Help talk:Citation Style 1

Cite book: Year of publication

Year of publication states "Year of the source being referenced" Shouldn't this be "Year of source"/"Year of writing" or something like this?

Publication date seems to already be used for date when something is published...I think cite book should be clearer about which fields are referring to Publication, and which fields are referring to Writing Lcporschen (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never understood why <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= exists, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= should be used for publication date and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|orig-date= for original date. It seems overly complex to have a third field that needlessly complicates things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Since at least April 2020, I have believed that <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= should go away (here). Similarly, I hold that <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-place= should go away. There have been several discussions on this topic which are collected at Template:Slink.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree, both simply confuse the matter and are redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can it not be useful if there are several editions or versions of a work? <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= for the year of the edition quoted, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|orig-date= for the 1st edition, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= for the publication date if it is a later re-edition, publication in another series etc. Keriluamox (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

References exist for verification, you only need to give details of the work you have not it's publication history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking that argument to the extreme, the sole ISBN would suffice. I find it useful to give some information about the work. Dating a 1900 work from 2020 because that’s the edition used feels off, if not slightly misleading. Keriluamox (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The date is the date of the edition you are using. If the version from 2020 is a facsimile of the 1900 edition, you could cite it as 1900. Otherwise, if it's a new edition it will have new page numbers, etc. –jacobolus (t) 17:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Take Crime and Punishment or many other books from around that time. They single volume is different than when the installment was published. More so light novels which are often written in installments on a website, then bought and printed by a publisher. Given that many books take time to publish, especially anthologies, having all three are useful. date is for the creation, orig-date is for when it was originally released, and publication-date is for when this exact publication was made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then make sense to rename 'date' to 'creation-date'? Lcporschen (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= is quite rare, in most cases <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= is used for current date and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|orig-date= for the original publication date. So it wouldn't make sense to change <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date=. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is about the <skeptical air quotes>documentation</skeptical air quotes> at Template:Slink? The template's actual documentation for <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= is at Template:Slink. The template data are not protected so if you think that it can be improved, please improve it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's actually at Template:Cite book, or more specifically, Template:Cite book. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Replyto <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= is mainly for non-daily periodicals where the cover date is often later than the date when the periodical goes on sale. For example, a magazine with cover date August 2026 might be on sale already. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

In taxonomy, the date when a book or journal was first published can be very important to establish precedence. For various reasons the year/date on the title page is not always the year/date when the work was first distributed. In such cases I use date= for the date on the title page and publication-date= for the date when the work was first distributed. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you know when it was first distributed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Date/publication-date are exactly the same thing. If you want the original date use <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|orig-date=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is also what I thought, when looking at the documentation (Template:Cite book):

parameter 'date' = 'Date of publication'

parameter 'publication-date' = 'Publication date'

To me, this looks exactly the same.

Given that other people have already expressed that 'publication-date' should go away, I'm just not gonna use 'publication-date' anymore (I don't care this much about dates of book publishing), and try to put the info I have in the fields 'date' and 'orig-date'. Thanks for clearing this up. Lcporschen (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ec

Just to be pedantic, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= are only Template:Tq when they are used alone. Then both are used in the same template they are treated as the same thing when they hold the same value in which case, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= is ignored:

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">Template:Cite book</syntaxhighlight> → Template:Cite book

when <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= hold different values:

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">Template:Cite book</syntaxhighlight> → Template:Cite book

Do we really, really, need both? I think that we don't and that we should make <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= exact aliases of one another (<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|location= / <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|place= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-place= should also be exact aliases of one another)

Documentationcreatepurge

</noinclude>.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 support for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree 'date' and 'publication-date' should be aliases of each other Lcporschen (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

As for location/place and publication-place, that's what I came here for.

The Template:Cite_book/doc is quite complex, probably contradictory…

But in #Publisher it says "Place: In earlier versions was the publication place; for compatibility will be treated as such if publication-place is absent"

So aliasing those will be OK for olderTemplate:When? entries, but possibly not for newer; could we countTemplate:How many? newer with both present?

So paralleling with date and publication-date, which I suppose would have been introduced at the same time, how much will it fudge?

Ponken (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of creation-date. Isn't the template not all about this?

"Title (published 2025). 2026" - is just not clearly understandable, instead rather a wtf (the postscript would be place for such curiosities when they are specifically relevant).

Sorry, if the discussion here is already closed. I just saw now how long the page goes down, wow. (There I will ask a question, for which I am here.) MenkinAlRire 14:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Isn't the template not all about this?" I don't think so. The template, and citations in academic works generally, are about identifying the publication that is mentioned in the citing work. If the source says "July 2026" on the cover, that's what someone who wants to read the source will check to make sure they picked up the right issue of the magazine. If some Wikipedian in the magazine business happens to know it was printed April 15, 2026, and first offered for sale May 2, 2026, WE DON'T CARE! Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't my point (that I find irrelevant, too). The template is called speech, and there are several date one could consider: when it was written (there is only a location for this which translates to "written at"), when the speech was held, and when the text was published (better printed). With "all about this" I meant that a speech was once spoken, I guess, and that is its prime date. Historically, in many, if not the most cases, the impact of a speech came with its distribution in print. But today many lectcures ar recorded and published online. They are preserved as original oral documents as video or audio. So the event where the speech happened gains more importance versus its printed form (if there is one). (Below I discussed some points.) MenkinAlRire 15:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"The template is called speech" – You should be aware that this talk-page serves as the talk-page of several templates which use *this* (sub-)template "Citation Style 1". That is: if you click these templates' talk-page link, you end up here. edit ALSO you are in the thread #Cite_book:_Year_of_publication here. / Ponken (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I also don’t get why this one talk page serves for several templates, instead of each template just having it’s own talk page Lcporschen (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have hacked the module sandboxen to make <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= exact aliases. When used alone, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= have always performed the same function:

Template:Cite compare Template:Cite compare

When paired and holding the same dates, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= was ignored

Template:Cite compare

When paired with different dates, <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date= modified the publisher string; that no longer happens:

Template:Cite compare Template:Cite compare

If we are to believe this search, there are about 10,500 articles with cs1|2 templates that use both <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|date= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|publication-date=.

Keep? Discard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Cite document, paper, journal, and web

I am confused as to why {{cite document}} does not support URL parameters.

I have on multiple occasions been caught off guard when attempting to use {{cite paper}} and getting a missing <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|journal= error thrown at me, as it is currently a redirect to {{cite journal}}. Paper and document are much closer semantically, so it seems reasonable to expect {{cite paper}} to redirect to {{cite document}}, but in replacing a call of the former to the latter, I get hit with an unknown parameter <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|url= error. Instead, I have to use {{cite web}}, which in many cases seems an inappropriate template to use for what I am citing. The particular example that caused me to bring this up here is the following: <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> Jones, Daniel (1956). "Cardinal Vowels Spoken by Daniel Jones: Text of Records with Explanatory Notes by Professor Jones" (PDF). London: Linguaphone Institute. </syntaxhighlight> The url is merely a scan of a Template:Tq exactly as described in the documentation of {{cite document}}, so the fact that I get an error makes little sense to me. I was going to create an RfD for {{cite paper}} to retarget it to {{cite document}}, but this is preventing me from doing so. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 22:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

IIRC the reason for Template:-r being a redirect to Template:Cite journal is because for an academic paper to be acceptable for verifiability purposes, it must have been published; and the usual place for academic papers to be published is in an academic journal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that cite document should support URLs. An offline document just means a physical document. There's no reason why there can't be online scans/PDFs of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but it's clearly not a Template:Tq as it's online. It can't be offline if it has a URL. Cite Document's documentation would clearer if it was "Template:Tq". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Which it shouldn't be. Cite document should be for any generic document. That something is available online is completely irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I could see the argument for that, but that's not how it's currently setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Like {{Citation}} for CS1? You'd probably need broad consensus for that since the other CS1 templates all describe a type of source. I think {{cite document}} was a redirect to {{cite journal}} prior to this discussion: Template:Format link Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that helps to explain the incongruence of {{cite paper}} and {{cite document}}, then. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 18:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, a "document" is a pamphlet, a small version of book, so we should be able to use all parameters of {{cite book}} other than <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|chapter= and related params. --FlatLanguage (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite document is specifically provided to support URL-less lesser works that appear in no other greater works. That is the point of the template. Izno (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite report

Why does the report title not display in either italics or quotations? Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It is one of the black sheep of this set. We also have the issue that they can be either short of long form, so we've somehow ended up at a styling which is wrong for both cases. :) Izno (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense (seriously). Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed script-author parameter redux

A few years ago, there were calls from several editors for the addition of a <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-author= parameter to CS1, and the issue has come up before that (e.g. here and here).

The fact that <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-title= &c have existed for years shows that the feature would be useful, as is the fact that the issue keeps arising on this talk page. There are many good arguments for this parameter in those discussion, but a short version is that romanizations are lossy, and readers should not be expected to know who is or to try and figure out who "Y. R. Chao" might refer to. —  AjaxSmack  20:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author=Y. R. Chao [趙元任] wouldn't work, or if you need the author parameters for use with {{sfn}} or similar, then wouldn't <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author=Y. R. Chao and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author-mask=Y. R. Chao [趙元任] work? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Bcc"Is there a reason...". Yes, because it makes the <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|first= and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|last= fields unavailable. Here's an example. (I don't use {{sfn}} unless the article already does.) Is there a reason we have <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-title=? —  AjaxSmack  14:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|first=Y. R., <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|last=Chao works with <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author-mask=Chao, Y. R. [趙元任]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Why use a workaround that's not really meant for this purpose? (I vaguely remember it breaking some sorting once.) I'm genuinely curious why <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-title= is fine and <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-author= is not, despite numerous editors calling for it over the years. Is it too difficult to implement? Will it break something? —  AjaxSmack  16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against it, just wondering why the available solution isn't practical. You shouldn't break anything by using author-mask with last and first, it will definitely work fine with short form references. If something can be accomplished with the currently available fields, then new fields only add extra complexity and additional maintenance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

These points apply to <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-title= as well, and it appears to be well-subscribed and working fine. As I noted, quite a few editors have requested <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-author= over the years. —  AjaxSmack  17:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Then I would have said the same about them in discussions on their creation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I support this. This is not necessary when the author has an wiki article, but otherwise the information is as essential as that in <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-title=. It's possible to fudge the presentation with <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author-mask=, but <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-author= would be the clean way to do it. (Adding the info to <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author= messes up the semantics.)

The proposal is to add the value of <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|script-author= in parentheses after the author name. Ditto for all the other names. Kanguole 21:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

script-X is intended to provide support for languages that don't do italics. That's it. That's the only reason it exists. Authors do not have this problem because they are not italicized.

The appropriate parameter for support of what you want is <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|author-mask=. Your assertion that it's not its purpose is incorrect. Izno (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  13:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Citation – wrong links in hatnotes

There are some wrong/non-functional links in hatnotes at Template:Citation. E.g. under the heading "Anchor":

Not to be confused with § Identifiers.

Further information: § Anchored citations.

The first line links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#Identifiers, which just redirects to the main page. Same as several other ones I checked.

— Phazd (talk|contribs) 21:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This is problem about Module:Hatnote (and Module:Format link). See ja:Special:Diff/110484481, ja:Special:Diff/110484386. --FlatLanguage (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Not done. These requests should be made at Module talk:Hatnote and Module talk:Format link.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I have worked around the problem for now. I wonder if it used to work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Before Parsoid, it worked. Parsoid's render of [[:# links to main page. FlatLanguage (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed: before (using useparsoid=0) vs after — SirOlgen (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

doi-broken-date possible meanings

The <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|doi-broken-date= parameter can mean broken in a variety of ways:

1. doi.org itself returns a 404 reply, saying "DOI Not Found", eg. Template:DOI[1]
2. doi.org redirects to a 404 reply, eg. Template:DOI[2][3]
3. doi.org redirects to a domain with no server responding to HTTP requests (the whole domain is dead)

All of these are easily machine-verifiable. DOIs can have another kind of resolver issue, where doi.org redirects to a URL which represents the wrong resource. I've seen this before in DOIs getting linked to the wrong chapter of a book. This isn't readily machine-verifiable and probably shouldn't use the <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|doi-broken-date= parameter.

I was considering editing Template:Citation Style documentation/id2. However, I decided just to document it here instead. Daask (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:JCW update - Open access

Template:Main BTW just a heads up, the WP:JCW compilation now reports whether or not publications and publishers are open access ones. It's not perfect, sometimes there are classes like (delayed open access being the category given to the article, but the infobox just says open-access = yes, so the bot picks one which might not be accurate. Most publishers should be unflagged because the publisher a mix of open and closed access journals, while most publications should probably be flagged as hybrid open access, since most will support a pay-to-make-it-free option.

Things should get considerably more accurate after the next dump, but if you have feedback, please let me know at WT:JCW! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

cite speech

• I can't wrap my head around speech being handled as a published document (a speech with chapters). Why is it called speech then? Like I said in the dicussion at the top, creation-date would really be an appropriate solution.

• Since we have video and audio online speeches can be published in these formats, without ever being printed. In that case there is a problem with minutes and time. Both seem pretty much the same, they serve a specific moment in the speech, a specific citation; there is no way to say how long the speech (the video or audio) as a whole is, which is quite interesting. And it can't be referenced a whole work.

• My specific problem I came upon when I tried to cite a lecture uploaded on youtube. I would rather focus on the circumstances of the lecture than on the platform it is presented on (maybe even use the appendix via), so I don't want to use cite web. I hoped to find cite lecture, but there was only speech, ok. Cite conference could have suited the talk, but it was a stand-alone event, specifically:

Template:Cite speech (Used at Two Venetian Ladies)

I will probably remove (curator)+(conservator), because of the following date also in brackets (don't like that). The point here is that the location translates to "Written at", which is irrelevant here, but there is a difference between the date the speech was given and the date at which the video was uploaded --for that I can use orig-date and publication-date--, but there is also the location of the publisher and the location the speech was held. If I can not use publication-place for the location of the event, because it's coupled with the publisher

(simplified: Template:Cite speech)

• Cite speech has a conference-date and conference-url, but no conference-place? This could have been a solution for my problem.

• P.S.: I found type= on many occasions very helpful, and I use it to specify the literary genre (pamphlet, speech, album credits, afterword) or the section in a newspaper or magazine (obituary, review, interview). Is this ok, and maybe supposed to be used in that way?

MenkinAlRire 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

{{cite av media}} is also available and may be your preference. Izno (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Answering a few of these questions:

• Until the advent of recording technology, the only way to refer to a speech was as a published version on paper. See Template:Oclc for an 1896 example of a book of speeches.
• We never use a CS1 template to specify the length of a work that we are citing, only the location in the work where support can be found for a claim made in an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• That is what I said. But since then the media landscape has changed very much so there will be a sentimental niche for books just like vinyl (Yeah, sad. Especially in the sciences the oftentimes very expensive publications will die out, I suppose, also because the (specialised) libraries, who are the main target, won't have the finances anymore.)
• With the video I found it interesting to know in advance, how much time I would have to spent on it, which is different to a book, a speech also doesn't have an index or even chapters (in my case it is 90 min, not 2, like another one in the article). But I wouldn't tell the number of pages either (or the size in kb), so I can agree with you there.

MenkinAlRire 22:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I overlooked this one. I'll have a look at it. Thanks. MenkinAlRire 22:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite podcast

Why is there no entry for guest or interviewee? Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Question/yet another field order request

Greetings and felicitations. In "{{Cite journal}}", why is the order "Journal Vol (issue). Publisher: pages"? I would think that "Publisher: JournalTemplate:-", or "Journal (Publisher)", or some other closer association would make more sense. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I think <syntaxhighlight lang="text" class="" style="" inline="1">publisher</syntaxhighlight> (and <syntaxhighlight lang="text" class="" style="" inline="1">place</syntaxhighlight>), when they are defined, are at their right place, as in Template:Template, but I have always found it extremely odd for the page number to be put after these, rather than after the <syntaxhighlight lang="text" class="" style="" inline="1">issue</syntaxhighlight> (and <syntaxhighlight lang="text" class="" style="" inline="1">volume</syntaxhighlight>) number, as when they are not defined. Keriluamox (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Before March 2024, {{cite journal}} puts volume after publisher:

Author (2000). "title". journal. location: publisher. 1 (2): 10–20.

After Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 93, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 94:

Author (2000). "title". journal. 1 (2). location: publisher: 10–20.

I’ve talked about it on User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 28. FlatLanguage (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I've complained about this too at some point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

On a similar topic, if the language is displayed, it should be after the title, not the series, and (pardon me if I've mentioned this before) the edition should also be before the series, please. Examples:

• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book

—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe the miscellaneous URL warning for CiteSeerX URL format can now be removed. (Module:Citation/CS1)

CiteSeerX is now completely down, as far as I can see. Driving editors to make more or less tedious URL changes through a maintenance message seems like a waste to me now, given that both are now just equivalently dead links to be replaced, with neither being more valuable than the other.

If I receive agreement, I'd go ahead and make an edit request to remove the check in question. After sandboxing, needless to say. I think that's how it works, at least. DraegerChem (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly which message do you mean? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine

Here is an example. Citation 3 is affected. "CS1 maint: miscellaneous url". It appears to be there because the citation's original link points to a CiteSeerX site. It doesn't seem to me though that it's of much use anymore, though, as it appears that all CiteSeerX sites are now down, so a format change won't do anything useful. I may be misinterpreting, but that's what I figured so far. The message in itself seems sound, but that it would still trigger for CiteSeerX links in the 'url' parameter does not, given that all such URLs should now be made to point to archive links where available. DraegerChem (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It's there so that is editors can deal with the dead links, it's possible that the papers will be available elsewhere. It that case it appears it's available from the AMS[4] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the archive links for that reference works, it most cases it doesn't (see discussion in archive 102). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense then. It is likely better to keep it the way it is in that case, although I'm not sure the help page for the maintenance message is still helpful. I suppose that may be the right place to intervene, but what to replace it with I'm not sure and I think I'll leave that to someone else.

Thank you for your response and for clearing this up, in any case. DraegerChem (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for citeseerx CS1 error category?

Is Category:CS1 errors: citeseerx still being used in some fashion? Since all instances of citeseerx are now a deprecated parameter error anyway, I don't see any use for this anymore. I would flag it as C4 for speedy deletion but I want confirmation that this isn't being used anywhere else before proceeding. BlaqWiedow (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|citeseerx= is deprecated but still supported. Template:Cl will be deleted when support for <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline style="display: none;" />|citeseerx= is withdrawn. Don't hold your breath for that to happen soon.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"always include ISBN, if one has been assigned"

This is appalling advice. The utility of littering pages with visually distracting ISBN links to nowhere would be moot even if the ISBNs were correct. Because many Wiki editors do not understand that an ISBN identifies an edition rather than a work, thousands of the ISBNs on the site are wrong. Editors should be advised to consider what purpose an ISBN serves, and, if they decide to include one, to ensure that it is the right ISBN for the edition cited. (The field is so pointless and troublesome that it would be better to remove it from the template completely.) Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBN must be correct for the edition. While that is an issue, it is a fairly minor one and certainly does not make "the field so pointless and troublesome that it would be better to remove from the template completely". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

ISBN is incredibly useful when trying to hunt down the correct work, especially for something obscure. Updating the documentation to advice on ensuring the correct ISBN is used can be done by anyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:+1 on updating documentation. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Please update SC2ID limit

In this Köthe conjecture page, one of the sources used a journal with SC2ID more than 290000000 which is 291870068 (and it is the right journal). Please update the limit. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Listing a committee

The documentation for 'author1' says "this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee)", but using it for that purpose generates an error. As an example:

Template:Cite book

Does the documentation need to be revised? Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)