Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Help talk:Citation Style 1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 6 March 2023 (Archiving 6 discussions from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Is there any reason to include an access-date parameter if the only outbound link is a Gale ID generated thru Template:Gale? I'm getting the error message. My assumption is that there isn't a reason to include access-date because Gale is an archive and the content shouldn't change, but I thought I'd double check. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please post the CS1 error message. Otherwise your assumption is correct. Citations of stable-link repositories such as Gale should not display an access date. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The error message is "access-date without URL" - And thanks, that's what I figured. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

CS1 maint: location

I was recently made aware that |location= and the like do not allow any digits to prevent misuse of the parameter, such as inserting page- and chapter numbers or unnecessary postal codes. But what if the number is essential to the location, say, 10 Downing Street? ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Please link to an actual article where this need would be present. Without seeing an actual article, my guess is that |location=London would suffice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Ref 133 of this article (permalink). I guess London does work but I think it's a bit of a shame that we can't be more specific. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC); edited 22:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Traditionally the location in a citation is the city of publication, which would just be London. We wouldn't list the address of the publisher.
If we're thinking about the original utterance of a speech as its publication, then the location would be where it was given, which is "Guildhall, London", not 10 Downing Street, and not the Prime Minister's Office. But in this case, you're citing a transcript published from elsewhere, so trying to be more specific is just confusing or inaccurate.
The publisher is the Prime Minister's Office, or 10 Downing Street if you want to use the residence as a metonym for the office (like The White House substitutes for the Executive Office of the President on this side of the pond). In short, your best option is |location=London |publisher=Prime Minister's Office. Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Some older works do list addresses on the title page, although these were usually where they were to be sold. eg Sir John Oldcastle, the location is London, but the publishers part says, "Printed by V.S. for Thomas Panier, and areto be ſolde at his ſhop at the ſigne of the Catte and Parrots neere the Exchange."--Auric talk 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Must translation parameters use the translations in the text?

When a text is published with a translation, must |trans-quote= and similar parameters use the translation in the text, or may an editor substitute a translation that she believes to be more accurate? This question is prompted by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&curid=313892&diff=1125022169&oldid=1124176915, which I believe to be WP:OR. Either way, it would be helpful if the documentation of, e.g., |trans-title=, specified whether editors must respect the translations in the text. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, use the text, Quotes should be verbatim. Editor interpolations are allowed only for context, for example when substituting a generic "he" in the quote with the actual name of the person/character. The translated title is part of the work's publication data and the citation's retrieval data. Should be entered as is at all times. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Chatul, I run into this from time to time. First, let me just agree with the above; use the quote exactly as it appears. But it's possible to mitigate any ill effect, if you feel that it could be problematic. My response in similar situations depends on the severity of the problem. If it's just a poor translation, or an annoying issue such as false friends confusion that doesn't really interfere with understanding, then I just let it go. If I believe that the translation is inaccurate or ambiguous in a way that could affect the article or its verifiability, then I might add a Talk page section "Possibly inaccurate translation" or similar, and then add a {{clarify}} template to the article immediately after the citation and include the |reason= and |post-text= parameters, linking the template to the Talk section you just added. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
My issue was the opposite; there was an inline translation that I considered problematical, and I added English[a] and Hebrew quotes directly from the text of the cited book rather than start an edit war over the translation in the body of the article. The other editor proceeded to change the |trans-quote= in the {{cite book}}; I view that as close to vandalism. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The text used the word only, which was not in the Hebrew text, but enclosed it in brackets.

I have come across an unusual situation where the book I want to cite has a Wikipedia article and there is an external source where the book can be viewed freely. Is there any way to link both the Wikipedia article and the external source in the citation? Obi2canibe (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Only if the external source can be reached through a content-resolving identifier such as doi. The book article ideally should have an external url link to the book if one exists, and you can link the book article. Following the link, readers will eventually have access to the url. Alternately, use |url= and forgo |title-link=. 24.103.241.218 (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A citation doesn't have to restrict itself to what citation templates provide. Adding (online) after the template will do what you want. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your suggestions.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Postal abbreviations

H:CS1 currently says Do not use sub-national postal abbreviations ("DE", "Wilts", etc.), per MOS:POSTABBR. This does not appear to actually be consistent with MOS:POSTABBR, which provides Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand for the full names in normal text (emphasis added). References are not normal text, and are often allowed to deviate from abbreviation-related aspects of MoS. See e.g. MOS:&. This also does not appear to be consistent with current practice, even in FAs. I count 174 featured articles matching the regex location *= *New York( City)?(\]\])?, N\.?Y\.?; 38 for location Boston(\]\])?, M(A|ass[^a]); 25 for San Francisco(^\]\])?, (CA|alif[^o]); etc. It also doesn't seem consistent with common sense: One, because we abbreviate all sorts of things in references, and it's not clear why we would suddenly break with that practice for locations, even when something like "CA" for California is probably more recognizable than "eds." And two, because we allow location strings consisting only of city name (with fairly vague guidance as to when it's acceptable), creating a paradoxical situation in which "Boston" is allowed but the less ambiguous "Boston, MA" and "Boston, Mass." are not.

If this guidance must be kept, we should at a minimum remove the reference to a part of MoS that does not apply. But I would submit we should go further and remove the line outright, for the reasons outlined above—or walk it back to something like Do not use obscure or made-up abbreviations for place names. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best left to the individual citation writer to choose between an official abbreviation and the official locale name. The MOS:POSTABBR reference should be removed from the doc for this case, perhaps with guidance to use only official nomenclature, and the (obvious but necessary) remark that full names are non-ambiguous.
As an aside, I do not consider usage in Wikipedia an indication of anything. CS1 template elements are decided primarily here by anyone willing to participate. The fact that editors choose to divert from suggested usage could be for a variety of reasons that may or may not be valid. I presume anyone really interested could come here to state their case for consideration, just like you did. 65.88.88.179 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
MOS:POSTABBR does apply everywhere except for the allowances it makes for limited space, which does not include citations, so the guidance here is consistent. Abbreviations of states are non-standard and not universally known; there's no reason to use them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Citations are classically included in the set of items where there is limited space, hence why ISO dates are allowed here. Izno (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
So you argue in line with Tamzin for the removal of that passage from H:CS1? And allow "Boston, MA", "Boston, Mass.", "San Francisco, CA", "San Francisco, Calif.", "Grafton, NSW", "Gronau, NRW", "Stanstead, Que."? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I was clarifying your possibly ambiguous statement on whether citations are considered to be a limited space case. They are, hence we allow ISO dates. The reason I call it possibly ambiguous is because I am not sure on a second reading that you are noting that the allowance provided in the context of POSTABBR is only for tables, which are one kind of limited space, or whether you thought that citations are indeed not a limited space. Izno (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The exception in POSTABBR does not extend to all instances of limited space beyond tables - it specifically notes they should not be used in infoboxes, for example, whereas MOS:DATE includes those as instances where space is limited. Thus the current text is appropriate. (As an aside, POSTABBR states that in the space-limited-exception case these abbreviations should be marked up using {{abbr}} - while I have seen citations using postal abbreviations, I don't think I've ever seen that markup applied to them there). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
On the aside, I am neither surprised about the suggestion to mark them up with abbr nor surprised to see that it's never used (and I have observed similarly). I'd say it's probably one of those cases where the context of an address is clear so users don't think it's needed, and usually the user can click to the article on the local region to understand more about the pair of letters after the local region. Contrast EIT, as a particular example, which has multiple meanings, some of which may be applicable in more contexts than not, being dropped in an article (I was thinking Engineer in Training [I'm glad to see the exam is now only 6 hours long instead of the 8 hour day it was when I skipped taking the voluntary exam during college]). Izno (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
If POSTABBR is supposed to apply to everything but tables, it should be rewritten to apply to everything but tables. As currently written, there's no "table exception": Rather, the complete prohibition only applies in normal text and in infoboxes, while a separate rule (use {{abbr}}) applies in tables, and no rule is specified for other space-limited areas. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A specification related to references was unilaterally removed a couple of months ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Ah yeah, I see Why? I Ask removed it citing lack of consensus, pending a full RfC. Is it maybe time to have that RfC? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It was removed because it had been discussed before, never found consensus to be added, and yet it was. That's WP:CREEP if I ever. Personally, this whole thing is silly. No reader (especially one that looks at a source's location) will be confused by something such as "San Francisco, CA". If there is such a confusion between terms (e.g., Leipsic, DE referring to either Germany (Deutschland) or Delaware), then just use common sense and write it in full. Such a case is so rare that it won't matter for 99% of the articles that it applies to. Let the article editor decide. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Cambridge MA - is it a degree or a place? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If it's placed where the location parameter is, then it's a no brainer. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The reader of a thesis citation doesn't see to which parameter "Cambridge MA" applies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
No, you don't need to see the parameter, you just need to know what a citation looks like. However, as I said, in that case that applies to less that 0.1% of articles, sure, expand it to say Massachusetts. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Not true. Location is always followed by colons and the value in |publisher=, it is meaningless otherwise. There is scarce chance for ambiguity there. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
|location= is sometimes used, especially in {{cite news}}, as a disambiguator for same-named newspapers (The Times for example):
{{cite news |author=EB Green |date=22 December 2022 |title=Title |newspaper=The Times |location=Chicago |page=B3}}
EB Green (22 December 2022). "Title". The Times. Chicago. p. B3.
No colon; no publisher.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
But then why would a degree be listed for a newspaper? Still no chance of confusion. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
What? I'm pretty sure that I said nothing about a degree. I was referring to IP editor's statement: Location is always followed by colons and the value in |publisher=. That is not wholly true as my example shows.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Read up further in the chain; other editors are complaining that there would be a confusion between the degree Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin) and the location, Cambridge, MA. I find that highly dubious with the layout of the citations. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. Nothing in what I have written is or was intended to address those complaints so why are we having this discussion? If you want to discuss confusion between the degree ... and the location, you should be responding to posters who are discussing those things.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Then |location= itself is ambiguous because it may refer either to the place of publication or to the place of the publisher (as a commercial entity), which may be different. So either have |publisher-location= and |publication-place=, or fix |location= to mean "publisher location" (i.e. make it a conditional parameter dependent on |publisher=) and disambiguate newspapers in another manner, perhaps following MOS (parenthetical location after title). 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
At least one example of a {{cite news}} template using |location= to disambiguate |newspaper= can be seen at Template:Cite news/doc § Examples so apparently that sort of use of |location= is not new.
When used alone, |publication-place=, |place=, and |location= function identically. The confusion arises when |publication-place= is used with either of |location= or |place= which confusion I should like to see go away by making these three parameters equal aliases of one another (something that I have periodically raised on these talk pages in the past – last discussion that referred to that is at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86 § place, when publication-place is redundant with work).
No doubt, no doubt, the template documentation can be improved so please do so.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Generally, move away from aliases. Citations are (supposed to be) exact, unambiguous statements and are understood best with unique parameter labels. Aliases make sense as transition aids when code labels are new and the old way is grandfathered in temporarily. In other programming situations aliases may be important as related terms may actually (in the real world) be fuzzy, or have multiple applications. In a well-designed system you would never find a generic code label like "location". As you pointed out in the news example it could mean publisher location. Or it could mean publication place. These are two different attributes and if it is decided that both should be available then what is needed are separate labels applied to different parameters. Otherwise the winning combination is publisher location. Publisher information is unique and authoritative in the sense that place(s) of publication derive from the publisher entity. 24.193.2.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Generally, move away from aliases. Right. Don't hold your breath; that cow has been out of the barn for far too long.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. But let's not add more. Perhaps it is better to think of adding CS3, built with the hopeful view that all the intractable design glitches that have nothing to do with technical issues could be swept away in a clean slate. And let the best solution win. 24.168.89.97 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how one could call official state abbreviations, or any postal abbreviation, "non-standard". They are designated by a proper naming authority and applied widely. 65.88.88.59 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
But limited to a specific geographical area, vs something like "UK" which is international. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this discussion here? The use of postal abbreviations is not a cs1|2-specific issue is it? Doesn't this also apply to hand-crafted citations so wouldn't a better place for this discussion be at perhaps WT:CITE?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The original comment makes the implication that there is something wrong with how Help:CS1 describes use of the relevant policy. Hence the followon discussion on whether the policy is of interest.
I think given the discussion about an RFC above that people are tending toward a discussion elsewhere, they just haven't gotten there yet. :^) Izno (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
It is not useless. For example, I just found out that |location= may mean two different things, something that should be fixed. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Which ISBN?

I'm adding details to a citation, and the publisher shows

The documentation doesn't show |isbn-10= and |isbn-13= parameters. Which ISBN goes in the |isbn= parameter? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

See ISBN documentation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
When the 13 digit one is actually printed, use it over the 10 please. — xaosflux Talk 17:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes!  Done Sadhuguru (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

DOI "inactive"

Trying to overhaul Howard Florey and getting a warning: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of October 2022. How do you suppress this warning? Obviously we can just drop it but I keyed it in to the university system and it came up okay, via the Wiley Online Library. Looks like a "virtual" doi. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix the doi and then unset or remove |doi-broken-date=. The actual doi appears to be doi:10.1038/npg.els.0002792 not doi:10.1038/png.els.0002792.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
...which was broken by [1] DMacks (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh. I see. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

CS1 errors: URL

Category:CS1 errors: URL has about 6,500 pages even after I run my bot through them. Is there a way to generate a report with the most common errors, so we can see if we can fix them via bot? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can separate out the text warnings with url and archive-url, but there's nothing else in the output today to indicate which of the errors triggered. Izno (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for that suggestion. Some of the |archive-url= errors occur when |archive-url= is a duplicate of |url=, so that's something to look into. There's also a few chapter-url and contribution-url issues. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dates: first, reprint and PDF

If a book is published on foo, reprinted on bar and scanned from the bar printing on baz, what date parameters are appropriate for citing the baz PDF of bar? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the specifics might be helpful here instead of variables, I could see it either being the original publication date if the reprint is just a later impression within the same edition (or some sort of print on demand type thing), or the reprint date if, say, this is an entirely new publication (e.g., a facsimile production of a historical book, in which case also use |orig-date=). Umimmak (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur with the above. If I understand correctly, you are citing a reprint edition of a book that is bound digitally. The content is provided by the "printer". I would do something like this:
{{cite book|year=2022|orig-year=oroginally published 2021 by Foo|title=Title|url=http://www.example.com/example.pdf|edition=reprint|publisher=Bar|via=Baz}}
  • Title (PDF) (reprint ed.). Bar. 2022 [originally published 2021 by Foo] – via Baz.
The (media/binding) |type= here would be "pdf", but this is preformatted in the citation (the parameter |format= would be superfluous for the same reason). Even though binding info is not included in CS1/2 metadata, you may want to include one of these parameters anyway, in case some aggregator imports the citation texts themselves, in which case the format/binding icon will not display.
50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In my question, foo, bar and baz were all dates, so |orig-year=oroginally published 2021 by Foo and |via=Baz would be inappropriate. What inspired my question was edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newline&curid=238775&diff=1131455576&oldid=1121592635, which includes the comment PDF date=1 August 2002 in the {{cite book}} template Qualline, Steve (2001). Vi Improved - Vim (PDF). Sams Publishing. p. 120. ISBN 9780735710016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2023..
Well here it might be that the |url= is just a convenience link for the reader. The book itself was published in 2001 as far as I can tell from WorldCat OCLC 247896918. Kind of frustrating that this PDF seems to lack the frontmatter with the actual date and copyright information, but the comment I guess got the date from metadata and is just making a note on the off chance this PDF is not the exact same as the book. Umimmak (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for my misunderstanding. Again I agree with Umimmak. Assuming the PDF is a fascimile transfer to digital, its creation date is immaterial for the reader. The useful date info is the publication date of the edition the PDF was based on. Also. for long works it is important that the title URL points to a location where the correct metadata is easily available: compare the landing page on Google Books. It seems the content in that citation is offered in "reader mode", which is perfect for in-source locations, but the front matter that includes relevant metadata is missing. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Podcast dates range

If you want to cite the dates a podcast runs from, how do you do that? Like |date=18 December 2020 – present? The field does not like that parameter and throws up errors. How do you do that without causing a problem? Eievie (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You should be citing a specific episode of the podcast, not the entire series. Izno (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It's for a bibliography listing someone's various different works. Using the {{cite book}} template in the list of someone's books is common practice; why not use the associated templates for rest of a person's works as well? Eievie (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Books also don't have continuing dates. :) This series of modules is primarily intended for citations and its use for bibliographies has kind of been grafted on.
There is no way to add the date as you would prefer. You can probably cheat and use {{today}} but that will update somewhat sporadically, and also does not reflect specific publication dates. You could probably be relatively safe with {{year}} as in |date=2020–2025. Izno (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Using 2023 as a stand-in for "present" still requires updating, and implies an end, which isn't great. This suggests only including the start date and leaving the end unsaid, so I tried |date=from Dec 2020 and that threw an error too :/ Is there any way to just silence the error in the template? Eievie (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't use 2023, use the template indicated. Izno (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
And no, you cannot silence the error. Anyway, MOS:DATETOPRES says to include the end date regardless, so in the context of a citation template I do not think it is too onerous to use something like {{year}} to indicate your intent. You can always choose not to use the template, but I think that work around is sufficient, perhaps with an in-wikitext comment. Izno (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Mark as accessible through Wikipedia Library

I know not all users have access to Wikipedia Library, but especially with its recent expansion, many previously pay-for or institution-locked journals etc. are completely accessible for users meeting requirements. Would it be possible, then, to add a parameter (or an option for the url-access parameter) that says a source is free through Wikipedia Library? Kingsif (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

|via=Wikipedia Library. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say that would work, if the link in citation is specific to the Wikipedia Library, but most are not. For example, I have a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library, and if I cite a newspaper article from those archives, I'd be using |via= to indicate that website, not the library because the library didn't republish the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
At least from my past experience, a bunch of the URLs for Wikipedia library sources are either rejected by the insert citation tool in the source editor, or are soon "anonymized" by a bot, so I'm not sure that basing something off of the link itself will be of great use, unless something has changed recently. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
What TWL has access to at any given point varies. I would not support an actual parameter on the point.
Here is a 2018 RFC which permits its use in |via=, which is certainly sufficient to me. There's other discussion in the archives about the utility in general of using |via= to indicate libraries (short answer is don't, which I think is also either directly in WP:Citing sources or similarly discussed on its talk page) as well as a few other discussions directly pertinent mostly under "TWL" but all older than that RFC. Izno (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps hastily, mine was the initial reply. Thinking it through, it seems the TWL is not an alternate provider or a content aggregator, but a facility/conduit to the former.
So now I agree with replies that suggested that |via= may not be proper (even though allowable), and the citation should be silent on the matter. I also agree with Izno that a specific parameter adds nothing to the citation's purpose. With well-established rationale, citations don't credit other physical or virtual libraries; I don't see why TWL should be an exception. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are primarily written for readers, no? I sort of was under the impression that the vast majority of people who read Wikipedia articles do not have an account, let alone one which meets all the requirements for the Wikipedia Library. A Wikipedia editor might have to click on a DOI before realizing they won't have access to it via the Wikipedia Library, but the alternative is adding clutter to a citation that goes in and out of date. Umimmak (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while I agree with the replies above that citation metadata is primarily for the benefit of readers, I do think there's potential scope for a gadget or user script which could add highlighting or links to the library next to the relevant resources. It's not something we have capacity to work on at the moment but if someone was interested we'd be happy to advise/support with data or maybe even APIs from the library. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Book belonging to multiple series?

Are there provisions in the template for referring to multiple series when a book is listed as part of more than one series? For example, Itineraria Phoenicia is the volume 127 of the Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta series and the volume 18 of the Studia Phoenicia series. But I am not sure how to add both of these to the template when using it in articles. Antiquistik (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, one should list the one that is more readily available, which usually is the one more often classified in providers' metadata. For example, at the WorldCat entry the work is classified under "Series: Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta". 67.243.247.14 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I would still request for provisions to be added to the template so that multiple series can be mentioned when using the template, because doing so would in fact facilitate doing research regarding citations as well as navigation. Antiquistik (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Antiquistik. --Ooligan (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

doi: avoiding crossref

The following doi lands on a Crossref disambiguation page: doi.org/10.1515/9780823287437

Is it possible to bypass it? The actual object can be directly accessed as: www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html

Adding /html at the end of |doi= is not clever:

{{cite book|title=Expanded cinema|doi=10.1515/9780823287437/html}}

65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing that cs1|2 can do about this; modules cannot follow external urls to their ultimate destinations. If you wish to avoid the disambiguation page you can do either (or both) of these:
|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html |url-access=subscription
|jstor=j.ctvnwbz7q
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Actually I wanted to add both ids. Resolved as follows:
|id=[[Doi (identifier)|doi:]][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823287437/html 10.1515/9780823287437]}}:
172.254.255.250 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it really that bad if the DOI goes to a disambiguation page? The whole point of a DOI is that it's a permanent identifier for the document, even if it ends up moving websites; putting a URL there defeats the purpose. Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
It is good for a doi to go to a disambiguation page like that. Some readers may have subscription access to the document through one or the other of the choices, but not both (it looks like in this case I have neither). A disambiguated doi like this allows them to try the one they have access to. Shortcutting it to avoid the disambiguation would disallow them that choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I am sceptical. Unlike ISBN or issn, doi is a content identifier. It should lead directly to the cited material, not to another page from an unrelated entity. As a reader I expect citations to lead me to verifying material as easily as possible, not to have me do the research the citation writer should have done when explicitly offering a doi as the source-content resolver. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
not to have me do the research the citation writer should have done — what "research"? Both links in the crossref disambiguation page go to the same source; one's just on JSTOR and one's on DeGruyter. As David Eppstein says it's good to include both in case a reader has access to one versus the other. Umimmak (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The doi system (incorporating an object identifier) was specifically created to unambiguously and directly provide access to source material at the discretion of publishers. If CS1 is going to formally use this facility and the label "doi", it should adhere to the norms of the object's retrieval. It is up to the citation writer to find a way to offer the right target for any given doi. Alternately, don't call a dab page "doi". It is not that. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The "norms of the object's retrieval" are that you use the link targeted by doi.org, not try to make up your own version because you don't believe them when they say that you could get the document in more than one way. It is a specific goal of the doi system to provide flexible access to documents for which different people might need different access methods. This sort of disambiguation page works towards that goal. We should not circumvent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the point of |doi= to retrieve the source? unlike |title= or |issn= that are used to find it. If the consensus is to accept |doi= as a (sometime) lookup parameter rather than an access/retrieval one, that should be explicitly pointed out. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

edit module issn lookup

Switch lookup to The ISSN Portal (or its advanced search facility [2]). Far less likely to return multiple targets compared to Worldcat. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How does that help readers locate the periodical though? A worldcat link immediately tells me which libraries have it, the issn portal just gives the periodical title (presumably already in the citation) and publisher information. Umimmak (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a valid point, but can't the same argument be used for say, ISBN? 69.193.161.90 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The ISBN identifier links to Special:BookSources which, conveniently, has a link to WorldCat among others.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Template Interlanguage link doesn't works in author parameter. Eurohunter (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From {{Interlanguage link}}:
Archer1234 (t·c) 21:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see it in our documentation, but this works:
Cite book comparison
Wikitext {{cite book|author-link=:de:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|author=Goethe|title=Wandrers Nachtlied}}
Live Goethe [in German]. Wandrers Nachtlied.
Someone will post here if this advice is misguided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is discussed in the error message help text.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Why does it say the entire name of the language unlike {{ill}} which uses standard language abbreviations?
Having the full language name takes up a lot of space; it used to just be a different color text was used to signal a non-English Wikipedia link. Was the idea that [de] would be too opaque in some situations but not others? Umimmak (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The current implementation, as shown above, is an improvement on the previous situation, and I don't think space is at a premium in citations. If you prefer the way {{ill}} works, you can always write a citation manually. Let's be grateful for small mercies – thanks to Trappist for implementing this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple publishers/ISBNs/series

According to its copyright page, this book was "[p]ublished jointly by Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Institute of Archaeology, Beaumont Street, Oxford and UCLA Institute of Archaeology Los Angeles, California". In keeping therewith, it has two ISBNs (ISBN 0-947816-19-4, 0-917956-66-4), and is part of two series (University of Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Monograph No. 19; UCLA Institute for Archaeology, Archaeological Research Tools 5). Is there a way to record all of this information in the {{cite book}} template? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to try to stuff all of that into a single template. Just WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, or put the second version in a second template after the first one (e.g. "Also published as..."). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
In the case where you have the ISBN of the source you used and an OCLC (WorldCat) link but no available preview, please add the oclc parameter, perhaps a chapter/section title and or short relevant quote as well as the pagination. WorldCat will show other editions & formats, as will google books most of the time. Worldcat should assist in finding the referenced section in future editions. RDBrown (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

On Template:Cite book the output links to the old ISBN (identifier) article via a redirect from a page move instead of directly to the updated article name of ISBN. See David_Crosby#Publications for an output example of the ISBN redirect link. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 10:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is by design. Izno (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It's so the Special:WhatLinksHere/ISBN can clearly delineate which Wikipedia pages are actually linking to the article about ISBN and which are just using a citation with an ISBN. Umimmak (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

publisher/series order

In a cite book like

the order of presentation is a bit messed up, with the location/publisher inserted between volume and pages. Contrast with cite journal which keeps such information together

  • Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Journal. Series. 10 (11). Location: Publisher: 1–13. doi:10.4321/987654321.


This is extremely jarring, as opposed to the more natural presentation that would keep like information together (series, volume, issues, pages, then publisher). I believe we should follow cite journal and present things in this order instead

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While discussing this, let's also consider the situation of cite magazine:
  • Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Magazine. Series. Vol. 10, no. 11. Location: Publisher. pp. 1–13.
For that, we have the same issue of location/publisher separating volume/issue from pages, and that should be fixed. (I've mentioned it several times without any traction on a fix.)
Now going back to books, I disagree. At least to me, the volume is a function of a book's title and should be kept in its current location. It's not uncommon for a volume to have its own name that would be included, and moving that away from the title would be jarring. Thus this looks correct to me:
  • Smith, J. (2022). "Chapter". Title. Series. Vol. 10: Name. Location: Publisher. pp. 1–13.
With a periodical, the volume number is part of the in-source location along with the issue number and page numbers, so I agree that they should be clustered together, as cite journal does and cite magazine should do:
  • Smith, J. (2022). "Title". Magazine. Series. Location: Publisher. Vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1–13. (note that volume, issue and pages are separated by commas as a single grouping my example.)
Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with everything said here. {{cite magazine}} could def be changed; the inelegance you point out luckily doesn't happen too often since it's rare to include publisher and location for magazines, but for the odd time where either of those would be necessary to help a reader identify a periodical, I agree for magazines it should be as you say. Also agree with your reasoning about book volumes being different. Umimmak (talk) Umimmak (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree about it being extremely jarring, plenty of citation styles have the volume number before the publication information, not next to the pages:
APA:
  • Strong, E. K., Jr., & Uhrbrock, R. S. (1923). Bibliography on job analysis. In L. Outhwaite (Series Ed.), Personnel Research Series: Vol. 1. Job analysis and the curriculum (pp. 140–146). doi:10.1037/10762-000
  • Katz, I., Gabayan, K., & Aghajan, H. (2007). A multi-touch surface using multiple cameras. In J. Blanc-Talon, W. Philips, D. Popescu, & P. Scheunders (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 4678. Advanced Concepts forIntelligent Vision Systems (pp. 97–108). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74607-2_9
Chicago:
  • The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, vol. 9, Contra Keynes and Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 44–45.
  • The Complete Tales of Henry James, ed. Leon Edel, vol. 5, 1883–1884 (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1963), 32–33.
MLA:
  • Rampersad, Arnold. The Life of Langston Hughes. 2nd ed., vol. 2, Oxford UP, 2002.
  • Wellek, René. A History of Modern Criticism, 1750–1950. Vol. 5, Yale UP, 1986.
Umimmak (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Umimmak: as CS1 was heavily based on APA with influences from other guides like CMOS, I'm glad you brought up this point. (I was going to mention it, but felt my posting was already getting long.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Imzadi and disagree with Headbomb on book series. I would find it very jarring to have the volume within a series separated from the series title. I don't so much care whether the series+volume go before or after the publisher, but they should not be separated. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about where (as in before/after) the publisher information is, but volume/issue/pages should be together. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
For books, we're going to have to agree to disagree. For books, the volume should be considered an extension of the title of the book along with series and edition, not an extension of the page number like it is with a periodical. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
For book series, the volume isn't an extension of the title. It's the series volume. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Not all multi-volume books have series titles, and the volume would be an extension of the book title absent an intervening series title. Books aren't periodicals, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there are slightly different formats at work. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In order of importance (re: discovering the source): the publisher information block (which includes the edition) should be kept together. After that, the series/volume information. Then, page ranges of |title= (journal/magazine) or |chapter= (book). In-source locations such as page numbers, sections etc. are secondary search elements that can also be presented in short cites. When in full citations, their position could be part of the series/volume block I suppose. 184.74.237.158 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Which template to use?

I would like to cite this pdf which contains material related to the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I initially thought it was an excerpt from a book due to the appearance and page numbers noted, however, I could not identify an author or book title. Trying to locate title page information, I found that the pdf could be accessed through this page at dea.gov which has a few other sections in pdf format, but the earliest one began with page 12. There is nothing prior to page 12 or a title page. I then found that material was hosted by the United States Department of Justice here almost 18 years ago. This material may never have truly been a book, so I am wondering which template to use to cite the material in the pdf. My initial impression was to use {{cite book}} but I don't have a book title. Thanks! - Location (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a coffee-table book published by the FBI/DEA, but since you can't identify the title, I'd probably just use {{cite web}}. Izno (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Based on a text search, it looks like a reformatted version of this book. Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2003. United States. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 2003. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for the feedback! - Location (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding multiple editors with cite book

How do I add multiple editors to cite book? Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Either 1) preferred: |editor1-first= and |editor1-last=, or 2) acceptable: |editor1=. Increment the number as appropriate. Izno (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote page in AV media citations

Case A:

  • {{cite AV media|title=Media-Title|transcript=Transcript|quote-page=Quote-location from transcript|quote=Quote.}}
  • Media-Title. Transcript. Quote.

Case B:

  • {{cite AV media|title=Media-Title|quote-page=[[Title sequence]]|quote=Quote.}}
  • Media-Title. Quote.

What happened here? It was working a few days ago. Please fix. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bug fix. From {{cite AV media}}:
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for audio and visual works. – emphasis added
Choose a more appropriate template or, for locating a point in time in the media playback, use |minutes= or |time=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh? What bug was that? When was it reported on this page? The discussion?
What is cited is AV media. Case A involves the media transcript (quoting text from a transcript page). Case B involves the media credits. Specific text metadata (from the title sequence) is cited. So this is the exact template for both.
Timetable for the erroneously removecd parameter to reappear? It's absence is a bug that should be dealt promptly. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There was clear opposition to the removal of quote-page by itself, or as an alias of quote-time, one of the few aliases that make sense as functionally they both describe in-source locations. I was one of those against it, and reasoning was given. Unilaterally you went ahead and changed it anyway. This is a disruptive change as it removes attribution specifics from a quote (the location where the quote can be verified). Two valid cases for the parameter were offered in the OP. This parameter has to be restored. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, restricting editor choice by presenting this as a bug is disingenuous. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: ?? this needs fixing. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Which version to cite?

This may not be the proper forum for this inquiry, so I apologize in advance. I wonder if I should cite the original article in French or the translated article in English for material I read in the English version. I only read/speak English, it is the English version that I read, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. If I use the English version, do I link to the French version in {{cite journal}}? Thus far I have:

{{cite journal |last=Marchant |first=Alexandre |year=2012 |title=The French Connection: Between Myth and Reality |url=https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_VIN_115_0089--the-french-connection-between-myths.htm |journal=Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire |language=French |volume=115 |issue=3 |pages=89-102 |doi=10.3917/vin.115.0089 |access-date=January 31, 2023}}
Marchant, Alexandre (2012). "The French Connection: Between Myth and Reality". Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire (in French). 115 (3): 89–102. doi:10.3917/vin.115.0089. Retrieved January 31, 2023.

Thanks! - Location (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read the English version then cite the English version. Especially as the source provides an English translation, which is likely better than say Google translate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@Location: See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Request restoring parameter |quote-page= in the {{cite AV media}} templates. The parameter was withdrawn without acknowledgement in the latest module update, advertised here: § module suite update 14–15 January 2023.
The diff in question: January 2023 diff
An informal request was made above, in § Quote page in AV media citations. Note the indicated use-cases.
Previous discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85 § Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media
This unheralded removal of the parameter is not trivial. Quoted material must always be attributed, and its location must be made available to the reader.
The relevant module lines (current version): 
	local QuotePage;
	local QuotePages;
	if not utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, cfg.templates_not_using_page) then		-- TODO: rewrite to emit ignored parameter error message?
		Page = A['Page'];
		Pages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['Pages']);	
		At = A['At'];
		QuotePage = A['QuotePage'];
		QuotePages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['QuotePages']);
	end
Note that audiovisual templates are erroneously included in the templates not using page array in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration line 673 
local templates_not_using_page = {'audio-visual', 'episode', 'mailinglist', 'newsgroup', 'podcast', 'serial', 'sign', 'speech'}
The template in question uses (text) transcript parameters that often are published with some sort of pagination or sectioning. Video also uses "pages" (frames/frame sequences) as location indicators.

104.247.55.106 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. You know how it works around here. Izno (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
There was no consensus, warning, or discussion for the change that removed |quote-page=. It should be reverted and then consensus should be established for its removal. Revert immediately, as this affects verification.
This is not a case of WP:BRD. The removal was unilateral and hidden. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The requested changes can be put in the sandbox for the next quarterly update and discussed. Due to the nature of the citation template suite and their wide usage collectively on millions of articles, we traditionally only make updates to them in batches. Otherwise we'd be dumping millions of pages into the job queue for every edit to the suite, large or small. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that someone can make a unilateral change that affects core attribution and verifiability, surreptitiously hide it in a module update, and then present it as a done deal because otherwise Wikipedia's job queue will be ruffled? Don't think so. Revert the undocumented, undiscussed change now. It affects citations now, in a material way. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarifying that what is asked is not the revert of the entire update, only the revert of the unilateral change regarding |quote-page=. A simple edit in the main module to remove move lines 2686 and 2687, highlighted in the OP outside the conditional "if" statement. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
All module updates need discussion and consensus. The issue here is a change that had neither. Reverting such a change needs no consensus. This edit request is for such a non-controversial revert. Do not mark the request as answered by insisting on non-applicable consensus. That is not an answer, and is also incorrect. Before the formal request was made, a section discussing the issue was added. It should have been resolved there. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it was announced at #module suite update 14–15 January 2023 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It was not. When it was pointed out in the related thread § Quote page in AV media citations it was brushed off as a "bug". 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: please can you comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is true that this particular change was (unintentionally) omitted from the summary of changes listed in #module suite update 14–15 January 2023; I have never claimed to be perfect in all things that I do. The change was, however, discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85#Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media in particular Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85#|quote-page= and |quote-pages= support removal. I think that this edit request should be declined.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not a serious answer. When the change was discovered and pointed out, the response was that it was a "bug fix". Doesn't exactly sound "unintentional". Secondly, there was no consensus to remove the parameter in the discussions referenced above. The first discussion was the opposite: enhancing the parameter with aliases. In both discussions there was opposition to the removal. And why should the parameter be removed? There is no real argument presented. There is ample reasoning for retaining and enhancing the parameter, some of which was put forth in these discussions. As a first step the non-consensual change should be reverted, and soon, as it has policy implications re:attribution & verifiability. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
65.88.88.216: It seems that Trappist the monk wrote that omitting this change from the summary list was unintentional. GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Unfortunately, second-guessing one's intentions is easy when the arguments are so flimsy. And when emoji presentation questions get prompt responses but something as important as properly attributing quotes is treated as a trivial issue. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There's still the question of how a template designed to cite an audio-visual work can have page numbers. Based on a strict application of the title, that's just not possible. Perhaps citations to transcripts, which would have page numbers, should be handled using different templates? Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with this, you should be citing what you are reading/watching, if it's from a transcript then it's not AV media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on a badly named template. The fact that the entire CS1\CS2 is illogically designed and misnamed (it is much more than a "style" to begin with) has some bearing on this, but let's put it aside for the moment. A proper citation system cites classes of works, not media. That is why a book citation should use {{cite book}} and not {{cite web}} even when the book is online. Publishers of AV works often publish transcripts and other accessibility aids. These are integral parts of the work on another medium or format. We are not going to rehash arguments about accessibility regarding citations. Properly, the accessibility parameters belong in a citation of the work (in this case the transcript parameters), to be used at the discretion of citation writers. Secondly, it has been proposed previously to rationalize the quote-location parameter. An argument 'quote-location' could have aliases depending on the medium quoted from: 'quote-page' (text) 'quote-time' (AV streams) 'quote-frame' (continuous visuals) 'quote-section' (static visuals, maps or text) etc. It is up to the citation writer to make the choices so that the citation is understood and is relevant to the related wikitext. 24.103.101.218 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Add: generally most aliases should be avoided. However in situations like the above the aliases have semantic significance. They signify different data types that have equivalent application (the location of the data). Programmatically they make sense and rationalize data-entry. Separate static-text labels could be provided. 24.103.101.218 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry none of that changes my opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Not trying to change anybody's opinion. The facts are presented and one can recognize them or hold an opinion instead. Such as, the fact that the change that is the subject of the edit request had no consensus, and it is ok to be reverted on that basis alone. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The facts are presented and one can recognize them or hold an opinion instead. No you opinion of the facts is presented, I don't think its presented very well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What is not a fact? That the removal of quote-page from the AV template was non-consensual? That quotes from the source may be given to support wikitext? That transcript parameters exist in templates for accessibility reasons and may be quoted? That quote locations are needed to find and verify the quote? That citations cite sources, and the medium/media of the source is secondary? 208.253.152.74 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also a fact that if you are not citing AV media you should not be using {{cite av media}}, but something appropriate to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
That's not the case here. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Break

information Administrator note While the consensus for this change may not have been initially established clearly, subsequent discussion in this thread shows that this change does have general support. To help me decide whether this change needs reverting, please can you answer the following questions as succintly as possible:

  • Are any citations in the article namespace currently broken or otherwise unusable?
  • Is it possible to achieve what you are trying to do using the workarounds described above? If not, please give a simple example of something that you want to do which is not now possible.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In the archived discussion, I wrote (16:59, 21 August 2022):
At the time of this writing, {{cite av media}} is used on 32,473 articles. Of those:
  • five use |quote=
    • of those, one uses |time=
    • of those, none use |quote-page= or |quote-pages=
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course none show the use of quote-page since it is ignored. I have used it in several references where the quote location is not now shown. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This comment is a misunderstanding of how search works. Izno (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually it seems you misunderstand my comment, which is not a reply to any regex search or more specialized template-parametet search. The comment is about what citations show to readers. Basically a quote that just hangs there. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Then how does Of course none show the use of quote-page since it is ignored. pertain to Trappist's comment? He posted results of a search which identifies where the parameter is used. You either understand what those searches do and so that comment is irrelevant, or you don't understand what they do and so that comment is incorrect. Izno (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Or, you could stop making assumptions. My comment was directed at user Martin who asked a related question. Trappist interjected while I was still formulating an answer. It was certainly not a response to a 5 month old search. If I'm guilty of anything is not indenting for clarity. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
For some reason, you don't like the quote parameters in full citations. And obviously the related quote-location parameters. Your dislike, including the section you started (in the same archive) to remove it, found no support but there was opposition, with proper reasoning, based both on existing policy, practices, and common sense. But then you went ahead and removed the quote-page parameter anyway. So that is where we stand. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Your search is bad. A broader search finds 9 potential articles. Of the 9, only 2 (Krishnamurti's Notebook, and Choiceless awareness) have quote-page in AV media. Neither of these two uses are implicated by the two questions that MSGJ asked. Izno (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yep, two articles. My search did not find them because the {{cite AV media}} templates in those articles have this:
{{cite AV media|ref={{harvid|J. Krishnamurti|2018a}}|last=Jiddu|first=Krishnamurti...
where the closing } of the {{harvid}} template terminates the regex match before it gets to |quote-page(s)=. Not clear to me why {{harvid}} is needed nor why the values assigned to |first= and |last= appear to be swapped... Fixing that would, it seems, negate the need for {{harvid}}. Editor Izno's search finds seven false positives because .* is greedy so it finds the start of a {{cite AV media}} template and then continues to consume text until it finds \| *quote\-page in the same template (a true match) or in some other template (false positive).
The templates in these pages appear to be attempts to shoehorn two sources (the video and an edited transcript) into a single citation template. To me, the rendered results are too complex to be useful to readers. The obvious workaround is to simplify by creating a separate transcript citation using {{cite web}}, marking the transcript citation with |type=Transcript, and setting |ref=none so that the short-form references link to the video citation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The change was undisclosed and had no consensus. It should be reverted on that basis, and then anyone can start a discussion on whether to remove the parameter from the AV template. The burden is on those who want to change the template.
There have been ample statements above about the necessity of the parameter, which directly implicates WP:V. See WP:BURDEN, and it has been a fundamental requirement that all quotes should be attributable and verifiable. The parameter in question promotes attribution & verifiability. 198.179.75.38 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I am satisfied that reverting this change is not necessary nor desirable, for the various reasons given — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope you realize that removing the parameter is liable to leave a quote in place without the means to directly locate it. This contravenes policy.
The idea that the transcript, linked in the citation with the appropriate parameters, cannot be quoted in the same citation is novel, and never discussed.
The removal of quote-page affects quotes from the non-text rendition too. The parameter |time= is equivalent to the parameter |page=. There is no parameter |quote-time= in AV media templates as an equivalent of |quote-page= in other media templates
I believe an RFC will be required so this may have wider discussion 65.88.88.70 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Cita web" errors

As noted at User talk:AnomieBOT#Unhelpful edit by AnomieBOT, sometimes substituting {{cita web}} causes the actual cite information to be erased and an error to be put inappropriately into the wikitext. I have today encountered several cases where someone wrote "cita web" where "cite web" would have been correct. User:Anomie suggested changing the template so it does the right thing if the English "title" parameter is detected. Would that be feasible, and is there anyone who knows how to do that? -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: I believe Anomie is suggesting that you post the suggestion at Template talk:Cita web. GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
psst that a redirect to this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Wow - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
A brief history:
  • 3 January 2010 – {{cita web}} changed from a nonsense template to a simple redirect to {{cite web}} with this edit
  • 13 November 2022 – original {{cita web}} citation added to 2022 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix at this edit; at the time, {{cita web}} was still a simple redirect to {{cite web}}. I wonder if Editor Island92 copied that template from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Anexo:Gran Premio de Abu Dabi de 2022 and then modified it to fix the unrecognized parameter errors but did not change the template's name
  • 25 December 2022 – {{cita web}} repointed to {{cite web/Italian or Spanish}} – this invokes the auto-translation supplied by Module:CS1 translator. In this case, auto-translator cannot know which language (Italian or Spanish) it should translate because the indicators, |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian), have been replaced with |title= (English) so it emits the {{cita book/news/web}} requires |título= (Spanish) or |titolo= (Italian) error message. The error message is visible to editors before substing so they have the opportunity to fix the template. This of course presumes that editors preview their work...
  • 27 December 2022 – AnomieBOT substs the {{cita web}} template with this edit
This is a case of GIGO because the 'manual' translation (if the template was copied from es.wiki) was incomplete. AnomieBOT did nothing wrong.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
But the "manual" translation presumably worked when the template was inserted, according to the timeline, so the editor would not have seen any errors. What could have happened before 25 December, in order to avoid this problem, was that all instances of "cita web" could have ben renamed to "cite web". This step was skipped.
I see this as an opportunity to improve the translator module. In the past, when the template was a redirect, the foreign-language parameters generated error messages, and English-language parameters worked fine. If someone using AWB wanted to sweep by and do an auto-replacement of the redirect and/or the parameters, it worked fine. Now, if editors go to the trouble of inserting the correct parameters, the template does not work. What if the module recognized English-language parameters as well as the foreign-language parameters so that substing would not discard useful information? In addition, foreign-language versions of these templates sometimes have additional parameters that are not supported by our CS1 templates, but which have useful information in them; AFAIK, that information is discarded upon substitution, which is not ideal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of Module:CS1 translator is to make it so that editors don't have to manually translate non-English cs1|2-like templates. For example, this template (which could have been the original of the template identified in the AnomieBOT discussion) taken from es:Anexo:Gran Premio de Abu Dabi de 2022:
{{Cita web|título=Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP|url=https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.ricciardo-handed-3-place-grid-drop-for-final-mclaren-outing-after-magnussen.3ZOlOOLHp34z24z2oZwIi5.html|obra=[[Fórmula 1]]|editorial=Formula One World Championship Limited|fecha=13 de noviembre de 2022|fechaacceso=19 de noviembre de 2022|idioma=en}}
translates to (|expand=yes added to get this rendering):
{{cite web/subst |access-date=19 November 2022 |date=13 November 2022 |language=en |publisher=Formula One World Championship Limited |title=Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP |url=https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.ricciardo-handed-3-place-grid-drop-for-final-mclaren-outing-after-magnussen.3ZOlOOLHp34z24z2oZwIi5.html |work=[[Fórmula 1]]}}
and renders as:
"Ricciardo handed 3-place grid drop for final McLaren outing after Magnussen contact in Sao Paulo GP". Fórmula 1. Formula One World Championship Limited. 13 November 2022. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
For the most part, the translation is transparent. When a non-English template has parameters that are not supported by cs1|2, those parameters are retained as-is so that cs1|2 can emit an appropriate error message notifying editors to manually fix those parameters. English language parameters are also retained as-is though they may be overwritten if a non-English parameter translates to the same name.
The only time that anything is discarded is when an Italian or Spanish {{cita web}} template does not have a native-language |title= parameter. The error message is supposed to tell editors that something is wrong that needs attention. In the example case, we have an edge condition where {{cita web}} was placed in the article before the auto-translation and substitution was activated.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Today I finished fixing several dozen of the same type of error. If I'm understanding correctly, we're thinking all of them were probably caused by changing the redirect without properly examining the unsubstituted uses, so this is a one-time wave that probably won't repeat? You can see my recent contributions if you want more examples. -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Staff"

Staff should be added as a generic name for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_errors:_generic_name BhamBoi (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: A few years ago, I tried commenting out "Staff" from author parameters, and ended up reverting all those edits - see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Procedure when author is "Staff" for the discussion. Unless there is a new consensus to remove/hide "Staff" from references, then I don't recommend adding an generic name error to those references.
There are over 37,000 pages in Category:CS1 errors: generic name. I'd like us to work on reducing that volume before adding many more pages to it. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Double quotes in titles and quotes

So the issue of double quote marks in fields that are automatically enclosed in double quote marks (like "title" and "quote") seems to come up periodically:

Intending to enforce MOS:DOUBLE I had been using a regex to replace lots of single quote marks with double quote marks. I didn't realize that doing this in {{cite web}} and friends renders as double-inside-double quote marks, which I agree looks bad. I disabled that and was going to write a new regex to fix my mistakes (and I guess everyone else's) but then I had the same question as those who came before - should this instead be fixed by just making the template smarter?

If that's not in the works and it's "only" 60K instances or so, I can start slowly normalizing all instances. User:Trappist the monk mentioned this nice search, but that's not something I can use when I'm grepping surface-level wikitext in Python without Mediawiki. If anyone can produce a complete list of which templates and parameters this kind of fix should be applied to, I can put that to good use; otherwise I'll probably just start with the "title" and "quote" parameters of {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite journal}}, and the "chapter" parameter of {{cite book}}. -- Beland (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

How would you make the template "smarter"? What should it do with a copy-pasted title with double-nested quote marks like title=Song Review: "They Call Me 'Buddy' and I Like It"? And what if an editor uses the correct syntax and writes title=Song Review: 'They Call Me "Buddy" and I Like It'? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

template:cite thesis

What is template:cite thesis, if not a giant violation of Wikipedia's policy against original research? By definition a thesis is original research, as it is something submitted by a student to the head of a department at a university. Am I missing something? Are we now considering what is effectively a very large homework assignment to be on equal footing with peer-reviewed research? —Soap— 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

They are covered by the third point of WP:SCHOLARSHIP;
Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. It goes on with other details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

S2CID limit needs to be increased

March 29 has a cite journal ref with S2CID error. The S2CID is 256374391 and it was added by the Citation bot. The link also works correctly.

The limit needs to be increased. Ciridae (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_87&oldid=1143207881"