Help talk:Citation Style 1

The only allowable value for doi-access is "free" so when doi-access is not free, the practice is to leave the doi-access card out. However, the Citation bot then comes along and adds a bogus |doi-broken-date= tag that generates an erroneous CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of <date> error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This sound alike something that should be reported at User talk:Citation bot. It's had issue with technical support recently, this looks like another bug. There's no reason for it to ever add blank fields. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

card? What is card?

This is about Kitty Oppenheimer and doi:10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim140060087? That doi appears to me to be functional and links to this page at Brill which clearly shows that the cited source is behind a paywall so |doi-access=free is not appropriate. Setting |doi-access= to any other value (were other values permitted) would not change effects of |doi-broken-date= were that parameter in use in the template.

I do not know why Citation bot thinks or thought that the doi is/was inactive but, as mentioned above, the correct venue for Citation bot issues is at User talk:Citation bot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved discussion to User talk:Citation bot, with misgivings. "Card" is an old-fashioned term for a parameter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

A thought that's been floating around in my head for a few days -- there are a great deal of journalists who are not "wikinotable", but are cited on hundreds of articles across Wikipedia. It would be useful to have a way to search for articles by cited author, aside from the old-fashioned method of searching their name in quotes. I'm wondering if we can add something like a wikidata-author parameter to facilitate this citation tracking. I'm having difficulty envisioning what exactly this would look like, but hopefully I'm getting the idea across. What do we think about this?

As an aside, we should also change ISSN links in citations from WorldCat to the ISSN portal. See Template talk:ISSN for more discussion on that. Never thought to post here until now. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow what you are trying to suggest. I did a simple search for The New York Times and from the results picked the first listed article which happened to be BTS. Then I did a Ctrl+F search for The New York Times on that page which took me to this reference (permalink). From that ref, I copied Qin, Amy and pasted that into the search box which took me to these results.

Then I did this search at wikidata. The Amy Qin cited in the BTS article is likely to be this Amy Qin (Q123406389).

Repeating the above for the other NYT reference in BTS led me to John Yoon (Q59749937) and John K Yoon (Q104471283); neither of whom look to be NYT authors...

I presume that you want to search en.wiki for the cited author's wikidata qid. We don't need to invent a new parameter for that. You could (in Amy Qin's case) add |author-link=:d:Q123406389 which will link her name to her wikidata entry. You would of course have to find all instances of her name in cs1|2 templates and make the same change to each template so that you could search for Q123406389. Seems like a lot of work for very little gain. What am I missing or what have you not clearly explained?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having a hard time articulating this. Essentially what I want is a method of viewing all the articles on which a particular author is cited, without doing a regular search. The idea is that by adding a wikidata-author parameter that links citations to a specific author, it would be possible to generate lists of connected articles. There doesn't have to be a visible link to the Wikidata item in the citations. I might have to think this through some more... I know what I'm looking for, I just don't know how to get there. MediaKyle (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

PMID 41914263 is valid and used on Barettin. Could we update the limit? Thanks a million! Snowman304|talk 01:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion recommended that the YMD date format be preferred for the Cite web template has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Updating Cite web documentation to reflect ymd as slightly preferred format for single full dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

This and supporting edits should be reverted. 11.xxxx is an invalid doi, and should never be supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The error that should be output is err_bad_doi, not Script Error. If you think that the error should not be avoidable even with Accept-this-as-written markup, search for if registrant then and modify that part. Pages using Accept-this-as-written markup are tracked by Category:CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors and Category:Ignored DOI errors, so I believe the current setup is sufficient.--FlatLanguage (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

None of those start with 11.xxxx/... Again, this is not something that should be supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

What does "support" means? Error of Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 568: attempt to index local 'suffix' (a nil value) have been happend after Special:Diff/1333551121. Can all editors understand this error message? --FlatLanguage (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have reworked the |doi= error detection/messaging in the sandbox:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

If we enter an ArchiveURL with for instance 20200101000001 and an ArchiveDate with 2020-01-02, we'll get the error "timestamp mismatch; 2020-01-01 suggested". So the correct ArchiveDate is already known and the module checks that we enter it correctly.

This feels like passing a useless editing exam. Couldn't we just use the parsed ArchiveDate and make that field optional? Forcing the user to manually enter the ArchiveDate seems unnecessary at this point. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Although the archive date is represent in the URL from the Wayback machine I don't believe it's true of all archival services. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. Though since the archive-date field isn't required, the ArchiveDate could be automatically extracted from the ArchiveURL when it's archive.org. The RedBurn (ϕ) 15:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

See . Should be added to the list of bad titles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve looked through the page but it provides almost no insight on actually writing a [superscript number] style citation to a web source. It’s unclear whether it’s <ref> or {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) or both, or what the relation or reasons for each of these is. I tried several variations based on help page examples and all of them caused egregious errors. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:Referencing for beginners and the pages linked from there answer your needs?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

See also Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. The example uses {{cite news}}, but the other citation templates work similarly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The video at WP:INTREF3 in WP:Referencing for beginners gives a simple explanation of how to quickly generate references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking because I've found two or three instances in dust devil, e.g. this and this one.-- Carnby (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

{{cite web}} should work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make URL access level work with "chapter-url" parameter, or create new "chapter-url access" parameter. Thank you. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Already exists:

{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |title=Title |chapter-url=//example.com |chapter-url-access=subscription}}

"Chapter". Title.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Cite SSRN § Identifiers

I propose that the following CS1 identifiers be permitted on {{Cite SSRN}}: |doi=, |s2cid=, |id=. Daask (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite SSRN has eight watchers. I have moved the above post from there to here because there are more watchers here. Also redirected Template talk:Cite SSRN to this talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The doi of a SSRN is the same as the SSRN number, but with a doi prefix, and leads to the same place. Is there a need for duplication? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick example taken from the first random paper I could find, SSRN 6043974 is the same as doi:10.2139/ssrn.6043974. The only real difference is that the SSRN links directly to the page, while the doi redirects to the page via doi.org -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)