Help talk:Citation Style 1

Url's unusual top-level domain?

In this article, the top-level domain of the reference ("La Grande histoire César". Digitised Manuscripts. British Library. 1479.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)) is today. It returns a Script warning maintenance message. How should the reference be handled? —GoldRingChip 15:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The use of archive.today has been deprecated due to issue with service, it should be replaced with a different archiving service. Wikipedia:archive.today guidance explains more about the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Alas, the tool there (https://fixarchive.toolforge.org) doesn't replace the link and I can't find the info on Archive.org. —GoldRingChip 13:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you go to the first archive at the wayback machine it redirects to:
  http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_17_f_ii
  That's dead as well, but if you check the wayback machine it was archived here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alternatively if you use the search page on the live website with the reference's title[1], you can find the current live url:
  https://searcharchives.bl.uk/catalog/040-002107409 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

infixes in last names

A short time ago there was a "discussion" on infixes in last names. See: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 102#Please make provisions for correct handling of infixes in last names Especially in Dutch (but perhaps in other languages as well; German?) this is a serious problem. A solution like "|last=Vreeze, |first=M. de" is not a real solution. The last name is "de Vreeze", not "Vreeze". But the problem is in the ordering in lists, like sources. Here the name is listed under "Vreeze". So a separate treatment of the infixes really deserves a serious discussion. --Dick Bos (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't |author-mask= be used for this issue?
{{cite book |last1=Vreeze |first1=M. de |author-mask1=de Vreeze, M. |title=Example title}}
Comes out as:
de Vreeze, M. Example title.
It will display as de Vreeze, but will be listed under Vreeze. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That's extremely hackish and shouldn't be done. If you want to sort de Vries under "V", then you place the citation in the Vs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Just put it in the right place, and put the correct first and last names in the correct parameters. The incorrect citation above yields a CITEREF (for {{sfn}}) of "CITEREFVreeze" instead of the correct "CITEREFde_Vreeze". Leave out the author-mask, which is not needed. de Vreeze, M. Example title. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever happened to vcite?

Just wondering. I assume it was "merged" in citation style 1. Who did it and when? ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 13#Template:Vcite journal

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Extremely minor wishlist item

This might go against 200 years of academic tradition IDK but anyway.

I use a fair amount of unpublished theses when I get really deep in regional history/biographies. My dumb dream is to have like an "academic department" field in the cite thesis template.

• Haveman, Christopher D. (August 7, 2009). The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 (Ph.D thesis). Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University.

in the example above maybe have Ph.D – History instead of Ph.D. thesis

Like maybe academic departments don't confer degrees just universities so they would be wrong? I just find it kind of informative to know if the thesis is for a M.A. thesis in Anthropology versus a Ph.D. thesis in History, when covering, for instance, Indigenous nomenclature practices.

thank you for reading and for the mysterious and important citation-template work jengod (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this:

{{Cite thesis |last=Haveman |first=Christopher D. |date=August 7, 2009 |title=The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 |publisher=Auburn University |location=Auburn, Alabama |url=https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/2184 |language=en |type=PhD History}}

Haveman, Christopher D. (August 7, 2009). The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 (PhD History). Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University.

or this:

{{Cite thesis |last=Haveman |first=Christopher D. |date=August 7, 2009 |title=The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 |publisher=Auburn University |location=Auburn, Alabama |url=https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/2184 |language=en |degree=PhD |department=History}}

Haveman, Christopher D. (August 7, 2009). The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838. History (PhD thesis). Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

rad. That works. Visual Editor gizmo on mobile does not like extra fields in cite thesis but that's Ok I can type it out in whatever the other editor is called. Thank you. Barnstars. Mardi Gras beads. Fealty. Honors. jengod (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Contributor

This doesn't work for some books. For example, A Search for Justice (1971).[2] The contributors, James Squires, John Hemphill, and Frank Ritter aren't given exact contribution credits in the book, but do appear on the author page. They aren't co-authors, as this is a collaborative work with Seigenthaler receiving primary author credit. And they aren't editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

|others= could be a solution to this issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that is the solution. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If the book itself names Squires, Hemphill, and Ritter as authors, include them as authors 2–4 in the template. |others= is for contributors who are not authors, not editors, not translators.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

They are not named as "authors". Others appears valid for this usage. My understanding is that Seigenthaler is the primary author but is using the work of Squiers, Hemphill, and Ritter in a collaborative way, and giving them the credit of "contributors" even though they probably didn't write the book itself. Not much written on this, so I'm just guessing. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If they're on the author page they're authors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

They aren't authors. The 1970s was a way different time. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

deprecate |citeseerx= ?

CiteseerX appears to be dead. This was discussed last quarter 2022; see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86 § citeseerx links are ALL dead.

Things don't seem to have gotten any better. Today I stumbled upon this: CiteSeer^x: 10.1.1.477.4527. Clicking that link will redirect to a blank archive.org snapshot:

https://web.archive.org/web/20241216063406/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.477.4527

I have since tried several others and gotten similar results; different archive.org urls but all returning blank pages.

Because these links go to nowhere meaningful, should we deprecate |citeseerx=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

By "deprecate", do you mean target for eventual removal of both the metadata from our citations and the parameter from our template? If so, ok with me. I didn't find them particularly useful before citeseerx died, and now... —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time a citeseerx link resolved to something. Which is weird, because the site itself was up last year. It seems dead dead now. I support deprecation and purging whenever another url/identifier is present. When only a citeseerx identifier/url is present, those should be handled manually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

According to this search there are approximately 18000 articles with cs1|2 templates that use |citeseerx=. Of those,

• ~14000 have templates with |doi= followed by |citeseerx=
• ~1600 have templates with |citeseerx= followed by |doi=
• ~4100 have templates with |url= followed by |citeseerx=
• ~500 have templates with |citeseerx= followed by |url=

There are ~1000 articles with cs1|2 templates that have |url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/....

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like CiteSeerX used some kind of scripting to display the correct content, which couldn't be archived properly. No point having a field that can only point to dead or blank pages. There's also {{CiteSeerX}} that will need to be cleared. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also {{cite citeseerx}} which is used in ~400 articles. Instances of this template will require human intervention because the only allowed source parameter is |citeseerx= (this is the same for all of the preprint templates).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

In the sandbox, I have marked |citeseerx= as deprecated:

{{Cite citeseerx/new|title=Cuban Economic Performance in Retrospect|author=Frank W. Thompson|citeseerx=10.1.1.824.487 }}

Frank W. Thompson. "Cuban Economic Performance in Retrospect". CiteSeerX 10.1.1.824.487. {{cite CiteSeerX}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |citeseerx= (help)

The change also applies to the non-preprint cs1|2 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Automatic refname for Visual Editor

Discuss at meta:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names

I happened to see meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names. They are in the process of automating the refname that they will use for footnotes of the form <ref>{{cite *}}</ref>. They are considering several options and one of them is to "ask each wiki" for a "defined set of rules".

There are two problems with that. (1) How are they going "ask"? (2) There are a lot of exceptions and complications to those rules and new problems are discovered all the time (See {{sfn/doc#Possible issues with author-date link}}). It occurred to me that you all here at CS 1 have already solved all those problems in order to make the CITEREF anchor. We have the code to take the parameters of almost any citation template and create a unique name. And we have work-arounds to use if that fails.

I think it would be better, easier and more robust if the visual editor called a template to make the refname, so that the good people here at CS 1 could create refnames using the technology we already have to create anchors.

They closed the discussion 4 days ago, but I pitched this idea in a Reply:

EDIT: Please see complete proposal at User:CharlesGillingham/Drafts/A Proposal for the Visual Editors' ref names

The visual editor should call a template to get the refname. Each wiki could define their own version if they so choose.

Given citation template with these parameters:

{{cite something|...parameters...}}

The visual editor creates this footnote:

<ref name={{VE-REFNAME|footnote-number=n|template = cite something | parameters}}>{{cite somthing|parameters}}</ref>

And you create a default VE-REFNAME that does whatever you're doing now for refnames.

This way, implementation and maintenance are all managed by the wiki, similar to option (2). It's less work for you all, it allows local wikis to handle maintenance (and with citations, there are hundreds of odd cases see Wikipedia:Tempate:sfn/doc. You can't just grab a field.) and it lets the wiki decide when to roll it out.

Think about it.

I'm not sure if it's too late for them to look at my suggestion. I hope not, because I am sure it is the right answer. If you can think of any way to help me pitch it, I would appreciate it.

Regardless of what you think of my idea, we should all be paying attention to what they do at the visual editor, because that will become the defacto standard for Wikipedia. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Nardog, I hope it's fine to ping you for thoughts. I think the script User:Nardog/RefRenamer already uses the template parameters, but I am often wrong about things, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I've left a response on meta [3], I don't think creating a new template for generating reference names is a good idea, it makes the wikitext more cluttered and I fail to see how it's less work. Our proposal would allow wikis to define individual patterns for autogenerated ref names for all of their (citation) templates. We won't "ask" wikis, we'll likely implement a mechanism allowing communities to define their preferred patterns (including possible combinations of template parameters / "fallback chains") via TemplateData. Wikis will also be able to define their own naming scheme for references that don't use a template (or only use templates without a defined auto-name pattern). That way wikis could also choose to stick with the current names (<ref name=":0">) or any other default name of their choosing if they dislike the upcoming improvements. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Before you judge, consider my complete proposal, which I've prepared here: User:CharlesGillingham/Drafts/A Proposal for the Visual Editors' ref names. I need to know how where I should propose it.

In answer to your arguments made in the paragraph above:

• Clutter: see the proposal. The ref name constructor is subst:'d so there's no clutter.
• "Fail to see there is less work". There is literally almost no work for Visual Editor team. (Except sunk costs.)On the CS 1 side, the only work is adapting the CITEREF code to return the part of the anchor that comes after "CITEREF". Should be very easy. All the difficult work of catching the odd cases is already done.
• This is not a different proposal. I am describing efficient method to "implement a mechanism allowing communities to define their preferred patterns" Protocol/Delegate is the right software design pattern for this problem. (I am also arguing that this is all you need.)
• The CITEREF code already implements "possible combinations of template parameters / "fallback chains"". You should not try to duplicate this effort. It turns out to be quite complicated, as the number of exceptions and special cases is large. CITEREF has had twenty years to work through all these problems.
• It creates more work for the CS 1 people to specify "possible combinations of template parameters" in TemplateData. It's easier just to give you the name they already have.

The problem of selecting a ref name is already solved here at CS 1. The solution is complete and robust, well tested for over 20 years. And going forward, CS 1 is able to fix problems and apply solutions much faster than Meta-Wiki. It's better to give control of the ref name to these people.

Cheers. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see why your idea is simpler than just allowing community members to add an additional line in TemplateData of {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} etc. that tells VE to combine the author/last and data parameters to create the reference name (or whichever parameter(s) each community prefers). Keep in mind that the solution needs to work across all wikis (many of them use templates which are less advanced than enwiki's CS1 templates) – and also for non-CS1 templates used within references. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's simpler to let CS-1 supply the ref-name. It's one "additional line in the TemplateData", and it handles every possible case, for this wiki and every other.

Here's a good example. Suppose the template has "|date" and no "|year". You want parse the date field to get the year. There are a dozen ways to write a date, so that's some code.

And it turns out that's a thing that you need, because in 7 million articles there's going to be several where two authors have the same last name and the article never uses "|year" just "|date", and there's going to be a refname conflict in that article, and somebody's going to post on this page about the problem and so on, and people here will tell them how to work around it. And they might ask Meta-Wiki to fix it.

How would this get fixed? Does Meta-Wiki fix it? Do CS 1 people specify that code with "template parameters"? How do they use "template parameters" to specify an algorithm? I'm not sure what that looks like.

But here's the thing: somebody fixed the date-and-no-year problem a long time ago for CITEREF. (Was it Gadget? I think so.) If we let CS 1 tell Meta-Wiki the ref-name like I'm suggesting, then this (and a dozen other things) are all fixed. Meta-Wiki doesn't have to bother learning what all these cases were and how they were fixed. They don't have to fix them. They only have to implement one thing: asking CS 1 for the name of a function that supplies the ref-name. That's one (and only one) "additional line in the template data". That's dead simple for Meta-Wiki. It's also dead simple for CS 1, because they already have the code with all the fixes.

This is just one example, but the point is this: CS 1 is better equipped to deliver ref-name than Meta-Wiki, for several reasons. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the Visual Editor still being maintained? I haven't seen an update for a long time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Default ref-names for CS 1 templates (again)

Discuss at meta:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names

I've posted a detailed argument here:

• en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Ref names produced for citations in the visual editor

And also an abbreviated version here:

• m:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names#CS 1 should provide the default ref name for CS 1 templates

@Nardog: Notice that I've downgraded/clarified the proposal to producing the default ref names for CS 1. Please view this as an extension what you're already doing; it's just "allowing community members to add an additional line in TemplateData", as you said. It doesn't conflict or undo anything you're already doing. It's just a way for the visual editor to take advantage of a very strong code base and documentation that already exists. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No such page as mw:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names.

cs1|2 has no control over what visual editor does. This is probably the wrong venue for whatever it is that you are proposing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to convince them to allow us to set the refname with a template. I they do that, then we'll have to write that template, so it's relevant to the people here. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the link. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"allow us to set the refname with a template" yuck. No. No no no no nonononono no no no. Whatever solution you think this is, it is much worse than whatever WMDE will come up with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

doi-inactive messages

How do you suppress these? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You can run Citation bot. If the DOI is active, |doi-broken-date= will be removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Replace repeating em dashes generated by the mask parameters with two‐ and three‐em dashes

Currently, a parameter like author-mask = 3 will generate three repeating em dashes (———). Since Unicode actually includes a three‐em dash (⸻) as well as a two‐em dash (⸺), I believe it would be better to use these seamless characters whenever possible, instead of using single em dashes with noticeable gaps. This could either be achieved by checking if the number is evenly divisible by 3 or 2 respectively (prioritizing the smallest amount of gaps for larger numbers), or by adding special exceptions for 3 and 2 only. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hard oppose. These are obscure characters. People will search for mdashes and they'll expect to find the masks. Having a special case for 2 or 3 mdashes is editor-hostile. MOS:SUP explains this in the context of superscript/subscript, but it's basically the same thing here except for dashes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The physical width of dashes (of whatever kind) varies with many factors. Operating system, installed fonts, browser, skin. Not to mention the user settings for all of these. For me, a row of three em-dashes has no gaps. Also, the claimed three-em dash is noticeably narrower than the row of three em-dashes: the former is 26px wide, the latter 39px (3 * 13px). That two‐em dash is 20px wide - half the width of the row of three. YMMV, as they say. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation posibble bug

there is possible bug Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation#L-727 check_date() return only 2 values so COinS_date will be nil, another thing COinS_date is not used variable. حبيشان (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Not really a bug, just inert leftovers from previous versions. The module works as it should. But, yeah, fixed in the sandbox I think. I know that there are other like leftovers in the module suite which it is my intention to fix before the next update – which I should probably do soon...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Cite book: Year of publication

Year of publication states "Year of the source being referenced" Shouldn't this be "Year of source"/"Year of writing" or something like this?

Publication date seems to already be used for date when something is published...I think cite book should be clearer about which fields are referring to Publication, and which fields are referring to Writing Lcporschen (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never understood why |publication-date= exists, |date= should be used for publication date and |orig-date= for original date. It seems overly complex to have a third field that needlessly complicates things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Since at least April 2020, I have believed that |publication-date= should go away (here). Similarly, I hold that |publication-place= should go away. There have been several discussions on this topic which are collected at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86 § place, when publication-place is redundant with work.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree, both simply confuse the matter and are redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can it not be useful if there are several editions or versions of a work? |date= for the year of the edition quoted, |orig-date= for the 1st edition, |publication-date= for the publication date if it is a later re-edition, publication in another series etc. Keriluamox (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

References exist for verification, you only need to give details of the work you have not it's publication history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking that argument to the extreme, the sole ISBN would suffice. I find it useful to give some information about the work. Dating a 1900 work from 2020 because that’s the edition used feels off, if not slightly misleading. Keriluamox (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is about the <skeptical air quotes>documentation</skeptical air quotes> at Template:Cite book § TemplateData? The template's actual documentation for |publication-date= is at Template:Cite book § Date. The template data are not protected so if you think that it can be improved, please improve it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's actually at Template:Cite book#Publisher, or more specifically, Template:Cite book#csdoc_publication-date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: |publication-date= is mainly for non-daily periodicals where the cover date is often later than the date when the periodical goes on sale. For example, a magazine with cover date August 2026 might be on sale already. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

In taxonomy, the date when a book or journal was first published can be very important to establish precedence. For various reasons the year/date on the title page is not always the year/date when the work was first distributed. In such cases I use date= for the date on the title page and publication-date= for the date when the work was first distributed. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you know when it was first distributed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Url-access

(Conversation copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Please add al further conversation here.)

Hey, I have an idea for a modification to the various citation templates, but i have NO clue what I'm doing when it comes to template editing.

One parameter is url-access, which is used to indicate wether a link is free to access or not, shown by various little padlock icons. Currently, the only three options for the parameter are "subscription", "registration", and "limited." While the last one, "limited," is kind of vague, I'm not going to get into that at the moment. I would, however, like to suggest the addition of a new category, for when you can make one-time purchase to get access to that specific article/issue/whatever, without having to set up a recurring subscription. Perhaps it would be called purchase or smthng. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

When there is a purchase option there is also usually a subscription option. But may bot be the other way round. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, that's often the case, although I've encountered a lot of science paper repositories and various "other things" that only give a purchase option. While not super common, it's at least often enough that I think it would warrant an additional parameter. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why the DOI access options exist. They're complementary to the URL access ones, because journals tend to be weird. (And owned by Elsevier.) Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Subscription and pay means the same thing. Paying for one article or paying for the entire journal is really up to you. This is an effectively meaningless distinction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not really, there's people who may be more willing to do a one-time payment to access something than a recurring subscription. We could perhaps rename the param to say "payment required" or something to make it more clear that it means both. Some things only have one option or the other (for example, the Vanderbilt Television News Archive is one-time-purchase only, no subscription option, and it's a helpful resource). Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

URL error false positive?

Trying to add the following citation, and it’s giving a URL error… any ideas why?

[www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?airport=OSDZ "Airport information for OSDZ"]. DAFIF. Retrieved 1 October 2006. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

http:// :-) Keriluamox (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought I had added that… I’m a numbskull! Merci! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, // at the very least. You only need the http: if the website can't handle https:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Either way I’m a numpty for missing that! I thought I’d tried adding HTTPS, but obviously didn’t… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)