Talk:Citation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citation article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Potential Inclusion

Hi, I would like to put on this page the difference between a reference list and a bibliography; the former containing sources from which information is almost directly translated and the latter containing sources of more generalized (but still relevant) information that is not directly applied. Anyone care to comment? Jefferson61345 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumination

The link under "Rumination" leads to a disambig page that does not include the meaning of this word hinted at in the Citation article. Perhaps the link should be removed altogether. Hoot

[edit] Irony

Is it just me or is it very ironic that the page on Citation does not cite any source whatsoever. I think that something as important to Wikipedians as citing, should itself be cited.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What's even more ironic is that when an anonymous user adds a link to the XKCD comic poking fun at wikipedia's growing problem with prolific 'citation needed' tags, it gets removed immediately by someone who is becoming an editor. MobileOak 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats not really ironic but ok. And i really dont get what u r saying, all i was saying is that the article on Citation should itself be cited to set an example. If an editor looks up "Citation" and reches a page that preaches about citing but the article itself lacks any sources, then what is thateditor to think? In the next couple weeks i will try to place citations on this page. Its not what Im best at doin, but i will try and get it fixed so we can knock one 'citation needed' off of a wikipedia page.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs
It is hilarious, pls leave it like that.
Haha, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the thing at the top. Oh, the irony...CarpeGuitarrem (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also someone needs to address quality of sources at least for newspapers. In particular many people apparently don't understand that you shouldn't use editorials, cartoons , advertisements for anything but the opinion of the writer. That info inside is hearsay. Unless of course the editorial has references. I note the Washington Post and other papers do not hold the content of such editorials as having the same degree of authenticity as current event news. Simply put editorials are often fact checked by the author only if at all. In fact editorials can get pretty whack if they aren't by mainline recurring editors. Editorials are printed for discussion and human interest appeal not normally as a source of facts. There is also some issue with printing of timely retractions. The important thing is that the reality described is POLITICAL reality -- unless someone had the clout and time to force a timely retraction.


For scientific (versus political) realities, I do believe that Wikipedia should allow the challenging of a single source citation. If a fact is reliably true you can almost always find an independent second source, that is one that doesn't refer back to the first source for its info. Even in physics, experimental results are considered tentative until another source repeats approximately the same results. Math is the one field were you might settle for a second qualified source looking at the original work and validating it by simply saying "I see no problem with their work" (total abstraction all in a single "paper" unburden by real world issues). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EasyBib cannot be included?

I can't put EasyBib under the tool section? It's decent tool, I don't see why it can't be included there...I am not advertising things...

How should Wikipedia itself be cited in MLA style?

Answer/discussion is/should go here Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia --Ebricca 13:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd say merge this little stub Works_cited article into the larger Citation. --S.O.T.A. 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sota ColemanJ 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean "See also"

Citing WP belongs to WP and not to main articles. There is enough info about citing WP at the beginning of this page. What do you think ? -- DLL .. T 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be better to instead merge this stub with the MLA article, as they are related

I believe this would better fit with the MLA than citation. Just link it from Citation.

Thanks to you, MLA dedicated man. But the point is to make a clear distinction between an encyclopedia article and [meta]data related only to WP. I'm watching for a clear answer. -- DLL .. T 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microformat for citations

Please be aware of the proposal for a microformat for marking citations in (X)HTML. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special syntax

A common way found in printed works to cite references in continuous text is adding a short key of an abbreviation of the author's / authors' name(s) and the year of publication, all put in box brackets. This key can than be used to look the citation in the citation example. For example: [Wil98] may stand for F. Wilder: A Guide to the TCP/IP Protocol Suite (2nd Edition). Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1998. Where does this style come from? --Abdull 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Change of Wiki to CitationNeeded.org ?

I love Wiki; I use it almost everyday to find new info. Now a days people are putting up citations for the most stupid reasons. The citation are for either info that can be found in seconds, or it deals with something so common that you really can't find a source for it. I just updated a profile where someone had asked for a citation on this person being adopted. It took me 38 seconds to find doing a Google search. The owners should place a banner stating that you must try your best to find the info that you have asked for a citation for. Give them a line to write what they did while looking for the info. If they didn't do anything, then deny the citation.But I see so many citation that it is impossible for me to update them all. Like I mention on the other profile; I once found a citation needed when someone said that the water in the ocean may appear blue. WTF?

This is a great place, and we all work hard to make it that way, but these lazy people shouldn't be allowed to add citation. If you don't understand a topic, then let someone else handle it.

the2ndflood

I'm not sure everyone agrees with you[citation needed]. Mortengrud (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic

the fact that there are two [citation needed]s in the article ABOUT CITATIONS has simply become too ironic for words, this issue should be brought to a larger audience, or the sheer irony factor may destroy us all!

PiAndWhippedCream 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How to make this Wiki better...

Uhh...I was trying to do homework and was trying to see how to write a bibliographic citation but no examples were given
-___- Wow... How 'bout adding examples how to write a bibliography people?
Jaewonnie 6:53 PM, 21 January 2008

There are a lot of styles, linked to from this page. Each style generally has examples. --Karnesky (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Avi, why did you revert all my changes? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, it the first editor to fill in references in recent history used citation templates [1]. Removing them is not a "copyedit". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the changes I made. It was indeed a (much-needed) copy edit, and for some reason it was entirely reverted. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(moved from user talk)

The first editor to add references to this article in recent history used citation templates [2]. It was inappropriate to switch to a non-template system during the copyedits. I am certain you are aware of our convention not to change the style of an article once it has been established. Could you explain why you did this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with citation templates. Someone had used a mix of two systems -- Harvard referencing and footnotes. It meant the reader had to click on the footnote, be taken to the Notes section, then click again on that link, and be taken to the full citation in yet another section. There's no need or justification for that.
What is going on here? I feel almost as though I'm being wikistalked. Neither you nor Avi have ever edited that page before that I can see, and yet Avi turned up to undo my entire copy edit, and now you're asking a question. Also, it would be better to discuss this on Talk:Citation, so I'll move the conversation there. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this because it was raised as an example on WT:CITE. If the original references use templates then the templates shouldn't be removed in order to switch to a different citation style. I thought is already explicitly covered in WP:CITE - changing to a new reference system should not be done lightly, even if you feel it is an improvement, any more than regional spelling should be changed. SlimVirgin, you have argued this point yourself on WT:CITE, which is why it's surprising that you were the one who changed the style here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the mixed style - where the footnotes have short references, and the full references are in the references section - is quite common and generally accepted. See featured articles Charles_Darwin and Night_of_the_Long_Knives for two randomly chosen examples. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It had nothing to with citation templates, as I said. The refs that had been added created an extra step for the reader. Also, the editor couldn't see what the citation was in edit mode without going to the end of the text e.g. "UC Berkeley" -- this isn't a short footnote or a Harvard reference. It's nothing. It gives no information at all to an editor.
Carl, I think there's some trolling going on at WT:CITE. I wish you wouldn't support it, or encourage it melting over into other pages, as here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree the text of the footnotes could have been improved. But your argument about the "extra step" would seem to apply to featured articles like beagle as well.
If there is trolling on WT:CITE, it is very subtle; Avi and SandyGeorgia are both supporting some sort of change to the language as well. The edits to this page come across as a unilaterally changing the citation style, during a long discussion on WT:CITE about how the style shouldn't be changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's subtle at all, and it's mainly SallyScot. Look at the contribs. This is just about all s/he does. And Avi followed me there after a disagreement on New antisemitism.
This refs on this page didn't follow any consistent style, so I changed them to a consistent one, per CITE. It's only being jumped on as part of the trolling. Avi reverted to a version of the page with poor writing just to make a point, and that's behavior that really shouldn't be supported. That's all I'm going to say about it, because every word feeds it even more. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The same argument about consistency could be made for beagle, because it has a somewhat mixed citation style, but it's a featured article. The original citation style was very consistent [3], but misguided about using inline external links.
I don't see anything in WP:CITE that authorizes changing the citation style. To the contrary, it says:
"Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first author to use one should be respected."
Could you point out which part of WP:CITE you are looking at? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restored previous citation style, quality of references

Per the quote from WP:CITE that any consistent style is acceptable, and its advice to use the style of the first author to use one, I have restored the previous style.

The original author also used citation templates, but the quality of the references is such that I don't know quite how to do it. Most of the references are not actually reliable published sources; they are simply web pages run by university libraries. I will work on changing them to the actual style guides that are supposed to be referenced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(moved from user talk again) The guideline says that any citation style is acceptable. I provided several links to featured articles that use that style: Beagle, Charles Darwin, etc. You have been active in advocating that editors shouldn't change styles unilaterally - I don't understand your desire to do so here. You have also reverted the change twice now today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All you did was remove the links, which makes no sense. Carl, please don't support this wikistalking and trolling. I am trying to improve this article, and to have this bullshit going on in the background, with people reverting the improvements because of some petty feud elsewhere, is bloody ridiculous. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to posting here about it, Carl, otherwise it becomes impossible to keep up. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Please see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Changing_citation_style_on_Citation. The desire of all editors to improve an article in different ways is exactly why we have policies like WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You just tried to drum up support on IRC. That is totally unacceptable. What is going on here, Carl? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing it there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I complained to a channel op. Issues about this page should be discussed on this talk page, without people running to the admins' channel to ask people to support them. As you can see, there was an active discussion here. Please continue it if there are any remaining issues. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is the remaining issue of the change of the citation style here; the first references were in 2004, but were removed at some point and mostly stayed that way until recently. Rather than shifting the discussion to other topics - trolling, IRC, etc. - I'd prefer to discuss that specific issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The first inline citation was a footnote.
You have no interest in this page. You followed me here to make a WP:POINT because of a dispute elsewhere, then went on the admins' IRC channel to try to find other people to oppose me, which was a clear misuse of the channel, right in the middle of an ArbCom case about the problems on it. It's childish behavior, and I've really had enough of it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(moved from user talk) Remarks such as

"This is why I see this as trolling or wikistalking, or whatever you want to call it. It's incredibly childish and disruptive, and the kind of thing that would make anyone want to stop editing Wikipedia altogether. Please get a grip and quit following me around."

aren't going to move the discussion forward. If you don't wish to discuss the matter, then you shouldn't edit the article. Simply brushing off others as trolls isn't helpful, nor are terms like "childish" and "get a grip". I'm not following you around personally; I came into this because of the complaint on WT:CITE. You are free to comment on the IRC situation as you like; I hope you will discuss the matter with mackensen at some later date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know full well, I complained to a channel op, and the complaint was upheld.
Do not keep posting to people's talk pages or on IRC, please. Either here or, better still, or Talk:Citation. You've currently got discussions about this going in five places, which is just wasting everyone's time, and allowing you to claim that people aren't responding to you quickly enough. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There was, I understand, no sanction, only agreement that it was a valid complaint. In any case, please avoid personal remarks such as "childish". I would prefer to discuss the matter at hand rather than my motivations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't request a sanction so that's a red herring, and I'm afraid your motivations for turning up here, posting on numerous talk pages even after being asked not to, and then trying to involve other people on IRC, are very much an issue. Surely you don't do this for every content disagreement you have -- if you did, you'd have no time left to eat -- so this is looking like disruption for the hell of it, or WP:POINT because of a disagreement elsewhere. If you want to help improve this article, please go right ahead, because it's a mess. Otherwise, please back off. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ordinarily, trying to get a third opinion is considered a good thing. I do typically begin a content dispute by asking other editors to comment on it; that way I can assess the strength of my argument. And it's much more pleasant working with a group than with only one other person. If you feel my edits are disruptive, please use my talk page to discuss my conduct. I think that a discussion has started on WT:CITE that will draw in a wide array of opinions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The previous citation method

Slim claims (above) - "Someone had used a mix of two systems -- Harvard referencing and footnotes. It meant the reader had to click on the footnote, be taken to the Notes section, then click again on that link, and be taken to the full citation in yet another section. There's no need or justification for that." and also in edit summary - "this isn't a citation style -- it's a hodge podge, not mentioned on WP:CITE that I can see" (00:37, 9 February 2008)

But from Citing sources we have - "When a separate reference section is included, the citations are listed there in alphabetical order, with the footnotes in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes"; short footnotes may be used, giving the author(s), year, and the page number"

Author-date short citation abbreviations are of course common to Harvard referencing. Maybe that's why Slim was getting confused. I don't know. Anyway, given the above clarification, I've changed it back to its original method.

--SallyScot (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Joke tags"?

I noticed that throughout the history of this article, [citation needed] tags were being removed, denounced as "joke tags". All irony aside, there are very few sources in this article, and a [citation needed] tag would be appropriate in some cases. Teh Rote (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add them if you think something might be wrong. Or list your concerns here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the most obvious things that looked like personal opinion. By all means add citation tags for anything else you feel needs a source. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

"Note systems involve the use of sequential numbers in the text which refer to either footnotes (notes at the end of the page) or endnotes (a note on a separate page at the end of the paper) which give the source detail.". Where is the source of this piece of information? I see no source mentioned whatsoever. That is just one example of loads in this rubbish article. Get some of the information cited or it will be nominated for deletion due to being mainly original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identify the item uniquely

This phrase "Identify the item uniquely" in the beginning paragraph is somewhat vague. "The item" could refer to the source being cited (ie it comes from this unique or specific website/book), or it could refer to the actual information in the new article/book that needs the citation (ie this is the specific information that I copied). Please rewrite this to remove the ambiguity. Mathman1550 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)