Help talk:Citation Style 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    Citation templates
    ... in conception
    ... and in reality

    Refactoring the code for the final rendering

    Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.

    I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.

    I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.

    In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.

    Source {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
    APA/CMS Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021.
    GOST Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021.
    DIN Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021.

    Iniquity (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    These templates are not CMS or APA but instead a mix of a few, and include other qualities that differ from either that we have added, so a bit of a false premise there.
    Ignoring that, I have thought a few times about making more of the components of this system into 'libraries' that could be used from other citation styles. Maybe all the subpages can be today? I don't know and am pretty sure not based on some of the opinionated choices CS1 makes (mostly around "missing" information) which I'm pretty sure is in the subpages and not the primary module. If all the subpages were CS1 agnostic, that would get you most of the way there with potentially some duplication in the primary module. Izno (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a problem that part of the rendering is taken from the main module (for example, italics or boldness), and part from the configuration (for example, prefixes). This makes it very difficult to edit. Iniquity (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    module suite update 23–24 March 2024

    I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:

    Module:Citation/CS1

    • removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization; discussion
    • combine extra-text tests for |volume= and |issue=; discussion
    • fix bug related to hyphenated given names when reducing to initials for vancouver style; discussion
    • add |script-encyclopedia= and |trans-encyclopedia=; discussion
    • allow |mode=cs1 and |postscript=none in {{citation}}; discussion
    • fix long-term-sleeping bibcode/postscript interaction bug; discussion
    • fix archive.today timestamp check; discussion
    • cleanup tcommon assignments; discussion
    • extend latn char definition; discussion

    Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration

    • add doi free registrants: 1045 - D-Lib Magazine; 1074 and 1194 - American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; 1096 - FASEB; 4249 - Scholarpedia; 5210 - University of Illinois Libraries; 7759 - Cureus; 14256 - Croatian Association of Civil Engineers; 15347 - Wikijournals; 22323 - SISSA
    • removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization
    • combine extra-text tests for |volume= and |issue=
    • add |script-encyclopedia= and |trans-encyclopedia=
    • use tabular data file at commons for identifier limit values; discussion
    • removed doi free registrant 3410 - F1000; discussion
    • extend latn char definition;

    Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

    • add |script-encyclopedia= and |trans-encyclopedia=

    Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation

    • removed temporary Julian–Gregorian uncertainty categorization

    Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've specified that 3410 is F1000 for future discussion. It's still a free registrant, it's just doing some fuckery with its access pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 93#Limits: the way to incorporate this into Wikidata for each identifier would be to use property constraint (P2302) > range constraint (Q21510860) > maximum value (P2312) & minimum value (P2313), per d:Help:Property constraints portal/Range#Example 1. Regarding fragility & vandalism, I think using Wikidata would be superior to c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab, if only for the # of people already watching, for example, OCLC control number (P243), etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. If I understand (not saying that I do), OCLC control number (P243) would get a new constraint as a Qid to be used on only seven identifier properties. The new Qid might be something like 'cs1 limit constraint'. Each of the seven identifier properties would get the new Qid constraint with a maximum value (P2312) constraint property. That would require us to go on bended knee to the Masters of Wikidata to plead for the new Qid. Pleading for a new Qid is the 'politics' to which I referred in the original discussion; politics that I would prefer to avoid. Tabular data at commons doesn't require a plea to the Masters of Commons; it is one file and it works.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No new Qid and no pleading required! I can add all the appropriate min/max constraints to Wikidata. I just need to know the minimum values allowed for all of the identifiers @ c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the appropriate maximum value (P2312) to OCLC control number (P243), OSTI article ID (P3894), PMCID (P932), PubMed ID (P698), RfC ID (P892), SSRN article ID (P893), & Semantic Scholar paper ID (P4011), effectively duplicating c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab in Wikidata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that was a wise thing to do. I don't think that we should apply a constraint that isn't qualified to be a cs1|2-only constraint. What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties. That is why I said that I think to use wikidata we must have a cs1|2 Qid and to do that we must petition the Masters of Wikidata on bended knee.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties. - correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not convinced but that may be a moot point. Unless I'm missing something, Wikibase does not provide a mechanism for getting a property of a property that isn't part of an entity (Qid). See Wikibase Lua doc. Yeah, if you know the title of the work and it matches the label used in Wikidata, you can get a Qid (mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron') → Q16438 but the name in Italian: mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone') → nil). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Whatever it is that you did to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css has broken the css for minerva (icons too big), monobook (icons clipped), and timeless (icons too big) skins. See these testcases at my sandbox (permalink):
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. I'm not done. Izno (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted. Izno (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, really? Minerva, monobook, and timeless still looked borked to me.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your revisions are stuck in parser cache. Review my user page instead in the various skins. Izno (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for ease:
    Izno (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Best practice for when to use "n.d." vs. leaving blank

    The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d.. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.

    I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (I see in the archives that there has also been discussion about possibly using "undated" instead of "n.d." or adding a tooltip. If folks want to pick that up, please open a subthread so that we can keep everything organized. Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Blank is definitely common, but blank can mean, "there was a date, but I didn't fill it in" or "it is undated". An "n.d." clarifies, so is better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen |date=<!--no date-->, which at least clarifies it for editors. Sdkb talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that we don't call out the absence of any other element in CS1 citations that I know of. If there's no DOI, or issue number, or second author, we don't designate that, but rather just leave the space blank. I'm open to being persuaded, but my intuition is that it'd be most consistent to adopt the same stance here (or at least to specify something like that "n.d." should only be used in situations where readers might normally expect there to be a date). Sdkb talk 23:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, everything that is published is published on some date (except maybe something like search results that are generated on a certain date, but if we're talking that, the access date is identical), but virtually any other field is something that could not be there (not URI for a web page, of course). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indagate: Please undo your edit to the template and participate here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see this before reverting you there, seems best to leave the status quo for now until consensus is established for its inclusion. It's far from standard practice for web pages without a date to include n.d., pages are updated without any date being updated so the access-date in WP articles should be the latest date the information was updated if updated properly by editors. Including n.d. doesn't give readers any more information so seems redundant. Indagate (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the instructions at Template:Cite web? There is nothing redundant here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read the parts about date there, but don't think I've seen any cite web using date=n.d. for websites without a date like Rotten Tomatoes so it doesn't reflect standard practice so doesn't seem to have consensus already Indagate (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of rules that are broken or ignored: that doesn't justify breaking or ignoring them further. If there is some reason why we should not use "n.d.", then that should be incorporated into the template instructions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there is a conflict between what the rules appear to say and what general practice is, as here, it's reasonable to keep the status quo while we work to resolve the underlying issue and figure out what guidance should say. This discussion is for figuring that out; let's stay focused on that. Sdkb talk 15:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget that {{sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI

    This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the documentation at Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI not answer your question?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the technical purpose, not why there is a maintenance category instead of automatically flagging all free DOIs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The implementing discussion is at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 90 § Recognize free DOI prefixes.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add publication-date parameter to {{cite journal}}

    The {{cite book}} template already implements a separate publication-date parameter from CS1. Some journals and their articles have different publication-date, date and orig-date values. The latter is more flexible, but insufficient when there are three different dates, i.e. an article "orig-date=written 1930", published in a journal edition dated "date=2004-2005" and published "publication-date=2006". Ivan (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Then the date is 2004-2005. The others are irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case I have given, sources referencing it casually (i.e. without citation) will sometimes reference it with "1930", others with "2005", others with "2006", and if it was published in an issue of a periodical in 2004 whose contents were later published together with all other issues in 2006, then one will also encounter "2004". All for the same article.
    For citations, it might not matter much. But for bibliography articles, precision helps the reader avoid confusion. I am not a template editor. How would one go about incorporating the parameter for {{cite journal}}? This is the correct page to ask? Ivan (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite what you read. If you read an article in a periodical that was published in 2004, the date is 2004. If you were told that the article was republished in a set of bound things that contained all the articles the journal ever published, and that set was published in 2006, you don't care, you didn't read it. If I obtain the set of bound things and read the article, I'll put a publication date of 2006 in my citation. I could also add a parameter orig-date=2004. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite what you read. Pardon my confusing wording above, but the need does not stem from the requirements of references but of bibliographies, where the works in question are the subject of the article. Some citation styles prefer the date of printing/publication (i.e. 1931), while others prefer the year published for (i.e. 1929/1930). It is not for the bibliographer to decide which must be used, and including both can help resolve confusion from the reader over which date to use given the style required of them. Posthumously published works excepted, most citation styles do not take the date of writing or reception into account, which would free up the orig-date parameter for the publication date, but in bibliographies that parameter is still needed to provide useful information to the reader; for example that the discrepancy between the publication date and that of a familiar author's death is due to posthumous publication. Ivan (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no different requirement in biographies. Something written in 1923 but published in 2012 has a date of 2012. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not referring to bibliography sections at the end of articles, but to annotated bibliography articles. The purpose is different. Something published 2012 but with a year number 2010/2011 can have a date of 2012, 2011, or even 2010 in the case I referred to in the second paragraph of this section, all depending on the citation style required in the context. But more scientific bibliography articles do not make the choice for the reader. And the only reason I mentioned date of writing is to show you why we cannot always simply add =published to the orig-date parameter.
    One of a dedicated bibliography article's purposes is to help the reader find the source detailed therein regardless of the system used in their library's catalogue, or any parametric restrictions imposed by said catalogue, or whichever means they end up using to find it. And to make them aware of any republications, English translations, and so on. I mentioned annotated bibliographies to give you an idea of how extensive the citations in those bibliographies can be on Wikipedia, just in case you are unaware of their existence on the project. Ivan (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like this article is a rare case that needs additional annotations outside of the citation template. Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, bibliography articles are a well-established genre on Wikipedia, and use citation templates quite frequently. Sometimes the bibliographies grow too long and the citations have to be converted to manual format to reduce the post-expand include size. Some editors don't use templates as a matter of preference. But for organising longer lists, which are often in a particular order, templates offer the freedom to place the parameter of organisation first, reducing the rate of misplaced items, and greatly speeding up the overall process.
    I am realising the opposition might stem from simply being unaware these articles exist, like Bibliography of fly fishing or List of important publications in geology, or Bibliography of encyclopedias. The latter is now mostly manual for size reasons, but it began with templates and would have been riddled with mistakes without them. It is only a minority of journals that require it, but I have already incorporatated hundreds of journal articles that have separate date and publication-date values in my to-be-published Wikipedia bibliographies, and my request is simply to enable a parameter already in use for {{cite book}}.
    Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases. Although such journals are in the minority, it is still very commonly encountered. Very. Other editors have managed to get by with manual additions thanks to the publisher parameter coming last in Citation Style 1, but that doesn't work as well when there are many entries. Nor does it fit as nicely as when it is an in-template parameter. Compare with the output of {{cite book}}: Last, First (2004–2005) [written 1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
    I have no problem including most annotations outside the template. That is standard practice for editions, translations, reviews, et cetera. But publication-date ought to match {{cite book}} in style. It may not be important for books either, outside of bibliography articles. But most bibliographies on this encyclopedia were mostly books. Today there are many bibliography articles consisting partly or entirely of journal articles. It is time to make the {{cite journal}} template equally capable. Ivan (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was written in 1930, and was published in 2006, then the 2004-2005 date makes no sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2004-2005 date is the "year date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.). Not to be confused with "year number", which is distinct from volume number but the volume parameter will suffice in that case. Typically on the cover pages, marking the period during which works were submitted and/or originally published within issues that make up a volume. It is not uncommon for the year number to span multiple years, especially because of the school year. You can often get away with citing the year number under the |volume= or |issue= parameter in citations, but this is not appropriate for bibliographies, as these publications often have separate volume and issue numbers in addition to the year number, publication date, etc. The relationship between year number and volume number is often not 1:1, because most publications at least in my part of the world have been interrupted at some point, resulting in a year:volume mismatch. Here are some examples in order of increasing complexity:
    All three journals in the examples above went through changes in their publication cycle that prevents 1:1 conversion based on year or volume number, and even if the relationship was constant, these periodicals are catalogued differently from institution to institution. Some catalogues separate year date from publication date. But even advanced search options are usually limited to whichever of the various dates were selected by the institution. This is why it is so important that a bibliography include both. Ivan (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is archive-date required when archive-url has the date?

    Maybe a stupid question, but why is |archive-date required and then checked for matching |archive-url even when the latter already contains the date, like archive.org urls normally do? Wouldn't it make sense to forgo the separate date and just take the one from the url? Or, if it's expected by some processing somewhere else, at least automatically populate the date upon submission instead of rising an error? Since subst exists, this can't be because there's a policy against modifying the user-submitted wikitext. 82.131.19.61 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be archiving sites that format their URLs differently to archive.org. Certainly other archive organisations have been used in the past.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think what I said would also apply to any other widely used archive that has timestamps included in its urls. With all of them, the date could be taken from the url. I'm not sure if the date is actually checked with any others besides archive.org, but it's this "we must check the date against the url if entered, but we won't populate the date from the url" one-way logic that I don't quite get. I seems like inconveniencing the user for no good reason (that I can think of). If the data is available, why error out and nag? EDIT: I mean this is not a sanity check, it's a check for an exact match. 82.131.19.61 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    news and web should allow Network and Station

    I tried to cite a clip from PBS NewsHour on the Orca page.

    I suppose PBS is the "Publisher" and the "work" is NewsHour, but that felt awkward and there is a more specific form for audio-visual sources.

    Unfortunately, the Serial citation suggests it should not be used for news shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_serial says it is "for broadcast programs (television, radio, web) which use individual titles for a collection of episodes ... For serial publications, see {{Cite news}} and {{Cite journal}}."

    Unfortunately, making it a news citation caused the system to reject the network property. I assume it would also reject station, which might be essential for local news.

    My preference would be that the news and especially the web citation forms allow the additional Serial properties.

    My second choice -- which might be good even if the news and web citation forms are expanded -- would be that the instructions for Serial remove the word "individual" (when skimming, I thought it meant each episode had its own name, as some Sitcoms do), and change "For serial publications" to "For _written_ serial publications." JimJJewett (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It turns out the instructions are not protected, so I already made the 2nd set of changes, unless someone reverts it.
    I still think that the news citation form should also cater to broadcast news, and the web form should cater to everything, including broadcast clips re-published on youtube. JimJJewett (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is everything okay with COinS?

    Hi! When transferring the module to ruwiki, I decided to see how COinS generally live. The official website is dead [2], there is practically no documentation to be found. OpenURL is dead too [3]. The applications that use it also died, except for Zotero. Shouldn't we think about switching to a new format before everything becomes completely outdated? Or am I worrying in vain and everything is fine? Iniquity (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The only COinS documentation I have found is listed at Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS. Another editor added Dublin Core and SVC (Scholarly Community Service Types?); neither of which are meaningful and should probably be deleted from that page. No doubt some of those documentation links are dead so archive snapshots should be located if possible.
    I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
    — User:Trappist the monk 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I didn't find much either. Maybe this one - https://schema.org/Book (RDF/Microdata)? Iniquity (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm not convinced. Those schema appear to be intended as a way for publishers to provide a structured description of an online source – a purpose different from a citation. One of the very common things that editors do is cite particular pages from a book, often without reference to a chapter. Pagination does not appear to be a supported property for a book – it is for the chapter schema. A quicksearch didn't reveal how one might encoded a journal article – I didn't find a property for the journal name.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked a question on the Zotero forum, maybe they can help. I'll be back as soon as I have an answer. Iniquity (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about volume parameter that contains New Series

    What is the proper way to cite a journal that has a volume parameter with "New Series" or "N.S."? For example, in Origin of the Huns:

    • {{cite journal |last=de la Vaissière |first=Étienne |title=Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"? |journal=Bulletin of the Asia Institute |volume=N.S. 17 |year=2003 |pages=119–132 |jstor=24049310}}
    • de la Vaissière, Étienne (2003). "Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"?". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. N.S. 17: 119–132. JSTOR 24049310. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

    Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |volume=17 + |series=New Series Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers and note 3 in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about volume error in Cite Pacer

    What is the proper way to remove the "volume has extra text" error in {{Cite Pacer}}? Each instance in Template:Cite Pacer#Examples and Template:Cite Pacer/testcases now has the error. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely that template hasn't worked 'properly' since the decision was taken to render 'vol.' and 'no.' static text for |volume= and |issue= for all cs1|2 templates except {{cite journal}}. It appears that |case-prefix= is not used in any {{cite Pacer}} templates so perhaps you might change the template source to remove support for |case-prefix= and change |volume= to |number=?
    Alas, the original author is no longer with us so someone else will have to fix the template.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. Looks like Rjjiii is working on it in Template:Cite Pacer/sandbox. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty: There's another Pacer CS1 template with the same issue, {{PacerRef}}. It's only used in a single article though. Could Megaupload be switched to {{Cite Pacer}} or another CS1 template, so that we can delete the extra template? Rjjiii (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rjjiii: There's also {{Cite Pacer Docket}}, used in 8 articles including Megaupload. GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tinkered with {{Cite Pacer Docket}} but I'm not sure what combination of parameters the Citation template needs. It doesn't display "number" without "work", but "title" is required and doesn't make sense for any of this template's parameters. Hopefully someone else knows, Rjjiii (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rjjiii: I've updated Megaupload to use {{Cite Pacer}} instead of {{PacerRef}}. GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rjjiii ...and added {{PacerRef}} to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 24. GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Just saw it, Rjjiii (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to cite standalone preprint?

    If I want to cite a standalone article preprint, made available by a university through an hdl link, how can I?

    • {{Cite preprint}} requires one of arxiv=, citeseerx= (why??), bioarxiv=, ssrn=: it wants to be in a known big preprint server (or citeseer), not the case here.
    • {{Cite book}} sort of works but it is not really a book.
    • {{Cite tech report}} produces a spurious "(Tech report)" as part of the citation
    • {{Cite document}} produces a spurious "(Document)" as part of the citation. But maybe this with |type=preprint is best?
    • {{Cite web}} doesn't work because it requires a url, not an hdl.

    Is there some way to make {{cite preprint}} less fussy about what kind of availability counts as a preprint? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{cite preprint}} is just a wrapper template around the cs1 templates {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite biorxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, {{cite medrxiv}}, {{cite ssrn}}. It is not intended to support arbitrary preprints of any other sort. It has been suggested that the preprint templates should be replaced with a 'generic' {{cite preprint}} template. As I recall there wasn't much enthusiasm for that.
    You can suppress automatic type annotation with |type=none.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    template:cite journal

    I am citing an article which was published in two journals (one US and the other UK). This is useful information for readers who may have access to one but not the other. I cannot see how to show this. "postscript=" gives an error message and there does not seem to be any other way. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You have two sources so use two templates. {{cite journal}} (and all of the other cs1|2 templates) are designed to support one source at a time.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing the same article as two sources will confuse people as it implies that they are different. Standard academic practice is to say "also published...". It is a weakness in the templates that they do not allow for such useful information to be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still citing two sources so bibliographic details of the US and UK journals are different. You can write: 
    <ref>{{cite journal |author=Author |date= |title= |journal=[the US journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}
*also published in: {{cite journal |author=Author |author-mask=2 |date= |title= |journal=[the UK journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}</ref>
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That should work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    removed support for |authors=; what about |people= and |credits=?

    I have removed support for the deprecated |authors= parameter from the sandbox:

    Cite book comparison
    Wikitext {{cite book|authors=EB Green|title=Title}}
    Live Title. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
    Sandbox Title. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

    This leaves us with |people= and |credits= as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.

    Support for |people= is documented in {{cite av media}}, {{cite mailing list}}, {{cite map}}, {{citation}}. Search results:

    Using |people=:
    • {{cite av media}} ~7900
    • {{cite mailing list}} none
    • {{cite map}} none
    • {{citation}} ~30
    Using undocumented |credits=:
    • {{cite av media}} none
    • {{cite mailing list}} none
    • {{cite map}} none
    • {{citation}} none

    Support for |credits= is documented in {{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}}. Search results:

    Using |credits=:
    • {{cite episode}} ~3300
    • {{cite serial}} ~30
    Using undocumented |people=:

    It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}, {{cite map}}, and {{citation}} should not be using |people= and |credits=. No doubt there are templates that use |people= and |credits= aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}} combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}, {{cite episode}}, and {{cite serial}}.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There having been no comment, I have restricted |people= to {{cite av media}}, {{cite episode}}, and {{cite serial}} in the sandbox. |credits= in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}}.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Enable publication-date for {{cite journal}}

    This proposal was originally made 6 days ago but my wording and explanations were poor.

    WikiProject Bibliographies is devoted to standalone bibliography articles. Its participants have been responsible for a respectable portion of the List of bibliographies on this project. While many of these bibliographies were written manually from creation, many use citation templates to speed up the process and achieve a lower error rate. Many of the bibliographies that now use manual citations originated with templates and were only converted out of a need to reduce the post-expand include size. Because the works themselves are the subject of the article and require more detail and precision than in regular citations, we often find ourselves pushing the limits of citation templates.

    For most of the additional information, corresponding parameters have already been added to {{cite book}}, because the average bibliography article consists mostly of books. Most of what remains can be added after the template. But there is one parameter missing from {{cite journal}} despite already being available in CS1 and having been incorporated into {{cite book}}, that is somewhat frequently encountered and which would benefit from being enabled for {{cite journal}} as well: publication-date. For any book Title, dated 2005 but published 2006, originally typewritten 1930, the output of {{cite book}} would be: Last, First (2005) [1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006). Most books with "two dates" are better served by the orig-date parameter than by publication-date. In the example I just gave, a book may have 2006 on its front cover but 2005 on its inside cover, with 2005 corresponding to the date the printing began and 2006 to the date of publication after the printing ended. Or 2005 could be the date the printing of the first volume began and 2006 the date the individual volume was printed. And so on.

    The main reason both have to be given in bibliography articles is because differences in date and publication-date displayed prominently enough on works for the same work to be cited in one date in catalogue/database but under another date in a different catalogue/database. Only the best catalogues/databases have both parameters, and the reader's library or digital library may not be such a catalogue. Because the primary purpose of a bibliography article is to help the reader find works on a given subject, providing both years in our bibliographies allows the reader to search all year values the catalogue could have, in addition to letting them know that they have indeed found the correct work where providing only one date would leave them second guessing (especially if there are title differences). Differences between prominently displayed "date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.) and date of publication values are actually more common for periodicals ({{cite journal}}) than for books.

    Despite the parameter arguably being more important for {{cite journal}} than for {{cite book}}, it has still not been enabled for the former. The interval-discrepancy between Jahrgang (date) and publication date (publication-date) often varies over time. Discrepancies of interval often arise between Jahrgang and volume number and even year number,[†] so you cannot simply enter the Jahrgang in the volume parameter. And because these are bibliography articles, in which the works are the subject of the article, orig-date is often unavailable, thanks to a work being written or typed at a different date, sometimes long before publication, resulting in the work often being cited or even catalogued by the date of writing. Here are some examples of periodicals requiring a separate publication-date parameter in order of increasing complexity:

    † Year number would be the closest value to Jahrgang but discrepancies arise when a year is skipped and if it happens more than once, the interval changes. Fortunately, the year number is rarely encountered in catalogues and citations, so although it would be preferable to have a separate year-number parameter, the current guidelines for placing the "year-related value" in the volume parameter work well enough. At least the result is within the citation. The publication-date parameter is also within the citation for {{cite book}}, as it should be for {{cite journal}}.

    My request is to enable the publication-date parameter for {{cite journal}}. Ivan (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |publication-date= is already available in {{cite journal}}.
    The following
    {{cite journal |title=title |journal=Journal |date=2006 |publication-date=2007 |orig-date=2005}}
    displays as
    "title". Journal (published 2007). 2006 [2005]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I must have been using it incorrectly. Ivan (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you signature shouldn't hide your actual username (see WP:CUSTOMSIG/P). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally yes, but I don't want my Cyrillic signature to attract uninvited attention since most of the editors on the articles I usually edit are Croats. Fortunately, this RfC allows for signatures that do not correspond exactly to usernames. Ivan (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generic name

    Can you add "phone" and "email" to the generic name list so you get a "CS1 errors: generic name" error. Thanks Keith D (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Language is missing in template

    Langauge is needed on de.wikipedia.org if a German langauge citation is added. Langauge can therefor not be omitted. Theking2 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not so. From de:Vorlage:Internetquelle/Doku: "|sprache=de für „deutsch“ ist nicht erforderlich …" [… for German is not required …]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    If one is to believe the wikidata list of wikipedias using Module:Citation/CS1 (Module:Citation/CS1 (Q15403807)), de.wiki does not support cs1|2. If you are having a problem at de.wiki, you must discuss the problem there.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |at= parameter not used for Cite AV Media?

    Hey, so I'd like to create a citation for a film which is one of many as part of a multi-disc/multi-film collection, I was thinking about doing something like:

    • Director, D. (dir.) (2000) [1900]. "Film". In Compiler, C. (ed.). Multi-Disc Set. Publisher.

    But I'd really like to add something like |at=Disc 1, Bonus Features, but it doesn't seem like that parameter is valid for this template? Is there a better way to be doing this? Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT I'd like the citation to reflect the specific edition I'm citing. Thanks for any advice! Umimmak (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    |at= is an in-source location parameter. The in-source location parameters supported by {{cite av media}} are |minutes= and |time=. Using either of those as a replacement for |at= is semantically incorrect.
    Seems to me that if you are citing some bonus feature you should be citing the bonus feature's title, not its physical location.
    {{cite av media |section=Bonus Feature Title |title=Multi-Disc Set Title |publisher=Publisher |time=01:23:30}}
    "Bonus Feature Title". Multi-Disc Set Title. Publisher. Event occurs at 01:23:30.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah didn’t think about |section= okay, thank you! Umimmak (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page ranges

    Should the documentation for, e.g., |pages=, |quote-pages=, recommend use of {{page range}} or subst:page range when page numbers contain hyphens, e.g., |pages={{page-range|A-3|A-5}}? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we should recommend its usage. IMO it adds complications to already complicated wiki markup. Now every bot, tool, report etc.. that parses wiki markup needs to deal with this template to extract page information. Really how hard is it to use en dash. CS1-2 could even automatically display it as en dash to avoid all this embeded template complication. -- GreenC 14:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that cs1|2 render correctly formatted page ranges from improperly formatted source parameters so {{page range}} is not required. But... cs1|2 cannot modify wikisource so for those editors who care, using {{page range}} will (once subst'd) produce the proper format in wikisource. Because {{page range}} auto substs (even inside <ref>...</ref> tags), the embedded template complication isn't much of a complication because auto-substing usually occurs within an hour after the edit is saved.
    Use {{page range}} or don't. Recommend it or don't.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Author-link in cite templates

    Moved to WT:Cite

    I am working on a request from another user at WP:AWBREQ to add author links to citation templates. The first edit I did on the AWB run ended up with, I believe, 159 {{cite web}} templates for the given author. My regex of course identifies each of those templates for adding in the author link, and I dutifully included the author link in all of them as per the request. But before I do this on the hundreds of pages where this is germane, I was wondering whether we are bound to the MOS guide to only link the first instance in an article, or whether that does not apply to references as well.

    TLDR: Should I add author-link to every citation of a given author, or only the first reference on the page? VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically users spot check citations as required, we don't read every one, so if it was previously linked it wouldn't be obvious. In long lists of cites, it's difficult to impossible to know if another cite already linked it. In practice every cite stands on its own like an independent unit. BTW this is great work you are doing. I had an idea how to do this in another discussion. Basically build a database of existing cases of author-link and the |title=, then find other instances of that title that are missing an author-link and add it there. With some sanity error checks. Could be fully automated. -- GreenC 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really an issue for discussion here – not changing or improving the cs1|2 templates. You would be better off, I think, discussing at WT:CITE.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, much thanks. I got sent here from the redirect at Template talk:Cite, and assumed this was the clearinghouse for that kind of conversation. I'll bring it up at WP:Cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    agency in cite magazine

    I came across a case where a cite magazine article from India Today was attributed to an agency (Indo-Asian News Service) with no other byline. {{cite magazine}} did not support use of the |agency= parameter. Should it?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lua error

    One of the references at The pen is mightier than the sword#Early pre-enlightenment sources is giving "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation at line 329: attempt to compare string with number." I can't see anything wrong with it from a quick glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also William Rugge (bishop)#cite_note-21 * Pppery * it has begun... 15:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Cite journal/doc

    Copy of discussion originally at User talk:Mathglot#Template:Cite journal/doc.

    Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba (talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link: Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef

    Hello again, Yiba. I've moved the discussion here from my Talk page, so other interested editors may participate if they wish; they are unlikely to find it on my Talk page. In addition, there is a lot of previous discussion at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef about this.

    Sorry, I still stand by the revert, or at least, parts of it. My original revert (diff) was motivated by your removal of the "Staff writers" expression from the |author= param when there is no author.

    However, your edit at Template:Cite journal/doc made numerous other changes, unrelated to the "Staff writers" issue. Logistically speaking, that's unfortunate, as several smaller edits with each one targeting a different issue would've made it easier to adjust/revert only that portion which needed it; with one, large, monolithic edit targeting essentially unrelated issues, it becomes harder to deal with. Perhaps I was lazy reverting the whole thing, but given the length and wide scope of the discussion that resulted afterward at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef that seems somewhat vindicated. In any case, I see that you believe portions of your original edit are valid, and should be added to the documentation of either Template:Cite journal/doc (or to Template:SfnRef/doc—it's not clear to me which). In order not to fall into the same problem of long discussion here targeting unrelated or loosely related issues, I propose that we use subsections for each separate topic area of your original edit that you wish to retain. I'll start, right after this message, and I hope you list your issues in one subsection each, so the subtopic discussions remain targeted and on-track. Does that seem reasonable to you? Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit you reverted also contained the incorrect assumption that journal name will be used in a CITEREF if author is unavailable, and that |ref='s only use is in the creation of CITEREFs for use with {{sfn}}/{{harv}} templates. As neither of these ideas are correct, it was corrected reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very reasonable. And ActivelyDisinterested is correct. Thanks to both of you. Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    author=Staff writers, no byline

    Your edit removed |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> from the doc at Template:Cite journal/doc explaining what to do when there is no author. I restored that information in the revert, and as that wording suggestion is standard use throughout several of the citation parameters; it should remain here as well for consistency, so I am not prepared to self-revert in order to remove it. If you see an argument for doing so, how would you deal with equivalent wording at all the other templates? Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never seen the point of doing this, however it's probably something that should be discussed first and implemented across all the citation templates if any change is agreed upon. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a supporter of keeping it, but only for this reason: I sometimes like to do ref-improvement gnoming, and a missing author is kind of a big red flag, but an exceedingly common one, as anyone who has used RefRenamer is aware of; so I go look for the author. If after investigation, I find out that there really isn't one, then I am somewhat resentful of the wasted time I spent looking for it, and wished someone would have added the comment. However, I'm not married to that solution, and I would prefer something like |author=none to an html comment. There is precedent for this in params |type=, |ref=, |title-link=, maybe others, and I think that could be a good solution here as well. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see |author=none as a better idea, the hidden comment doesn't seem a great idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, WorldCat uses none. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, "staff writers" is more useful, though not in a good way. To me it means massaged press release or ChatGPT. It means that the real journalists won't give their byline to it. See also Alan Smithee. So IMO more informative than "none". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree it's more informative, at least if people are using it right, because it means we know who wrote it, though not by name: it's the staff of the organization (hopefully they filled out |work= or equiv.) which narrows it down to a few people at a given org. That's different, for me, then |author=Anon. which means the person who wrote it chose not to claim credit, and is listed as "Anonymous" in the work, and could be any author anywhere (see WorldCat usage). Finally, "none" to me means, "I looked hard, and couldn't find it"; i.e. nothing on the title page or cover, web page, or in the html <head> tag author field or any of the usual suspects. But honestly, I don't know if it's reasonable to be able to maintain that level of distinction in a citation template author field. It seems very unlikely someone using a plain-text citation rather than a template would do it, and I don't think the citation templates should be held to a higher standard, just because they are templates.
    The "Staff writers" has been around for many years, long before ChatGPT, and I'm not aware of any connection between the two. Press releases are usually cited to the org., and given their purpose almost always have a contact person in their PR dept for inquiries, regardless who authored the release; not that anybody cares. In most citations, you can already specify |type=press release ({{Citation#Title}}), and that is sufficient, imho. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that we've seen this discussion before. Spend some time trawling the archives (if you do, report back here with links to those past discussions). My recollection is that a past discussion ended up recommending |author=<!--Not stated--> as the unknown-author indicator. See Help:Citation Style 1 § Authors where that is recommended.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. Seems I need to do a lot of reading before continuing here, but here is my preliminary points:
    1. To me, and from legal points of view, "whom the credit and the responsibility belongs" on a published info is very important.
    2. Staff writers, as long as they write in staff writer position/responsibility, do not normally bear the responsibility nor deserve the credit.
    3. Author= indicates who the credit belongs. This does not defy "Author=publisher/publication_name is not always a bad thing." as publishers often do bear the responsibility for what staff writers write. Also, the argument for Author=Anonymous (by Mathglot) is correct.
    4. Leaving "no byline" and "Author=none" aside for now, therefore I feel Author=Staff_Writer, Staffwriter_Surname, or List_of_Staff_Writers is fundamentally wrong.
    5. From a WikiNewbie view, being asked to input into Author= field while the instruction says "when there is no credited author" is idiotic/confusing.
    6. Yes, I feel other Citing template pages/docs need re-writing for the above reasons, so I'm glad having this discussion here.
    Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to #4 (by the way: please see "Numbered list" at Help:Cheatsheet for how to create numbered lists in wikicode), I wonder if you might misunderstand what is meant by |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->. This is something visible only to editors who look at the wikicode, and not to viewers reading the article. The symbols '<!--' and '-->' are comment begin/end delimiters that hide everything between them from viewers. They can be seen by editors editing the page, and it announces (to editors) that, with or without "no byline", we don't have the name of an author. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understad how <!-- info --> is used, and that the line announces (to editors) that, the words 'Staff Writer' or 'No by-line', or name(s) of staff writer(s) as we don't have the name of an author. But your post made me aware there can be some fundamental misunderstanding on my part in constructing the argument. If you see a possibility, please let me know.   Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may support understanding my concern. The doc currently states:
    To cite a journal article with no credited author
    {{cite journal |author= |date= |title= |url= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date= }}
    and I am proposing to change it to:
    {{cite journal |date= |title= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |ref={{SfnRef|anchorname|YEAR}} }}
    which solves the credit issue and explains how to link to the citation when there is no author= . I intend to edit Template:SfnRef to explain why SfnRef is needed, and what anchorname is.
    Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold editing is a thing, but honestly, given the number of misunderstandings or simple disagreement or pushback you've gotten so far, I'm not sure that bold editing of the {{SfnRef/doc}} page is likely to have the outcome you desire, as any change is still subject to consensus. For example, I don't see a reason to make the change you just proposed now, and it looks familiar to me; didn't you already propose that, or something very like it, at the Module talk:Footnotes discussion? It might make sense to try and achieve consensus first. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I am surprised how difficult it is to get my points across on this issue. Let me try a different approach:

    Template:Cite journal/doc and other info pages for these templates 1. Recommends use of |author= when there is no credited author, 2. Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such case, 3. Do not clearly explain |ref= is needed to link if |author= , |last= , etc. is omitted.
    The above mentioned proposal of mine solves all these problems.

    I hope this is understandable.   Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand. Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such case the documentation doesn't suggest this, it suggests adding a note that there is no author credited author. For the purposes of the mediwiki software the |author= parameter is still blank.
    If you don't understand how hidden text work Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text explains it in detail.
    As explained many times the |ref= field is not just for {{sfnref}}, it is also not part of the general template use (as it's only needed for certain situations).
    The author shouldn't duplicate the |publisher= or |journal= name, as this is just misuse of the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. But |author= is listed in the "Most commonly used parameters" for "To cite a journal article with no credited author". It's clear to me I am failing miserably in building a consensus. Here is my last approach for your enjoyment:

    Suppose I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and find my areas of experience and knowledge can contribute to improve Wikipedia articles, so I decide to edit one of the poorly written articles called ABC Memory. I knew there was a good sidebar article about ABC Memory on BCD Journal, where I used to work, and use some info from the column on the Wikipedia page. The article was not signed, but I know such short pieces are normally written by a staff writer John Jones. As a Wiki editor, I don't even know what CS1 stands for, but decide to use a commonly used citation format:
    {{Sfn |BCD Journal |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal |title=ABC Memory |journal=CDF Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
    I omitted |author= entry because I know (book) 'authors' are credited, paid, and responsible for what he/she writes, and Jones is not yet a Senior Editor who gets to sign (and paid/responsible for) what he/she writes and publishes. I'm not sure if he actually wrote the piece, but I know for a fact he is a staff writer there. The pair doesn't work. Then I find the info "To cite a journal article with no credited author" and try:
    {{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
    but the pair fails to link.
    {{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }}
    doesn't work.
    {{Sfn | |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal |author= |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal|issue=Spring|date=2020}}
    doesn't work. (@ActivelyDisinterested Blank pair does not link.)
    {{Sfn |by-line |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal |author=no by-line |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
    doesn't work. I kept trying because I really don't want to name Jones an author. I'm cornered to give in, but:
    {{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
    doesn't work. (! This pair does not link. A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling |author= . One of the reasons why I think |author= should not be there.)
    {{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
    {{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=John |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
    This pair finally works (mind you, without |ref= and the editor being fully aware Jones is a staff writer without any copyright responsibility), and I publish it thinking "Well, this is what Wikipedia documentation instructed me to do."

    John gets sued later because I named him as the source despite my strong preference not to name him the author, and the sidebar column was found to have been written by an outside contributor Mrs.X who obtained the sensitive inside info illegally. Mrs.X has long fled abroad, and BCD Journal ends up paying for the damages and sues me for 90% of it because pageview spiked after my edit and the page attracted 9 times more number of pageviews than their subscription base. You could imagine how 'I' feel about Wikipedia documentation.

    To all of you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. @Mathglot please don't worry, I will refrain from editing these documentation.   Yiba (talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }} is the same as {{sfn||2020|p=4}}.
    You are still not understanding the nature of hidden comments. For all effects they don't exist. If you add a hidden comment to |author= it's the same as the field being blank.
    Also |author= is a substitute for |last= and |first=, so:
    {{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }} would need {{sfn}} to be setup as {{sfn|John Jones|2020|p=4}} to work.
    I fear any changes you make to the documentation are not going to add much value until you get a better understanding of how things work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Responding only to this comment:

    A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling

    That is not a bug, but an error in the use of sfn parameters. While |last= is recommended in short citations and not |author=, it will still work if you use it properly. For example, this generates #CITEREFJohn_Jones2020 if you place the full author in the Sfn param (not recommended!) and links properly:
    Markup Renders as 
    Some fact.{{Sfn|John Jones|2020|page=4}}

=== References ===
{{reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
* {{Cite journal|author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal }}

    Some fact.[1]

    References
    1. ^ John Jones 2020, p. 4.
    Bibliography
    • John Jones (2020). "ABC Memory". BCD Journal.
    but don't do that; please use {{sfn}} following the instructions given in the doc. So I don't see any CITEREF bug here. If I've missed what you meant, please start a new discussion on this page and lay out a description of the bug, along with an example if possible. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-ec: I have to agree with AD's comment; if you don't understand how it works and should work, it's hard to see how you can improve the doc, but I appreciate all the effort you have put into trying to improve it as that is a worthwhile goal. Mathglot (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree, and please don't take my comments as discouragement. Get some more experience of editing articles, ask questions (there's always someone who will be willing to explain), and if you still interested then improvement will be warmly welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add tracking categories for additional foreign language sources?

    Apologies if I'm mistaken about something, but should there be Category:CS1 Yue Chinese-language sources (yue) and Category:CS1 Min Nan Chinese-language sources (nan) to match Category:CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)? See also Category:Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text et al. Remsense诉 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    cs1|2 categorizes the two-character language tags into individual categories because those are the most commonly used languages. All of languages that have three-character language tags (there are some 8000+) are categorized into Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2) sorted by tag. Articles using |language=nan are categorized at N and articles using |language=yue are categorized at Y.
    Alternately there are (imperfect) search results:
    for nan
    for yue
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my bad! That's a fine enough solution, thank you. Remsense诉 20:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    cite report: number, id, docket

    Testing {{cite report}}, {{cite tech report}}, and {{cite thesis}} I find that |number=, |docket=, and |id= are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion: Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)

    In report and thesis, |number= appears to not be used at all, while |docket= and |id= are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number= and |id= are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id= is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable -- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number= in CS1, and from what appears to be their documented metadata. 

    {{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}

    {{Cite_report}}

    Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.

    {{Cite_thesis}}

    Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.

    Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id= is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should not be surprised that {{cite report}}, {{cite tech report}}, and {{cite thesis}} are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
    Each of those templates then developed along their own paths until they were each reimplemented using the meta-template {{citation/core}}; again at different dates and different editors:
    • {{cite report}}: 30 November 2011‎ by Editor Fifelfoo
    • {{cite tech report}}: 14 September 2011‎ by Editor Gadget850
    • {{cite thesis}}: 25 March 2011‎ by Editor Headbomb
    Development continued along their own paths until migrated to Module:Citation/CS1; also at different times by me:
    • {{cite report}}: 15 February 2015‎
    • {{cite tech report}}: 9 November 2013
    • {{cite thesis}}: 9 November 2013‎
    I can't speak to the migration to {{citation/core}} but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.
    Were these templates developed simultaneously by a single author, they would probably have been much more consistent but that is not the way of a wiki.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can "mode=cs1/cs2" be handled like date formatting?

    This question stems from a recent realization that the Visual Editor offers the Citation Style 2 {{citation}} template as the default citation method. I remember as a new editor not being clear on why {{cite web}} and {{citation}} had a different appearance. My first thought was the Visual Editor should autofill "mode=cs1" if it's trying to use {{citation}} as a quick machine-generated reference. My second thought was, why do we have to specify in each template usage? {{Use dmy dates}} gives a consistent format to every citation on the page. Can something similar be done with the punctuation format? ({{use cs1}} & {{use cs2}}) Rjjiii (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just drop my semi-annual comment that the output of CS1 and CS2 are so similar that they could be merged together and the distinction between them finally removed. My preference would be to use the comma separation and capitalization of CS2 with the terminal period of CS1, allowing the option to override that terminal period. If they were harmonized into a single style, it wouldn't matter if someone used {{citation}} and someone else used {{cite web}} on the same article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cs1 config|cs1}} or {{cs1 config|cs2}}
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fantastic! Do you mind if I add some examples to the documentation? Or create a kind of announcement at WP:VPT?
    There's probably no clean answer to this question, but I wonder what it would take make CS1 style the default for citation templates currently using CS2?
    • We could open a discussion at WP:VPT, and post notices. Probably an RfC to show consensus.
    • There are a bunch of niche templates that use {{Citation}}; I could add |mode=cs2 to keep their formatting and post a {{please see}} notice on their talk pages so that it would be opt-in.
    • I'm not too familiar with bots, but if a bot would add {{cs1 config|cs2}} to every article with 3:1 ratio of CS2:CS1 templates, I think that could help to frame this as supporting WP:CITEVAR rather contesting it; a bot adding {{cs1 config}} to pages where {{citation}} is the primary style could also function as a way to announce this editors who want CS2, maybe with a link to the RfC and clear instructions on how to auto-CS2 the content they create.
    I feel like this would be a much cleaner solution than trying to fix the auto-citation in the VisualEditor. Rjjiii (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that the documentation can be improved, and know how to do it, please do. I fail to understand how WP:VPT is pertinent; in general issues pertaining to cs1|2 are not 'technical'. A clean answer requires a 'clean' description that clearly states your objective. I am not at all clear on what it is that you are asking.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would make the citation templates easier to use for editors and more consistent for readers if CS1 becomes the default style. I mention VPT and other areas of discussion because I also think that would be a significant change where people would want advance notice and an explanation. Rjjiii (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The template should probably be named {{cs config}} rather than {{cs1 config}} btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CS1. Is. Too ugly. And it. Would break. A lot. Of formatting. Where editors. Have not anticipated. That lots. Of useless. Periods. Would be added. If CS2 became the default style, as Imzadi suggested, I think it would be less problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the periods for dividing specific groups of information, not least because I prefer semicolons for dividing author name pairs. As someone who has fixed a lot of |author= parameters with multiple names in them, semicolons are invaluable for denominating a specific author name pair. Commas would hence Suck to then divide authors from whatever comes after.
    I assume this is an actual point in favor of periods rather than mere preference, as voiced above. (I make this comment in the general.) Izno (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Error tracking category

    The documentation for {{Cite AV media notes}} gives examples that use the others= parameter with the name of an artist or band without providing a value for |author= or |editor=. Further, the template documentation makes no mention of the requirement that others= be only used with primrry editorship or authorship information. However, such usage places articles in the Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) category. The documentation there says that the others= can't stand alone.

    Which is correct? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I see. Is it that first= and last= used in the examples serve as an alias for the |author parameter? That's not intuitive, as first= and last= are multiple parameters, and author= is singular. And, even if so, the documentation makes no mention of the requirement. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the template documentation shows, |author= is an alias of |last=; see Template:Cite AV media notes § Authors. Even the TemplateData 'documentation' (such as it is) shows that these parameters are aliases of each other; see Template:Cite AV media notes § TemplateData.
    The template documentation it is not protected. If you believe that the template documentation can be improved, you are free to do so. The documentation for |last=, |author=, and |others= is at Template:Citation Style documentation/author. Remember that the documentation template is used by all cs1|2 templates. If you use VE, consider improving the TemplateData.
    Similarly, Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) is not protected so you are free to improve the documentation there.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that I'm allowed to edit the documentation. I'm trying to figure out which is correct: the template documentation, or the error tracking category documentation. It seems like the error tracking category documentation is correct, but I'm not 100% positive. Does anyone know? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that both are correct as far as they go. The maintenance categories are added whenever the cs1|2 template does not have any authors or editors but does list others names in |others=.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That maintenance category is the subject of several discussions now. Probably we need to modify the documentation at this point specifically to say this maintenance category for this pair of templates is the lowest of low priorities and not to worry about it (for now). Izno (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's strange that most of those previous discussions point out the documentation problem, but here we have the claim that the documentation is correct. I have added some notes to the doc about the interplay of the others= parameter.
    FeRDNYC, in one of those older discussions you say that the error message produced here is not actionable. Can you explain why that is? That is, why isn't the remediation action to remove the others= parameter, or place its value in author=? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not obvious what the replacement is in the vast majority of uses of these two templates. People will cite any myriad of values in these parameters that do not obviously to me line up with the intent of |author= or other current equivalents. Take 10.000 Nights of Thunder as a prime example of the use of these templates. The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes, or at least not all of them, if even the physical notes specify who the author of the notes are (many, maybe even most, probably don't). The current examples at Template:Cite AV media notes reflect this use of placing the artist in |others= and I don't think the documentation there is necessarily wrong to say so. Template:Cite AV media is better in some ways and worse in others as it suggests that we should add the role some significant person to the media played in the |others=, but which again does not necessarily line up with the expectations for |author=. Izno (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikeblas: Precisely as Izno says: The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes. It's often extremely difficult to find out who wrote the liner notes for a given piece of media; rarely are they explicitly credited somewhere in the text. But without that information, currently the template "considers itself" incompletely filled out. IMHO that's an unreasonable expectation, making the tracking category nothing but noise. That being said, "working around it" by simply crediting the band as the authors turns the citation from incomplete to incorrect, which is not an improvement. If we want the tracking category to go away, we should make the tracking category go away, not corrupt our citations to satisfy its requirements. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I guess I'm seeing it as any other staff-written publication. Some specific author(s) certainly wrote an article, but since they're staff, we just credit it to the publisher ... Crediting Blondie or Reuters is just the same. The documentation already advises this usage: author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person;. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikeblas: We do do that, but only when the organizational author is given a byline, as in Reuters articles. That's a very different situation than crediting a band as the author of their album's liner notes. {{Cite press release}}, for example, explicitly documents and allows for |author=<!--Not stated--> as a parameter, because it's exceedingly common for press releases to be published without a credited author.
    My argument is that {{Cite AV media}} and {{Cite AV media notes}} fall more into the press release category than the {{Cite web}} / {{Cite news}} category. (And, that being said, {{Cite press release|author=<!--Not stated-->|others=something}} will also trigger inclusion in Category:CS1 maint: others.) FeRDNYC (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking my Reuters example wasn't really as good a match as I had originally thought. Maybe "The Committee for Studying Something that gets Studied". Might be one, might be multiple authors, but all not specifically named in the Committee's report. Either way, in the case of liner notes or media booklets, it doesn't seem particularly important to note the author -- it's self-published by the band or producer or their publisher. That seems like what we ought to be documenting. Why would {{Cite AV media notes}} not also allow a "not stated" author? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Cs1 config and Cite templates compatibility

    {{cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}} and cite with non-Latin author generates an error.

    Example (added |name-list-style=vanc to cite to generate error):

    노 성환 (April 2021). "한국 오줌싸개 치유에 대한 비교민속학적 고찰" [Korean Bedwetter and East Asian Folklore]. 비교민속학 (in Korean). 73: 45–88. doi:10.38078/ACF.2021.4.73.45. ISSN 1598-1010. S2CID 238041634. {{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (help)

    I know translating the author would avoid the error. (There are other work-arounds.) But I believe a specific cite should be able to override a global setting.

    User-duck (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want Vancouver styling you must comply with the (somewhat relaxed) Vancouver system rules. For |name-list-style=vanc, |last<n>= and |first<n>= must hold names written using the Latin character set.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite magazine parameters

    Is it possible to automatically show the volume and issue parameters when first opening it up in the visual editor? And then, perhaps, hide the PMID parameter that does automatically get added; that is more for journals. I do not know of many magazines archived by PubMed. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks for the feedback. It may take a bit for the changes to take effect, Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    collaboration parameter in cite journal

    I'm citing this paper, which is written by 6 authors on behalf of a wider collaboration. When I cite it in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as [1], it generates an etal, per documentation of the collaboration parameter. Is there a way to stop the etal? With vauthors, I get an error if I simply put the collaboration after the author list. Anybody know a way around this?

    References

    1. ^ Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, et al. (European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE)) (June 2018). "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease". Autoimmunity Reviews. 17 (6): 601–609. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009. PMID 29635081.

    —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I count seven names. Doesn't WP:MED somewhere suggest that name lists should be limited to not more than six names? The old {{vcite2 journal}} (now a redirect along with the since deleted Module:ParseVauthors which implemented it) automatically imposed a six name limit. That template was written primarily for use by the WP:MED community.
    I'm not sure that a group of authors writing on behalf of some entity means that the entity is a collaborator. Were it me, I would omit |collaborator= entirely. If you must include EUROMENE, you can write the template:
    {{cite journal |vauthors=Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, ((European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE))) |date=June 2018 |title=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease |journal=Autoimmunity Reviews |volume=17 |issue=6 |pages=601–609 |doi=10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009 |pmid=29635081 |doi-access=free}}
    Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE) (June 2018). "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease". Autoimmunity Reviews. 17 (6): 601–609. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009. PMID 29635081.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't count.. Useful to learn of a soft recommendation for 6 authors at MOS:MED! Thanks :). As these people wrote the paper "on behalf of" EUROMENE, that does make it a collaboration, right? Or am I missing what this parameter is supposed to do? Simple solution seems to be to omit the 7th author, and simply use collaboration parameter as is. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The documentation for |collaboration= says (in part):
    Name of a group of authors or collaborators
    That, to me, says that the group actually participated in the writing. Because the group participated in the writing, etal is appropriate. When authors write on behalf of a group, the group is not a participant in the writing so should not be listed as a contributor.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    et al. is not appropriate when the entire group is listed. This has been pointed out and ignored for years now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to indicate an issue is a supplement?

    What is the proper way to indicate that an issue is a supplement? GobsPint (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If unnumbered, |issue=Suppl. If numbered, |issue=Suppl. 3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CS1 errors: generic name

    Hello, the list on the category page includes "email" but does not appear to cause an error. On Politics of Kaliningrad Oblast

    protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise".

    Keith D (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed in the sandbox.
    {{cite news/new |last=protected |first=email |title=Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise }}
    protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise". {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The url-access lock icon becomes huge if the linked source is a PDF file

    Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:

    Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989). "Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT: American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

    Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On the mobile theme it looks fine.[4] The template's CSS includes "background-size: contain;" for the Vector themes but not Minerva or Timeless. Toggling that off seems to make it the correct size. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using the Vector 2010 skin on mobile (using the desktop site), and the icon also looks huge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&oldid=1219202410"