Wikipedia

Help talk:CS1 errors#Bibcode validation code needs updating

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.

Another generic title

[edit]

Titles containing the phrase "Subscription Offers, Specials, and Discounts" are probably bogus. There are currently about 200 examples. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they due to citation bot? If so, User talk:Citation bot. There are reports of generic/invalid titles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I've checked four at random, and the edits are tagged "Visual edit" (diffs 1, 2, 3, 4) -- John of Reading (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, mw:Talk:Citoid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another: over 300 articles with title You are being redirected. However they got into the encyclopedia, it's still worth adding these to the CS1 error checks. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bibcode validation code needs updating

[edit]

Bibcodes have evolved to accept characters other than letters, digits and dots in the 10–13 (volume field) and 15–18 (pages field) ranges. From ADS:

As many publishers are moving away from page numbers and using electronic identifiers more and more frequently, the page field is no longer guaranteed to be numeric. Often an identifier of more than 5 digits is truncated, and there may be letters, periods, dashes, or other characters in the page field as well. The volume field may also contain non-numeric characters.

The current validation logic is outdated, falsely flagging errors such as the Schillinger reference in this article (note the hyphen between 100. and 166):

Bibcode:2008AgrJ..100.-166S … {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check |bibcode= value (help)

Kindly update the bibcode validation code to reflect the current status. If this needs to be flagged elsewhere, please advise accordingly and I'll do the same.

Regards, Alexanderino (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a response from ADS. It is reproduced verbatim:
  • length must be 19 characters (<message> = 'length')
  • characters in position(s): (except as specified otherwise, violations produce 'value' in the <message> portion of the error message):
    • 1–4 must be digits and must represent a year in the range of 1000 – next year (<message> = 'year')
    • 5 must be a letter
    • 6–8 must be a letter, digit, ampersand, or dot (ampersand cannot directly precede a dot; &. (<message> = 'journal'))
    • 9 must be a letter, digit or dot
    • 10–18 must be a letter, digit, dot or dash
    • 19 must be a letter or dot
If someone would be so kind as to update the validation code, or point out who is responsible for that task, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Alexanderino (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra

[edit]
Moved to Template talk:Infobox Australian place § Canberra
 – Trappist the monk (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Boost DOI limit

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1 § 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]