Help talk:Citation Style 1

Update bibcode URL to SciX

ADS is scheduled to be shutdown on 16 November 2026. It's replacement, SciX, has been available for some time. See Template talk:Bibcode § ADS to SciX migration for details.

In Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration, please replace the line:

prefix = 'https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/',

with

prefix = 'https://scixplorer.org/abs/',
suffix = '/abstract',

Daask (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This should be done in the sandbox, and deployed with the rest of the changes. So long as it's live before Nov 16th or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

 Task complete. Implemented in sandbox in Diff/1378836392. Daask (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You should always provide evidence that the changes you make actually work.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|bibcode=1998ApJ...508L..81K|title=Keck Speckle Imaging of the White Dwarf G29-38: No Brown Dwarf Companion Detected}}
Live	Keck Speckle Imaging of the White Dwarf G29-38: No Brown Dwarf Companion Detected. Bibcode:1998ApJ...508L..81K.
Sandbox	Keck Speckle Imaging of the White Dwarf G29-38: No Brown Dwarf Companion Detected. Bibcode:1998ApJ...508L..81K.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The link seems to work fine, though there is no suffix as ostensibly intended. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I just updated the Wikidata ADS bibcode (P819) article property with this, but it doesn't look like Scixplorer does a look up for the 5-character ADS journal codes any more for use with the bibcode (P1300) journal property. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: There's two weeks before this is deployed on the NASA side. Could we get a template update next weekend? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Please increase SSRN

SSRN 7534918 is valid and found in Trump v. Slaughter. Thanks! Snowman304|talk 00:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon SSRN 7671881, which is also valid but greater than the current CS1 limit. Daask (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to suppress ISBN date errors?

The "ISBN / Date incompatibility" error is not always correct. There are books for which later printings of an edition originally from before 1965 were given an ISBN. Using the date of a specific later printing is misleading and unhelpful to readers, but the ISBN is also correct.

An example which recently came up is

Needham, Joseph (1959). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 3: Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth. With the collaboration of Wang Ling. Cambridge: University Press.

This edition was originally published in 1959, but had later printings in 1970, 1972, 1975, 1979, 1992, 1995, (...and others?), with no changes to the text. At some point it was given the ISBN 9780521058018 by Cambridge University Press, but if you look at the publisher's website, the publication date is still listed as 1959. –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, the recommendation at Help:CS1 errors § ISBN / Date incompatibility is completely wrong:

If the cited edition or reissue of the book was published after 1965, ensure that |date= or |year= has the correct publication year. The reissue date is typically available by querying WorldCat with the reissue's ISBN. Adding |orig-date= may be appropriate in such cases; e.g., |orig-date=1929.

This is terrible advice which will cause editors to incorrectly use the data of a specific printing of a book rather than the publication date for the edition. –jacobolus (t) 17:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Reprintings of books often contain silently fixed errors. WP:SAYWHERE applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I have never once encountered a case where there was such a change affecting the relevance or correctness of a citation made from Wikipedia. But regardless, the relevant "publication date" remains the date of the edition, and changing the date to a particular printing is confusing, misleading, and unconventional. The immediately following section of WP:CS (§ Dates and reprints) explains: "Date a book that is identically reprinted or printed-on-demand to the first date in which the edition became available. For example, if an edition of a book was first released in 2005 with an identical reprinting in 2007, date it to 2005." Anyway, I'll default to just leaving the ISBNs out. –jacobolus (t) 19:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I fixed Help:CS1 errors § ISBN / Date incompatibility so that it follows WP:CS. It can be changed again at such a time as the citation template gains the ability to suppress this error. –jacobolus (t) 19:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I have the same issue as jacobolus; a lot of e-books are assigned isbns but are merely scans of the original book and frequently do not have new dates issued. Could we allow for orig-date without date? Haven't thought it through fully as of yet, but it could work.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Some of these "books" are garbage print-on-demand copies made from a mediocre scan, put out by no-name "publishers". In such a case I'd recommend skipping the ISBN, trying to find the best scan you can of the original (e.g. from the Internet Archive) to link as the 'url' parameter, and citing the original book.

If a facsimile was republished by a reputable publisher, then you can cite the new date, include orig-date with the original publication date, and make a note to readers that it was a republication of a facsimile. –jacobolus (t) 19:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: as another interested editor; he created a whole dang table here. I still think allowing orig-date without date should be the simplest solution. I do not have any examples of reputable facsimiles published without new dates at the ready, but I am sure they are out there.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

One other option is to add a note like "Later printings {{isbn|...}}" after the citation template. –jacobolus (t) 20:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I have several books, mainly published by the Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (RCTS), that are reprints and which also have ISBNs, but the reprint date is not given. I am getting fed up of people removing these perfectly-valid ISBNs. Although the original date is required to establish copyright, the reprint doesn't extend the copyright, and so I expect that the publisher felt that it's not necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I expect that he publisher is just reprinting old books to make money and doesn't care about much else. You should be able to find the year of publication from the ISBN if the publisher is reputable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC).

Coda: If the ISBN is so obscure that not information can be found, it is of very limited use. I'd still want to include it, provided, of course, that it is valid and legitimately issued. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC).

I just add "Reprint: {{ISBN|}}." outside of the reference template and move the ISBN into it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't need to do that. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dates and reprints is clear: Date a book that is identically reprinted or printed-on-demand to the first date in which the edition became available. For example, if an edition of a book was first released in 2005 with an identical reprinting in 2007, date it to 2005. Over the last 40+ years I have bought a large number of books, some of which were reprints; and those that I bought new all had ISBNs, but not all had the reprint date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2026

Whenever the surname Nostrand or Van Nostrand is cited, a good and definitive reference is Nostrand, Peter F., Assisted by Harry Macy, Jr., Are You a First Family of New York City, Connect Yourself Through the Nostrand Line from Jamaica, Queens, 1600-1900, Piffin Publishing, 2026, ISBN 979-8-234-15154-4, copyright Peter F. Nostrand, available on Amazon. Search “Nostrand genealogy”. Peterman1001 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

not done. No evidence of an actual problem. A search for Nostrand genealogy returns no results. An insource search likewise returns no results.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

url-status=live

Why would I ever want this parameter? It is so irritating to click on a citation URL, find out it's dead, and then have to hunt down the citation in the article source to remove this parameter so that the archive version takes precedence. Even when the URL is still live, I want to be immediately directed to the stable archival version whenever it is available. Most of the time, the live version has just been filled with more ads and bloated scripts since the time the archival version was made. Einsof (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Just a comment to disagree. When reading articles, I prefer initially to go to the latest URL, though it may have become irrelevant or dead; it also may have useful updated information. Also, unnecessarily opening an archived URL is usually slow, and if many people do it adds stress to the Wayback Machine. If the live version is inappropriate I don't have trouble, now as an editor, to "hunt down" the citation by seeking the author's name or well-chosen title text (a hint for rapid searching: if a title contains "antidisestablishmentarianism pseudoscience", a search for "sm ps" will often work). What is stupid is adding the parameter to an article without an archived version. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Please update PMID limit

In this article 2026 in paleomammalogy, one of the sources has PMID higher than 42900000 (which is 42901525) and it is a legit article. Please update the limit

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42901525/ Lowyat Slyder (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Error message for missing url when usurped and bad archive

I have encountered a reference with a url-status=usurped and archive-url pointing to archive.today. The reference is displayed unlinked (as it should be with both its url and archive-url pointing to bad places) but the error message, "|access-date= requires |url=", is far from informative about what the real problem here is and stumped me for several minutes before I figured it out. Can we get a better error message for such situations, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

in the sandbox:

Cite web comparison

Wikitext	{{cite web|access-date=March 24, 2012|archive-date=September 13, 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913015612/http://www.rivercountryjournal.info/2012/03/15/michigan-candidate-adopts-%E2%80%9C9-9-9%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%98army-of-davids%E2%80%99-grows/|title=Michigan candidate adopts "9–9–9"; 'Army of Davids' grows|url-status=usurped|url=http://www.rivercountryjournal.info/2012/03/15/michigan-candidate-adopts-%E2%80%9C9-9-9%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%98army-of-davids%E2%80%99-grows/}}
Live	"Michigan candidate adopts "9–9–9"; 'Army of Davids' grows". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
Sandbox	"Michigan candidate adopts "9–9–9"; 'Army of Davids' grows". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |url= suppressed (help)CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Better, thanks! Given the example title, maybe I need to clarify that I am not and never have been an advocate of flat-tax initiatives. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

module suite update 7–8 November 2026

I propose to update the cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 7–8 November 2026. Here are the changes:

Module:Citation/CS1:

• ignore invalid character use in third level domain names; discussion
• don't emit error when a parameter has <templatestyles />; discussion
• {{cite mailing list}}: don't ignore |periodical= without |mailing-list=; no discussion
• {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite episode}}: URL–wikilink conflict; no discussion
• improve handling script-params; no discussion
• track ignored |page= and |article-number=; no discussion
• {{cite conference}}, {{cite episode}}, {{cite map}}: emit error for ignored chapter; no discussion
• {{cite map}}: redundant |section= and |sections=; no discussion
• emit error message when |url-status=usurped/unfit and |archive-url=<archive.today>; discussion
• make |date= and |publication-date= exact aliases; discussion
• make |location=, |place=, and |publication-place= exact aliases; discussion

Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:

• removed 10.1002/wsb (Wildlife Society Bulletin), only free since 2023; no discussion
• added many free doi registrants; no discussion
• update emoji_t to unicode v18.0.0; no discussion
• update bibcode url components; discussion
• make |date= and |publication-date= exact aliases
• make |location=, |place=, and |publication-place= exact aliases

Module:Citation/CS1/COinS:

• don't emit error when a parameter has <templatestyles />; decode HTML entities; discussion

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, I have made a few changes without prior discussion. You can review the test cases at Special:Permalink/1383357653. Please feel free to revert them if they are not needed. FlatLanguage (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

In future, please don't make changes to the cs1|2 module suite without discussion here.

Looking at your testcases page, there are many tests that present apparently identical results. That suggests that whatever change is being tested is unnecessary or does not work. There is no explanatory text to describe the purpose of the tested changes. What are each of those tests demonstrating?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I added header: Special:Permalink/1383427839 --FlatLanguage (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding properties categories for ignored |article-number= and for |at=, |page=, and the other insource-locator parameters is inconsistent with how cs1|2 handles ignored parameters. I have changed the sandbox so that cs1|2 emits the standard Unknown parameter error message when these parameters are ignored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Posted at the Village Pump. I don't know if this has resulted in any additional feedback, but several editors requested the CS1/CS2 updates to be advertised there, so I've been doing so. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)