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
}}
{{FAQ|page=Help talk:Citation Style 1/FAQ}}

== Is there a helpme page where editors can ask for help with unusual cases? ==

I am looking for advice on how to knock an unstructured citation into shape. This page is really about the CS1/2 mechanism and not really the place to ask for help with a specific case. Does such exist? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if there's a specific page for that, but there is the all-purpose [[Wikipedia:Help desk]]. Feel free to ping me ([[User:Sollyucko]]) there and I'll be happy to take a look when I have time.
:[[User:Sollyucko|Solomon Ucko]] ([[User talk:Sollyucko|talk]]) 10:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]]: I actually made such a forum, a few months ago, but it didn't get much support, and the consensus was to use this forum instead. Nobody really wanted to follow multiple forums. So I deleted it. You still get the most experienced eyes posting here. If anyone complains about the wrong place, remind them previous attempts to split forum focus were not well met and the consensus was to use this forum for support. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 19:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

== doi-access ==

I added a doi to a book reference, and got a CS1 warning: "Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI". The only valid value of {{para|doi-access}} is "free", so what is the point? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 18:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

:I think the idea is that {{para|doi-access}} is optional. For some reason I don't understand, we assume that {{para|url}} is free access unless otherwise stated, while {{para|doi}} is limited access by default. If you leave {{para|doi-access}} blank, you're effectively saying that the DOI link is limited access. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 07:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::But if omitting it is acceptable, why put out an error message? If it is assumed to be free by default, why do I need to add {{para|doi-access|free}}? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 17:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{color|#085|Maintenance messages}} are not {{color|#bf3c2c|error messages}}.
:::
:::In {{tlx|cite journal}} templates, a free-to-read {{para|doi}} can autolink {{para|title}} but only when {{para|doi-access|free}}.  {{para|doi-access|free}} also controls display of the free-to-read lock icon ([[File:Lock-green.svg|9px]]); no {{para|doi-access|free}}, no lock icon attached to the citation's {{para|doi}} rendering.  In other cs1|2 templates, a free-to-read {{para|doi}} does not autolink {{para|title}} so the free-to-read icon aids interested readers by identifying free-to-read {{para|doi}} links.
:::
:::cs1|2 maintains a list of doi prefixes that are known to be generally free-to-read – the prefix is the several digits between the <code>10.</code> and the <code>/</code>.  Alas, not all dois believed to be free-to-read are actually free-to-read.  For example <code>10.1155/S1073792801000046</code> has the prefix <code>1155</code> which is generally free-to-read but, in this case is not.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::::"not all dois believed to be free-to-read are actually free-to-read". It fairly often happens when clicking a "doi-access=free" link that the related web page displays possibly an abstract, and possibly allows downloading something that isn't the paper referenced. Presumably an error by an editor, unless the parameter is inserted via the list of prefixes. [[User:Pol098|Pol098]] ([[User talk:Pol098|talk]]) 16:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Re {{xt|Alas, not all dois believed to be free-to-read are actually free-to-read}}. This affects one journal prior to 2007, ''[[International Mathematics Research Notices]]'', as detailed in [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 94#Unflagged free DOI, add a time component to some DOIs]]. It's a longstanding issue, detailed in [[:Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI]], an affects 35 articles, and I would ''love'' for ISSN prefixes prior to 2007, or at least to IMRN, to be ignored by the template. &#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> 03:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Are these 35 of the (at the moment) 40 articles in the category?  [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 12:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes &#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> 16:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Annoyingly, doi-access= doesn't support limited or subscription. Bug, I think. When I try it, I get "Invalid <code>|doi-access=subscription</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid param val|help]]), but the help is not helpful.  I see that free is the only allowed setting for doi-access, but '''why is that'''? It seems to be in direct conflict with [[WP:CS1]], which states, <q>As a courtesy to readers and other editors, editors should signal restrictions on access to material provided via the external links included in a citation.</q> And I agree with that statement/policy. But I'm being blocked from doing so. WT?
::::Also, it says at [[Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required]] that "[[:Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI]], is routinely cleared by [[User:Citation bot]]." But it isn't getting cleared.
::::It's stated that the category exists so [[User:Citation bot]] can do some kind of maintenance... But I'm unable to grok how it would clear it from what's written about it, except in a vague sense.  What should/does the bot currently do with the category, if anything?
::::[[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 06:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also, the bot (or triggering it) seems broken. https://citations.toolforge.org/category.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&cat=CS1+maint%3A+unflagged+free+DOI doesn't load. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 12:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I support amending the access level parameters for identifiers to allow the keywords {{pval|registration}}, {{pval|limited}} and {{pval|subscription}} to be set too, not just {{pval|free}}. I believe it is natural for identifiers specified in {{para|doi}} etc. to make no assumptions about access levels by default, unless they are known to be (or not to be) free to read. [[User:本日晴天|本日晴天]] ([[User talk:本日晴天|talk]]) 05:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tl|helpme}} Could use some more attention here from folks knowledgable about CS1.  E.g. with questions asked and help allowing |doi= to work with the usual keywords for indicating paywall issues do [not] exist.  I presume removing the block on these keywords should be easy for someone who groks CS1 internals. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 06:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please don't use {{tl|helpme}} in the midst of an ongoing discussion. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]] Your interfering feels inappropriate simply because you provide no why.  Why not, exactly?  Seems appropriate to me.  Ongoing discussion of all I'm seeking help with?  How so?  So?  I see 2 weeks of near-silence.  The need for |doi= to work isn't being challenged - I only see (direct or implied) support for it - from ~4 editors on this page.  Do you see it differently?  And I need help - from someone who groks CS1 internals, which I find quite impenetrable.  Why intentionally impede progress?  Some impenetrable bureaucratic reason?  Please explain or revert.  I'm unable to figure out where the relevant code is. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 09:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::"interfering"? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Seriously?  (You interfered with my call for help above using {{tl|helpme}}, by disabling it.) [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 07:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Seriously. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Be [[WP:Civil]]. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 09:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] penny for your thoughts?  Do you wrangle the relevant code?  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1323909629 ?] [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 09:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::'''Oppose'''.  cs1|2 does not highlight the norm.  A url-linked title is presumed to be free-to-read unless marked otherwise by {{para|url-access|<nowiki>[subscription|registration|limited]</nowiki>}}.  In keeping with that philosophy, the named identifiers are presumed to have <code>[subscription|registration|limited]</code>-access restrictions unless marked otherwise by {{para|&lt;{{var|identifier}}>-access|free}}.
::::::::
::::::::Were we to support the various access icons for identifiers (it would be all of them, not just {{para|doi}}), I foresee floods of red locks in reference sections (sea-of-red) in well-maintained articles; an inconsistent smattering of red locks in those articles that are not so well maintained.
::::::::
::::::::The current system ain't broke so we have no need to fix it. 
::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]]
:::::::::What are you doing?  Obfuscation of Wiki functionality is not appropriate: [[Special:Diff/1322657259]]
:::::::::Explain your revert, which added false info I had removed. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 07:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I have replaced your active edit-link url with an equivalent link to the diff of your edit.  Safer that way.
::::::::::
::::::::::cs1|2 have a lot of maintenance categories.  All of them are tracking cats that are permitted (encouraged) to be empty.  We should permit deletion of a maint cat only when we have decided that the condition that populated the maint cat no longer requires tracking and modified the cs1|2 module suite accordingly.  We have taken no such decisions or enacted any such modifications with regard to unflagged free dois and {{cl|CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI}}.
::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::My edit did not change the categories; they are unchanged with or without my edit? : 
:::::::::::Category: CS1 maintenance
:::::::::::Hidden categories: Hidden categories Tracking categories Automatic category TOC generates no TOC Pages with DOI errors.
:::::::::::The issue was the text, which ''now'' reads: "This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." 
:::::::::::It's a problem that it says at [[Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required]] that "[[:Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI]], is routinely cleared by [[User:Citation bot]]."  But it isn't getting cleared.  (ANd since I originally noted that, the bot has been blocked.)  [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 23:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the reply.  But I don't understand.  I'm seeing circular reasoning: we don't want red locks because our philosopy is we don't want red locks isn't an argument.  
:::::::::Is there not consensus on wikipedia that colored locks are best practice?  I vaguely recall there was such a consensus.  Overturned? [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 07:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That is not the philosophy that I stated.  The philosophy regarding access icons that I stated is: {{tq|cs1{{!}}2 does not highlight the norm}}.  It has been ever thus since we adopted these icons as replacements for their ambiguous simple-text predecessors ('Requires subscription' and 'Requires registration').  There was an RFC that decided that access icons were to be preferred over the ambiguous simple-text annotations.  Another RFC applied to the design of the access icons.  If you cast about, no doubt you can find those RFCs.
::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Subscription required is the norm?   What fraction of published papers are open access in 2025?  About 50%, per [[google:what+fraction+of+published+papers+are+open+access+in+2025?|google's]] AI.  (Probably a bit less, but increasing.)  So there is no norm.  [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Maybe you can flesh out here or in the docs what  <q>cs1|2 does not highlight the norm</q> means.  What is the norm? Is there one norm?  One per type of source?  Based on...? [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 23:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It's clearly documented at [[WP:URLACCESS]]: "As a courtesy to readers and other editors, editors should signal restrictions on access to material provided via the external links included in a citation".  Makes sense.  You are intentionally impeding editors from doing what we tell them to do there?  Seems nonsensical to me.  1 small lock per source can't lead to a sea of red. [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 07:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::You have cherry-picked a single sentence from [[WP:URLACCESS]].  The whole of {{slink|Help:Citation_Style_1|Registration_or_subscription_required}} (including {{slink|Help:Citation_Style_1#Access_indicators_for_url-holding_parameters|nopage=y}}, {{slink|Help:Citation_Style_1|Access_indicator_for_named_identifiers|nopage=y}}, and {{slink|Help:Citation_Style_1|Tracking_of_free_DOIs|nopage=y}}) applies to the use of access icons.  I wrote some of that documentation.  I guess I thought it obvious that the various subsections of WP:URLACCESS amplified and explained the section's introduction, but then, it is widely held that I suck at documentation.
::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I can't find any part of [[Help:Citation Style 1]] that suggests in any way that "As a courtesy to readers and other editors, editors should signal restrictions on access to material provided via the external links included in a citation" doesn't make sense. 
:::::::::::Based on the search I noted above, I figure that there is no norm among wikipedia source links, and it's unlikely that the majority are subscription-only.  Do you have data showing otherwise?  I don't know how to check, but I'm guessing you have the chops to. The norm you are claiming exists and are avoiding highlighting is subscription-only links or what?  You're not being clear.  You wrote "A url-linked title is presumed to be free-to-read" which would imply that it's green links you're avoiding adding.  But then you're saying it's red ones (a sea-of-red) you're avoiding adding.  
:::::::::::If I'm not mistaken you wrote much of the code for which you note you wrote some of the documentation.  Kudos.  
:::::::::::Are you ok with the change I'm seeking if an RFC confirms that we should be complying with "As a courtesy to readers and other editors, editors should signal restrictions on access to material provided via the external links included in a citation" ? [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 23:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

== DOI value ==

Hi there!  [[Oxford Street, Osu]] has a "check doi value", but the doi value seems to be OK.
*{{cite journal |last1=Sowah |first1=Mohammed Adjei |title=Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach |journal=LSE International Development Review |date=2025-06-09 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=195–209 |doi=10.82191/lseidr.111}}
Could you please check this?  Thanks! [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 01:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:Fixed in the sandbox:
::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite journal/new |last1=Sowah |first1=Mohammed Adjei |title=Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach |journal=LSE International Development Review |date=2025-06-09 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=195–209 |doi=10.82191/lseidr.111 |doi-access=free}}</syntaxhighlight>
:::{{cite journal/new |last1=Sowah |first1=Mohammed Adjei |title=Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach |journal=LSE International Development Review |date=2025-06-09 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=195–209 |doi=10.82191/lseidr.111 |doi-access=free}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

== Common arguments which cause CS1 errors ==

I'm probably not the best at explaining things, but I'll give it a go.

I'm trying to find the most common parameters that throw generic name errors, or a combination of them, such as "|last=Board |first=Editorial". While I know you can do this by creating a script to go through all the pages, I don't have enough experience coding nor do I think this is the best way to go about it. The end goal is to have a list of articles that I can pop into AWB  and a simple find and replace setup to go through all of them and fix the issues.

Is there some kind of database report-like thing I can do to do this? While generic name is the one I would focus on, something like this is something I might use for generic titles or external links where they shouldn't. [[User:EatingCarBatteries|<span>EatingCarBatteries</span>]] <sub>''([[Special:Contributions/EatingCarBatteries |contributions]], [[User_talk:EatingCarBatteries|talk]])''</sub> 07:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
:You might pick from [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/index.html WikiProject Cleanup Listings]. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 07:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
::The current strings that are detected as generic names (and thus put articles into {{cl|CS1 errors: generic name}}) are listed in [[:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration]]. Do a find on that page for "pinterest" to locate the relevant list. Doing a search for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+*last+*%3D+*Desk%5B+%5C%7C%5D%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 "Desk" in the last= parameter] gives you 1,600 articles to work on, for example. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::The author John Desk would advise you to beware false positives. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

== 'title' parameter in '[[Template:cite report]]' not being displayed in either 'quotation marks' or 'italics' like in other [[Help:Citation Style 1|Citation Style 1]] templates ==

Is there any reason the parameter <code>title</code> in {{tl|cite report}} isn't being displayed in '''either''' ''italics'' (like in the [[Help:Citation Style 1|Citation Style 1]] templates {{tl|cite AV media}}, {{tl|cite AV media notes}}, {{tl|cite book}}, {{tl|cite conference}} (unless the parameter <code>book-title</code> is defined), {{tl|cite encyclopedia}} (if both the parameters {{tooltip|{{codett|chapter}}|or any of its aliases, including: article; contribution; entry; and section}} and {{tooltip|{{codett|encyclopedia}}|or alias dictionary}}, the parameter {{tooltip|{{codett|chapter}}|or any of its aliases, including: article; contribution; entry; and section}}, but not {{tooltip|{{codett|encyclopedia}}|or alias dictionary}}, or neither of those parameters, are defined), {{tl|cite map}} (unless the parameter {{tooltip|{{codett|website}}|or any of its aliases, including: journal; magazine; newspaper; periodical; and work}} is used), {{tl|cite serial}}, {{tl|cite sign}}, {{tl|cite speech}}, {{tl|cite tech report}}, and {{tl|cite thesis}}) '''or''' "quotation marks" (like in other [[Help:Citation Style 1|Citation Style 1]] templates {{tl|cite arXiv}}, {{tl|cite bioRxiv}}, {{tl|cite CiteSeerX}}, {{tl|cite conference}} (if the parameter <code>book-title</code> is defined), {{tl|cite document}}, {{tl|cite encyclopedia}} (if the parameter {{tooltip|{{codett|encyclopedia}}|or alias dictionary}}, but not {{tooltip|{{codett|chapter}}|or any of its aliases, including: article; contribution; entry; and section}}, is defined), {{tl|cite episode}}, {{tl|cite interview}}, {{tl|cite journal}}, {{tl|cite magazine}}, {{tl|cite mailing list}}, {{tl|cite map}} (if the parameter {{tooltip|{{codett|website}}|or any of its aliases, including: journal; magazine; newspaper; periodical; and work}} is defined), {{tl|cite medRxiv}}, {{tl|cite news}}, {{tl|cite newsgroup}}, {{tl|cite podcast}}, {{tl|cite press release}}, {{tl|cite SSRN}}, and {{tl|cite web}}, and the [[Help:Citation Style 2|Citation Style 2]] template {{tl|citation}})? [[User:PK2|PK2]] ([[User talk:PK2|talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/PK2|contributions]]) 12:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:If I remember correctly, the title-without-style was a decision taken by someone in the pre-lua days:
::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite report/old|title=Report title}}</syntaxhighlight> → {{cite report/old|title=Report title}}
:When converted to use [[Module:Citation/CS1]], that title-without-style was retained.  Perhaps, if you search for it, you will find a relevant discussion somewhere in the archives of the various talk pages.  Next time, no wall of text please.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe there was a reason.  But I can't think of a good one for this outlier behavior.  Change?
:It would be helpful if [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/testcases]]<nowiki> had an entry for {{</nowiki>[[Template:Cite report|cite report]]<nowiki>}}?</nowiki> [[User:RememberOrwell|RememberOrwell]] ([[User talk:RememberOrwell|talk]]) 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== "line feed character" problem ==

I have created a ref, and the formatting seems fine to me, but no matter what I do, I keep running into a "line feed character" problem:
* [[Michelle Goldberg]] asserts that Russia has "leverage" over Trump.<ref name="Goldberg_11/30/2018">{{cite news | last=Goldberg | first=Michelle | author-link=Michelle Goldberg | title=Trump Is Compromised by Russia | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=November 30, 2018 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/opinion/cohen-trump-putin-russia-mueller.html | access-date=December 3, 2025 | quote=One of the chief questions in the Trump-Russia scandal has been whether Vladimir Putin has leverage over the president of the United States, and, if so, what that leverage looks like. The significance of the fabled 'pee tape,' after all, is not that it would reveal Donald Trump to be a pervert bent on defiling the place where Barack Obama slept. Rather, the tape matters because, if real, it would show the president to be vulnerable to Russian blackmail.{{nbsp}}...</br>
That's also why evidence of Trump's business involvement with Russia would be significant,{{nbsp}}...</br>
We still don't know for certain if Russia has ''used'' leverage over Trump. But there should no longer be any doubt that Russia ''has'' leverage over him.{{nbsp}}...</br>
'If the Russians are aware that senior American officials are publicly stating things that are not true, it's a counterintelligence nightmare,' Adam Schiff, the California Democrat in line to take over the House Intelligence Committee, told me.}}</ref>

{{reftalk}}

Where is the problem? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], use just the line break tag <code><nowiki><br /></nowiki></code> and not a line break in the source text of the quote:
:* {{cite news | last=Goldberg | first=Michelle | author-link=Michelle Goldberg | title=Trump Is Compromised by Russia | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=November 30, 2018 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/opinion/cohen-trump-putin-russia-mueller.html | access-date=December 3, 2025 | quote=One of the chief questions in the Trump-Russia scandal has been whether Vladimir Putin has leverage over the president of the United States, and, if so, what that leverage looks like. The significance of the fabled 'pee tape,' after all, is not that it would reveal Donald Trump to be a pervert bent on defiling the place where Barack Obama slept. Rather, the tape matters because, if real, it would show the president to be vulnerable to Russian blackmail.{{nbsp}}...<br /> That's also why evidence of Trump's business involvement with Russia would be significant,{{nbsp}}...<br />We still don't know for certain if Russia has ''used'' leverage over Trump. But there should no longer be any doubt that Russia ''has'' leverage over him.{{nbsp}}...<br />'If the Russians are aware that senior American officials are publicly stating things that are not true, it's a counterintelligence nightmare,' Adam Schiff, the California Democrat in line to take over the House Intelligence Committee, told me.}}
:You can see them in the [https://www.soscisurvey.de/tools/view-chars.php hidden Unicode characters]. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 19:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:: OMG! You're right. Thanks. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 19:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== preview warning messages ==

Preview warning messages look summat like this:
<div style="margin-left:1.6em;" class="cdx-message cdx-message--warning cdx-message--block">
<span class="cdx-message__icon"></span><div class="cdx-message__content">
{{int:Previewnote}} <span class="mw-continue-editing"> {{fakelink|→ {{int:Continue-editing}}|#editform}}</span>

{{int:Scribunto-lua-warning|{{color|#085|One or more {{mono|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:cite book|cite book]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}} templates have maintenance messages}}; messages may be hidden ([[Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display|help]]).}}

{{int:Scribunto-lua-warning|{{color|#d33|One or more {{mono|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}} templates have errors}}; messages may be hidden ([[Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display|help]]).}}
</div>
</div>
It used to be that the 'One or more' text made sense because the <code>addWarning()</code> mechanism created only one message for all templates that emitted those messages; duplicate messages were suppressed.  And then MediaWiki changed that.  Not too long ago, MediaWiki started displaying a message for each time <code>addWarning()</code> is called.  For each cs1|2 template, [[Module:Citation/CS1]] can call <code>addWarning()</code> no more that two times: once for error messages and once for maintenance messages.  So, the 'One or more' text no longer makes sense.

Should we change the message text?  If we do, one thing we might do is to link to the offending template when that template has a <code>CITEREF</code> identifier.  These identifiers are created automatically when a cs1|2 template has one or more contributor/author/editor name (in that order) or when {{para|ref}} is set to something other than <code>none</code>.  We might create random identifiers for those templates that don't automatically create an identifier.  I don't think that it is possible to guarantee that such identifiers would always be unique – but then, we can't guarantee that contributor/author/editor + date <code>CITEREF</code> identifiers are unique either...  Because each cs1|2 template is rendered in isolation from the others in the page, there is no way to know which identifiers were created before MediaWiki called Module:Citation/CS1 to process {{em|this}} template.

Here are the questions:
*should we change the error and maintenance preview messages?  If yes,
**what should the new wording be?
**when we can, should we link from the message to the offending template?  If yes,
***should we create random identifiers when necessary (for use only in preview mode)?
***what would the new wording be when we can link?
***if we choose not to create random identifiers, what would the new wording be when we cannot link?
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== please show syntax for handling references to multiple sections in one source ==

On the [[Template:Cite encyclopedia]] page, just before the Parameters section, it'd be helpful if you could show the syntax for handling references to multiple sections in one source. This is specifically the sentence starting with "This text uses uncommon-term_1". I'd review the syntax myself by hitting the edit button (and then canceling without making any edits), but the page is locked. [[User:Jrtuenge|Jrtuenge]] ([[User talk:Jrtuenge|talk]]) 02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

:The documentation shown on [[Template:Cite encyclopedia]] (true for most, if not all, templates) is actually stored on the '/doc' sub-page and generally isn't locked. In this case, you would want to go to [[Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc]]. From there you should be able to use the <EDIT> function to view the syntax of the [[Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc#Examples|Examples]] section. Rgds – [[User:SirOlgen|SirOlgen]] ([[User talk:SirOlgen|talk]]) 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
::Perfect, understood -- thanks for the prompt response and education! [[User:Jrtuenge|Jrtuenge]] ([[User talk:Jrtuenge|talk]]) 17:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

== SSRN limit update ==

SSRN 5798224 is valid (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5798224) and is found on [[Telehealth]]. Could we update the limit? [[User:Snowman304|'''Snowman304''']]'''&#124;'''[[User talk:Snowman304|'''talk''']] 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

== URL access-indicator parameters ==

Hello. Unlike '''doi'''-access=, '''url'''-access= has no "free" option (at best "subscription" or "limited").

I imagine Wikipedia encourage accessible sources. Would it be useful to add a "free" parameter?

[[User:Atis Muller|Atis Muller]] ([[User talk:Atis Muller|talk]]) 15:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC).
:No.  cs1|2 templates presume that a source linked by {{para|url}} is free-to-read.  That presumption is the {{em|norm}}.  Because cs1|2 templates presume that sources linked from {{para|url}} are free-to-read, it is not necessary to mark a free-to-read source as free-to-read; {{para|url-access|free}} would be pointlessly redundant mark-up clutter so is not supported.
:
:For the named identifiers ({{para|doi}} etc) the opposite holds: sources linked by the named identifiers are {{em|not}} presumed to be free-to-read.  That presumption is the {{em|norm}} for named identifiers.  Instead, sources linked by the named identifiers are presumed to lie behind paywall or registration barriers so the various {{para|&lt;{{var|identifier}}>-access|[subscription{{!}}registration{{!}}limited]}} parameters / values are not supported because they would be pointlessly redundant mark-up clutter.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

== Duplicate ID lint errors ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors&wpNamespaceRestrictions=0&titlesearch=DoorDash+Girl+controversy&exactmatch=1<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>This seems to be caused by references like:<ul><li>{{Cite web|title=First article|first=Joe|last=Schmoe|date=2025-01-01|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1}}</li><li>{{Cite web|title=Another article by the same author half a year later|first=Joe|last=Schmoe|date=2025-07-01|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2}}</li></ul>Both produce <code><nowiki>&lt;cite id="CITEREFSchmoe2025"</nowiki></code> in HTML.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1765155215741:Help_talkFTTCLNCitation_Style_1" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 00:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)</span>
:Yep.  Each cs1|2 rendering takes place in isolation.  There is no communication between cs1|2 templates so each has no idea that there are other cs1|2 templates in the article and so has no idea what <code>CITEREF</code> anchor ids are already in use.
:
:You can suppress a duplicate <code>CITEREF</code> anchor id by setting {{para|ref|none}}.  Similarly, you can create plaintext custom anchor ids ({{para|ref|&lt;{{var|plaintext id}}>}} or custom <code>CITEREF</code> anchor ids with {{tlx|sfnref}} but, warning, you may need to force any short-form reference templates ({{tlx|sfn}} or {{tld|harv}}-family) to use that same custom identifier ({{para|ref}} in the matching short-form reference template).
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]], what is the reason it uses this hardly-unique combination of last name+year?<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1765198978911:Help_talkFTTCLNCitation_Style_1" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 13:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Because long ago, some editor or group of editors decided that cs1|2 would support [[Author–date referencing|Author–date (Harvard) referencing]], a referencing system that has been in use since the 1880s.  Whether the decision for cs1|2 to support Harvard referencing followed from the development of the {{tlx|Harvard citation}} family of templates or the other way 'round, I don't know.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

::Surely [[Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year]] would come in handy? If you’re set on using the YYYY-MM-DD format, you can add {{para|year|2025a}} in addition to {{para|date|2025-01-01}}. [[User:Keriluamox|Keriluamox]] ([[User talk:Keriluamox|talk]]) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

== Self published ==

{{xt|For self-published works (i.e., where the publisher is the same as the author or creator) state <nowiki>|publisher=</nowiki>self-published.}}
Does it also apply to artists' official store or official websites? I often cite them for physical releases or as a source, but I'm still not sure what to put on {{para|publisher}}. (I have used {{para|publisher|(Arist name) Official Store}} form tho) [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 13:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 10 December 2025 ==

Can we add a parameter for the [[CNKI]], similar to what we currently have for other identifiers? It'd be similar to what's already on [[:zh:Cite journal|the Chinese Wikipedia version]] of this template. It'd make accurately citing journal articles from China a little more easy. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh/Guestbook|📖]]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 15:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:That link to the Chinese Wikipedia does not lead me to a template. Does CNKI use identifiers? If so, the usual advice is to put them in {{para|id}} using {{tl|CNKI}} or some similar template that creates links from identifiers (cf {{tl|doi}}), and then come back to this page when there is a significant enough population of articles using {{tl|CNKI}} in {{para|id}} that a new, standalone parameter is warranted. This should probably be a FAQ for this page. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

== url= Parameter in <code><nowiki>{{cite encyclopedia}}</nowiki></code> links to entry instead of encyclopedia/work ==

I was trying to write a {{tnull|cite encyclopedia}} reference where I had an Archive.org URL to the page number of the entry (using {{para|page| [url ''pageno'']}}), and wanted to also just link the top-level (no page number) URL to the work/encyclopedia using {{tnull|cite encyclopedia}}'s {{para|url}} parameter. But the rendered text makes the ''entry'' ({{para|title}}) the link, instead of the encyclopedia/work ({{para|encyclopedia}}):

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| {{demo|br=<td>|<nowiki>{{cite encyclopedia |last1= Fadness |first1= Rodger J. |last2= Wallechinsky |first2= David |last3= Wallace |first3= Amy |editor1-last= Wallechinsky |editor1-first= David |editor2-last= Wallace |editor2-first= Amy |date= 2005 |title= 17 Famous People Who Were Expelled From School |encyclopedia= The Book of Lists |page= [https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/page/15/ 15] |publisher= Canongate Books |location= Edinburgh/New York/Melbourne |url= https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/ |url-access= registration }}</nowiki></td> }}
|}

This acts more like you'd expect {{para|chapter-url}} in {{tnull|cite book}} to work, linking to the specific section/chapter/entry. Using {{tnull|cite encyclopedia}}, I don't see a way to link to the '''work/encyclopedia''' separately from the entry. Am I missing something?

If I'm not misunderstanding, I'd like to suggest/request that {{tnull|cite encyclopedia}} be changed so that:

# {{para|url}} using the {{para|encyclopedia}} as the link and text, instead of using {{para|title}}.
# {{para|entry-url}} be added as a parameter that's an alias for {{para|chapter-url}}, and make them ({{para|chapter-url}} use {{para|title}} for the link and text.

This would be a potentially breaking change for existing uses. An alternate, non-breaking change, would just be:

* add {{para|encyclopedia-url}} as a specific parameter to this {{tnull|cite XXX}} variant.
&emsp;—&#8239;'''[[User:sbb|sbb]]'''&#8239;([[User Talk:sbb|talk]]) 23:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:{{para|url}} {{em|always}} links {{para|title}} in any and all cs1|2 templates.  {{para|entry}} is an alias of {{para|chapter}} so {{para|entry-url}} already exists.  To fix your example template:
::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Fadness |first1=Rodger J. |last2=Wallechinsky |first2=David |last3=Wallace |first3=Amy |editor1-last=Wallechinsky |editor1-first=David |editor2-last=Wallace |editor2-first=Amy |date=2005 |entry=17 Famous People Who Were Expelled From School |title=The Book of Lists |page=[https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/page/15/ 15] |publisher=Canongate Books |location=Edinburgh/New York/Melbourne |url=https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/ |url-access=registration}}</syntaxhighlight>
:::{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Fadness |first1=Rodger J. |last2=Wallechinsky |first2=David |last3=Wallace |first3=Amy |editor1-last=Wallechinsky |editor1-first=David |editor2-last=Wallace |editor2-first=Amy |date=2005 |entry=17 Famous People Who Were Expelled From School |title=The Book of Lists |page=[https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/page/15/ 15] |publisher=Canongate Books |location=Edinburgh/New York/Melbourne |url=https://archive.org/details/bookoflists0000wall/ |url-access=registration}}
:{{tlx|cite encyclopedia}} is already an oddball; adding another parameter just for the use of this template merely extends its oddball-ness.  Previous discussion about the oddities of {{tld|cite encyclopedia}} have not produced a definitive answer.  There are those who think that {{para|title}} / {{para|encyclopedia}} should be preferred (much like {{tlx|cite journal}}) and there are those who think that {{para|entry}} or {{para|article}} / {{para|title}} should be preferred (much like {{tlx|cite book}}).
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
:: *sheepish facepalm*. I can't believe I missed {{para|entry}} entirely. I've been using {{para|title}} for the title of the entry, and {{para|encyclopedia}} for title of the book for so long, I completely missed that {{para|entry}} was there.
::Yeah, I've always thought {{tld|cite encyclopedia}} was a bit of an odd duck; as much as it might be (from your maintenance/coding perspective), with your suggested usage, it'll be a lot less odd for me in the future. Thanks for your help.
::&emsp;—&#8239;'''[[User:sbb|sbb]]'''&#8239;([[User Talk:sbb|talk]]) 06:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)