Help talk:Citation Style 1

doi-access

Template:Archive top 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)

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. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 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 |doi-access=free? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance messages are not error messages.

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 the 10. and the /. Alas, not all dois believed to be free-to-read are actually free-to-read. For example 10.1155/S1073792801000046 has the prefix 1155 which is generally free-to-read but, in this case is not.

—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. Pol098 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Re 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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Are these 35 of the (at the moment) 40 articles in the category? RememberOrwell (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 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 |doi-access=subscription (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, 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?

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?

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. RememberOrwell (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I support amending the access level parameters for identifiers to allow the keywords Template:Pval, Template:Pval and Template:Pval to be set too, not just Template:Pval. 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)

{{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. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use {{helpme}} in the midst of an ongoing discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@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. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"interfering"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? (You interfered with my call for help above using {{helpme}}, by disabling it.) RememberOrwell (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Seriously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Be WP:Civil. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk penny for your thoughts? Do you wrangle the relevant code? ? 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 |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.

Were we to support the various access icons for identifiers (it would be all of them, not just |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.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@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. 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 Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI.

—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.) RememberOrwell (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Bump.  See above.

Again: This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." is false. No part of that is hard to understand.

Again: delete-empty=yes because won't empty, indefinitely. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. It doesn't really matter if Category:CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI never empties. But, if it does, |delete-empty=yes gives any administrator permission to delete the category and therein lies the problem. Assume that the category (with {{tracking category|delete-empty=yes}}) goes empty, an administrator looking for something to do sees that the category is empty and deletes it. Sometime later, an editor adds a free-to-read doi to an article but neglects to add |doi-access=free. cs1|2 sees that the doi is free-to-read and that |doi-access=free is missing so when that citation is rendered, cs1|2 also adds a (now red) link to the deleted category. The missing category then ends up on the list at Special:WantedCategories where another editor will see the need for the category and then recreate it. Then a bot or another editor adds the missing |doi-access=free, category goes empty, admin deletes, another editor adds a free-to-read doi without |doi-access=free, another editor recreates the category, the category is cleared, an admin deletes... ad nauseum. All of this can be avoided by omitting |delete-empty=yes from the {{tracking category}} template.

We don't have a mechanism right now to exclude these 'permanent' not-free-to-read dois from the category, but that does not mean that we won't develop such a mechanism in future.

If Citation bot is not clearing the category, that is a topic for the bot's maintainers. This talk page is the wrong venue for Citation bot issues; discuss at User talk:Citation bot.

For cs1|2 maintained categories, it is best to omit |delete-empty=yes from the {{tracking category}} template in those categories. I will not revert you again but I will support any other editor who chooses to revert your addition of |delete-empty=yes to the {{tracking category}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

In 74 years, when some enterprising citation nerd decides to code in a way to suppress erroneous unflagged free DOI cases, I would prefer the category not be deleted. I'd support removing the delete-empty parameter, and I don't think the text in the banner presents any issue. I'd be happy to compromise on creating a bespoke banner ("Administrators: Please do not delete this category as empty! This category might someday be empty.") and manually adding the "potentially empty" cat. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I may have stumbled into the wrong nerd bar here, but for the sake of my education, what is the argument in favor of upholding the delete-empty=yes parameter? What purpose would allowing it to potentially be deleted serve? If it's never empty that would never apply anyway, so why have it at all?

That appears to be a separate albeit related issue from the banner text. Is this a standard formulaic notice posted on many categories? If so, perhaps it would help to think of it as [Categories with this notice may be empty at times], rather than interpreting it as [This specific category WILL be empty often]. It could be amended to simply read "This category may be empty occasionally” to remove that implication, but since “may” already covers all possible eventualities that seems unnecessarily pedantic - but then so does much of this discussion.

Personally I think the subsequent banner linking to a broken bot could stand removal (at least until fixed), but I guess it's not really hurting anything. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. It shouldn't have taken User talk:Trappist the monk#December 2025 for the abuse to stop and even partial success inducing engagement. And it wasn't inappropriate to identify the bot's contribution to the problem. Though you continue to not address my reason for the edit. Fortunately @Firefangledfeathers has begun to address it. Thanks. I'd be happy with their solution - provided it means the page won't still say "This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." - which I presume is the plan? I think it addresses both our concerns. Agreed, @Trappist the monk? RememberOrwell (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if the category never actually empties, that template still seems appropriate as a a precaution. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers are you hesitant to proceed without word from @Trappist the monk? I presume so.

@ChompyTheGogoat I don't see them as separable in practice - at least I can't address them separately so from where I sit, the only way I can fix the incorrect banner is to do what I did.

Edit warring isn't cool; that's consensus and policy. A better fix, sure! RememberOrwell (talk) 07:58, 30 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? 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: Template:Tq. 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.

—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's AI. (Probably a bit less, but increasing.) So there is no norm. RememberOrwell (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you can flesh out here or in the docs what cs1|2 does not highlight the norm means. What is the norm? Is there one norm? One per type of source? Based on...? 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. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked a single sentence from WP:URLACCESS. The whole of Help:Citation Style 1 § Registration or subscription required (including § Access indicators for url-holding parameters, § Access indicator for named identifiers, and § Tracking of free DOIs) 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.

—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" ? RememberOrwell (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Have you sought input on the proposed rendering at broader venues like the Village Pump? People often have strong objections to even small aesthetic changes. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh? It's ALREADY 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". I would make the change to CS1 to bring it into compliance with WP:URLACCESS myself if I knew how. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

RJJ's point is that any change to this will have an effect on a lot of articles, and suddenly a lot of editors will have opinions on the changes. By getting wider input at a place such as the Village Pump you can head off any disruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it. How would this change - amending the access level parameters for identifiers to allow the keywords registration, limited and subscription to be set too, not just free - effect articles? It wouldn't. Editors using those keywords would - by bringing them into compliance with WP: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 editors are being blocked from using those keywords. WT? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The Harvard-referencing change created error messages only for editors who had chosen to add a custom user script, but I think it had a really strong pushback. Rather than guess, why not seek feedback beforehand? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Why not explain what you're talking about? I have no idea what proposed rendering you are talking about. I didn't propose one. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

(Reportedly: "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." I'm not proposing reversing that preference, or changing the access icon designs. ) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Bumpety bump! RememberOrwell (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

CS1 seems to be in a state of severe disarray. Looking at the diff links at Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, I see most of the components haven't been updated in a few to several months, with a huge backlog of unimplemented changes in the sandboxen. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Citing a whole journal

I'd like to have a whole journal (rather than an individual article) in the bibliography (this one, to be exact), as the journal edition itself is important to the subject and was edited by someone important to it. This means that I'd like to leave the |title= field blank, which throws an error. Is there a good way around this?

I've currently got the following code:

* {{Cite journal| editor-last=Putnam| editor-first=Michael| editor-link=Michael C. J. Putnam| date=1981| journal=Arethusa| volume=14: Vergil: 2000 Years| ref={{sfnRef|Putnam (ed.)|1981}}| jstor=i26308070}}

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

{{Cite journal |editor-last=Putnam |editor-first=Michael |editor-link=Michael C. J. Putnam |date=Spring 1981 |title=none |journal=Arethusa |volume=14: Vergil: 2000 Years |issue=1 |ref={{sfnRef |Putnam (ed.)|1981}} |jstor=i26308070}}

Putnam, Michael, ed. (Spring 1981). Arethusa. 14: Vergil: 2000 Years (1). JSTOR i26308070.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Works perfectly -- thank you! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

title-link vs. url

I'm doing reference templates for various editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. There have been 20 editions, starting in 1879 through 1991. For the editions that are out of copyright, most are available on google books and the first edition is in wikisource. Is it a hard choice between having the name of the book in the reference link to the wikipedia article vs. linking to the google books (or hathitrust) entry for the edition. Note, the article for Baird's does list the editions and the external links for each.Naraht (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

From what you have written, it isn't clear what you are asking. Is it Template:Tq for you to decide which to use? Only you can answer that. Is it a hard rule that cs1|2 templates choose |url= to link |title= when |title-link= is also present? Yes. A choice must be made. It is not possible to link |title= to the source (|url=) and, simultaneously, link to an article about the source (|title-link=). cs1|2 templates choose |url= because the url-linked source is presumed to support the text in an en.wiki article.

You, as editor, must choose one or the other for each cs1|2 template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd figured out they were mutually exclusive, trying to figure out if you had any outside the box ideas, like ways to link the edition to the URL?Naraht (talk)

I presume that you aren't intending to force readers to search through the whole of a particular edition to verify some tidbit of fact in an en.wiki article; that's user hostile. You might narrow the field for them by at least linking to the pertinent section so you might write summat like this:

{{cite book |editor-last=Shepardson |editor-first=Francis W |date=1930 |section=Beta Kappa |section-url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106009366557&seq=96 |title=[[Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities]] |location=Menasha, Wisconsin |publisher=The Collegiate Press |edition=12th |page=64}}

Shepardson, Francis W, ed. (1930). "Beta Kappa". Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (12th ed.). Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press. p. 64.

You get a link to the source and a link to our article about the source...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If a desirable chapter/section name wasn't available, would there be a problem with linking to the source via the page number as outlined in § Adding a URL for the page or location of the {{sfn}} documentation? In other words:

{{cite book |editor-last=Shepardson |editor-first=Francis W |date=1930 |title=[[Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities]] |location=Menasha, Wisconsin |publisher=The Collegiate Press |edition=12th |page=[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106009366557&seq=96 64]}}

Shepardson, Francis W, ed. (1930). Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (12th ed.). Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press. p. 64.

Maybe too subtle from a reader's perspective?

– SirOlgen (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Both of those ideas are great. I'll bring them up on wp:frat. 95% of the links are to sections that are specifically about the fraternity or sorority in question. Is there a reason to prefer hathitrust to google books? And for the ones that link to google books we try to link to the section itself, to the point where links to bairds without pages are considered something that need to be fixed.Naraht (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hathitrust is devoted to providing open text; Gbooks is at the whim of a known-capricious corporation whether they break the interface or stop providing full text. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

David Eppstein I presume that google source would be better than both, not sure where being able to check out the book on archive.org would rank there. (Maybe linking the books not yet out of copyright there, so they can be checked out for viewing with creating a free account)Naraht (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

SSRN limit update

Template:SSRN on Januarius Jingwa Asongu works, so the limit should be updated. Snowman304|talk 15:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

hdl with page?

I have a list of hdl: entries for the various Baird's Manual of American college Fraternities. Can I specify the page while still using hdl?

Example: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities 12th edition can be accessed on hathitrust with hdl:2027/uc1.32106009366557 which redirects to https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106009366557&seq=9 , (not sure why seq = 9, something sets it to go to that as the front page). Can I specify a suffix after the hdl above that will end up as a different page (so I guess a different value of seq) in the document?Naraht (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

{{cite book |editor-last=Shepardson |editor-first=Francis W |date=1930 |section=Beta Kappa |title=[[Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities]] |location=Menasha, Wisconsin |publisher=The Collegiate Press |edition=12th |page=64 |hdl=2027/uc1.32106009366557?urlappend=%3Bseq=96}}

Shepardson, Francis W, ed. (1930). "Beta Kappa". Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (12th ed.). Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press. p. 64. hdl:2027/uc1.32106009366557.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Trappist the monk *THANK YOU*22:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

rp in case of duplication.

In the following case Ref 1: cite book A on page 100 Ref 2: cite book A on page 150.

If there was only one occurance of each ref, I'd combine the two cite books and use the rp template. However, in the case where there are 5 usages of ref 1 and 5 usages of ref 2, would it be better to leave it alone? (and if so, what guidance should be used on whether to merge?) Naraht (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

{{rp}}; ugh.

Why do you think that one of [cite book A on page 100] and one of [cite book A on page 150] is conceptually different from five of [cite book A on page 100] and five of [cite book A on page 150]?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

{{rp}} is a blight. Use {{sfn}} or equivalent, e.g.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

References

Bibliography

• Smith, J. (2006). Random Book of Weird Stuff. House of Lloth. ISBN 978-0-513-48-5.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the articles *rarely* have other references that are done multiple times, putting this particular (edition of the ) book alone in a Bibliography section seems odd.Naraht (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

So what I would do is:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

--Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

To be really picky about this second approach, clicking on the author/date link in the short reference highlights the whole of the first full citation, including the page, which doesn't apply to the others. This is why I think the bibliography approach is slightly better. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

True, but it's how Chicago handles short citations. It would be much easier to deal with these if the underlying software handled it; then we wouldn't have to take the jigsaw approach to connecting shortened footnotes. WMF wouldn't even have to deal with citation styles, they could just format it something like <ref name="Author-DATE">Author (DATE). ''Title: Subtitle''. Publisher. <at>page.</at> ID:####.<short>Author date, <at>page</at></short></ref> Named references could give just the "at" value like <ref name="Author-DATE" at="p. 7"/> or <ref name="Author-DATE" at>p. 7</ref>. Then the software could give the full citation details and in-source location for the popup (which is probably how most people see our citations), while auto-formatting the list of footnotes to print the full citation details for the earliest footnote and use shortened footnotes on later uses. Templates could largely hide the complexity. Template:PbAs it is, it seems like they have few resources behind their sub-referencing which has been kicking around for over a decade on German Wikipedia and still in development. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion an advantage of {{rp}} is that it makes clear that multiple references are from the same source. I prefer [12:15], [12:17], [12:21-25], [12:preface], ..., making clear that we are referring to the same work ([12]), to [12], [13], [29], [41], ...

Hopefully the proposed sub-referencing with "details" will replace rp. "Our plan is to bring sub-referencing to Wikimedia wikis in 2026". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

S2CID limit needs to be increased

The following reference has a valid URL. Harada, Mariko; Miura, Yuna; Watanabe, Yasuto; Ozaki, Kazumi (December 26, 2025). "Redox Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Oceans Induced by the Paleoproterozoic Snowball Earth Events". Geobiology. 23 (6) e70040. doi:10.1111/gbi.70040. eISSN 1472-4669. ISSN 1472-4677. LCCN 2003201710. OCLC 52805553. PMC 12743051. PMID 41453840. S2CID 284226518. Since the current limit (as of this message) is 284000000, it needs to be updated. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 10:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

DOI update

Template:DOI on Art of This Century gallery is a valid DOI that's throwing a DOI error. Snowman304|talk 23:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Dewey decimal number inclusion

Hi, When using {{cite book| ...}}, which field should the Dewey Decimal Classification number go in? Thanks, Anothersignalman (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anothersignalman, I don't think I've seen other editors include it. APA, MLA, Chicago, etc. don't include it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Huh, OK, thanks for that :) Anothersignalman (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There are at least three problems with Dewey classification: (i) it's not unique - two different books often have the same classification; (ii) librarians exercise a certain amount of individual freedom to deviate from the official classification; (iii) it's subject to periodic official revision. All these problems occur, or have occurred, with biographies. At one time they were in 040; nowadays they are mostly in 920, unless it's a biog of somebody who is closely-linked with a particular area - for example, a collected biography of philosphers would be in 109. But the number of books within 920 is huge compared to the number in 653 (Shorthand). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Multivolume "parts" of a work

"In rare cases, publications carry both an ongoing volume and a year-related value; if so, provide them both". Yes, but there are also other complexities. Molmenti's Venice (over a century old) has a number of what publishers in the 21st century would normally and straightforwardly call volumes, but it's in "parts", and I'd like to cite page 176 of what it labels volume 1 of "Part 3. The decadence". What's the best (or least undesirable) way of specifying this? -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The |at= parameter is flexible, so if all else fails, you can write something like Molmenti. Venice. Part 3. The Decadence. Volume 1. p. 176. Remember that the main point of the citation templates is to help readers find the cited material. That goal appears to be achieved here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Replyto Some 95-100 years ago a man called MacDermot (for whom we don't have an article) was commissioned to produce an official history of the Great Western Railway. It was published in two volumes four years apart, vol. I in 1927 and vol. II in 1931. But Volume I was so large that it was bound as two parts, with pages 1-456 being in Volume I Part I, and pages 457-902 being in Volume I Part II. They were sold as a pair. Volume II has its own page numbers, 1-654. Since the page numbering in the two parts of Vol. I do not duplicate, I simply omit the part and cite it as

• MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833–1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. p. 789.

or whatever page number applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Replyto Yes of course, "at=". I'd previously used that, in at least one other article ... and then forgot all about it. (Not yesterday's only failure. I'm embarrassed to find that I also perpetrated {{Citation needed|date=February 2026}}.) Yes, this English translation of Molmenti isn't the first example I've dealt with of the use of both "volume" and "part": there's also Jespersen-and-assistants' seven-"part" A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, the naming system of whose -- how shall I word this? -- tomes is different from either Molmenti's work or MacDermot's. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a nice example, Redrose64. Again, the point is to provide enough information so that a reader can find the cited material. As long as you don't egregiously misuse any of the parameters, focus on that goal. If all else fails, omit the citation template entirely and use normal wikitext formatting to get what you want, maybe leaving a hidden comment for CITEVAR nerds explaining why there is no template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

{cite book} CS1 error: ISBN/Date - Lacks logic for "re-issued" numbers?

I have found something I need assistance with, and it may very well be that I lack some understanding. Using for an example, Aaron_Rose_(pioneer) has a CS1 error for ISBN date incompatible for a cited source. It was published in 1884 but has been re-assigned a ISBN of 9780598541444.

Help:CS1_errors#invalid_isbn_date informs me that publications before 1965 did not have ISBN's but they can have been re-assigned since. There is an additional parameter mentioned (orig-date=) but it's contents isn't displayed even if you remove (date=) entirely. I assume the error then is applied to any date value that is before 1965 in the (date=) parameter and thus far the ONLY way to clear the error is what is described in the Help file: remove it.

Seems to me the error flag lacks logic for modernization of the pre-ISBN antiquities making this source unable to be cited properly without internal, even if "invisible", errors. I do not have the skills or knowledge of this site to pursue this to correction, unless it is me that needs to be corrected. Either way, assistance is appreciated.

---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, describe the source that you are citing. In this case, that source is the 1884 book, which did not have an ISBN. Removing the ISBN is the correct fix. If you are citing a more modern reprint, use the year that the reprint was issued, with 1884 in |orig-date=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2026

Template:Edit semi-protected Please add this information to the Further Reading and/or the Bibliography:

Irving Stone. Adversary in the House (1947) – Historical novel based on the life of Eugene V. Debs and his wife Kate, who opposed socialism. ~2026-20442-9 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Replyto Template:Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Citation Style 1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

module suite update 17–18 January 2026

I propose to update the cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 17–18 January 2026. Here are the changes:

Module:Citation/CS1:

• i18n fixes; discussion
• revised preview warning system; discussion
• catch malformed {{citation}} book cites; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:

• Added free DOI prefix recognition for:

  AACE Endocrinology and Diabetes

  AI Open

  Acta Crystallographica E

  Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B

  Addiction Neuroscience

  Addictive Behaviors Reports

  Animal

  Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics

  IEEE Open Access...

  IEEE Open Journal...

  IUCrData

  IUCrJ

  Journal of Synchrotron Radiation

  PNAS Nexus

  Radiopedia

  VideoGIE

• i18n fixes
• added 'as' and 'kaa' to script_lang_codes
• revised preview warning system
• catch malformed {{citation}} book cites

Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:

• increased 5-digit doi registrant discussion
• added new biorxiv and medrxiv 'doi' prefix; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities:

• tweaked hyphen_to_dash(); discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css:

• shift fallback red of error per upstream

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC) 16:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC) (add catch malformed {{citation}} book cites to lists)

Sounds good. I posted a notice on the Village Pump at: . Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

And also:

Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

• accept-as-written markup doesn't suppress err_extra_text_volume; discussion
• avoid script error when bad timestamp is in |archive-url=; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation

• avoid script error when bad timestamp is in |archive-url=
• fix bug about initializing variable

Template:Cite compare

--FlatLanguage (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

An author among authors

I'd like to improve a reference to a chapter by Robert Shelton, within a book (Template:OCLC) by Shelton (of course) and three other authors. I haven't managed to see the book, but WorldCat doesn't suggest that it has four editors; rather, it has four authors, one being Shelton. Is there a way to distinguish the author(s) of a chapter from the authors of the book as a whole?

Changing from a "chapter" to a "contribution" would I think do the job; but rightly or wrongly I'm under the impression that "contributions" are extras ("Translator's note", etc), not important chunks of the book.

(Incidentally, am I asking this question in the right place?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It is fairly common for an authored book to include a specialist chapter by another author. |contribution= is the usual solution in such cases. Kanguole 11:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Kanguole, thank you; but I think that one of us has misunderstood the other. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Contributor can be used in the situation you describe, it's not limited to extras and can include chapters etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

catching malformed ve/citoid-created {{citation}} book cites

At User talk:Citation bot § bot breaks citation templates I wrote that I would tweak the cs1|2 module suite to catch ve/citoid-created template that look summat like this:

{{Citation |last=Chuku |first=Gloria |title=Kenneth Dike: The Father of Modern African Historiography |date=2013 |work=The Igbo Intellectual Tradition: Creative Conflict in African and African Diasporic Thought |pages=137–164 |editor-last=Chuku |editor-first=Gloria |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137311290_6 |access-date=2024-11-18 |place=New York |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |language=en |doi=10.1057/9781137311290_6 |isbn=978-1-137-31129-0}}

Chuku, Gloria (2013), Chuku, Gloria (ed.), "Kenneth Dike: The Father of Modern African Historiography", The Igbo Intellectual Tradition: Creative Conflict in African and African Diasporic Thought, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 137–164, doi:10.1057/9781137311290_6, ISBN 978-1-137-31129-0, retrieved 2024-11-18{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)

Outwardly that rendering looks to be correct. It is not. {{citation}} uses |work= and its aliases to switch the citation's metadata from book format to periodical format. The Igbo Intellectual Tradition: Creative Conflict in African and African Diasporic Thought is not a periodical. The editor namelist and associated static text also render differently. This sort of malformed template is all too common. Because ISBNs do not apply to periodicals, the combination of a |work= alias with |isbn= should not occur. If we are to believe this search, there are at least 19,000 articles that use {{citation}} with |work= followed by |isbn=.

I have tweaked the cs1|2 module suite to catch {{citation}} templates that have both a |work= parameter (or alias) and an |isbn= parameter. When such templates are found, cs1|2 emits a maintenance message and adds the article to a new maintenance category Category:CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN. Is there a better category name?

{{Citation/new |last=Chuku |first=Gloria |title=Kenneth Dike: The Father of Modern African Historiography |date=2013 |work=The Igbo Intellectual Tradition: Creative Conflict in African and African Diasporic Thought |pages=137–164 |editor-last=Chuku |editor-first=Gloria |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137311290_6 |access-date=2024-11-18 |place=New York |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |language=en |doi=10.1057/9781137311290_6 |isbn=978-1-137-31129-0}}

Template:Citation/new

Compare to a properly written template (using the sandbox version to show that this new test doesn't break properly formatted templates):

{{Citation/new |last=Chuku |first=Gloria |chapter=Kenneth Dike: The Father of Modern African Historiography |date=2013 |title=The Igbo Intellectual Tradition: Creative Conflict in African and African Diasporic Thought |pages=137–164 |editor-last=Chuku |editor-first=Gloria |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137311290_6 |access-date=2024-11-18 |place=New York |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |language=en |doi=10.1057/9781137311290_6 |isbn=978-1-137-31129-0}}

Template:Citation/new

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

ISBNs are also asigned to Mook. I sometimes teeter between |chapter= |title and |title= |magazine= FlatLanguage (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

jstor expansion?

I know the old cite jstor template had a bot that would generate a different (probably cite journal) template to replace it with all of the expanded info (journal, date, etc.). cite jstor is now depreciated in favor of cite journal. Is there still a bot that would extend a cite journal with just the jstor field filled in?Naraht (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I usually just use the url to auto generate the cite, and then modify the source to replace |url= with |jstor= (the jstor number is the last part of the url). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate more guidance here. For example, let's say I'd like to cite the following jstor. https://www.jstor.org/stable/382433 (Its in Phi Delta Phi's magazine, being used as a reference for the defunct organization Beta Pi Theta.)Naraht (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Citation bot will do that for you. See this diff for an example. I have the Citation bot script loaded in my .js file, and I click on a link called "Expand citations" in my right-side sidebar, under "General" (in Vector 2022, the default skin). You can also feed a page to the bot via its web interface so that you don't have to figure out how to load a script. If that sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo, I can slow down and explain it again. (And no, I haven't forgotten about your Bairds templates.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're using the source editor there's a video in WP:REFB#RefToolbar that shows how easy it is to automatically create a formated cite. Anything in the cite template with a magnifying glass next to it can be used to autofill the fields. If you're using the visual editor you suggest need to press the cite button in the top bar and input the url (I think, I don't use it so can't be certain). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, changed my preferences to include the editing bar (the 2010 wikitext editor). I'll see if that helps. (the 2017 changes are just too bizarre for me). I'm not sure what to add to my .js file for citation bot.Naraht (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sic in news title?

I'm dealing with situations where a word in the title of a news story is mispelled (and the URL to get there has the same mispelling), but adding {{sic}} in the middle of the title leads to a CS1 error. What is the appropriate thing to do?Naraht (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Re My practice is to add an HTML comment <--sic--> after the misspelled word. This avoids triggering any error messages and doesn't corrupt the metadata. It doesn't help readers at all, I admit, but it does stop editors wasting time checking the misspelling again. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, That will actually cause the article to disappear from my searches for issues, so sounds good. (I'm periodically looking insource searches for John Hopkins when Johns Hopkins (as in the University, and related Press, Medical, etc.) is meant. Not automatable, there are several people named John Hopkins.Naraht (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Replyto If you look at the doc for Template:Sic, you will see that the parameters |nolink=y or |hide=y can be used.

• Neither parameter: "Man Bits [[[sic]]] Dog". The Daily Complainer. 17 January 2026. {{cite news}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
• Using |nolink=y: "Man Bits [sic] Dog". The Daily Complainer. 17 January 2026.
• Using |hide=y: "Man Bits Dog". The Daily Complainer. 17 January 2026.

Using both has the same effect as using |hide=y alone. John, your HTML comment idea doesn't work, because you omitted the exclamation mark. It should be <!--sic-->. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately I get the comment syntax right most of the time. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Automatic title linking when open access link is provided

It would be nice if the CS1 templates consistently link the title across all of the parameters specified in Template:Slinkno. Compare (from Neapolitan ragù, with |jstor-access=free)

Branco, Patrícia; Mohr, Richard (2023). "Odore di Napoli: Normativity from Objects and Smells". In Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas; Mandic, Danilo; Nirta, Caterina; Pavoni, Andrea (eds.). SMELL. Law and the Senses. London: University of Westminster Press. ISBN 978-1-915445-13-1. JSTOR jj.9474307.4.Template:Pb{{Cite book |last=Branco |first=Patrícia |title=SMELL |last2=Mohr |first2=Richard |publisher=[[University of Westminster Press]] |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-915445-13-1 |editor-last=Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos |editor-first=Andreas |series=Law and the Senses |location=London |chapter=''Odore di Napoli'': Normativity from Objects and Smells |jstor=jj.9474307.4 |editor-last2=Mandic |editor-first2=Danilo |editor-last3=Nirta |editor-first3=Caterina |editor-last4=Pavoni |editor-first4=Andrea |jstor-access=free}}

with (from Princess Mononoke, with |doi-access=free)

Napier, Susan J. (2011-01-25). "The garden and the sky: gender and space in the films of Miyazaki Hayao". Proceedings of the Association for Japanese Literary Studies. 11. doi:10.26812/pajls.v11i.1305. ISSN 1531-5533.Template:Pb{{cite journal |last=Napier |first=Susan J. |author-link=Susan J. Napier |title=The garden and the sky: gender and space in the films of Miyazaki Hayao |journal=[[Proceedings of the Association for Japanese Literary Studies]] |volume=11 |date=2011-01-25 |issn=1531-5533 |doi=10.26812/pajls.v11i.1305 |doi-access=free}}.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I've requesting that feature for years. Built a hierarchy of free identifiers of records to automatically link. Currently we have PMC > DOI (when doi-access=free is set). This should be expanded to PMC > DOI* > Bibcode* > HDL* > JSTOR* > RFC* > OL* > OSTI* > S2CID* (I went alphabetical for simplicity's sake). And have an override e.g. |auto-url=JSTOR for when the JSTOR link is preferred over others.

Likewise, the preprint cites should also autolink, e.g.

• {{cite arxiv}}
• {{cite biorxiv}}
• {{cite medrxiv}}
• And {{cite SSRN}} when |ssrn-access=free is set.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

bioRxiv error

Hello, I found another bioRxiv that doesn't fit the pattern on the help page, but resolves

• Template:Biorxiv in Basigin

Snowman304|talk 02:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That's because that'S from medrxiv, not biorxiv. Use {{medrxiv|10.1101/2020.03.21.20040691}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Free DOI detection... case sensitive?

See

• Template:Doi
• Template:Doi

This should be case-insensitive. Could this be updated and rolled out pronto? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ping Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Bad title: Bot Verification

E.g. "Bot Verification". wbacs.in. Retrieved 2026-01-18. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Local 'suffix' nil

I noticed a couple of "attempt to index local 'suffix' (a nil value)" problems. I fixed one but when I saw the same strange wikitext in the second I thought I should report it here for someone with a clue to investigate. At Terminal lucidity a citation included doi=((10.17514/JNDS-2009-28-2-p87-106.)). Removing the double parens fixed the error. However, ref 132 at Out-of-body experience#Awareness during Resuscitation Study (just after text "no visual targets had been placed") has the same issue. Also, ref 15 at the end of the lead at Economy of Cameroon. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed I think, Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Series translated

Greetings, all. There are cited, non-English books that are part of a series. Shouldn't there be a "trans-series" parameter in the template? -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)