today, it's a template-level synonym for |last= and a lot of people also use it for |author=last, first, which maybe at some date we can instead have a more strict change to support catching those uses also, in favor of moving to |org-author= parameters........... Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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:

Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678. Here, the journal identifier (ISSN) is clearly linked to the journal name, and the article identifier (DOI) follows as part of the article-specific details.

Enhanced Citation Accuracy

Academic standards and citation guidelines typically differentiate between journal and article identifiers. Aligning Wikipedia’s citation style with these standards would improve the accuracy and professionalism of our citations. For example, many style guides (e.g., APA, MLA) do not group ISSN with article identifiers.

Improved Reader Experience

For readers and editors, a clear and structured citation format is easier to read and understand. Grouping identifiers by their type (journal vs. article) can prevent confusion and ensure that the citation components are immediately recognizable:

Doe, J. (2024). "Research on Sample Topics". ''Sample Journal'', ISSN 1234-5678. doi:10.1234/abcd.5678, PMID 12345678.

Consistent Identifier Grouping

If the goal is to avoid randomness and ensure consistent ordering, we can achieve this while still distinguishing between journal and article identifiers. We could establish a format where journal identifiers (e.g., ISSN) always appear directly after the journal title, followed by article identifiers (e.g., DOI, PMID) in alphabetical order.

By acknowledging the inherent differences between these types of identifiers and reflecting this distinction in our citation templates, we can provide clearer, more accurate citations. I propose revisiting the grouping strategy to separate journal identifiers from article-specific identifiers, ensuring each is clearly defined and appropriately placed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

ISSN is best omitted because it is rarely a relevant identifier. You cite the article, not the journal as a whole. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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. 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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki changes to citation parsing

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

• The HTML markup used for citations by Parsoid changed last week. In places where Parsoid previously added the mw-reference-text class, Parsoid now also adds the reference-text class for better compatibility with the legacy parser. More details are available. [1]
• ...
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 June. It will be on all wikis from 13 June (calendar). [2][3]
• The new version of MediaWiki includes another change to the HTML markup used for citations: Parsoid will now generate a <span class="mw-cite-backlink"> wrapper for both named and unnamed references for better compatibility with the legacy parser. Interface administrators should verify that gadgets that interact with citations are compatible with the new markup. More details are available. [4]

 — 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 {{CS1 config|mode=}}. Some specific-source templates wrap the general purpose CS2 {{Citation}} and use |mode=cs1. Because this emits the message "{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: overridden setting (link)" and adds the page to a tracking category, the templates should be converted into CS1 wrapper templates. (Or fixed in some other way.)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Thanks Hike395! That fixed the problem without causing any unexpected changes. This worked way better than my plan. Would it be a good idea to link Module:Citation mode in the documentation at Template:Citation Style documentation/display for future specific-source templates? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 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/20240615012051/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)

Sub-titles, numeration, parts and |trans-series= request

Sub-titles for {{cite book| and accompanying numbering

I need several sub title parameters for {{cite book| because the template as it now exists is difficult to work with.

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.

Numeration

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

Parts for {{cite encyclopedia|

I would also need {{cite encyclopedia| to also have a numbering or part accompanying the titles.

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.

Need for |trans-series

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

Which citation to use when citing a dictionary

Additionally, which citation template should I 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, {{cite book |chapter=<Foobar> |title=Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions – Volume 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age |series=Series in Indo-European Language and Culture |volume=<xxx> |page=<yyy> }} will give "<Foobar>". Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions – Volume 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Series in Indo-European Language and Culture. Vol. <xxx>. p. <yyy>.

Replace <Foobar> with "Text Introduction", "Tell Ahmar", or whatever. Similar for Vol 2/Vol 3.

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. 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. 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. 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)

Whitespace in `CS1 config` and `bots`

I'm not quite clever enough to figure out how {{Use dmy dates}} and {{EngvarB}} don't emit a linebreak, but {{CS1 config}} and {{bots}} 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)

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:

{{cite web |title= Conspiracy Theories: A Guide for Members of Parliament and Candidates |website=The Antisemitism Policy Trust |url= https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Conspiracy-Theory-Guide.pdf |access-date= 11 June 2024}}

"Conspiracy Theories: A Guide for Members of Parliament and Candidates" (PDF). The Antisemitism Policy Trust. Retrieved 11 June 2024.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I failed to notice "policy" in the list in Help:CS1_errors#generic_name. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Add an "adblock removal" signal to "Subscription or registration required" at Template:Cite web

An increasing number of websites, particularly in the news and information space, require you to disable your adblocker to access their content. While this is not quite the same as a paywall or registration requirement, it is still an annoyance. I therefore propose that the "Subscription or registration required" parameter at Template:Cite web should have a variable added to indicate that the website requires adblock disabling for access. BD2412 T 18:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Might it be better to make that a separate parameter, since a site requiring removing ad blockers might or might not, e.g., require registration. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not experienced that, but then I again I never register for the sites that require registration, so I have not seen whether they also require adblock disabling. I would still think that this could be handled with a single parameter, with one additional variable for those that require registration and adblock disabling. BD2412 T 20:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

For large values of one. A site that doesn't work with ad blockers might be at any of four access levels, so the options are:

1. Status quo
2. Add a parameter for requires disabling ad blockers for each |foo-access= parameter
3. Define 4 new values for each |foo-access= parameter, e.g., |url-access=limited-noadblocker
4. Let each |foo-access= parameter take a list of two subparameters

I believe that the first two options are the most reasonable. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have to lean toward 1, because it's not WP's job to tell readers what they have to do to get access to something. This is just yet another form of "policy block" like region-specific blocking, and it's essentially an insoluble issue by us, because there are millions of websites and they change all the time. WP:NOT#DATABASE of random websites' policies. We're presently permitting notice of paywalled or registration-required links, but even this is dubiously useful. Any given paywalled academic site is effectively not paywalled for any academic or student whose institution provides institutional-subscription access, for example. And whether or not a site such as Internet Archive requires a free user registration to access something is ultimately immaterial, since the source is still accessible and one can (unless particularly clueless) use fake data to register anyway. Even if we continue to tolerate that minimal level of trying to tell the reader what to expect at innumerable random websites that may change their behavior at any moment (and may do it on a regional or other policy basis, too), we should not expand this worm-can further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That's true across the web, and if you use an adblocker, while not illegal, you are changing how websites operate and violate the implicit free content paid by ads agreement. I'm against the inclusion of this parameter because custom scripts designed to circumvent those agreements should not be encouraged or supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Adblockers generally do not prevent a website from including integrated textual advertising content, e.g., a sidebar or footer on a news website. They block intrusive forms of advertising like popups. There wouldn't be adblockers if there weren't popup ads. In any case, this is intended to caution our readers, many of whom do have adblockers that a specified externally linked website may be foreclosed to them. If a link had an appropriate caution, I as a reader would know not to waste my time following the link, knowing that I would not be able to access the content at the other end. I don't see how such a notice is materially different from one indicating that registration is required. BD2412 T 20:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You choose to use an adblocker. The cause of the problem is the you using an adblocker to circumvent how the website is designed to be used. We shouldn't have to warn you about your own choices. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the cause of the problem is the failure to provide enough information to make an informed choice. Only if you chose to click on a link that you know prohibits ad blockers is it reasonable to claim that it's what you chose. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Requiring you to disable adblockers is not merely an annoyance: it is a breach of your security perimeter, of which adblocking may be an important part. See e.g. the NSA and CIA use ad-blockers (2021) and FBI Recommends Ad Blockers (2022).

Conversely, use of adblockers is not a circumvention and should not be discouraged. It is an important security measure. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ads are a common attack vector, cross-site scripting was a bad idea from the beginning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this only for sites that currently need to have adblockers disabled? What happens if some adblockers work but other don't, or adblockers must be disabled now but later they work out a way to circumvent the detection? If this isn't just based on the technical issue then what of sites that disallow adblockers but make no technical measures to stop you from using them? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: See, e.g., this. I encounter this sort of thing all the time. I don't think anyone wants to follow a link that we provide as a source in an article, only to have a screen-blocking pop-up in their face telling them that they must disable their ad-blocker to continue. BD2412 T 15:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You miss my point. The adblockers work to overcome detection, so if your adblocker no longer triggers that message what then? No site supported by ads wants you to use an adblocker, and Wikipedia shouldn't care one way or the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If a site is functionally inaccessible because it requires that you remove defenses, then it is no better than a site that requires you to pay to access it. I'm just saying that we should have the option of letting our readers know that before they click the link that we are providing to them. Wikipedia should care about the experience we provide our readers. BD2412 T 16:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedia's readers are not using it or care about it. For them there is no difficulty accessing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this? Potentially saving the vanishingly small percentage of people who actually verify sourced information intersecting the set of people who use adblockers the trivial time it takes to decide of whether to whitelist a news site's ads, disable their ad blocker, close the tab, or attempt to locate the tiny continue to article link in the "Looks like you're using an adblocker" modal?

I don't think that technical foibles are really necessary to include in citation information, but particularly not at the citation template level. If this is a real concern, follow the citation template with a transclusion of {{subscription or advertising}}.

This might also be the wrong area of concentration if we're concerned about clear signalling of access levels: as far as I'm aware, zero citation generation scripts contain functionality that automatically adds |url-access= subscription to any source, meaning that we have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of citations to subscription-only sources with no red padlock icons. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: Do you have data on the "percentage of people who actually verify sourced information"? Many browsers now have an adblocker built in, particularly because adblockers prevent websites from downloading tracking software onto your computer. As for whether it is used, we have countless citation templates that are missing basic things like dates, author names, even titles of the work cited. We have functionalities throughout the encyclopedia that are little-used, but would improve the encyclopedia if well-used. We should still have those options. BD2412 T 15:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have data on what percentage of editors bother to verify sources. I feel like I remember hearing that the Foundation has stats on reader clickthrough to sources, and it's something like 1%, but I don't remember where I read that or when the data is from.

Point taken about unused functionality; have you thought about the suggestion to use {{subscription or advertising}} if no consensus develops to add |url-access=ads? Folly Mox (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The template {{subscription or advertising}} renders as

(subscription or advertising required)

Until there is a decision to not delete it, ... -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to check transclusions when I found that template and proposed it as an alternative solution, and another participant in this discussion nominated it for deletion in the time since my above comments. Honestly I don't feel particularly strongly about this thread either way. I was just trying to find a quick and simple method to address the concerns with existing templates. Folly Mox (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather than worrying about this, or the other many variation (see for instance the section below), would it be worthwhile just change this to have one option 'restricted'. This covers subscription, adblocking, geoblocking, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think that the type of restriction may be relevant, and editors who are creating templates should have the flexibility to specify a type. Perhaps the parameter should provide an option to add a generic "restricted" signal, or a more specific signal of the editor's choosing. BD2412 T 21:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not be trying to track this sort of information in citation templates. These are website "policy" issues that can change at any time for any reason based on the whim of a low-level engineer, a mid-level manager, or high-level politician. Policy can change every few months. There is no way to keep it accurate. Nor is it required to cite a source. There is an expectation readers are able to navigate around the web. -- GreenC 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Before nomination of {{subscription or advertising}} for deletion, its two ns0 transclusions were altered to {{subscription required}}, as the websites cited no longer supported free reading with ads. It is a difficult thing to stay on track of updating. Folly Mox (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

URL blocked for certain locations

I can't access the URL https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/overview.html?programSeriesId=SH01739244&aid=gapzap and marked it as dead, however another editor can apparently access it. Is there some kind of parameter that should be used here to note this? I was looking at {{Cite web}} but didn't find one. Gonnym (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a perennial faq, no we do not manage policy blocks because they are changeable and relative to the viewer. For example, people in Romania can't access BBC links hosted in the UK, but only for 18 months, and this information is not made public anywhere. The possibilities are endless. The alternative? Check the archive link when you can't reach the main link. Of course this leads to the situation you describe of incorrectly marking a link dead, which is its own problem. Because even if the citation was tagged as a possible policy block, as you suggest, how would you know if it was policy block dead, or actual dead? It then leads to the problem of links not being marked dead when they should be. Probably in this case one would need to use a site like isitdownrightnow.com (assuming that site is not also policy blocked). It's a messy complex problem. -- GreenC 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor bug: missing "."

Any CS1 citation templates ends with "." However, this does not happen if a) |quote= is used and its value does not end with "."; and b) no other parameter injects content into the rendered citation after the quotation content. Example:

• {{cite book |editor1-last=Jenny |editor1-first=M. |editor2-last=Sidwell |editor2-first=P. |chapter=Reconstructing Austroasiatic prehistory |date=2015 |title=Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages |location=Leiden |publisher=Brill |page=1 |quote=Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) favour the middle Yangzi |ref=none}}

renders as:

• Jenny, M.; Sidwell, P., eds. (2015). "Reconstructing Austroasiatic prehistory". Handbook of the Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. p. 1. Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) favour the middle Yangzi

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

'Twas ever thus; probably to avoid multiple terminal punctuation characters: !., ?., etc. This functionality was established long before we had |postscript=none.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, can something be done about it now in this Lua golden age?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this example supposed to be bibliographically accurate? (genuine question: autism) I'm not seeing chapter Reconstructing Austroasiatic prehistory at doi:10.1163/9789004283572, nor any chapter by that name across Brill. (Also I guess add a four dots sentence-terminal ellipsis to the quote as a workaround?) Folly Mox (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would think it should be. It's just a citation I ran across (I think I may have formatted a bare-text one into a template though; don't remember at this point). Please do feel free to repair it in any way it needs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Veering entirely off topic here, but this page provides the answer: the chapter was not included in the published book, and so the four references to this source are all citing an unpublished manuscript. Folly Mox (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fixing these, and I'll stop derailing this thread after this post, but noting for funsies that the full sentence in the original source reads "Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) favour the middle Yangzi, although there is no direct linguistic evidence for this, and the expansion of the [language] phylum in its present form would have to begin further south." So there may be some misrepresentation. Folly Mox (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. I guess this PDF could count as self-publication by a subject-matter expert, so still usable, as long as used properly. But there might be more, latter, better sourcing anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

year parameter

cs1|2 is somewhat schizophrenic when validating |year=. If I write:

{{cite book |title=Title |year=August 2023}} → Title. August 2023.

no error even though 'August 2023' is not a 'year'. But, if I write:

{{cite book |title=Title |year=August 2023 |date=August 2023}} → Title. August 2023. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

there is an error message because 'August 2023' is not a 'year'.

I propose to add a maintenance category to identify cs1|2 templates that have |year= where the assigned value is not YYY, YYYY, their circa forms, year-only ranges, and with or without CITEREF disambiguators. To make cs1|2 consistent in how it validates |year= I propose that we define |year= so that it may only hold one of the year formats named above. To accomplish that, we need to know where noncompliant |year= year parameters exist so that they may be repaired before a fix is made in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation. The category is necessary because there are a so many non-cs1|2 templates that use |year= that Cirrus searching is woefully inadequate.

Yea or nay?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 13:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) (modified)

How should a range, |year=2020–2022, be treated? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That would need to be allowed. Kanguole 11:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Literalist as I have been accused of being, year to me means just that. Year range is a date so |date=2020–2022. Clearly there will be whining about this so I have modified the proposed definition of |year=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This matches a rationale for keeping both |date= and |year= explained at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 31#Preference between year or date parameter in Cite Journal. Two editors mention using |year= to discourage future editors/bots from changing "YYYY" to something like "January YYYY" arbitrarily. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support as maintenance category; oppose as error category. I don't think that a new CS1 error is being proposed here, but for clarity. Folly Mox (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Initially a maintenance category. Once that category is cleared, it goes away, the fix is made to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation, and thereafter, noncompliant |year= parameters become errors categorized in the already existing Category:CS1 errors: dates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Volume in bold

"Volume values that are wholly digits, wholly uppercase Roman numerals, or fewer than five characters will appear in bold." Why is bold text used in these cases? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That's true for e.g. {{cite journal}}, and not true for e.g. {{cite periodical}}, {{cite encyclopaedia}}, {{cite book}}.

I don't remember which published academic citation style guides recommended bolding the volume number, but it does a good job of setting it apart from the issue number and visually separating the citation. I feel like we had a discussion here about this just last year at least. I'll see if I can locate it in the archives for you. Folly Mox (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't able to locate the discussion I was remembering, but see for example:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 50 § When |volume= is a Roman Numeral (2018)
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 62 § Bolding of the volume number (2020)
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 77 § Journal volume in Bold (2021)
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79 § Still an issue with book volumes (2021)

Short answer I guess is that a lot of people talked it through over the years and it got consensus. Folly Mox (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable style for citation output in the form "63 (7): 43–51", but a) we really have reason to do that at all, since WP:NOTPAPER and we have no reason to compress space; and b) "vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 43–53" (or "Vol." and "No." if one insists on capitalizing those things) is much clearer. It's also a format in which the boldfacing would serve no purpose. That is, the boldfacing only serves a disambiguating purpose for a format that we have no reason to use and a good reason not to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This, exactly. I consistently use {{cite magazine}} even when citing traditional academic journals just to get away from the compressed format of {{cite journal}}. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Google URL replacing Clyde Ships URL

Why has this template recently changed from correctly citing references from the Clyde Ships website, such as https://www.clydeships.co.uk/view.php?ref=10727 and is now translating them to show them as Google, such as https://www.google.com.hk/?ref=10727&gws_rd=ssl ? Johnragla (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnragla have you got an example in an article to look at? Nthep (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No, because I've used manual citations, rather than automatic. An example of how the template used to work is ref 131 on the Northern Steamship Company page. Johnragla (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnragla You're using the visual editor rather than the source editor, correct? The behaviour you're seeing is a VisualEditor citation tool issue rather than an issue with any of the citation templates (I can replicate your issue if I use the visual editor). I've no idea where that tool is managed for en:WP. Anyone? Nthep (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep Thank you, yes, correct. Wikipedia:VisualEditor says "Use Phabricator to report problems with Visual Editor." Do you want to do that, or shall I? Johnragla (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you. Nthep (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)