View source for Help talk:Citation Style 1

<!-- Deny citation bot April 2015 because we often post broken citations here intentionally and do not want them to be "fixed". To avoid AnomieBOT substing, use |demo= or |nosubst= instead of adding it here. -->{{bots|deny=Citation bot,SporkBot,Cewbot}}<!--
-->{{skip to bottom}}<!--
-->{{talk header|display_title=Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates|WT:CS1}}
{{central|text=the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions|here]].}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Wikipedia Help Project|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Academic Journals}}
{{WikiProject Magazines}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=480
|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|headerlevel=2
|maxarchsize=200000
|minkeepthreads=6
|numberstart=69
|minarchthreads=2
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved}},{{done}}</nowiki>
}}
{{FAQ|page=Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ}}

==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 [[User:Lcporschen|Lcporschen]] ([[User talk:Lcporschen|talk]]) 07:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

:I've never understood why {{para|publication-date}} exists, {{para|date}} should be used for publication date and {{para|orig-date}} for original date. It seems overly complex to have a third field that needlessly complicates things. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::Since at least April 2020, I have believed that {{para|publication-date}} should go away ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_65#c-Trappist_the_monk-2020-04-05T21:59:00.000Z-Francis_Schonken-2020-04-06T10:07:00.000Z|here]]).  Similarly, I hold that {{para|publication-place}} should go away.  There have been several discussions on this topic which are collected at {{slink|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_86#place,_when_publication-place_is_redundant_with_work}}.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Agree, both simply confuse the matter and are redundant. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::Can it not be useful if there are several editions or versions of a work? {{para|date}} for the year of the edition quoted, {{para|orig-date}} for the 1st edition, {{para|publication-date}} for the publication date if it is a later re-edition, publication in another series etc. [[User:Keriluamox|Keriluamox]] ([[User talk: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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. [[User:Keriluamox|Keriluamox]] ([[User talk: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. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk: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. [[User:Jerodlycett|Jerod Lycett]] ([[User talk:Jerodlycett|talk]]) 06:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't it then make sense to rename 'date' to 'creation-date'? [[User:Lcporschen|Lcporschen]] ([[User talk:Lcporschen|talk]]) 07:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
::::The use of {{para|publication-date}} is quite rare, in most cases {{para|date}} is used for current date and {{para|orig-date}} for the original publication date. So it wouldn't make sense to change {{para|date}}. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
:This is about the <code>&lt;skeptical air quotes></code>documentation<code>&lt;/skeptical air quotes></code> at {{slink|Template:Cite_book#TemplateData}}?  The template's actual documentation for {{para|publication-date}} is at {{slink|Template:Cite_book#Date}}.  The template data are not protected so if you think that it can be improved, please improve it.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::It's actually at [[Template:Cite book#Publisher]], or more specifically, [[Template:Cite book#csdoc_publication-date]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::{{replyto|ActivelyDisinterested}} {{para|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. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Aa77zz|Aa77zz]] ([[User talk:Aa77zz|talk]]) 21:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::::How do you know when it was first distributed? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Date/publication-date are exactly the same thing. If you want the original date use {{para|orig-date}}. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 16:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::This is also what I thought, when looking at the documentation ([[Template:Cite book#TemplateData]]):
:::::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. [[User:Lcporschen|Lcporschen]] ([[User talk:Lcporschen|talk]]) 16:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}
:::::Just to be pedantic, {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} are {{em|only}} {{tq|exactly the same thing}} 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, {{para|publication-date}} is ignored:
::::::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2026}}</syntaxhighlight> → {{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2026}}
:::::when {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} hold different values:
::::::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2025}}</syntaxhighlight> → {{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2025}}
:::::Do we really, {{em|really}}, need both?  I think that we don't and that we should make {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} exact aliases of one another {{small|({{para|location}} / {{para|place}} and {{para|publication-place}} should also be exact aliases of one another)}}.
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::+1 support for that. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 17:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::I agree 'date' and 'publication-date' should be aliases of each other [[User:Lcporschen|Lcporschen]] ([[User talk:Lcporschen|talk]]) 14:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
::::::As for <code>location</code>/<code>place</code> and <code>publication-place</code>, that's what I came here for.<br/>
::::::The [[Template:Cite_book/doc]] is quite complex, probably contradictory… <br/>
::::::But in [[Template:Cite_book/doc#Publisher|#Publisher]] it says "Place: In earlier versions was the publication place; for compatibility will be treated as such if publication-place is absent"<br/>
::::::So aliasing those will be OK for older{{when?}} entries, but possibly not for newer; could we count{{how many?}} newer with both present?
:::::::So paralleling with <code>date</code> and <code>publication-date</code>, which I suppose would have been introduced at the same time, how much will it fudge?
::::::[[User:Ponken|Ponken]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:MenkinAlRire|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! [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:MenkinAlRire|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. / [[User:Ponken|Ponken]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Lcporschen|Lcporschen]] ([[User talk:Lcporschen|talk]]) 09:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
:I have hacked the module sandboxen to make {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} exact aliases.  When used alone, {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} have always performed the same function:
<div style="margin-left:3.2em>{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026}}
{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title  |publication-date=2026}}</div>
:When paired and holding the same dates, {{para|publication-date}} was ignored
<div style="margin-left:3.2em>{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2026}}</div>
:When paired with different dates, {{para|publication-date}} modified the publisher string; that no longer happens:
<div style="margin-left:3.2em>{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2025}}
{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026 |location=Location |publication-date=2025}}
{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026 |publisher=Publisher |publication-date=2025}}
{{cite compare |template=book |title=Title |date=2026 |location=Location |publisher=Publisher |publication-date=2025}}</div>
:If we are to believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3A%22Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%22+insource%3A%22publication-date%22+insource%3A%2F%5C%7B+*%5BCc%5Dit%5Bae%5D%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*date%5B%5E%5C%7D%5D*%5C%7C+*publication%5C-date%2F&ns0=1 this search], there are about 10,500 articles with cs1|2 templates that use both {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}}.
:
:Keep? Discard?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

== Cite document, paper, journal, and web ==

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

I have on multiple occasions been caught off guard when attempting to use {{t|cite paper}} and getting a missing {{para|journal}} error thrown at me, as it is currently a redirect to {{t|cite journal}}. ''Paper'' and ''document'' are much closer semantically, so it seems reasonable to expect {{t|cite paper}} to redirect to {{t|cite document}}, but in replacing a call of the former to the latter, I get hit with an unknown parameter {{para|url}} error. Instead, I have to use {{t|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">
{{cite web
|last=Jones
|first=Daniel
|author-link=Daniel Jones (phonetician)
|year=1956
|title=Cardinal Vowels Spoken by Daniel Jones: Text of Records with Explanatory Notes by Professor Jones
|location=London
|publisher=Linguaphone Institute
|url=https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-streaming.ri-prod/9781444183092/cardinal.pdf
}}
</syntaxhighlight>
The url is merely a scan of a {{tq|short, stand-alone, offline document}} exactly as described in the documentation of {{t|cite document}}, so the fact that I get an error makes little sense to me. I was going to create an RfD for {{t|cite paper}} to retarget it to {{t|cite document}}, but this is preventing me from doing so. ~ [[User:Oklopfer|<span style="color: #e3308a">oklopfer</span>]] ([[User talk:Oklopfer|💬︎]]) 22:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
:IIRC the reason for {{-r|Template:Cite paper}} 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. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk: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. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 23:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
:Sorry but it's clearly not a {{tq|short, stand-alone, offline document}} as it's online. It can't be offline if it has a URL. Cite Document's documentation would clearer if it was "{{tq|short, stand-alone document, that is not available online}}". -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
:::I could see the argument for that, but that's not how it's currently setup. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
:::Like {{tl|Citation}} for CS1? You'd probably need broad consensus for that since the other CS1 templates all describe a type of source. I think {{tl|cite document}} was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_document&diff=1170021118&oldid=1095569050 redirect] to {{tl|cite journal}} prior to this discussion: {{format link|Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_81#"Cite_document"_needs_its_own_template._Redirecting_to_cite_journal_is_illogical_and_unfriendly.}} [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, that helps to explain the incongruence of {{t|cite paper}} and {{t|cite document}}, then. ~ [[User:Oklopfer|<span style="color: #e3308a">oklopfer</span>]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|cite book}} other than {{para|chapter}} and related params. --[[User:FlatLanguage|FlatLanguage]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

== Cite report ==

Why does the report title not display in either italics or quotations? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk: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. :) [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, that makes sense (seriously). [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

== Proposed script-author parameter redux ==

A few years ago, [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 92#Proposed script-author parameter|there were calls from several editors]] for the addition of a {{para|script-author}} parameter to CS1, and the issue has come up before that (e.g. [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 64#Citing native scripts of the author's name and/or title of a work in Citation Style 1|here]] and [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 12#Script variants of parameters for author, editor, etc.|here]]).  

The fact that {{para|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 {{lang|zh|趙元任}} is or to try and figure out who "Y. R. Chao" might refer to.  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #005173;background:#276a7d;padding:2px;color:#dff4f7;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 20:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

:Is there a reason {{para|author|Y. R. Chao [趙元任]}} wouldn't work, or if you need the author parameters for use with {{tl|sfn}} or similar, then wouldn't {{para|author|Y. R. Chao}} and {{para|author-mask|Y. R. Chao [趙元任]}} work? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
::{{bcc|ActivelyDisinterested}}''"Is there a reason..."''.  Yes, because it makes the {{para|first}} and {{para|last}} fields unavailable. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingush_language&diff=prev&oldid=1371119447 Here's an example.]  (I don't use {{tl|sfn}} unless the article already does.) Is there a reason we have {{para|script-title}}? <small> — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #005173;background:#276a7d;padding:2px;color:#dff4f7;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 14:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::{{para|first|Y. R.}}, {{para|last|Chao}} works with {{para|author-mask|Chao, Y. R. [趙元任]}}. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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 {{para|script-title}} is fine and {{para|script-author}} is not, despite numerous editors calling for it over the years. Is it too difficult to implement?  Will it break something? <small> — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #005173;background:#276a7d;padding:2px;color:#dff4f7;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::::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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
::::::These points apply to {{para|script-title}} as well, and it appears to be well-subscribed and working fine.  As I noted, quite a few editors have requested {{para|script-author}} over the years. <small> — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #005173;background:#276a7d;padding:2px;color:#dff4f7;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 17:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Then I would have said the same about them in discussions on their creation. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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 {{para|script-title}}. It's possible to fudge the presentation with {{para|author-mask}}, but {{para|script-author}} would be the clean way to do it. (Adding the info to {{para|author}} messes up the semantics.)
:The proposal is to add the value of {{para|script-author}} in parentheses after the author name. Ditto for all the other names. [[User talk:Kanguole|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 {{para|author-mask}}. Your assertion that it's not its purpose is incorrect. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks. <small> — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #005173;background:#276a7d;padding:2px;color:#dff4f7;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 13:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)</small>

== 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 <u>§ Identifiers</u>.

:Further information: <u>§ Anchored citations</u>.

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.

— [[User:Phazd|Phazd]] ([[User_talk:Phazd|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phazd|contribs]]) 21:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

{{Edit template-protected|Module:Hatnote|Module:Format link|answered=yes}}
:This is problem about [[Module:Hatnote]] (and [[Module:Format link]]). See [[:ja:Special:Diff/110484481]], [[:ja:Special:Diff/110484386]]. --[[User:FlatLanguage|FlatLanguage]] ([[User talk:FlatLanguage|talk]]) 08:16, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
::Not done.  These requests should be made at [[Module talk:Hatnote]] and [[Module talk:Format link]].
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk: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. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 21:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
::::Before Parsoid, it worked. Parsoid's render of <code>[[:#</code> links to main page. [[User:FlatLanguage|FlatLanguage]] ([[User talk:FlatLanguage|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
:::::Confirmed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/doc&oldid=1368874104&useparsoid=0#Anchored_citations before] (using useparsoid=0) vs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/doc&oldid=1368874104#Anchored_citations after] — [[User:SirOlgen|SirOlgen]] ([[User talk:SirOlgen|talk]]) 18:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

== doi-broken-date possible meanings ==

The {{para|doi-broken-date}} parameter can mean broken in a variety of ways:
# doi.org itself returns a 404 reply, saying "DOI Not Found", eg. {{DOI|10.4324/9781315820880-12}}[https://books.google.com/books?id=DHdmAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT223]
# doi.org redirects to a 404 reply, eg. {{DOI|10.1596/1813-9450-1536}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20171122215526/https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-1536][https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837224000014#reference-34-content]
# 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 {{para|doi-broken-date}} parameter.

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

== WP:JCW update - Open access ==

{{Main|WT:JCW#WP:JCW update - Open access}}
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#WP:JCW update - Open access]]! &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 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:
::{{cite speech |author1=Gretchen A. Hirschauer (curator) |author2=Joanna R. Dunn (conservator) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gJz0iobzVg |title=Celebrating Vittore Carpaccio: Exhibition and Conservation at the National Gallery of Art |website=YouTube |publisher=National Gallery of Art |publication-place=Washington, DC |date=February 7, 2023 |type=lecture, 89 min |location=[[Embassy of Italy, Washington, D.C.|Embassy of Italy]] Auditorium |language=en |postscript=, on the occasion of the NGA exhibition titled ''Vittore Carpaccio: Master Storyteller of Renaissance Venice''.}} (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: {{cite speech |author1=Gretchen A. Hirschauer |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gJz0iobzVg |title=Celebrating Vittore Carpaccio |website=YouTube |publisher=National Gallery |publication-place=[[Embassy of Italy, Washington, D.C.]], auditorium |date=2023 |type=lecture, 89 min |language=en |postscript=, on the occasion of the NGA exhibition.}})

* 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?
[[User:MenkinAlRire|MenkinAlRire]] 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

:{{tl|cite av media}} is also available and may be your preference. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk: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 {{oclc|844357129}} 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. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:MenkinAlRire|MenkinAlRire]] 22:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, I overlooked this one. I'll have a look at it. Thanks. [[User:MenkinAlRire|MenkinAlRire]] 22:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

== Cite podcast ==

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

== Question/yet another field order request ==
Greetings and felicitations.  In "{{Tl|Cite journal}}", why is the order "''Journal'' '''Vol''' (issue). Publisher: pages"?  I would think that "Publisher: ''Journal''{{-"}}, or "''Journal'' (Publisher)", or some other closer association would make more sense. —[[User:DocWatson42|DocWatson42]] ([[User talk:DocWatson42|talk]]) 11:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

:I think {{code|publisher}} (and {{code|place}}), when they are defined, are at their right place, as in {{template|Cite book}}, but I have always found it extremely odd for the page number to be put after these, rather than after the {{code|issue}} (and {{code|volume}}) number, as when they are not defined. [[User:Keriluamox|Keriluamox]] ([[User talk:Keriluamox|talk]]) 12:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
::Before March 2024, {{tl|cite journal}} puts volume after publisher:
:::<cite class="citation journal cs1">Author (2000). "title". ''journal''. location: publisher. <b>1</b> (2): <span class="nowrap">10–</span>20.</cite>
::After [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive_93#tcommon assignment cleanup]], [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 94#module suite update 23–24 March 2024]]:
:::<cite class="citation journal cs1">Author (2000). "title". ''journal''. <b>1</b> (2). location: publisher: <span class="nowrap">10–</span>20.</cite>
::I’ve talked about it on [[User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 28#Page number in wrong place in cite journal]]. [[User:FlatLanguage|FlatLanguage]] ([[User talk:FlatLanguage|talk]]) 12:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
:::I've complained about this too at some point. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 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:

* {{Cite book |last=Zana |first1=Mehdî |year=2005 |title=Ay dayê |language=ku |series=Weşanên Tevn; Roman |publisher=Weşanên Tevn |location=Aksaray, İstanbul |isbn=978-975-9094-03-4 |oclc=72801208}}
* {{Cite book |last=Zana |first=Mehdî |year=1995 |title=Sevgili Leyla : uzun bir sürgündü o gece |edition=1st |series=Belge Yayınları, 243; Yaşam ve anılar |language=tr |publisher=Belge Yayınları |location=İstanbul |isbn=978-975-344-086-8 |oclc=260193256}}

—[[User:DocWatson42|DocWatson42]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DraegerChem|DraegerChem]] ([[User talk:DraegerChem|talk]]) 19:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

:Exactly which message do you mean? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
::[[Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine#References]]
::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. [[User:DraegerChem|DraegerChem]] ([[User talk: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 [[American Mathematical Society|AMS]][https://www.ams.org/notices/201003/rtx100300343p.pdf] -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_102#deprecate_|citeseerx=_? archive 102]). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. [[User:DraegerChem|DraegerChem]] ([[User talk: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 [[:Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters|deprecated parameter]] error anyway, I don't see any use for this anymore. I would flag it as [[Wikipedia:C4|C4]] for speedy deletion but I want confirmation that this isn't being used anywhere else before proceeding. [[User:BlaqWiedow|BlaqWiedow]] ([[User talk:BlaqWiedow|talk]]) 16:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
:{{para|citeseerx}} is deprecated but still supported.  {{cl|CS1 errors: citeseerx}} will be deleted when support for {{para|citeseerx}} is withdrawn.  Don't hold your breath for that to happen soon.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Utilisateur19911|Utilisateur19911]] ([[User talk: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". &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} on updating documentation. '''[[User:Icepinner|Icepinner]]''' ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lowyat Slyder|Lowyat Slyder]] ([[User talk: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:
: {{Cite book | title=Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes | author1=Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes | author2=Space Studies Board | author3=Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences | author4=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine | date=September 17, 2018 | publisher=National Academies Press | isbn=978-0-309-47865-6 | location=Washington, D.C. | doi=10.17226/25172 | url=https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/25172}}
Does the documentation need to be revised? [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 15:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)