Help talk:Citation Style 1

url-access=restricted?

What's the form for |url-access= for books which are only available under special circumstances -- for example, Internet Archive books for which you need print-disabled access? "Subscription" isn't quite right, since you can't pay for the subscription: could we have something like "restricted" with a black lock to say "most people can't access this at all, but it's here for the benefit of the minority who can?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required. You likely want something like |url-access=registration or |url-access=limited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No -- the issue is that none of the three (or four, if you count null) accepted parameters are true:

• No entry means that the url is free to access by everybody -- this isn't true.
• |url-access=registration means that anyone can register for free -- this isn't true, since most people can't make that registration
• |url-access=limited means that users can sign up for a limited-time trial, and then have to pay for a subscription: this isn't true, since they can't do either of those.
• |url-access=subscription means that users need to buy a paid subscription, which (as above) doesn't exist and so they can't do.

We're missing an option 5 for "this is available only to specific people: if you're not one of them, you can't do anything, but it's better to have the link here for the minority who can use it rather than take it away from everyone". Other examples include works hosted on university databases that are only accessible to students/alumni/staff, or the occasional work that's only accessible from within a certain country. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"this is available only to specific people"

Then that's |url-access=subscription. That specific people get a free subscrition is not something that needs to be highlighted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That raises the tooltip "paid subscription required", but in this case there's no paid subscription available. I suppose another option would be to make the tooltip more encompassing or allow it to be manually changed? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree. We need to either change the documentation/tooltips or add a 5th option.

Also, 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. [edit: Oh 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?]

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.

I see @Hawkeye7 just asked a related question here today. I guess the answer is sort of above - 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. Confusing. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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 (This page is being depreciated with no preceding This page is being depreciated, 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)

ISBN / Date incompatibility

@Trappist the monk, Keriluamox, TSP, ActivelyDisinterested, Nthep, Jc3s5h, Praemonitus, Headbomb, David Eppstein, Redrose64, Mathglot, Fram, Noleander, Mackensen, Mikeblas, Michael Bednarek, Mojo Hand, Pppery, Jonesey95, GreenLipstickLesbian, and Rjjiii: There is a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#ISBN / Date incompatibility running from 15 to 30 April 2025 on the CS1 error emitted for citations with years before 1965 and isbns. Most of the editors agreed that this situation is not good, and two final comments were

• A condition that issues an error message for >33000 pages (Category:CS1 errors: ISBN date ( 2 )) doesn't seem meaningful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, I keep seeing new instances of this error generated by Citation bot adding bad reprint isbns to old references, sometimes on articles where previous instances of the same error have already been manually corrected, and no response to my error report saying as much a week after I filed it: User talk:Citation bot/Archive 41#Adds isbn for book with publication year before 1965. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

And the discussion petered out. But it still needs to be fixed. Just now I edited Stylized fact, where I found a CS1 maint: location missing publisher, so I went to

• "The Theory of Capital Hardcover – Import, January 1, 1961". Amazon.

and added the publisher and the ISBN, only to be faced with this dilemma:

citation alternative	markup	display
year	{{cite book |author=Friedrich A. Lutz |editor=D. C. Hague |title=The Theory of Capital |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |year=1961 |isbn=978-0333045749}}	Friedrich A. Lutz (1961). D. C. Hague (ed.). The Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0333045749. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
orig-year	{{cite book |author=Friedrich A. Lutz |editor=D. C. Hague |title=The Theory of Capital |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |orig-year=1961 |isbn=978-0333045749}}	Friedrich A. Lutz. D. C. Hague (ed.). The Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0333045749.

• If I use |year= I get a spurious red CS1 error message.
• If I use |orig-year= the year doesn't display at all.

This is not OK. We discussed this 6 months ago. Let's settle it. Do we get rid of this CS1 error entirely, or replace it with a maintenance message? I might be OK with a maintenance message, as long as there is a way to suppress it with something like |isbn-verified=yes. It should not be necessary to use hacks like putting the ISBN in parentheses or adding a reprint date. One editor might read the book and verify the reference, and another editor might find the ISBN on the Internet, never see the book, and have no idea about the reprint date, which is irrelevant anyway, as Wikipedia does not care about reprint dates. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Postscript: The most populous subcategory of Category:CS1 errors is Category:CS1 errors: ISBN date with 45,926 pages, which is 27.23% of the total of 168,684 pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That ISBN is questionable, so the error message makes sense. You added the ISBN without verifying that the ISBN actually appears on the printed book in question. It doesn't take me to any books at Google Books or Worldcat. I would use Template:OCLC instead. That leads me to a page with links to holdings of the actual book in 617 libraries. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Jonesey95: Open Library recognizes the ISBN as belonging to The Theory of Capital by Lutz F.A.. Do you think this is valid, or is Open Library just vacuuming up "errors" from Amazon? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The latter seems likely. The history of that OL record says that it was imported from somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the reason there are 45,926 pages with the CS1 errors is because of CitationBot, which has a feature to add ISBN numbers to book references. It might look up the title in a database (Open Library), or check a Google Books URL, retrieve the ISBN, and add it. This creates ambiguity - is the |year= edition correct, or the |ISBN= edition. They might be different editions with different page number schemes. It can seem like a minor problem but can have big consequences, like for processes adding links to page numbers within digitized books, that open to the wrong page, making verification inaccurate. ISBNs are so fraught with problems, unless there is a match on author+date+publisher - against both the Wiki citation and the target ISBN metadata - it can't be assumed to be reliable. -- GreenC 02:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Summarizing Jonesey95 and GreenC and adding my own thoughts, it seems the propagation of errors is

• Amazon has both correct and incorrect ISBNs for books published both before and after ISBNs were introduced.
• Open Library vacuums up Amazon ISBNs without verification.
• Citation Bot vacuums up ISBNs from Open Library and creates Google Books page links based on ISBNs that are sometimes wrong, for books published before & after ISBNs were introduced.

I agree this is a mess. But

• ISBN/Date mismatch is more of a warning than an error, since it might not be an error.
• There needs to be a way for Wikipedians to verify ISBNs from truly reliable sources (list required) that ISBNs are correct and turn off the warning.
• Ultimately, every web-based book page reference needs an access-date as a Wikipedian's statement of matching the reference to the assertions immediately preceding the reference.
• A failed verification could be because the original editor made an unwarranted leap of logic from the book page, or because the online page doesn't match the original page. The Wiki fact checker doesn't necessarily know which of these is the reason.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been changing book citations of the form to

Recently I have been advised that 1. is the correct and standard and preferred format, rather than 2.

It seems to my uneducated eye that format 2. contains the exact same information as 1. without the annoying ISBN/Date incompatibility message. Can someone elaborate on why 1. is preferred over 2. ??? Turtlens (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is a truncated version of the citation to show you the plain text.

cite book | last1=Polya | first1=George | last2=Szegö | first2=G. | title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics | publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, NJ | date=1951 | isbn=978-0-691-07988-2

vs

cite book | last1=Polya | first1=George | last2=Szegö | first2=G. | title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics | publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, NJ | date=1951 } ... { isbn|978-0-691-07988-2 } Turtlens (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I very recently found the website isbnsearch.org. I have not used it very often or extensively. Is it a useful and authoritative source for ISBNs? It is copyrighted, but I really don't know anything much about it. Turtlens (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've only used it to find the reprint date. I typically start with the ISBN on a search engine rather than going directly to that site. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've probably cleaned up several hundred of these errors. With important exception, they were all actual problems that needed to be resolved: invalid ISBNs, wrong date, wrong edition, wrong book altogether. The exception is the books published by the Railway Correspondence and Travel Society, which are undated reprints. There's no way to include the valid ISBN without the error and no consensus to use OCLC instead of the ISBN (see for example Template talk:RCTS-LocosGWR-6). Would a parameter such as |undated-reprint= make sense? Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Template:Reflist talk

Chatul: First, a minor point: I believe it is best to avoid 2-letter postal abbreviations for U.S. states. For example, use Calif., not CA; N.J., not NJ. I looked for something in support of this in the MOS and I didn't find it, but I believe it's correct. Second, the main point. When using citation templates, put everything possible into the template. Your example (with the state fixed),

{{cite book |last1=Polya |first1=George |last2=Szegö |first2=G. |title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics |publisher=Princeton University Press | publication-place=Princeton, N.J. |date=1951 |isbn=978-0-691-07988-2}}: Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951). Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-07988-2. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)

would never be changed to

{{cite book |last1=Polya |first1=George |last2=Szegö |first2=G. |title=Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics |date=1951 |isbn=978-0-691-07988-2}} Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.: Polya, George; Szegö, G. (1951). Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. ISBN 978-0-691-07988-2. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

We don't move parameters out of citation templates because we feel like it, and we shouldn't move cite parameters out of citation templates to get around wacky error messages. The solution is to grapple with the wacky error message and make the problem go away systematically. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris, I think you're looking for MOS:POSTABBR. It doesn't exactly match your recommendation. It states Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand for the full names in normal text. They can be used in tables when space is tight but should be marked up with {{abbr}} template on first occurrence. They should not be used in infoboxes. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Schazjmd: The problem is that MOS:POSTABBR is actually giving goofy advice with respect to table and references. I thought this got cleaned up a long time ago, but apparently not. In ordinary running text, the rule can be, always spell out US state names. In tables and references, postal abbreviations aren't good because other style manuals say not to use them, and because people may have trouble remembering if MI is Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, or Missouri. In tables and references, the rule needs to be, abbreviate state names with standard non-postal abbreviations, viz Calif. for California, N.J. for New Jersey, and D.C. for District of Columbia. Seen this way, MOS:POSTABBR's preference for "Washington, DC" should be changed. Dang it, I thought we had this discussion somewhere a long time ago, but I can't find it now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure that you didn't mean user:Turtlens? My commented relatedto finding the original dates and all I changed once I found them were |date= and |orig-diate=. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I prefer to use both | orig-date= and | date= simultaneously if there is an edition of the book published with the cited ISBN. I suspect there usually/always is, but if I can’t find it I can’t cite it.

I could also see using a different ISBN if I was sure it’s a reprint or new edition of the original cited edition.

The example I cite is peculiar, although not necessarily unique. I am sure that Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics has been reprinted, I just can’t find it with a publication date after the introduction of ISBNs. WorldCat, Amazon, and AbeBooks all have the cited ISBN, and all typically give year of publication as 1950. Turtlens (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Turtlens: |orig-date= is for the case that the Wikipedia editor looked at recent version of an old book. It's not for the case where the Wikipedia editor looked at an old book that got an ISBN later. For example, a reference to the 1993 Dover Publications paperback edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland might be

{{cite book |author=Lewis Carroll |title=Alice's Adventures in Wonderland |year=1993 |publisher=Dover Publications |isbn=978-0486275437 |orig-year=1865}}: Lewis Carroll (1993) [1865]. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0486275437.

If the Wikipedia editor looked at an old version of the book that didn't have the ISBN, the ISBN doesn't help at all unless there is assurance that the printing associated with the ISBN is a valid reference on the given page or pages for that portion of the Wikipedia article. This could be accomplished by checking the ISBN printing on those pages, or by knowing that the ISBN printing has the same words on every page as the older printing originally referenced. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Point taken, I think.

So my Polya/Szego example will have the ISBN / date incompatibility message, and I should just let it stand.

Should every edition of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland have |orig-date=1865 ? No. Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice would have an |orig-date=1960. Turtlens (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Multiple URLs for cite newspaper?

I want to cite an article from newspapers.com. The article starts on one page and continues on another. As far as I can tell, that requires creating two distinct clippings, each with its own URL. What's the best way to cite this in a {{cite newspaper}} template? RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've run into that a number of times. What I do is create two clippings, use the first page as the source url, and then in the pages= portion, I link the 2d page clipping url to that page number. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newspapers.com § Citations across multiple pages/clippings

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

An alternative that I generally make use of is to use the |id= parameter, especially since this makes it easier to add links to other databases (see e.g. {{ProQuest}}, {{Gale}}, {{Factiva}}, etc.).

For example, the citation in that link I'd format as: {{cite news |last1=Miles |first1=Marvin |last2=Abramson |first2=Rudy |title=Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=July 21, 1969 |pages=1, 10 |id=[[Newspapers.com]] clippings [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035464/the-los-angeles-times/ 56035464], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035546/the-los-angeles-times/ 56035546].}} => Miles, Marvin; Abramson, Rudy (July 21, 1969). "Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface". Los Angeles Times. pp. 1, 10. Newspapers.com clippings 56035464, 56035546.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:22, 7 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)

In Local wiki

Hi, I'm writing from Mongolian Wikipedia. When using this module it gives me CS1 мажар-хэлний эх сурвалж (hu). What I have to do to change мажар to унгар and so it starts from capital letter. Thanks Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is about mn:Category:CS1 мажар-хэлний эх сурвалж (hu)

Language names come from MediaWiki via a call to the Scribunto function mw.language.fetchLanguageNames() which gets a list of language names known to MediaWiki. We can see what that returns for language tag hu with the #language magic word:

{{#language:hu|mn}} → magyar

So, to change that, you must change MediaWiki's definition of the language name for mn.wiki. I suspect that to do that, you must do so via Phabricator. But, I also suspect that you will not succeed because MediaWiki gets language names from Unicode CLDR which lists мажар as the 'native' name for Hungarian. See Locale Data Summary for Mongolian [mn].

If this is the only language name you want to change, you can override MediaWiki at lang_tag_remap and lang_name_remap in mn:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration.

Note that making either of these changes will also change how |language= renders the language name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks, but how to do so language name starts with capital letter Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

All language names or just мажар? If just мажар then I have already answered that. If all language names then you must get MediaWiki to change their data or you can edit mn:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to capitalize every name in mw_languages_by_tag_t. A simple way to do that might be to do this after mw_languages_by_tag_t is created:

for k, v in pairs (mw_languages_by_tag_t) do
	mw_languages_by_tag_t[k] = lang_obj:ucfirst (v);							-- force first character of language name to uppercase
end

Not tested and is summat that will not be incorporated into the en.wiki version so at every update you will need to re-add whatever code you write to force language name first character to uppercase.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 9 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 This page is being depreciated 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)

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)

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}}

Template:Cite journal/new

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