Help talk:Citation Style 1

Cite book: Year of publication

Year of publication states "Year of the source being referenced" Shouldn't this be "Year of source"/"Year of writing" or something like this?

Publication date seems to already be used for date when something is published...I think cite book should be clearer about which fields are referring to Publication, and which fields are referring to Writing Lcporschen (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never understood why |publication-date= exists, |date= should be used for publication date and |orig-date= for original date. It seems overly complex to have a third field that needlessly complicates things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Since at least April 2020, I have believed that |publication-date= should go away (here). Similarly, I hold that |publication-place= should go away. There have been several discussions on this topic which are collected at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86 § place, when publication-place is redundant with work.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree, both simply confuse the matter and are redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can it not be useful if there are several editions or versions of a work? |date= for the year of the edition quoted, |orig-date= for the 1st edition, |publication-date= for the publication date if it is a later re-edition, publication in another series etc. Keriluamox (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

References exist for verification, you only need to give details of the work you have not it's publication history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking that argument to the extreme, the sole ISBN would suffice. I find it useful to give some information about the work. Dating a 1900 work from 2020 because that’s the edition used feels off, if not slightly misleading. Keriluamox (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The date is the date of the edition you are using. If the version from 2020 is a facsimile of the 1900 edition, you could cite it as 1900. Otherwise, if it's a new edition it will have new page numbers, etc. –jacobolus (t) 17:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Take Crime and Punishment or many other books from around that time. They single volume is different than when the installment was published. More so light novels which are often written in installments on a website, then bought and printed by a publisher. Given that many books take time to publish, especially anthologies, having all three are useful. date is for the creation, orig-date is for when it was originally released, and publication-date is for when this exact publication was made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then make sense to rename 'date' to 'creation-date'? Lcporschen (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of |publication-date= is quite rare, in most cases |date= is used for current date and |orig-date= for the original publication date. So it wouldn't make sense to change |date=. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is about the <skeptical air quotes>documentation</skeptical air quotes> at Template:Cite book § TemplateData? The template's actual documentation for |publication-date= is at Template:Cite book § Date. The template data are not protected so if you think that it can be improved, please improve it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's actually at Template:Cite book#Publisher, or more specifically, Template:Cite book#csdoc_publication-date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: |publication-date= is mainly for non-daily periodicals where the cover date is often later than the date when the periodical goes on sale. For example, a magazine with cover date August 2026 might be on sale already. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

In taxonomy, the date when a book or journal was first published can be very important to establish precedence. For various reasons the year/date on the title page is not always the year/date when the work was first distributed. In such cases I use date= for the date on the title page and publication-date= for the date when the work was first distributed. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you know when it was first distributed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Date/publication-date are exactly the same thing. If you want the original date use |orig-date=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is also what I thought, when looking at the documentation (Template:Cite book#TemplateData):

parameter 'date' = 'Date of publication'

parameter 'publication-date' = 'Publication date'

To me, this looks exactly the same.

Given that other people have already expressed that 'publication-date' should go away, I'm just not gonna use 'publication-date' anymore (I don't care this much about dates of book publishing), and try to put the info I have in the fields 'date' and 'orig-date'. Thanks for clearing this up. Lcporschen (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Just to be pedantic, |date= and |publication-date= are only exactly the same thing when they are used alone. Then both are used in the same template they are treated as the same thing when they hold the same value in which case, |publication-date= is ignored:

{{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2026}} → Title. 2026.

when |date= and |publication-date= hold different values:

{{cite book |title=Title |date=2026 |publication-date=2025}} → Title (published 2025). 2026.

Do we really, really, need both? I think that we don't and that we should make |date= and |publication-date= exact aliases of one another (|location= / |place= and |publication-place= should also be exact aliases of one another).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 support for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree 'date' and 'publication-date' should be aliases of each other Lcporschen (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

As for location/place and publication-place, that's what I came here for.

The Template:Cite_book/doc is quite complex, probably contradictory…

But in #Publisher it says "Place: In earlier versions was the publication place; for compatibility will be treated as such if publication-place is absent"

So aliasing those will be OK for older entries, but possibly not for newer; could we count newer with both present?

So paralleling with date and publication-date, which I suppose would have been introduced at the same time, how much will it fudge?

Ponken (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of creation-date. Isn't the template not all about this?

"Title (published 2025). 2026" - is just not clearly understandable, instead rather a wtf (the postscript would be place for such curiosities when they are specifically relevant).

Sorry, if the discussion here is already closed. I just saw now how long the page goes down, wow. (There I will ask a question, for which I am here.) MenkinAlRire 14:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Isn't the template not all about this?" I don't think so. The template, and citations in academic works generally, are about identifying the publication that is mentioned in the citing work. If the source says "July 2026" on the cover, that's what someone who wants to read the source will check to make sure they picked up the right issue of the magazine. If some Wikipedian in the magazine business happens to know it was printed April 15, 2026, and first offered for sale May 2, 2026, WE DON'T CARE! Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't my point (that I find irrelevant, too). The template is called speech, and there are several date one could consider: when it was written (there is only a location for this which translates to "written at"), when the speech was held, and when the text was published (better printed). With "all about this" I meant that a speech was once spoken, I guess, and that is its prime date. Historically, in many, if not the most cases, the impact of a speech came with its distribution in print. But today many lectcures ar recorded and published online. They are preserved as original oral documents as video or audio. So the event where the speech happened gains more importance versus its printed form (if there is one). (Below I discussed some points.) MenkinAlRire 15:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"The template is called speech" – You should be aware that this talk-page serves as the talk-page of several templates which use *this* (sub-)template "Citation Style 1". That is: if you click these templates' talk-page link, you end up here. edit ALSO you are in the thread #Cite_book:_Year_of_publication here. / Ponken (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I also don’t get why this one talk page serves for several templates, instead of each template just having it’s own talk page Lcporschen (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have hacked the module sandboxen to make |date= and |publication-date= exact aliases. When used alone, |date= and |publication-date= have always performed the same function:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2026|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 2026.
Sandbox	Title. 2026.

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|publication-date=2026|title=Title}}
Live	Title. 2026.
Sandbox	Title. 2026.

When paired and holding the same dates, |publication-date= was ignored

When paired with different dates, |publication-date= modified the publisher string; that no longer happens:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2026|publication-date=2025|title=Title}}
Live	Title (published 2025). 2026.
Sandbox	Title. 2026. {{cite book}}: More than one of |publication-date= and |date= specified (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2026|location=Location|publication-date=2025|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Location (published 2025). 2026.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Sandbox	Title. Location. 2026. {{cite book}}: More than one of |publication-date= and |date= specified (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2026|publication-date=2025|publisher=Publisher|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Publisher (published 2025). 2026.
Sandbox	Title. Publisher. 2026. {{cite book}}: More than one of |publication-date= and |date= specified (help)

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|date=2026|location=Location|publication-date=2025|publisher=Publisher|title=Title}}
Live	Title. Location: Publisher (published 2025). 2026.
Sandbox	Title. Location: Publisher. 2026. {{cite book}}: More than one of |publication-date= and |date= specified (help)

If we are to believe this search, there are about 10,500 articles with cs1|2 templates that use both |date= and |publication-date=.

Keep? Discard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Plus another 1200. Izno (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If so many articles see a difference between the two fields, why merge them? They obviously serve some purpose in some cases. Keriluamox (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The question is wether the 'served purpose' in these cases corresponds with the documented intended use of the field. Lcporschen (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not so many, really. As I write this, Module:Citation/CS1 is used on 5,871,549 articles. If |date= and |publication-date= are used on ~10,500 + ~1,200 = ~11,700 articles, that is 0.199%. Not so many in the scheme of things.

If I understand the sense of all of the various discussions we've had on this topic, multiple 'publication' dates in a single cs1|2 template are not needed to meet the citation's primary purpose: to identify the source that supports the text in an en.wiki article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So publication-date is only used on 1.200 pages? That's not a lot.

I wouldn't make date and publication-date aliases of each other. I would just remove publication-date from the template, and have Wikipedia showing a 'undocumented/unsupported/deprecated parameter' error whenever publication-date is used (like with citeseerx parameter currently). Then people can decide for themselves what to do with it.

I don't know how this would work out for place and publication-place, but you might be able to do the same there. Lcporschen (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that you are mistook. The '1200' number is the number of articles that have cs1|2 templates with both |publication-date= and |date= in that order (left to right). The 10,500 number is the number of articles that have cs1|2 templates with both |date= and |publication-date= in that order (left to right).

This search suggests that there are ~38,400 articles that have cs1|2 templates with |publication-date= (alone or paired).

For comparison, this search (times out) suggests that there are ~1,004,800 articles that have cs1|2 templates with |date= (alone or paired).

One thing that we've overlooked is |year= paired with |publication-date=. So two more searches:

• |year= precedes |publication-date=: ~9,500 articles
• |year= follows |publication-date=: ~1,400 articles

Still not so many... As I write this, Module:Citation/CS1 is used on 5,872,789 articles. If |date= and |publication-date= are used on ~10,500 + ~1,200 + ~9,500 + ~1,400 = ~22,600 articles, that is 0.385%.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You could turn date into a multi-valued/nested field, and then have date and publication-date indeed be aliases of each other. Then the field date can have multiple values, without specifying the difference between the values, and then date and publication-date will both be values of the same date field. Lcporschen (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Could, but I don't think that we should. I think that such a mechanism would just cause confusion; especially so when rendering multiple values... without specifying the difference between the values:

Author Name (2025, 2026). Book Title. Publisher Name.

And, in cs1|2, a parameter that is an alias of a parameter already in the template is not allowed – |publication-date= and |publication-place= violate that rule for little or no benefit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there documentation about how date and publication-date are rendered? Lcporschen (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you look in the template documentation? here? and here? And see the Live examples in the comparisons above.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

“If date (or year) is not defined, publication-date is displayed as date.”

i think this is really confusing. Maybe it should be configured that publication-date can only be used if date is also/already defined Lcporschen (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing and it is unnecessary. We don't need two publication dates to identify a source that supports en.wiki article text. When this change goes live, the |publication-date= documentation will go away and |publication-date= will be added to the |date= documentation as a simple alias of |date=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Cite document, paper, journal, and web

I am confused as to why {{cite document}} does not support URL parameters.

I have on multiple occasions been caught off guard when attempting to use {{cite paper}} and getting a missing |journal= error thrown at me, as it is currently a redirect to {{cite journal}}. Paper and document are much closer semantically, so it seems reasonable to expect {{cite paper}} to redirect to {{cite document}}, but in replacing a call of the former to the latter, I get hit with an unknown parameter |url= error. Instead, I have to use {{cite web}}, which in many cases seems an inappropriate template to use for what I am citing. The particular example that caused me to bring this up here is the following:

{{cite web
|last=Jones
|first=Daniel
|author-link=Daniel Jones (phonetician)
|year=1956
|title=Cardinal Vowels Spoken by Daniel Jones: Text of Records with Explanatory Notes by Professor Jones
|location=London
|publisher=Linguaphone Institute
|url=https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-streaming.ri-prod/9781444183092/cardinal.pdf
}}

The url is merely a scan of a short, stand-alone, offline document exactly as described in the documentation of {{cite document}}, so the fact that I get an error makes little sense to me. I was going to create an RfD for {{cite paper}} to retarget it to {{cite document}}, but this is preventing me from doing so. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 22:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

IIRC the reason for Template:Cite paperTemplate:Cite paper being a redirect to Template:Cite journal is because for an academic paper to be acceptable for verifiability purposes, it must have been published; and the usual place for academic papers to be published is in an academic journal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that cite document should support URLs. An offline document just means a physical document. There's no reason why there can't be online scans/PDFs of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but it's clearly not a short, stand-alone, offline document as it's online. It can't be offline if it has a URL. Cite Document's documentation would clearer if it was "short, stand-alone document, that is not available online". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Which it shouldn't be. Cite document should be for any generic document. That something is available online is completely irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I could see the argument for that, but that's not how it's currently setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Like {{Citation}} for CS1? You'd probably need broad consensus for that since the other CS1 templates all describe a type of source. I think {{cite document}} was a redirect to {{cite journal}} prior to this discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81 § "Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that helps to explain the incongruence of {{cite paper}} and {{cite document}}, then. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 18:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, a "document" is a pamphlet, a small version of book, so we should be able to use all parameters of {{cite book}} other than |chapter= and related params. --FlatLanguage (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite document is specifically provided to support URL-less lesser works that appear in no other greater works. That is the point of the template. Izno (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

And if a digitized version of that document suddenly appears, it doesn't cease to be a document. URL should be supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Citation – wrong links in hatnotes

There are some wrong/non-functional links in hatnotes at Template:Citation. E.g. under the heading "Anchor":

Not to be confused with § Identifiers.

Further information: § Anchored citations.

The first line links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#Identifiers, which just redirects to the main page. Same as several other ones I checked.

— Phazd (talk|contribs) 21:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This is problem about Module:Hatnote (and Module:Format link). See ja:Special:Diff/110484481, ja:Special:Diff/110484386. --FlatLanguage (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Not done. These requests should be made at Module talk:Hatnote and Module talk:Format link.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I have worked around the problem for now. I wonder if it used to work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Before Parsoid, it worked. Parsoid's render of [[:# links to main page. FlatLanguage (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed: before (using useparsoid=0) vs after — SirOlgen (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe the miscellaneous URL warning for CiteSeerX URL format can now be removed. (Module:Citation/CS1)

CiteSeerX is now completely down, as far as I can see. Driving editors to make more or less tedious URL changes through a maintenance message seems like a waste to me now, given that both are now just equivalently dead links to be replaced, with neither being more valuable than the other.

If I receive agreement, I'd go ahead and make an edit request to remove the check in question. After sandboxing, needless to say. I think that's how it works, at least. DraegerChem (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly which message do you mean? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine#References

Here is an example. Citation 3 is affected. "CS1 maint: miscellaneous url". It appears to be there because the citation's original link points to a CiteSeerX site. It doesn't seem to me though that it's of much use anymore, though, as it appears that all CiteSeerX sites are now down, so a format change won't do anything useful. I may be misinterpreting, but that's what I figured so far. The message in itself seems sound, but that it would still trigger for CiteSeerX links in the 'url' parameter does not, given that all such URLs should now be made to point to archive links where available. DraegerChem (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It's there so that is editors can deal with the dead links, it's possible that the papers will be available elsewhere. It that case it appears it's available from the AMS -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the archive links for that reference works, it most cases it doesn't (see discussion in archive 102). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense then. It is likely better to keep it the way it is in that case, although I'm not sure the help page for the maintenance message is still helpful. I suppose that may be the right place to intervene, but what to replace it with I'm not sure and I think I'll leave that to someone else.

Thank you for your response and for clearing this up, in any case. DraegerChem (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for citeseerx CS1 error category?

Is Category:CS1 errors: citeseerx still being used in some fashion? Since all instances of citeseerx are now a deprecated parameter error anyway, I don't see any use for this anymore. I would flag it as C4 for speedy deletion but I want confirmation that this isn't being used anywhere else before proceeding. BlaqWiedow (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

|citeseerx= is deprecated but still supported. Category:CS1 errors: citeseerx will be deleted when support for |citeseerx= is withdrawn. Don't hold your breath for that to happen soon.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"always include ISBN, if one has been assigned"

This is appalling advice. The utility of littering pages with visually distracting ISBN links to nowhere would be moot even if the ISBNs were correct. Because many Wiki editors do not understand that an ISBN identifies an edition rather than a work, thousands of the ISBNs on the site are wrong. Editors should be advised to consider what purpose an ISBN serves, and, if they decide to include one, to ensure that it is the right ISBN for the edition cited. (The field is so pointless and troublesome that it would be better to remove it from the template completely.) Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBN must be correct for the edition. While that is an issue, it is a fairly minor one and certainly does not make "the field so pointless and troublesome that it would be better to remove from the template completely". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

ISBN is incredibly useful when trying to hunt down the correct work, especially for something obscure. Updating the documentation to advice on ensuring the correct ISBN is used can be done by anyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 on updating documentation. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Please update SC2ID limit

In this Köthe conjecture page, one of the sources used a journal with SC2ID more than 290000000 which is 291870068 (and it is the right journal). Please update the limit. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Listing a committee

The documentation for 'author1' says "this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee)", but using it for that purpose generates an error. As an example:

Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes; Space Studies Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (September 17, 2018). Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25172. ISBN 978-0-309-47865-6. {{cite book}}: |author1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Does the documentation need to be revised? Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Use |authorn=((Committee on the Review of ...)) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the work-around, thanks. My question was regarding the documentation. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Foreign-language journal with separate URLs for original article and third-party translation

I have a {{cite journal}} for an article that's in French. It's fairly old (no DOI or other modern identifier) but there is an electronic scan available. That means I need to use |url= to link it. There is also an English translation available for the whole article. How do I also link that as well? I'm currently using an extlink in |trans-title=, but that's obviously a CS1 error. DMacks (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You include the secondary URL outside of the template, but before the close ref tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

or write a separate cs1|2 template for the translation; especially if the bibliographic details or the translation differ from those of the translated source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Generic author name "Staff"

Propose that "Staff" and variations such as "[Name of Publication] Staff" and "Staff Writer[s]" be added to the list of generic names for |author= and similar fields. These turn up a lot in various online publications. Thank you. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Staff (name) is a viable surname - this will create false positives - for example for books like Staff, Gary (2014). German Battlecruisers of World War One: Their Design, Construction and Operations. Oxford: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84832-308-7.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  OK, I wasn't aware of that. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I find the use of these terms reassures readers and editors that the author hasn't been omitted or forgotten, so I think they're useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

|location=, |place=, and |publication-place=

Because of their similar peculiarities, |location=, |place=, and |publication-place= are often mentioned when we have been discussing |date= and |publication-date=; most recently at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite book: Year of publication.

When used in isolation, |publication-date= is an equal alias of |location= and |place=. When |publication-date= is paired with either of |location= or |place=, the latter parameter causes cs1|2 to emit 'written at' static text. My sense from our previous discussions is that where a source was written is not needed when the purpose of a citation is to identify the source that supports text in an en.wiki article. So, I have hacked the module sandboxen to make |location=, |place=, and |publication-place= equal aliases at all times.

Since December 2019, we have maintained a properties category Category:CS1 location test which accumulates articles that have cs1|2 templates with |publication-place= and either of |location= or |place=. At this writing, the category lists ~1,800 articles.

When used in isolation, |location=, |place=, and |publication-place= have been and will remain equal aliases of each other:

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|location=Austin, Texas|newspaper=The Villager|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", The Villager, Austin, Texas
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, Austin, Texas

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|newspaper=The Villager|place=Manhattan|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|newspaper=The Villager|publication-place=The Woodlands, Texas|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", The Villager, The Woodlands, Texas
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, The Woodlands, Texas

When |publication-place= is paired with either of |location= or |place=, the 'written at' static text will no longer be rendered and Module:Citation/CS1 will render a duplicate parameter error message:

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|location=London|newspaper=The Villager|publication-place=Manhattan|title=Title}}
Live	written at London, "Title", The Villager, Manhattan
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan {{citation}}: More than one of |location= and |publication-place= specified (help)

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|newspaper=The Villager|place=London|publication-place=Manhattan|title=Title}}
Live	written at London, "Title", The Villager, Manhattan
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan {{citation}}: More than one of |place= and |publication-place= specified (help)

Citation comparison

Wikitext	{{citation|location=Manhattan|newspaper=The Villager|publication-place=Manhattan|title=Title}}
Live	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan
Sandbox	"Title", The Villager, Manhattan {{citation}}: More than one of |location= and |publication-place= specified (help)

Module:Citation/CS1 will no longer link to Category:CS1 location test. The category will automatically empty at which point it may be deleted.

Keep? Discard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at an example, we currently have in ...Lu

• {{cite book|last=Hinz|first=W.|translator-last=Barnes|translator-first=J.|year=1972|title=The Lost World of Elam: Re-creation of a Vanished Civilization|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DGkKAQAAIAAJ|location=United Kingdom|publisher=[[Sidgwick & Jackson]]|publication-place=University of California|isbn=9780283978630}}

rendering as

• Hinz, W. (1972). Written at United Kingdom. The Lost World of Elam: Re-creation of a Vanished Civilization. Translated by Barnes, J. University of California: Sidgwick & Jackson. ISBN 9780283978630.

This is clearly nonsense. No one cares that Hinz wrote it in the UK (which is an extremely dubious proposition given he spent the vast majority of his academic life in Germany and Iran and probably never even sat foot in the UK), or that Barnes translated it in California. The only thing that bibliographically matters is what is the location of Sidgwick & Jackson, which here is UK (London), or NYU Press (New York).

So the category is useful to find the nonsense. But if another category exists... *shrugs*. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

We do have another category: Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter and we will have visible error messages so the properties category Category:CS1 location test (properties cats are not associated with a visible messaging) becomes redundant.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Citing YouTube

Please direct me to somewhere that can teach me how to cite YouTube. (I've been editing for 20 years, and I've never cited YouTube.) Tried using {{Cite YouTube}} but this redirects to {{Cite AV Media}} which doesn't seem to have the parameters I need. I'm sure someone has worked this out. Where do I go?

This is the URL: . I want to mention the interviewee (Hinton), the interviewer (Jon Stewart), the channel, (The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart), the time-stamp of the thing I'm citing and the website (YouTube). ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is one way (assuming that the timestamp is at the 30 minute mark):

{{cite av media |subject=Geoffrey Hinton |interviewer=Jon Stewart |title=AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton |time=0:30 |publisher=The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK3PsD3AP |via=YouTube}}

Geoffrey Hinton. AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton. Interviewed by Jon Stewart. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. Event occurs at 0:30 – via YouTube.

You can also use |minutes=30 for a slightly different rendering:

{{cite av media |subject=Geoffrey Hinton |interviewer=Jon Stewart |title=AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton |minutes=30 |publisher=The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK3PsD3AP |via=YouTube}}

Geoffrey Hinton. "AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton". The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. Interviewed by Jon Stewart. 30 minutes in – via YouTube.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

{{cite av media |subject=Geoffrey Hinton |interviewer=Jon Stewart |chapter=AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton |minutes=30 |title=The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart |chapter-url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK3PsD3AP |via=YouTube}}

rendering as

• Geoffrey Hinton. "AI: What Could Go Wrong? with Geoffrey Hinton". The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. Interviewed by Jon Stewart. 30 minutes in – via YouTube.

seems better to me. Parameter names could be better though, but this correctly put things as minor/major works and doesn't wrongly state that the Weekly Show is a publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. This citation is in artificial intelligence ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for language override: Tetun language

Tetum language has been moved to Tetun language. Module:ISO 639 name/ISO 639-3 still shows "Tetum" (with an "m"), because sil still shows "Tetum" (and Ethnologue shows "Tetun"). It looks like we need an override for "tet" at Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

In the sandbox:

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|language=tet|title=Title}}
Live	Title (in Tetum).
Sandbox	Title (in Tetun).

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|language=tetum|title=Title}}
Live	Title (in Tetum).
Sandbox	Title (in Tetun).

Cite book comparison

Wikitext	{{cite book|language=tetun|title=Title}}
Live	Title (in tetun).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Sandbox	Title (in Tetun).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the reasoning, the original discussion is at Talk:Tetun#Requested move 1 March 2026. It boils down to a quirk of Portuguese spelling. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)