Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

So, about those required parameters...

At this point, the change that made |website= and |newspaper= (or some type of "periodical" field) in {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} has been reverted after the long discussion at ANI.

We need to discuss what the fix is going forward.

• It is clear from those maintaining these templates that {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} should have a required periodical field (website/newspaper/work/etc.) that will populate metadata. This should not be avoided.
• It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcing |website= and |newspaper= as an italic style ,and close to around 200-300k existing cs1 citations out there are likely using |publisher= to get a non-italic style for the name.

This confusion seems to be stemming from the assumption that websites should be treated as a periodical reference. This is true for many websites, but does not extend wholly for things like the World Health Organization. Many a discussion has been held at the MOS pages that whether website should be italicized or not, with some not so strict guidance, but enough variance that forcing websites to be in italics created problems with this change.

Understanding that before any change is done that there likely will need to be a larger RFC to confirm, and giving editors time to fix templates as needed, as well as looking for potential bot aids, there needs to be some way to resolve this.

I had at least two ideas:

• If it is possible to add some parameter to {{citation}} that would allow the "periodical" field to not be rendered in italics. A bot could be made to convert all existing {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} that are using only |publisher= into the right parameter, and add the "no italics" flag. This seems like the easiest outside of the bot to make the automated changes.
• Making separate templates for "non-periodical" style web and news templates, that would not use any periodical field but instead the publisher field as the key metadata one. This seems like more work for something that seems like easy add to the existing ones.

I'm sure there's other possibility and solutions. And of course, this is on reading the consensus that the ability to have non-italic website/newspaper names in the citations is what the community wants. But this is a discussion that should happen now, now that we have resolved the immediate issue. --Masem (t) 03:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcing No, no it's not. You don't get to establish a false premise as an end-run around the consensus established at the proper location and place (above) on that point. The only real consensus from a content/style POV that discussion indicates is that people don't like errors showing up in their articles (whether deserved or not). --Izno (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The italics thing is a red herring, and periodicals are not required by any standards. If there's a periodical, or a work, emit that metadata. If there's a publisher, emit that metadata. Neither are required, because many online things are neither part of a work, of a periodical, nor necessarily have a publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree to a point, that the italics aspect (more specifically the presumption that WP has in practice treated cite web's as periodical citations by default) was a major point of contention that was not part of any of the discussion into the Sept 2 changes. (Making "website" italic was discussed in the RFC). Trappist stated several times at ANI that they thought, if we were citing a report from the WHO, it should appear as the italicized |website= and not as |publisher=, which was a point of contention in the changes (not just the error message issue). Clearly there was a disconnect between those maintaining cs1 and those using cs1 for how this should apply, and - if there is a need to fill metadata - that requires figuring out how to normalize the templates. Yes, the status quo is "fine" but there sounded like there were core technical reasons to make the change for metadata filling. --Masem (t) 15:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed: I believe that World Health Organization is the eponymous publication of the corporate entity (publisher) World health Organization. It would seem that WHO agrees. If you look in the source for Female Genital Mutilation (the page used as an example at the WP:AN discussion) you will find this: \"SiteName\":\"World Health Organization\".

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A World Health Organization report is a government-type document (which is fixed, and may be available as a PDF or in HTML at a given URL, but which is still a report if it is in hard copy), right? Then {{cite report}} should be used instead! Would switching that over take care of a big chunk of the ANI debate? --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem You appear to be assuming that, when a cite web has a publisher but no website, that it can only have been done that way to avoid the italics that using website would create. That assumption is wrong and an extreme failure of WP:AGF. It is completely legitimate to use publisher= for a cite web, listing the name of an organization that published the website. It would in many cases be incorrect to assume that field to merely be a workaround for the website italics. For instance, if I were to cite "Help talk:Citation Style 1" with a publisher of "The Wikimedia Foundation", it would be grossly incorrect to think that I really meant that the website on which I found Help talk:Citation Style 1 had "The Wikimedia Foundation" as the name of its web site. (In this example, the web site is Wikipedia, not Wikimedia.) You also seem to be reading the consensus of the AN (not ANI) discussion completely backwards: It is clear that most of the discussants don't give a fuck about italic vs non-italic website name formatting, and just want their perfectly valid and non-erroneous web-page-but-no-website citations to render without complaints. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to require a publisher. It may be required in some cases (e.g. The Eastern Daily Press newspaper is published by Archant Media Ltd). {{cite web}} does require an |url=, whereas it is an optional parameter in {{cite news}}. That is how is should be. There is no need to change it. Neither requires a mandatory|periodical= field. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this discussion is not about requiring |publisher= as that was not the issue at WP:AN. |publisher= is optional and allowed in all cs1|2 templates except the preprint templates {{cite arxiv}}, etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that it is, at least in part, because that was one of the causes of the error messages. It really messed up a load of articles before the category was hidden. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That is just not true. |publisher= has never been a required parameter. There is / was no error message.

The requirements imposed by {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} were for some sort of periodical parameter. Those error messages were:

The presence or absence of |publisher= played no part in the determination to display these two error messages. During the WP:AN discussion, it was these error messages that were hidden, not the category (Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:, would you please state what metadata is being emitted, and provide links to the standard that defines the metadata? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is the TemplateData stuff at the bottom of the documentation for {{citation}} ( eg Template:Citation#TemplateData ) --Masem (t) 16:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the templatedata is for the visual editor. Only a few of those parameters have COinS metadata. The {{cite web}} ones are listed at Template:Cite_web#COinS.   Jts1882 | talk  17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

TemplateData is a poorly conceived blend of program-control and pseudo documentation. Except that it exists on cs1|2 template doc pages to support that abomination that is ve, cs1|2 has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with TemplateData. If you think that I have strong opinions about those things, you would be right.

For the metadata standard, see Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS where there are links to the documentation that I have been able to find.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A right proper opinion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking anecdotally, but I sometimes use |publisher= in lieu of |website= only because it strikes me as more useful. I have never cared about whether it produces italics or not and I don't think that is the main problem here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably ask the question, "Should |website= be a) deprecated, b) contain the hosting website and be mandatory (i.e even if |publisher= is present), c) contain the hosting website and be supplantable with |publisher=? And if c) is implemented, what kind of information should go into |publisher= and what kind of information goes into |website=?" Or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Either deprecated (the simplest solution given it's so problematic) or made flexible so that non-periodical websites can be non-italicized. Despite what some have suggested, Wikipedia MOS has no requirement that website names be italicized. Yet one editor with programming skill makes the extremist argument that everything online — even organizations like the World Health Organization or Sears — be treated as periodicals and italicized. That is unlike any footnoting I've ever seen and contrary to things like the very widely used Chicago Manual of Style. There's no reason for Wikipedia to adopt an eccentricity.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be me (I am not Voldemort, my name may be spoken).

MOS does not apply to citations. If it did, then en.wiki's own WP:CITESTYLE would be invalid. cs1|2, like it or not, has a style that has developed organically to suit en.wiki's needs. Certainly cs1|2 have been influenced by CMOS, APA, MLA, and who knows what else but, cs1|2 is none of these styles. Yep, World Health Organization and Sears are eponymous electronic publications (websites) of the corporate entities that are their publishers. As the eponymous name, or title, if you will, these names are italicized.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I just find it remarkable that you seem to be saying WP:CITESTYLE does not apply to citations.

WP:CITESTYLE specifically says we can use Chicago Manual of Style, which does not italicize websites. But your programming for our citation styles does not allow this. Your citation formats essentially say we're forbidden to use Chicago Manual of Style.

FYI, I phrased it as "one editor with programming skill" so as not to personalize my argument. The salient point isn't who, but the fact that some editors can program, others cannot, and that distinction seems to be playing out.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote MOS does not apply to citations (emphasis added). MOS may not, on the one hand, permit any consistent citation style (WP:CITESTYLE) and then on another hand dictate how that citation style must be used. This, I think, is the point you are trying to make at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § RfC appears to contradict MOS here. cs1|2, like it or not, are styles (after all they are named Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2).

Yes, you can use CMOS, or APA, or MLA, or even Bob's Special Citation Style++ as long as you are consistent in the use of it within an article. None of these styles are cs1|2. Two or three years ago I tried an experiment that would have used |mode=mla to render a few ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and one or two others) in MLA format. The experiment 'worked' but the code to make it work was such a tangle that it would have made maintenance of the code base worse than it already is. The experiment was backed out and I hope will never be repeated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, re: "Yep, World Health Organization and Sears are eponymous electronic publications (websites) of the corporate entities that are their publishers", that would be a style error. The onus is on you at this point to produce a reputable style guide that supports you. The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What is a style error? According to whom?

Tell me why 'Supreme Court of the United States' is not the name of the court's website. Right there at the top of the page you linked (in the position that would be the masthead of a newspaper or a magazine or a journal were we looking at a paper copy and where those publications place their names) it says, in large white letters over a blue-gray background: 'Supreme Court of the United States' and this appears to be placed at the top of every html page at the site. Similarly, in the 'masthead' on every html page at https://www.who.int, in large blue text over a white background: 'World Health Organization'. Both look like names to me; yeah, the names are also the names of the organizations so eponymous electronic publications of their individual publishers.

cs1|2 (I keep repeating this, why?) is not any of the reputable style [guides] mentioned here and at WP:CITESTYLE. Certainly it was influenced by the reputable style [guides] but does not adhere to any particular one or group of them. Website titles have been italicized by {{cite web}} since its inception (15 years ago).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the website is supremecourt.gov and who.int, and 'Supreme Court of the United States' and 'World Health Organization' are their publishers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist, the problem is that you, personally, are inventing new style rules, where (a) there's no need; (b) there's no consensus; and (c) the new rules show a misunderstanding of the concept title. You could also say "let's not ever capitalize letters in book titles, including the first letter", or "let's always italicize authors' names". Those would be style errors too, according to everyone. Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title.

The thing you're grappling with is that most websites don't have names, so there is no title, i.e. there is nothing that needs to be italicized. You disagree with that: you believe they all ought to have names. But as a matter of fact, they don't. Their owners did not name them. In those cases, and that is most cases, we name the publisher. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote this declarative sentence: The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website. I asked you to tell me why that name is not the name of the court's website. You have not answered that question but instead, concocted speculative 'rules' about title capitalization and author-name font as examples of style errors. Then you wrote: Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title. Similar to what? How do your concocted rule examples tell me why Supreme Court of the United States is not the name of the court's website?

If I have a misunderstanding of the concept title, write something that will give me that understanding. Simply making declarative statements that Supreme Court of the United States (or World Health Organization) is not a title does not help anyone to understand why you are so certain that they are not titles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Because nobody refers to supremecourt.gov as "Supreme Court of the United States", or by any other title. It's "the Supreme Court's website", unnamed, untitled. In the below examples, green text signifies quotes from the sources provided, and not quotes from TTM.

• New York Times: announcing that the Supreme Court’s website would start posting briefs
• US News: a separate statement posted on the Supreme Court's website
• Fox News: posted on the Supreme Court's website in the early afternoon
• Forbes: The Court’s opinion is available on its website

Have you any counter examples? – Levivich 18:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that there is a formality criterion now? A website title is only a title when it can be used formally or informally in everyday journalism-speak? That a 'proper' website title would be used in preference to allusions or references to the entity's website ('its website', 'the <entity's> website'). Really?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with SarahSV. This is seeming more and more like one editor's crusade, and italicizing all website names is neither required by WP:CITESTYLE nor is it mainstream. For example, see the APA, Harvard and MLA examples here, none of which italicize the website name. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All websites must have "names", even when these "names" are not human-friendly. Please don't repeat stuff that just isn't so. The bottom line is that citations have their own style which is related to their utility. Don't try to mix the two, citations are not about prose, and they don't concern themselves with aesthetics. They are not there to make an article pretty, they are there to make it relevant. Because "SaraSV" or "Tenebrrae" or my IP mean exactly nothing otherwise. They can be standardized for the benefit of editors, but they must be presented from the POV of their users. If you believe that this view of citations is limiting, by all means use your own presentation. And let others use the tools that suit them. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: There was an RfC here on this page (still recorded above) that closed about two weeks ago that concluded (at 15:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)) that "an overall consensus exists here that names of websites in citations/references should be italicized". The RfC was widely advertised (at Help talk:Citation Style 2, Template talk:Citation, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, Wikipedia talk:Citation templates, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and with a long-open Administrator Noticeboard request for closure. The RfC was open for more than a full month before it was concluded. The editor in question who was not named did not initiate that RfC, and did not close it, and as far as I have noticed after a quick look, did not express an opinion in it. I therefore don't see a one-editor crusade here. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that RfC didn't say anything about making |website= or |newspaper= required parameters. One possible outcome, in line with the RfC, is that |website= is either in italics or blank. It's the "not blank" thing that seems to be one editor's thing, in my view, not the italics thing. – Levivich 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, but the comment that I replied to was complaining about a "one editor's crusade" for "italicizing all website names". That initiative was not coming from one editor. And I think it is arguable that the help guidance already said that the "website"/"work" parameter was more necessary and fundamental to citations than the "publisher" parameter, and that a lot of people seem to have been using "publisher" and leaving the "work" parameter empty to avoid italics. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the RfC close now means the Chicago Manual of Style — which does not italicize websites in footnoting — is now no longer ever allowed for citations? I ask you to clarify. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I think the RfC applies when the Wikipedia CS1 citation style and its templates are used but not when CMOS citation style is used. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Whew! I think we have common ground ... because I have run across one editor who believes that the RfC here means "There was already an RFC about this, and it was decided to italicize websites. That can not be overriden...." (Also, when I went to WP:CMOS I got WikiProject Comics, and when I went to CMOS I got a page for complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor. Can you point me to the page for CMOS citation style?)

So this is everyone's understanding? That WP:CITESTYLE allows us to use Chicago Manual of Style and we're free to, but just not with the "cite web" template? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RfC implicitly only applies to the Wikipedia CS1|2 styles (and their associated templates) and that there is no plan to change WP:CITESTYLE as a result of it. As the authority on the CMOS/Chicago style, WP:CITESTYLE refers to The Chicago Manual of Style and that article refers to some printed books and a website at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is drifting a little off-topic, but I noticed something at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/. I hope it is generally accepted that Wikipedia MOS guidance on typographical conformity applies to the formatting of titles that are quoted in citations (MOS:QUOTE, MOS:CONFORM, MOS:DASH, MOS:INOROUT, MOS:ITALPUNCT), and that the spirit of this aspect does not vary with the choice of citation style. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

When I waded through the chain of links within Wikipedia pages in the article and WP: space, I found myself at Z39.88-2004: The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services The Key/Encoded-Value (KEV) Format Implementation Guidelines. These have different metadata keys for different so-called generes. Examples include

&rft.atitle=Isolation of a common receptor for coxsackie B

A title of a journal article

&rft.jtitle=Science

A title of a journal

&rft.btitle=Professional XML Meta Data

A book title

So it strikes me that {{cite web}} is emitting false metadata whenever the website is not a periodical. Due to the pervasive use of cite web for all kinds of things, I suggest that {{cite web}} be modified to not emit any metadata, to avoid emitting falsehoods. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All cs1|2 templates emit metadata. Because the metadata standard does not directly support web citation objects, and because {{cite web}} renders stylistically like a journal citation, we use the COinS journal object with rft.genre set to unknown. For completeness:

rft.genre=article – {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}

rft.genre=conference – {{cite conference}} when a periodical parameter is set

rft.genre=preprint – {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite biorxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, {{cite ssrn}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that styling the citation for a non-periodical is not as serious as emitting metadata that declares the non-periodical is a periodical. Readers tend to be more flexible than software. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding url= to ref with title-link generates an error.

This edit assisted by (made by?) by OAbot seems to have generated a parsing error in cite journal by adding a url parameter. I suppose it is the prior presence of "title-link", which might itself have been a misuse but one that wasn't flagged and seemed functional. Thank you for maintaining our citation templates so well. It's a pity some users are less ... Thincat (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That template should emit an error message because you can't link |title= to two different targets. |title-link=s:Mount Everest: The Reconnaissance is a perfectly valid link into WikiSource. cs1|2 might handle this particular error a bit better by choosing either of |title-link= or |url= to link |title=. Which should it be? When more than one link target is present, it's still an error so there will be some sort of message.

OAbot should not be adding |url= to a cs1|2 template when that template has a valid title link so you should raise this issue at User talk:OAbot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Thincat (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Support year-suffix outside the English alphabet

Accordind to the sfn documentation (More than one work in a year)

When {{sfn}} is used with {{citation}} or Citation Style 1 templates, a year-suffix letter may be added to |date= for all accepted date formats except year initial numeric (YYYY-MM-DD). It is not necessary to include both |year= and |date=. If both are included, |year= is used for the CITEREF anchor to be compliant with legacy citations.

Also with regard to the direct use of CITEREF the following advice is given

Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals

The function check_date (Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) takes proper care of the optional suffix, but in an unsatisfactory way. People find natural, if not normative, to suffix the year with letters from their native alphabet.

Hence

{{cite book |last=Αργυρίου |first=Αλέξανδρος |title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940) |volume=τ.Αʹ |publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη |location=Αθήνα |year=2002α |isbn=978-960-03-3156-1 |ref=harv}}

will produce this, because the year is suffixed with a greek alpha

Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

There is nothing wrong with the matching pattern, it is the use of the standard string library instead of ustring that breaks things (lines 564-5).

Is this a "feature" (a rather awkward one if you ask me) or an omission? paa (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m confused, would using, e.g., 2002α, 2002β, 2002γ, to disambiguate Harvard style citations be limited to the Greek language version of Wikipedia? Or are you suggesting that the Greek alphabet be used even on the English Wikipedia to disambiguate citations which were published in Greek? Umimmak (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that the use of the standard string library implicitly enforces a choice that doesn't make sense to wikis whose alphabet is based on non-Latin script. Making this specific check with ustring keeps everybody happy paa (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue initially raised at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά#Cite_book. Is there some reason why en.wiki should not allow non-Latin CITEREF disambiguators?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox, I think. Also required a fix to Module:Footnotes/sandbox:

{{harv/sandbox|Αργυρίου|2002α}} → (Αργυρίου 2002α)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|first=Αλέξανδρος|isbn=978-960-03-3156-1|last=Αργυρίου|location=Αθήνα|publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη|ref=harv|title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940)|volume=τ.Αʹ|year=2002α}}
Live	Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Sandbox	Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη. ISBN 978-960-03-3156-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk asked "Is there some reason why en.wiki should not allow non-Latin CITEREF disambiguators?" Yes. These disambiguators are usually (always?) associated with a list of sources in alpha-numeric order, where they are sorted first by author name(s), and with the date as a tie-breaker. All editors of the article will have occasion to re-sort the list as new sources are added. Thus the disambiguation characters should be letters of the Roman alphabet so that all editors will be able to insert new sources at their proper place in the list. It will also aid readers who are reading a version of the article which has been printed on paper, so that references to sources must be followed manually.

It's an open question whether this is a limitation that should just be documented, giving gnomes license to manually or semi-automatically convert non-Roman characters to Roman, or if it should be enforced by the citation software. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change redirects

{{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} all redirect to {{Cite journal}}. Since {{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} are not likely to have the |journal= parameter populated, these citations will generate the error. Would it be better to have {{Cite document}}, {{Cite paper}}, and {{Citepaper}} to redirect to {{Cite report}} instead to avoid the error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We might have to do something about the default "(Report)" text that appears in {{Cite report}}. See this section above for a related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We might also need to discuss the formatting of the title of a report. For some reports/papers/documents, because of their lengths, they'd be considered long-form documents that should be titled in italics. Some would be short enough to be a short-form document and should be titled in quotation marks. Imzadi 1979 → 02:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a need to distinguish the work as short-form/long-form. It adds code overhead, and the dissimilar formatting of the same argument can be confusing. I think the presentation of all aliases of the same parameter should be presented uniformly, in this case by applying emphasis. With apologies to the OP for the unrelated comment. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, when citing reports, I use {{cite book}} with |type=Report so that the title renders in italics. (It's rare that I'd cite something that qualifies as a report that's also short enough to be considered a short-form document, and in those few cases, I err on the side of consistency with the rest and go italics.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that I'm opposed to this because presumably, editors who used those templates didn't want {{cite report}} and just repointing those redirects will break something. You might guess that I'm a bit sensitive to broken stuff right now ...

I would be in favor of eliminating these redirects and any others that point to {{cite journal}} (and, for that matter to the other cs1 templates). Then, if we decide that we need a {{cite document}} template, we create one.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Add |zenodo=

This would allow us to cleanup all these |url=https://zenodo.org/record/3348115#.XTk3rXt7kUE or |url=https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3348115 to be |zenodo=3348115 → Zenodo: 3348115 (with the green lock) instead. Or |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3348115 → |zenodo=3348115.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be useful: users have added thousands of links to Zenodo, which is now probably the biggest preprint/green OA server in the world apart from arxiv. (Disclosure: I'm known for liking Zenodo.) Nemo 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be a bit reluctant to add |zenodo=, since |doi= and |url= can already be used to store such links. Adding custom support for identifier schemes that are covered by the DOI system defeats the point of DOIs (having a unified identifier system on top of many providers). I think Zenodo URLs can already be made canonical as things stand. − Pintoch (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is zenodo is it's own repository, and does not link to where the canonical DOI would. So if you use |doi=, then you're usurping the version of record DOI. It's the same with |biorxiv=. It's technically a doi, but it's not the DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The advantage of Zenodo is that it is open access, whereas many articles which are linked to with doi require subscription. I'm in favour of providing a |zenodo=9999| field, but until then we can use |id={{zenodo|9999}}|. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Eastern name order": should one use |author= or |author-mask= ?

For works where an author's name is published as Surname Given-name (authors using "Eastern name order"), which underlying code is preferred? One option is putting the family name in |last=, given name in |first=, and then using |author-mask= so that the name appears in the citation without the comma. Using |ref=harv is straightforward, but one needs to add in punctuation such as the semicolon in |author-mask= if there are any subsequent authors.

(1a) {{cite book|last=Zhang |first=San |first2=John |last2=Smith |date=2019 |title=Title |author-mask=Zhang San; |ref=harv}} with {{harv|Zhang|Smith|2019}}

Zhang San; Smith, John (2019). Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) with (Zhang & Smith 2019)

If |author-mask= shouldn't be used to overwrite how the name appears in the citation, then one can put the entire name in the |author= field as it was published. Then one would have to use {{harvid}} within |ref= if the article uses Harvard citations/shortened footnotes.

(1b) {{cite book|author=Li Si |first2=Jane |last2=Doe |date=2019 |title=Title |ref=harvid|Li|Doe}} with {{harv|Li|Doe|2019}}

Li Si; Doe, Jane (2019). Title. with (Li & Doe 2019)

Both methods also work with editors (sparing the details of |ref={{harvid}}):

(2a) {{cite book|editor-last=Kovács |editor-first=János |editor-mask=Kovács János; |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}

Kovács János; Mustermann, Max, eds. (2019). Title.

(2b) {{cite book|editor=Kovács János |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}

Kovács János; Mustermann, Max, eds. (2019). Title.

And with contributors (and again, sparing |ref= details ):

(3a) {{cite book|contributor=Hong Gildong|contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}

Hong Gildong (2019). Preface. Title. By Smith, John.

(3b) {{cite book|contributor-last=Hong |contributor-first=Gildong |contributor-mask=Hong Gildong |contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}

Hong Gildong (2019). Preface. Title. By Smith, John.

Is there a reason why one method should be preferred over the other? Both produce the same visual output, but I was wondering if there were benefits to one over the other for other reasons. Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The trailing semicolon in |author-mask= adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation which will no doubt get improperly fixed by someone or some bot or some script which then becomes a maintenance headache. On the other hand, for the purposes of metadata, |last= and |first= are the preferred author-name parameters so using |author-mask= to hide the name separator comma is to be preferred over |author= with {{sfnref}}.

This name order issue keeps recurring so perhaps someday we'll be brave enough or clever enough to find a solution. In the mean time (and after the current kerfuffle settles) I'll fix the code so that trailing punctuation in the mask parameters doesn't add the maint cat.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot the punctuation would have added a maintenance category, so thank you for thinking about that and letting this be an exception. And yeah, no rush on this. Umimmak (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

While I’m thinking about it, Trappist the monk, is there an easy way to have |authorn-mask= accept text arguments in {{Harvc}} as well so it would work in a similar fashion? Thanks. And again, no rush on this; I know things have been a bit hectic. Umimmak (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In the sandbox:

{{harv|Black|2019}} → (Black 2019)

{{harv|Brown|Black|2019}} → (Brown & Black 2019)

{{harvc/sandbox |last=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask=Black Masked}}

Black Masked. "Contribution Title". In Editor (2019).

{{harvc/sandbox |last=Brown |last2=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask2=2}}

Brown; ——. "Contribution Title". In Editor (2019).

{{cite book |title=Title |editor=Editor |date=2019 |ref=harv}}

Editor, ed. (2019). Title. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

like that?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk yes that's perfect! Thank you so much for making these changes! Umimmak (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

done

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple url instances

This is currently allowed:

{{cite book|author=Author|url=http://example.com|chapter-url=http://example.com/chapter1|title=Title|chapter=Chapter}}

Author. "Chapter". Title. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Is not the appearance of multiple urls superfluous? All that is needed to verify the citation would be one url, the more specific one (chapter location) being the obvious choice.

I am bringing this up because User:InternetArchiveBot apparently ignores in-source urls, as in this: diff

Results in clutter. I am bringing it here because if multiple urls were disallowed the bot would not be able to make the edit as effected.

24.105.132.254 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We allow multiple links in citations (e.g. DOI, PMID, PMC, URL, chapter, wikilinks, even links in |pages=). One editor's superfluity is another editor's helpful additional link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but what you describe are different links to the source via different providers. The problem concerns urls to the same site via the same provider, which is also allowed. In the OP, |url= links the source's title/home page, and |chapter-url= uses the same link modified to locate a sub-page. This seems superfluous. The IA bot adds |url= even when an in-source location url (in the diff example, a chapter url) is already present. The source link is of course published by the same provider (the Internet Archive) in both cases. Obviously, the bot would not be able to do this if multiple instances of the same website were disallowed in a citation. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not superfluous, as sometimes it is useful to link to both the chapter, and the book or report containing it. As a particular case: the chapter-url can be used to link directly to a pdf, while the report url could link the webpage that has information about the report. At any rate, the use of both is widespread, and disallowing it would result in a lot of breakage. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove |url= when |doi= is provided

Per User talk:Citation bot/Archive 18#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier", if |url= should be removed when a |doi= is provided, then per Masem's comment in that thread, shouldn't CS1 throw an error for the former rule, particularly in {{cite journal}}? czar 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

CS1/2 can not know where a DOI URL points. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And by the same logic, you can't be sure ever be sure where a DOI will point at any particular time; the purpose of DOIs is to provide a fixed way of accessing a URL that can change. For this reason, I'm not sure that it's right to remove a URL that happens right now to be where a DOI points. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I know when citing IUCN it’s recommended to make use of both |doi= and |url= because A DOI links to a permanent web page with a specific year's assessment that will never be updated, so when a new assessment is issued, a new DOI will be created and the old one will then point to the previous assessment. An ID-based URL should always link to the current assessment, but that URL is not guaranteed to work indefinitely. Thus, it is probably best to use both, and to use the ID-based URL if only one URL will be used. But I do think in general it’s probably redundant and cluttered to have a DOI and the present address the DOI resolves to in the |url= field. The linked discussion began with examples like |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539513000915 with |doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.012. I’m not sure I see the issue with removing those sorts of |url=s. But I agree that this shouldn’t be treated as a CS1 error—particularly as the |url= often provides a different, typically free, way to access a paper. Umimmak (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead I actually deliberately chose not to make a comment in that direction; mine was solely regarding what is technically possible. The module cannot access pages offwiki, which means it cannot verify for itself that a DOI at a referrer link resolves to the same location as the URL. It's a separate consensus discussion treating the question of whether such links matching the resolved DOI should be removed, but I think there's a mass of silent consensus there, since I can recall only the one discussion by the OP concerned with the practice. (Which was not the case with the bot removing the publisher.) --Izno (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Option to turn off PMC autolink

Now that #RfC on linking title to PMC has been closed, I would like an option to disable the automatic linking to PMC when it would be inappropriate (such as when the peer-reviewed version is available via DOI) in {{cite xxx}} (see previous discussion [perma]). I think the most obvious and intuitive way would be |url=none. Nardog (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

script-title=missing prefix

Could a bot be used to add the prefixes for e.x. here?--Lirim | Talk 16:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Properly your bot should inspect the content of the script parameters to see that the script matches the language name or code assigned to |language=. The script parameters are:

|script-article=, |script-chapter=, |script-contribution=, |script-entry=, |script-journal=, |script-magazine=, |script-newspaper=, |script-periodical=, |script-section=, |script-title=, |script-website=, |script-work=

(and yes, I have seen the specified language in |language= be different from the language used in the associated script parameter).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hyphen is corrupted

|pages=e01633{{hyphen}}17 gives the following

• Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

Instead of the correct/expected

• Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Why |pages= instead of |page=? It looks like just one page is being cited. Using {{cite compare}}:

Cite journal comparison

Wikitext	{{cite journal|date=2017-09-26|doi=10.1128/mBio.01633-17|first1=Patrick D.|first2=Mark|first3=Arturo|issue=5|journal=mBio|last1=Schloss|last2=Johnston|last3=Casadevall|page=e01633-17|pmc=5615203|pmid=28951482|title=Support science by publishing in scientific society journals|volume=8}}
Live	Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.
Sandbox	Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

Here it is with |pages=:

Cite journal comparison

Wikitext	{{cite journal|date=2017-09-26|doi=10.1128/mBio.01633-17|first1=Patrick D.|first2=Mark|first3=Arturo|issue=5|journal=mBio|last1=Schloss|last2=Johnston|last3=Casadevall|pages=e01633-17|pmc=5615203|pmid=28951482|title=Support science by publishing in scientific society journals|volume=8}}
Live	Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.
Sandbox	Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs)

It is just one page, yes, so |page= is technically more correct than |pages=. However, we don't mangle the output if you have something like |pages=124 or |page=124–127, so there's no reason to silently mangle the output here either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Because editors do use semicolons in the oddest places, and because {{hyphen}} is processed before the cs1|2 template and because {{hyphen}} renders as - with a trailing semicolon: then |pages=1{{hyphen}}2 becomes |pages=1-2 which (because pages plural) cs1|2 treats as two separate pages 1&#45 and 2. Had you used |page=1{{hyphen}}2 (singular) then cs1|2 ignores the semicolon separator character.

This particular example is a single page and not a range (...33 to ...17 is malformed were it intended to be a range) so write |page=e01633-17 with the keyboard hyphen character; don't use {{hyphen}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Best practice is to use {{hyphen}}, per documentation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Cite news - multiple URLs

Would it be possible to have a url2 facility for URLs in {{cite news}}? I deal with a lot of clippings from newspapers.com, and when an article continues across multiple clippings, I have to append a (Continued) to the end of the reference outside of the citation template because there's no way to link clippings together at one URL. (For instance, a reference of KMCS (Kansas) needs this.) Raymie (t • c) 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Raymie: I've found it useful, and less confusing to link the second page number, like in footnote 123 at Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thanks for the advice! Raymie (t • c) 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For a single article carried across several pages, where you have given a page range (something like |pages=1, 6-7), I think it suffices to give the reader the url for the first page. I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url. If you have a large article and want to provide a specific in-source location (perhaps more than one), that is best handled by appending a suitable link (or links) to the in-line citation. E.g.: <ref>{{cite news | ...|ps=,}} [https:newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6, col. 2].</ref> ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url. — maybe this is just because I’m not familiar with Newspapers.com, but I’m not seeing an easy way to get from [1] to [2], especially without an account/subscription. If the editor has access to all the relevant clippings, it definitely makes it significantly more convenient to the reader and other editors to link multiple locations. Umimmak (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"[E]specially without an account/subscription" — for sure, and that's a different problem. If you need to use multiple urls for the full citation then do as Raymie suggested: append the extra information to the template. E.g., something like: <ref>{{cite news |... |url=https://newspapers.com/xxx1|ps=,}} continued at [https://newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6].</ref> ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, it's possible to link the second page number to the URL needed to see it, to wit:

Rook, Christine (July 12, 2009). "Finishing US 127 Still Has Support". Lansing State Journal. pp. 1A, 4A. ISSN 0274-9742. OCLC 6678181. Retrieved July 13, 2018 – via Newspapers.com.

The second page number already indicates the continuation in the original print edition. I think it just looks cleaner to keep the citation together, especially when the access date/via/etc will fall in between the page numbers and the link to the continuation. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment saying it suffices to only link the first page. Linking the additional pages within |pages= works for me, although I do wonder if this might cause issues for the COinS metadata. But I’m not super familiar with that; I just vaguely recall this issue coming up in the past and another editor having that concern. Umimmak (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That would seem to be a viable option, but I can see some possible problems, and it might have problems with parameter validation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Citation has a mode=cs1 parameter

The following discussion 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.

---

@Izno: Hi. It appears you've missed the fact that {{Citation}} has a |mode=cs1.

Here is a sample:

• Citation using CS1: "User:Izno". Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
• Citation using CS2: "User:Izno", Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation

See the difference? flowing dreams (talk page) 11:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

{{citation}} is not a cs1 template. It can be made to look like a cs1 template with |mode=cs1. Similarly, cs1 templates can be made to look like cs2 with |mode=cs2. Including cs2 in a table specifically intended for cs1 just muddies the water. You might consider implementing a similar table at Help:Citation Style 2.

I have reverted your edit at HELP:CS1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: I don't get it. You say it "is not a cs1 template" but "can be made to look like a cs1 template". What's the difference? The look is everything here. If it looks like one, then it is one. Or am I missing something?

Let me guess: You and the maintainers of CS2 are in competition and zealously avoid any cooperation between each other? User:Martin of Sheffield implied as much in the Teahouse discussion. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

cs2 differs from cs1 in its rendered style: element separators (cs1: period, cs2: comma); static text (cs1: capitalized, cs2: not capitalized); terminal punctuation (cs1: period, cs2: none); |ref= default value (cs1: not set, cs2: harv). When |mode=cs1 is set in {{citation}} (a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses a period for element separators, capitalized static text, has a period for terminal punctuation, and does not set |ref=. When |mode=cs2 is set in any of the cs1 templates, the rendered citation uses a comma for element separators, does not capitalize static text, does not have terminal punctuation, and sets |ref=harv.

Your guess would be wrong. I have no real preference cs1 or cs2. They are different and I don't see that any benefit is gained by blending their documentation as you apparently want to do.

I presume that the teahouse discussion you mentioned is: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why is citing so hard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, let's review what you said:

• CS1 requires:
  • Element separators: period
  • Static text: capitalized
  • terminal punctuation: period
  • |ref= default value: not set
• When |mode=cs1 is set in {{citation}} (a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses:
  • Element separators: period
  • Static text: capitalized
  • terminal punctuation: period
  • |ref= default value: not set

These are what you said. Conclusion: {{Citation|mode=cs1}} is/gives a CS1 citation. So how is this template counted as "not a cs1 template"? You're being contradictory here.

And yes, you have found the correct Teahouse discussion. User:Martin of Sheffield compared the proponents of CS1 as practictioners of arcane black magic who have long blocked a merger that benefits the community. He compared them to Microsoft in a bad way (He wrote M$) and went so far as saying they "put down" editors who use the wrong template. flowing dreams (talk page) 12:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I might add that I don't share all of Martin's view. The context-sesitive error messages that specific-purpose CS1 templates generate are very useful. I discovered this on my own. flowing dreams (talk page) 12:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Flowing dreams seemed to think all that matters is how it looks in the rendered article. Wrong. Within an article the wikitext for the various citations should be similar to make maintenance easier. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

{{citation}} with |mode=cs1 is still a cs2 template; its rendering has just been disguised to look like the rendering of a cs1 template.

Editor Martin of Sheffield is entitled to have opinions with regard to cs1|2. This discussion is not about those opinions; it is about including cs2 template documentation in the documentation page for cs1 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h and Trappist the monk: I totally support abandoning all side-discussion and getting to the crux of the matter, so for the third time: Apart from generating CS1-compliant output, what are the criteria for being a CS1 template? flowing dreams (talk page) 13:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the style that I mentioned before, the obvious (which I didn't mention because it is obvious) is that the cs1 templates are specific to a source type: books → {{cite book}}; news sources → {{cite news}}; preprints held at arXiv → {{cite arxiv}}; dissertations and theses → {{cite thesis}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the intent behind flowing dreams’s edit is just to let other editors know that, should any of the standard CS1 templates not be suitable, a workaround which would still produce the same desired visual formatting for a citation is to use {{Citation}} with |mode=cs1. Perhaps it shouldn’t be mentioned alongside {{Cite journal}} and the like, but I can understand why some editors might find it helpful to be reminded of this as a possibility when adding citations to an article in CS1 style, even if it isn’t a CS1 template itself. Umimmak (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That may very well be true but it doesn't appear to have been an argument put forward by Editor flowing dreams. If it is, I don't object to such a mention in HELP:CS1 but not in the table that is expressly for cs1 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a crazy idea: Forget all the arbitrary distictions between what you consider CS1 and CS2 templates. (You have already forgotten them for the most part, seeing as you didn't remember them at reversion time and after I asked thrice.) Let the only defining factor be the compilance of the output they generate with the style guides of CS1 and CS2. Then, list them in the table. Other than huge benefits of choice and consolidation, it has no drawbacks.

And by the way, if using {{citation}} instead of what you consider a "true CS1 template" 🙄 is something worrisome, then you must start getting seriously worried because I have been using this template in articles and I plan to continue doing so. It is easier to remember one template and one set of parameters instead of an arbitrary many. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You know, I am not worried. In fact, I am entirely indifferent to which of cs1 or cs2 you use when editing en.wiki articles. You can use any citation style you want within the constraints imposed by WP:CITEVAR. Other editors will, no doubt, hold you to the requirements of WP:CITEVAR so that I need not worry about what you do.

Do not mistake my indifference to which of cs1 or cs2 you use in article space as agreement with your changes to the cs1 template documentation page; cs2 is not cs1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Oh, I don't mistake your indifference with your act of harassment. You supplied no reason with your reversion (because you have none) and are hard-pressed to diguse it as a mere dispute. I'm only disappointed, in that it is not a deliberate malicious act of harassment by a despicable person that I can condemn, or over a subject that even matters. But I'll be sure to write about it in my public log. flowing dreams (talk page) 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

meh

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flowing dreams: Your comments are uncalled for, and contrary to WP:Civility. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the writers of WP:Civility never inteded it to be used to harbor harassment and edit warring. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what the big fuss is about, but {{citation}} isn't a CS1 template, it's a CS2 template, and shouldn't be shoehorned into CS1 advice simply because there's a |mode=cs1. Likewise, CS1 templates aren't CS2 template simply because the |mode=cs2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And again, Trappist the monk has already said in their reply to me above that don't object to such a mention in HELP:CS1, just so long as it is not in the table that is expressly for cs1 templates. This seems like a fair compromise to all parties involved. @Flowing dreams: your comments have been quite uncivil and full of accusations of bad faith, harassment, and the like. It would have been much more productive to work with other editors—ones more familiar with Wikipedia citation templates and their documentation—in order to come up with ways of doing this instead of insisting inclusion in the table of CS1 templates. My suggestion would be a sentence in the Help:Citation Style 1 § Style section, but I would defer to those editors who have spent more time thinking about these issues. Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: While I greatly appreciate you working towards peace and progress here, I must impress upon you how humiliating and hurtful all of this are for me. To wit, look at Headbomb's comment: To him, it is not a step required by the five pillars of Wikipedia or improving, but "a great fuss". And while he states that he does not care what the subject of the discussion is, he permits himself to judge me and parrot out the fallacious "CS1 templates aren't CS2". What did I ever do to you guys to deserve this degree of bad behavior? I don't need a compromise as much as I deserve working in the spirit of teamwork. But TTM's double-talk is not teamwork. TTM's reverting my well-meaning contribution in the same curt, non-collegial way that one reverts a sabateur, is not teamwork. (By the way, what's Wikipedia's word for a sabateur?)

And please refrain from sending me reply notifications. This discussion is dead to me. I've tolerated enough harassment and anti-newcomer bias already. Perhaps, you and I will meet again and our cooperation would be an example of collegial work. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are gross mischaracterizations of my comments. I'll follow up on your talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 21 September 2019 (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.

ISSN error

I have three issues of a paper journal, each of which carries a barcode and text reading "ISSN 977 0016639 051"; that ISSN is also found online, for example at [3].

However:

<ref name="Gibbons">{{cite journal |last1=Gibbons |first1=Sue |title=Percival Boyd |journal=Genealogists' Magazine |date=March 2005 |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=187-195 |publisher=[[Society of Genealogists]] |issn=9770016639051}}</ref>

gives a template error and https://www.worldcat.org/issn/9770016639051 find no entry.

What's up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@Pigsonthewing: According to the ISSN article, the 8-digit ISSN is sometimes re-encoded as a 13-digit barcode. The 8-digit ISSN for the Genealogists' Magazine is listed by Worldcat as 0016-6391, using seven digits from the 13-digit version plus a new check digit. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

New to me. See this document @ §6.31. According to that:

977 is the prefix

0016639 is the issn without check digit

05 is the variant

1 is the check-digit

Adding a check-digit to the 7-digit issn gives this which worldcat thinks is the same serial publication:

ISSN 0016-6391

I suspect that it having appeared in this example publication that we should expect to see these crop up in future so perhaps we should consider adding support for issn-13. Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Until these have actual widespread use, and resolve somewhere, the standard ISSN format should be enforced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all; interesting. I am minded to agree with Headbomb that the 8-digit form should be enforced, but we could perhaps trap this alternative with a custom error message ("Did you mean..?"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming a correctly formed issn-13 then such an error message would have to present a properly formed issn-8. To do that we have to extract the seven-digit issn, calculate the appropriate checksum for display. If we are going to do all of that, use the new issn-8 to link into worldcat and no error message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing a box in a chapter in a supplement...

Speaking of supplements, here's a challenge for everyone: I have a citable (because it is independently written) box in a chapter in a special supplement to a volume/issue in a journal. (Supplement available here. See "How do we know the world has warmed?" on p. S26.)

The preferred result would be on the lines of:

 Kennedy, et al., (2010) "How do we know the world has warmed?". In: "State of the Climate in 2009". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.  91(7):26 ....

Which I can almost do. Except that {cite journal} and {citation} ignore |chapter=, and {cite book} drops the issue number and misformats the page number. I have also tried doing a minimal {cite journal} for the box, and appending "In: {cite journal ....}}" for the the supplement, but the page number doesn't work.

So: any suggestions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Use |at= instead. --Izno (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this

{{cite journal|author=Author|title=Introduction: BoxTitle|department=Special Supplements|journal=Journal|issue=1 ''SupplementTitle''|p=S1}}

Author. "Introduction: BoxTitle". Special Supplements. Journal (1 SupplementTitle): S1. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)

might work. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Use |at= to finesse the page numbering, right? Yes, that looks good. And |deparatment=, of course, how could I have overlooked that??! Thanks to you both. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Date in non-Gregorian calendar

According to WP:CS1, "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." (my emphasis) However in Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Primary_sources, I used "1247 AH" as the date (see "Ibn al-Khaṭīb (1347 AH)") and got a validation error Check date values in: |date=. How do I fix this? HaEr48 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Because they are general purpose templates, cs1|2 templates are not intended support all calendars. cs1|2 templates use the Gregorian calendar because Gregorian is the most commonly used calendar. There is no fix. Yours is a case where the citation will likely have to be written manually to avoid the error message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

An admittedly cludgy suggestion would be to use |date=c. 1928, plus either |orig-year=original date 1347 AH or |quote=[Source pub. date] 1347 AH [+page# where this information is found]. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty reasonable workaround IMO. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)