Help talk:CS1 errors

Text or other creative content from this version of Help:CS1_errors was copied or moved into incubator:Wp/nod/Citation/CS1/Help:CS1_errors. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 6.

Boost DOI limit

doi:10.82191/lseidr.111 is valid. Set prefix limit to 10.85000 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bioRxiv DOI prefix

Based on www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2025.12.10.693067v1 on Special:Diff/1328168027 (an edit of Bakiribu), this is either a one-off error that the old double-parentheses trick doesn't work on or there's a new DOI prefix for bioRxiv. Snowman304|talk 02:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new DOI prefix for biorxiv indeed. It used to be exclusively 10.1011 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), but in March 2025, ownership was transferred to the newly formed openRxiv.

It's the same for medRxiv too, e..g medRxiv 10.64898/2025.12.22.25342872. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does medrxiv also now use the same new 'doi' prefix as biorxiv?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fixed in the sandbox

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BioRxiv fixed in the sandbox:

{{cite bioRxiv/new |last1=Unwin |first1=David M. |last2=Smith |first2=Roy E. |last3=Cooper |first3=Samuel |last4=Martill |first4=David M. |title=Reinterpretation of ''Bakiribu waridza'' from the Romualdo Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil: a fish not a pterosaur |date=2025-12-12 |biorxiv=10.64898/2025.12.10.693067}}

Unwin, David M.; Smith, Roy E.; Cooper, Samuel; Martill, David M. (2025-12-12). "Reinterpretation of Bakiribu waridza from the Romualdo Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil: a fish not a pterosaur". bioRxiv 10.64898/2025.12.10.693067.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: could you also update {{biorxiv}} and {{medrxiv}} too? Or will that automatically kick in after next week's update? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neato. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archive error error

Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 101 § Error with origin date for archive.today

This page is for discussion of Help:CS1 errors. To discuss how the module operates, discuss at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Original post in this discussion retained for reference:

The template is claiming that https://archive.today/20081012124828/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACommunityShield/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2003/08/60753.htm is an archive url error, the help page does not describe the format for archive.today urls, but this url certainly works. There are three such error messages in 2003 FA Community Shield. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC).

I have tweaked the error message help text to describe how the module is currently working.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN / Date incompatibility for ISBN assigned for an 1879 book.

I have a ISBN / Date incompatibility generated from a template that builds a cite book. It is for the 1st edition of Baird's Manual of College Fraternities and I'm using is https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=isbn:9781515036494 which does return the 1879 date of the initial edition. As far as I know, while the last edition was in 1991, there was never any reissue of the 1879 version. I'm wondering now why it has an ISBN listed at all, even though the lookup from wikipedia does find it. Ideas?Naraht (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say inside the book that you cite? (WP:SAYWHERE). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure the book itself doesn't have an isbn number printed in it (this is the 1879 edition), is there any chance an isbn could have been assigned later? This book (really more of a one volume encyclopedia has gone through 20 editions since then) Naraht (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 1879 edition obviously doesn't have an ISBN. The question is, did the edition that you cited? If not, omit the ISBN; if yes, provide the edition number and its year. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "where I found it" is that the URL above https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=isbn:9781515036494 gives the 1879 edition of Bairds. Is there a good way to find out what book it *should* have given for 978-151503649-4?Naraht (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That book at Google Books is unavailable for preview and search to me. It also says that it's published in 2015 by CreateSpace. So you could use those. Or you could use the 1879 edition at the Internet Archive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the code which checks for this compatilibility be adjusted to take into account the {{{publication-date}}} parameter? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some eBooks do not have current publication dates - this one, for instance just says "1932" even though it has an isbn. Should I remove the isbn or do we leave it in to help people find a copy? I wish there was some code so that we could have both. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That ISBN, ISBN 978-2402224017, doesn't yield many results. I think this is a good case to use ASIN B07875JNYY instead, the original year, and mention ebook in |format= or |edition=. If you think the ISBN is an additional finding help, you can use |orig-year=1932 and |year=n.d.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp error in archive.today URL

The Sounds of the Universe article uses this archive URL in one of the citations: |archive-url=https://archive.today/20110616224142/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article6098124.ece ... which generates an error that " {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)".

The link works fine. Why is it flagged as an error? The documentation doesn't say what the requirements for archive.today URLs are. How can the error be fixed? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See #Archive error error above, and Help talk:Citation Style 1#Error with origin date for archive.today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

date= in other calendars

I am writing a citation for a book related to Islamic culture, published in Saudi Arabia.

bin Abdulhafeez Nawab, Zuhair; bin Ali Shavali, Jamal (1434 AH (2013 CE)). أَطْلَسُ طَرِيقِ الهِجْرَةِ النَّبَوِيَّةِ: مَعَ وَصْفٍ تَارِيخِيٍّ جُغْرَافِيٍّ جِيُولُوجِيٍّ لِلطَّرِيقِ [Atlas of the Prophetic Migration Route (Hijrah): With a Historical, Geographical, and Geological Description of the Route]. Jeddah: Saudi Geological Survey, Madinah Research and Studies Center, Kunuz Al-Ma'refah. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The publication date is given according to the Hijri era (AH) Islamic calendar. The common era date is a guess because there is no 1:1 correspondence between years in the calendars.

Is there any method to specify a date in a different calendars? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Or at least to suppress the "error" message? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. You might do this:

{{cite book |script-title=ar:أَطْلَسُ طَرِيقِ الهِجْرَةِ النَّبَوِيَّةِ: مَعَ وَصْفٍ تَارِيخِيٍّ جُغْرَافِيٍّ جِيُولُوجِيٍّ لِلطَّرِيقِ |trans-title=Atlas of the Prophetic Migration Route (Hijrah): With a Historical, Geographical, and Geological Description of the Route |first1=Zuhair |last1=bin Abdulhafeez Nawab  |first2= Jamal |last2=bin Ali Shavali  |publisher= [[Saudi Geological Survey]], Madinah Research and Studies Center, Kunuz Al-Ma'refah |location=[[Jeddah]] |date=2013 |orig-date=1434 AH}}

bin Abdulhafeez Nawab, Zuhair; bin Ali Shavali, Jamal (2013) [1434 AH]. أَطْلَسُ طَرِيقِ الهِجْرَةِ النَّبَوِيَّةِ: مَعَ وَصْفٍ تَارِيخِيٍّ جُغْرَافِيٍّ جِيُولُوجِيٍّ لِلطَّرِيقِ [Atlas of the Prophetic Migration Route (Hijrah): With a Historical, Geographical, and Geological Description of the Route]. Jeddah: Saudi Geological Survey, Madinah Research and Studies Center, Kunuz Al-Ma'refah.

I googled the Arabic title and turned up several hits that used the 2013 publication date. One of them had this ISBN 978-603-90021-8-5. Both Google books and WorldCat show a 2013 publication date for that ISBN. So if a guess, 2013 seems to have been the correct guess.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM! I was helping another editor with the formatting, completely forgetting to try the obvious <blush>. I did consider using =orig-date= but thought that it was for reprints. But I see it works nicely never mind how we got there, so will suggest that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why "|contributor= requires |author="?

What is the proper way to cite a contribution in a book that does not have an identifiable author (or editor)? A practical example: Pulse dialing#cite note-6. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to name "The Jolly Roger" as author; William Powell could be named (see The Anarchist Cookbook), but that's supposition. What about:

The Jolly Roger (2000). "147.Phone Dial Locks – How to Beat'em" (PDF). Anarchy Cookbook version 2000. William Powell, original author. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-03-07.

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the original, but comparing what the article says about it with the cited PDF file, it seems that the file ("version 2000") is quite different. This article (namely, its "A virtual cookbook" section) suggests that it might be attributable to Terrance Brown, although the earliest Internet Archive snapshot of the mentioned website ([1]) says: "The Anarchist Cookbook was originally written by the Jolly Roger in the mid 1980's. ... We have no connection with the author..." I didn't dig deeper to get their MS Word file for comparison. Nevertheless, most probably, leaving the citation as it is now (with just |author=The Jolly Roger) would be the best option. However, I still find the prohibition to have |contributor= without |author= (or at least explicitly stating that the author is unknown) rather meaningless. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]