Help talk:CS1 errors

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Note: Most conversation about Citation Style 1 (CS1) templates happens at Help talk:Citation Style 1. This page is for discussion about the content of Help:CS1 errors.

External link in |<param>= when page title really does contain a URL

[edit]

What's the correct recourse for the 'External link in |<param>=' warning when citing a page whose title contains a URL for whatever reason. Is the intention that the URL be omitted or that the warning remain and generate noise?. The current suggestions are only to move the URL to a different tag (e.g. where the editor has placed it in the title field in error). DDFoster96 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It this a hypothetical or have you got a real-life issue? Link to it so we can all know what it is you're talking about?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025

[edit]

The wikipedia interface to edit CSS files has the following warning when using the suggested message display snippet: Warning: Element (span.cs1-maint) is overqualified, just use .cs1-maint without element name.


Change span.cs1-maint to .cs1-maint

Change span.cs1-hidden-error to .cs1-hidden-error JamesLear314 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Rusty meow ~ 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesLear314 and Rusty Cat: The new version without span fails to display the messages for me on Drosophila connectome in all three tested browsers so I'm reverting the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: It does not display indeed. Personally, I use
.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint, /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error, /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */
.mw-parser-output .harv-error { /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
    display: inline !important; 
}
and it works fine (albeit with a warning about using !important), but if I remove !important the messages do not show. ~ Rusty meow ~ 00:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last name error

[edit]

I'm seeing an error message because an author has the last name of bureau:

Davies, Roger L.; Kuntschner, Harald; Emsellem, Eric; Bacon, R.; Bureau, M.; Carollo, C. Marcella; Copin, Y.; Miller, Bryan W.; Monnet, G.; Peletier, Reynier F.; Verolme, E. K.; de Zeeuw, P. Tim (February 2001). "Galaxy Mapping with the SAURON Integral-Field Spectrograph: The Star Formation History of NGC 4365". The Astrophysical Journal. 548 (1): L33 – L36. arXiv:astro-ph/0011254. Bibcode:2001ApJ...548L..33D. doi:10.1086/318930. {{cite journal}}: |last5= has generic name (help)

Is there a work-around? – Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

|last5=((Bureau)) – Help:Citation Style 1 § Accept-this-as-written markup
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. I just found I could use a Unicode character to remediate it, but your approach is probably more kosher. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN checksum error

[edit]

Hi everyone!

Recently, on ICD-11, I cited this book.

The page lists three ISBNs for it:

  • 9789290612487 (‎PDF)‎
  • 9789290612483 (‎Paperback)‎
  • 9789290613053 (‎Hardbound)‎

I linked to the ebook, so I figured I had to use the first one, the PDF ISBN. However, when I copy-pasted it into Cite book, this happened:

WHO Western Pacific Region (2007). WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region. ISBN 9789290612487. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

This checksum error does not occur with the other two ISBNs.

Did the WHO use an erroneous ISBN here? Or is this a mistake on the Wikipedia side?

- Manifestation (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your paperback and pdf isbns are identical except for the checksum. The '7' checksum appears to be correct for the 10-digit form:
{{isbn|9290612487}} → ISBN 9290612487
looks to me like WHO incorrectly stated the ISBN as ISBN 978 92 9061 248 7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum on the reverse of the title page.
You can remove the 978 prefix and write |isbn=92-9061-248-7 or you can write |isbn=((978-92-9061-248-7)) which will suppress the error message and add the article to Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! I've used the 10-digit number, which seems to be recognized by all the big sites (e.g. Google, Worldcat).
Btw... I don't think the template should throw a maintenance message when a misprinted ISBN is used with "(())". A maintenance message implies that something needs to be maintained, i.e. fixed. But if a printed book uses an incorrect ISBN, and if that book was never re-printed with the correct ISBN, then us Wikipedians have nothing to fix.
Instead of this maint. category, perhaps there should just be a category called Category:Articles citing books with incorrect ISBNs, emphasizing that these erroneous ISBNs are not to be fixed. At least not by us. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category specifically says that it is a tracking category and not an error category. If you have better wording for the category than This is not an error category and pages in this category should be "fixed" only if the special markup has been misused, please suggest it or be bold and edit the category page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every category is used to track. A maintenance category implies that something needs to be maintained or fixed. In this case, there is nothing to fix. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Inspection is part of maintenance, and does not always result in finding of errors that need fixing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN / Date incompatibility

[edit]
Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1 § ISBN / Date incompatibility
 – the purpose of this page is to discuss the content of Help:CS1 errors; not to discuss percieved or actual problems with the cs1|2 templates/module; —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia library url

[edit]

In a moment of obstinacy, I added [1] a Wikipedia library url to a reference. This produces the error message "Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help)" which links to CS1 errors, giving the instruction To resolve this error, make sure that the value assigned to the URL parameter is not the Wikipedia Library URL but is the URL of the source.

This seems nonsensical – I have put the Wikipedia Library URL in the reference as it is the only online version of this book that I know of. My intent is that other editors who may wish to check the reference can do so, which any WL qualifying editor will be able to do. For those without that access, there is no difference from this being a paywalled url, yet the error message obliterates the access information for everyone. I do not see how this feature makes this a better encyclopaedia. To be clear, the URL of the source (which I don't think I can easily access, though some with academic library rights may have this) would give no clue to a Wikipedia editor that they have access through WL.

Am I missing the point here, or does this need some tweaking to retain useful information (that validates article content) whilst still acknowledging that not everyone will be able to follow the link? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links in cs1|2 citations are for readers, not for editors. While it is true that any WL qualifying editor will be able to have access to the source (500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last 30 days, no active blocks), no reader is allowed access to the source via the Wikipedia Library. The error message is for editors so that we don't do a disservice to our readers.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. But how is a Wikipedia Library url any different from a paywalled url? At present we are doing a disservice to our readers by making life difficult for active editors who either want to check a reference or point out to other editors where a reference may be checked. That is part of the mechanism of getting some quality content into Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 15:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WL links use proxies, which grant specifically WL members, but no one else, access, while everyone else gets a generic WL mainpage telling them they aren't part of the club. A paywalled link is less hostile. This is why BsoykaBot cleaned up after you.
Articles are for readers, not editors, and as such WL links are devoid of any value to them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, got all that. What we have lost in the BsoykaBot tidy-up is any sort of indicator to another editor that they can probably get to read the reference in WL. This would seem to be a useful functionality for editors. It would ultimately help to improve article content, because the editors would find their job easier. That would make this a better encyclopaedia. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 15:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get all of that but the needs of editors must yield to the needs of the reader. For editors, you can always leave a note on the talk page or leave a hidden comment with the Wikipedia Library url in the article wikitext adjacent to the citation template. Perhaps suggest that to the BsoykaBot operator at User talk:Bsoyka.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There must be a way of obviously (to a WL accessing editor) flagging a reference to say that it is in Wikipedia Library. We don't need the WL url. Could the WL icon be added to the reference, or some other indicator? Great if the bot could add the indicator/icon. An icon would be meaningless to the reader, and so ignored. The non-WL url would be in the reference, but an editor could search for the WL entry based on that. It would be much faster to spot that WL access was available (no need to go into edit mode to look for a hidden comment). Generally, reference-checking editors could get through more work. There would be no loss of the "say where you read it" requirement of Wikipedia referencing. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 16:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can create an icon template along the lines of {{free access}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am more of an article content editor than someone who would know where to start coding a template. I am guessing, also, that the icon would need to work from the cite book template, which your example seems not to do. There is a WL image already, but it is a bit large to be thought of as an icon. Probably need the input here of someone who champions Wikipedia Library. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 17:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try this:
{{Wikipedia Library icon}} → Wikipedia Library icon
Links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Library; has a tool tip that says 'Available at Wikipedia Library'.
Use it like this:
{{cite book |last1=O'Connor |first1=Sue |last2=Hiscock |first2=Peter |editor1-last=Cochrane |editor1-first=Ethan E |editor2-last=Hunt |editor2-first=Terry L. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania |date=2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-19-992507-0 |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199925070.013.002 |chapter-url-access=subscription |chapter=The Peopling of Sahul and Near Oceania}} {{Wikipedia Library icon}}
O'Connor, Sue; Hiscock, Peter (2018). "The Peopling of Sahul and Near Oceania". In Cochrane, Ethan E; Hunt, Terry L. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-992507-0. Wikipedia Library icon
Needs documentation; I'll leave that to you.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like licensing information, this does not belong in articles. If you have access to the WL, the solution is to install Zenodo extensions that will take regular links and take you to the WL version them, as detailed in User:BsoykaBot#Task 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to have this in articles. I don't think that useful information should only be available to people who know about and can install specific third-party browser extensions.
That said, I'd rather that the template wasn't visible to readers/logged-out editors. Can we apply the MediaWiki:Group-extendedconfirmed.css magic, to make it visible only to editors who can use it? (Or at least for autoconfirmed editors?)
I'd also like to see a bot adding these, whenever they can be detected reliably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am insufficiently skilled in the art of css to make that work. If it is possible, no doubt, there is someone out there who knows how to do it.
It would seem to me that BsoykaBot could add the icon when it replaces a Wikipedia Library proxy url.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Redrose64 knows how to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I've asked the bot op to take a look, when he has time for it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd also like to see a bot adding these, whenever they can be detected reliably."
That's what the extension is for. We do not need WL clutter in our articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the extension show that access is available, or does it just change the URL after you click on it? I don't expect editors to click on links, just to see if they randomly have access to it.
  • Why should this information be hidden from editors who do not know about the extension?
  • Why should this information be hidden from editors who cannot install the extension?
WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clutter if it's doing a useful job. There will be editors out there who don't even know about Wikipedia Library, even though they qualify for access. (I was one once.) If those editors start using WL, that will improve this encyclopaedia, because it will be better sourced. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]