mic_none

Module talk:Citation/CS1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Citation/CS1

    Bloat

    [edit]
    reference info for Hip-hop
    unnamed refs 239
    named refs 19
    self closed 42
    rp templates 50
    refbegin templates 1
    use xxx dates mdy
    explanations

    Citation templates are great tools for editors, but they do create massive bloat that accretes to real harm. In an article like hip-hop, converting just one Cite Journal reference to plain text saved 360 bytes. The entire article is 226,834 bytes. An enormous amount of its current bloat is a reliance on templates for citations where they are not necessary. If there were a way to get templates to generate more efficient citations, that would be a blessing.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are referring to this edit, please read WP:CITEVAR and MOS:CURLY to see why that edit was probably not in conformance with Wikipedia's guidelines. The majority of that article's references appear to use CS1 templates. Citation templates have both costs and benefits. It appears that you are focused only on the costs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're concerned about bloat, you can remove some of the automatically prefilled parameters which do not add any value for a {{cite journal}}, starting from the hardcoded URL. Instead of 
    {{Cite journal|last=Leach|first=Andrew|year=2008|title="One Day It'll All Make Sense": Hip-Hop and Rap Resources for Music Librarians|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30163606|journal=Notes|volume=65|issue=1|pages=9–37|doi=10.1353/not.0.0039|jstor=30163606|s2cid=144572911|issn=0027-4380|access-date=December 5, 2020|archive-date=January 28, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128051605/https://www.jstor.org/stable/30163606|url-status=live}}
    it's enough to have 
    {{Cite journal|last=Leach|first=Andrew|year=2008|title="One Day It'll All Make Sense": Hip-Hop and Rap Resources for Music Librarians|journal=Notes|volume=65|issue=1|pages=9–37|doi=10.1353/not.0.0039|jstor=30163606}}
    Nemo 13:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could just have 
    Leach, Andrew. "[https://doi.org/10.1353/not.0.0039 'One Day It'll All Make Sense': Hip-Hop and Rap Resources for Music Librarians]". ''[[Notes (journal)|Notes]]''. 65 (1), 2008. 9–37.
    Skipping the template saves 30 characters which adds up to real savings in such a massive article. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These sort of 'savings' are utterly trivial, and lose on all sorts of maintenance benefits, from bots, to error detection, to consitancy of format, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they look the same in the finished article then there is no space saving, and if there is need to worry about saving 30 characters then there are other issue with you article that mean it should probably be split or better summarised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, such as it is, is not CS1|2 templates. It's lack of a centralized citation database. Define the citation once and use it everywhere with an identifier. There have been initiatives, conferences, papers, proposals, etc.. but the WMF in the end doesn't support it. It is a highly complex undertaking across many layers and stakeholders, that will take millions if not 10s of millions. The way we do things now is not broken, and likely the community would resit change anyway, so it's a risky investment eg visual editor fiasco. If Wikipedia started over with green fields ground up new technology. That day may come, and when it does we will be very happy citations have semantic information (key=value pairs) to import into the new system. Editors who make these free-form citations without consideration for the future are creating much bigger problems than a few bytes of ascii text. GreenC 00:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't Template:Cite Q move towards this? CMD (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite Q is a blight that should be yeeted into the sun. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone should have to edit a completely separate project to update something on Wikipedia. Until there is a method of inputting updates here, and those updates back flushing to Wikidata, it will always be something stuck in the mud. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other issue is the maximalist approach to the inclusion of indiscriminate information, and the lack of customization options. There's no simple way to tell cite q, no STFU, I do not want publisher, issn, oclc, publication location, etc... when citing journals. Likewise, no way of telling {{cite q}}, give me authors/editors in "Smith, J. A." format. If there was a way to tell Cite Q that, once per article, it would have a lot better adoption. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CS0

    [edit]

    We have a slew of CS1-adjacent templates for identifiers. For purpose of documentation/style, I propose that we call those CS0 style. Specifically,

    And possibly others from Template:Catalog_lookup_link#See also.

    We could then bring error checking and other features from Module:Citation/CS1, which could share documentation and code, thereby facilitating maintenance etc...

    We'd mirror the category scheme, so we'd have, for example

    CS1 CS0

    Category:CS1 maintenance

    Category:CS1 maint: bibcode
    Category:CS1 maint: DOI inactive
    Category:CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors
    Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors
    Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors
    Category:CS1 maint: JFM format
    Category:CS1 maint: MR format
    Category:CS1 maint: PMC embargo expired
    Category:CS1 maint: PMC format
    Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI
    Category:CS1 maint: Zbl
    		 →

    Category:CS0 maintenance

    Category:CS0 maint: bibcode
    Category:CS0 maint: DOI inactive
    Category:CS0 maint: ignored DOI errors
    Category:CS0 maint: ignored ISBN errors
    Category:CS0 maint: ignored ISSN errors
    Category:CS0 maint: JFM format
    Category:CS0 maint: MR format
    Category:CS0 maint: PMC embargo expired
    Category:CS0 maint: PMC format
    Category:CS0 maint: unflagged free DOI
    Category:CS0 maint: Zbl

    and the same for other categories, like Category:CS1 errors and its subcategories.

    These would effectively have the same documention, and we'd just change "Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2" to "Citation Style 0, Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2" "CS1|2" to "CS0|1|2".

    Thoughts? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to "CS0" solely on the grounds that normal humans do not start counting at zero and "CS0" does not enlighten a casual reader. Let's not make this place look even more like a programmers-only exclusive club. I wouldn't be averse to a set of parallel categories with more human-friendly names like "Citation identifier templates: XXX errors". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets clarify what CS1 and CS2 are, before we decide if we should call this set of tools "CS0".
    • CS1 by default requires the user to specify what kind of source it is (book, web, journal, etc.) and by default separates the elements with periods.
    • CS2 by default auto-detects the kind of source based on which parameters have values and which don't, and by default separates the elements with commas.
    • In printed style guides, comma separators are typical of footnotes and endnotes.
    • In printed style guides, period separators are typical of alphabetical bibliographies.
    • In Wikipedia, endnotes predominate but period separators also predominate.
    • The choice between CS1 and CS2 seems to be mostly based on whether the early editors of an article wanted to auto-detect the kind of source, with no concern about whether commas or periods were used.
    Considering what a mish-mash this is, I'm not sure we can make a sensible statement about what CS0 means. For me, the reasoning for this term must be all about making it more understandable for editors. If it's all about making the organization of the coding of the templates and modules easier, then it isn't a style at all; it's something like "citation utility template group" (CUTG). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For purpose of documentation and categories

    For all documentations purposes and categorization purposes, CS1 and CS2 are identical. The only difference is one uses a period for delimiter (with a final period), the other uses a comma (with no final period).

    What I'm proposing here is that for purpose of coding/documentation/categorization/error messages, we call CS0 those semi-templated citations that invoke those catalog lookup templates, and that they share code and documentation with CS1/2 templates when possible. If CS0 offends you, call it CS3 (or CS Platypus or whatever). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates like {{doi}} do not implement a citation style, which is what "CS" stands for. An actual descriptive name would help both readers and editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's not a style. Not the point. The point is to unify and streamline the codebase, documentation, categories, etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not a style, don't call it a style. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning to the nub of this discussion, there are issues that would need to be addressed somehow. Mostly it is the variety of parameters and options supported by the identifier templates:

    • {{arxiv}} – takes a single value; has support for |archive= parameter; the parameter is documented as deprecated and not apparently used in mainspace but is still supported in the template
    • {{bibcode}} – takes a single value
    • {{biorxiv}} – takes a single value
    • {{citeseerx}} – host appears to be currently dead (502 bad gateway) – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |type= with values doi and pid
    • {{doi}} – takes a single value
    • {{hdl}} – takes a single value; supports |hdl-access= values free, limited, registration, subscription
    • {{isbn}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |plainlink=, |link=, |leadout=, |invalid1= .. |invalid9=, |template_name=
    • {{issn}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |plainlink=, |link=, |leadout=, |invalid1= .. |invalid9=
    • {{jfm}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |leadout=
    • {{jstor}} – takes a single value; supports |stable=, |sici=, |issn=
    • {{lccn}} – takes a single value; supports |title=, |name=, |long=; uses Module:LCCN
    • {{medrxiv}} – takes a single value
    • {{mr}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |leadout=
    • {{oclc}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |leadout=, |show=
    • {{osti}} – takes a single value
    • {{pmc}} – takes a single value
    • {{pmid}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |plainlink=, |leadout=
    • {{ssrn}} – takes a single value
    • {{zbl}} – has support for up to nine identifiers; supports |leadout=

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    All of them should be brought in line with how they behave in CS1|2 templates. Corner cases can be either handled seperatly and offloaded to seperate templates (like multiple MRs/PMIDs being handled by a seperate templates).
    I also believe doi, hdl, both support |<identifier>-access=. bibcode, jstor, osti, ssrn should support it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated {{arxiv}}, {{biorxiv}}, {{citeseerx}}, and {{pmc}} to display green access locks by default (and recreated {{medrxiv}}). I've also updated {{bibcode}}, {{doi}}, {{hdl}}, {{jstor}}, {{osti}}, and {{ssrn}} to support |<identifier>-access=free. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been poking at a module in my sandbox that supports, in whole or in part, all of the above named identifier templates. Some of the current templates use {{Catalog lookup link}}. That template supports up to nine identifiers and the parameters |leadout=, |link=, and |plainlink=. The sandbox module supports these parameters and essentially unlimited numbers of identifier-values for all of the identifier templates.
    Some identifier templates have other special features/parameters that are not supported by the sandbox module:
    • {{citeseerx}} – host seems to be mostly dead; most often returning 502 gateway errors. When marginally alive, doesn't seem to recognize dois in the form 10.x.x.x (where 'x' is some number of digits). Supports an undocumented parameter |type= which accepts doi and pid as values. Used in <5 articles; those specifying |type=pid appear to work when the host is working; pid type identifiers not supported by cs1|2
    • {{hdl}} – besides free, supports |hdl-access= values limited, registration, and subscription; these parameter values do not appear to be used
    • {{ISBN}} – supports:
      |invalidn== used in ~120 articles; can be replaced with accept-as-written markup ((..)) if rendered with the sandbox module
      |template_name= not documented; used to identify the template calling Module:Check isxn (a cs1|2 derived module to do error checking)
    • {{ISSN}} – supports |invalidn= used in ~10 articles; can be replaced with accept-as-written markup ((..)) if rendered with the sandbox module
    • {{JSTOR}} – supports:
      |stable= used in ~5 articles; alias of {{{1}}}
      |sici= does does not appear to be used; cannot be used with {{{1}}} or |stable=
      |issn= used in <5 articles; cannot be used with {{{1}}} or |stable= or |sici=
      |no= does not appear to be used; alias of |issn=
    • {{lccn}} – has its own Module:LCCN; supports:
      {{{2}}} (a title or label) used in ~10 articles
      |long= used in ~15 articles
    • {{OCLC}} – supports |show=; used in ~270 articles; when used, WorldCat requires registration to view results
    Some testing of the sandbox module can be seen in my sandbox (permalink).
    Templates not currently supported by the sandbox module but might be are:
    Certainly the sandbox module can be used to transparently upgrade these templates:
    With a documentation tweak, {{hdl}} can be upgraded. To upgrade {{isbn}} and {{issn}} (and {{ismn}} and {{sbn}}?) we must replace |invalidn= in instances of those templates; a relatively minor task.
    That leaves us with these:
    • {{citeseerx}}
    • {{jstor}}
    • {{lccn}}
    • {{oclc}}
    If we are to proceed with the notion of consolidating these identifiers with the sandbox module, what to do about these four.
    I suppose the more important question is: Should we consolidate these templates so that the supported templates use the cs1|2 module suite?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've purged the non-standard parameters from {{JSTOR}}, and updated the hdl doc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CiteSeerX pid links purged too. They weren't working, but I converted those without alternatives to regular |url=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These five templates were noted above as not supported by the sandbox module. All are now supported in whole or in part:
    Of them, two are problematic:
    • {{asin}} – used in ~4700 articles.
      • Of those:
        ~2920 articles with numeric identifier (a 10-digit ISBN); the sandbox module will mark these as errors
        <15 articles with 630... numeric identifier (not a 10-digit ISBN but looks like one); the sandbox module will accept these
        ~1820 articles with alphanumeric identifier
      • supports:
        |country= used in ~2990 articles; can be replaced with |asin-tld=
        • of those, ~2880 articles use the template in cs1|2 |id= parameters
        |date= used in ~80 articles; no cs1|2 replacement
        |title= used in <5 articles; no cs1|2 replacement
    • {{OL}} –used in ~140 articles
      supports Internet Archive ia:... identifiers (not currently used in any articles; not supported by cs1|2; the identifier can be converted to an Internet Archive url:
    My sandbox (permalink) has been updated to include example renderings of these five templates.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've been updating these, shouldn't {{arxiv}}/{{cite arxiv}} support |version= ? (and |version-date=) -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No. If you're citing arXiv:0704.0001v1 specifically, then you use

    • Balázs, C.; Berger, E. L.; Nadolsky, P. M.; Yuan, C. -P. (2 April 2007). "Calculation of prompt diphoton production cross sections at Tevatron and LHC energies". arXiv:0704.0001v1 [hep-ph].

    If you're citing arXiv:0704.0001v2 , then you use

    • Balázs, C.; Berger, E. L.; Nadolsky, P.; Yuan, C.-P. (27 July 2007). "Calculation of prompt diphoton production cross sections at Fermilab Tevatron and CERN LHC energies". arXiv:0704.0001v2 [hep-ph].

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How to map document sources accessed via Ancestry.com to CS1 fields

    [edit]

    When citing primary source documents accessed via Ancestry.com, can someone offer guidance on how to populate the citation template fields? For example, the Certificate of Registration of American Citizen (WP:TWL link) for James W McKean, numbered 10160 in the original paper document, has the following source information provided in the "Source" tab on Ancestry.com: 

    Ancestry.com. U.S., Consular Registration Certificates, 1907-1918 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2013.

Original data:

Consular Registration Certificates, compiled 1907–1918. NAID: 1244186. General Records of the Department of State, 1763–2002, Record Group 59. The National Archives in Washington, D.C.

    What citation template is best suited for such documents, and how should the information be mapped to the author, title, work, publisher, etc. fields? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like over-reliance on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). If you're talking about James and Laura McKean, the article reads like too much WP:ORIG from Ancestry.com (or .co.uk) primary sources.  — sbb (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that position, thank you. I would still appreciate an answer to the question. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Cite archive}} would probably work, but add a via= parameter and note that it was accessed through Ancestry.com. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion for the revision of the order of SC1 fields

    [edit]

    Greetings and felicitations. If and when the order of fields is ever revised, please put "edition" before "series", unlike it is now. Example of the current order, copied from a "templated" reference: 

    Miller, Timothy S. (2024). Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn: A Critical Companion. Palgrave Science Fiction and Fantasy: A New Canon (1st ed.). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53425-6. ISBN 978-3-031-53424-9.

    —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I don't see how in "Cite journal" "publisher: pages" makes much sense. Example:
    Lane, Richard (December 1957). "The Beginnings of the Modern Japanese Novel: Kana-zoshi 1600–1682". ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies''. 20 (3–4). Harvard-Yenching Institute: 644–701. doi:10.2307/2718366. JSTOR 2718366.
    Journal (Publisher) makes much more sense to me; or Publisher: Journal.
    OTOH, please keep the identifiers in alphabetical order, as they seem to be now (DOI, ISSN, JSTOR, OCLC, etc.). —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:CS1 maint: missing class ?

    [edit]

    When {{cite arxiv}} has a new (post 2007) style identifier (|arxiv/eprint=####.####/####.#####), there should be a check that |class= is set. E.g. in

    • {{cite arXiv |eprint=2412.09676 |title=OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host |last1=Mróz |first1=M. J. |date=2024 |display-authors=etal }}
    • Mróz, M. J.; et al. (2024). "OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host". arXiv:2412.09676. A bot will complete this citation soon. Click here to jump the queue

    we're missing |class=astro-ph.EP and should display a maintenance message so we can fix it to its proper form.

    • {{cite arXiv |eprint=2412.09676 |class=astro-ph.EP |title=OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host |last1=Mróz |first1=M. J. |date=2024 |display-authors=etal}}
    • Mróz, M. J.; et al. (2024). "OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host". arXiv:2412.09676 [astro-ph.EP].

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    {{cite arXiv/new |eprint=2412.09676 |title=OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host |last1=Mróz |first1=M. J. |date=2024 |display-authors=etal}}
    Mróz, M. J.; et al. (2024). "OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host". arXiv:2412.09676.{{cite arXiv}}: CS1 maint: missing class (link)
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: This seems to affect {{cite journal}} and others too, e.g.
    Smith, J. (2016). "Fictitious title". Fictitious Journal. 1 (2): 3. arXiv:1001.1234. doi:10.1234/123456.
    It should only affect cite arxiv. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Way to turn off display of website/work in italics

    [edit]

    The cite news/cite website template throws errors if you try to use it without newspaper/website/work=. However, because some people want to use it without italics for sources like BBC News, they keep trying to use either publisher= or agency= because they don't use italics which gets unendingly corrected back and forth, because these sources are not the publishing company or a news agency, they are the work, so it's both incorrect and it throws errors because it is marked as a "required" parameter. I don't think it matters if it displays in italics, but @Jprg1966 sure seems to. Is there some way we can turn the italics on the work/website parameter off on specific citations? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The cite news/cite website template throws errors if you try to use it without newspaper/website/work=. Not true. ...it throws errors because it is marked as a "required" parameter. Also not true; see these examples:
    {{cite news |title=Title}} → "Title".
    {{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com}} → "Title".
    No error messages.
    These templates, unlike {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}} do not require a |work= alias because the editing community got their collective knickers in a bunch when cs1|2 briefly required a |work= alias for {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. The italic vs. roman display dispute will likely never be resolved. Creating an italic on/off switch will simply change the dispute from editors switching between |work= and |publisher= to editors switching between |italic-work=on and |italic-work=off. Not much of a gain there.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on this is that it is reasonable for both cite news and cite web to supply a publisher (non-italic) and not to also provide a work (italic) when the two pieces of information are redundant. But the meaning is different. The publisher should be the name of an organization such as "British Broadcasting Corporation", not the name of a work produced by that organization such as "BBC News". On rare occasion the work and organization have the same name and you get to choose which one to use. But I would oppose having a variant parameter for un-italicized work; our citation templates have too much unnecessary variation already. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Author check

    [edit]

    Hello, could we have a check on author fields using "last updated" such as

    {{cite news |last=updated |first=Tyler Wilde last |title=Title}}

    Thanks Keith D (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    {{cite news/new |last=updated |first=Tyler Wilde last |title=Title}}
    updated, Tyler Wilde last. "Title". {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usurped URL, No Archive

    [edit]

    I've dug through the talk history and there are a few cases where this has been mentioned, but I'm not finding a solution that currently works. In an article, I ran into citation with a web link with an archive link. The original URL has been usurped to try and push a software download. The linked archive at the Library of Congress Web Archive comes back as "not found". Looking for an archived version on Archive.org returns "this link has been removed from the Wayback Machine. I can set url-status=usurped, and leave a dead value in archive-url= or I can remove the archive URL entirely, but then url-status= no longer suppresses linking to the original (usurped) URL. I can comment out the URL, but that throws a CS1 error about a missing URL. For the moment, I've just used plain text instead of {{Cite web}} on the reference, but is there a workable way to have url-status=usurped suppress a harmful link while still keeping the full citation information intact when there isn't an archived version? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know the answer but it might be worth writing to the Internet Archive about this domain. It could be that the illegitimate domain squatter has abusively gotten the archived pages removed. Nemo 15:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's reasonable to expect the templates to suppress the usurped url in all cases, regardless of the presence/absence of an archive url. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Firefangledfeathers, but from what I can tell from prior discussions and the documentation, url-status= requires the presence of archive-url= to work since its primary task is to decide whether to link title= to the original or archived URL. I'm not sure what technical limitations exist to change that. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    —Carter (Tcr25): Follow this decision tree: Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations .. if the citation goes to a web link that is not available in hard copy somewhere, it's probably cleanest to delete the entire citation as unverifiable. Even better replace with a different source. Another option is convert the citation to citenews or citejournal or citation and simply delete the URL, also leave an edit comment (outsisde the template but inside the ref pair). The solution converting to a square link exposes the usurped URL as a live link which is not a good idea. The idea to allow usurped when there is no archive URL might work, but it would be an exception that will trip up various bots and tools that remove orphan |url-status= because normally if there is no archive URL that field is automatically removed by multiple cleanup tools, exceptions are brittle prone to break. IMO your best option is convert to {{citation}} without a |url= along with an edit comment. -- GreenC 16:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, GreenC. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting assistance to fix a broken footnote in Nature Index

    [edit]

    Can someone please help fix the footnote in the Top countries section of Nature Index? (I didn't place it there, I just noticed that it doesn't seem to be working correctly and don't use footnotes so I don't know how to fix it.) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The article had duplicate "Notes" sections, which I've merged, but I can't see any error otherwise. Could you explain some more? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That fixed the problem. Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 13#Template:Vcite journal

    [edit]

    I'm nominating the vcite suite for deletion. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Generic title

    [edit]

    Hello, another Generic title to be added to the list "Request Rejected" i.e. {{cite web |title=Request Rejected }} Keith D (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also "APA PsycNET". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Here since a citation to the preprint is intentional, the title should be autolinked, i.e.

    • Tong-Hua, Zhu; Chao-Wen, Yang; Xin-Xin, Lu; Rong, Liu; Zi-Jie, Han; Li, Jiang; Mei, Wang (2013). "Measurement and Analysis of Fission Rates in a Spherical Mockup of Uranium and Polyethylene". arXiv:1309.0234 [physics.ins-det].

    Should display as (sans the error message)

    Same for {{cite biorxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, {{cite medrxiv}}, {{cite ssrn|ssrn-access=free}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update OCLC and S2CID limit values

    [edit]

    I have a valid journal article with OCLC and S2CID values above the current limits (link to OCLC, link to S2CID). Could Help:CS1 errors be updated? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Placement of "Series" in entries

    [edit]

    I want to note that it's useful to be able to add Series info to the "Cite book" Template, however, it is badly placed in the final display. The logical place for it is after information about the book title, including edition, and volume number. Right now it automatically comes before these things. "Series" information should follow all of these pieces of information about the individual book and volume info, and be right before Publisher or Location: Publisher. Can someone please fix this? I'll note that this issue was brought up previously as far back as 2017: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_35#Book_edition_vs_series_edition. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what you mean, but in
    • Last-au, First-au. "Chapter: A description about something". In Last-ed, First-ed (ed.). Title: The Complete Guide. James Oersted Lectures Notes. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). p. 24. ISBN 978-7815-15-118-9.
    My personal issues is that edition should come after the title, not after the volume, i.e.
    • Last-au, First-au. "Chapter: A description about something". In Last-ed, First-ed (ed.). Title: The Complete Guide. (2nd ed.) James Oersted Lectures Notes. Vol. 4. p. 24. ISBN 978-7815-15-118-9.
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cite book#csdoc_series indicates that the parameter is used When the source is part of a series, such as a book series or a journal, where the issue numbering has restarted. That is, could there be two different books both numbered 1? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue renumbering is for journals, not book series. See Help:Citation_Style_1#cite_note-c17_14.28-5 for details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, to put it another way: cite book and cite journal both have a |series= parameter but they mean totally different things. Perhaps the documentation for this parameter should diverge to reflect this. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, a book series could have renumbering too. CMOS gives the example of C. R. Boxer, ed. South China in the Sixteenth Century, Hakluyt Society Publications, 2nd ser., vol. 106 (Hakluyt, 1953)., but the series here is used no differently than in the case of journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That example somehow combines both meanings of the series parameter. "Hakluyt Society Publications ... vol. 106" is the book meaning of a series and "2nd ser." is the journal meaning of a series. I would format this as a {{cite book}} with |series=Hakluyt Society Publications, 2nd ser. and |volume=106. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DVRTed/refInfo.js script

    [edit]

    This script toggles {{ref info}} on your current article. It's very useful for gnoming. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]