Help talk:Citation Style 1

Do not recommend use of invalid markup

At Template:Citation Style documentation there is a recommendation to Precede the sample markup with : to create an indent. This is an abuse of a description list and results in invalid HTML (<dd> with no preceding <dt>, which is not allowed). Indentation is really not necessary, so this line should simply be removed. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Since no one has responded in two weeks, I've WP:BOLDly removed this recommendation. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a helpme page where editors can ask for help with unusual cases?

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)

I'm not sure if there's a specific page for that, but there is the all-purpose Wikipedia:Help desk. Feel free to ping me (User:Sollyucko) there and I'll be happy to take a look when I have time.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 19:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

doi-access

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 registration, limited and subscription to be set too, not just free. 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)

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: 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.

—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)

Clarify wording of descriptor of an example

I just changed the following descriptor wording, from: Complex usage showing effect of using volume parameter and name-list-style parameter (without volume and name-list-style) to Complex usage showing display of volume and name-list-style (without using volume or name-list-style parameters Because I could not understand the original wording (top) at all (it is not "using" a "volume parameter"). If this was not an improvement, feel free to revert (or replace with another wording, since the original is - to me - nonsense). Noleander (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Treat translator without author like editor

Sometimes a work will have a translator without an author.

My Childhood on Kashyyyk. Translated by Threepio, C. Cloud City: Calrissian House. 1977.

Instead, I think something like how we treat editors (at least for works without an author or editor) would make more sense.

Threepio, C. (trans). (1977) My Childhood on Kashyyyk. Cloud City: Calrissian House.
Organa, Leia (ed.). (1977) My Childhood on Kashyyyk. Translated by Threepio, C. Cloud City: Calrissian House. 
Chewbacca (1977). Organa, Leia (ed.). My Childhood on Kashyyyk. Translated by Threepio, C. Cloud City: Calrissian House. 

Snowman304|talk 18:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It is always useful to provide a real-world example from a real article rather than a hypothetical one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey! Sure, sorry about that. This came up when looking at Kenshō.

• {{Citation | translator-last =Bikkhu | translator-first =Thannssaro | year =1999 | title =Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21) | url =https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html }}

gives us

• Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21), translated by Bikkhu, Thannssaro, 1999

A fuller citation would be

• "Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21)", Access to Insight, translated by Bikkhu, Thannssaro, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, 30 November 2013 [1999]

from

• {{Citation |translator-last=Bikkhu |translator-first=Thannssaro |orig-year=1999 |title=Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21) |url=https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html |website=Access to Insight |publisher=Barre Center for Buddhist Studies |date=30 November 2013}}

I'm proposing something more like

• Bikkhu, Thannssaro, trans. (30 November 2013) [1999], "Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (excerpt) (DN 21)", Access to Insight, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies

Snowman304|talk 00:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style (section 14.103; I have the 17th edition in hardcover and it agrees with this web site) agrees with you. I'll leave the programming up to someone else. I know better than to mess with these modules. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No last name for cite book

I have a citation where only the first name of the authors of a book chapter/section are given, but when I put the first names in it throws an error and does not show the authors of the section in the citation. Am I doing something wrong? Katzrockso (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Katzrockso There is the parameter |author= for situations where the author has a single name, has an unclear first/last name because of the culture, or is a body of multiple authors under a single (usually organizational) name. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Thanks, in this case there are 2 authors that are listed only by their first names Katzrockso (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Would I do something like author=<first name1> and <first name2>

In this case the names are Gülkan and Aligül. Or perhaps an &? I actually know the surname of one of the authors, but I don't believe it's mentioned anywhere in the text, so that's another question. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

{{cite book |author1=Gülkan |author2=Aligül |title=Whatever the Title Happens to Be |date= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn= }}

Gülkan; Aligül. Whatever the Title Happens to Be.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, not the point, but what publisher uses first names, only? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It's from a roundtable @Rjjiii, published in book format. The participants were only identified by their first names. Katzrockso (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

DOI value

Hi there! Oxford Street, Osu has a "check doi value", but the doi value seems to be OK.

• Sowah, Mohammed Adjei (2025-06-09). "Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach". LSE International Development Review. 4 (1): 195–209. doi:10.82191/lseidr.111. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)

Could you please check this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox:

{{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}}

Sowah, Mohammed Adjei (2025-06-09). "Transforming Osu Oxford Street into a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use suburb: an urban planning and design approach". LSE International Development Review. 4 (1): 195–209. doi:10.82191/lseidr.111.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Common arguments which cause CS1 errors

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)

You might pick from WikiProject Cleanup Listings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The current strings that are detected as generic names (and thus put articles into Category:CS1 errors: generic name) are listed in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Do a find on that page for "pinterest" to locate the relevant list. Doing a search for "Desk" in the last= parameter gives you 1,600 articles to work on, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The author John Desk would advise you to beware false positives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

'title' parameter in 'Template:cite report' not being displayed in either 'quotation marks' or 'italics' like in other Citation Style 1 templates

Is there any reason the parameter title in {{cite report}} isn't being displayed in either italics (like in the Citation Style 1 templates {{cite AV media}}, {{cite AV media notes}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite conference}} (unless the parameter book-title is defined), {{cite encyclopedia}} (if both the parameters chapter and encyclopedia, the parameter chapter, but not encyclopedia, or neither of those parameters, are defined), {{cite map}} (unless the parameter website is used), {{cite serial}}, {{cite sign}}, {{cite speech}}, {{cite tech report}}, and {{cite thesis}}) or "quotation marks" (like in other Citation Style 1 templates {{cite arXiv}}, {{cite bioRxiv}}, {{cite CiteSeerX}}, {{cite conference}} (if the parameter book-title is defined), {{cite document}}, {{cite encyclopedia}} (if the parameter encyclopedia, but not chapter, is defined), {{cite episode}}, {{cite interview}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite mailing list}}, {{cite map}} (if the parameter website is defined), {{cite medRxiv}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite newsgroup}}, {{cite podcast}}, {{cite press release}}, {{cite SSRN}}, and {{cite web}}, and the Citation Style 2 template {{citation}})? PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the title-without-style was a decision taken by someone in the pre-lua days:

{{cite report/old|title=Report title}} → Report title (Report). 

When converted to use Module:Citation/CS1, that title-without-style was retained. Perhaps, if you search for it, you will find a relevant discussion somewhere in the archives of the various talk pages. Next time, no wall of text please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe there was a reason. But I can't think of a good one for this outlier behavior. Change?

It would be helpful if Module_talk:Citation/CS1/testcases had an entry for {{cite report}}? RememberOrwell (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"line feed character" problem

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:

• Michelle Goldberg asserts that Russia has "leverage" over Trump.

References

Where is the problem? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean, use just the line break tag <br /> and not a line break in the source text of the quote:

• Goldberg, Michelle (November 30, 2018). "Trump Is Compromised by Russia". The New York Times. Retrieved December 3, 2025. 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 has used leverage over Trump. But there should no longer be any doubt that Russia has 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.

You can see them in the hidden Unicode characters. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

OMG! You're right. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

preview warning messages

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 the addWarning() 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 time addWarning() is called. For each cs1|2 template, Module:Citation/CS1 can call addWarning() 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 a CITEREF 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 than none. 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 + date CITEREF 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 process this template.

Here are the questions:

• should we change the error and maintenance preview messages? If yes,
  • what should the new wording be?
  • when we can, should we link from the message to the offending template? If yes,
    • should we create random identifiers when necessary (for use only in preview mode)?
    • what would the new wording be when we can link?
    • if we choose not to create random identifiers, what would the new wording be when we cannot link?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)