Help talk:Citation Style 1

Citation templates

... in conception

... and in reality

Citing sections?

There doesn't seem to be a template for citing standards, e.g., FIPS PUB 60-1, ANSI X3.53-1976. Is {{cite report}} appropriate for that purpose? --

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs), 8:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chatul: Your question contradicts your section heading. If you are asking about citing standards, then see {{Cite techreport}}. If you are asking about about citing a specific section within a source, maybe try the |chapter= or |at= parameters in most any citation template. — voidxor 15:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

ProQuest (or similar) as merely an alternative

I don't have a subscription to the NYT; thanks to the Wikipedia Library, I can read the NYT via ProQuest. Therefore in this edit, I changed | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/arts/jill-freedman-dead.html | to | url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 | via=ProQuest |Readers with access to ProQuest but not otherwise to the NYT (and surely there are many such readers) will thank me.

Readers with access to the NYT but not to ProQuest (and surely there are many of these too) will not thank me.

Various other approaches come to mind. I could have left the reference untouched, and let readers figure out for themselves that this article is somewhere at ProQuest. Or I could have left just the content of the "cite news" template untouched but added immediately after it (and within the reference) "Also available at ProQuest 2302935851.", or similar. However, I suspect that this matter has already been exhaustively discussed somewhere. Perhaps somebody could point me to such a page (or of course make a suggestion here). -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the reference as it was, as the reference was for the NYT. Simply add "Also available via [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 proquest]" after the cite, but before the ending ref tag, or use {{proquest}} in the |id= field (as |id={{proquest|2302935851}}). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"id=": Yes, that does it. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite report issue parameter not displaying

{{Cite report}} used below does not appear to support displaying the issue number if no volume is supplied. I am not sure if 1/08 in the source below means volume 1, issue 08, so I had skipped adding the volume parameter. Any suggestions or insights on how to correctly fix the citation?

{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right, {{cite report}} does not support |issue= because reports are not periodicals. If your source is publisher periodically, as it appears to be since the publisher has attached a 'number' to it, you might rewrite like this:

{{Cite periodical |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |periodical=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). "Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0" (PDF). Conservation Gateway. TNC Coral Triangle Program. No. 1/08. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023.

Or, keep it as {{cite report}} and put the report number in |id=:

{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |id=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}

Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Report No. 1/08. Retrieved May 28, 2023.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing because {{Cite techreport}} works with number, but {{Cite report}} uses docket, which {{Cite thesis}} uses as a synonym for id. In a perfect world, {{Cite techreport}} and {{Cite report}} would both use number and place the input within the parenthetical that follows the title, so for the following input:

{{cite report |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |number=TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}

you'd get:

Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. February 11, 1941. Retrieved June 19, 2023.

instead what you get when you use docket or id:

Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. February 11, 1941. TM 1-320. Retrieved June 19, 2023.

The report number is getting lost at the end. Having it in the parenthetical would better match my expectations for keeping information in the proper, relevant order, and it would be more logical for the editor creating the citation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You can override the automatic |type=Report applied by the template by writing: |type=Report TM 1-320:

{{cite report |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |type=Report TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}

Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. 1941-02-11. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

For this citation, perhaps it is better to use {{cite manual}} (really just a redirect to {{cite book}}) because the source calls itself a 'manual', not a 'report':

{{cite manual |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |type=Manual TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}

Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Manual TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. 1941-02-11. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the workaround. I still think it's worth rethinking how this parameter works on {{cite report}} and {{cite technical report}}, but this helps. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

medrxiv?

Should we support MedRxiv in the same way that we support BioRxiv? Both have similar identifiers so adding |medrxiv= would make use of code already used for |biorxiv=. The start date for the validator would be 2020-01-01 instead of biorxiv's 2019-12-11. The medrxiv validator would not accept a shortened identifier as biorxiv does.

Do it? Don't do it?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

medRxiv, EarthArXiv, PsyArXiv, etc... should all be supported. It might be easier to have a generic {{cite preprint}} handle those automatically however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have implemented |medrxiv= and created {{cite medrxiv/new}}. Here is a journal citation using |medrxiv=:

{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R |date=3 June 2021 |title=The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=118 |issue=25 |article-number=e2024815118 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2024815118 |doi-access=free |medrxiv=10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v2}}

Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R (3 June 2021). "The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (25) e2024815118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2024815118. medRxiv 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v2.

and {{cite medrxiv/new}} to cite an earlier version of the preprint mentioned in the above:

{{cite medRxiv/new |vauthors=Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R |date=5 April 2021 |title=The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions in an infected person |medrxiv=10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1}}

Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R (5 April 2021). "The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions in an infected person". medRxiv 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1.

After the next module update, {{cite preprint}} can be updated to support {{cite medrxiv}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have |medrxiv= support for cite journal template. Occasionally, people cite the preprint doi instead of the published article doi, which can lead to confusion about what identifiers to include and whether the article is peer-reviewed. I've run into confusion editing around this, [1] so it would be a nice fix. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you add "remap" support for Urum language [uum]

There are citations referencing the Urum language [ISO 639-3: uum], but they don't work either as the name or the code. Is it possible to add entries for it in the language "remapping" tables (to make it work for the time that MediaWiki still does not offer any localization support for it)? That language is not dead, it originates from Crimea (from Pontic/Greek orthodox Christians that lived there all around the Black Sea before islamisation of the Ottoman Empire, written there in Cyrillic, also traditionally in Greek) and remains used in Turkey, southern Ukraine (Donetsk/Azov region), Russia and parts of Georgia. verdy_p (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the remapping is to override MediaWiki language tag definitions so that the rendered language names are in line with en.wiki expectations.

but they don't work either as the name or the code. I dispute that:

{{cite book |title=Title |language=Urum}}

Title (in Urum).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

A couple of quick cirrus searches did not find any cs1|2 templates using |language=uum or |language=Urum:

uum

Urum

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The above shows CS1 maint: unrecognized language. Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, because cs1|2 can't tell the difference between an unknown language name and a misspelled language name:

{{cite book |title=Title |language=Germain}}

Title (in Germain).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

create a |department= alias |title-note=?

I have now been part of two recent discussions that question the correctness of |department= when used to do other than name the department of a (typically periodical) publication (Sports, Op Ed, Entertainment, etc). In both discussions, the intent was to include some sort of descriptive text that doesn't fit the 'department' mold. In the days of {{citation/core}}, |department= was assigned to the {{citation/core}} metaparameter |TitleNote=; the Module:Citation/CS1 metaparameter TitleNote continues to do that. I had thought that there was a similarly named parameter |titlenote=, |title_note=, |title-note= but apparently not. I wonder if we should create an alias that matches the metaparameter |title-note=. Of course, |type= can also be used; the differences between these two parameters are positioning and that the value assigned to |type= is wrapped in parentheses:

{{cite web |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |department=TitleNote}}

"Title". TitleNote. Website.

{{cite web |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |type=Type}}

"Title". Website (Type).

Neither of |type= and |department= contribute to a citation's metadata

So, should we create an alias |title-note=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There having been no comment: added.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple OCLCs in one reference

Probably sounds daft. But what if you want to use {{Cite book}} to refence a range of books, with multiple volumes; for example 2 volumes, 1936–1937. But each volume would have its own identifier (there being no overarcing ID for the series as a set). See whaty I mean? Thanmks for any help! SN54129 14:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

When I've had this come up I've just referenced each volume separately, with its own template. Does that work in your use case? Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Mackensen :) I had a nasty feeling someone would say that! Thanks for confirming though, at least I won't have to waste time experimenting. Have a good weekend! SN54129 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Google drive pages: which url-access

I am finding references to Google Drive pages that say, "You need access", for example:

• {{cite map |last=Marquínez |first=Germán |last2=Rodríguez |first2=Yohana |last3=Terraza |first3=Roberto |last4=Martínez |first4=Mario |year=2003 |title=Plancha 365 - Coconuco - 1:100,000 |url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwFQPMJEi17QX2w2MnpuNGtHdVU |publisher=[[INGEOMINAS]] |pages=1 |access-date=2017-06-06}}
• Marquínez, Germán; Rodríguez, Yohana; Terraza, Roberto; Martínez, Mario (2003). Plancha 365 - Coconuco - 1:100,000 (Map). INGEOMINAS. p. 1. Retrieved 2017-06-06.

This came up in Puracé. I believe the cite template needs a |url-access= parameter; the three choices are registration, limited, and subscription. Which one should be used? —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The citation appears to sugget that Google drive is the only place to find the map, in which case I don't believe it's usable for referencing (as it hasn't been published). Also I doubt having links to random Google drive files is a good idea from a security perspective. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look around online. It's possible that this https://recordcenter.sgc.gov.co/B4/13010010024433/mapa/Pdf/0101244331300002.pdf PDF file is the map being referenced. If it covers the details being referenced simply switch it out for the Google drive link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks. I used your link in Puracé and made a few similar replacements in a few other articles. Then I got to thinking that there might be a lot of Google Drive links in Wikipedia, so I did a search:

insource:"drive\.google\.com" : link

which has 4,854 results. The first one happens to be N. H. Wilson, which has 3 drive.google.com links

• "Obituary: N.H. Wilson". NADA: Native Affairs Department Annual: 104. 1961.
• "Obituary: N.H. Wilson". East Africa and Rhodesia: 1019. June 23, 1960.
• "Obituary: Mrs. Agnes Wilson". The New Rhodesia: 19. October 27, 1950.

all of which work fine, without any need to gain access first. Do you see any problem retaining these links? Should Wikipedia create a project of replacing or eliminating Google drive links in 4,854 articles? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a data point, 2022 Guamanian general election has a link to Google Drive, but it's the link provided by the Guam Election Commission on its homepage for the official results. That would be a case where the Google Drive link (which isn't restricted access) may need to stay, since there's no other page for the results. There may be other instances were an alternative link to an otherwise allowable source isn't available. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think though that quite are few are going to be copyvio, the three above certainly look like it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. I just wanted to point out an instance (perhaps the only one) where such a link might be both valid and desirable. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The item in The New Rhodesia is now over 72 years old. The other two are over 61 years old. How long do these copyrights last? 75 years? —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

70 years after the death of the author, at least in the US/UK. Without knowing the date of the authors death it's best to be cautious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What if the archive-url is an earlier version of the source that does not support the material it's attached to?

We've got a situation where a news story was published, then it was archived at IA, then later it was updated by the publisher. We use the updated story in a WP article, but the material (including a quote) isn't in the archive-url, it's only in the updated story (at the original url). Is it appropriate to use that archive-url even if it doesn't support the material? This came up at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Bogus archive url. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I understand what you meant. What you should do in this case is archive the new version of the URL using the Wayback Machine and then add that to the article (as I have done here). Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cite web documentation - url-status prerequisite inconsistency

About halfway through the Template:Cite web documentation it says url-status: the |url-status= parameter should only be included if an |archive-url= is set. Clear enough. The problem is that right near the top of the page, in the Full parameter set in vertical format table of the Usage section, the only prerequisite listed for url-status is url. Should that not be changed to archive-url? Could this be contributing to the confusion on the correct usage of url-status? Let's face it, many editors are not going to be reading the documentation beyond the Usage section. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No doubt the template documentation can be improved. I think, however, that the inconsistency that you describe is not the cause of the misuse of |url-status=. I suspect that much of the misuse is caused by visual editor because the Template:Cite web § TemplateData lists |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date= as 'suggested' parameters. This search finds about 34300 articles with |url-status= |archive-url= |archive-date= (where |url-status= may have an assigned value of live or dead or nothing; the others are present but empty). This parameter sequence is the sequence listed in the TemplateData under paramOrder; this edit for example.

The real fix, is to fix ve and/or TemplateData so that ve doesn't add empty parameters to a template (even when suggested); is mindful of prerequisites; can handle enumerated parameters without TemplateData having a bazillion |authorn= entries where the only thing that changed is the enumerator; etc. Are you holding your breath waiting for these fixes? Don't.

I suppose that the 'documentation' (such as it is) for |url-status= in TemplateData might be tweaked so that its description begins with a statement of requirements: "Requires |url= and |archive-url=; If set to 'live', the title display is adjusted ..." Similarly, the description for |archive-url= and |archive-date= might begin with their prerequisites... Will this do any good? I'm skeptical, but feel free to try.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wikkiwonkk - I fixed the issue with Template:Cite web/doc that you suggested, and leave Trappist's suggestions for you. GoingBatty (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to touch TemplateData though, modifying a template that is used so widely is way above my current editing risk tolerance. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 17:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Template:Cite techreport → Template:Cite tech report

– "Techreport" isn't a word. There's no reason that we need to mash words together to avoid one additional space; the sister templates like {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite mailing list}}, and {{Cite press release}} don't.

References

— voidxor 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Voidxor Note that templates such as {{Cite AVMedia}}, {{Cite mailinglist}}, {{Cite pressrelease}} are redirects to the templates with a space. I wouldn't mind if {{cite techreport}} redirects to {{cite tech report}}, which is the opposite of the current arrangement. GoingBatty (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the use of redirects. I'm not sure what your point is beyond that. This is about where the template itself belongs, not whether redirects are available. And yes, my intent is to reverse the redirect. — voidxor 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's completely necessary. :Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for understandability and consistency with other citation templates. "Tech report" with a space is easier to parse than scriptio continua. Glades12 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Documentation needed for linking multiple urls within the 'pages' parameter

When citing newspapers I often want to link to both the front page article and the "continued on page X" second page. Using newspapers.com clips, the second page might not be accessible to people without an account/subscription unless explicitly linked. This has been discussed/requested in the past:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 83#Multiple urls of source
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78#How to extlink the components of a multi-component publication
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78#Multiple URLs (split file)
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60#Cite news - multiple URLs

From the last of those links I discovered that it is possible to link to multiple urls using the pages parameter, like so:

<ref name="StarTribune2014">{{cite news |last=Ross |first=Jenna |date=October 8, 2014 |title=Looking to the Past to Re-Engineer U.S. Towns |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871263/ |work=[[Star Tribune]] |access-date=June 21, 2023 |pages=[https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871263/ A1], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871290/ A6]}}</ref> (visible at article)

I don't think this is well explained in the documentation. Could support for multiple URLs in the pages parameter be explained somewhere in this documentation? Perhaps at the url parameter documentation and elsewhere.

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI: Thanks for the suggestion! You should be able to be bold and update the documentation. GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

QID parameter in Cite_Report?

Cite report currently doesn't have a parameter for QIDs. For this reference type, it'd actually be quite useful to include it as a possible identifier and link to additional metadata (perhaps similar to the display of {{cite_Q}}). I realise that consensus has been against includeion of QIDs in CS1 templates for other reference types, but I think that a case cacn be made for reports, ccine their relevant metadata is so hetreogenous. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Quotation marks within the title= parameter of Template:cite web

Since {{cite web}} puts double quotation marks around titles, the documentation for this template should specify the replacement of double quotes within the title by single quotes per MOS:QINQ. —  Peter Brown (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for the cs1|2 templates is not protected. If you believe that the documentation can/should be improved, please do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Trappist the monk or whoever: I am really struggling to figure out which article I should edit to effect this change. Can you help? Template:Cite Web consists of other templates. Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters is explicit that it doesn't apply to {{cite web}}. I've been thrashing around for some time now, and I'm close to giving up. Peter Brown (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have boldly attempted to implement this suggestion at Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters. Please correct as needed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful, but I had really hoped to modify Template:Cite web § Title, which is unchanged. Here, I corrected the quotation marks in two instances of {{Cite web}} and I expect that the editor did consult Template:Cite web before proceeding. I, at least, do study the documentation for all but the simplest templates before using them, while I don't look at Help:Citation Style 1. I had hoped to use something like:

• title: The title of the source page on the website, usually found at the top of your web browser, will display with double quotation marks (") added. If the title itself contains quotation marks, change double quotation marks to single and vice versa, per MOS:QINQ.

I have not been able to figure out how to incorporate this text into Template:Cite web § Title, however.

Peter Brown (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Template:Citation Style documentation/title is what you're looking for, but you'll note that the relevant passage is implemented as a switch, in what almost looks like a deliberate attempt to render it functionally uneditable. One could in theory edit in the desired text for the "cite web" case, but I will leave that to your judgment because I definitely don't understand the thought process behind this setup. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I finally got that far, too, but then decided it looked like some kind of tar baby, and I've decided not to poke it. Sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the relevant documentation pages. Feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Splendid! That's all that I was after. Visviva and JohnFromPinckney might be interested in a more detailed account of what you did; I don't expect that I would understand. Peter Brown (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I edited /title and /web. There are probably more places where similar text could be provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks great! My ParserFunctions skills are evidently even rustier than I thought, as that simple solution didn't even occur to me. -- Visviva (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey, for both the edits and the pointers. There is still a non-trivial likelihood that I will leave future, similar improvements to you (or others); there are rather more meta-levels than I can grok, I think. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New url access level needed

Can we get a new url access level of member or restricted or credentials (maybe aliases of each other) or similar? I was able to get a 1936 journal article from de:Historisches Jahrbuch through an WP:RX request that was answered by someone who had access to it via German university database, here. You will get some basic metadata at that link, plus 'access denied' for the text in the main window. I have sufficient information now to cite this fully, and I would like to include the link as it helps WP:Verifiability, but I would like to include |url-access=<something> but the values registration and subscription don't fit, and although the word limited sounds good as far as the English meaning goes, the description "free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required" is completely inapplicable for this case. For example, there are many resources online that are not available to the public, or through WP:TWL, or public library databases, that are available to university students/staff/alumni, and I could imagine other categories of institution (government agencies, think tanks, museums, documentation centers, archives, etc.) that have online repositories with restricted access available to some with proper credentials, but that still meet WP:SOURCEACCESS and are thus WP:Verifiable. It would be good to have value(s) of |url-access= that we could use to indicate this access level.

One quick & dirty solution occurs to me: rewrite the documentation so that |url-acccess=limited is redefined as meaning, "membership or institutional credentials required" to cover the case under discussion, and rewrite |url-access=subscription to bundle the existing meaning along with the current meaning of "limited", so that we'd have, "subscription required, or limited free trial and subscription". The q&d is not ideal, as we lose the distinction between "subscription" and "free trial+subscription", but it saves having to make any change to the software. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I would rather redo the documentation versus adding different types, because there are so many scenarios. -- GreenC 01:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Which scenarios can you envision that would need different treatment? Afaic, web pages restricted to members/staff/alumni of universities, government agencies, think tanks, museums, documentation centers, or archives could all share one new access level: |url-access=credentials, as I don't see anything different among any of them. Can you see some other scenario that is essentially different in some way? Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"registration" is a good catch-all for these types of things. There are pros and cons with clumping vs. splitting. Generally unless there is a compelling reason clumping is preferable to reduce complexity. We could get into a clumping/splitting debate if you want, but it has no right answer. Like, one needs to be a "registered student" at a school library to access the link, is a form of registration. Registration can mean multiple things. I'm also not convinced the distinction of "member" vs. "registration" is going to mean much to end users, they both mean essentially the same thing in terms of access, you need some kind of credentials, that's all we need to say. If you want to get into the specific method of access then yes there are many possibilities. -- GreenC 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay going with "registration" (especially if we can add an alias like "credentials") but even with no change to the software if we go with "registration", then we would have to change the doc at Template:Citation Style documentation/registration to mention the new case, so users know which one to apply. I have no objection to updating it myself, but it seems like it's a significant enough change it should get buy-in. Or, I could just make a bold edit, link back here in the summary, and see if anybody squawks. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I would rather not have to categorize all the links in all of the references I edit by all of the different ways that access may be available to some people from some addresses but not available to other people from other people with other addresses, require subscriptions from a third class of people with a third class of accesses, be available for a one-time fee for a fourth class of people from a fourth class of addresses, and be available only if it's among their first three views for a fifth class of people from a fifth class of addresses. That way lies madness. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

David, I don't envision multiple classes of addresses; rather, I'm faced with a concrete issue I'm trying to resolve, namely, to write the citation for a resource I have. Here's what I have so far:

{{cite journal |lang=de |last=Schöningh |first=Franz Josef |date=1936 |title=Karl Ludwig Bruck und die Idee 'Mitteleuropa' |journal=Historisches Jahrbuch |volume=56 |url=https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?385984421_0056 |url-access=xxxxxxxxx |pages=1-14}}

What value should I put in place of the x's? I think credentials would be good, but that doesn't exist. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You may not envision multiple classes of addresses, but they're present in that example. When I try it from different addresses I get different behavior. "Nothing" should always be an acceptable answer for how to fill in a field that does nothing to help readers find the reference and cannot be filled in a way that is correct and meaningful to all readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand "multiple classes of addresses", nor "trying it from different addresses", so I'll just let that part of it go. "Nothing" is indeed an acceptable answer, and the fields lang, date, url, and pages could also be left out as they are not required by WP:V. However, I like to use any params that might help another editor locate and verify the content. So, yes: you could just leave out url-access entirely, and that would be a valid option. Not one I would knowingly choose, but valid. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

For how to get different addresses without using different computers or being different people, see VPN. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Julian vs. Gregorian

Unsurprisingly, all the dates in Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa use the Gregorian calendar. I don't offhand see any from an era when this would be in question. How can I get rid of Category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty? - Jmabel | Talk 21:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This one has a date that is in the uncertainty realm (1 October 1582 and 1 January 1926).

The category was created because there are editors out there who questioned whether cs1|2 templates are creating bogus (read: illegitimate) dates in the COinS metadata; there was a 2017 rfc: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 44 § RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. So far as I know, those editors have never once used that category for anything. If that is true, I think that the category can / should go away because it is merely clutter. I solicit opinions...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the generation of metadata do anything differently if an article is in that category? It's not tracking errors but potential errors, that would be better handle by an inline template that editors can add if they are concerned with a potential ambiguous date. It's likely the vast majority of the articles being tracked are fasle positives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The creation of metadata has nothing to do with the en.wiki article that holds the cs1|2 template. Because this is the English wikipedia, and because Great Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, and because most sources used here are written in English, the 'window of uncertainty' for those sources is narrower: 1582–1752, so yeah English-language sources dated 1752–1926 are false positive and are listed in Category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty. So far as I know, no one has ever attempted to determine how many of the categorized templates are false positive.

For the metadata, dates in the Julian calendar (before 1582) are reduced to year-only regardless of precision in |date=. I should probably tweak that so dates before 1 October 1582 are reduced to year only; that was the intent; don't know why it didn't happen.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox tweaked to properly render 1582 Julian and Gregorian dates:

{{cite book/new |title=Julian date |date=30 September 1582}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000060-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Julian date''. 30 September 1582.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Julian+date&rft.date=1582&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>

Julian date. 30 September 1582.

{{cite book/new |title=Gregorian date |date=1 October 1582}}

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000064-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Gregorian date''. 1 October 1582.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Gregorian+date&rft.date=1582-10-01&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>

Gregorian date. 1 October 1582.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that invalid dates are not placed in &rft.chron.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

support trans-series

• {{cite book|last1=Hiriart-Urruty|first1=Jean-Baptiste|last2=Lemaréchal|first2=Claude|author-link2=Claude Lemaréchal|year=1993|chapter=XII Abstract duality for practitioners|title=Convex analysis and minimization algorithms, Volume II: Advanced theory and bundle methods|series=Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften |trans-series=Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences|volume=306|publisher=Springer-Verlag |location=Berlin |pages=136–193 (and bibliographical comments on pp. 334–335)|isbn=3-540-56852-2 |mr=1295240}}
• Hiriart-Urruty, Jean-Baptiste; Lemaréchal, Claude (1993). "XII Abstract duality for practitioners". Convex analysis and minimization algorithms, Volume II: Advanced theory and bundle methods. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. Vol. 306. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 136–193 (and bibliographical comments on pp. 334–335). ISBN 3-540-56852-2. MR 1295240. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans-series= ignored (help)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Further steps?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Further steps?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

PMID numbers exceeding configured limit

I understand that CS1 templates have a constraint on PMID numbers, limiting them to 37400000. New articles published as of 3 July 2023 are exceeding that number. See PMID 37400000 for example. DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Rename category Category:CS1 maint: Zbl to Category:CS1 maint: Zbl format

For consistency with the other format categories (Bibcode, MR, PMC). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:CS1 maint: Bibcode format does not exist. Category:CS1 maint: MR format and Category:CS1 maint: PMC format exist to catch cases where editors write |mr=MR1234567 or |pmc=PMC12345 when they should have written |mr=1234567 or |pmc=12345. Category:CS1 maint: Zbl exists to catch cases where the specified identifier is temporary so that editors can come back later and provide the permanent identifier.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could be renamed Category:CS1 temporary Zbl label or some such, to be more clear about its non-label-format purpose? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's at Category:CS1 maint: bibcode, which should be shifted to Category:CS1 maint: bibcode format too. Unless we want both to be Category:CS1 maint: temporary bibcode and Category:CS1 maint: temporary Zbl. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of Category:CS1 maint: bibcode, I notice that maint_bibcode isn't defined in the Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration error_conditions table — that's why the category page is showing "Pages with this condition are automatically placed in unknown error_conditions key: maint_bibcode." instead of its own name. FeRDNYC (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of title and corrections of said title

So under the parameters I see for title (which is required for cite web) we are to use Template:Cite_web#Title the "Title of source page on website." Ok... I usually see the title of the actual article on the source page but no matter. But per the template it seems that the citation: <ref>{{cite web|title=The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 25 August 1941|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/52616260|website=newspapers.com}}</ref> is ok. Sure it could be better but it is not an error? If someone then changes it to: <ref>{{cite web|work=The Brooklyn Daily Eagle|date=25 August 1941|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/52616260|via=newspapers.com}}</ref> would you think that the person who changed it should be required to add the new title instead of leaving it with a red error code of "missing title" in the ref section? I'm all for making things better but if you go to the trouble of putting in the "work=" parameter (only required by "cite journal" and "cite magazine" then it seems you should also re-add the removed title= parameter instead of leaving it for others to fix. Am I missing something? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Each editor working on the reference should have used the proper values in the appropriate parameters. The editor who changed the reference to have no |title= parameter should have seen the red error code, and should have received a bot notice on their user talk page reminding them to fix the reference. Since you didn't provide the Wikipedia article name, I hope you'll fix the reference if it is still incorrect. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is a WP:TALKFORK of this discussion. The article is incorrectly using {{Cite web}} when it should be using {{cite news}}, and was misusing the |title= parameter in those incorrect citation templates. So much to learn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the things I am reading "cite web" was not incorrect... not if it was from a web page like newspapers.com. You use {{cite news}} if it is from an actual newspaper that is not online. This was just a curious post here to make sure I'm getting the correct info from you. I thought I was but now I'm not so sure as this is a very grey area. . I was giving an editor advise based on listening to editors Jonesey95 and Colonies Chris. In digging around the templates and wikipedia articles I'm now thinking I may have been given incomplete info. Hence I asked here what other experts think. Articles are going from no errors in the ref section to dozens and dozens of errors in the ref section. If it was one it's easily fixed and i would have just done it.Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click), I was going to mention that the wrong citation template was being used in your example, then I figured I might as well go fix it myself instead of being pedantic about it, then couldn't find the link using an insource= search across all namespaces, and ended up taking no action. Newspapers.com is a hosting service, and if anywhere other than the URL it should go in |via=. The |title= should be given the value of whatever headline was at the top of the news story you're citing. {{cite web}} is way overused. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The title of the actual news story is what I would generally use myself, but the doc in the wikipedia template does not say that at all. Very confusing. And simply removing the title= creates dozens of red errors in articles that likely may not get fixed for years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

All the best practices surrounding citations have been a continuing journey for me. There's a lot of different stakeholders, with the template editors here working with the Wikidata people for precise metadata, and the Internet Archive people and their link rot prevention efforts, while the Foundation understandably wants to keep the barrier of entry as low as possible for new people to edit, but doesn't seem interested in improving their own citation tools, and the maintainers of the volunteer written citation tools don't have time to maintain them....

The good news is that I think you have to have a setting enabled to see template errors anyway, so the people who see them are likelier than average to try to address them, but I might be wrong about the enabling a setting bit. Folly Mox (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it's a journey for me too. The wild ways of wikipedia can oft times be confusing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Volume titles in "Cite book"

Greetings and felicitations. I have had a recent discussion regarding the italicization of volume titles in the |volume= field of the {{Cite book}} template. Citing that discussion, volume titles are italicized per

• The Chicago Manual of Style 17th Ed. §14.117 though §14.122 (pp. 808–810 of the hardcover)
• the MLA Handbook, Ninth Ed., §5.117 "Multivolume Works" (pp. 215–216 of the hardcover)

and also

• New Oxford Style Manual (2016), §18.2.7 (p. 357 of the hardcover)

The APA 6th Ed. does not address this; I can also check the minor style guide Words into Print if desired. Per Nardog's request (as linked at the top of this section) for me to make my case for italicizing all (book) volume titles, can we agree to (at least) add one or more italicized volume titles as examples to the Cite book template, or even make it explicit in the template's documentation? —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you maybe provide an example (here or in one of the other places you're having this discussion) of what you're looking for, formatted manually the way you envision it. I've looked at three "discussions" but still can't tell what the "before" and "after" formatting is supposed to look like. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Page numbers

URLs get embedded in various places of the template which makes link rot repair difficult to manage for bots and scripts. Typically they are skipped. For example Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Documentation_needed_for_linking_multiple_urls_within_the_'pages'_parameter shows the free-form nature of how we do it. Another way is more systematically like we do for |author= + |author-link= separating the metadata from the link.

It would be |page1= ("page=42") + |page1-url= with perhaps support for up to 5 or 10 pages. Note |page= would be an alias for |page1=.

For page ranges use |pages1=42-44 (display: "pages=42-44") + |pages1a-url= + |pages1b-url= where "a" is for 42 and "b" for 44. More page ranges can be added for example |pages2=47-50 (display: "pages=42-44, 47-50") + |pages2a-url= + |pages2b-url=. This way one can have a mix of single page and page ranges, all with their own URLs, contained in parameters. -- GreenC 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Did this change at some point? I remember some time back that wikilinking pages was a no-no. That the url link should always supposed to be to the most specific part of the source. I looked but haven't found any restriction about it now but I seem to remember there was in the past. I kind of like this idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: The "most specific part of the source" advice is more useful in dissuading editors from just linking to the title page of the work they're citing, rather than the chapter/heading/page where the cited information can be found. Citations that span multiple specific locations — like a page 4 newspaper article that's "continued on page 81" halfway through the sentence being cited, for example — are kind of their own deeper problem beyond that.

I'm not sure how I feel about links in the |page*= parameters, but I definitely recognize that there are times when only linking to a single location risks leaving the user fumbling around to figure out how they can reach the rest of the content being cited.

Though, now that I say this, a quick search reveals that there are a lot of citations with a specific, single link in |page=, alongside a more generic |url= linking to the source as a whole. ...I was also under the impression that was incorrect: the |url= parameter should simply hold the link from |page=, shouldn't it?

...Unless my own understanding of how these params are meant to be used is incorrect / outdated? FeRDNYC (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The "quick search" times out due to the size but I was able to get as many as 37,000 with some refinements, though there are probably a lot more. -- GreenC 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that was a "quick search" as in "I spent about 12 seconds defining it"... its performance on the server being inversely proportional seems about right. FeRDNYC (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

33,000 for "pages" and 30,000 for "page" is 63,000 (depending on server load). Both time out, there are some false positives, and false negatives, in keeping the regex simple. Also weird more pages than page. It will require a different method of search. -- GreenC 18:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is often desirable for the link on the title of a book to go to the Wikipedia article on the book, using |title-link=. When that is done, and there is no named |contribution= within the book to cite, the only way to provide a convenience link for specific content within the book (and the way that has been repeatedly recommended) is to put the link into the page or pages parameter. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Often |section-url= will do what you need. Normally I use both links unless the relevant text is on the first page of the section. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a fair point, I'd forgotten how |title-link= and |url= interact with each other. (Or more to the point, that they don't, and result in a CS1 error when used in the same citation.)

That seems like an even stronger argument for formalizing page links via some sort of |pageN-url= scheme like GreenC is proposing. FeRDNYC (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

On that topic, the examples in Template:Cite book/doc include at least one demonstrating "title with a piped wikilink":

Three authors, title with a piped wikilink, edition

Markup	{{cite book |last1=Bloggs |first1=Joe |author-link1=Joe Bloggs |last2=Smith |first2=John |last3=Smythe |first3=Jim |title=[[A Thousand Acres|1000 Acres]] |edition=2nd}}
Renders as	Bloggs, Joe; Smith, John; Smythe, Jim. 1000 Acres (2nd ed.).

Should that be changed to use |title-link= instead of piping? I'll be bold and fix it (plus any others), if we agree |title-link= is always preferable now. I feel like the documentation should demonstrate best current practices, not outdated ones. (And we wonder how editors pick up / retain bad habits?) FeRDNYC (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Access-date gives an error for the 90's [solved]

Is this the expected behavior? Rjjiii (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see this failure? Show an example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I get {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help) for dates until the year 2001 in these examples:

• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 1998. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 1999. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 2000. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 2001.
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 2002.
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 2003.
• "ZDNet". Retrieved 4 July 2004.

I wasn't sure if the template just assumes an early access to be an error, Rjjiii (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The first edit in Wikipedia's database was made on January 15, 2001. So, it is literally impossible for an access-date to be before that date. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. My thought was that material printed from the web had a date on the printout, but that's overly complicated. Thanks for the explanation, Rjjiii (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Page numbers when citing journals

After adding references to Grand Sanhedrin, I noticed that Template:Cite journal creates somewhat obscure and (in my opinino) inaccessible output:

> Niles, H. (12 June 1830). "The Jews". Niles' Weekly Register. 38: 296.

The number 38 represents the "Volume" and "296" presentes the page number. In other citation templates, we state the page number after "pp.", such as when using Template:Cite book. I think applying this to journal citations would make it significantly easier for readers to find the facts in the source, and thus to help them read the surrounding information. This especially because the URLs tend to go to a place for the work as a whole, which places a heavy burden on understanding that 1) the page number is in fact given, and 2) which number is what.

Perhaps less importantly than the page numer is the volume. This because each volume tends to be its own work and thus its own ISBN and/or online entry page. This means the volume number isn't required for navigation within the work. Having said that, I wouldn't mind spelling that out as "Volume 38".

Would these changes be welcomed? What other ways might there be to address the usability issue? Or perhaps there exists documentation we expect people to find that explains this?

Krinkle (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} is what you want for Niles' Weekly Register:

Niles, H. (12 June 1830). "The Jews". Niles' Weekly Register. Vol. 38. p. 296.

Niles, H. (12 June 1830). "The Jews". Niles' Weekly Register. Vol. 38. p. 296.

{{Cite journal}} is for academic journals. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that the output of {{cite journal}} is obscure and for clarity needs to be changed, especially where there are a mixture of formats on a page. We should not expect readers to know a convention or have to guess what things mean. Keith D (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's only obscure if you've never encountered the notation before. It's an extremely common citation style. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I find the output intuitive enough, as well as pretty standard (APA, I think?). The bolded volume is clear and reduces clutter, plus basically every journal citation will link directly to the article in question. I wouldn't mind "p" or "pp" for the page numbers, but the template output should be legible to anyone who's ever read a footnote in a published academic work. Folly Mox (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Another generic author name

I've just cleaned up a few articles where the author field ended with "(View posts)" (sample diff) -- John of Reading (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Translated Quote Parameter

Since there is a parameter for "translated title", and there is a parameter for "quote", I suggest a parameter for "translated quote". Currently I tend to write a translation of the quote in brackets after the quote, but this is probably not optimal, since the source itself is not the source of the translation (just as we usually cannot attribute a "translated title" to the source). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If the quotation is important to the article, put it in the article body and cite it. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations. But, if you must: |trans-quote=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know we actually had this. I guess it was because it's not available from the visual editor 😅. Sometimes I used |quote= to give a fuller version of a quotation from the article itself, and sometimes it was to make clear how a source supported a claim, since it was a large webpage source and I can't give page numbers. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Istro-Romanian-language sources

Hello. I frankly have no idea if this is the appropriate venue for this.

Istro-Romanian is one of the Balkan Romance languages. The others are Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. Adding a parameter |language=ro/rup/ruq in a citation template will produce (in Romanian/Aromanian/Megleno-Romanian), but |language=ruo does not produce (in Istro-Romanian). An example is reference 50 at Istro-Romanians. I fixed it manually with |version= but I don't see why Istro-Romanian should be excluded from Wikipedia's technical code, or whatever the root of this is. Note that there is already Template:Lang-ruo so it's not a problem of "ruo" or of the language not being integrated anywhere within Wikipedia's code.

Can this be fixed? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)