Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87→Archive 90

allmusic

I have added AllMusic to the generic name list; presently occurs in |author<n>= and |last<n>= parameters in ~740 articles.

{{cite web/new |author=AllMusic Review by [reviewer] |title=Title |url=//allmusic.com}}
AllMusic Review by [reviewer]. "Title". {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I have BattyBot working on the common cases, and manual work will be needed on the rest. GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Date bug

Minor thing, but the template complains if the date has a leading zero – date=09 August 2021 — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Solution: Remove the leading zero, per MOS:DATE/MOS:DATESNO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Template: Cite Web change (might apply to others to)

I notice {{Cite web}} has a field |trans-title. For usability could this field be renamed translated-title or en-title? The use of the word Trans is confusing because of its use in the gender-spectrum and it isn't entirely clear that this field exists or what it is used for. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support non-controversial parameter rename. Suggest translated-title, as this will be easier to ... translate/apply in non-English wiki CS1/2 iterations. Also en- could be mistaken for language code rather than abbreviation. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

url-status=live without an archive-url

I've added this to Template:Citation Style documentation/doc:

Note: if |url-status=live is included but there is no |archive-url=, an error message is displayed when the link is hovered over, and a warning shown when the edit is previewed, although the reference shows normally in the list.

It is a pain to find and remove these instances; I'd suggest that |url-status=live be allowed without generating an error message, it seems harmless.

I added this comment to the documentation boldly; if it's thought inappropriate, or needs rewriting, go ahead.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This is about this edit at Template:Citation Style documentation/url‎.
A maintenance message is not an error message. To display maintenance messages, editors must enable them using the css specified at Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display. Are you using Navigation popups? That tool does not obey css rules and so displays the maintenance message on hover. The generic popup does obey css rules so the normally hidden maintenance messages are not displayed in the popup on hover unless they have been properly enabled.
I will undo your edit at Template:Citation Style documentation/url‎.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for response and revert. The documentation doesn't make any suggestion about whether adding |url-status=live without an |archive-url= is appropriate; should there be any preferred option? I won't do anything else. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. At the time of original insertion. all URLs are presumed live, so adding the parameter then may or may not be deemed overkill. Establishing a relationship between |url-status= and |archive-url= when the URL is not live may prompt editors to add an archived version. But I don't see any utility in generating any kind of message, maintenance or otherwise, when there is no |archive-url= and there is |url-status=live. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Pol098: It should be documented that using any value of |url-status= is incorrect, unless the citation includes an |archive-url=. (I thought it was, somewhere, but I'll have to look.) The reasoning is that Wikipedia can never make statements about the "current status" of a URL in citations (since that status can change at any moment, and the parameter would not be updated), so in fact we don't do that because it's not what |url-status= means.
|url-status=live actually has nothing to do with the status of the URL itself, really, its sole purpose is to communicate to an |archive-url= parameter that it should allow the |url= parameter to remain the primary link for the citation, rather than being relegated to a "the original" link with the |archive-url= displayed as primary. So |url-status= is merely a secondary argument to |archive-url=, like |archive-date=, that controls how the citation is formatted. The same way an |archive-date= without an |archive-url= would be a mistake (it makes no sense whatsoever), a |url-status= without an |archive-url= is a mistake for the same reason.:::|url-status=live/dead is probably misnamed, and should have been called |archive-status=backup/primary or something similar. (With |archive-status=primary being the default, corresponding to the default |url-status=dead today.) That would better communicate both the true meaning of the parameter and its relationship to |archive-url=. That'd be a hard thing to change now, but might be worth it anyway just to clear up the confusion that results from the generic |url-status= label. FeRDNYC (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @FeRDNYC and Trappist the monk for useful contributions. FeRDNYC's explanation makes so much sense, though I don't know any of the background, that I propose another edit to the documentation in place of what I originally said. I will consider adding it if there are no comments to the contrary, and nobody else has done it (probably better).

The |url-status= parameter should not be used (with any value) unless a (dated) |archive-url= has been provided. Wikipedia never knows the current status of a URL, whatever it was when a citation was created.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature and purpose of |url-status=. It is a secondary helper parameter, and its value, following the norm of CS1 templates, was never expected to be automated or dynamic. It is a static value (including a default static value), valid at the time of a related URL-based edit, that may trigger a change in the presentation of some URL-based parameters and other associated parameters. Granted that is not documented clearly, but your proposal makes things worse, and misrepresents the issue. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand what url-status is for; I don't see how to word this very briefly in documentation. My wording won't actually make usage worse - it should discourage anyone who reads it from using it for non-archived references, but I'm the first to agree that others can do better. Describing it as a " a secondary helper parameter", while correct, requires quite a bit of explanation to an editor seeking simple guidance. How do you, 68.132.154.35, or anyone suggest this should be worded in documentation with the purpose of discouraging misuse? "It should be said this way" is useful; "it shouldn't be said that way" is not. Beat wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It can definitely be worded better. However, the responses only referred to your proposed edit. Also, is it worth anybody's time and effort getting involved in this any more than cursorily? For instance, imo your proposal approaches this from the wrong angle. A rational design would simply make the parameter dependent on the presence of any URL-based parameter, not just one of them, and condition its value range accordingly. The current blinkered design and implementation is reflected in the documentation and obviously generates equally confused/confusing contributions such as this section or the RFC to rename the parameter, as if the name was the fundamental problem here. Good luck in your endeavors! 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It can definitely be worded better. - so how about some actual suggestions, or even edit the documentation appropriately? is it worth anybody's time and effort getting involved in this any more than cursorily? Cursorily is my aim, add a sentence to the documentation to reduce the instances of unneeded live statuses, not the "proper solution" proposed.

Where I'm coming from: editing articles I find warnings in the edit preview. There is no information on which of the huge number of references is at fault, or how, and many warnings don't show as red messages in the references. While I suppose there are better ways to find the errors, I haven't gone about this systematically, but simply tried hovering over each reference number in the preview, which is tedious. It would be a minor improvement if editors were encouraged not to add unnecessary statuses, rather than think that it is "helpful". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no information on which of the huge number of references is at fault. Not in the yellow preview-message box, but every cs1|2 template that contributes to the green messages in the yellow preview-message box emits its own warning message where the template is rendered. This template emits the warning message for |url-status=live without |archive-url=:
{{cite book |title=Title |url-status=live}}
Title.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
If you do not see the maintenance message at the right end of the line above, you need to enable message display for which, see Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@68.132.154.35: It is a secondary helper parameter, and its value, following the norm of CS1 templates, was never expected to be automated or dynamic. Well... I mean, except for the bot we have running around, making automated changes to that and other parameters. FeRDNYC (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
What CS1 is about, and what other scripts do with it, are different subjects. In this case, the particular script is helpful. As stated above, the problem is with the design and implementation of |url-status=, not with the archive parameters or any script that applies them. In any case, "dependent variable" does not necessarily mean "dynamic variable". 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC:@Trappist the monk: I have added the following unexplained instruction to the documentation, which I think follows the spirit of this discussion without going into unnecessary detailed explanation. I am sure it will be deleted or corrected if there is disagreement. The |url-status= parameter should only be included if an |archive-url= is set.

Thanks for the suggestions on revealing CS1 messages. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Gale problem

While trying to improve the article Morris Bishop, I am, for the first time, using Gale online (more specifically, via the Wikipedia library). And having a slight problem of referencing.

In Wikipedia Library, I select Gale, and then: "Gale in Context: Biography" | search for "Morris Bishop" | click on "Bishop, Morris" | "Biographies (1): Morris Bishop; From:Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors" -- and I arrive at the page I'm now using and wanting to cite. Briefly, this one page is laid out: "About this person | Personal information | Career | Awards | Works | Sidelights", etc. (Contrary to what one might expect, "Sidelights" is by far the longest and most interesting section.) Its URL is, for me, a monstrous thing starting "https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org": obviously unusable for a reference to an article. Near the foot of the page, we read "Gale Document Number: GALE|H1000008881". I add "{{Gale|H1000008881}}" to my reference. Mediawiki interprets the business part of that as "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CH1000008881">H1000008881</a>".

Using a different browser (with no Wikipedia or Library log-in) to click on that link, what I get is truncated: "This is a preview. Get the full text through your school or public library." This is to be expected. But what I don't expect is truncation at both ends: the humdrum stuff near the top of the page, above "Sidelights", is all cut. It looks as if I've incompetently given the wrong reference (not to "Morris Bishop" but instead to "Morris Bishop: Sidelights") or am providing a bogus "source".

Of course Wikipedia can't control the method by which Gale chops off material that's not free to everyone for the asking. But I wonder if apparently mistaken links is a known irritation, one for which people brighter (or more caffeinated) than me can make good suggestions. (Template:Gale/doc is terse and says nothing relevant.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a complex issue and can be frustrating. I believe that it is probably caused by the nature of Gale's "In Context" products, which basically merge information from different databases. Also, another reason is that many providers store (or extract-on-the-fly) abstracts/previews in different properties. In this case, the information you want lives in Gale literature: Contemporary Authors, which is then presented via Gale: Biographies In Context (Gale product id "BIC") per your choice. This is a paywalled resource. The free preview however is stored in Gale: Academic OneFile (Gale product id "AONE"). Notice that the citation helper at the bottom of the Academic OneFile preview does not include a URL, unlike the full resource at Biographies in Context. If you actually log in to Gale, you can click at "Access Through Your Library" at the end of the preview text. This leads nowhere (404 error) because the actual full info is in a different database that is accessed differently. If you compare the Biography in Context URL with the 404 page at Academic OneFile, you will notice the query term &prodId (product ID) is "BIC" for your full reference, but "AONE" for the target of the preview's bad link to the full source.
Not much can be done. If you are technically inclined you can attempt to construct a custom OpenURL, or perhaps use other ways. Gale has relevant documents at "Gale Support→Tools→Technical Documents" (e.g. "How do I construct an OpenURL for Gale content?") with a bunch of info on accessibility and discovery. But this is also a paywalled resource. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Although you provide no simple solution (and of course don't claim to), IP, what you write explains a lot. Many thanks. Come September, I may be able to visit an actual university library and there plug myself into Gale in a way that's perhaps more expensive (to taxpayers, if not to me) -- and I could even just look in, and cite, the relevant codex among the hundreds making up Contemporary Authors. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

ref=harv in VE template parameter description

Description of ref parameter in VE for {{Cite journal}} (and possibly other Cite variants) give 'harv' as valid value, while it's deprecated (according to the Template:Cite_journal#Anchor) and causes display of Invalid |ref=harv error.

Edit: This concerns also the TemplateData description.

Discovered while editing:

Bibliography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Engine

(Side note: Template refbegin/end under VE should be searchable, finding one specific citation block can be tedious). MarMi wiki (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@MarMi wiki: It's valid, but it's not useful because simulating |ref=harv is the default action when the |ref= parameter is blank or omitted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't look like valid value:
Rojas, Raul (January–March 2021). "The Computer Programs of Charles Babbage". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 43 (1): 6–18. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2020.3045717. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) MarMi wiki (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The wording of the message is invalid, not the value. It should say something like "superfluous (harv is default)". It is properly a maintenance message, not an error, and of a fairly low priority. Imo, unnecessary. If it is documented (it is), the module could well stay silent/ignore this. 108.176.2.154 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The reason and consensus it is an error now was discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 76#ref = harv. Izno (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I see I was in there saying various things, mostly because I misunderstood various other things. But Trappist's rationale at that discussion for it being an error vs. a maintenance message doesn't cut it imo. This is unnecessarily intrusive. 208.253.152.74 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This means the TemplateData needs to be adjusted/fixed. Izno (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Error flagging request: name = "CNN"

I commonly see |first=Jane Doe |last=CNN because some scripts scrape author names badly. CNN correspondents sometimes have the byline "Jane Doe, CNN" which gets incorrectly parsed. "CNN" is not a "real" name and should be flagged when used in a name parameter (first, last, author, etc.). Thank you.-Ich (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This search suggests that in all of en.wikipedia there are fewer than 100 templates with |last<n>= or |author<n>= parameters that contain some form of CNN – no doubt, in this search there will be false positives. For so few, simply fix them and, if the scripts [that] scrape author names badly can be identified, report the issue to the scripts' authors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you; I had no idea you could do that in the search.-Ich (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Citing web pages which have moved

Often, when I go to update a dead citation (especially to a news article), I find both that there is an archive of the originally cited URL and that the same content is available on the live web at a new URL. I then have to choose which to use in the new citation.

It's valuable to cite the live new URL, because it:

  • makes clear that the content is still available,
  • is considered more verifiable,
  • reduces unnecessary load on archiving services, and
  • may have more accurate publication information (eg).

It's also valuable to cite the archived original URL, because it:

  • makes clear that the content was originally published at another location,
  • makes it possible to verify the content as originally published or cited,
  • is more stable than a live link (especially one known to have changed), and
  • may have more accurate publication information (eg).

I would therefore prefer to cite both. It is possible to do this by supplying the former as url and the latter as archive-url—but it seems misleading. Using archive-url to point to an archive of a different URL than url is perhaps within the letter of the documentation, if you consider similar content at a different location to be the same "page", but certainly not in line with usage.

Might a new value, moved, be introduced for the url-status parameter, to render as live but with the text "Archived from another location" rather than "Archived from the original"?

Failing that, is there a consensus on what option (live, archived, or both) to prefer in these cases? In the past, I have used the live URL except where the archived URL was more accurate, but I'm not quite satisfied about it. 2601:240:D200:FEF:82FA:5BFF:FE19:F8E4 (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the archive is trusted, I would not worry too much about it. An accessible link (archive/original) verifies the wikitext; that is sufficient, and if the moved original is unchanged, the archived version still reflects the content. The option |url-status=moved is interesting. It may provide meaningful maintenance info to editors and incentive to rewrite the citation with the new live link and a new archive link reflecting it. 108.176.2.154 (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I've run into this frequently lately. Often the archived link has deficiencies such as broken links to other pages or only shows what was available without a subscription at that time. I've usually replaced the |url= and |archive-url= with the new |url=, but that may be a mistake. I'm curious about other opinions. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
One trick I've found helpful when dealing with archives of paywalled sources is to check multiple archive sites. archive.today in particular seems to have more complete archives of paywalled media sources than other archive websites. I don't know if this is something unique to their archival process, or if it is dependent on people archiving using their browser extension, but in any case the result is that they more often have the full text of a paywalled source available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
EC:The only thing that might reasonably be missing/different from a moved URL (if it's a news post or static report that tends not to ever update in content after the first few days -- blogs and software releases I'd be extremely cautious about ever updating) is photos, which are nowadays archived by iarchive, but often foregone by news archives, and can sometimes be important for context in the supported text. In general I'd support moving to a live version if it's truly live and not a mediocre-quality site archive (since in theory that reduces load to iarchive and increases traffic to the origin site which as content providers is hopefully good for them), once the editor verifies that nothing is missing in its support the surrounding text (and in all repeat citations), which is a useful practice anyway. Once that's done, might as well remove/update the archive link. I don't know if I believe that |url-status=moved would naturally be interpreted by a passing editor as a signal to check whether live site matches the text and if so remove the archive, etc., however. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the comments above have to do more with archive fidelity. I believe many archives will by default only store site/subdomain-local static content. Underlying "active" or dynamic content such as javascript, or the underlying links to images may not render, or may require special settings. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it's more of an issue with old archive storage, likely a size or throughput-based algorithm, especially pre-2008 or so. Today I cleaned up a 2002 iarchive citation that didn't store locally-sourced images rendered in simple html that could not have been more than 1MB in size (and I suspected they were much much smaller). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
There's no reason that an archive and the URL its archiving must point to the same "site" i.e. |url=new-example.com and |archive-url=archive.com/old-example.com is fine, though it may be confusing to other users.
I would personally suggest that if you are going to change |url= that you should also update |archive-url= to avoid the potential confusion, in the vast majority of cases.
The only pro of the 4 listed for using the old archive URL that I think is an actual pro (but only in some cases) is makes clear that the content was originally published at another location, but only in the case where the new domain does not match the old. If the BBC moves things around, that's not a big deal for original publication. If website A buys website B and then continues to publish website B content without making it obvious, then that's a case for it being a pro.
I definitely do not think a new accepted value to |url-status= is necessary or valuable. In such a case as this I would say the content was |url-status=dead if the old URL cannot be accessed and |url-status=live if it can be. Izno (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Allowing the url-access parameter for citations with no URL but a DOI

Currently, when setting the url-access parameter to url-access=subscription for studies that require a scientific journal subscription it shows the error {{cite journal}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help) if the citation does not have an URL set. (And User:Trappist the monk has removed (example) this useful metainfo because of this error.)

However, if the citation has a DOI, an URL is not needed. If the URL provides no advantage over the DOI (such as in the case of full-text versions of a subscription-requiring study on ResearchGate), then I even prefer setting only the DOI and doing so also seems to be more in line with the current MOS. The reasons for that are or include that the URL is redundant in these cases, that it's decreasing page size and is preventing a "sea of blue" in the References section.

Hence, setting url-access should be possible without showing an error if a DOI is set. Adding an additional parameter doi-access wouldn't make sense. Could you please change the template accordingly? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Without |url=, |url-access= has no meaning. Attempting to somehow connect |url-access= to |doi= (or any other normally restricted identifier) is semantically incorrect.
The rationale for the access icons is described at Help:Citation Style 1 § Registration or subscription required.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
There's seven other access indicators listed at Help:Citation Style 1#Access indicator for named identifiers, including one for |doi=, however they only accept the value free for some reason. Could that be extended to support the other values that |url-access= supports? This would allow the following citation example, taken from the diff linked above, to render without errors:
This is deliberately not supported. The default position for identifiers is non-free, so there is no reason to support the other values in the related access fields. Izno (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Why is that the default position? It's the opposite of how we consider |url-access=, and as such the two are quite inconsistent with each other. Would it not be more straightforward and understandable if they were both consistent? Not just for us editors who come to know the intricacies of we actually cite a source, but for the average reader who might consume them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is the opposite, because url-access is expected to be free. This is also deliberate. Izno (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This is inconsistent and unreasonable. Please add a non-free or subscription value for the |doi-access= parameter if you'd like to keep these separate. The exact same rationale as for Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required applies. The question "Why is that the default position?" has not been answered either. There is no reason to exclude a subscription-required-value and make an exception for citations that only have a DOI but very good reasons to do so including consistency. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This is neither inconsistent nor reasonable. We make the default the expected default for both readers and editors. For IDs, that's nonfree, for URLs, that's free. I.e. that's less text in the wikitext at the end of the day.
If you would like to mark a DOI as free, |doi-access=free. It's that simple. Izno (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The vast majority of url-holding parameter values link their associated title-holding parameter value to a free-to-read source; that is the norm. Similarly, the vast majority of identifiers link to access-restricted sources; that is the norm. We do not highlight the norm because that would just add visual clutter to article reference sections, especially identifier-dense reference sections like those found in scientific and medical articles. Readers are not stupid. They will learn quickly enough that unmarked identifiers link to access-restricted sources.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Izno Yes, it's not reasonable but it's also inconsistent. The expected default for IDs/DOIs is free. Furthermore, there is no icon for nonfree, only one for free. Moreover, readers (not even editors) know what the default is. I would like to mark a DOI as nonfree and that's not possible.
@Trappist the monk Source for this being the norm as of 2022? It's irrelevant anyway as readers a) often don't know the norm b) don't immediately see which type of citation it is (journal vs e.g. news url).
It's not visual clutter but a small and useful icon and having no icon set means nothing because editors and bots may not have checked the access level.
---
So again, there is no good reason to exclude a subscription-required-value and make an exception for citations that only have a DOI but very good reasons to do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You are perhaps looking for a peer-reviewed study that supports my 'norm' statements? There isn't one; the 'norm' statements are wholly anecdotal. Yeah, new readers often don't know the norm but I contend that readers chasing sources are not stupid; they will soon learn the norm. The type of citation is irrelevant; any cs1|2 identifier can be applied to any cs1|2 template (the preprint templates excepted; they support and require only their specific identifiers: {{cite arxiv}} and |arxiv=, {{cite biorxiv}} and |biorxiv=, {{cite citeseerx}} and |citeseerx=, {{cite ssrn}} and |ssrn=).
Is there a bot that [checks] the access level of sources?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Certain things are established and/or obvious. The expectation of anyone who uses a plain link (a common URL) on the internet is that it will land on a target without any link restrictions. The expectation is being proven correct daily, and in large part explains the internet's growth.
For citations, "links" and "identifiers" are quantities with distinct semantic and functional meanings. Because of this they (and their associated parameters) do not belong in the same parameter class. The parameter "url" and the parameter "doi" cannot be somehow bundled together. An http link may target anything, and its administration and maintenance is a wide open field. An identifier, especially one that is an established standard, is a specifically formatted item that is administered/maintained by a special body assigned the task. When it comes to content identifiers like DOI, which since its inception (and up to now), targeted specialist content that was not freely available, the expectation is that it will have some sort of access restriction. This is also largely proven correct daily. Identifiers may include http links (URLs) or may be required to create related links. That doesn't transform them to plain, common links.
Efficient software design must take into account real-world established norms and defaults so resources are not wasted reinventing the wheel or stating the obvious. Hence the defaults |url-access=free and |doi-access=restricted.
But. Effective (usable) software design means giving multiple logical real-world options to users. The proper way to go about this would be to:
  • Keep the status quo re: default values (ie no access signaling, defaults are implied)
  • For all other situations, make the full range of access options available to all access parameters
Especially for JSTOR, I have seen many situations where registration rather than subscription is required, and there is no way to signal this (JSTOR access policies have changed because of the pandemic; these changes may be temporary).
68.132.154.35 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk
  • No, for the best source you have for your claim. If not it's only your opinion and should be discarded. It doesn't matter what the norm is in your opinion. I disagree with your opinion then and as decisions aren't made based on plain voting numbers here WP:NODEMOCRACY you should have a good source and reasons to support your supported decision.
  • I also disagree with that readers will "learn" what things as detailed as the norm of access-level icons of Wikipedia citations per citation type is. I'm not even sure if you seriously believe this would be the case. Even if a small fraction of them could and would learn this over time, they'd still need to see which type of citation it is – e.g. journal vs book vs news article. A point already made but ignored or misunderstood.
  • Even if there is a bot that checks the access-level of sources, they a) don't check all pages b) don't / aren't able to check the access-level for all the sources on a page and c) may not have checked the page by the time the reader reads it. No icon set means nothing because editors and bots may not have checked the access level.
@68.132.154.35
  • "which since its inception (and up to now), targeted specialist content that was not freely available" is false. For example arxiv preprints and Zenodo also have DOIs.
  • Re "Hence the defaults" you didn't explain the "hence" part of it. You only explained that it's your opinion that these should be the default values, not why. People shouldn't reinvent the wheel and software should be efficient. Effective usable software is about usefulness and userfriendliness and giving them real-world options. Please see point #3 above.
  • When registration rather than subscription is required for some source it imo would have neither of the two access-levels and instead there should be a new access-level for (free) registration.
  • @both The default value for citations actually is neither free nor restricted but "unchecked". If it's checked it should have an icon, either the free or the locked one. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, you are mistaken. At its inception (in a book-publishing conference) the doi system was proposed as a way for data publishers to provide digital representations for data locations. Three main organizations applying it (DataCite, CrossRef and EIDR), to this day are professional-level entities, and the majority of content is still provided under licenses that require access restrictions, even if that is only registration. I don't know why you focus on preprints, which are temporary and very tenuously citable material anyway; out of over 250 million doi numbers they are a small minority. This is the real world. As is also the real-world expectation of any internet user that a URL link will land on a non-restricted target, which is also true.
We are not discussing the "default value of citations". We are just discussing the expected defaults of ancillary helper parameters for links and identifiers. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
You ignored my points. It doesn't really matter which type of content makes up the majority of DOIs overall. Again, default value for the access level of citations actually is neither free nor restricted but "unchecked" and readers don't easily which type of citation it is to infer the access level of those without a parameter set. See my above points. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe reply was given to what seems to be the main argument you raised. On the issue of calling the access level "unchecked", this doesn't make sense. The editor who inserts a link or identifier obviously knows the access level at the time of the edit, and declares it via the relevant parameter. Citations are static statements, valid as of the last revision. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • False, most editors don't set that parameter and autofill also doesn't set it (these two are probably related).
  • Also you didn't address my points just lengthened this debate which is derailed from actual arguments.
In sum, this parameter value should be added and the default value becomes "unchecked" (no icon). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

How to permanently get rid of useless web archive page

I ran across two useless web archive links recently, and I am hoping you can tell me how to mark them. I have read Help:Citation Style 1#Web archives but it did not contain the information I need.

What I want is: No web archive link is displayed to the reader. (I don't care if it's in the wikitext.)

What I especially want to avoid is:

  • I remove URL that was obviously added by a mindless bot, because no human would add a URL to a page that contains only a badly formatted copy of a page that says you need to login before you can read the information on that paywalled site.
  • The bot puts it back, because it found a match for the URL again, and it doesn't have enough brains to know that it's a completely useless URL to be matching.

Is there a "Dear little bot, leave this ref alone forever" setting in the CS1 templates? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If it's InternetArchiveBot, my understanding is that links can be blacklisted if you ask nicely and in the right place (over yonder). However, page that contains only a badly formatted copy of a page that says you need to login before you can read the information on that paywalled site. is not a valid reason to discount an archive, if in fact the archive is a valid archive. Izno (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
What does "a valid archive" mean to you? I don't see the point in linking to an archive page that supposedly verifies the article content, only it doesn't display anything even remotely related to the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A valid archive is one that archives the content and is intended to be used as an archive. Whatever is causing the technical issues doesn't stop it being an archive. That's no different to PAYWALL or geo-restricted sources still getting a presence in |url= or physical books being cited. Izno (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
An archive that only makes a copy of the paywall page, and does not archive the actual content of the url, is worse than a paywalled source: it is no source at all. It should not be linked, ever. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you talk to the bot operator?
You really should not say no human would add ...; they have done in the past and will likely do in the future...
Without a real-life example of what you mean, I can only guess that you want to know if there is a cs1|2 parameter that tells automated processes to 'leave this template alone'. There is not, and, if there were, the automated processes would need to be coded to support that parameter.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
IABot respects {{cbignore}}. Add it immediately following the cite template and the bot won't touch the cite forevermore.. but it would be good to know what the URL so that problem can be fixed. -- GreenC 00:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
If I run across them again, I'll share. All I can tell you right now is that it was in the mainspace in some article I looked at earlier this week (or maybe over the weekend).
Does Template:Cbignore work per-ref? I don't want something that will shut down archiving for a whole page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please look at the usage examples. :) Izno (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Browser history to the partial rescue.  ;-) Peritonsillar abscess#cite ref-Rosen's 19-0 is this ref, with archive added in this edit (a 'manual' version of IABot, that just happened to make the same sort of edit to six other articles during the same minute):
The link says things like "You will be automatically redirected to ClinicalKey in 45 seconds or click here to go to ClinicalKey now", which is not pointful when you are trying to figure out whether this book contains the word quinsy.
I want this pointless archive link removed permanently, without stopping anything else on the page from getting updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Now that you've provided a link to the URL of interest, this is in fact not a valid archive. ;) Izno (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the bad archive link and added the template. If this isn't the best way to handle this, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The assumption is the link was added by IABot in which case cbignore will work. But in this case the link was not added by IABot (not sure who) so cbignore won't work. Either way, I whitelisted the URL in the database (here) which will stop IABot from adding the link there or anywhere. This is a soft-404 they can be reported to WP:URLREQ (ie. WaybackMedic) for a full analysis of every URL in the domain, looking for similar links that redirect to that message page, and fix them in wiki and in the IABot database. -- GreenC 23:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The bad link was added by @The Eloquent Peasant with an edit summary that says "#IABot (v1.6) Tag: IABotManagementConsole [1.1]". In other words, it was added by IABot – just not technically in the bot account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I see missed that. In that case cbignore would have worked to stop the bot on that citation. -- GreenC 04:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a strong consensus for Citation bot to use {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}} in cases where online content doesn't appear in a print edition of a publication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Citation bot § RfC: Should you use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news?
 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, or newspaper, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{Cite web}}, or {{Cite magazine}}, or {{Cite news}}? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Should you use {{Cite web}}, or {{Cite magazine}}, or {{Cite news}}?
Reasoning to use {{cite web}} Reasoning to use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}
  • The websites are not the same as the physical publication.
  • Content published exclusively on the website of a publication is not the same as content published in the publication.
  • Many publications separate print editions, digital editions, and website content.
  • Specialised templates should only be used for print or digital editions of a publication. Not content on their websites.
  • Content published exclusively on the website of a publication is the same as content published in a publication.
  • The only difference between print editions, digital editions, and website content is the delivery mechanism.
  • Specialised templates should be used for any content published by the publication, via any delivery mechanism.
  • Using a specialised template ensures that the correct COinS metadata is embedded for reference management software.
  • For readers consuming the content via a browser, there is no difference between the generic or specialised templates.
The full past discussion on this can be found at here.
Example URLs for website only articles

Which citation template should be used for: https://ew.com/movies/doctor-strange-in-the-multiverse-of-madness-cast/

{{Cite web |last=Romano |first=Nick |date=December 10, 2020 |title=Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into ''Spider-Man 3'' |url=https://ew.com/movies/doctor-strange-in-the-multiverse-of-madness-cast/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211011901/https://ew.com/movies/doctor-strange-in-the-multiverse-of-madness-cast/ |archive-date=December 11, 2020 |access-date=December 10, 2020 |website=[[Entertainment Weekly]]}}

Romano, Nick (December 10, 2020). "Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into Spider-Man 3". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.

{{Cite magazine |last=Romano |first=Nick |date=December 10, 2020 |title=Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into ''Spider-Man 3'' |url=https://ew.com/movies/doctor-strange-in-the-multiverse-of-madness-cast/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211011901/https://ew.com/movies/doctor-strange-in-the-multiverse-of-madness-cast/ |archive-date=December 11, 2020 |access-date=December 10, 2020 |magazine=[[Entertainment Weekly]]}}

Romano, Nick (December 10, 2020). "Doctor Strange sequel confirms cast, will tie into Spider-Man 3". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.

Which citation template should be used for: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/25/twitter-elon-musk-deal/

{{Cite web |last=MacMillan |first=Douglas |last2=Siddiqui |first2=Faiz |last3=Lerman |first3=Rachel |last4=Telford |first4=Taylor |date=April 25, 2022 |title=Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/25/twitter-elon-musk-deal/ |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220425201853/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/25/twitter-elon-musk-deal/ |archive-date=April 25, 2022 |access-date=April 26, 2022 |website=[[The Washington Post]]}}

MacMillan, Douglas; Siddiqui, Faiz; Lerman, Rachel; Telford, Taylor (April 25, 2022). "Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 26, 2022.

{{Cite news |last=MacMillan |first=Douglas |last2=Siddiqui |first2=Faiz |last3=Lerman |first3=Rachel |last4=Telford |first4=Taylor |date=April 25, 2022 |title=Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/25/twitter-elon-musk-deal/ |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220425201853/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/25/twitter-elon-musk-deal/ |archive-date=April 25, 2022 |access-date=April 26, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}

MacMillan, Douglas; Siddiqui, Faiz; Lerman, Rachel; Telford, Taylor (April 25, 2022). "Elon Musk acquires Twitter for roughly $44 billion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 26, 2022.

Survey

  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}: I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that we should use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate for a source. I do not see a difference between content that appears in the print edition of, for example, Entertainment Weekly and content that appears on Entertainment Weekly's website. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}}: A website associated with a magazine or newspaper is a different entity from the print magazine or newspaper. Due to cost and space constraints, many articles are only published on the magazine or newspaper-associated website, but are not present on the print edition. As a result, it is inaccurate to state that an article that appears on a magazine or newspaper-associated is equivalent to an article from a print magazine or newspaper. Many print magazine and newspaper publishers also publish digital PDF-style editions of their magazines and newspapers, which would more accurately fit the description of an online magazine. A website associated with a magazine or newspaper is inherently a website, and websites should be cited using {{Cite web}}. Finally, {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} contain parameters not found on {{Cite web}} that are not applicable to articles published on magazine or newspaper-associated websites, such as |volume= and |issue=. There is therefore no substantial benefit to use those two templates over {{Cite web}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}}: much like online journals are journals, which should be cited with {{cite journal}}, online magazines are magazines, and should be cited with {{cite magazine}} template. This emits the correct metadata, and respects the principle of least surprise. It is also useful for our WP:MCW compilation, just like {{cite journal}} is useful for our WP:JCW compilation. {{Cite web}} is for general websites and other online sources that aren't covered by the other templates, per its documentation, and should ideally not be used for magazines. The same applies for {{cite news}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as WP:POINTy and malformed RFC by a small group of editors butthurt that their opinions were second-guessed by a bot, per earlier discussion. Also, the question is written in a way that presupposes that group's intended answer, that being published on a website is somehow different from being in "the print edition" of a magazine, as if such a thing always exists these days. And it fails to distinguish magazine content on the web site (for which the correct answer in my opinion is {{cite magazine}} regardless of print appearance) from other content that happens to be on the same site (like say an faq on subscriptions, which I think should use {{cite web}}) As such, the wording is too prejudicial to produce a meaningful result, and incapable of being answered in a way that would actually describe my position. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Nice try. There was consensus in the discussion above for an RfC (save for opposition from two editors) since participants were equally split on the issue. Falsely describing editors who disagree with your views as WP:POINTy and disruptive is deeply uncivil and not assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
A small group of people repeating the same points over and over and over and over again until everyone else gets tired and stops responding is not consensus for action, it is WP:BLUDGEONING. And this RFC is continued bludgeoning. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Multiple users expressed approval for an RfC, with only two dissenters with rather weak arguments. There is a legitimate reason to start an RfC, because the discussion above ended up with no consensus. To quote WP:BLUDGEONING, To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: at User talk:Citation bot#Why_do_we_need_an_RFC? I count five editors (including me) who agree that the RFC is a pointless timewaster.
So @David Eppstein 's complaint is true, and you are falsely accusing David of a false accusation.
On 13th June, @Sideswipe9th presented a big table of data[1] showing how @Citation bot makes hundreds of changes of template type per day. The three sites to which changes are opposed by @InfiniteNexus and the rest of the angry dozen from WP:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force account for less than 1% of all template-type-changes ... while nobody else joined in the earlier discussion to endorse the angry dozen Marvelites.
That is classic bludgeoning. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: The only users who have explicitly rejected the idea of an RfC are you and David. On the contrary, Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Sideswipe9th, Rlink2, and I were all explicitly in favor of one. You all had a whole month's time to suggest an alternate way to end this dispute, but you didn't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh dear. I could dig out all the diffs to show that you are misrepresenting the discussion, but to avoid overloading I will just present one: [2], where @Sideswipe9th writes I'm very heavily leaning towards what BrownHairedGirl has said; "that a small number of editors are making a mountain out of a molehill", as not only is the total number of reverts for any reason tiny, the total number of reverts as part of this dispute is even smaller
The reason why Sideswipe9th proceeded with the RFC is simply that @InfiniteNexus and the rest of the Angry Dozen were unswayed by the evidence that they are in a tiny minority, and continued their WP:BLUDGEONING. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The reason why Sideswipe9th proceeded with the RFC Somewhat this, but also of all the options that I saw available to resolve the issue, this was the least worst. Ignoring it was just going to keep folks angry at each other. All the references in all of the MCU articles getting tagged with {{cbignore}} also impacts on the work of IABot and I believe WaybackMedic, both of which are vital to ensure archives are added to sources to prevent link-rot. And if behavioural issues spiralled, I could foresee one or more highly acrimonious ANI threads being opened. I'd rather this issue gets resolved by a strong community consensus, than any of the other potentially worse options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Okay, but the rest of my statement holds true. Adamstom said, I think we are good to go per the latest comments at Sideswipe9th's talk page. Favre said, I still feel an RfC will be helpful in gathering consensus on how editors approach these sources and which citation templates they use. Rlink2 said, RFC it is then. Indagate said, Think RfC is probably best way to get a consensus, current discussion is lengthy and doesn't seem to be reaching a conclusion. And as a bonus, Gonnym said, They don't need your approval to start the RfC and this sub-section of yours is very condescending. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: v fine cherrypicking.
You selected the statements which support holding an RFC to put an end to your bludgeoining, and omitted several which do not support you. I am not going to get into posting every diff, but your blatant misrepresentation is an ugly followup to your assumptions of bad faith (e.g. [3] I feel like some editors are just trying to stall the RfC from happening) and your outrageous choice to attack me for complaining about a malicious accusation that the bot was engaging in vandalism BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Sigh, here we go again. I read through that discussion several times, and I reaffirm my prior statement that only two (or three, if you count Sideswipe9th) editors have explicitly said no to an RfC. I selected the statements which support holding an RFC because you and David claimed there was no consensus for an RfC, which is not true. I was setting the record straight, not cherrypicking. And once again, I never attacked you for your comments about Darkwarriorblake. My full quote was, Sure, it was a fair request to ask Darkwarriorblake to retract their claim about vandalism. But did you really need to add a snarky statement at the end? Notice how I conceded it was a fair request in the first half of the sentence? Constructive criticsm != attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I selected the statements which support holding an RFC because you and David claimed there was no consensus for an RfC
Oh dear, oh dear. I should not need to explain that if you want to demonstrate that there is a WP:CONSENSUS, then counting only the views on one side is not the way to do that. But indeed, here we go again: sadly, such basics do need to be explained in this case.
And again, your quoted comment about Darkwarriorblake reaffirms my point: you made no criticism of Darkwarriorblake, but chose instead to criticise my response to a nasty attack by Darkwarriorblake in which they repeated their bogus allegation of vandalism.[4]
My response[5] was OK, so either you have't read WP:NOTVAND ... or you have read it and want to make false allegations anyway. So much so that you repeat those false allegations. Not good conduct ... but you chose to call me snarky for noting that a repeated false allegation of vandalism is not good conduct. Boggle. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I should not need to explain that if you want to demonstrate that there is a WP:CONSENSUS, then counting only the views on one side is not the way to do that. – I agree. But to reiterate what I said, 5 users expressed approval for an RfC (with a legitimate reason) while only 3 did the opposite (by falsely claiming only a "minority" of participants wanted an RfC). You tell me if that's consensus.
Your quoted comment about Darkwarriorblake reaffirms my point – your "point" was I attacked you, not I criticized you. There's a difference. Yes, I criticized you, but I never attacked you.
You chose to call me "snarky" for noting that a repeated false allegation of vandalism is "not good conduct"  – apologies if I wasn't being clear, but I was referring to your comment that said, If you make utterly bogus allegations, no wonder you get laughed at. That sounds snarky to me, do you not think so? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. Two straw men. I did not claim that there was a consensus in that discussion, or that only a minority in that discussion wanted a RFC. I simply contested your false statement that only two editors objected to the RFC. And it's not three objectors; it's 4.
    I pointed out that the only edits being objected to were the few relating a few websites, so that it was clear that the vast majority of editors do not object to these changes.
    You however, continue to focus only on your group of a dozen angry editors from WP:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, falsely assuming that the wee group who got each other all angry on one project page are representative of the wider community ... despite the evidence that hundreds of similar edits are made by Citation bot every day, and only the 12 angry Marvelites object. I took that as a clear indication that the 12 Angry Marvelites are in a small minority, and nothing I have since leads me to reconsider that assessment.
  2. Attack, criticise; whatever. But you made no criticism of the editor who made a bogus allegation, and who repeated it when challenged. And here you are again, still making no criticism whatsoever of your ally who made the bogus allegation, and who repeated it again when challenged. That is classic tag-teaming conduct. You have now had at least five opportunities to clearly condemn the bogus allegation of vandalism, and your continued failure to do so does not paint a good picture of you.
    And no, I do not think that it is snarky to explain to someone who complains of being laughed at that repeating a grave and wholly bogus allegation of misconduct is likely to make people laugh at you. My response was harsh, but the allegation was very serious. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have a problem with Darkwarriorblake's comments, their talk page and ANI are both right around the corner. I'm not sure how my opinion on this matter is relevant. Per Sideswipe, silence is the weakest form of consensus. I also don't find it appropriate for you to disregard the opinion of a group of "Marvelites" just because they're from the same WikiProject taskforce. I am so fed up with this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I am fed up with this too: your continued creation of straw men is wearing.
  1. Your opinion on Darkwarriorblake is relevant because you chose to criticise me rather than him. You can remedy that if you want to, but it seems that you are still satisfied to act as the protector of a smear-monger.
  2. I do not disregard the opinion of a group of "Marvelites" just because they're from the same WikiProject taskforce.
    However, I do note that their complaint and their anger seems to be shared by nobody outside that group, which is a strong indicator that the 12 Angry Marvelites have created a prolonged drama out of nothing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} in the cases likely to be of main interest: online magazines are magazines, and online newspapers are newspapers, just like online academic journals are online academic journals. The argument that a print newspaper is a different entity from its online version relies on distinctions that don't matter as far as our policies are concerned: their stories are by the same people, under the same editorial supervision, held to the same standards. {{cite web}} can be the better option for content that happens to share a domain name, as mentioned above (a "Contact Us" page isn't a news story, for example, and Forbes "contributor" blogs aren't Forbes magazine). I share the concern raised above that this is not a well-formed RfC, despite (or because of?) the lengthy discussion that apparently led up to it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
To test this out, I just ran Citation bot on my sandbox. Apparently, it doesn't even change Forbes or Scientific American citations from {{Cite web}} to {{Cite magazine}} even if it's an article, but for this non-article from the Entertainment Weekly website, it did. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the bot can't always make the right decision going by URLs alone. Film at 11. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I know Citation bot isn't technically part of this RfC question, but this whole issue came about because of Citation bot's automated changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}} by default, as the bot cannot work out whether the web article is actually part of a physical or digital magazine or if it is non-magazine web content. It should be on the user who is adding the source to determine whether {{Cite magazine}} should be used instead. I have already elaborated on my opinions a lot as part of the previous discussion, I won't repeat all of that here unless someone asks me to. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not use {{cite web}} for any sources that can be otherwise classified. CS1, like most citation systems, cites sources by type of work, not by type of media. An online periodical work is a magazine. An online news agency or newspaper is a work of journalism. Outside of the present case, an online book/encyclopedia/image is a book, an encyclopedia or an image. Something found in a corporate/institutional/government website is information in a corporate/institutional/government promotional publication. And so on. Citations are structured to follow these conventions. That is why they include authors of works, dates of publication of works, etc. Citing by medium has no analog in the real world, except in the rare cases that cannot be classified otherwise. 68.174.121.16 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Change templates and/or citation guidelines per my comment below. If templates are web-exclusive, those are at the top of the visual hierarchy and print-exclusive at the bottom. If print-vs-web is tagged, the proper usage of such tags must be explicitly clear to every editor. Either way, for a site that prides itself on verifiability, the fact that we've been completely ambiguous in templates so far about whether we cite print or web news is inexcusable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Structured citations cite works, mainly by title, author and date, because that is how works are easily found. Any other relevant information, including the publishing medium, is secondary. The important primary citation elements are substantially related to the work type as magazine, book, image, recording or whatever. This general citation practice should, and largely is, followed by CS1, by its template applications, and by helper scripts such as this bot. 68.174.121.16 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought this was clear from below: The medium is critical if the substance of the source differs, which it almost always does in modern print journalism. The only fidelity you'll get is from digitized archives. Note also (browse ProQuest, say) that major papers such as NYT have separate archives for digitized print -- including modern articles -- and their online versions. Most editors will cite online versions, so most of the templates and instructions should be aimed toward that audience, but then explicitly telling editors how to cite print when they use print. This shouldn't be a foreign concept -- it's already widely understood that you must cite the correct ISBN for books for correct pagination (and edition/revision), especially in the case of EBooks. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
No, this is not how citations work. Primarily, sources are not classified by medium. Citations have to follow classification in the real world if sources are to be discovered easily. Emphasizing the publishing medium (at best a secondary or tertiary index) may potentially make the source harder to find and impede the speedy verification of wikitext. It also does not matter in this discussion whether newspapers have separate digital or print or whatever versions, any more than they have separate weekday and Sunday editions. Citations do not cite editions/versions. They cite works, with all other information being ancillary to the work. Such as, |edition=online. There is no "special" citation information in the real world about publishing media that could elevate that element to a point where templates should be named for it, no matter what some Wikipedia editors think. 66.108.237.136 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You do understand that the content in the online version of a modern newspaper is different than what is in the print version, correct? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Citations have been dealing with different editions of works (which may have differences in content) practically since their foundation. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and there are multiple checks in CS1 on a citation of a book, say, for the precise edition: edition=, isbn=, and sometimes publisher= and year. (And of course, an EBook version also lacks page numbers.) For general websites the check is date and access-date, and to my surprise most editors seem to have gotten used to recording access-dates. In both cases I've found that probably a majority of citations are verifiable, and if not the citation usually is fatally flawed in multiple ways. For journal articles there is a known rampant problem here (in parts of academia too, frankly) of not specifying whether one is citing the preprint or the version in the doi, because the only real check there is page number (and sometimes date). For online vs print news, there are about the same two potential checks: page number and date. Based on the examples of books and websites, a change in presentation and norms is for the most part all that's necessary, for the issue raised by this RfC in particular. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Cite news or cite magazine. cite web says it is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. Because we have cite news and cite magazine, cite web should not be used here. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Cite news or magazine - The feedback request bot brought me here. Looked at the documentation for each of the templates and cite web's documentation says it is a generic catchall for web citations that do not otherwise fit into other CS1 templates. Cite news, for example, is a CS1 template and web content is specifically listed as valid content for cite news. Since a news article would fit in cite news, cite web is, per its own documentation, not the appropriate template to use. The same with cite magazine. I admit that I'm guilty of using cite web when other templates would be more appropriate, but I think the answer to the questions raised by the RfC is that cite web should only be used when cite news or cite magazine would not apply; an online version of news is still news, and an online version of a magazine is still a magazine. - Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}: online newspapers are still newspapers, and online magazines are still magazines.
    This RFC is a timewasting drama created as the result of a few angry editors who got worked up about Citation bot's edits to refs to a small set of publications. They wouldn't take no for an answer, and made repeated allegations of bad faith: one of them even accused Citation bot of vandalism, and then others tag-teamed to attack me for denouncing the smear on the bot-owner.
    The core issue here is simple: the publishing industry is in transition to new media, but the nature of the publications remains largely unchanged.
    Take for example, The Guardian newspaper in London. For 100 years it was available only on paper. Some time in the 20th century, it also became available on microfilm, mainly for use in libraries. By the 1990s, it was also available on some commercial databases. In the mid 1990s, it began to publish some of its stories on the guardian.co.uk website, and by the early/mid 2000s the website's scope extended beyond that of the print edition: not just more frequent updates, but additional content. In 2011, it adopted a "digital first" strategy: in May 2021, former editor Alan Rusbridger described this as part of a revolution which had begun in 1993.
    Now The Guardian is published in several formats: as a print paper (tho less focused on breaking news), on its website theguardian.com, and as an app for mobile devices.
    But for all these technical changes, it is still a newspaper. It still publishes daily, still publishes news, still employs lots of journalists, still carries opinion pieces and editorial and reader's letters.
    Sure, its focus has shifted in response to the immediacy of the internet, but it has been through similar shifts before: a century ago, radio began to take over the role of breaking news headlines, and sixty years ago television became the primary medium for delivering pictures. A century before that, the arrival of the railways had allowed newspapers to expand their distribution way beyond one city. And along the way, several major advances in printing technology radically reduced the time involved to assemble sub-edited articles into a printed paper, pushing copy deadlines much closer to the moment when the paper reached the streets.
    Those who try to maintain the notion of some clear distinction between a print newspaper or magazine and its electronic formats are out of touch with the reality of 2020s journalism, and seemingly unaware that digital is just the latest step in a long journey of change. Their stance that it's not a newspaper article unless it is read on a printed page is an absurdity which denies the multiple-media nature of 2020s newspapers and magazines.
    Citation bot does a great job of deploying the various templates which format citations to various types of publications, and it is a great shame that so much energy has been wasted by a few editors whose fundamental error is to conflate the type of publication (newspaper, book, magazine, journal etc) with the medium of distribution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} per existing guidelines as mentioned above. A magazine, whether online or in print, is still a magazine; mutatis mutandis about newspapers. Imzadi 1979 → 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite web}}, It's notable that despite me having raised this issue many times that the CitationBot groupies have not notified me of this vote because they know I will not go the way they want which is a deliberate attempt to sway the vote. Websites are not newspapers or magazines, articles that appear online do not necessarily appear in print and vice versa and it's bizarre to me how strongly the citationbot groupies are fighting against what clearly so many people outside their sphere do not want. It's an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist, even more bizarrely trying to force upon the wider Wikipedia something they did not ask for. There does not seem to be much notification about this RFC to the wider Wikipedia but funnily enough those directly involved with the bot, with a specific agenda, are all fully aware of it. As print inevitably dies, we will still be citing website only companies as magazines and newspapers? How would that make sense. Citation Bot should be fixing existing references, not modifying them to something different entirely which seems entirely beyond its purview or purpose. The citationbot groupies aggressively defend their position as can be seen on the talk page history, they are unwilling in anyway to see any POV that is not their own regarding this issue and so it must be forced upon them that they are not to be mass changing reference types by pretending that digital, online sources, are somehow a print magazine or newspaper. EDIT: TO put this in perspective, Entertainment Weekly ceased publication 3 months ago, and it's been a website since the 1990s. It's been a website almost as long as it was a magazine and it will be a website longer than it was a magazine. Now that any article it publishes is digital only, are we still meant to be citing it to a magazine?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    You have a watchlist just like the rest of us. Additionally "articles that appear online do not necessarily appear in print and vice" is completely irrelevant, and doesn't change an online magazine into a non-magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't watch the page as I don't like to see the constant bullying going on. But you have ignored that I've just said Entertainment Weekly, as a magazine, no longer exists, and it was posted online pretty much from the outset. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    It exists as an online magazine. Which is what you constantly forget, hence the need to repeat the obvious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    Please note that Darkwarriorblake's accusations of bullying are malicious and unfounded.
    The only bullying which has occurred was that Darkwarriorblake accused @Citation bot (and by implication it maintainers @AManWithNoPlan) of vandalism. When pointed to WP:NOTVAND, Darkwarriorblake repeated te false accusation.[6]
    It is disgraceful that the bully Darkwarriorblake is trying to abuse this RFC as a place to try to invert history. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{citation}} That's what I do and I've never understood why we have a proliferation of media-specific templates when many sources are multimedia. For example, I get physical copies of The Times newspaper and especially look at its obituaries for notable deaths. I usually work from a clipping but, when citing this, add a URL for the web copy for the convenience of readers who can get past the paywall. This copy will then end up in various newspaper archives. And sometimes such obituaries are bound into books. A generic template which caters for such multiplicity seems best because it avoids arguments and provides alternatives for readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    • That's a nice idea, but it means that people have to be very careful about parameter choices, which is its own can of worm. Also, some combinations of the paramters that make sense are not allowed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
      I use the {{citation}} template routinely and have no trouble with it. Other experienced editors such as Johnbod don't use a template at all and just cite with plaintext in a natural way. The more the process of citation is complicated, the more difficulty it causes and the more of a barrier to new editors it becomes. See the KISS principle. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} per existing guidelines as mentioned above. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} according how the source describes itself. The medium is as irrelevant as whether the journalist wrote the story on a PC or a Mac. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} without rehashing all of my points listed in the past discussion at the CitationBot talk page, no where in current documentation for {{Cite magazine}} does it discuss "online magazines". In my opinion, based on the documentation of Cite magazine, that template should be used for your "actual" magazine issue publication and anything within it, be it in a print or digital "online" version. If you have an article published by the publication on their website (more so today than ever) that appears in no way shape or form in the magazine issue, Cite web or Cite news seems like the appropriate template per documentation that should be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite web}}: basic rule of referencing is to cite the actual thing you've read, content beteen web and magazine can be different. Indagate (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}. As others have noted, it's about the source, not the medium - the medium isn't relevant, because if it was, it would have some silly implications. Imagine two editors are adding content to a Wikipedia article, and both cite the same news article. One uses the physical medium version of an article, the other editor the web edition. If we want to be really strict, that means that the two editors should use/create distinct references, one to web and one to news/magazine, despite the source content being identical? That seems pointless, and worse, misleading, since the source is the same (barring some sort of online-only correction). Additionally, what about e-books? Those uncontroversially use cite book (I hope!). SnowFire (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Obligatory proviso: Note that in the cases where a newspaper/magazine owns or sets up a website sufficiently separate from their main product, then {{cite web}} is fine, since that's more a website that happens to be published by a company that is also a newspaper / magazine. (e.g. FiveThirtyEight is not the same as ABC News, despite being owned by them.) I don't know what citation bot was doing, but a change like that would be bad (e.g. using the "corporate parent" too seriously). SnowFire (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Note that in the cases where a newspaper/magazine owns or sets up a website sufficiently separate from their main product, then {{cite web}} is fine, since that's more a website that happens to be published by a company that is also a newspaper / magazine. This is a great comment that I think summarizes my feelings. And I'd take it a step further in asking (which is similar to a comment response I added below), if the website shares the same name as the newspaper/magazine, but what's being published on the website far exceeds what is included in said newspaper/magazine, should that be considered sufficiently separate to use separate cite templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use {{Cite magazine}}/{{Cite news}}. My reasoning stands not from the method of publication, but from the editorial process that is shared between the content published in print and on the web. I conceptualize {{Cite web}} as something published online with less editorial oversight than something reliable at RSP. E.g. WP:FORBESCON (ignore that it's generally unreliable--this is an example) I would use {{Cite web}}, NOT {{Cite news}}. I prefer {{Cite magazine}} over {{Cite news}} for magazines because the publication is a magazine. SWinxy (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use whatever. Online newspapers and magazines are web sources; they are also newspapers/magazines and news media. These categories are not mutually exclusive. As such, the jurisdictions of {{cite web}} and {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} overlap, with both being equally appropriate for online newspapers/magazines. They give exactly the same output as each other when used for online news sources under almost all circumstances (the only exception - and it's a rare one - is if you need to take advantage of a parameter that's available in one template and not in the others, in which case you should use the citation template that allows the use of said parameter). Seriously, people, don't we have more-important things to become mortal enemies about? 🤦‍♀️ Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 07:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • cite book, cite journal magazine, etc. The following examples show that cite book, cite journal magazine, etc. are designed to display all the information that a reader is likely to want to locate the source in whichever form is available, or which the reader prefers. This is not the case for cite web.
Cite magazine comparison
Wikitext {{cite magazine|access-date=October 18, 2013|date=2008|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021|first1=Myriam B. C.|first2=Guy R.|issue=6|journal=Energy Policy|last1=Aries|last2=Newsham|name-list-style=amp|pages=1858–1866|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|volume=36}}
Live Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. Vol. 36, no. 6. pp. 1858–1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Cite web comparison
Wikitext {{cite web|access-date=October 18, 2013|date=2008|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021|first1=Myriam B. C.|first2=Guy R.|issue=6|journal=Energy Policy|last1=Aries|last2=Newsham|name-list-style=amp|pages=1858–1866|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|volume=36}}
Live Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. pp. 1858–1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Notice cite web omits the volume information. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: So far I've only added the tech topic. I'm not sure if any of the other topics are appropriate, but if they are feel free to add em or let me know and I'll add them. We'll also want to notify any relevant WikiProjects if anyone has a list of those handy, and the village pump about this discussion, as it is relevant to a great many pages across enwiki. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Help talk:Citation Style 1, WikiProject Citation cleanup, WikiProject Academic Journals, WikiProject Magazines, WikiProject Newspapers Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC), updated Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: Updated the notices after the move, and I've struck the one for this page because that's now where we're holding the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Before I do so, do editors believe it would be considered WP:CANVASSING to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force of this RfC, as that is where this issue first arose? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because this is not specific to that WikiProject. WP:JOURNALS and WP:MAGAZINES should be notified though, since these are the projects associated with journals, magazines, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I've now notified WikiProject Academic Journals, Magazines, and Newspapers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: I've been thinking about this one for the past few days. While the discussion did spin out from Citation Bot's talk page, due to issues that were originally raised there, the RfC question itself is somewhat broader because it's asking specifically about the citation templates and not the bot's edits. Because of this and the header at BOTN, I'm not entirely sure this is within the scope of that noticeboard. I'd like to hear from others though on this.
Conversely, what do people think about notifying one of the Village Pumps? I'm not sure which of them to notify though, otherwise I likely would have done it already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: if you feel as though this RfC has not been adequately publicised, please feel free to suggest additional pages where we can provide that notification. There's still at least 23 days until the RfC tag expires, so that is plenty of time to provide further notifications. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Featured Articles should be asked, since the changes that this bot makes that introduce inconsistencies between citations have been cited as an issue in several FAs I've put forward. But requesting comments from the groups whose templates would BENEFIT from enforcing the improper use of cite newspaper and magazine to cite websites is not a fair RFC. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:FA has many pages, though I can't immediately see a noticeboard. Is there a centralised FA discussion noticeboard that I'm missing, or do you have a specific talk page where such a notification would be best placed? I'll make no more comment than I have above in the survey about whether or not one of the options is an improper use of the various citation templates, because ultimately that is what is under discussion here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I probably should have done this earlier, but to address Darkwarriorblake's concerns I will go ahead and ping all those who participated in the prior discussion but have yet to vote here (which should not be considered canvassing per WP:APPNOTE, which allows notifying Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)): @Abductive, AManWithNoPlan, Eurohunter, Favre1fan93, Gonnym, Indagate, John Maynard Friedman, Rlink2, Trailblazer101, Trappist the monk, and ZooBlazer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Physical print media will always require a different citation than the same item posted online (unless perhaps if it's an image scan). Anyone who has ever looked up a recent news article online can see the "Updated on xx-xx-xxxx" date and know that there will be some, however slight, difference from whatever went out in print. That said, WP citations from print media will likely be extremely rare relative to online-access media (with the diminishing exception of long-form books). So I ask what is the point of having "news", "journal", and "magazine" citation templates presented so prominently when it would seem for all online publication the proper template would "cite web" (or some variant for journals – remember print can be different there too). Really this requires rethinking how the template options are presented to editors: almost always the sources will be either print books or web-accessible. After those are introduced, then you can show the exceptional cases, such as A/V media and from-print citations. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this could be accomplished with just a type=Print source or similar specification tag, but the rules on how to cite, use citation templates, and for these types of tag have to be made crystal clear. Verifiability is not an MOS issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@SamuelRiv writes Anyone who has ever looked up a recent news article online can see the "Updated on xx-xx-xxxx" date and know that there will be some, however slight, difference from whatever went out in print.
That is partially true. Yes, online stories can be modified indefinitely; but many newspapers go through several editions each day of the printed paper. Sometimes the front page and several other pages of the final print run can be almost entirely different from that day's first edition.
Some newspapers, such as the UK's Daily Mail and Daily Express run radically different version of the same story in different regions, with the English edition denouncing as a outrage something which the Scottish edition cheers in the same front page slot.
So the variability applies to both media, just to a different degree.
The way to deal with this is simple for online sources: to include with each ref an archived copy of the source as used for the article. I have been doing this for years, and it should be standard practice; the use of an unarchived (and hence modifiable) sources should be strongly deprecated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Right, obviously you cite the edition -- if something other than the national/syndicated edition -- when you cite print news. It is a known historical problem that most newspapers only microfilm one of their daily editions, which excludes some articles, though libraries sometimes do have different editions archived. I'd say it's one of those cases where the internet took a problem that was more of an idiosyncrasy in the past, limited just to big papers and simply resolved with a library visit, and made it far more pervasive. Now even the crummiest local or school papers update their stories many days after publication, so edition control is no longer just an issue for urban giants. Of course thanks to iarchive it's often possible to recover several intermediate versions if necessary. I'm not implying the old days were better -- I mean they were for journalism, but not at all for this reason. But this is getting quite off topic.
The point is that if someone, for whatever reason (e.g. a lot of freelance work is not archived online per Tasini), is citing a print source for WP to the exclusion of an electronic version, the procedure and template has to be clear for that purpose. The misunderstanding between the two sides that is driving this RfC is in part that one side is saying essentially, "What are cite news and cite magazine for if not for print sources," while the other is saying, "How does that make sense with how the templates are used in practice?" Given that the number of citations from print sources (aside from books) is a tiny minority, I think the variety of templates offered to the users should reflect that. But the instructions for use should be presented clearly -- "If you are citing print, this is the method" -- and the templates themselves should in turn be less ambiguous in their documentation.
And if your argument is that we should prefer online-accessible sources, then I completely agree. Of course if an editor is replacing original citation information they have to check that the citation still verifies what is attributed to it (which is just good practice for citation maintenance anyway because the prevalence of citation decay and plain misattribution is pretty unsettling). And of course the reason this RfC is here as far as I understand are enthusiasts who are using print sources and don't really have an adequate alternative. And then you have all the print books that are used, the plethora of English-language print from just this century that still hasn't been digitized. And if you want any good historical material for anywhere else in the world, it's going to be a long long time before anyone has the inclination to digitize that stuff. It's just something that has to be addressed. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@SamuelRiv: no, I am not arguing that we should prefer online-accessible sources. Many fine scholarly sources are not online, and in my view Wikipedia is far too tolerant of low-quality online sources.
I am simply noting that while the move online has (as we seem to agree) massively increased the modification of articles, most of the problems can be resolved by the simple good practice of archiving the page as cited. Citation decay is rampant, but we already have all the tools in place to prevent decay of most online refs. Sadly, many editors think it is acceptable to add a bare URL as a ref, and there is no systematic effort to discourage that. Few editors routinely archive the citations they add, and I have several times faced angry responses from editors who think that the archive data is clutter.
The variability of printed newspapers is less easy to track. It's not just a matter of national/syndicated versions; each edition may change in the course of a print run. As a young policy wonk in the political system, I often used to note how the first edition copy I purchased on my way home at midnight was significantly different from that which my housemates purchased in the morning. And most newspapers are far from clear in identifying what edition the reader holds in their hands.
After a year of working full time on refs, my conclusion is that WP:Verifiability does not in practice carry anything remotely like the weight that it should, or that it purports to carry. It's not just that we tolerate widespread use of newspapers and magazines rather than insisting on scholarly sources; we are very lax in how sources are cited.
In my first few weeks at a university humanities course, our twice-weekly tutorial papers were mercilessly shredded for failures in citation. They were returned in front of the whole (smallish) class, with fierce criticism of any failure to attribute or any lack of completeness in the citation. It was brutal, but it worked. It seems to me that very few en.wp editors have ever received such invaluable training in the centrality of citations to scholarly writing.
Here on Wikipedia, we gently treat wholly a unsourced addition as a minor lapse which might merit a {{citation needed}} tag, while bare URLs and other vague waves at sources are rarely reproached, and the widespread practice of citing a long book or PDF without a page number is almost never rebuked. Instead of telling newbies firmly that full and accurate citations to high-quality sources are the absolute basic standard required of any contribution, WP:BITE is thrown at those who try to uphold good practice. Heck, this whole RFC arose out of some editors focused on refs to three magazines: Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, and Billboard. They are better than blogs, but would not be acceptable as sources of fact in academic work. Heck, we even have hundreds of of thousands of articles with references to user-generated sites such as IMDB and Ancestry.com, and to social media.
So long as we tolerate such low standards, I fear that the energy involved in precise attention to the nuances is misplaced. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I applaud your sentiment; people should not get through high school without being able to cite properly. Alas, adding a archive reference to every link is not currently possible. I have tried to persuade archive.org to archive pages off the Wikipedia feed (and when that did not work, I tried to get WMF to buy archive.org). I do feel that we should be able to speedily delete unsourced articles, but WP:PRESERVE is the policy that says that we must gently treat a wholly unsourced addition as a minor lapse which might merit a {{citation needed}} tag. If you want to start an RfC to repeal or rewrite it, you have my support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Hawkeye7, but it seems to me that the culture of patronising newbies by tolerating unsourced or poorly-cited additions is very deeply ingrained. So I don't see much point in starting an RFC which would just descend into an acrimonious bout of shouting from those who don't want to be held to anything remotely near basic scholarly standards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

David Eppstein I wanted to address and query one point you raised above with respect to the RfC being malformed, specifically the question written in a way that presupposes that group's intended answer. As is clear from my contributions in the past discussion, I drafted a not insubstantial amount of the RfC and how it was presented. I did this because, per my comments in #Why do we need an RFC? I saw no other way to address an intractable dispute between editors that was spilling over into the article space. I was open to, and acted upon feedback from many contributors both in favour of the transformations of the bot and who are opposed to it. As there was a period of 30 days between the posting of the second draft, and the opening of the RfC, why did you not voice any concerns about the question being leading or presupposed towards an intended answer? I would happily have tried to address those concerns during the drafting period, as while my opinion is firmly in that the bot's edits are fine and correct, I wanted to be as fair as I possibly could to both sides of the argument. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: - For the record the feedback request bot brought me here so that question was my first interaction with what's going on in the discussion. I think it's very neutrally worded and after getting a better perspective on what the various talking point are, is a good summation. - Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh: thank you for the kind words. While I obviously have my own views on the situation, I wanted to be as fair as possible to both sides of this disagreement. It's also why I'm trying to be proactive in addressing issues as they arise, as ultimately I want this to be the strongest possible consensus no-matter the outcome, because I want to see this issue resolved without further acrimony where possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've seen a few editors opine on this above, and wanted to address this directly. The issue of whether or not the website of a publication, eg Entertainment Weekly or The Guardian, is the same as or different to the print edition of the publication when it comes to citations is fundamentally the locus of this dispute. This is an important question to consider across enwiki as print media continues to decline, and more traditionally print only sources like newspapers and magazines become website only. It is clear from the discussion above that there are editors who believe that using {{cite magazine}} for Entertainment Weekly, or {{cite news}} for article content on their websites is appropriate, and it is also clear that there are editors who believe that only {{cite web}} is appropriate. This RfC is best thought of, in my opinion, as a measuring stick to gauge what the community consensus is on this issue, and it is not an appropriate discussion to be remarking on behavioural concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. That in my eyes is what I hoped to gain clarity on. Sure, an "online magazine" is a magazine, but where does the classification distinction come up, when you have more and more content released from these publications that aren't actually featured in their "magazines"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Especially in the cases where the publication has an "online magazine" that is separate from their website and the content between the two is different, which is basically where this discussion started. Many of the editors who has responded to the RfC have not addressed this part of the issue, which was a concern of mine when drafting the RfC question. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That seems almost a philosophical question. Do you consider the website of a publication to be separate from the publication? Or is the website of a publication another distribution mechanism for the publication's readers? Does is strictly matter from our perspective of citing a source if one format of a publication has content exclusive to one of it's delivery mechanisms? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Also I think it's possible to infer from some of the answers. Take SWinxy's contribution, it's pretty clear that if you were citing an article on the website of a magazine or newspaper where the website shares the same editorial standards, you would use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate.
I could also reverse the question. Using the EW example above, why do editors like Favre1fan93 and yourself see that as not being published by the magazine? Why is the website of the publication different from the publication itself? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Because if you are to define what a magazine is (a publication of various articles "bound" in issues or volumes), if a web article published by someone like EW doesn't appear in that "bounded" magazine (being it on physical print paper or a digital/scanned version), how can we call that a "magazine"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's the sole universally accepted of a magazine, and it pretty much excludes online magazines that are delivered via website instead of PDF or some other ebook container format. And while all print magazines will likely have issues (typically numbered or date delineated), not all will have volumes. Are print magazines without volumes less of a magazine than one that does? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps my quick definition wasn't the best, but there is, and I think should, be a distinction between material presented within an issue publication (choose your "container" method of delivery), and then a web article that simply is not part of such publication. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
a web article that simply is not part of such publication I can't agree with that. Sticking with the EW example, content on ew.com is subject to the same editorial standards as their former print edition, and is published by the same organisation. This is also true for content on Variety, Billboard, and TIME. As such I do not see any distinction between an article that is published only on that publication's website, and an article that is published only on that publication's print or ebook container. It is fundamentally the same publication, written by the same authors, edited by the same editors, and held to the same standards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
But there is a difference to them, they are deciding what content goes in their actual magazine (physically published or digitally published) and what content will just go on their website. We aren't saying there is a difference in quality, just that there is a difference, and using {{cite magazine}} with the |magazine= parameter to source information that they didn't put in their magazine just seems incorrect. As pointed out above, {{cite magazine}} and the other more specific cite templates include parameters that are specific to their respective media, they are designed for sourcing information from that media. If I have never read EW magazine and I am just getting information from ew.com that was never included in any (physical or digital) magazine publication and does not need any of the special magazine parameters that {{cite magazine}} was designed to provide, then why should I use {{cite magazine}}? The answer seems to be that the metadata in {{cite magazine}} is required for such a citation, but that metadata is incorrectly saying that the information comes from a magazine. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Note As the RfC tag has now expired, and the last contribution to the discussion was on 13 July, I've made a closure request at WP:CR so we can wrap things up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Edited collections and cite encyclopedia - a review

Edited collections of texts that do not fit the mold of dictionaries and encyclopedias are not obviously connected to the template or aliases of {{cite encyclopedia}}. Instructions on its use in this forum are repeatedly contradictory. If the collection is of texts by different authors/dates, such as in a published book of journal articles (a very common citation on WP) or scholarly encyclopedia, and multiple articles are being cited in the same collection, then there is no documented or easy way to do repeated citations from the same collection, in spite of several requests for a means to do so. (The documentation only demonstrates citing repeated dictionary entries, all with the same editor/author and date.)

For reference I am cleaning Quran which uses several articles from OUP "encyclopedias" (which are edited collections of scholarly articles), and thus has to handle this repetition in one way or another.

Cite collection has been requested before. A redirect is inadequate because it still requires (indeed it is enforced by Citation Bot that |work= become |encyclopedia= or |dictionary=, and there is no |collection= or suitable alias. An alias is not essential to metadata, though it helps a machine in edge cases, and it makes it even more clear to users (especially new editors not familiar with the depths of Help_talk:CS1) that "encyclopedia" can and should refer to any edited collection.

One solution is to rewrite the entire citation for each article or entire encyclopedia entry. This keeps the metadata in one place, but expands base code significantly in long articles. There is a point in which that detracts from the user experience, possibly in which they realize the same core source is being cited at different locations and they have to retrieve it multiple times. Another is to allow for partial, incomplete "entry" citations with metadata that can then cite the main collection Harvard-style after. I found that as far as I can tell the following sequence produces no errors, but I imagine corrupts the metadata:

{{cite encyclopedia |author=BobRoss |article=BobbinForApples |encyclopedia={{harvnb|Edwards|1900}}}} ... ... {{cite book |editor-last=Edwards |editor-first=J. |title=AppleCollection |date=1900 |publisher=AppleCo}}

Of course we could just write a wrapper for {{cite encyclopedia}} that adds |collection= and possibly others as aliases. But it's not even a matter of changing CS1 code, just the string whitelist and alias lists, so not even worth waiting for a version update.

An alias in combination with a {{cite collection}}/{{cite contribution}} or similar redirect would be ideal, and since most (appropriate) citations within edited collections are of (secondary) scholarly articles and not short unsourced (tertiary) encyclopedia or dictionary entries (excepting dictionary entries in the leads of some articles for pronunciation etc.), I would also suggest that {{cite contribution}} or whatever is chosen be the primary template on the documentation and {{cite encyclopedia}} be a redirect. (That said, since the documentation says we are using this to cite an article within an edited collection and not the collection itself, perhaps "cite encyclopedia" should instead redirect to {{cite book}} following a bot sweep?)

Adding one alias is an easy fix, but it also requires changing two lines on the documentation. I have been directly told the documentation has not been changed in a decade and is fine the way it is and will not be updated, so I don't know how feasible this is.

Now I'm going to do a partial review of previous requests, and this is going to pick on Trappist the monk a lot simply because they answer a lot of threads (and have contradicted the documentation and have been contradicted by others who have been contradicted by others still).

Trappist's 2021 recommendation of using the title of the dictionary in |title= is not documented (and counter to the documentation headings and previous recommendations that {{cite encyclopedia}} is for articles within collections and {{cite book}} is for standalone published titles (whether collections or not).) Again the user at the end of the thread asks for documentation to be clarified.

Trappist recommends cite book for a published collection of journal articles using |chapter= for an individual article. Another editor recommends {{cite encyclopedia}} later. Other editors call the journal article a "chapter", further confusing terminology.

Trappist recommends cite book using |contributor= and |contribution= for the individual articles. (This of course does not work as revealed in yet another thread) They then recommend {{cite web}} for the OUP online version, which doesn't really help matters and has been disfavored. IPs and other users call out the documentation. IP 72.43.99.146 says: The documentation is inconsistent and confusing, but sometimes this results from design flaws, such as the dual use of |title= as remarked. Not that this hasn't come up before, it has, several times in the past 5 years (or more). Fixing these flaws (there are several) should be the first order of business. In my mind, this is much more pressing than adding nice little icons, or making sure that machines can exchange metadata, or making the native citation system comfortable for users of other systems. [2016-08-28]

Does BEBOLD apply? If I thought I could change anything here I would, but all indications from everybody I've talked to suggests that's not the case. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I always use {{harvc}} -> {{cite book}} (or {{cite encyclopedia}} or similar) to deal with multiple citations from the same work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
So it's fine if I add the |collection= alias then? And change the documentation? And move {{cite encyclopedia}}? Or is this not going to be discussed? And {{harvc}} works well in many (most?) cases but it needs updating and improved parameter support, but it doesn't address the other issues raised above. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I chose not to reply in this discussion when it became clear that the primary purpose was to introduce a rant against me. I don't need that in my life so I had hoped that it would fade away into the archives.
I would oppose a move of {{cite encyclopedia}}; it is a long-time native cs1 template. If you want to make a {{cite collection}} redirect I do not object but I think that {{cite collection}} and |collection= are too vague. Citing a article/chapter/section/whatever in an edited collection of such things is routinely accomplished with {{cite book}} or with {{cite encyclopedia}} so I see nothing here that needs fixing.
Documentation can always be improved. If you know how to improve the cs1|2 documentation, please do.
You are here complaining about {{harvc}} yet never once have you posted at that template's talk page; why is that?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I reformatted harvc's template's documentation last week, and I haven't yet sat down to learn the module. Noting here that it needs work is to convey that its current existence does not solve the issues raised with repeat citations within a collection. Furthermore, no amount of modification to an outside template solve all the issues with {{cite encyclopedia}} raised in this thread, particularly in usability and documentation. And I said in the thread why I mention you so much: because in my effort to collect all the previous threads on this topic (something akin to a mini-'literature review', but more just so that everyone's on the same page and everything's in one place) I have found, in each thread of relevance to this topic, that you are replying with usage guidelines, typically without anyone else doing the same. Therefore, you are representing what is as near as I can tell to the usage recommendation for this template those particular instances in time. This is important, because when the threads are reviewed, as I note, there are contradictions with documentation, with other maintainers, and with your own previous comments. I pick on you because you are the one commenting most frequently in every thread to give usage recommendations. Maybe if I was picking on some other aspect of the documentation in the archive you would never appear at all, but on this one you do. Nobody here wears a "I am the official representative of such-and-such" badge, so I can't instead refer to you through metonymy, like "CS1's official usage recommendation on this date was...". Don't take it so personally.
I don't know how you can look at previous threads and see nothing that needs fixing. I don't understand why a |collection= parameter is "too vague", yet |encyclopedia= to describe a printed book of journal articles is somehow an appropriate status quo. The default replacement would be {{cite contribution}}, by the way, because what the template is for, as you have pointed out many times, is to cite an individual contribution or article within an edited collection, not the collection itself. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Usurped URL still linked

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shelfappeal.com/christmas-gifts/|title=Barrow Stores, Birmingham |website=Shelfappeal |accessdate=30 Nov 2014 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>

and:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shelfappeal.com/christmas-gifts/|title=Barrow Stores, Birmingham |website=Shelfappeal |accessdate=30 Nov 2014 |url-status=unfit}}</ref>

each result in a reference with a link to the original website.

We should not link to sites that are |status=usurped or - especially - |status=unfit, even if there is no |archive-url=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Well obviously the URL should not be visible at all to readers in such cases, and if this is a {{cite web}} citation, the entire citation should be removed in the absence of a legitimate archive. Has been discussed at length before. 24.168.24.89 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
|url-status= requires |archive-url=. That is why this doesn't work. {{cite web}} with one of these "bad" markings might as well be removed without an archive URL since the data is no longer verifiable. Izno (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, clearly it does. It should not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The least-relevant item in discussing the absence of common sense in Wikipedia is whatever Wikipedia has to say on the subject and related ones. Apart from the issue of the unwarranted narcissism, i.e. seeing everything through the prism of an internet site whose anonymous contributors rarely bother to base their contributions on facts. And where supposedly encyclopedic statements proven to be unsupported (these are called opinions in everyday language) are allowed to stand, until... well take your pick. 74.72.146.123 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The relevant policy informing the guideline is cites must be verifiable (WP:V) otherwise how do you know if the cite says what we say it does - a core design of Wikipedia is the ability to verify. If we want to create a new template to tag them with a countdown date so we can go back and deleted them after 24 months, that's a really good idea. We have tons of cite web dead links with no archives that have been cluttering Wikipedia for decades. Pinging User:BrownHairedGirl whose work might overlap or might have additional thoughts. -- GreenC 16:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping, @GreenC. A countdown thing sounds like a good idea in principle, tho I haven't explored any nuances. However, we already add dates to the {{dead link}} tag, so what extra is needed?
    Can't we just go to dead links tagged in July 2020 and before, and remove those which are not archived anywhere?
    For me, the big issue currently is the poor state of dead link detection. As I work through the backlog of bare URLs, I find some easily-actioned cases of HTTP 404 or 410 errors, which are easily dealt with.
    However, there are many many more examples of links where the URL consistently returns a supposedly transient HTTP error code, or where the request consistently times out (the latter applies to a lot of .gov.in URLs I have been working on). We need some bot or tool which tests these URLs, and treat them as dead if it can't get a definitive response after say 7 attempts over a month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    Those are good points and it might be too context sensitive to fully automate, dead link checkers are not perfect nor is checking for available archives perfect. Anyway I think deleting cites should be in our toolbox more often, when justifiable.
    To your last paragraph, it's funny you should mention that. Archive.org is working on a tool that would examine the history of a URL in the Wayback Machine and try to determine if the page is truly dead or not. It's gets complicated, over my head, but by looking a billions of examples and AI it might be possible to detect patterns that allow the system to guess with high accuracy when a link is really dead, and then make that info available via API. At the moment IABot has a dead link checker and it checks a number of times before it settles on a result, I forget the ago but like 4 times over 2 months or something. This kind of method is imperfect because of bot blockers and soft-404s but it's best available right now. -- GreenC 20:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)
    Don't we already tag a lot of those? {{dead link|date=<date>|fix-attempted=yes}} categorizes to: Category:Articles with permanently dead external links. No doubt categorization might be improved so that articles are subcategorized by month and date of tagging. Or, {{dead link}} might be tweaked to shift articles with 'permanently' dead links into an 'expired' category some pre-defined (two years?) time after the date in {{dead link|date=<date>}}.
    Regardless, this talk page is likely not the place to make those decisions.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    We can discuss criteria for valid citations. Any that depends on a (non-) working link for verification is de facto invalid and should be removed. I think it is good form for the deleting editor to add a {{cn}} at the affected wikitext (with a brief explanation), and notify the last few active article editors. What happens to the article following this action is another issue. Shoving it into a cat & forgetting it is a time-honoured option, and so widely implemented that should be policy. Other options are much better, but involve work. 12.39.71.34 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    There appears to be nothing in the relevant section, WP:V#What counts as a reliable source that says reliability expires. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    First sentence of V: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Note it doesn't say other people checked rather it says can check. The idea that once something is checked it becomes permanently verified (never expires) does not exist. That would be nice though if we had such a rule, but who would be the authority to say "ok no one ever needs to check this again, you can trust me I saw it there 20 years ago". Also it's more than a reliable source it says: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". This is a common problem, people will cite something that doesn't match with what the source actually says. -- GreenC 19:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Unknown parameter |transcript= and |transcript-url= in {{cite speech}} and {{cite conference}}

Same as InsaneHacker reported last month regarding {{cite podcast}}, contrary to what their documentation says. As he pointed out, |transcript= and |transcript-url= do work with {{cite AV media}}, but then |event= doesn't, as it was deleted(!) last year (why??). — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

{{cite conference}} is for the proceedings published at a conference, not for anything that may have been said at one. Please read its documentation. Izno (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the citation I'm strugling with:
{{cite conference 
 |last=Berlin |first=Isaiah |orig-date=1957
 |title=The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess
 |location=[[Oxford University]]
 |publisher=[[Jewish Historical Society of England]]
 |publication-date=1959
 |date=2009-04-15
 |url=http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/wolf/berlin/hess.mp3
 |access-date=2021-04-21
 |event=[[Lucien Wolf]] Memorial Lecture
 |chapter=From Communism to Zionism: Moses Hess
 |chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/moses-hess.pdf
 |archive-url=https://archive.org/details/podcast_isaiah-berlin-centenary_from-communism-to-zionism-mos_1000410387884 |archive-date=2019-12-12
 |transcript-url={{GBurl|O1wNAAAAIAAJ}} |transcript=The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess
 |author-link=Isaiah Berlin
}}
which renders as:

Berlin, Isaiah (2009-04-15) [1957]. "From Communism to Zionism: Moses Hess". The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess. Lucien Wolf Memorial Lecture. Oxford University: Jewish Historical Society of England (published 1959). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-12-12. Retrieved 2021-04-21. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (help)

{{cite AV media}} works with the |transcript= params, as noted, but ignores |event= (why??):

Berlin, Isaiah (2009-04-15) [1957]. "From Communism to Zionism: Moses Hess". The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess. Oxford University: Jewish Historical Society of England (published 1959). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-12-12. The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess. Retrieved 2021-04-21. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |event= ignored (help)

Is this not a conference proceeding?— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I tried the same parameters on {{Cite speech}} which according to the documentation should be appropriate in this case and should support transcripts, but it doesn't. This drop in support is recent and has been noted earlier this year but was dismissed as hypothetical (along with the same issue in {{Cite interview}}). (While I understand {{Cite conference}} is intended for proceedings, it's an understandable confusion, since it's not called something like {{Cite proceedings}} (at least it's a redirect).)
In another discussion this year, it seems lost on the CS1 maintainers that a user who reads the documentation might not be aware that the documentation is transcluded for all templates without modification. In other words, if you do not know that what the documentation says is not what the template does, that is your fault, as a user. The final comment on the thread is hyper-literal-semantic-legal theory on what a transcript is, which once it comes to a proposal actually seems reasonable. And I give IP credit, because when all other forms of communication fail to get the point across, might as well try something unusual. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add 'quote-time' as an alias for param 'quote-page' in Cite AV media

Please add |quote-time= as an alias of |quote-page= in {{Cite AV media}}, and make corresponding adjustments to the doc at Template:Citation Style documentation#time.

I'm agnostic as to whether |quote-minutes= should be added as well on analogy with the description in the doc; I lean "weak oppose" to adding "quote-minutes", because it might be interpreted as, "How many minutes long is that quote?" but if it's explained carefully as "minutes in", then maybe it's okay.

This request grows out of this discussion at User:Wuerzele's talk page concerning foreign-language media sources for an article on en-wiki. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to support this. I have always believed that if you think that a quotation is important to an article, put the quotation in the article and then cite the quotation; in this case {{cite av media |title=Colonia Dignidad.– Aus dem Innern einer deutschen Sekte |... |time=...}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense to me. The existing param |quote-page= is subject to the exact same criticism with respect to quotations in a printed book. The logical conclusion would be to remove |quote-page=, because if the quotation is important enough, users should just add the quotation directly to the WP article and then cite that: {{cite book|...|page=123}}. Do you believe that? Because I don't. The proposal is merely to add an alias for an already existing parameter, and just as |page= for books is aliased by |time= for AV, so should |quote-page= for books be aliased by |quote-time= for AV media. What's controversial about that? Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Just because |quote= and |quote-page(s)= exist, does not mean that I think that they should. It is not my habit to write things that I do not believe.
In the current example, I do not think that a |quote-time= parameter is necessary because the citation for the quotation can/should use |time= in {{cite av media}}. So, taking the quotation from User talk:Wuerzele § Subterranean living containers and the source url from Paul Schäfer § Films, quoting using {{quote}} and citing with {{cite av media}} using |time=, this:
{{quote|Schäfer finally staged a farewell ceremony and disappeared in subterranean living containers. In July 1997 2 boys fled to the German embassy, one of them Tobias Müller was flown out to Germany.|{{cite av media |title=Colonia Dignidad. Aus dem Innern einer deutschen Sekte |url=https://www.netflix.com/watch/80196165 |url-access=subscription |time=1:23 |via=Netflix}}}}

Schäfer finally staged a farewell ceremony and disappeared in subterranean living containers. In July 1997 2 boys fled to the German embassy, one of them Tobias Müller was flown out to Germany.

— Colonia Dignidad. Aus dem Innern einer deutschen Sekte. Event occurs at 1:23 – via Netflix.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The OP's suggestion should be applied. Apart from anyone's irrelevant personal beliefs, the fact is the quote parameters exist, and since they do, they should make sense in the context they are used in. For non-paginated material, this may involve aliases such as "quote-time". The parameter itself should probably be re-labeled |quote-location=, with the expected variations (-page, -time, etc.) available as aliases. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
To add: applying this will require changes in presentation (related code) depending on the alias used. Until this (ever) happens, the combination |quote-page=At h:mm and |no-pp=yes may be used in this case. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
|quote-time= cannot be an alias of |quote-page=. As an alias, |quote-time= would render the same static text as |quote-page= does in this example:
{{cite av media |title=Casablanca |quote=Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine. |quote-page=1:30–1:37 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAlzmRjixr0 |via=YouTube}}
Casablanca – via YouTube. Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.
|quote-location= is not a good name because we use |location= to mean the city of publication. |location= is much more popular than its canonical |place= alias (which, along with |publication-place= should go away).
And why does {{cite av media}} support |quote-page= and |quote-pages= anyway; av media are non-paginated material so the notion of 'pages' in {{cite av media}} is nonsensical. I'll fix that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
At the time of this writing, {{cite av media}} is used on 32,473 articles. Of those:
  • five use |quote=
    • of those, one uses |time=
    • of those, none use |quote-page= or |quote-pages=
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Add |quote-at=. Those issues solved in all cases. Your objection to having two separate parameters implies that the editor should instead make two separate citations, one for the page(s) for which the information in the article is referenced, and one for the page (or other pinpoint) from which they are citing a clarifying quote. The current convention allows this to be done in a significantly more compact manner. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Only just saw this suggestion by SamuelRiv, and I like it; seems even better than mine. Either the editor adds p. nnn or at hh:mm as the param value, or the module figures it out from which template is in use and supplies the correct prefix. Only downside, if any, is that it's probably more work to implement. The original proposal could be a 'q&d fix' way station on the way to this better solution. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

|quote-page= and |quote-pages= support removal

As noted above, the use of |quote-page= or |quote-pages= in {{cite av media}} does not make sense so I have withdrawn support from that template and from the others that do not support |page(s)=:

{{cite AV media/new |title=Title |quote=A quotation that would be better placed in the article body than hidden here in the references section. |quote-page=123}}
Title. A quotation that would be better placed in the article body than hidden here in the references section.

To prove that I haven't broken anything:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |quote=A quotation that would be better placed in the article body than hidden here in the references section. |quote-page=123}}
Title. p. 123: A quotation that would be better placed in the article body than hidden here in the references section.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose this as it introduces unneeded complexity and is bound to be confusing. Citations (of any kind) should allow for quotations from the source. The in-source location of the quotation should also be made available to the reader. For editors, the related parameter should match the cited medium, as stated in the posts above, and the presentation should be modified accordingly. Otherwise there will be added confusion with some templates allowing a quotation-dependent parameter while others don't. Without obvious reason, but with all the inevitable editor questions, sure to be crowding this page in the years to come. This is avoidable bad design. 71.245.250.98 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Added comment: philosophically, I agree with Trappist that quotations (of the content) have no place in citations. However the status quo is harder to change, and quotations about the source may be necessary - e.g. information about an edition or a contributor. In the absence of a "source-note" parameter. 71.245.250.98 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This change does not [introduce] unneeded complexity. {{cite av media}} does not support the pagination parameters |page= and |pages= (has not for many years) because AV media material has no pages. Removing the semantically similar |quote-page= and |quote-pages= makes sense because AV media material has no pages.
The in-source location parameters for {{cite av media}} are |minutes= and |time= (see Template:Cite AV media § In-source locations).
We have discussed note-holding parameters in the past; search the archives of this talk page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Re-read more carefully. You missed the part where the aliases should match the medium. In a page-based source it should be "quote-page". In a time-based source it should be "quote-time".
We are discussing the in-source location of the quotation (such as |quote-location=), which may be different from any other in-source lication provided. An example is a page range (of a section) and an amplifying quote in a specific page within the range. Another example could be a translator's note found in a work's front matter. Or a publisher note about a mis-printed impression. Or a technical detail in a court case published along, but not as part, of a judge's opinion. Any of these may have an impact on the verification of wikitext.
The last three cases above would fit perfectly in a source note, which would still require |note-location=. The previous discussion imo did not provide a real reason not to have a |note=.
The doc is pretty much the same for different citation types. In such cases users may naturally assume that all parameters are generalized, and expect any parameter in any template. Especially parameters that are dependent on other parameters (quote-location depending on quote). The seeming ad hoc absence of such parameters in some templates is bound to confuse.
Removing the quote location parameter from a template supporting quotations but leaving it in place in other templates requires explanation. Any added explanation adds complexity for users. If the explanation and rationale is not clear and convincing, you will be dealing with questions.
68.173.78.83 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to removing |quote-page= or |quote-pages= in {{cite av media}} as they indeed do not make sense as pages, but unless you expect someone to listen to a five-hour recording to find the location of a quotation, we still need a parameter that fulfills the "In source" location issue. So, we still need |quote-time= (or quote-timestamp, or quote-at, or call it what you will). The current situation where you have |quote-pages= for printed material but no way of describing the in-source location of a quotation for AV media is inconsistent and illogical. Removing the parameters |quote-page= and |quote-pages= from printed material (ie, remove it from {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, etc.)) would at least restore consistency.
The bottom line for me is that WP:Verifiability is Wilkipedia policy, and anything that supports that is a good thing. Both |quote= and |quote-page= enhance verifiability, thus are in line with policy. Adding alias |quote-time= would enhance verifiability for AV media. Since we do not currently have |quote-time=, the parameter |quote-page= serves as a workaround, although a confusing one. Removing support for |quote-page= from {{cite AV media}} when there is no alias for it would hurt verifiability of those articles that would otherwise use it, so please don't do that.
Your argument with the citation example above, with "...better placed in the article body" does not address the subject of this request at all, and in no way negates it. Instead, it apparently addresses a pet peeve of yours, namely that we shouldn't have quotations in the citation at all. That is a completely separate issue, on which I am agnostic. If you wish to argue for that, by all means open a section and do so.
However, *this* section is not about that at all. This section is about the question: "given that we have the parameter |quote= and we have the parameter |quote-page=, how do we describe in-source location of a quote in a 5-hour audio or video recording using {{cite AV media}}?" The obvious answer is: "We already have the solution to that: it's called |quote-page=. Let's just add the alias, |quote-time=, and we're done." Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Or, |quote-at= per SamuelRiv's better proposal above. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
we still need a parameter that fulfills the "In source" location issue |time= Izno (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
What Izno said↑.
Your argument with the citation example above, with "...better placed in the article body" does not address the subject of this request at all. That example is not intended to address anything other than to demonstrate the removal of |quote-page(s)= from templates that do not support |page(s)= – templates that don't support the latter have no business supporting the former. The example is also intended to demonstrate that |quote-page(s)= still work where they should.
[How] do we describe in-source location of a quote in a 5-hour audio or video recording using {{cite AV media}}? Again, what Izno said↑. |time= and |minutes= are the correct parameter to use.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Is your objection to the quote-X concept within a citation in general? In another example, many eBook formats do not have page numbering, and that includes scholarly nonfiction stuff. One typically does publisher-agnostic citation (encouraged in law nowadays) where chapter, section, paragraph, etc. are used to pinpoint the text in question. So if one takes a conceptual statement and supports it with a citation to an unpaginated text, using say at=Ch. 2 secs. 2-4, and finds the concept is better to be further supported with a brief quotation (say found in sec. 4), it would seem appropriate to be able to couple a |quote= parameter with quote-at=Sec. 4. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
All very interesting, but not related to the request. So, I'll just continue to use the workaround, I guess, or Samuel's suggestion, or 65.88.88.201's |quote-page=hh:mm plus |no-pp=yes suggestion, or even a hybrid, with a suffix outside the {{cite}} but inside the ending </ref> tag:
A whole long paragraph about planning and construction of underground torture chambers, followed by descriptions of the torture itself, and on and on, occupying 25 minutes of an interview.<ref>{{cite AV media |title=... |url=https://www.netflix.com/watch/80196165 |time=1:20:32–1:45:52 |quote=It was hellish; you could hear the screaming from adjacent cells. |quote-time=1:57:18 }} ''quote at 1:57:18''.</ref>
and that should work, although it's somewhat clunky. Thanks to all for the suggestions, Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate cite template for a US SEC filing

Is there a template that would be most appropriate to cite material in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that is online that isn't {{cite web}}? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably cite document. It would help to know what you're trying to cite though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@Headbomb: This and this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure those should be cited at all to be quite honest. WP:PRIMARY sources are generally iffy (especially ones marked 'confidential'). But cite document would probably be the thing if there's consensus that those are appropriate sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'm not convinced that {{cite document}} is the correct template. {{cite document}} is a redirect to {{cite journal}} which I think it the wrong template for this use case. Ignoring WP:PRIMARY, a valid concern, I presume that you will not leave readers to search the entire 90-odd/30-odd pages for the one sentence that supports whatever article where you plan to use these sources. So, consider {{citation}} (using |section=Item 2. Properties as an example:
{{citation |mode=cs1 |section=Item 2. Properties |title=United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K: Annual Report |page=13 |date=March 1, 2007 |publisher=Marvel Entertainment, Inc. |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933730/000111667907000580/m10k.htm |via=Securities and Exchange Commission}}
"Item 2. Properties". United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K: Annual Report. Marvel Entertainment, Inc. March 1, 2007. p. 13 – via Securities and Exchange Commission.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a report? {{cite report}} Izno (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Cite document didn't appear correct either. Cite report looks like it will do what is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I used {{Cite report}}. That looked correct and did what I think was intended. Thanks everyone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Access indicators icons (registration vs limited)

I did not search for prior discussion on this. The icons for |url-access=registration and |url-access=limited seem identical (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari latest versions Mac/Windows, & Tor (Ubuntu). Can there be some differentiation? I believe they were rendered differently in the past.

In Help:Citation Style 1 § Access indicators for url-holding parameters

50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The registration and limited icons have always been the same () except that the tooltips are different: 'Free registration required' and 'Free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required'.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

{{cite book}} error

I get the following when I try to include a 2nd editor for a book:

Unknown parameter |editor_first2= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editor_last2= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editor_link2= ignored (help)

Help? (I'm working on Piping_guan... I'll leave the error there...) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Use a hyphen rather than an underscore in the name of the parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You want to use hyphens, not underscores, in the appropriate parameter names. Switching them out resolved the error. Imzadi 1979 → 14:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind... I fixed it with cite bot.... You may all laugh at me now. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL! You caught it before cite bot could write it out. Cheers, speedy! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

DOI citation generators

I'm having difficulty with the tools to generate a Wikipedia citation from a DOI. [7] appears permanently broken. [8] works but only occasionally. Most times I use it, I get, "The web request failed. You might not have Internet connectivity right now or CrossRef might be having issues. Please try again later." (My Internet connectivity is fine.) These are/were very useful tools! Is there a new tool or something? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried User:Citation bot? It will expand most citations that are in the form {{cite journal|doi=10.x.y.z}}. Other tools are listed on that page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Question on citations

I reached out to BrownHairedGirl about this earlier, but I want to ask here, too, to see if there is consensus about possibly changing wording. Specifically, I was curious about the url-access-level parameter. If a news site only starts requiring registration after a certain amount of articles have already been read, should it be tagged as "requiring registration", or should that be reserved for sites that require registration for all articles?

  • The registration tag states that it should be used "even if a limited preview, abstract or review may still be available without registration", though it's unclear whether a certain amount of articles read counts as well.
  • The limited tag, which BrownHairedGirl pointed towards, states that it could be used for certain constraints, including "cap on daily views". Would a cap on available articles read also count here?

I'm sure this probably doesn't appear super important, but it's quite common for news cites to provide a certain amount of free articles before registration. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand from the above that the registration you are discussing requires only establishing a sign-in identity, without limits in viewership.
There is no hard rule about this. However, availability trumps convenience. A source that can be accessed by simply clicking for a maximum of x times is less available than a free-registration source. I would use "registration" for the access condition.
A source with registration that requires a one-time payment following x number of views is better represented with "limited" access. Implicit in such access is that after a non-determinate number of views a paywall applies.
74.64.30.159 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree with 74 that |url-access=registration/subscription is appropriate for limited-view websites. Izno (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Allowing the url-access parameter for citations with no url but chapter-url

Inspiring myself from user Prototyperspective's intervention above. Today when trying to update the source list of the article Charles Hamilton, 5th Earl of Abercorn with:

{{Cite book|last=Cressy |first=David |author-link=David Cressy |editor-first=DeLloyd J. |editor-last=Guth |editor2-first=John W. |editor2-last=McKenna |date=1982 |title=Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G R Elton from His American Friends |chapter=Binding the nation: the Bonds of Association, 1584 and 1596 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |pages=217–234 |isbn=978-0-521-09127-5 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/tudorrulerevolut0000unse/page/217/ |url-access=registration}}

I got the error:

{{cite book}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help).

I could of course add a |url= setting it to the URL (without the page) given in |chapter-url=, but would it not make more sense to accept |chapter-url= as equivalent to |url=? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

|chapter-url-access=registration
Cressy, David (1982). "Binding the nation: the Bonds of Association, 1584 and 1596". In Guth, DeLloyd J.; McKenna, John W. (eds.). Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G R Elton from His American Friends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 217–234. ISBN 978-0-521-09127-5.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

the ISBN link is a redirect – it should be changed from ISBN (identifier) to its target, ISBN. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Exactly which link are you asking to be changed? A similar request was made at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_84#Protected_edit_request_on_1_August_2022, so you might like to read the discussion there. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
ah, I see. thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

URGENT | Getting Lua error in ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 at line 3862: attempt to get length of field 'message_tail' (a nil value). under "References" in Odia Wikipedia

Redirected here from: ⚓ T318008 Getting Lua error in ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 at line 3862: attempt to get length of field 'message_tail' (a nil value). under "References" in Odia Wikipedia (wikimedia.org)

Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):

  • Check any page with reference/citation for getting the Lua error. It's happening in almost across all pages.
  • For example visit: An Odia Wikipedia page

What happens?:

  • We see errors in references
Lua error in ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 at line 3862: attempt to get length of field 'message_tail' (a nil value).

What should have happened instead?:

  • There should not be any errors.


Please help. Soumendrak (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

message_tail is no longer used. That table used to be defined in or:ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1/Utilities – if you look there you will see that there is no definition for message_tail. That suggests that one or more modules in the suite are out-of-sync; my guess is that the main module or:ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 needs to be re-imported from Module:Citation/CS1.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I just looked at the histories of several of the modules in the suite. Most appear to August 2021 so if you are intending to update to the current version, all of the module suite must be imported (best to import to the sandbox versions, test that the sandbox works and then update the live version). or:ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1/Utilities looks like it was updated 2022-09-16 by you. Because I could, I reverted the most recent edits to ~/Utilities and previewed or:ଜ୍ୟୋତିବା ମନ୍ଦିର. No glaring red error messages. I did not save; I'll leave that to you.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs, I think it's better to sync all the modules to the latest version.
I am afraid, I do not know how to import to sandbox version Is there any documentation out there you can guide me?
Thank you. Soumendrak (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
After reimporting the main module or:ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 from Module:Citation/CS1 getting a new error
Lua error in ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1 at line 4188: attempt to index field 'url_skip' (a nil value).
- Soumendrak (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
imported ମଡ୍ୟୁଲ:Citation/CS1/Configuration from en:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and it seems to be fixed the issue.
Thanks a lot for quick inputs.
- Soumendrak (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Soumendrak: Update all of the modules in the suite; you cannot expect that cs1|2 at or.wiki will work as it should if you do piecemeal updates like you are doing.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have imported all the relevant CS1 modules mentioned on Module:Citation/CS1 page.
- Soumendrak (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Soumendrak: Ok, but you should know that en.wiki sandbox modules are for development. We do not recommend their use for anything. What I wanted to get across to you is that you should import our live modules to your sandbox modules. Make the necessary changes for localization to your sandbox modules. When your sandbox modules are working as they should, then, and only then, update your live modules from your sandbox modules. Do not expect our sandbox modules to be working, stable, or reliable, ever.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
ok, got it.
- Import from live modules to sandbox modules
- Test there, check for errors
- Then move from sandbox to live.
Thank you. Soumendrak (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Update SSRN base url

  • Aolain, Ni; D, Fionnuala (2010-05-19). "Women, Vulnerability and Humanitarian Emergencies". SSRN 1611818.

points to

which doesn't work anymore. It should instead point to

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

language=ga

Why doesn't

  • {{cite book|chapter=Óró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile|title=Sean-Nós Nua|first=Sinead|last=O'Connor|year=2002|language=ga}}
  • O'Connor, Sinead (2002). "Óró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile". Sean-Nós Nua (in Irish).

work? I see "in Ga" instead of a more readable description of the Irish language. (I know this is not actually a book; it's just an example.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Ga language exists. Template:Citation Style documentation/language/doc#Language names lists "ga" and says " When these names are used in |language=, cs1|2 will attempt to validate them but such attempts are not likely to succeed." Imzadi 1979 → 21:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Help:Citation Style 1 says to use two-letter codes. Maybe that advice should be modified in cases where the two-letter code does not work? Alternatively maybe the codes can be considered to be case-sensitive? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Where, exactly, does Help:Citation Style 1 [say] to use two-letter codes? cs1|2 supports two- and three-character language tags as well as most of the IETF and IETF-like language tags supported by MediaWiki.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"Because cs1|2 templates are often copied from en.wiki to other wikis, the use of language codes is preferred so that language names render in the correct language and form: espagnol at a French-language wiki instead of the English word "Spanish"." —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
That sentence only says that use of a language tag is preferred over the use of a language name; the number of characters in the language tag is not mentioned.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The list of language tags does not provide a language tag for Irish of any length other than the two-letter one. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Because MediaWiki does not support the ISO 639-2, -3 tag gle:
{{#language:gle|en}} → gle
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
When evaluating the value assigned to |language=, cs1|2 looks first at the list of MediaWiki-supported language name. The evaluation is case-insensitive because editors will write |language=french. So, for |language=ga, cs1|2 finds Ga because that is a language name that MediaWiki supports. Of all of the MediaWiki-supported languages, there are only seven where the language tag is the same as language name; ga (Irish) and Ga (gaa) are the only two where the tag is spelled the same as an unrelated language name. The others are:
{{#language:fon|en}} → Fon
{{#language:isu|en}} → Isu
{{#language:luo|en}} → Luo
{{#language:tiv|en}} → Tiv
{{#language:vai|en}} → Vai
{{#language:yao|en}} → Yao
These, of course, are not a problem.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

article numbers

There was a discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 33 § Pages vs Issue vs at vs ... about what to do with journal articles that are numbered. Because we don't have an article number-specific parameter, I suggested using |number= and was immediately shot down by those who apparently believe that article numbers belong in the in-source parameters |pages=, |pages=, or |at=. I believe that that is incorrect because doing so corrupts the metadata if the cite requires pagination. Sure, my |number= suggestion suffers from the same fault.

So, since COinS supports article numbers with the &rft.artnum= k/v pair which has heretofore been unused by cs1|2, I have hacked the module sandboxen to support new |article-number= in {{cite journal}} only:

{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=XIV |article-number=56 |page=15}}
"Title". Journal. XIV 56: 15.
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000B3-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. <b>XIV</b> 56: 15.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.volume=XIV&rft.artnum=56&rft.pages=15&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+85" class="Z3988"></span>

If we are to keep this we should decide some things:

  • how are article numbers to be annotated or punctuated?
  • are article numbers supported when both |volume= and |issue= are set? yes
  • do article numbers require |volume=?

Beyond those things, if we are to keep this, support for journal cites using {{citation}} should be supported ({{cite journal}} with |mode=cs2 is of course already supported)

Keep? Discard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is useful only regarding a few online journals that don't bother with journal pagination at all and those that paginate each numbered article at p. 1. Others have both article numbers and journal-level pagination, and citing both is superfluous. |article-number= should be a global alias of |pages=. The article/column title which is the actual in-source location is the primary discovery parameter (after journal-name, author etc). Parameters such as pages, article-numbers etc. are not in-source locations. From the reader's standpoint are ancillary helpers. 64.18.11.66 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
If we are to believe our own documentation, for the purposes of cs1|2, |page=, |pages=, and |at= are in-source locators; see Template:Cite journal § In-source locations as an example, others are similar.
I have never seen article numbers used with anything but journals so it seems to me that |article-number= cannot be a global alias of |pages=. Further, as an alias of |pages=, |article-number= would necessarily render the same way that |pages= renders; the article number would fill &rft.pages= instead of &rft.artnum= in the metadata; when an editor wishes to identify two or more specific pages in the source that support en.wiki text, one of |pages= or |article-number= must yield, or the editor must shoehorn both assigned values into one parameter or the other.
Your discard !vote is noted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox version is currently broken to the point of unusability. An article number is an individual identifier for an article. It is not even close to the same thing as an issue number. An article can easily be part of a journal that has volumes and issues; in fact I would expect that to be the case for most journals that use this referencing format. But your hacked-up version doesn't work for that case: if there is an issue number, it doesn't show the article number, regardless of whether pages are also included.

  • {{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=3 | issue = 1 |article-number=4159}}
  • "Title". Journal. 3 (1) 4159.
  • {{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=3 | issue = 1 |article-number=4159|pages=1–24}}
  • "Title". Journal. 3 (1) 4159: 1–24.

If this is to be implemented at all, it must work separately from issue. Your question of whether to tie it to issue makes zero sense, and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what article numbers even are. They are a replacement for page numbers, not for issue numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? What is it that gives you the impression that what I did was anything more than skeletal groundwork to test how |article-number= might be implemented and the result rendered?
The article identified in User talk:Citation bot/Archive 33 § Pages vs Issue vs at vs ... is here. That journal apparently does not use issue numbers when it uses article numbers. Because that was my model, I hacked the module suite to reflect that. I then posted the above where I wondered whether |issue= should be supported when |article-number= is used.
Why are you so angry about this incremental process?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
|article-number= now renders with or without |issue=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
How about focusing on content and not on imagined attitudes of other people?
Next question: Some publications (notably the LIPIcs series of conference proceedings) mix article numbers and page numbers, so that for instance if article number 33 of LIPIcs volume 189 happens to have 17 pages, then it is formatted (both in the official publisher metadata and in the page numbers on the actual pages of the publication) as having a page range of 33:1–33:17, with the article number entirely encoded within the pages and not as a separate parameter. Other sources list both an article number and a number of pages, without assigning compound numbers to the individual pages; the same paper is listed in MathSciNet as "Art. No. 33, 17 pp.", and if it were indexed in zbMATH it would be "Article 33, 17p." The first of these two formats could be handled by putting the compound numbers into a pages parameter, but that is problematic if you want the article number reflected in the CoInS MeTaDaTa or however it's capitalized (does anyone still use cOiNs?). The second is not allowed, because even if you tried to use |article-number=33 |pages=17pp, some bot would complain that you're using the pages parameter wrong and try to "fix" it to something else.
So do you have a suggestion for how to deal with compound pages and with article-number + number-of-pages referencing? You can argue (as we have seen here before) that numbers of pages should not be included in references because they're not used to identify the reference, but clearly they are used to describe it, and that description could be useful to some readers of the reference for instance in trying to figure out how much effort they would have to put in to read the reference. Also, whether they should be included is clearly a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact, because some well-established sources (MathSciNet) do include it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I will when the first words out of your mouth are not shouted. I think my initial post was clear enough for you to know that the code is a prototype yet you chose to shout about its unusability.
The |article-number= proposal is currently constrained to {{cite journal}}. Your paper is, I think, best cited with {{cite conference}} using the pagination as printed in the proceedings. The publisher's BibTeX citation clearly shows that the publisher thinks that the paper is one of a number of papers collected in a proceedings (note that there is no article number there). |article-number= is supported only by COinS journal objects so {{cite conference}} can never fully support |article-number= were we, at some point, to allow that.
As far as I know, cs1|2 has never supported the notion of total pages. There have been several discussions here about that. We could fully support a |tpages= parameter in {{cite book}}, {{cite thesis}}, and other non-periodical templates because COinS has the rft.tpages k/v pair for book and dissertation objects. But, that is a discussion for another time and another place. This discussion is about |article-number= in {{cite journal}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
You think journal articles can have article numbers but that conference proceedings papers cannot? Your dogmatic approach to what a citation can be or cannot be is something that causes me to occasionally get frustrated here. People who publish stuff, in various ways, are often flexible in how they define those publications in a way that allows others to find them. Citation formats here must stay as flexible, in order to allow editors to use them to correctly refer to things, and to avoid forcing editors to misuse their parameters because the parameters as used correctly are inadequate to the task. This latest bizarre piece of rigidity, that conference papers are somehow so different from journal papers that they cannot even be thought of as an example of something with an article number even in situations where they obviously do have article numbers, and must be prevented from using similar formatting and parameterization, is a case in point. (Also, fyi, I type with my fingertips, and usually not at the same time as speaking in any way; my mouth is not involved in the process. But your aversion to boldface text for emphasis is noted for future reference. Is italic ok or should I just never emphasize any part of what I write when communicating with you?) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This sentence is the only sentence I have written about article number support in conference citations:
|article-number= is supported only by COinS journal objects so {{cite conference}} can never fully support |article-number= were we, at some point, to allow that.
We can choose to support |article-number= in {{cite conference}} as a non-metadata parameter as we do for other parameters (|access-date=, |agency=, |department=, |editor=, |language=, |medium=, ...); parameters that display something but that don't contribute to the citation's metadata. Before we do that, I think that we should figure out how or whether we support |article-number= in {{cite journal}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, for a random example of a paper in a conference that its publisher clearly identifies using article numbers, see doi:10.1145/3225058.3225061. In the previous example, the publisher used compound page numbers of the form NN:1–NN:PP, but the databases MathSciNet and zbMATH separated it out as Article number NN, PP pages. In this example, it is reversed: the publisher uses Article number NN, pages 1–PP while the database DBLP [9] uses compound page numbers of the form NN:1–NN:PP. I think we can conclude from these examples that multiple publishers and databases think that these two forms are semantically equivalent and that the choice between one or the other is a matter of style. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't think this deserves all the back-and-forth, it is such a minor issue. The article number, a sparingly used piece of information, is not necessary in order to find an article. People look for articles by title, journal name & date, and by author. Anything else (page range, article number) is ancillary. Article number maybe helpful but it doesn't have enough traction for the effort (technically, both article page range and article number are article representations, just like the article title is). It can be easily input, as noted previously, in |at= if there is overwhelming need. The fact that the metadata scheme chokes (again) on this does not concern this page. We discuss the structure & presentation of citation data, and metadata should follow what is decided here. This is a one-way relationship. By all means fix the metadata, and there's probably no need to waste time telling us about it here. I am certain any participant in this talk page who wants to follow that application knows how to find the relevant project pages. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Added support for |article-num= in {{citation}} when |journal= has a value:
{{citation/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=XIV |article-number=56 |page=15}}
"Title", Journal, XIV 56: 15
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000BE-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">"Title", ''Journal'', <b>XIV</b> 56: 15</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.volume=XIV&rft.artnum=56&rft.pages=15&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+85" class="Z3988"></span>
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_85&oldid=1179469539"