To helpcentralize discussions and keep related topics together, 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 foundhere.
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.
This page is within the scope of theWikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visitthe project page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see theHelp Menu orHelp Directory. Orask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAcademic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmagazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration needs the10.xxxx/... part of the DOI associated with the publisher.All the publications of the publisher must be free-to read. Once that is done, thexxxx part can be added to the list underlocal function build_free_doi_registrants_table(). Also leave a note atUser talk:Citation bot.
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration needs the10.xxxx/yyyy part of the DOI associated with the journal.All the articles associated with that DOI pattern must be free-to read. Once that is done, thexxxx/yyyy parts can be added to the list underlocal extended_registrants_t = { with the format['XXXX'] = {'YYYY'},. If there are multiple journals with the same DOI prefix, they can be grouped together with the format['XXXX'] = {'YYYY', 'ZZZZ', '...'},. Also leave a note atUser talk:Citation bot.
I would like to add a geo-dead/geo-access URL keyword
Previous discussions have come to the conclusion that this is not workable. Websites change which regions can access them regularly, and these websites are regardless not fundamentally dead.
I would like support for PDF page numbers
The specific page of a specific PDF may change between clients with the same file or files with the same client. Consider using a|chapter= or|quote= instead.
I would like my change done now
Local consensus is that these modules sync from their sandboxes approximately once every 3–6 months. This is due to complexity of changes, the number of transclusions these modules have, and to be sure sufficient consensus exists for a change.
I don't like(identifier) in the links to identifier pages
What's the form for|url-access= for books which are only available under special circumstances -- for example, Internet Archive books for which you need print-disabled access? "Subscription" isn't quite right, since you can't pay for the subscription: could we have something like "restricted" with a black lock to say "most people can't access this at all, but it's here for the benefit of the minority who can?"UndercoverClassicistT·C08:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No -- the issue is that none of the three (or four, if you count null) accepted parameters are true:
No entry means that the url is free to access by everybody -- this isn't true.
|url-access=registration means that anyone can register for free -- this isn't true, since most people can't make that registration
|url-access=limited means that users can sign up for a limited-time trial, and then have to pay for a subscription: this isn't true, since they can't do either of those.
|url-access=subscription means that users need to buy a paid subscription, which (as above) doesn't exist and so they can't do.
We're missing an option 5 for "this is available only to specific people: if you're not one of them, you can't do anything, but it's better to have the link here for the minority who can use it rather than take it away from everyone". Other examples include works hosted on university databases that are only accessible to students/alumni/staff, or the occasional work that's only accessible from within a certain country.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"this is available only to specific people"
Then that's|url-access=subscription. That specific people get a free subscrition is not something that needs to be highlighted.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}10:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That raises the tooltip "paid subscription required", but in this case there's no paid subscription available. I suppose another option would be to make the tooltip more encompassing or allow it to be manually changed?UndercoverClassicistT·C10:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We need to either change the documentation/tooltips or add a 5th option.
Also, annoyingly, doi-access= doesn't support limited or subscription. Bug, I think. When I try it, I get "Invalid|doi-access=subscription (help), but the help is not helpful. [edit: Oh I see that free is the only allowed setting for doi-access, butwhy is that?. It seems to be in direct conflict withWP:CS1, which states,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. And I agree with that statement/policy. But I'm being blocked from doing so. WT?]
I see @Hawkeye7 just asked a related question here today. I guess the answer is sort of above - that the category exists soUser: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. Confusing.RememberOrwell (talk)05:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AtTemplate:Citation Style documentation there is a recommendation toPrecede the sample markup with : to create an indent. This is an abuse of a description list and results in invalid HTML (<dd> with no preceding<dt>, which is not allowed). Indentation is really not necessary, so this line should simply be removed.Hairy Dude (talk)01:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the discussion petered out. But it still needs to be fixed. Just now I editedStylized fact, where I found aCS1 maint: location missing publisher, so I went to
and added the publisher and the ISBN, only to be faced with this dilemma:
citation alternative
markup
display
year
{{cite book |author=Friedrich A. Lutz |editor=D. C. Hague |title=The Theory of Capital |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |year=1961 |isbn=978-0333045749}}
Friedrich A. Lutz (1961). D. C. Hague (ed.).The Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan.ISBN978-0333045749.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
orig-year
{{cite book |author=Friedrich A. Lutz |editor=D. C. Hague |title=The Theory of Capital |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |orig-year=1961 |isbn=978-0333045749}}
Friedrich A. Lutz. D. C. Hague (ed.).The Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan.ISBN978-0333045749.
If I use|year= I get a spurious red CS1 error message.
If I use|orig-year= the year doesn't display at all.
This is not OK. We discussed this 6 months ago. Let's settle it. Do we get rid of this CS1 error entirely, or replace it with a maintenance message? I might be OK with a maintenance message, as long as there is a way to suppress it with something like|isbn-verified=yes. It shouldnot be necessary to use hacks like putting the ISBN in parentheses or adding a reprint date. One editor might read the book and verify the reference, and another editor might find the ISBN on the Internet, never see the book, and have no idea about the reprint date, which is irrelevant anyway, as Wikipedia does not care about reprint dates. —Anomalocaris (talk)06:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That ISBN is questionable, so the error message makes sense. You added the ISBN without verifying that the ISBN actually appears on the printed book in question. It doesn't take me to any books at Google Books or Worldcat. I would useOCLC2025527 instead. That leads me to a page with links to holdings of the actual book in 617 libraries. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the reason there are 45,926 pages with the CS1 errors is because of CitationBot, which has a feature to add ISBN numbers to book references. It might look up the title in a database (Open Library), or check a Google Books URL, retrieve the ISBN, and add it. This creates ambiguity - is the|year= edition correct, or the|ISBN= edition. They might be different editions with different page number schemes. It can seem like a minor problem but can have big consequences, like for processes adding links to page numbers within digitized books, that open to the wrong page, making verification inaccurate. ISBNs are so fraught with problems, unless there is a match on author+date+publisher - against both the Wiki citation and the target ISBN metadata - it can't be assumed to be reliable. --GreenC02:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SummarizingJonesey95 andGreenC and adding my own thoughts, it seems the propagation of errors is
Amazon has both correct and incorrect ISBNs for books published both before and after ISBNs were introduced.
Open Library vacuums up Amazon ISBNs without verification.
Citation Bot vacuums up ISBNs from Open Library and creates Google Books page links based on ISBNs that are sometimes wrong, for books published before & after ISBNs were introduced.
I agree this is a mess. But
ISBN/Date mismatch is more of a warning than an error, since it might not be an error.
There needs to be a way for Wikipedians to verify ISBNs from truly reliable sources (list required) that ISBNs are correct and turn off the warning.
Ultimately, every web-based book page reference needs an access-date as a Wikipedian's statement of matching the reference to the assertions immediately preceding the reference.
A failed verification could be because the original editor made an unwarranted leap of logic from the book page, or because the online page doesn't match the original page. The Wiki fact checker doesn't necessarily know which of these is the reason.
I have been changing book citations of the form[1] to[2]
Recently I have been advised that 1. is the correct and standard and preferred format, rather than 2.
It seems to my uneducated eye that format 2. contains the exact same information as 1. without the annoying ISBN/Date incompatibility message. Can someone elaborate on why 1. is preferred over 2. ???Turtlens (talk)06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a truncated version of the citation to show you the plain text.
cite book | last1=Polya | first1=George | last2=Szegö | first2=G. | title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics | publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, NJ | date=1951 | isbn=978-0-691-07988-2
vs
cite book | last1=Polya | first1=George | last2=Szegö | first2=G. | title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics | publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, NJ | date=1951 } ... { isbn|978-0-691-07988-2 }Turtlens (talk)06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very recently found the website isbnsearch.org. I have not used it very often or extensively. Is it a useful and authoritative source for ISBNs? It is copyrighted, but I really don't know anything much about it.Turtlens (talk)06:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably cleaned up several hundred of these errors. With important exception, they were all actual problems that needed to be resolved: invalid ISBNs, wrong date, wrong edition, wrong book altogether. The exception is the books published by theRailway Correspondence and Travel Society, which are undated reprints. There's no way to include the valid ISBN without the error and no consensus to use OCLC instead of the ISBN (see for exampleTemplate talk:RCTS-LocosGWR-6). Would a parameter such as|undated-reprint= make sense?Mackensen(talk)12:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951).Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-07988-2.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951).Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-07988-2
Chatul: First, a minor point: I believe it is best to avoid 2-letter postal abbreviations for U.S. states. For example, use Calif., not CA; N.J., not NJ. I looked for something in support of this in the MOS and I didn't find it, but I believe it's correct. Second, the main point. When using citation templates, put everything possible into the template. Your example (with the state fixed),
{{cite book |last1=Polya |first1=George |last2=Szegö |first2=G. |title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics |publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, N.J. |date=1951 |isbn=978-0-691-07988-2}}:Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951).Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-07988-2.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
would never be changed to
{{cite book |last1=Polya |first1=George |last2=Szegö |first2=G. |title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics |date=1951 |isbn=978-0-691-07988-2}} Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.:Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951).Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics.ISBN978-0-691-07988-2.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
We don't move parameters out of citation templates because we feel like it, and we shouldn't move cite parameters out of citation templates to get around wacky error messages. The solution is to grapple with the wacky error message and make the problem go away systematically. —Anomalocaris (talk)20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomalocaris, I think you're looking forMOS:POSTABBR. It doesn't exactly match your recommendation. It statesPostal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand for the full names in normal text. They can be used in tables when space is tight but should be marked up with {{abbr}} template on first occurrence. They should not be used in infoboxes.Schazjmd(talk)21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd: The problem is thatMOS:POSTABBR is actually giving goofy advice with respect to table and references. I thought this got cleaned up a long time ago, but apparently not. In ordinary running text, the rule can be, always spell out US state names. In tables and references, postal abbreviations aren't good because other style manuals say not to use them, and because people may have trouble remembering if MI is Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, or Missouri. In tables and references, the rule needs to be, abbreviate state names with standard non-postal abbreviations, viz Calif. for California, N.J. for New Jersey, and D.C. for District of Columbia. Seen this way,MOS:POSTABBR's preference for "Washington, DC" should be changed. Dang it, I thought we had this discussion somewhere a long time ago, but I can't find it now. —Anomalocaris (talk)22:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to use both | orig-date= and | date= simultaneously if there is an edition of the book published with the cited ISBN. I suspect there usually/always is, but if I can’t find it I can’t cite it.
I could also see using a different ISBN if I was sure it’s a reprint or new edition of the original cited edition.
The example I cite is peculiar, although not necessarily unique. I am sure that Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics has been reprinted, I just can’t find it with a publication date after the introduction of ISBNs. WorldCat, Amazon, and AbeBooks all have the cited ISBN, and all typically give year of publication as 1950.Turtlens (talk)03:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turtlens:|orig-date= is for the case that the Wikipedia editor looked at recent version of an old book. It's not for the case where the Wikipedia editor looked at an old book that got an ISBN later. For example, a reference to the 1993 Dover Publications paperback edition ofAlice's Adventures in Wonderland might be
{{cite book |author=Lewis Carroll |title=Alice's Adventures in Wonderland |year=1993 |publisher=Dover Publications |isbn=978-0486275437 |orig-year=1865}}:Lewis Carroll (1993) [1865].Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Dover Publications.ISBN978-0486275437.
If the Wikipedia editor looked at an old version of the book that didn't have the ISBN, the ISBN doesn't help at all unless there is assurance that the printing associated with the ISBN is a valid reference on the given page or pages for that portion of the Wikipedia article. This could be accomplished by checking the ISBN printing on those pages, or by knowing that the ISBN printing has the same words on every page as the older printing originally referenced. —Anomalocaris (talk)06:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I think.
So my Polya/Szego example will have the ISBN / date incompatibility message, and I should just let it stand.
Should every edition of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland have |orig-date=1865 ? No. Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice would have an |orig-date=1960.Turtlens (talk)10:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to cite an article from newspapers.com. The article starts on one page and continues on another. As far as I can tell, that requires creating two distinct clippings, each with its own URL. What's the best way to cite this in a{{cite newspaper}} template?RoySmith(talk)19:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into that a number of times. What I do is create two clippings, use the first page as the source url, and then in thepages= portion, I link the 2d page clipping url to that page number.Schazjmd(talk)19:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative that I generally make use of is to use the|id= parameter, especially since this makes it easier to add links to other databases (see e.g.{{ProQuest}},{{Gale}},{{Factiva}}, etc.).
For example, the citation in that link I'd format as:{{cite news |last1=Miles |first1=Marvin |last2=Abramson |first2=Rudy |title=Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=July 21, 1969 |pages=1, 10 |id=[[Newspapers.com]] clippings [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035464/the-los-angeles-times/ 56035464], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035546/the-los-angeles-times/ 56035546].}} =>Miles, Marvin; Abramson, Rudy (July 21, 1969). "Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface".Los Angeles Times. pp. 1, 10.Newspapers.com clippings56035464,56035546.
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?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a specific page for that, but there is the all-purposeWikipedia:Help desk. Feel free to ping me (User:Sollyucko) there and I'll be happy to take a look when I have time.
Hi, I'm writing from Mongolian Wikipedia. When using this module it gives me CS1 мажар-хэлний эх сурвалж (hu). What I have to do to change мажар to унгар and so it starts from capital letter. ThanksEnkhsaihan2005 (talk)15:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Language names come from MediaWiki via a call to the Scribunto functionmw.language.fetchLanguageNames() which gets a list of language names known to MediaWiki. We can see what that returns for language taghu with the#language magic word:
{{#language:hu|mn}} → мажар
So, to change that, you must change MediaWiki's definition of the language name for mn.wiki. I suspect that to do that, you must do so viaPhabricator. But, I also suspect that you will not succeed because MediaWiki gets language names from UnicodeCLDR which listsмажар as the 'native' name for Hungarian. SeeLocale Data Summary for Mongolian [mn].
If this is the only language name you want to change, you can override MediaWiki atlang_tag_remap andlang_name_remap inmn:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration.
Note that making either of these changes will also change how|language= renders the language name.
All language names or justмажар? If justмажар then I have already answered that. If all language names then you must get MediaWiki to change their data or you can editmn:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to capitalize every name inmw_languages_by_tag_t. A simple way to do that might be to do this aftermw_languages_by_tag_t is created:
fork,vinpairs(mw_languages_by_tag_t)domw_languages_by_tag_t[k]=lang_obj:ucfirst(v);-- force first character of language name to uppercaseend
Not tested and is summat that will not be incorporated into the en.wiki version so at every update you will need to re-add whatever code you write to force language name first character to uppercase.
I added a doi to a book reference, and got a CS1 warning: "Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI". The only valid value of|doi-access= is "free", so what is the point?Hawkeye7(discuss)18:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that|doi-access= is optional. For some reason I don't understand, we assume that|url= is free access unless otherwise stated, while|doi= is limited access by default. If you leave|doi-access= blank, you're effectively saying that the DOI link is limited access.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In{{cite journal}} templates, a free-to-read|doi= can autolink|title= but only when|doi-access=free.|doi-access=free also controls display of the free-to-read lock icon (); no|doi-access=free, no lock icon attached to the citation's|doi= rendering. In other cs1|2 templates, a free-to-read|doi= does not autolink|title= so the free-to-read icon aids interested readers by identifying free-to-read|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 the10. and the/. Alas, not all dois believed to be free-to-read are actually free-to-read. For example10.1155/S1073792801000046 has the prefix1155 which is generally free-to-read but, in this case is not.
"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.Pol098 (talk)16:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly, doi-access= doesn't support limited or subscription. Bug, I think. When I try it, I get "Invalid|doi-access=subscription (help), but the help is not helpful. I see that free is the only allowed setting for doi-access, butwhy is that? It seems to be in direct conflict withWP:CS1, which states,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. And I agree with that statement/policy. But I'm being blocked from doing so. WT?
It's stated that the category exists soUser: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?
I support amending the access level parameters for identifiers to allow the keywordsregistration,limited andsubscription to be set too, not justfree. I believe it is natural for identifiers specified in|doi= etc. to make no assumptions about access levels by default, unless they are known to be (or not to be) free to read.本日晴天 (talk)05:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also checkHelp:Contents and theFAQ, or ask at theHelp desk or theTeahouse. Users who monitor the categoryWikipedians looking for help and those inWikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can alsojoin the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using{{Tl}} or similar, replace with{{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use{{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}
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.RememberOrwell (talk)06:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the following descriptor wording, from:Complex usage showing effect of using volume parameter and name-list-style parameter (without volume and name-list-style)toComplex usage showing display of volume and name-list-style (without using volume or name-list-style parametersBecause I could not understand the original wording (top) at all (it is not "using" a "volume parameter"). If this was not an improvement, feel free to revert (or replace with another wording, since the original is - to me - nonsense).Noleander (talk)14:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Citation |translator-last=Bikkhu |translator-first=Thannssaro |orig-year=1999 |title=Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21) |url=https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html |website=Access to Insight |publisher=Barre Center for Buddhist Studies |date=30 November 2013}}
I'm proposing something more like
Bikkhu, Thannssaro, trans. (30 November 2013) [1999], "Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21)",Access to Insight, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies
TheChicago Manual of Style (section 14.103; I have the 17th edition in hardcover and it agrees with this web site) agrees with you. I'll leave the programming up to someone else. I know better than to mess with these modules. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a citation where only the first name of the authors of a book chapter/section are given, but when I put the first names in it throws an error and does not show the authors of the section in the citation. Am I doing something wrong?Katzrockso (talk)01:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso There is the parameter|author= for situations where the author has a single name, has an unclear first/last name because of the culture, or is a body of multiple authors under a single (usually organizational) name.Rjjiii (talk)02:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would I do something like author=<first name1> and <first name2>
In this case the names are Gülkan and Aligül. Or perhaps an &? I actually know the surname of one of the authors, but I don't believe it's mentioned anywhere in the text, so that's another question.Katzrockso (talk)02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite book|author1=Gülkan|author2=Aligül|title=Whatever the Title Happens to Be|date=|location=|publisher=|page=|isbn=}}
Hi there!Oxford Street, Osu has a "check doi value", but the doi value seems to be OK.
Sowah, Mohammed Adjei (2025-06-09). "Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach".LSE International Development Review.4 (1):195–209.doi:10.82191/lseidr.111.{{cite journal}}:Check|doi= value (help)
{{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}}
); no