Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 51

2130:(outdent) The real problem here is people who do not know the proper way to paginate a complex pdf document. A book, a brief in appellate courts, and some other document types have more than one series of page numbers: e.g., an unnumbered title page, an unnumbered reverse side of the title page, prefatory material numbered in minuscule (lower case) roman numerals, and the main body numbered with indo-arabic numerals. The pdf format allows multiple page number series in a document, but it requires a deliberate human choice to use this feature so the pages in the pdf to correspond to the actual numbers on the pages. If one does it correctly, the page numbers, in whatever format, always correspond to the numbers on the pages themselves. But not everyone bothers to do this, including big corporations and big organizations that should know better.— 3281:" in the source, all this does, of course, if I append the anchor ref text to the URL, is to open the page scrolled down so that the Economy section header is at the top of the visible data, but without opening the section. This is better than nothing, but I'd still like to direct the Knowledge reference-chaser to the appropriate section of the CIA World Fact Book page that s/he needs to open to see read the reference text.) So I think it would be useful for the Cite web template to provide a tag like "section=" which would direct the reader appropriately. There does not seem to be any tag available for such information. 2087:, would result in "pp. 24 (p.35 pdf)" for the output, and since "24" is a singular number, I would not advise your solution as given. This is analogous to how we cite page numbers in books. If I literally start at the first physical page of a book and count up to my destination, I could find that the 34th page (35th if the cover were counted) had a printed number 24 on it because of the various front matter. I would not cite that print book page as anything other than 24 though because that is what the page is numbered. The same holds true for a PDF in my mind. 31: 1780: 2307:

but that's another discussion), the publisher should not interrupt the volume/issue/page number grouping. Cite journal gets it right by keeping the volume/issue/page numbers together, because all three, if given, are used together to locate the article. I also think we might want to discuss a little capitalization consistency between "Vol." and "no.", but that could be done later.

3268:. I'm updating a sentence that refers to development of the Russian economy over (the last) "nine straight years". This kind of language that implicitly refers to the date on which the edit was made is obviously inappropriate in an encyclopedic entry, so I went to the reference provided (retrieved in 2007) - 3085:

I don't think that harmonizing the existing documentation is all that controversial (of course, people do occasionally rise up with their torches and pitchforks for reasons that I can't explain ...). If you are going to do this, post your recommended harmonization here so that participating editors

1989:

I think Grover was talking about cases where the PDF viewer shows a different page number than that visible in the rendered contents itself. In these cases, I would cite what is rendered in the contents (being more "authorative"), although this might make it more difficult to look up the page in the

959:

if string.match (mw.site.server, 'wikidata') then this_wiki_code = mw.getCurrentFrame():preprocess('{{int:lang}}'); -- on wikidata so use interface language setting instead end if is_set (options.q) then wd_article = mw.wikibase.getEntity (options.q):getSitelink (this_wiki_code .. 'wiki'); --

2583:

The magazine and news ones, like the book one, should use "Vol. X", by default. The just-a-number-in-boldface thing is an academic citation style quirk (only found in certain academic citation styles, at that). It's questionable as a default even for journal citations on WP, because it's confusing

2306:

I'd prefer more harmonization with cite magazine's formatting, which makes it clear what is being referenced in terms of the volume and issue number. I'd tack on that cite magazine and cite news should do one thing that cite journal does. When a publisher is given (which in most cases isn't needed,

2240:

No two of these templates produce the same formatting as a result, which is a problem. Cite magazine's output is particularly glaring, with the "Vol." and "no." labels. It's particularly terrible in articles that use both forms of citation. Arguably, standardization of the page number display would

1993:

Given that this is a rather common issue, if we would add some sort of dedicated support for pages in links (see other threads), it might make sense to think up some optional special parameter, so that the citation template shows the page number(s) given via page(s)=, but uses the contents of a new

2841:

Access-date is very useful, almost essential, when a url can change or disappear. It's not a question of the document itself being immutable. I recently had a statement challenged where the source was a pdf which was no longer available on the website. By using the access-date I was able to locate

2469:

I wouldn't mind if we switched to magazine style for journal citations. It's not how they're usually formatted in academic publications but I think they're more readable by non-specialists that way, and that's more important. While we're discussing the ordering of things, the language parameter is

3222:

The "for documents which do not change" thing is a misguided red-herring. PDFs and such are regularly replaced with updated versions. Previously published articles and papers are frequently replaced with corrected or otherwise revised versions. If the source is online, access-date is applicable.

3202:

Yes, actually. I would prefer to see archive URLs and dates. This actually guarantees (for some value of guarantee) that someone will be able to access the same information at a later date. It doesn't matter whether the content is dated or not, or which we believe will change on a frequent basis.

3058:

that in guidance somewhere but, as I don't do that myself and wouldn't really expect others to, I wouldn't want to see it in the main documentation. Also, isn't this more relevant to the archive-date (and archive-url) params, rather than access-date? It's possible I have misinterpreted, if so I'd

2407:

Agreed. Whatever anyone thinks about the rest of this, I think that placement is simply incorrect. As to the broader issue, I know that I prefer the cite journal formatting, but it's clear that others prefer the cite magazine formatting. Can we consider amending the documentation to suggest that

3278:

However, the CIA page opens - as is fairly common in FAQ- and encylopaedic-type sites - with a series of 'folded-up' section headings, but not showing any actual information. Now, ideally, I'd like my URL to automatically load the page with the appropriate section (Economy) already open, but I

681:

Internet Archive will soon be offering something similar to the Google Books page preview - the ability to view a select number of pages within a copyright book. IA is actively scanning millions of copyright books. Currently Google Books has a near monopoly on this. This will be a huge win for

2470:

also misplaced. It's the individual article, not the journal, that has a language (a single journal may well publish things in multiple languages) so the language should be closer to the title of the article than the title of the journal. Here are the same three examples, with a language set:

2037:

As I think I've stated before (if no others have also?), we unfortunately cannot control the pagination of PDF readers, which may vary across software systems. While most people probably use one particular PDF reader, there are others. (The same as ebooks with their own pagination concerns.)

298:

the institution, that are both highly relevant and reliable (in the RS sense) sources; and they usually provide transcripts of this material. I have no particular opinion on formatting of such a link, but something akin to how it appears above would seem to be good enough for the purpose.

267:

The audio media in question were, as best I can tell, produced by the Folger for this particular website (and the website is a companion to a then-current exhibition): so it does not appear to be a podcast, or episodes of a show or programme airing on radio or TV. At least to my mind,

2842:

the appropriate archived version of the website, and thence the archived pdf. That's an example of a document that didn't change, but the access-date was necessary. You really shouldn't be removing access-dates from any citation where the url is not 100% guaranteed to be stable. --

2169:". Or even just "", provided this is explained to the reader. In the cite/citation templates this is not so straightforward, as the page range is not conveniently placed at the end of the citation. It seems to me there are mainly two choices. Either (1) allow such use, but modify 3023:

Accessdate should recommend the use of archive date rather than this change (or more generally, perhaps). Accessdate should really only be used if an archive cannot be found for the page which contains the information as in the URL. (And if that cannot be found, then perhaps

3154:

is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium). Note that

2713:

279:

In any case, any AV media (including podcasts, episodes of TV or radio shows, standalone videos on Youtube or Vimeo, or elsewhere, recorded lectures, etc.) would seem to be able to beneficially have a transcript link provided. For example, the Folger produces several

2109:

Referring to a particular page using multiple numbers would make a bad situation worse. The page numbers we cite should always correspond to the number "printed" on the pages, not to a different page number that the PDF software uses. Continued immediately

647:

It seems incorrect to me to have the transcript url appear before the archive url which sort of suggests that the 'Archived from the original' annotation applies to the transcript (it does not). Are there any objections to moving the transcript element in

2826:

Access-date is useful to know when some information was supported by a source. On the other hand, when a document doesn't change, access-date is unnecessary because the problem lies in the unsourced information, which should be removed or changed.

3275:, which now, helpfully, provides information both updated from and more specific than that in the Knowledge entry that I'm updating. So this looks like a potentially useful edit and one that will not be difficult or time-consuming to complete. 1143:

The chapter field appears to be deprecated, it's use now being filled by the "title" field. Whenever I add something to the chapter field, it says "text ignored". Yet why is it still listed here, and still an option when adding the template via

1067:

If the simple fix works on the third-party wiki, report back so that we can fix it here (also report back if it doesn't work). And have the responsible person(s) talk directly to us here rather than through intermediaries as they are now

685:

I'm asking this forum how we might best incorporate a large addition of Internet Archive linkages to pages within a book. Currently CS1|2 does not offer a way to link to a book, magazine or journal page number. It's currently done via the

2584:

the kind of publication we're citing with what is most clear for readers in our own citations. But, I could tolerate the just-a-number-in-bold thing for journals, I suppose. Only for journals. It must be over-ridable, for when using

3054:). If you are suggesting that archive-date should be used in favour of access-date, i.e. expecting editors to archive each reference at the point at which they add the cite, then I don't think I can support that. I wouldn't object to 3385:

That's actually better meta-data because it doesn't falsify the title of the piece, or confuse people about what's the article title and what's the section title, or hide that you're citing a particular section in the first place.

122:

While repairing dead links in citations I just ran across a case of a citation to a radio documentary that happened to have a transcript available. Am I having a dumb moment or is there really no way to add a transcript link to a

3049:

I'm not sure I totally follow. I would personally only create an archive and add the archive-date param for webpages that I know are transient (an example that springs to mind is the 'On this day' section on the front page of

3360:{{cite web |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#economy-category-section-anchor |title=Central Asia: Russia |at="Economy" section |website=] |publisher=Central Intelligence Agency}} 2596:) that does not use just-a-number-in-bold style. Likewise, the mag, news, and book templates should have an override to force just-a-number-in-bold style when our article is written with a citation style that requires it. 1659:

That sounds like a problem with whatever tool you are using to create the reference. You haven't identified the tool that you are using, but cs1|2 does not automatically create references from URLs or from anything

3256:

In cases where the web page's URL does not access the specific part of the page from which your information is sourced, there does not seem to be any appropriate parameter to specify a section or part of the page.

3305:{{cite web |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#economy-category-section-anchor |title=Central Asia: Russia: Econony |website=] |publisher=Central Intelligence Agency}} 2241:

be nice, also. Journal currently separates the page numbers from the previous elements with a colon but no "p." or "pp."; the others use the page abbreviation. I don't have a horse in the race for which is

2730:

The key difference is the recommendation to use access dates for news articles, which is standard practice. Would there be any objections to changing the cite news documentation to reflect WP:ACCESSDATE?

998:

table) and is the wikidata q number for an article about the identifier. It does this by creating an inter-wikilink to the site link for the local language fetched via the q number from wikidata.

960:

fetch article title from wd if wd_article then wd_article = table.concat ({':', this_wiki_code, ':', wd_article}); -- make interwiki link if taken from wd; leading colon required end end

1956:

It is not unusual to find a PDF on the internet where the pagination of the PDF differs from the pagination of the original document. What is the preferred way to cite the page number using

1698:{{Cite web | title = London West End show goes multi-lingual | url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hMD5bqWMFmMSpBvXr1Xo7eGqcM-Q | accessdate = 19 January 2019}} 733:

template that follows next to it. Beyond that I'm not too learned about all the citation styles (Harvard etc) and how they might come into this. Any thoughts or ideas appreciated. --

2808:, but was prompted by it because I saw a discrepancy in the documentation. I agreed with you that static files such as PDF's did not necessarily need to use the access-date param. 2173:

to not pass to COinS anything in (say) brackets. Or (2) declare that the convenience of a pdf page number is proper only for short-cites, and not to be used in full citations. ♦

2058:

technically refers to the mentioning of multiple pages, and the problem described here concerns listing multiple pages, my solution has been to put both under that parameter as

1752:

Also the visual editor and 2017 source editor provide a button you can click that lets you paste a URL, click Insert, and it puts in the citation all filled out for you! —{{u|

3197:), and then the content regarding the research papers/books abstracted to "items with permanent identifiers, or with physical representations, do not need access dates". 456: 389: 195: 2426:

We should not tell editors to choose a template based on how they want the rendered citation to look. Creating nice rendering is the template's job, not the editor's.

3416: 2769: 1093: 3159:

is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do). Can be

2718:

is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do). Can be

2148:

parameter for in-source specification. Though even in its proper use as a range (such as for an article or chapter in a larger work) we have the same issue that

2429:

While we're at it, the longstanding problem of radically different order of rendered elements depending on whether there's an author or not should be solved.

1406:

Sunil, K. P. (29 November 1987). The Illustrated Weekly of India. Vol. 108 no. 39–50. pp. 40–41. Missing or empty |title= (help); |chapter= ignored (help)

477: 410: 205: 2542: 2518: 2494: 1811:

Delete "deaths" as Down syndrome does not directly lead to deaths, conditions that may present with the disorder are what can be life threatening.

919: 354:|archive-url=http://wayback.archive-it.org/2873/20151218215532/http://www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/audio/download.cfm?filename=Lindfors2.mp3 2939:

is required, per (either version of) the above-cited documentation. It is certainly possible that the linked document could change over time.

2164: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1812: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2675:. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates. Note that 2029:

I think Grover was talking about cases where the PDF viewer shows a different page number than that visible in the rendered contents itself.

3370: 3310: 1532: 1402:{{Cite magazine |last=Sunil |first=K. P. |date=29 November 1987 |chapter=The Anti-Hero |magazine=] |volume=108 |issue=39–50 |pages=40–41}} 2783:

It's ambiguous. I just followed the templates' documentation before removing access dates from citation templates linking to PDF files.

1410:{{Cite magazine |last=Sunil |first=K. P. |date=29 November 1987 |title=The Anti-Hero |magazine=] |volume=108 |issue=39–50 |pages=40–41}} 2292:

it is clear what the elements refer to, in the others you are just presented with figures which are not identified and thus confusing.

1544: 1540: 865: 3397: 3234: 2609: 991: 372:|transcript-url=http://wayback.archive-it.org/2873/20151218215532/http://www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/transcripts/lindfors2.cfm 3279:

haven't (yet) found a way to achieve this. (Even though there is an anchor tag "<a href="#economy-category-section-anchor": -->

3160: 2719: 2680: 2592:

to cite a periodical that is not an academic journal, and even for when it is one but our article is using a citation style (per

2870:

Stability: When the information can be found via a url that will not change in the future. Otherwise we need the access-date. --

1886: 1485:

numeric? There are cases when a journal has a supplementary volume with an appended letter. And now we get volume numbers like

1094:

https://hub.wikitribune.com/index.php?title=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2FIdentifiers&type=revision&diff=4181&oldid=225

952: 920:

https://www.mediawiki.org/search/?title=Topic:Usfflano6mfh0tuy&topic_showPostId=usqg5mcck7rhnk7p#flow-post-usqg5mcck7rhnk7p

2389: 2065: 1481:

Someone remind me (I've been busy else where): when and why did we stopped bolding volume numbers for journals when they are

2417: 2250: 2064:

and put the page of the pdf document in the URL (i.e., https://example.pdf#page=35) although I dont know how this impacts

263:

to shoehorn this information in there; and the archive links are provided by the Folger itself after the exhibition ended)

3332: 3094: 2974: 2019: 1834: 1668: 1586: 1381: 1122: 1076: 831: 662: 314: 178: 466: 399: 209: 1965: 1706: 627: 601: 462: 395: 201: 47: 38: 17: 1690:

For example : {{Autocite web| https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hMD5bqWMFmMSpBvXr1Xo7eGqcM-Q}}

1816: 1287: 1414:

Sunil, K. P. (29 November 1987). "The Anti-Hero". The Illustrated Weekly of India. Vol. 108 no. 39–50. pp. 40–41

783:

before adding in-source locations to the citation's metadata. If editors wish to link to in-source location in

106: 2556: 2413: 2246: 1826:

This is a mis-directed edit request. Such requests should be addressed at the appropriate article's talk page.

775:

parameter for such correct parameter values is difficult. This is why the module attempts to strip urls from

3059:

welcome clarification.My objective here is really just to unify the two contrasting pieces of documentation.

2157:

With short-cites (templated or not) it is simple enough to simply append the pdf page to get something like "

187:

My apologies. I didn't consider the issue to require an illustrative example, but I should have known better.

3328: 3204: 3090: 3062: 3025: 2970: 2015: 1856: 1830: 1786: 1735: 1664: 1582: 1377: 1118: 1087: 1072: 945: 827: 658: 174: 3270: 1684: 1052:

the module will then link the identifier to a local copy of the article about the identifier (specified in

2512: 2286: 2198: 1999: 1893: 1452: 1437: 1423: 1394: 1155: 492: 425: 271: 232: 126: 2962:

I am in favor of most improvements to the cs1|2 documentation. Can you propose better documentation for

3394: 3349: 3231: 3116: 2606: 2587: 2488: 2443:

There are many such longstanding problems. Try to keep focused to the particular ones in this thread. --

1961: 1790: 1753: 1349: 528: 165: 925: 2201:}} to behave like the rest of the volume/issue-based CS1 templates. Right now, we have the following: 3112: 2984: 2693: 2634: 2353: 2178: 2095: 1761: 1757: 1625: 1521: 1320: 1254: 2671:

is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see

1174:

Do you have an example citation demonstrating the problem? In which template were you trying to use

525:

I had intended to position the transcript element in the rendering in the same location as it is in

3424: 2552: 2071: 2008: 1743: 1649: 1641: 1460: 977: 869: 285: 2885: 2857: 2828: 2799: 2784: 2245:, and frankly if I only got to make one change to CS1, the magazine situation has clear priority. 1547:. I haven't bothered to search farther back in time but leave that as an exercise for the reader. 682:

Knowledge for a host of reasons, including that Google Books has been deteriorating as a service.

3375: 3315: 3194: 2998: 2940: 2900: 2650: 2628: 2536: 2385: 1724: 1342: 1225: 1198: 924:

According to the thread here they solved it by commenting out a several lines of the CS1 module:

289: 3428: 3402: 3336: 3295: 3253:

It seems to me that there is a need for (an) additional parameter(s) in the Template:Cite web.

3239: 3216: 3183: 3098: 3080: 3037: 3016: 2978: 2943: 2930: 2893: 2879: 2865: 2851: 2836: 2821: 2792: 2744: 2614: 2574: 2560: 2452: 2438: 2421: 2402: 2362: 2301: 2277: 2265: 2254: 2182: 2134: 2114: 2104: 2078: 2047: 2023: 2003: 1984: 1969: 1945: 1931: 1897: 1838: 1820: 1764: 1747: 1728: 1672: 1653: 1629: 1590: 1525: 1464: 1429: 1385: 1365: 1187: 1161: 1126: 1109: 1080: 981: 901: 881: 872:

to make sure you aren't opening a large can of worms here and linking to copyright violations.

859: 835: 748: 666: 308: 182: 148: 2889: 2861: 2832: 2788: 2672: 2593: 2409: 2297: 1995: 1957: 1905: 1889: 1418: 1169: 1150: 1145: 728: 2679:

is the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited. Can be

866:

Knowledge:Village pump (technical)#New gadget that adds "Read Now" buttons to book references

3389: 3291: 3226: 2601: 2434: 2397: 2131: 2111: 894: 852: 741: 370:|title=Ira Aldridge in Europe: How Aldridge controlled his identity as the 'African Roscius' 108: 2379:

One thing that positively seem weird to me is inserting publisher between issue and pages.

1936:

One of which links to a similar discussion at WT:Citation style. So take a read through. --

1097: 986:

This↑ which I presume gives that local installation access to Wikdata. In the above code,

931: 2875: 2847: 2348: 2174: 2090: 1621: 1517: 1370: 1361: 1332: 1299: 1266: 1237: 1105: 965: 941: 877: 509: 442: 304: 249: 144: 139:, so such a link could be provided as a convenience for the reader. Thoughts? Comments? -- 3203:

URLs die. It's just a matter of fact. Our guidance on the point should probably point to

3193:, or at least abstract it such that an access date is recommended for documents online ( 2884:

From all the access dates I removed, only one had a bad archive on the Wayback Machine.

111: 3420: 3212: 3122: 3033: 2990: 2640: 2570: 2448: 2393: 2273: 2084: 2043: 1980: 1941: 1927: 1739: 1645: 1456: 1183: 973: 918:

Hi, someone reported an error here with CS1 templates with a third party installation:

376:|url=http://www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/audio/download.cfm?filename=Lindfors2.mp3 292: 582:|url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit}} 3177: 3074: 3010: 2924: 2815: 2805: 2738: 2381: 2035:

if we would add some sort of dedicated support for pages in links (see other threads)

1720: 720: 533:(reuse the existing code) but, that position seems wrong to me when the template has 458:

Ira Aldridge in Europe: How Aldridge controlled his identity as the 'African Roscius'

391:

Ira Aldridge in Europe: How Aldridge controlled his identity as the 'African Roscius'

197:

Ira Aldridge in Europe: How Aldridge controlled his identity as the 'African Roscius'

3200:

expecting editors to archive each reference at the point at which they add the cite

2293: 926:

https://www.mediawiki.org/Extension_talk:Wikibase_Client/Lua#Error_with_mw.wikibase

914:

Errors from imported CS1 templates into third party wikis which don't have wikibase

295: 3146:; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. It is 2705:; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. It is 754:

How is this in anyway different from citing individual pages at books.google.com?

281: 110: 3343: 3287: 3142:

was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires

2701:

was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires

2659:

was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires

2430: 887: 845: 734: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3260:

For example. I need to provide a reference for an edit I'm just making to the

3207:. If you can add an access date, you can add archive dates today, trivially. -- 2412:

and all that), but that you shouldn't mix them (because doing so looks awful)?

1508:

And there are cases where a bolded "volume" number seems appropriate, such as "

3003:, I assume this is transcluded into the documentation of other cs1 templates. 2917:

but, as noted above, this wasn't really the reason for me raising this issue.

2871: 2843: 1357: 1101: 969: 937: 873: 300: 140: 3208: 3044: 3029: 2566: 2444: 2269: 2039: 1976: 1937: 1923: 1644:

are stripped from the URL, breaking the link that you're trying to paste. —

1179: 2663:; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. 2031:

Yup, that's the question I answered: Cite the page of the document-proper.

964:

Perhaps wikitribune.com does not have mw.wikibase installed? When I go to

3190: 3172: 3069: 3005: 2919: 2810: 2733: 972:, Wikibase is not listed. It probably needs to be added. Just a guess. – 698:

contains an internal wikilink to an article about the book. There exists

3067:

Do you think that would need an RFC or would a discussion here suffice?

1738:. It will suggest citation template contents for you based on a URL. – 968:

here on en.WP, I see that something called "Wikibase" is installed. At

3265: 3261: 1960:?? Would it be worth adding a new parameter to handle this? Thanks! 706:

but this again is not specific to linking page numbers. Do we want a

1560:{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=243a |issue=1}} 864:

Before any one gets too carried away with this, I suggest a read of

2507:(in Brobdignagian). Vol. 12, no. 2. Magazine Publisher. pp. 12–14. 1274:{{cite techreport |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter}} 1194:

I don't think the chapter field is deprecated, at least not for

3366:(plus other parameters like date and access-date). This gives: 2531:(in Brobdignagian). Vol. 75, no. 18. Media Company. pp. 2B–5B. 2408:

either way is acceptable for "periodical" sources in general (

1882:, and no more? In what scope? The whole references section? 1774: 1556:

example is rendered in bold-faced font by the current module:

471: 404: 214: 112: 25: 1603:{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=243-A }} 1596:

My apologies, the actual instance uses a hyphen, as follows:

3419:, a request for approval for a bot to fix CS1 URL errors. – 1307:{{cite thesis |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter}} 1245:{{cite report |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter}} 2625:

The documentation for access-date is slightly different at

2527: