Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    PMC limit too low

    [edit]

    Trace Gas Orbiter has PMC 12506970, which is correct. It looks like there's currently an unreleased article with PMC 12513599, if that helps determine the upper limit of this increment. Snowman304|talk 01:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SSRN value

    [edit]

    Needs update per SSRN 5515282. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite journal

    [edit]

    I don’t know if this applies to the other journals but you have to enter [month in words] [year] but in journals it is often written as [year] [month number] which messes up the automatic citation maker. Houcaris (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For example January 1988 and 1988-1. Houcaris (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. "1988-1" or "1988-01" are not valid date formats on the English Wikipedia. See MOS:DATESNO for more information. You may need to edit the automatic output of citation tools. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We write dates according to the documentation for {{Cite journal}}. How the publication being cited chooses to write dates doesn't matter. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Others" field not working per "Cite book" documentation

    [edit]

    Greetings and felicitations. The Template:Cite book documentation currently states:

    others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith.

    However, this is currently generating the "{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others" error in Lady Annabel Goldsmith#Bibliography for:

    * {{Cite book |author-mask=2 |year=2006 |title=Copper: A Dog's Life |url=https://archive.org/details/copperdogslife0000gold |url-access=registration |others=Illustrated by India Jane Birley |location=London |publisher=Time Warner |isbn=0-316-73204-4}}

    What should the documentation state? Or is there actually a mistake in the template's code? —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Manintenance messages are not errors.
    |others= is working as intended. Its very name implies that the cs1|2 template has primary author/contributor/editor/etc parameters. Your example template is incomplete; no author parameter even though |author-mask=2 suggests that there ought to be an author parameter. |others= in its isolation causes {{cite book}} to emit the manintenance message. Follow the link at the end of the manintenance message.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah—right. Thank you. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's not currently obvious and apparently I can't do it myself, would you please be so kind as to add a notation to the parameter to the effect that use of an "author" or "editor" parameter are required for the "others" parameter to work. (I prefer explicit, rather than implicit, instructions.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary author/contributor/editor/etc is not required for the "others" parameter to work. In cs1|2, missing 'required' parameters are errors and are indicated as such. Look at your example above; the rendered template clearly identifies India Jane Birley as the illustrator.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    url-access=restricted?

    [edit]

    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?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required. You likely want something like |url-access=registration or |url-access=limited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 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. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 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? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wide-spread "no footnote" errors in articles that haven't changed

    [edit]

    Something has broken {{National Heritage List for England}}. This affects thousands of references on more than 100 articles.

    One example is Listed buildings in Bamford. Lots of "Listed Buildings in" articles use the template for its footnotes. There are other articles (like Burleigh Pottery) which aren't about listed buildings, but also have new problems.

    The template works in two modes. One mode is fine, the other causes "sfnp error: no target errors where there were no problems before. Now, invocations like {{sfnp|Historic England|1087857|ps=none}} are not working anymore. That invocation says there's "no target: CITEREFHistoric_England1087857".

    There used to be: it was generated by {{NHLE |num= 1087857|desc= Moore's Farmhouse, Bamford|access-date= 28 February 2022|mode=cs2}}, but that doesn't work anymore.

    I can't seem to narrow down what changed. Any help? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mikeblas: What happens if you click on the link in footnote 4? I don't see the error message on my device. Rjjiii (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the error message. You don't see it because you haven enabled their display in your common.css. See Category:Harv and Sfn template errors § Displaying error messages.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not new and it has nothing to do with Citation Style 1. This is a classic case of a false positive result from Module:Footnotes which emits that message when it cannot find a match. It cannot find a match because Module:Footnotes reads the article wikitext looking for anything that can be made into a CITEREF anchor/link. Usually in cs1|2 citation templates the necessary information is author surnames (up to four) and the year portion of the source's date. In your {{NHLE}} example, neither of those are present in the wikitext so Module:Footnotes emits the error message. The {{sfnp}} template still links to the target.
    Here is an example (using {{harvnb}} for simplicity:
    If you click that short-form link, your browser should jump you to the {{NHLE}} rendering.
    Inside {{NHLE}}, there is code that sets the |ref= parameter of the underlying {{cite web}} template to {{SfnRef|Historic England|{{{num}}}}} where {{{num}}} in this example is 1087857. That is not visible to Module:Footnotes. Despite the error message, the link from the short-form reference to the long-form reference works. Click it an see.
    But, this particular use of {{harvnb|Historic England|{{{num}}}}} creates a malformed rendering; that template should not be rendering an ampersand. Pretty sure I've seen this particular issue discussed elsewhere. You can get around these issues by writing:
    This works because Module:Footnotes can see the |ref={{sfnref|Historic England 1087857}} in the template wikitext and can see that it matches the {{harvnb}} output.
    More detail and perhaps a better explanation of the false positive error messages can be found at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. This is not a new error and it is not caused by the module suite that underlies cs1|2 templates.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The template is whitelisted in patterns section of Module:Footnotes/whitelist, so these error shouldnt be happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There also Cleveland Point Light that has false positive no target errors for CITEREFLighthouses_of_Australia_Inc, which has also been whitelisted in Module:Footnotes/whitelist. Could this be a WP:THURSDAY thing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § anchor encoding changed?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's just not true: it's certainly new. These citations were not flagged just a few days ago. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing multiple chapters with different authors from a book

    [edit]

    Could've sworn there was a way to do the following, but I can't find it now:

    Editor last, first (date) Book title ....

        Author last, first "chapter title" in editor last (date) ...

    Thanks (t · c) buidhe 15:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    {{harvc}}?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was looking for, thank you! (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Better handling of duplicate IDs in Template:Citation et al

    [edit]

    Is there such a thing as a standard to create IDs for citations that dictates they must be in the format CITEREFsurname1[...surnameN]YEAR ? Because if there isn't, the template should simply use more data to ensure IDs aren't duplicate (say, add the initials of the title) rather than forcing editors to use 2008a, 2008b for the year to work around the template's limitations. Tactica (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tactica: But how would Module:Footnotes footnotes anticipate those? Rjjiii (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this is how APA and other citation styles handle this issue. Rjjiii (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always use the |ref= parameter in the cite with {{sfnref}} to change the CITEREF to anything you want. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&oldid=1319561317"