Template talk:Citation Style 1

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Reliability This template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

{{Cite arXiv}} is not bot-filled? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite hdl}} uses {{citation}}, thus is is not CS1. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The first instance at {{Cite hdl/10068.2F257965}} uses {{citation}}, but a sample of the rest use {{cite journal}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please explain {{cite pmc}}? The doc page shows nothing about being deprecated or the bot status. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation bot does not work with them anymore (in fact it destroys them mindlessly). You can look at the citation bot page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot Also, it is unused. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_pmc&limit=500 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add ; {{tl|cite ChemRxiv}} : [[ChemRxiv]] preprints

Sharouser (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: ChemRxiv is not a supported CitationClass in Module:Citation/CS1, so it should not be listed as its own template on the list of CS1 templates. I have started a documentation page for the template that you have created; you should create some test cases and document how the template should be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should {{Cite ssrn}} and {{Cite citeseerx}} be added to this template, or not? Debresser (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes. done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to add links to the humorous citation templates {{Cite bathroom graffiti}} (by myself) and {{Cite dream}} (by Chaotic Enby and LunaEatsTuna), configured such that they will only display on April Fools' Day. @Trappist the monk, you reverted with the edit summary please don't;.

I think including the links (on 1 out of 365 days of the year) might help editors to discover the templates and appreciate their humor (and making Wikipedia an enjoyable place to be helps us retain editors). On the flip side, I don't see any serious potential for disruption: The links will only show up in projectspace, are disclosed via the {{4-1}} tag, and otherwise comply in every way with WP:FOOLR even under the most conservative interpretation.

Humor is always subjective, so I take no offense if you don't personally find them funny. But others have, so I think it'd be a shame to completely hide them away. As such, would you consider allowing them? (If not, it'd be helpful to hear more about why you object to them, i.e. whether you see a specific potential for disruption or just oppose April Fools' Day pranks on Wikipedia in general.)

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Twice I've reverted this silliness: 23 January 2026 and today. I do not think that humor should be encoded into any working template, no matter how simple or rarely used, because once accepted, we have to maintain it forever; therein lies disruption. There may be places at en.wiki that are suitable for humor but template namespace is not one of them.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding on your rationale. There has been extensive consideration of which namespaces permit April Fools' Day humor (see the references at WP:Rules for Fools), and template namespace is permitted. The maintenance burden is minimal — it relies only on {{Fools-gate}}, which is a simple switch template used in a bunch of places that just checks whether it's April 1 or not. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand how it works, but that does not change my opinion that April fool silliness should not be encoded into any working template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was thinking "what's the harm if the template is coded only to work on April Fools' Day?" And then after thinking about it some more, I have to agree with Trappist the Monk. A bathroom graffiti citation doesn't need a template.

No citation actually needs a template. The templates exist only to display citations with a consistent format, but that format can be done just as easily without a template. Even though WP:FOOLR doesn't mention the Template namespace, I see no need to have a template in it that's good for only once a year. Another problem is that any deliberate April Fools' joke pages that make use of the template would show an error on any day besides April 1, which would just look wrong. It's cleaner just to write out the citation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist, I'm having some trouble understanding what you're saying here. We're not discussing the {{Cite bathroom graffiti}} and {{Cite dream}} templates themselves (which work on any day, although they'll display an error if you attempt to use them in mainspace), but rather this navbox ({{Citation Style 1}}) and whether it may link to them on April 1 under WP:FOOLR.

The templates exist only to display citations with a consistent format, but that format can be done just as easily without a template. The purpose of adding the links to this template is so that they'll show up on the project/template pages where this navbox is transcluded. Any approach that tried to add links without using this template would not make sense.

any deliberate April Fools' joke pages that make use of the template would show an error on any day besides April 1 This is not true. The way that {{Fools-gate}} works (and it works the same in the many other places it's used, such as {{AprilFoolsNotice}}) is just to check whether it's April 1 or not and use that as a switch. In this case, the switch displays the links to Cite bathroom graffiti and Cite dream if it's April 1 and displays nothing if not. There is no error on the other days. Sdkb ^talk 06:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard then. I completely misunderstood this dispute. I thought you were referring to the joke templates, which I regard as unnecessary to have here.

Rather, you're referring to links to those joke templates that would appear here only on one day.

I just checked your revision that was reverted. It looks harmless, because it clearly explains in the hover superscript that the link is an April Fools' joke, and shouldn't confuse anyone. Because there is precedent for including {{Fools-gate}} into standard templates (such as Template:Notability sidebar, which is transcluded in 100 different Wikipedia namespace pages), I don't see any reason to object to using it here, other than agreeing with Trappist the Monk in expressing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which I know isn't a valid objection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]