Help talk:Citation Style 1
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theHelp:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives (index):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100Auto-archiving period:20 days  |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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]
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. --GreenC19:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
|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]|doi-access=free?Hawkeye7(discuss)17:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]{{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.10. 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.|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?
registration,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]|url-access=[subscription|registration|limited]. In keeping with that philosophy, the named identifiers are presumed to have[subscription|registration|limited]-access restrictions unless marked otherwise by|<identifier>-access=free.|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.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.
cs1|2 does not highlight the normmeans. What is the norm? Is there one norm? One per type of source? Based on...?RememberOrwell (talk)23:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there!Oxford Street, Osu has a "check doi value", but the doi value seems to be OK.
{{cite journal}}:Check|doi= value (help)Could you please check this? Thanks!GoingBatty (talk)01:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{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}}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.EatingCarBatteries(contributions,talk)07:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason the parametertitle in{{cite report}} isn't being displayed ineitheritalics (like in theCitation Style 1 templates{{cite AV media}},{{cite AV media notes}},{{cite book}},{{cite conference}} (unless the parameterbook-title is defined),{{cite encyclopedia}} (if both the parameterschapter andencyclopedia, the parameterchapter, but notencyclopedia, or neither of those parameters, are defined),{{cite map}} (unless the parameterwebsite is used),{{cite serial}},{{cite sign}},{{cite speech}},{{cite tech report}}, and{{cite thesis}})or "quotation marks" (like in otherCitation Style 1 templates{{cite arXiv}},{{cite bioRxiv}},{{cite CiteSeerX}},{{cite conference}} (if the parameterbook-title is defined),{{cite document}},{{cite encyclopedia}} (if the parameterencyclopedia, but notchapter, is defined),{{cite episode}},{{cite interview}},{{cite journal}},{{cite magazine}},{{cite mailing list}},{{cite map}} (if the parameterwebsite is defined),{{cite medRxiv}},{{cite news}},{{cite newsgroup}},{{cite podcast}},{{cite press release}},{{cite SSRN}}, and{{cite web}}, and theCitation Style 2 template{{citation}})?PK2 (talk;contributions)12:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite report/old|title=Report title}} →Report title (Report). 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:
References
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. ...
That's also why evidence of Trump's business involvement with Russia would be significant, ...
We still don't know for certain if Russia hasused leverage over Trump. But there should no longer be any doubt that Russiahas leverage over him. ...
'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.
{{cite news}}:line feed character in|quote= at position 500 (help)Where is the problem? --Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<br /> and not a line break in the source text of the 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. ...
That's also why evidence of Trump's business involvement with Russia would be significant, ...
We still don't know for certain if Russia hasused leverage over Trump. But there should no longer be any doubt that Russiahas leverage over him. ...
'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.
Preview warning messages look summat like this:
This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!→ Go to editing area
Script warning:One or more{{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
Script warning:One or more{{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).
It used to be that the 'One or more' text made sense because theaddWarning() 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 timeaddWarning() is called. For each cs1|2 template,Module:Citation/CS1 can calladdWarning() 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 aCITEREF identifier. These identifiers are created automatically when a cs1|2 template has one or more contributor/author/editor name (in that order) or when|ref= is set to something other thannone. 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 + dateCITEREF 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 processthis template.
Here are the questions:
—Trappist the monk (talk)18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On theTemplate: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.Jrtuenge (talk)02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SSRN 5798224 is valid (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5798224) and is found onTelehealth. Could we update the limit?Snowman304|talk00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Unlikedoi-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?
Atis Muller (talk)15:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
|url= is free-to-read. That presumption is thenorm. Because cs1|2 templates presume that sources linked from|url= are free-to-read, it is not necessary to mark a free-to-read source as free-to-read;|url-access=free would be pointlessly redundant mark-up clutter so is not supported.|doi= etc) the opposite holds: sources linked by the named identifiers arenot presumed to be free-to-read. That presumption is thenorm for named identifiers. Instead, sources linked by the named identifiers are presumed to lie behind paywall or registration barriers so the various|<identifier>-access=[subscription|registration|limited] parameters / values are not supported because they would be pointlessly redundant mark-up clutter.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors&wpNamespaceRestrictions=0&titlesearch=DoorDash+Girl+controversy&exactmatch=1
This seems to be caused by references like:
Both produce<cite in HTML. —Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me)00:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CITEREF anchor ids are already in use.CITEREF anchor id by setting|ref=none. Similarly, you can create plaintext custom anchor ids (|ref=<plaintext id> or customCITEREF anchor ids with{{sfnref}} but, warning, you may need to force any short-form reference templates ({{sfn}} or{{harv}}-family) to use that same custom identifier (|ref= in the matching short-form reference template).{{Harvard citation}} family of templates or the other way 'round, I don't know.|year=2025a in addition to|date=2025-01-01.Keriluamox (talk)07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]For self-published works (i.e., where the publisher is the same as the author or creator) state |publisher=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|publisher=. (I have used|publisher=(Arist name) Official Store form tho)Camilasdandelions (talk!)13:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add a parameter for theCNKI, similar to what we currently have for other identifiers? It'd be similar to what's already onthe Chinese Wikipedia version of this template. It'd make accurately citing journal articles from China a little more easy.Gommeh 📖 🎮15:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|id= using{{CNKI}} or some similar template that creates links from identifiers (cf{{doi}}), and then come back to this page when there is a significant enough population of articles using{{CNKI}} in|id= that a new, standalone parameter is warranted. This should probably be a FAQ for this page. –Jonesey95 (talk)06:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]I was trying to write a{{cite encyclopedia}} reference where I had an Archive.org URL to the page number of the entry (using|page= [urlpageno]), and wanted to also just link the top-level (no page number) URL to the work/encyclopedia using{{cite encyclopedia}}'s|url= parameter. But the rendered text makes theentry (|title=) the link, instead of the encyclopedia/work (|encyclopedia=):
{{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}}</td> | Fadness, Rodger J.; Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Amy (2005)."17 Famous People Who Were Expelled From School". In Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Amy (eds.).The Book of Lists. Edinburgh/New York/Melbourne: Canongate Books. p. 15. |
This acts more like you'd expect|chapter-url= in{{cite book}} to work, linking to the specific section/chapter/entry. Using{{cite encyclopedia}}, I don't see a way to link to thework/encyclopedia separately from the entry. Am I missing something?
If I'm not misunderstanding, I'd like to suggest/request that{{cite encyclopedia}} be changed so that:
|url= using the|encyclopedia= as the link and text, instead of using|title=.|entry-url= be added as a parameter that's an alias for|chapter-url=, and make them (|chapter-url= use|title= for the link and text.This would be a potentially breaking change for existing uses. An alternate, non-breaking change, would just be:
|encyclopedia-url= as a specific parameter to this{{cite XXX}} variant.— sbb (talk)23:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|url=always links|title= in any and all cs1|2 templates.|entry= is an alias of|chapter= so|entry-url= already exists. To fix your example template:{{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}}{{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{{cite encyclopedia}} have not produced a definitive answer. There are those who think that|title= /|encyclopedia= should be preferred (much like{{cite journal}}) and there are those who think that|entry= or|article= /|title= should be preferred (much like{{cite book}}).|entry= entirely. I've been using|title= for the title of the entry, and|encyclopedia= for title of the book for so long, I completely missed that|entry= was there.{{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.Hi, so I was adding references when I noticed that there was an S2CID error in terms of its maximum limit (280000000), but the number I referenced (283350357)[1] is legitimate, so the limit should be increased now (I was informed to report this here). —Alex26337(talk)17:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
{{cite journal}}:Check|s2cid= value (help)
{{Cite book |url=http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/docs_draftEIR.html |title=Green Line Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Statement |date=October 2009 |publisher=Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works; Federal Transit Administration |chapter=Appendix B: Station and Alignment Selection Analysis |pages=10–11 |chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160705145947/http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/documents/draftEIR/App_B_thru_J/133_AppB_StationAlignSelAnalysis.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121031141325/http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/docs_draftEIR.html |archive-date=October 31, 2012 |url-status=dead}}The|chapter= is displaying the contents of|url= even though|chapter-url= has something different. The "Archived from the original" links not to an an original URL but to the archive URL.
A workaround is:
{{Cite book |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160705134146/http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/docs_draftEIR.html |title=Green Line Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Statement |date=October 2009 |publisher=Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works; Federal Transit Administration |chapter=Appendix B: Station and Alignment Selection Analysis |pages=10–11 |chapter-url=http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/documents/draftEIR/App_B_thru_J/133_AppB_StationAlignSelAnalysis.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160705145947/http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/documents/draftEIR/App_B_thru_J/133_AppB_StationAlignSelAnalysis.pdf |archive-date=July 5, 2016}}However, this adds an archive URL to the|url= field, which various tools consider an error (correctly most of the time), they automatically move the archive URL to the|archive-url= field, and replace|url= with the original/source URL. It is thus non-robust when both|url= and|chapter-url= are dead and each need an archive URL. As a solution, support archive URLs directly in|whatever-url= fields, without side-effect, and|archive-url= is only applicable to|url= (if it exists or default to the next available URL parameter). --GreenC05:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list somewhere that shows the proper parameter to use for each RS? IOW, when to use newspaper=, agency=, work=, etc. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)19:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a trouble with formatting a publication date for "Natural Resource Inventory" ref atIndian River (Connecticut) article, which is justMay, 2002. How do I format it with{{cite web}}? --CiaPan (talk)21:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|date=May 2022 Omit the comma.