Template talk:Cite Q

Formatting authors

Is there a way to get the authors to be formatted the same way that they are when last and first names are added manually, but WITHOUT having to add them manually? That is, that the output of

{{CS1 config |mode=cs1}}
⋮
{{cite Q |Q134120249 }}

is the SAME as

{{CS1 config |mode=cs1}}
⋮
{{cite Q |Q134120249 |last1=l'Heremite |first1=laques |author-link1=Jacques l'Hermite |last2=Walbeeck |first2=Joannes van |author-link2=Johannes van Walbeeck |last3=Decker |first3=Adolf }} Elrondil (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This feature has been discussed many times in the archives of this page. I think it would require a change to the template's code, but a visit to the archives would shine more light on the issue than my feeble memory can. In the meantime, the documentation explains: The best option, which will apply to all articles using Cite Q with a given ID, is to modify the Wikidata property for each author and editor, adding "object named as" with the author's name in "Last, First" format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m aware of this "workaround", BUT the purpose of qualifier P1932 (object named as) is "to indicate used spelling or how a certain information was printed in the source". I do not want to be going around Wikidata changing correct data to incorrect data as a "workaround", one that affects EVERY usage of that qualifier at that and not just the usage in this ONE Wikipedia page. A new qualifier (e.g., cite-Q-workaround) wouldn’t ever make it into Wikidata (hopefully), so manually adding the data in the {{cite Q}} use is probably the least evil here 🙂. Elrondil (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a problem that can be solved.

I think it would be technically feasible for the template to query the author's Wikidata item, and retrieve the given name (P735) and family name (P734), if they are available. Those values could then be inserted to first1 and last1 respectively. This would automatically correctly render the name as Lastname, Firstname.

For authors without a Wikidata entity, we can use the author name string (P2093) property on the publication entity, which is described as a fallback in the lua module. However this does not separate the first and last names. I would suggest we encourage people, when using author name string (P2093), to add qualifiers for author given names (P9687) and author last names (P9688). Then, similar to the solution above, CiteQ could then use those values (if available) to construct the first1 and last1 entries.

If others think this solution could work I'm happy to start preparing changes in the lua module. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be brilliant! Elrondil (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cloventt: is it technically feasible? Elrondil (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree this would be useful. Is there code on Gerrit somewhere? I'm happy to hack in Lua and push git around. I was thinking there could be some sort of "citation style" parameter or flag, that modifies the output of Cite Q according to whichever convention the article is using; for example, sometimes we want "Guilmont, FC" (initials) instead of "Guilmont, François Charles" or "François Guilmont". This is especially important when we need a last1 (and date!) to use the {{sfn}} template. Jon (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a new parameter to {{CS1 config}}? For example, “|author-style=full” causes expansion to “|author=François Charles Guilmont”, “|author-style=shortest” to “|last=Guilmont |first=F.”, “|author-style=short” to “|last=Guilmont |first=F. C.”, “|author-style=long” to “|last=Guilmont |first=François”, and “|author-style=longest” expands to “|last=Guilmont |first=François Charles”. The name-list-style=vanc approach doesn’t seem expressive enough. Not sure what to do with titles like “van”, “von”, and “von und zu” yet. Elrondil (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

And maybe a “|first-name-style=1” for “|first=F. C.”, “|first-name-style=2” for “|first=F.C.”, “|first-name-style=3” for “|first=FC”. Elrondil (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, something along these lines was my thought. Stuffing arbitrary formatting and styling in Wikidata seems daft when ideally we want Cite Q to be used on many different language wikis. But I might be wrong, it happens occasionally... Jon (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Breaks on multiple archived URLs

Noticed this with {{cite Q|Q110737103}}. Wikidata records 2 archived URLs for that particular document, and the template returns the first of them with a comma appended, breaking the URL, and then prepends the second URL to the title. This of course generates a CS1 error when used. Choess (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI a discussion on widespread removal of Cite Q from publication lists

Please see discussion on talk page here DrThneed (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That's archived now. Boud (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've put a related comment, after an anti-Cite-Q enthusiast did a generic replacement of Cite Q citations in an article, at Talk:Decidim#Sources for other languages and other WMF wikis. There are too few editors there to get a consensus decision one way or another for that particular article; valid arguments exist both for and against the current version of Cite Q. The main problem I see is that replacing Cite Q citations makes life more difficult for people in other language Wikipedias; they may think that they have to create the citations using their own script that converts parameter names from the English names to the parameter names in their language (I still have a private script like that from the pre-Cite-Q epoch), or do the whole thing by hand. And it means that a citation used on e.g. 10 or 30 Wikipedias cannot be updated or corrected on all of them at once - and consensed on at Wikidata in the case of disputes.

Another problem (of the particular edit) is the omission of archive links for open-access URLs, on the assumption that they will not become obsolete. Boud (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Another problem with replacing cite Q citations by hard-wired, expanded citations is within en.Wikipedia. When a reference is used within several different en.Wikipedia articles and is a cite Q reference, any updates or corrections are automatically updated in all the en.Wikipedia articles. If, instead, the references are expanded, then chances are that someone will fix/update the reference in one article, or not the others, making that person's work less useful. Alternatively, the person has to search for all the articles that use the reference (which may be unnamed in some, or have different names in different articles), and painstakingly do the update in each article. The Don't Repeat Yourself principle generally reduces the amount of work to fix errors and tends to help humans focus on thinking rather than repetitive administrative tasks. Boud (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit to Decidim had a summary of "cite repair", and at least in the case of the "Aragón; Kaltenbrunner" arXiv citation, that was true. The cited article has a type of "scholarly article" on Wikidata, yet {{Cite Q}} italicized the title of the article as if it were a book. These kinds of basic bugs that have been part of Cite Q from the start are what drives what you call "enthusiasts" to replace it with working templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, because surely this is solvable.

Wikipedians will continue to argue about formatting citations, until each reader gets to decide how that reader wants to see citations formatted for them. Then Wikipedians can stop arguing, and instead direct that energy to something useful, like improving Wikipedia. Elrondil (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

How to accommodate chapters in a book?

I'm attempting to cite an academic chapter in an edited volume. Take-the-best heuristic does not reflect the volume in which reference 7 is published. I am requesting advice. Thank you.Trilotat (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

{{cite q}} does not support chapters. chapter is mentioned once in Module:Cite Q at line 93; there is no mention of an academic chapter – you used 'scholarly chapter' in your definition of The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research (Q136530589). Given Q136530589, {{cite q}} produces this:

{{Citation |author1=Arndt Bröder |doi=10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195315448.003.0067 |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q136530589|Q136530589]] |language=en |pages=217-240 |publication-date=19 March 2012 |title=The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research}}

Arndt Bröder (19 March 2012). The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research. pp. 217–240. doi:10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195315448.003.0067. Wikidata Q136530589.

Note the error message. {{cite book}} is not for citing journals or other periodicals so {{cite q}} should not be adding |journal= to a {{cite book}} template. There is an ugly workaround:

{{Cite Q |Q136530589 |journal=unset |publication-date=unset |date=2012 |chapter=The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research |editor=Peter M. Todd |editor2=Gerd Gigerenzer |title=Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World |publisher=Oxford University Press }}

Arndt Bröder (2012). "The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research". In Peter M. Todd; Gerd Gigerenzer (eds.). Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. Oxford University Press. pp. 217–240. doi:10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195315448.003.0067. Wikidata Q136530589.

Seems to me you'd be better off, writing a proper {{cite book}} template:

{{cite book |author=Arndt Bröder |date=2012 |chapter=The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research |editor=Peter M. Todd |editor2=Gerd Gigerenzer |title=Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195315448.003.0067 |isbn=978-0-199-93242-9 |pages=217-240}}

Arndt Bröder (2012). "The Quest for Take-the-Best: Insights and Outlooks From Experimental Research". In Peter M. Todd; Gerd Gigerenzer (eds.). Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. Oxford University Press. pp. 217–240. doi:10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195315448.003.0067. ISBN 978-0-199-93242-9.

The need for chapter support is listed near the bottom at Template:Cite Q § To do list. As of this writing, no one is maintaining Module:Cite Q so don't hold your breath for a fix for this in the near future.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

How does one become the (a?) maintainer? Elrondil (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ability to understand and write Lua; knowledge of wikidata; template editor permissions (not required but damned helpful). There is a list of stuff to do at Template:Cite Q § To do list though, were it me, the first thing I would do would be to move stuff like i18 (lines 12–25) and simple_properties (lines 51–119 to a data module so that all of those things don't have to be executed for each {{cite q}} template in an article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have zero time right now but the thought that Cite Q might rot on the vine from neglect is distressing, I use it pretty much everywhere. I would like to help. — Jon (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve done something similar, and I’m trying to remember what I did. But I think there are two options here. First, {{cite Q}} for the edited volume and then {{harvc}} for the chapter. Second, model it differently in Wikidata.

But what do you actually have? A journal article or a chapter in a book? Elrondil (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You’re not using short footnotes, so {{harvc}} isn’t useful to you here. And I think I did what no longer works 😞. Elrondil (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

So its an actual chapter in a book, in which case the chapter is a part of (P361) the book, and (inversely) the chapter is a member of the book’s has part(s) (P527) list. Elrondil (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Using part of (P361) instead of published in (P1433) gets rid of the warning, and then adding |chapter=, |title=, |editor1=, |editor2= and |editor2-link= (see here) can get you the rest of the way there (until {{cite Q}} is extended to support chapters and the additional parameters can be dropped as superfluous). Elrondil (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Trilotat: I know its not ideal, but {{cite Q}} still seems to be a work in progress, and this way you still get a Wikidata-backed citation where the additional parameters can (hopefully) be dropped one day as superfluous (by a bot?). This is better than unlinking the citation from the Wikidata object (and thus "forgetting" the relationship) until {{cite Q}} is extended to support chapters, and then trying to relate the citation and the Wikidata object again whenever/if {{cite Q}} is extended. Elrondil (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:, @Elrondil: Thank you all for your replies and suggestions. This is another example of how great this community is. Trilotat (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)