Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Free sites preferred

When the guideline says that we prefer links to free sites, what do we mean exactly? For example, we almost always prefer scholarly articles to non-scholarly ones, and generally you have to pay to read the former online, unless you're a member of a university library. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That leads to an interesting point. If the article/journal itself is locked behind JSTOR or Elsevier, but an on-line copy exists on a less reliable platform, can the original (printed or on-line) article be the reference, and the URL be solely a convenience link? -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, subject to WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works and WP:RS constraints. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the guideline should be that if exactly the same information is available for free, or for a fee, the free version is preferred. Also, if substantially the same information from sources of comparable reliability is available for free or for a fee, the free version should be preferred. But if substantially the same information is available from both a free and a non-free source, and the free source is less reliable than the non-free source, the more reliable source should certainly be cited, possibly with an additional citation to the free source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding scientific papers. I think we agreed we should always refer to the full pint (hardcopy) information as well as the DOI identifier. That will solve most of the problem. Regarding referring to less stable versions of a paper. There is a very good chance the free copy is copyright violation which will disappear as soon as the legal deparments of the copyright holder (e.g. JSTOR or Elsevier or whoever else) finds out that. Anyway I think we should be very careful linking to suspect sources; so make sure the non-official version is not actually an illegal copy. Arnoutf (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The danger of advocating links to free sites is that we may inadvertently encourage courtesy links to copyright violations. As I see it, the issue of whether the site is free or not is irrelevant: what counts is the quality of the source. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say whether the site is free or not is irrelevant, I would just say that reliability, absence of obvious copyright violations, and stability are more important than the site being free. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there's some merit to the "free" recommendation, as papers may be available from a variety of reliable sources. And with all due respect, the copyright concerns are highly overblown, and out of our purview. There's a substantial effort underway to encourage faculty to self-archive their own publications, many reputable journals now have official author-retain-copyright policies, many journals have some level of open-access policy, and there are a number of publicly available archives of scholarly material. It's worth talking about assessing reliability of sources, but we definitely ought not assume that sources violate copyright nor require that WP editors ascertain copyright status before linking to something: Ascertaining copyright status is a full-time, difficult job that can require significant legal expertise, inside information, hours of investigation, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this?

Where material of equal stability, interest, and reliability is available on a no-cost site, this will usually be preferred to one that charges a reading or subscription fee, but bear in mind that the quality of the source takes priority. When providing courtesy links, editors should be careful not to link to obvious copyright violations.

SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm, provisionally it looks okay to me as a draft, although I want to tweak in a bit, but let me just make sure I understand what we're comparing it too -- we're all talking about the section in "Convenience links", and only that section, right? It currently reads:

Convenience links

The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the Internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, emendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

Where several sites host a copy of the desired resource, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content is most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. While no-cost sites are preferred, convenience links to non-free archives such as JSTOR are permitted, provided the material is available to the public (in libraries, for example).

So, SV, is your proposed text to revise the second (last) paragraph of this section? --Lquilter (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To replace the last sentence, starting "while no-cost sites ..." I'd also want to copy edit the previous sentence. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with SlimVirgin's suggestion. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) I would suggest changing the final sentence to "While no-cost sites are preferred, convenience links to non-free repositories are permitted, provided the material is available in free repositories (such as libraries)". Wjhonson (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest changing the first phrase ("Where material...") to ("Where copies of the reference...") just to be clear that we're talking about the same "material". --Lquilter (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't make any grammatical sense in that sentence. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I can't even see what it has to do with convenience links, which is the section it's in. I think this was maybe written by someone who was just confused, so I've removed it and copy edited the rest of the section. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's fine. --Lquilter (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • User SandyGeorgia inserted a couple of sentences about copyright (diff). I took out the second one, which adds extra detail about whether or not the site has licensed the content. I think it goes beyond the current policy on linking to copyrighted information, and at any rate, it introduces the possibility for duplicates & ultimate inconsistency. So long as we link to the copyright policy & say linking it is in conformity with that, it should be okay. Other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not keen on having this guideline say anything about copyright. I took out that sentence I proposed, Lquilter, because of your previous post. It's a very complex area, and it's often used on WP as an excuse to remove links that are objected to on POV grounds, rather than out of a serious desire to respect copyright. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If a cited source has a web page for the cited item (such as a web page for a journal article) then that URL is preferred. For many journals, that URL is to a page which only has a citation or abstract of the article (with links to access the full article). If someone finds what seems to be a legitimate copy of the same article elsewhere, I suggest a separate citation for that item (which also takes care of the problem of preprints before changes, or an article and a book having the same name). If more than one source exists (such as full PD text of Treasure Island) then a free version would be preferred over one for a fee. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally hear what SV is saying and, wonder of wonders, we agree! Just for the record -- I'd rather not mention it at all, as I feel it contributes to copyright paranoia more than serves a useful purpose. But, I'm not strongly opposed to mentioning it, so if others think it's important to keep it in, that's okay; however, I do feel we shouldn't unnecessarily replicate information in multiple fora. Simply referring is better than restating & explaining in another place. --Lquilter (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Language

In Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 the references state the language that the source is written in. I added the retrieval dates, but should the language be there at all? Is there a standard for internet sources?Grk1011 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but it's definitely helpful. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In publishing references it is generally seen as a good idea to mention if a source is in a foreign language; but not if a source in the language of the publication as that can be considered standard. In the case of English Wiki; I would suggest to make a note of the language of non-english references only. An example of this is found in Dutch general election, 2006#References where almost all refs are tagged Dutch except for the few English ones (admitted because of the heavy coverage by Dutch sources this is not very clear). Perhaps time for a guideline how to handle foreign language sources in the references? Arnoutf (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
By all means have a go at drafting something, Arnout. It's a subject that people have strong feelings about. Some editors feel that sources should be predominantly in English so that readers can understand them; others feel that even hinting at this furthers systemic bias. If you feel you can pick your way through that minefield, it would be very helpful. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of including a (French) or whatever after non-English sources. We are definitively "English-language" WP, so I think we can distinguish non-English sources without necessarily prejudicing against them. --Lquilter (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some first draft would be something like this, I would place it as section 4.4:
===Citing non English language sources===
When citing a source written in another language than English, report the language of the source, by placing this name between brackets in bold immediately after the title. This prepares editors to judge whether it is useful to check a source based on the language of that source.

Example:
Mulisch, H (1992): "De ontdekking van de hemel" (Dutch), De Bezige Bij, the Netherlands
please comment Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

okay that works, i was putting the language if other than english at the end tho, ill start putting it after the title i guess.Grk1011 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem where it is placed, whatever works best for all. This was just a suggestion. My reason for this suggestion is that it easily works with templates, just type the whole "De ontdekking van de hemel (Dutch)" as title in the template and it will work; but other suggestions are welcome. Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that most of our citation templates already have a property for language. Make sure either that any new policy we introduce is compatible with what the templates already do, or that the templates are changed accordingly. In any case, sneaking the information into the "title" property of a template is a bad idea. If there are templates that need a field added for this, we should do so. This information should remain logically separate from the title. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits

SallyScot has been making edits that have substantially changed parts of this guideline since roughly October, and repeatedly reverts when challenged. She does this even when her edits have clearly caused the writing to deteriorate.

If SallyScot is who she says she is -- a new account, not a sockpuppet -- then she arguably doesn't have the experience to be going around changing guidelines or policies. She has made only 481 edits to the encyclopedia, 273 of them to just one article. Of her other edits, 103 have been to this guideline or its talk page.

Alternatively, SallyScot is not who she says she is, and is indeed an account belonging to another user, in which case I would like to remind her that sockpuppet accounts are strongly discouraged on guideline and policies.

Either way, it would be appreciated if this kind of editing would stop. The guideline has to be reasonably stable, and material that has been in it for a long time shouldn't simply be removed on a whim. Similarly, we have to try to maintain a decent standard of writing. To call a template a "technique" is strange writing. It is a style or a format or a method, perhaps, but "technique" is just odd. And yet I am being reverted by her for correcting it. It is starting to feel as though I'm being trolled. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The style or format would be the resulting rendered HTML - a template or "raw" wikitext are techniques for getting that rendered HTML; even if you don't agree with the terminology, this is at least a reasonable distinction to make. —Random832 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Slim, Can you back up your claims about my history of repeated reverts when challenged on this article since about October with some examples other than those which relate to your own edits? It will be helpful if you take into account and include reference to edit summary comments. - From my perspective there was no great issue with repeated reverts here until you got involved.

You are as entitled as anyone to get involved at this or any other stage of course. That applies to each and to all. But this attitude of attributing your own edits greater importance based largely on criteria such as previous Wikipedia total edit count rather than more reasonable arguments just smacks of cliquishness.

Let's go over the issue of citation style / citation format.

'citation style' was changed to 'citation method' at 12:00, 24 January 2008 with the edit summary comment: (→Citation templates - The term "style" is misleadingly suggestive or at least ambiguous with sense of style as per e.g. the Chicago Manual of Style. We are talking about a behind the scenes METHOD.) - IP edit - SallyScot accidentally logged out.

reverted 15:13, 24 January 2008 SlimVirgin (style is correct)

Also posted on my talk page 15:15, 24 January 2008 - a second query about sock-puppetry...

"Please say what your main account is. You're continuing to revert on tiny little points in what looks like an effort to stir up trouble. Either quit it, or come clean about who you are. --SlimVirgin 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"

So, Slim didn't think much of 'citation method' then. What about 'citation technique'?

19:11, 24 January 2008 SallyScot (→Citation templates - the term "citation style" invites some confusion with distinct citation formatting conventions as in e.g. Chicago Style or MLA Style, "citation technique" is better)

Then it goes like this...

02:59, 25 January 2008 Jayjg (→Citation templates - techniques aren't distinctive, styles are)
03:47, 25 January 2008 Gerry Ashton (The style is the appearance seen by the reader. The technique is the markup which creates the appearance. We don't want the markup changed to or from templates; that's technique.)
12:57, 25 January 2008 SlimVirgin (technique -> format, and restored the References section, which was clearer before the copy edit)
14:40, 25 January 2008 SallyScot (→Citation templates - 'format' is synonymous with 'style' and invites similar confusion. Reasoning for use of 'technique' has already been given. Better argument for alternative is yet lacking.)
14:45, 25 January 2008 SlimVirgin (it's not a "technique" -- please don't edit in a way that causes the writing to deteriorate)
15:03, 25 January 2008 SallyScot (It IS a technique, for the reasons already given. Stubbornly saying otherwise is simply contradiction, not counterargument. You need to calm down and explain WHY you think it's not a technique.)
15:20, 25 January 2008 SlimVirgin (your changes were objected to, so please discuss on talk rather than just reverting)

With at 15:13, 25 January 2008 SlimVirgin's post above - i.e. the initial post of this 'SallyScot' section.

It looks as though a reasonable case has already been put against use of either the terms 'citation style' or 'citation format' in the Citation templates section. By comparison the arguments for continuing to use either of these terms seem to me more like stubborn contradictions "style is correct" or "it's not a "technique"" without a reasoned supporting argument.

It looks as though all SlimVirgin has to do to keep their edit in place is object in a simple "oh no it isn't" kind of way.

I'd like some clarification on the rules of engagement here.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

In the spirit of compromise and in the interests of working to a consensus I refer to the part of SlimVirgin's post above that says "a method perhaps" and propose a wording change from 'citation format' to 'citation method'.

If there are no counterarguments put forward in the interim (and no one does it before me) I'll do this in the next few days.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, SlimVirgin is correct; someone who has made fewer than 500 actual article edits shouldn't be attempting to re-write our guidelines. Experience is critical in understanding what works and what doesn't. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And as someone with over 20,000 edits, I think I can say I have a fair working of wiki, and I agree with almost everything Sally had to say, Jay. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My point was that people who don't have a lot of article editing experience shouldn't be trying to re-write policies or guidelines. That obviously doesn't apply to you. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg's point is a topic for wider discussion. However, in this case, it is clearly now moot. I have the support of at least one editor with over 20,000 edits. Counterarguments relevant to the proposed wording are thus called for. --SallyScot (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation method

So far...

SallyScot - "the term "citation style" invites some confusion with distinct citation formatting conventions as in e.g. Chicago Style or MLA Style"
Gerry Ashton - "The style is the appearance seen by the reader. The technique is the markup which creates the appearance. We don't want the markup changed to or from templates; that's technique"
SallyScot - "'format' is synonymous with 'style' and invites similar confusion"
Random832 - "the style or format would be the resulting rendered HTML - a template or "raw" wikitext are techniques for getting that rendered HTML; even if you don't agree with the terminology, this is at least a reasonable distinction to make."
Qp10qp - "I don't think [citation format] is anything to do with templates. Presumably this refers to changing footnote format to Harvard, or whatever. I don't think it matters whether editors use templates or not, since the reader will not notice"
Qp10qp - "the expression "citation format" [is] made to apply muddlingly both to what appears on the page and to what appears in the edit box: two different matters"
Avi - "I agree with almost everything Sally had to say"
SlimVirgin - "...a method, perhaps"

--SallyScot (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation method or technique versus style or format

You may have noticed my proposed change was reverted yesterday by User:Dreadstar with what I believe was a rather inappropriate edit summary exhortation - "Find consensus for this change, no edit warring".

I've invited further elucidation on Dreadstar's talkpage, pointing out that if they personally disagree with the edit then the onus is really on them to explain why.

My holding back from immediate editing and inviting discussion here has been done in good faith, with project page's stability in mind, and precisely in order to avoid edit warring. If edit warring is understood as an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force then it's those who revert without engaging in reasonable discussion who are guilty, not me.

Once again, I state my intention to post an edit that fixes the muddled use of the term 'citation format' in the Citation templates section.

If no counterarguments are forthcoming then I'll do this sometime on or after 04-Feb-2008.

Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this section, of arguments over a one-word change, is a waste of bytes. And note that my comment did not endorse any specific wording, only that the difference between, say, Harvard vs footnotes is of a different sort than the difference between using and not using templates, since one is reader-visible and the other is not. "style" can reasonably refer to either, though. My comment was more directed at her failure to AGF, and was not intended to say that you are right and she's wrong about the content itself. —Random832 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Agreed, it's only a one word change, but it's one that I feel is an improvement.

The terms 'citation style' and 'citation format' are confusing when applied to the issue of usage or non-usage of citation templates. If you Google search the term "citation formats" for example [1] you get pages such as academic guides from universities and other educational institutions telling you about the different formats such as MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, AMA, etc. - e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Dictionary definitions of 'technique' include - "method of performance; way of accomplishing" and the application of "procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result." So, in the context of citation templates, the connotation of 'technique' as in 'tools and techniques' is clearly a better term than either 'citation format' or 'citation style'.

I happen to think ‘citation technique’ is better than ‘citation method’. But even so, even so, I changed 'technique' to 'method' in the spirit of compromise and in the interests of working to a consensus. Slim's post had said "a method, perhaps" after all.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Referencing different pages in the same book?

I have been learning how to add citations and references for a while now, but I still do not know exactly how to make multiple references to different pages in the same book. I could just reference a book without a page number, give the reference a name and make multiple references but I want to make my citations more precise.

I hate not backing up statements and claims without the exact page number listed. Despite checking many times, over a period of months, I find that the help pages are not clear enough for me to understand how to do this. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One solution is to use {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}} in combination with one another. See Philippine-American_war#Notes for an example. Click wikilinks to get from footnotes containing (possibly page-numbered) references to the associated citation or a work to which the references apply. Use the browser's Back button to get back. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The inline citation method Short footnote citations with full references covers this. It's documented with examples on the project page. --SallyScot (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) - This has since been removed as a consequence of 'Deterioration' edit (see section further above) --SallyScot (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the way most people do it, Shiftchange, is simply to write <ref name=Smith25>Smith, John. ''How to Write References''. Random Publisher, 2008, p. 25.</ref> Then if you reference the same page again, write <ref name=Smith25/>. This avoids the need for citation templates, which can make the text hard to edit. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea to actually make it <ref name="Smith25">, so that if you have spaces or other weird characters in the refname, the system doesn't bug out. --Lquilter (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also very possible to combine these approaches: named ref element for same page + use of {{Harvnb}} for the reference itself. Whether templates make things easier or harder is a matter of taste. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for handling page numbers with <ref> format

There's needs to be a better way to cite the same source with a different page numbers in the same document so that someone still knows which page related to what quote/statement. For example:

You might have <ref name="NameOfSource"> Full citation</ref> and <refpage name="NameOfSource">p.30</refpage> and later in the article you might use <refpage name="NameOfSource">p.35</refpage>. You can still use <ref name="NameOfSource" /> for simple citations that don't require page numbers.

---Action potential t c 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your question, AP. There are different ways of handling it. The way I write them is <ref name=Smith70>Smith, John. ''Name of Book'', 2008, p. 70.</ref> Or if I'm using short refs <ref name=Smith70>Smith 2008, p. 70.</ref> If I'm certain I'll only cite page 70 once, I leave out the ref name. Or have I missed your point? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I think the question has been asked (and misunderstood) before. I've moved earlier section from further above to immediately above this section for comparison. I think it's asking how you refer to different pages in different citations, but from the same basic reference, such as from the same book. Like, if you have...

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2]

References

  1. ^ Miller, E: "The Sun", page 23. Academic Press, 2005.
  2. ^ Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.

...using Footnotes referencing method, then how would you add to the text "The Sun is also quite hot." referenced from another page, e.g. page 34, of Miller's same "The Sun" book?

--SallyScot (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for translating for me SallyScot. That's exactly what I meant. In Stanford referencing it is simple, you can use (Miller 2005:23) for the first example you gave and (Miller 2005:34) for the second. I don't know how to handle it properly in the current wikipedia referencing system. Perhaps I'm looking for something like: <ref name="Miller 2005:23">Miller, E: "The Sun". Academic Press, 2005.</ref> and <ref name="Miller 2005:34"/> . The actual page of the quote would be added to the reference list which will help in fact and reference check. ----Action potential t c 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another whack at an explanation — In the article prose, you might have something like this for inline harvard referencing:

The Sun is pretty big,{{Harvnb|Miller|2005|pp=12,236}} but the Moon is not so big.{{Harv|Brown|2006|p=57}}. The Sun is also quite hot.{{Harvnb|Miller|2005|p=34}}
or, with the harvard refs placed to footnotes in an endmatter Notes: section:
The Sun is pretty big,<ref>{{Harvnb|Miller|2005|pp=12,236}}</ref> but the Moon is not so big.<ref>{{Harvnb|Brown|2006|p=57}} (Brown was quite an expert on the moon)</ref>. The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>{{Harvnb|Miller|2005|p=34}}</ref>
Then, in the endmatter, something like:

If footnotes are used:

== Notes ==

<references/>
and
:==References==
*{{Citation
|last=Brown
|first=R.
|title=Size of the Moon
|journal=Scientific American
|volume=78
|issue=46
|month=October
|year=2006}}
*{{Citation
|last=Miller
|first=E.
|title=The Sun
|year=2005
|publisher=Academic Press}}
See [[WP:FOOT] and the documentation for the {{tl{Harv}} {{Harvnb}}, and {{Citation}} templates. {{Harv}} and {{Harvnb}} generate forward links matching the   entries which have matching last= and year= values. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When other full citations are extensively in Footnotes already

I was wondering what the view is when contributing to an already well-established article. Supposing an extensive list of full citations already exist in a familiar Notes section (i.e. via <ref> tags and <references />), would the "refs placed to footnotes" approach then create a new Reference section and put the single new full reference there, and supporting multiple short citation references to it for the different page numbers via Notes (via <ref> tags).

In other words, so that the Notes section contains a mix of full citations and short citations?

--SallyScot (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty common to have a Notes section that contains full citations to things that are only cited once (or where the same note is repeatedly linked from the text, because it is a web source and page number doesn't apply) and some kind of abbreviated citation for page numbers in books (used in conjunction with a "references" section). See John Considine (Seattle) for an example. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks Jmabel, John Considine (Seattle) is exactly the kind of example I was looking for.

It makes for interesting comparison with an article such as Sophie Blanchard, where short citations with full references have been used consistently throughout (i.e. even when there's a one-to-one relationship between citation and reference).

The project-page section relating to this suggests that the reason for including an alphabetised listing of full references in addition to short notes is to "help readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used". So the question I would ask of John Considine (Seattle)'s approach is: Doesn't it look somewhat like a fairly arbitrary partial listing of some references, while other full citations appear in notes?

--SallyScot (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many sources?

I was just reading today's featured article, Treatment of multiple sclerosis, and although it is immaculately referenced, I feel there are so many references that the readability of the article is impaired. This is something that I notice from time to time in many big articles. My immediate concern is not whether or which citations might be "removed" (see below) from this particular article, but that WP:CITE doesn't mention this at all, so I don't know if there has ever been a consensus sought.

The main issue with the article linked is that it has a lot of lists of drugs, each wiki-linked to their own article, and then referenced with a citation to a journal that shows that the said drug has been used to treat the said specific symptoms. WP:LS#Citations already advises against redundant references in the lead section, and I think this should also apply to topics like this where the main article on that drug/whatever should be expected to restate the fact described by the list, and have that citation there.

If people disagree on this front, then WP:CITE should include something along the lines of, "If the same contentious statement is made in more than one article, such as when the subject of a statement on a broader topic has its own article, a citation should be provided in all the concerned articles, even if the same source is repeated, as each article must be independently verifiable." However, I don't think this should be the policy. If you saw a drug listed and thought, "I don't believe that this drug is used in this way" it would be logical to follow that article's link and find the citation on that page. Alternatively, to avoid WP:original research-ness as much as possible, a link to a secondary source with a related list would be appropriate. Anyone with me on this? BigBlueFish (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before and is indeed an issue for debate.
I agree the Treatment of multiple sclerosis is very heavily referenced; and I would agree that listing 4 sources for a single sentence maybe both overdoing it, and disrupting the flow of reading.
While I agree the Lead should not have references redundant to the body text of that same article, in my opinion this is something completely different from information referenced or not somewhere in (I am overstating to make the point) another article of unknown quality. In my opinion it is simply not maintainable to keep track of all such articles, and this may mean that one of the articles is detoriating into a really bad one. This is obviously different from lead to body text as this both reflect same article. Basically my argument is a reason why I am a strong supporter of the guideline that other Wiki articles can never be used as reference. That would include this situation, each article has to verifiable from sources, not from other Wiki articles, so whereever sources are needed they have to be used. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on maintainability is very insightful. I agree that from an editing perspective (always important on Wikipedia the incomplete encyclopedia) it is a pain not to be able to see what statements are sourced and which aren't. For the purposes of scrutiny, however, both for the reader and the editor, a statement isn't any more verifiable for lack of source on the broader article. Clicking the main article is a fairly minor step when looking up the said citation and deciding on what level it justifies the statement and how reliably.
I wonder whether this calls for some sort of expansion of the syntax. What immediately comes to mind is something like <ref name="p55" from="Stede Bonnet" />, which perhaps obviously would transclude the <ref name="p55"></ref> tag in the article Stede Bonnet. References such as this could be turned off by default and have the capacity to be turned on in user preferences or by a special page action. The reflist at the bottom could even include a note, "Other articles linked to by this article contain additional references which may be relevant to subjects discussed here. You can turn these references on in your preferences or show them now."
This would have the advantage of making all articles concerned more maintainable, as well as more readable for the majority. References can already be conditionally cited by putting the reference in a template, so I don't think that getting the preprocessor to transclude a relevant reference would be difficult to implement.
The issue of what is default and how to change it might be an issue, but I think my above suggestion would work nicely. Note that even if the visibility of references was permanently on, it would still make it easier to maintain citations of facts repeated across multiple articles, so if a better source is found or an update is made, the changes propagate across all the articles immediately. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide page numbers

Is this part new? I've submitted four featured science articles in the past without this being a requirement (the last in December), I've always followed the method used when writing journal articles, which is just to include the book title (or chapter title if it is a section like collected conference proceedings) and assume that people are capable of using indexes. I can see why this would be important if you're refering to an unindexed older text book or popular science book, but is it a requirement when citing an indexed monograph or handbook? I ask because it's been raised in a recent FAC (House Martin) as a possible objection. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's been there for a while. I'm not clear what difference it would make if you were quoting from a monograph or handbook, Sabine. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Citing page numbers had been implicitly stated in the guideline before it became explicit with an edit on June 30 2006. It was still there in December 2006. The section was removed for a time, but I reintroduced it as a requirement last summer (July 1 2007). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, any scientific text I mean. So this is a valid reason to oppose an FAC? Jeeze.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say it is, yes, because it's easy to give page numbers if you're reading the text yourself, and obviously you'd be reading it if you were citing it. So it's hard to see why we wouldn't want to. Sometimes you can give a page range, if you're citing a lot of material between, say, pp 50-70 -- you wouldn't necessarily have to cite every separate page, especially if the stuff's non-contentious. But to have no page numbers at all could be problematic at FA. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If material could be easily located using the index, that would ordinarily suffice for the purposes of verifiability. However, the possibility for reviewers to place form over function is a well-discussed issue with the FA system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of a citation is to efficiently lead the reader as close to the source as possible. The closer and more efficiently, the better.
Arguing that something could be located using an index is like arguing that only an ISBN number is sufficient. That would technically "suffice for the purposes of verifiability", but is not good citation. -- Fullstop (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I took at look at the FAC Sabine was referring to, and it did look as though the commentators were asking for too much. I think as Carl said this was a case of form over function. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. In that particular case, there is no chapter title provided in the citation either (and still isn't). A book titled "Swallows & Martins" could have a chapter titled "House Martin" of course, but commentators can hardly be expected to assume that.
I'd actually be surprised if anyone had done so: It would be more natural for an FAC reviewer to assume that a book titled "Swallows & Martins" would have info on Martins (House or otherwise) scattered throughout it (thus provoking the demand for page numbers).
Would you not demand page numbers for references to "Pretorians" in a book titled "The Romans"?
-- Fullstop (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I would provide page numbers, yes, or at least a range. But there was something odd going on with that FAC -- someone was adding fact tags unnecessarily and repeating the same source over and over in the same paragraph. It looked like overkill. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if this has been discussed, but I find that some internet versions of sources do not provide page numbers, such as some Lexis-Nexis texts. (Personally, I find it's easy to deal with because such texts can be searched.) HG | Talk 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The reviewers can indeed be expected to actually look at the cited book, or have first-hand knowledge of it, before they complain that the reference isn't specific enough. I would expect that out of a referee for an article, and they're anonymous, unlike FA reviewers. The fact that reviewers may complain about references that they are not actually concerned enough to check is precisely what I meant by "form over function". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of terms Reference and Citation

A Use of terms section has been added to the project page which says - This guideline uses the terms "source," "reference," and "citation" interchangeably.

I asked the question a while ago (Archive19) - "aren't the terms "References" and "Citations" fairly synonymous?", and it was pointed out...

"Maybe there is different jargon in different fields. In the field I'm in (math), references are published works and we cite those references in the papers we write. So the article Sophie Blanchard matches our usage of the terms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)".

I was looking at the former featured article Sophie Blanchard at the time, and wondered if its two section headings, one called Citations and one called References weren't interchangeable.

Another response was...

"I don't know, that article seems fairly intuitive to me. One list contains a list of works to which the author referred in writing the piece ("References"), and the other contains instances in which the author actually cites those works in order to substantiate the content of the piece ("Citations"). Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)"

So, after this, I thought I understood the difference.

However, the new 'Use of terms' section seems to be leaning toward the idea of citation and reference being the same thing.

This is true enough when full citations are included within <ref> tags using the Footnotes approach and generated in a References section using <references /> tag (or {{Reflist}} template). In this case they do seem to be one and the same thing.

But with Harvard referencing (for example) I thought the citation would be like, (Miller 2005, p. 23).

And the Reference...

  • Miller, E (2005). "The Sun - Our Nearest Star", Academic Press.


So, my question is, do we need to make a distinction between citations and references or not?

--SallyScot (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

---

You see, I think it's one thing to say at the outset that these terms are used in this guideline somewhat interchangeably, so that newbies don't overly concern themselves about the nuances, but it's another for the guideline to go on and actually use them in a way which unnecessarily confuses those nuances for those that know them.

For example, the section that says...

Provide full citations
All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online.

This could as easily be written...

Provide full details
All citation techniques require full details to be provided for each source used. References must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Full references for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. References for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online.

Which reads in a way that still doesn't bog the beginner down, it doesn't insist that you know the difference, but at the same time doesn't unnecessarily muddle the distinction between what technically is the citation and what is the reference (i.e. the distinction I made in the previous post which may apply e.g. for Harvard references).

--SallyScot (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Short footnotes with "Reference" section

If a complete reference section is being supplied, then short footnotes should be used. Firstly, they cut down on the in-text clutter, which I know is a dearly held concern of yours, Slim and Jay. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to have every citation umpteen times in the notes section, of all that is changing is a page number. Put the author-date-page number in the ref tag and the complete citation in the Reference section. Do you have any compelling arguments as to why it should be otherwise? -- Avi (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Avi wants to say that short footnotes must be used if a separate References section is maintained. Note -- must be used. Do we want to force editors to do that? If so, what do we mean by short footnotes exactly, because they can mean several things?
In my view, we have enough rules here, and we shouldn't be forcing people to write citations in certain ways if they don't want to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Should" <> "Must", it is a strong recommendation. Is there a reason why we should not recommend it, Slim? I thought you were all in favor of reducing in-text clutter? -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For those, who want to see the issue here:

Version A:

If a reference section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes" and short footnotes should be used, giving the author(s) and the page number, and perhaps the title, but without a full citation, which should be placed in the "References" section.

Version B:

If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, short footnotes may be used, giving the author(s) and the page number, and perhaps the title, but without a full citation.

Wjhonson (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be a rule, but I think Avi's approach is a fairly good idea. This seems to be an invention for Wikipedia; the style manuals I'm familiar with don't mention this exact approach. If we are inventing something new, should we make the format clearer? Some points that have not been addressed are:
      • What is the exact format for the short note?
      • If writing freestyle endnotes and bibliography entries, how can I create a link from the endnote to the bibliography entry? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether it should be introduced as a rule. My version says short footnotes "may" be used if there's a separate references section. His version says "should." I would like to leave it as "may," because I think we already have too many rules for writers. What matters is that we know who their sources are, and that they use a consistent style.
And people understand different things by "short footnotes" anyway. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Gerry Ashton - one way would be:
  • In the article prose: <ref>a footnote with a harvard-reference to {{harvnb|Author|2008|p=123}}.</ref>, placing something like the following in the Notes section:
27. a footnote with a harvard-reference to Author 2008, p. 123
  • In the Notes section: <references />
  • In the References section.
  • {{Citation|title=A book about something|last=Author|first=John Q.|year=2008}}
The {{Harvnb}} creates a link to #CITEREFAuthor2008, and {{Citation}} creates a <cite id=...> with that ID. No backlink is provided -- the browser's Back button can be used to back up from the citation to the link which navigated you there. {{Citation}} supports an optional ref= (lowercase 'r') parameter which you can use to specify the cite ID yourself, and {{harvnb}} supports a Ref= (uppercase 'R') parameter to specify a matching link href.
Also, you can place literal links like #Joe's book or [a], etc. in your article prose and/or in your footnotes and manually place a {{anchor}} with the matching ID at your citation for Joe's book.
Here are targets for the links above:
  • Author, John Q. (2008), A book about something 
  • Joe Blow wrote "A book about nothing". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Boracay Bill, thank you for trying to respond to my post, but apparently you missed the word "freestyle" in my post. Your suggestion relies on templates. Furthermore, you suggest the use of the Citation template in the references section, but that template separates elements with commas rather than full stops, and therefore goes against what one finds in most style guides. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton: OK, without formatting templates and using a dot rather than a comma after the year -- similar to my second example above regarding Joe Blow's book, but using the HTML <CITE> tag instead of {{anchor}} in order to get the styling hilite working:
Some text using an inline harvard ref to cite a book. <small>([[#CITEAuthor2008|Author 2008:123]])</small>
and
<cite id=CITEAuthor2008>* Author, John Q. (2008). ''A book about something''.</cite>
modify as needed to tweak the style but, done as shown above, producing the following:
Some text using an inline harvard ref to cite a book. (Author 2008:123)
and
* Author, John Q. (2008). A book about something.
If there's further on this, let's discuss it on my talk page as this sidebar discussion is a distraction here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Back to short notes, Gerry, there does not need to be a fixed format, but something along the lines of <ref name = "NameNumber">LastName, Year, pg #</ref> with the full citation (templatized or not ) in the Reference section seems much more manageable. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and the guideline gives it as an option, but I wouldn't want this page to try to enforce it. We already have too many citation rules, and people are feeling overwhelmed by them, particularly at FAC. The tone of this guideline has always been, "Here are the options; you choose which one to follow; just be consistent within pages and don't force style changes on other people." People may use footnotes or Harvard refs, with or without a separate Refs section, and if with, then with or without short footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
On the specific issue of "should" versus "may" I'm in agreement with SlimVirgin here. Requirement-creep is we don't want, unless there are many invisible flame-wars going on (of which I'm not aware), over people trying to force style changes on others. For my own, I don't like template, and I'm blithely (sp?) unaware of standard referencing. Personally I like full-citations in footnotes, but I'm not terribly consistent. However if someone were to fix my footnote citations, and add a references or bibliography section, I would think that's super. We don't want style to be so burdensome that it causes new editors grief. I think "should" has more potential to cause biting, then "may" has to create it. Wjhonson (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, Slim and Wjohnson, we'll leave it at may. What about this last edit? And yes, I did restore "some editors" as opposed to "it can" as I think that as the guideline is essentially wikipedia talking, it should be as neutral as possible. -- Avi (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I like your latest wording better yes, I have no contention with it. One quibble, here

If short footnotes are used, the full citation, which should be placed in the "References" section.

, you have an extra "which" which — isn't grammatical. Wjhonson (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was hideous. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi, please stop trying to force your template change in. Four or five people have explained here on talk what the problem is. You've already tweaked and tweaked at it to the point where it doesn't make as much sense anymore, but every time you make another edit, you have to tweak it some more. Please leave it alone. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the changes to the Maintenance section as well, perhaps inadvertently, when you restored the "subject to" sentence. I fixed those changes back to what was discussed here, left the sentence you feel is critical in the text, and would ask you discuss it in the section immediately below above. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How to cite flash

Let's say we have a corporate website, and we're trying to source a fact. They happen to heavily use flash on their website. Which means there is no direct link to the section you want to source. How can we properly source this?--Crossmr (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the reliability issue with corporate websites, the fundamental issue is verifiability. Verifiability is needed for controversial facts, so if its not controversial, don't cite it. To be verifiable a cite should be in print, a web link is a convenience link that supports the underlying printed source. Flash doesn't seem convenient at this time.--Paleorthid (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's very annoying when websites do that. They do it deliberately so that people have to go into the site via the homepage, rather than being able to deep link. You can site the main page as the source, but if the issue is contentious, someone's going to click on it in future, not find the supporting material, and remove the edit, so it's better to find another source. You could also write to the company and tell them they're shooting themselves in the foot with this flash business. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The owner of the site might not be aware of the problems. Often Flash problems are due to a web artist that is unaware of usability and access issues. Several of my web browsers are unable to use Flash due to technical or corporate policy issues. If you can't find a useful way to describe how to access the info on the web then you can't use it as a Wikipedia source. You can try to contact the Flash-impaired site's staff and tell them how you can't use their site. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template help

I have been writing the article Elderly Instruments and I ended up using some "cite news" and "cite journal" templates because of the different nature of my source. Can anyone look at the article, in the References section, and see that the template I used for footnote #9 places the date at the end of the source? Is that correct? It just looks weird to me since the rest of my sources place the date after the author name.--Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point as per the Chicago Manual of Style chapters 17.164 and 17.188. 17.164 deals with journals and the date is supposed to be in parentheses after volume and issue number. The current template places it after the authors name. I have started a discussion about that here: Template talk:Cite journal#The date in parentheses should be moved after the volume/issue.. As for newspapers, 17.188 does have the style as the template, in that it is name, title, publication, and date sans parentheses. -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could just write the citation without a template, then you could put the date wherever you want it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive needed?

This talk page is currently ~340,000 bytes long. Isn't it about time to archive some of it? My laptop, which admittedly needs more memory, is taking about 15 seconds to display the page under Windows XP / IE 7 with 512KB memory. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re tagging

Is there a tag to use to indicate that although a reference is provided, an editor feels that it isn't a suitable reference, and should be replaced with a better one? Something like {{betterref}} which would display a message saying "A better reference is required" rather than having a ref deleted and replace with {{fact}} Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. The best thing is to ask for a better reference on talk, or to find one yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Subject to agreement…" phrase in template section

It appears that as this Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive20#"Subject to agreement" phrase in template section was archived off of the talkpage without anyone responding to me, that there was no valid counter-arguments to my statements, and thus that there is no opposition to my removing that sentence from the guideline. Just to ensure that fact, I will ask one last time for a valid reason to keep the redundant and confusing statement in the guideline, otherwise I will remove it. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the other statement in the Citaton templates section that controls changes, "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus", means that editors should not add or remove citation templates from existing citations unless they gain consensus, or unless the format of the existing citations in an article are so mixed up that there is no discernable "distinctive citation format"? Do you reject the concept that citation templates may be added or removed at the whim of any editor, so long as the final appearance to the reader isn't changed? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of "subject to agreement." The point of it is to protect editors on existing articles from having templates imposed on them without their agreement. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ideally for me the wording would more reflect the idea that you should find editors more relaxed, and you'll see articles happily containing both freehand and template citations. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project after all. Ideally I'd like to see something that would encourage editors to be respectful, tolerant and accommodating of the different preferred approaches as long as the results render similarly well to the reader. I'd say that pre-existing citations added by other editors should not subsequently have change imposed on them. That's not to say that an editor can't "be bold". Nine times out of ten commonsense will prevail, only if subsequent agreement can't reasonably be reached then bear in mind the pre-existing citation techniques, and that it should work both ways, so don't impose change from freehand to template, or vice-versa. However, in lieu of such idealism, the proposal to simply remove the "subject to agreement" phrase gets my approval on the basis that it is somewhat redundant in light of the boldface closing part, and also somewhat unbalanced in tending to suggest only template addition is subject to approval and not template removal. --SallyScot (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't encourage being bold when it comes to imposing style changes on articles, as more than one ArbCom case has upheld, as has already been explained. I'm confused as to why this keeps on being raised by the same people, because others have already said several times that they don't agree with the proposed change. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing the issue of style changes. I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to the most relevant ArbCom cases that you are aware of in this instance. Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are going over this again. Many people object strongly to citation templates as an unwieldy group of over 80 inflexible templates, each with its own special language, and all making the article harder to edit. This entirely reasonable and valid objection was accommodated in this guideline by wording that made it clear that they should not be forced onto articles - and, in reality, it is the citation templates that are forced onto articles, never the other way. I've never seen someone go and convert a bunch of template references to the easier to use non-templated ones, but I've seen it done the other way literally hundreds of times. If someone has managed to impose these templates on another article without objection, well, they've won and Wikipedia has lost - but that shouldn't be the case where editors object to them. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Slim, you seem to be misunderstanding my point. I agree that templates should no more be forced on articles than removed. However, the operative criterion needs to be consensus, not the less-well-wiki-defined objection. There is no reason why template removal should be easier to perform than template addition, as long as the template being added is not against an existing distinctive style, which is admirably taken care of by the statement Gerry pointed out (as I did a while back) "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus". In a nutshell, Slim and Jay, why isn't that enough to cover all bases? Your personal dislikes notwithstanding, do you have a valid reason to apply a different standard to removing templates than adding them? Once again, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus should be sufficient to cover all cases equitably, and I have still not heard a valid counter-explanation. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's you that keeps missing the point, Avi. It's not a question of consensus. The issue is that these templates cannot be imposed on an article if there is an objection, as with any style issue (a principle upheld by ArbCom). As Jay says, people don't turn up at articles with the sole intention of removing templates, but they do turn up with the sole intention of imposing them. Hence the wording, and there is no agreement here (or consensus) that it be removed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is covered by the last sentence, so why the redundancy? Further, per ArbCom rulings, the objections can only be used to revert the change if there is a pre-existing distinctive style for which either the addition or the removal of the template comprises a "change" to the citation style. The sentence there now does not make that clear. Removing it, however, leaves the last sentence as the clear guideline that any change against consensus is not allowed. So, once again, why leave it LESS clear? -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The "subject to agreement" wording has been in the guideline since 2004. It has served people well, because it means that the templates can't be imposed on articles over objections. This follows the approach of the ArbCom to style issues in general. To change it now could lead to pointless edit warring. Secondly, since 2004-5, the policy has said in general of citation style changes that, if there is disagreement, the style used by the first major contributor to use one should be respected. This is also in keeping with the ArbCom rulings. There is no need to change any of this wording now. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I must take issue with SlimVirgin's statement "The issue is that these templates cannot be imposed on an article if there is an objection, as with any style issue (a principle upheld by ArbCom)." [Emphasis added.] Suppose, for example, there is an article about a unit of measure that was in use in the U.S. and the U.K., but in 2011 the U.K. bans it. An editor asks on the talk page if it would be OK to change the spelling in the article to U.S. spelling, since the unit has become exclusive to the U.S., and nine editors agree, but one disagrees. According to SlimVirgin, the spelling in the article couldn't be changed. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It would depend on the article. In the case of spellings, the MoS says that there has to be a strong reason to change from BE to AE or vice versa e.g. the article is about an American, and the ArbCom ruled that people shouldn't arrive at articles for the purpose of making these changes. You can definitely find exceptions to all these rules, but the point is that editors arriving at pages to impose their style changes over objections is strongly discouraged. We went through a period of it in 2004-5 with various style issues, and it led to a lot of trouble; hence the wording here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the issue of style changes. I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to the most relevant ArbCom cases that you are aware of in this instance. Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerry, for getting my point :) Slim, "arriving at an article to make changes" when the article already has a distinctive style is covered by the last sentence. Where in the following text does there appear any license to force templates on an article:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them distracting when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and harder to edit. Because templates are optional and can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.

-- Avi (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, as has been pointed out, no-one goes around turning citation template references into normal references; but the opposite it unfortunately common. That's why the guideline has to specifically address it. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re ArbCom: The repeated vague allusions to previous ArbCom rulings are quite misleading (and it's not as if I haven't asked for further specific examples). I think there’ll only be incidents relating to true changes of citation style/format - i.e. in the proper sense of those terms - i.e. something that would render to the reader. What we're talking about with citation templates is a technique - i.e. a way of accomplishing a desired result. I'm not saying that no one is entitled to disagree with template use in given contexts, e.g. forcing inline use against consensus, but I do have an issue with continued attempts to bolster a wider argument with inapplicable inferences about precedents set by ArbCom rulings which simply have no bearing.

Re -"The "subject to agreement" wording has been in the guideline since 2004. It has served people well" - Appeals to tradition can be fallacious arguments at the best of times, but in this case it I think it's especially misleading. I haven’t looked at each of the 3000+ individual edits to the article since 2004, but I did see enough to suggest that, for example, for latter part of year 2005 (August onwards) and most of year 2006 there was no such wording included. Similar wording may have been in the separate Citation templates guideline, but away in a linked document it was arguably under the radar here. In any case, I don't see the stability that Slim suggests was there before this more recent discussion. From when the wording was reintroduced in August 2006 there are enough edits to suggest ongoing issues with its overall neutrality. And Slim's repeated sock-puppet accusations in reaction to my recent contributions are also quite telling, as they further suggest (among other things) a prior history of some dispute. Others in the past may have given up out of sheer frustration.

One or two editors presiding long-term (+ full-time) here shouldn't mean that others can't reasonably contribute. In this regard, even though I don't think Avi's proposed wording is as good as it could be (e.g. such as it referring to citation format rather than technique), and while I reserve the right to argue for further improvement, I do think Avi is at least asking direct and reasonable and questions that deserve direct and reasonable answers.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I'm glad that someone is finally admitting that the guideline, as it stands, is inequitable, partial, and biased against templates. I understand that statistically speaking, at least on the articles that you and Slim edit, you may find the proportion of changes more one way than the other. Speaking as a professional statistician, have you ever considered the fact that your observations are materially biased by selection? The articles you work on predominantly do not have templates, because of your and Slims predilections, so your collective negative experiences will be in regards to additions. For someone such as myself, who predominately uses templates, my negative experiences will be with removal. Be that as it may, the guideline must address both situations imaprtialy, fairly, equitably, and in an unbiased matter. Therefore, it must either discuss the addittion and removal simultaneously and BOTH can be removed with mere "objection", or, as I would prefer, and believe is in the spirit of wiki-policy, BOTH addition and removal must be subject to consensus - either overtly in the text, or more efficiently, in the suggestion I made above, which removes the inequitable and ambiguous sentence. The guideline, as it stands, is non-equitable, and thus improper and against policy--and thus must be changed. -- Avi (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the current text being biased one way or anther - it simply says that they are neither encouraged nor discouraged, and that the style shouldn't be changed unilaterally. Can someone point out to me where the biased part is? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The italicized sentence:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them distracting when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and harder to edit. Because templates are optional and can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.

The current wording allows one editor to come to an article, claim an "objection" and start removing templates. Why is it not subject to consensus like everything else. I prefer the following wording:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them distracting when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and harder to edit. Because templates are optional and can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.

Which is exactly the same but without the unfair sentence, so EVERYTHING is subject to consensus, and ANY change against a specific existing style is covered. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

"no-one goes around turning citation template references into normal references" - Not only is this claim untrue, it is demonstrably untrue. In fact, no lesser an editor than SlimVirgin goes around and turns an article's citation template references into 'normal' references only an hour or so after Jayjg's post above - see this comparison of previous with revision as of 03:13, 8 February 2008.

Here the citation templates were not even being used inline. They were sitting in a separate References section. The article was using short footnotes.

Replacing short footnotes with longer freehand full citations in the article text, as Slim has done, clearly blows out of the water any pretence that it is templates interfering with the article text that is their real reason for removal.

So do we just have to accept that a few stubborn editors simply find citation templates annoying in any context and there'll be no reasoning with them?

--SallyScot (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back. Thank you for pointing out specific examples of apparent hypocrisy. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, still objecting to the "can be contentious" wording, which is prejudicial and was added only recently. I personally dislike cite templates and rarely use them, but there is no doubt that they are used in the majority of featured articles, enjoy widespread support on Wiki, and there is no reason for this guideline to contain unwarranted and unfounded bias against them. Better would be to get them standardized. By the way, I'm also still noticing an inappropriate section heading on this page, here. Per talk page guidelines, section headings shouldn't be personalized. Please adjust before it is archived (whether the accusations in that section even belongs on this page is another issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Templates, like British spelling, can be used with the agreement of other editors. Like British spelling, once templates are established, they shouldn't be removed. If that is not the way that the sentence in question reads, the sentence in question should be removed. I'll do that, and try to improve that Sandy is concerned about ("can be contentious"). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
PS I also copyedited the second paragraph some. I think it is still not as clear as it could be, but I would need to make more significant changes in order to clarify. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way you have it now oldid=190015153 makes it very clear that someone should not come in and start changing everything to template form if the established article style and consensus is not to use templates, and, vice versa, someone should not come in and remove all of the templates if the established article style and consensus is to use them. -- Avi (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

But could we not have this?

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them distracting when used inline in the text, arguing that they make the text harder to read in edit mode and harder to edit. Given the diversity of opinion, editors should not change citations from one method to another without establishing consensus.

What I'm thinking is that rather than saying templates "can be the subject of disagreement" the phrasing "given the diversity of opinion" is more encouraging of some notions of tolerance. Editors may be encouraged to think more along the lines of agreeing to differ, instead of just finding a subject on which they simply must always disagree.

--SallyScot (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like that. And not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but keep open the following idea. Someone somewhere (don't remember) once discussed writing a bot to convert templates to manual citations, since templates chunk up the article size so much. If this ever happens, I'd want to be able to establish talk page consensus to undo cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I like that wording too. Wdfarmer (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Slim reverted Carl's removal of the "subject to agreement" phrasing with the edit summary comment ""subject to agreement" has been here since 2004, and there's clearly no consensus to remove it" (22:06, 8 February 2008). I posted my "Given the diversity of opinion" edit (as above), but Slim reverted within 16 minutes, with edit summary comment "there's no consensus to remove this; see talk page objections" (11:18, 9 February 2008). I'm sorry, but this seems to me to be largely a dismissal of others opinions, with Slim incessantly repeating "there's clearly no consensus", while making no real effort to actually work towards one. --SallyScot (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On adding and removing templates

I'd like to refocus the discussion a little, starting with the principle behind the wording here. Does everyone agree or disagree with: an article should not be converted from not using templates to using them without agreement, and should not be converted from using them to not using them without agreement? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it has to be with the agreement of the editors on the page. This is the part SallScot and Avi seem to want to remove, because they want to be able to arrive at a page and try to drum up consensus to force change. But this policy has always upheld that the first contributor to use a particular style has to be respected in the case of disagreement (assuming that the style isn't deprecated or used improperly).
Secondly, I disagree with the attempt to create parity. The templates are widely regarded as a nuisance. No one else called an ordinary citation a nuisance. They add bulk to pages. They are completely unnecessary. They often introduce inconsistency. So I oppose any attempt to make them sound as though they're as unproblematic as writing out refs in the normal way. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This page doesn't say anything about the style being deprecated or used improperly - it says that any style is acceptable. I don't think, from my reading of the proposals, that anyone is proposing that the style can be changed without approval.
Could you provide some evidence for the assertion that the templates are regarded as as nuisance? For example, is it common for featured articles to use them? The position you are taking there seems to contradict common practice, in that removing templates is equally as improper as adding them (without agreement). I doubt that a discussion on the village pump would demonstrate consensus for or against templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I have no intention of arriving at existing pages and forcing unwanted change. - If anyone, it's Slim who can't really say the same. The issue that I and a number of other editors have taken with the supposed 'long standing' version of the wording is with the now out in the open disagreement with the attempt to create parity. A first pass reading of the idea that templates may be used "at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement," might sound reasonable enough, given the closing sentence with its boldface part which could be read as a clarification about consensus. However, when editors such as myself, Avi, Carl, Boracay Bill, Random832, Wdfarmer, Sandy Georgia and Gerry Ashton have all posted comments suggesting that the wording perhaps could be improved, it becomes more apparent what the real motivation is for keeping it. The lengthy discussions here may be a pain, but they are at least flushing out that underlying bias.
Now, anyone who holds the opinion that there ought not to be parity, because they think templates are a nuisance or whatever, is quite entitled to that view, but really, if you want to "oppose any attempt to make them sound as though they're as unproblematic as writing out refs in the normal way", or however you want to put it, then you ought to make that case and get the consensus you need for that change. And let me say, if a consensus did emerge that template usage ought to be deprecated then I would abide by it. But my understanding of the current position is that their use is neither encouraged or discouraged, and therefore that's what the guideline wording should reflect.
As it stands, it looks as though a minority of stubborn editors are making very little real attempt to work toward consensus and are instead attempting to win a content dispute largely through brute force. This tactic may have had past success, but it's not how Wikipedia should work, and it sets a bad example for talk page conduct and issue resolution in general.
--SallyScot (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the following:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates are optional and can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.

Firstly, adding "or removed" creates the parity we are looking for. Secondly, there is no reason to specify why some people like them and others do not. De gustibus non est disputandum; why I like them or Jay dislikes them is irrelevant. An article that does not have them should not be forced to have them; an article that does have them should not be forced to remove them. How can anyone argue with that? -- Avi (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One nuance on which there has been edit-warring is "subject to agreement" vs. "unless against consensus", the two of which have very different meanings. I may have started (perhaps restarted) this warring with *this 04:11, January 18, 2008 revision.

  • SlimVirgin quickly reverted that with here.
  • That lasted until changed back by SallyScott in this 05:47, January 18, 2008 revision.
  • That was quickly reverted by SlimVirgin with [here].
  • That lasted until this 00:21, January 22, 2008 SallyScott edit.
  • That was quickly reverted here by SlimVirgin.
  • That lasted until this SallyScott edit, saying "as per discussion".
  • That was quickly reverted here by SlimVirgin.

... and that "subject to agreement" wording persists in the current version. I may have missed a cross-reversion or two in the foregoing — I did it quickly.

Can we have a to-the-point discussion about this? Having (I think) started this series of reversions on this nuance, let me explain my thinking:

  1. WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy. I think that it is more than presumptuous for a guideline to be using language which dictates to editors what they may do and what they may not do.
  2. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The concept of "Subject to the agreement" is not. I have a very hard time accepting the concept of giving any individual editor on a page the ability, by withholding agreement, to block a change by another editor. Barring a consensus against a within-policy change of this type (e.g., putting a non-templated citation on a page which mostly uses templated citations), the change should be allowed.

What say? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty to discuss here. The motivation for the language here is the edit warring that has occurred in the post over issues like spelling, units (SI or imperial), cite styles, and other such things. Because of those, WP has developed a general principle that the level of agreement required to change stylistic things is higher than is ordinarily required. It's true that guidelines are particularly advisory, but in this case the idea the guideline needs to convey is that it should require great evidence of agreement among the editors on a page before changes are made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer leaving the standard at consensus. However, I understand the issues that CBM has raised and would agree to "subject to agreement" if and only if all sides are treated equitably. We cannot have the case where templates are removed because one user "disagrees" but cannot be added because although there is agreement there is not "consensus". That is patently unfair and against the wiki spirit. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with much of what's being said, but one thing I think it's worth stressing is that the other issues, such a US v UK spelling, SI or imperial units, for which 'style' parallels are being drawn, - they're all things which render to the reader. I'd say the use of citation templates should be more properly a thought of as technique, or a method perhaps. I feel it's important that there should be parity, but also that there's no reason why freehand and template citations can't happily coexist in most articles. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project after all. Maybe some editors need to get more used to the idea that different people can go about things in different ways. So, rather than flag waving template usage as necessarily contentious, I'd like to see a wording which if anything encourages the accommodation of the different approaches where possible. --SallyScot (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If an article has well-established referencing without templates, additional references probably also should not use templates, for the sake of consistency in the article source code. I don't think there's any benefit in looking for rhyme or reason in why some people like templates and some don't; the goal is simply to minimize the amount of switching back and forth. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
SallyScott makes an important point here. I've noticed this and reflected on it previously, but don't recall having remarked on it. The point is that the brit vs. us spelling and english vs. metric units examples she mentions impact what readers of the article see, while templated vs. free-hand citations mainly impact article editors, not article readers. If impact on presentation to the reader is to be considered (and it not only should be considered but reader impact consideration should trump editor impact consideration, IMHO), templated citations have some distinct advantages:
  • they allow citation presentation style regularization via presentation style regularization between templates.
  • such regularization applies immediately to existing articles without the need for re-editing the articles.
  • WP-wide citation presentation style guidelines (e.g. on element bolding, element italicizing, element parenthesizing, element order, element separator punctuation, etc. — should consensus on such ever emerge) could easily be applied to templated citations without article re-editing.
However, the discussion here should be about whether editors need to seek agreement before using templated vs. free-hand citations or whether it's an editor-choice item unless against consensus. I'm strongly of the opinion that it is (regardless of what this guideline may say) and should be (hence my arguing it here) a consensus matter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the opinion you expressed in the last paragraph is very common; there is a lot of precedent for avoiding problems with these style choices. As I keep saying, it's essentially useless to talk about the benefits or drawbacks of templates; neither is relevant to this discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Books

I got a question. How exactly should look like the source of a citation in Wikipedia if it is a book? Another question: Can (if yes - how) can I cite books, that are in other languages? Thanks--Lykantrop (Talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You can cite books in other languages the same as books in English, but be prepared to offer translations of key passages if someone asks you to -- and it's a good idea to offer translations in a footnote without being asked.
The simplest way to write a book citation is <ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. London: Name of Publisher, 2008, p. 1.</ref> SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An alternative style uses the {{cite book}} template. The citation for the same book would then be:
<ref>
{{cite book
  | last = Smith
  | first = John
  | authorlink = <!-- optional Wikilink to author's article -->
  | coauthors = 
  | title = Name of Book
  | publisher = Name of Publisher
  | date = 2008
  | location = London
  | language = <!-- the language the book is written in, if not English -->
  | pages = 1
  | url = 
  | doi = 
  | id = 
  | isbn = <!-- optional ISBN -->
 }}
</ref>
Wdfarmer (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a good illustration of the problem with templates. Compare the above with <ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. London: Name of Publisher, 2008, p. 1.</ref> SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

--

The template usage above illustrates some optional fields, for example the inclusion of ISBN reference. If the information is not available, the parameters can be omitted. So for a like for like comparison with freehand...

<ref>{{cite book
| author    = Smith, John
| date      = 2008
| title     = Name of Book
| location  = London
| publisher = Name of Publisher
}}</ref>

--SallyScot (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The actual merits or faults of templates, like the merits or faults of British spelling, aren't particularly important. It's a distraction to worry about them, since the guideline simply has no preference one way or the other. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Sourcing

I can't find the answer to this anywhere I look. If we use the same source multiple times in the same article, how can we source it without linking to it over and over? Meaning I referenced XYZ.com 4 times throughout the page, linking to the same page, and not all in a row. Do I have to have all the refs in the page (I have a good 20 or so for a small page because of it) or is there a way to cut down and link to the same one? 137.142.181.179 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you can use the same ref multiple times by writing, the first time:
<ref name=Smith>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. London: Name of Publisher, 2008.</ref>
and then every time thereafter:
<ref name=Smith/> SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tools

I've made a simple bookmarklet that helps to create formatted citations. You can find it here, with a description and example usage. Much lower-rent than Zotero, but I find it frustrating when Zotero won't extract perfectly good metadata. I don't want to blow my own horn by adding it to the list of tools straight away, since I don't know if anything like this already exists (I couldn't find anything quite like this), or if anyone else would find this useful. Feel free to have a play with it, and if you think its worthwhile, add it to the page. --Bazzargh (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bazzargh, thanks for that information. You might also want to post to Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

(moved from user talk)
I like the changes you've been making to WP:CITE, except the one about 3RR. That page doesn't otherwise mention 3RR at all, so it's a non sequitur to suddenly talk about something not being a 3RR violation. It seems better for the 3RR page to talk about 3RR, and the CITE page to talk about citing sources. Readers are already directed to BLP for more information, as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to let people know that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious BLP material must be removed immediately by anyone, and are not limited by 3RR. Some people may be under the wrong impression that they are. We don't need to get into the intricacies of 3RR, except to say they don't apply in this case. Crum375 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If we simply say to remove the material, that seems clear. We don't want to get into the intricacies of 3RR here. I prefer to see these guidelines remain mostly independent of each other, so that there is less danger of having to interpret different people's paraphrases of the same policy. (As an example, there are far too many pages that try to paraphrase WP:V but fail to have the nuanced language of the actual policy). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If we simply say to remove the material, many people would assume that the removal is restricted by 3RR, which it is not. Our goal here is to help them, not to send them down the hall for every detail, so we tell them: this removal is not limited by 3RR. I see no harm in telling them that, it is factual, and I see lots of people reading this and benefiting by realizing this point. And if some of them end up removing improper BLP material that they wouldn't have done without this information, Wikipedia benefits. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Carl; when instructions are spread across different pages, the instruction creep means more pages need to be synced. Better to just link to that as a further info template at the top of the section, which is exactly what was done here when I wanted explanation of copyright issues under Convenience links. If ya'll change your mind, then please reinstate the copyvio info under Convenience links as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't "instruction creep." We just tell people that we take the citation requirement for BLP very seriously, and that if there is improperly sourced BLP material, to remove it, with no 3RR limit. I see no harm in letting them know that, with lots of potential benefits to Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We also take copyright violations seriously, but that info was deleted here and included as a further template instead. Let's be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right, and this issue has to do with the BLP section, that already says, in bold lettering, that violations must be removed immediately, by anyone. To explain that this is not limited by 3RR is important, since a lot of people are not aware of that, and any time someone removes a BLP violation, Wikipedia wins. This is our goal here. Crum375 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The guideline does already say that poorly sourced BLP edits should be removed immediately, so I see no harm in adding that 3RR doesn't apply, though it should perhaps be qualified that people need to be sure there's a BLP violation involved. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a large number of things we could get into on this page, but it isn't intended to be a summary of everything related to verification. I feel issues about policies should be left to the relevant policy pages, rather than repeatedly summarized in various guidelines. The problem with the summaries is that they tend to have a different connotation, or lack the nuance of the main policy page. It also leads to a maintainability problem; as consensus changes on BLP, there should be only one page that needs to be updated to reflect that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: ""Removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, in compliance with the BLP policy, is not subject to the Three-revert rule."
This is only one sentence, it affects nothing else in the guideline, it changes nothing, and it explains what people can do if they find uncited material in BLPs, unlike in any other article. There's no different connotation, no lack of nuance. That consensus is extremely unlikely to change in BLP, which is one of the most stable of our policies. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If it changes nothing and affects nothing else, there what's the benefit in including it here? It appears to me to be an encouragement for edit warring, without the benefit of the context provided by the full BLP document. I feel that keeping policy documents generally independent is important, both for the sake of clarity and for the sake of maintenance. Sandy pointed out a different instance where material covered in a different policy was removed from this page, and asked for consistency. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The copyright sentence was removed because the way Sandy wrote it suggested editors had to determine what was and wasn't a copyright violation before linking to anything. Someone else objected, so it was removed. But this 3RR sentence is very straightforward. Which parts of the context in the BLP policy do you feel are needed to understand it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The page leaves unstated the general fact that repeatedly removing unsourced information in general is subject to the three revert rule. Only stating the exception, without stating the general rule, omits the context that in general editors should not be crossing the 3RR rule. (2) The BLP policy explains in some detail the type of removal that is not subject to the three revert rule; among other things, the material must be contentious. It's the role of the BLP policy to try to explain what that means (it doesn't do a good job of that right now, but eventually it will). We don't want to try to also explain what it means here. (3) We don't want to do that here because it isn't the role of this page o explain why things need source, or when they need a source, only how to source them - that's what the nutshell says. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Carl, which part of "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, in compliance with the BLP policy, is not subject to the Three-revert rule" is unclear or requires further context? Crum375 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(←) See (1) and (2) in my previous comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence specifically says contentious — this addresses your points in both (1) and (2). Crum375 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The BLP policy gives much better explanation, however, and when it is edited to clarify what is meant by contentious this page will be out of sync. That is the maintenance issue that I have been referring to. (c.f. my point (3) above).
I don't see any maintenance required here. We already say, just before, that contentious BLP material must be removed immediately by anyone. There is no additional definition of contentious that I am aware of in BLP, and in any case, we are already using the term here. Crum375 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely - when a definition is added to BLP, it will be out of sync here. That's the maintenance issue - we don't want to have to remember all the pages to change when we are discussing changes to BLP. There are lots of policies that interact with sourcing, but we should avoid paraphrasing them all here, since the role of this guideline is only to describe how to cite sources, not when or why they should be cited. The question of when unsourced material may be removed without violating 3RR is several steps removed from the question of how to cite sources, not directly related at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I am not following. We use the term "contentious material" already in the paragraph, and tell people to remove it (when improperly sourced) immediately, on sight. Why is there any "sync" issue by adding the fact that removal is not limited by 3RR? And in any case, we say "per BLP" in the same sentence. I don't see how explaining to people that the removal we are asking them to do is unrestricted by 3RR is adding any new burden. Our goal is to explain things to people, not to hide or send them looking elsewhere, and this is an important point, that hopefully will result in more people removing improperly sourced material, a win for Wikiepdia. Crum375 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We have "Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" right at the top for users to learn the details; nothing is being hidden. On the other hand, BLP removals are a particular and special case, not something to be done lightly. I'm concerned about naive users who will start removing things "per WP:CITE". We don't want to set things up to encourage that. The language here is already stretched away from the goal of being a style guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can work out a compromise on this and the template usage language at the same time? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how these issues are related. Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
They are related only in that they are both topics where a compromise is needed to move things forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Compromise is needed for virtually any edit on Wikiepdia; I fail to see how these two issues are related any more than to any other issue. Crum375 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion toward a compromise - I would be more amenable to the 3RR language if we pointed out that although unsourced facts may be removed, it's better not to do so without discussion, to give others a chance to source them. That would give some context to the note that 3RR doesn't apply to BLP pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is related to the BLP issue or the BLP section. I do believe that we encourage people to find citations where possible, and if non-contentious claims appear reasonable, though improperly sourced, we also encourage them to discuss rather than remove the material. If you think that this needs bolstering in this guideline, go ahead and propose a change. Crum375 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem a little obtuse to be allowed to tell people they must remove poorly sourced material from BLPs immediately, and then not be allowed to tell them they may do it more than three times. And Carl, no, the point is precisely that there should be no discussion when it comes to material like that. We can't contradict BLP here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course we don't want to contradict BLP, but that doesn't mean we must repeat it, either. The downside of my proposal is that it would take this page ever farther from its purpose of being a style guideline, not a content policy. You're right that we don't really need to be as verbose in BLP section as we are - the language really belongs in WP:BLP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Details of BLP belong in BLP, but if we tell people in the BLP section of this guideline that they must immediately remove improperly sourced contentious BLP material, we need to tell them they are not limited by 3RR, as that's a critical bit of information for them. Crum375 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Since they would have to know about the 3rr policy to be worried about whether it applies here, and we don't otherwise mention the 3rr policy, they would already have had to read the 3rr policy to understand what we're saying. But they would have learned that 3rr doesn't apply to BLP removals from when they read the 3rr policy in the first place. So if we aren't explaining or even mentioning 3rr otherwise, we don't need to mention exceptions to it here. You haven't addressed my main concern - that we should leave content advice to content policies, and stylistic advice to style guidelines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, if we take your advice, then we should not tell the user, as we do now, that BLP violations must be removed immediately by anyone, in bold lettering. Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not lobbying to remove all references to BLP entirely, but I think that text summarizing BLP should be kept brief. Somehow, over time, quite a bit of redundancy about dealing with unsourced material has slipped in here. That doesn't mean that more is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really simple: if we tell them to immediately remove, in bold lettering, any BLP violation, then we need to explain it's not limited by 3RR. Otherwise, we'd be misleading them by providing partial information. So in a way I agree with you: either we stick to style issues only, or we give BLP advice. If it is the latter, it has to be correct. Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being too all-or-nothing there. In any case, the language here is correct- if they literally follow the advice here without knowing about 3rr it would be fine, because as you are pointing out 3rr won't apply to the removals. Even if they had no idea about the 3rr policy, it wouldn't make a difference, because 3rr doesn't apply. That's why I don't see the text here as incorrect or misleading in a significant way. Indeed, it seems to have remained essentially unchanged since 2006-8-5 when it was added by SlimVirgin [7] and hasn't caused a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing citation style on Citation

See the history of Citation. Is there text in this guideline that supports SlimVirgin's position? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl, can you explain why you just went on the admins IRC channel to try to drum up support for this? That is a misuse of that channel, exactly the kind of thing that has caused a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Strike the question. I complained to a channel op instead. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Since that is somewhat resolved, could you point out the section of this guideline that authorizes changing the citation style of an article after one is established? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but doesn't this version establish a precedent? Gimmetrow 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that shows footnotes as the established style, and that's what I used.
But that point aside, any style established or reverted to has to be supported by this guideline, and if it's not, then of course it can be changed. Otherwise we're saying anything goes. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The guideline goes out of its way to say that any citation style is acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The citation style shouldn't be changed over objections if one has been established, but the one you're talking about was a mish mash of styles that isn't mentioned in this guideline as an acceptable style. The style used has to make sense, and should be included in this guideline. Otherwise, anyone could add anything, and we'd never be able to change it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're replying to me, the version I linked had a single footnote. Gimmetrow 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a single reference like that particularly "establishes" a style. The article has had references on and off since 2004 (for example, the reference you linked was present in Sep 2007 with a second reference that was removed before Feb 2008: [8]). The first edit to significantly implement references was [9]. The first edit with references at all, back in 2004, didn't have footnotes [10]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Carl, the first inline citation style to be used was footnotes.
I find this disturbing. Citation was in a mess (poor writing, with lots of personal opinions and few sources), and I'm in the process of tidying it. That process is being disrupted by Avi and Carl turning up to revert as a WP:POINT, because they think (wrongly) that I changed the citation style, against the position I'm arguing here. Avi reverted everything -- citation style and the copy edit -- baby and bathwater.
Then Carl goes on the admins' IRC channel to try to find more people to oppose me. But neither of them does a single thing to improve the page, or even discusses improving the page. Neither of them has ever edited it before, and almost certainly neither of them cares about it.
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. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The first citation style was a list of references at the end; I'm not sure why you're looking to wikilawyer over it, but the title of the section is 'Citation styles' not 'Inline citation styles'. I'm sure the first inline citation style was inline external links [11], but nobody is advocating returning to that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not, Carl? If you want to insist that we stick to the letter of this guideline, so that no one is ever allowed to improve an article, then why not return to embedded links? I am done discussing this with you here. This behavior is really unacceptable. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(←) The spirit of our practice of not changing established style is precisely that, although everyone feels they are improving an article when they do it, editors shouldn't unilaterally change article styles. In this case, the case that the article improved from the changes seems to be a matter of individual preference. Regarding my behavior, I encourage you to use my talk page for personal discussions with me. This is also a response to the comments below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 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)

SlimVirgin wrote above "The citation style shouldn't be changed over objections if one has been established, but the one you're talking about was a mish mash of styles that isn't mentioned in this guideline as an acceptable style. The style used has to make sense, and should be included in this guideline" [emphasis added]. I really don't care who you're refers to, but I would like to know which version of Citation one refers to, because I would like to know what SlimVirgin's idea of a mish mash is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stability

Would people please bear in mind that this is a guideline and needs to be stable to some degree? When there are multiple strong objections to changing wording that's been there since 2004, the way to proceed is not to keep on reverting to the changes. Two of the editors engaged in this are experienced enough to know better. By all means continue to talk about it, but please don't just keep deleting those words when some of us are saying we strongly object. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One would expect all editors involved to "know better". In particular, prompt reverts aren't going to help anything. Perhaps the page should be protected and mediation started? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You can start mediation if you want, but the removal of that wording despite all the objections isn't appropriate on a guideline or a policy, especially when that wording has been there for such a long time, without any problem. Why is there a rush to remove those words now, when they've been there for over three years? Has something happened somewhere that I'm not aware of? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The motivations are being discussed in the relevant section higher on this page, where you haven't commented since Feb. 6 and Crum hasn't commented at all. If you don't wish to discuss the issue, that's fine, but simply reverting while avoiding the discussion won't resolve the issue. The main point of mediation would be to encourage dialogue.
By the way, I don't see how your "don't change over objections" argument fits with the edit history this morning of WP:BLP, where you reverted twice over someone else's objections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Carl, as I noted in my edit summary, this is long standing wording, and it should not be changed over objections. We strive to maintain stability in policies and guidelines, and one way of doing that is by ensuring that we reach broad consensus before changing wording that has been there for a long time. Crum375 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please join the conversation higher on the talk page. The discussion has progressed quite a bit since the last objections were given there. Perhaps you can suggest a different wording.
It is neither policy nor practice that consensus must be reached first on policy edits; you know this, as you made numerous changes to this policy yourself yesterday, You also reinserted text about the 3RR over objections noted higher above. Per your argument that changes should not be made over objections, would you please remove that sentence until it has broad consensus for inclusion? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus needn't be sought in advance if the changes aren't controversial, but when you know there are multiple objections and people are reverting your changes, you can't just keep on reinserting them. That wording has been there since 2004. You need strong consensus to remove it, and you don't have that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out, the 3RR wording had clear objections, above, but was reinserted. Would you please remove it until it has broad consensus? Permitting that edit to remain while removing those of SallyScot gives the appearance of page ownership.
I find the strength of your argument about not repeating edits is somewhat undermined by your own edits on WP:BLP this morning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I removed a change that someone had made. Policies and guidelines need to be stable and consistent. Someone had changed BLP so that the text disagreed with the lead. I restored the text so that it agreed with the lead. Why would you misrepresent that, Carl? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to misrepresent your edits, and I don't think you are trying to misrepresent mine. I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say you were engaged in a revert war on WP:BLP, however. I'm going to try to refocus the discussion on the matter at hand, higher above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please recognize the difference between someone reverting in order to restore old wording to a policy that someone has changed to make it internally inconsistent, which is what I was doing there, and someone reverting in order to restore their changes over objections, which is what you were doing here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It would have been simple enough to contact the other editor at WP:BLP, or use the talk page as was suggested. Desire to restore the old version is no justification for repeated, rapid reverting (and the repeated reverts of the other editor on WP:BLP were also inappropriate).
In any case, I have started a new subsection above to see whether there is general agreement on the principles, before we move on the language. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, thank you for removing the 3RR language while it is being discussed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR sentence

Carl is objecting to the guideline saying, in the BLP section: "Removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, in compliance with the BLP policy, is not subject to the Three-revert rule."

What are your objections exactly? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See the above section Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#3RR, where I'll comment again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR (2)

Can someone explain to me why this belongs in the page about how to write citations? I could see putting it in WP:V, for example, but in the style guide? —Random832 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section #3RR above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pulling citations

I have a case where an editor removed a citation because the link was dead. I replaced the link using the wayback machine but the other editor insists on removing the reference. I thought that we always wanted to retain a reference no matter how poor the reference is. The article is Pahute Mesa Airstrip if anyone wishes to comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We do accept the wayback machine as a way to overcome dead links, see this. However, the source must otherwise be a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES. Crum375 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your specific example, it seems the source in question is a public forum, which is not a reliable source, hence the wayback aspect is academic, and its removal is clearly warranted. Crum375 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that as long as it was used we needed to retain the citation. Meeting WP:RS was not the deciding factor. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps cite an alternative source for the info. this one is already cited elsewhere in the article, and several others are mentioned. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shortened notes

Shortened notes

When footnotes are used, some editors find it helpful to maintain a separate "References" section, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have a lot of footnotes, it can become hard to see which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes contain explanatory text. A References section may help readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

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, and perhaps the title, but without the full citation.

Example edit:

The Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller 2005, p.23.</ref>
but the Moon is not so big.<ref>Brown 2006, p.46.</ref>
The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>Miller 2005, p.34.</ref>
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
== References ==
*Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
*Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

Example rendered result:

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

Notes

  1. ^ Miller 2005, p.23.
  2. ^ Brown 2006, p.46.
  3. ^ Miller 2005, p.34.

References

  • Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
  • Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

Note how each full reference is only listed once, but can be cross-referred to multiple times from the shortened notes, for example for different page references.


I propose changing the title of the section Maintaining a "References" section in addition to "Notes" to the snappier version, with new worked example included, as shown above.

I haven't changed the paragraph content, but the rambling old title, with its scary quote marks and all, makes it look rather as if the approach had been largely made up on the hoof.

It's like as if the current Footnotes section were instead called Putting <ref> tags around cited material in the article text so that they appear in a list at the bottom of the page.

Shortened notes are in fact a quite well-established referencing method, mentioned in the Citation article, and supported with links to university citation guides such as Yale University[12] and the University of Maryland.[13]

This guide clearly identifies the constituate elements for example.

I thought I'd post here in discussion for feedback and comment first though. Subject to any reasonable counterarguments, I'll update the project page, say, Monday 18th February perhaps.

--SallyScot (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of shortened notes, I think this is a good idea. I only recommend that the description also mention the alternative form (common in the humanities) where the short reference is in the form Author, Short Title; rather than Author, Date. Using the alternative form, the resulting notes would read:
1. Miller "Size of the Moon", p.23.
2. Brown The Sun, , p.46.
3. Miller "Size of the Moon", p.34.
Of course, editors should follow whatever form has been established in existing articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For an earlier discussion of this see the archived discussion of Short footnotes with alphabetical bibliography. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Many thanks for the feedback Steve. That's a fair point about the alternative form. I will include mention of them.

I wasn't intending to change the existing paragraph wording too much at this stage. You'll see I've included a point about how each full reference is only listed once, but can be cross-referred to multiple times from the shortened notes for different page references. However, for later inclusion, I was also going to mention of course that shortened notes do not interfere with the article text anywhere near as much as does including full references in footnotes (i.e. full references within <ref> tags).

This leads me on to the observation that the vast majority of style guides out there are principally intended for printed articles. In these we are told that shortened notes appear at the bottom of each individual page of the article on which the in-text references to them are made. The bibliography of full references, alphabetised by author name, only appears at the back.

It strikes me that one of purposes of shortened notes being on individual pages in a printed paper article is so that the reader can easily see something meaningful, without having to flick pages back and forth to and from the bibliography at the end.

In a web-based article this is not a consideration, and what we have here is the Notes and References section at the bottom of the webpage sitting right next to each other.

This is just my personal view (and I agree that editors should not change established formats against consensus), but, in our web-based context, I think sometimes that shortened notes which also include the book/article titles in them can appear so similar to full references that they look slightly confusing and somewhat redundant appearing immediately next to them.

--SallyScot (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a link from the shortened note to the full reference. There are ways to do this without templates, but the methods are not documented and might frighten new editors. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, there used to be a version including wikilinks similar to that below, but it got reverted. I suppose it might frighten new editors.

Wikilink example edit:

The Sun is pretty big,<ref>[[#refMiller2005|Miller 2005]], p.23.</ref>
but the Moon is not so big.<ref>[[#refBrown2006|Brown 2006]], p.46.</ref>
The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>[[#refMiller2005|Miller 2005]], p.34.</ref>
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
== References ==
*<cite id=refBrown2006>Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).</cite>
*<cite id=refMiller2005>Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.</cite>

Example rendered result:

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

Notes

  1. ^ Miller 2005, p. 23.
  2. ^ Brown 2006, p. 46.
  3. ^ Miller 2005, p. 34.

References

  • Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
  • Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.


Perhaps the project page could future develop a Further considerations section for those who might want to take things a little further.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You should make a separate page on the internal-link method. Gimmetrow 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sally,
Nice example on how to make links from notes to references; it definitely belongs here somewhere. Your idea of a further considerations section sounds good (although a title Linking notes to references would be more informative). I imagine you saw it as a subsection of the planned Shortened notes section. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

remove "general references" from this page

I would like to propose that we eliminate the section outlining "general references" from the 'how to cite sources' section. The primary reason for this is that wikipedia, as a whole, has seem to gone in the direction of directly citing sources using the inline citation method, and these so-called "general references", are really not used much (if at all), in the later stages of article development (GA, FA). I also strongly believe that the use of a reference that 'supposedly' backs up or cites an "entire article" is not very compatible with the format of our encyclopedia, that "anyone can edit." For example, while such a reference might be useful fairly early in the article's development, as it develops and more content is added by more people, the content rapidly diverges away from being cited by that one source (or a few sources), and it's impossible to determine which material came from which source (if multiple "general references" are used).

It should also be pointed out that, for the verifiability requirements of the GA & FA processes, these "general references" will simply not pass the test, and any reviewer with even half a brain will demand inline citations. When I review articles for GA/FA, if I see a subsection entitled "general references", I always ask that they either be converted to inline format, to cite the material directly, or be moved to a 'further reading' section, which doesn't require the use of inline citations and are simply other sources and books that can be used to gain additional information on a subject. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming that "general refences" never, under any circumstances whatsoever, satisfy WP:V? Gimmetrow 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
General references are ideal for sources that are well-indexed, or otherwise easy to navigate, which are used as the source for background information. If one were writing a somewhat advanced article on electricity, for example, it would handy to include a general reference that can be used to verify facts such as "electrons have a negative charge". Expecting an editor to search through the source to find what page number such basic information can be found on is an unreasonable imposition on the editor.
Now some might say that such facts need not be sourced at all unless they are challenged, which is true. But we certainly shouldn't tell editors they should not provide a general reference for such material. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The current language strikes me as better than your proposal. A general reference can often be useful in areas where a single work might support most of an article, and can save editors from spending time adding low-value inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem with general references! In an article with strict editorial controls, you can easily trace back information to the source(s) cited. But in a wikipedia where "anyone can edit", it's impossible to do so because it's impossible to determine the sources that every single editor used, unless you assume that everyone has the exact same library and books available to them, which is not the case. As articles are edited, their content naturally diverges away from their sources, as more and more edits are made by more and more people. So "general references" are just plain not compatible with Wikipedia, plain and simple.
It should also be pointed out that the only time you see such references professionally is generally in magazine articles where they're really just a listing of the sources used to by the author to write the article, and to provide extra resources for readers, like 'further reading'.
I also strongly object to general references because we already have two competing reference citations formats in use (e.g. there's the notes/references format, with inline cites followed by an alphabetical listing; but other articles simply just have references in inline format with no alphabetical listing after that. Adding the whole general references thing just makes wikipedia look like one big clusterfark.). Dr. Cash (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Cash wrote that general references for magazine articles are "really just a listing of the sources used to by the author to write the article." Yes, exactly. To me, a general reference is a source that one or more of the editors used for purposes such as making sure his/her memory of something unlikely to be challenged is accurate, or to see how another author presented material, to see if the same general approach might be good. Further reading is a source that would be helpful, but was not actually relied on in writing the article. A possible reason for listing a book as further reading instead of a reference is that it was published after the article was written. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
General references are very useful for readers who actually are interested in the "big picture" of the article, including many noncontroversial details. For example, many undergraduate physics texts would be good for Momentum. For topics like that, almost everything in the article will be covered by the textbook, so just reading that chapter of the textbook will verify the bulk of the material. On the other hand, quotes, facts with dates, and statements of opinions are more likely to warrant specific inline citations.
I also want to respond to Dr. Cash's comment about 'later stages of article development'. FA and GA are completely optional processes; there is no expectation that all authors are interested in participating in them, or that other guidelines should be changed because of desires of GA and FA reviewers. WP:V famously only requires inline citations for quotations and challenged facts. Uncontroversial facts are adequately cited through general references. For example, if a reader asked for a citation that momentum is a vector quantity, the best thing for them would be to find a good textbook and read the appropriate section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, "challenged or likely to be challenged" does not necessarily mean "challenged by an ignorant reader". If a non-controversial factoid can easily be found in the listed general refs, either because it's in any of them, or because it's obvious from the title which ones to look at, the general refs are sufficient. Gimmetrow 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with Dr. Cash's suggestion, at this point in Wikipedia's evolution. To remove tolerance of general references would instantly require citations in thousands of articles, many of them sound ones. The move to an inline-cited Wikipedia is challenging and will take a great deal of time. Each day I read articles that are well written and informative but which rely on general references. Where I have knowledge of a topic, I can sense very quickly whether an article is based on its general references or not; I find that they usually are. By and large, a list of general refrences is a good sign in an article. qp10qp (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly WHICH articles are you referring to?!?! Because the VAST MAJORITY of articles I see have inline citations, and no general references. Just because you claim that "Wikipedia thinks it's right" doesn't mean it is. In this case, you're totally wrong. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, that "VAST MAJORITY" you see must be a pretty limited subset of articles. Take a tour through the Random article link. I just tried ten articles, only two had any inline citations at all -- actually, those were the only ones that had any explicitly identified references -- the others were either unreferenced or had only an External links section, which can charitably be seen as a form of general reference. But of course that small sample does not represent the ideal, it only gives an indication of the actual state of things. Even among articles that contain inline references, these are often used only to support a few very specific details in the article -- uncontroversial information is often sourced with a general reference. I think it is unacceptable to instruct people to not use general references. While general references may not be in vogue amongst those operating the gauntlet of arbitrariness and peccadillo-hunting known as the FA process, that doesn't mean those standards are the best set of instructions for general editors. The thing is, we need to first of all encourage contributors to provide any references or sources at all. If in the overall process of article improvement, general references are replaced with in-line citations, that is just dandy. But I don't think there is any basis for removing mention of general references from this guidance. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your random article test is mainly an indication that there's a lot of work to be done in wikipedia! Most of my opinion is based on the reviews I see and the articles that pass the GA & FA processes, of which the majority of them favor inline citations, with 'general references' rarely, if ever, being used. Granted, I haven't done a very comprehensive survey on all GA/FA articles; I mostly base this on observations of participating in the processes over the last year or two. I suppose in an article's early development stages, these 'general references' could be used, so there probably not as bad as I think, but I still think that as the article develops on the road towards GA/FA, they should be mainly converted to inline citations (I have similar views on trivia sections). Dr. Cash (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see some more precise statistics on that, actually. Inline versus general is not a black-and-white divide; it's quite reasonable for an article to have both (a) sources which are cited directly and (b) sources which were consulted, but to which there are no inline citations. This is somewhat difficult to notice in articles that use short-form footnotes and an alphabetical full reference list, as it may not be immediately apparent that some of the sources don't appear in the footnotes. Kirill 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I performed a small sampling of six random good article from three selected categories, and found that three of the six used general references. More details are available. Fortunately, the case of shortened endnotes and an alphabetical reference of all sources did not occur, so I didn't have the problem pointed out by Kirill. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like for there to be more explicit discouragement of the use of general references, as part of support for discouraging use of generic tags that an article "incorporates text from" a specified or unspecified public domain text. Such generic tags are a form of general reference. Of course I mean really that i don't like the plagiarization of material from the public domain reference. (Not to argue about it, but it is one type of plagiarization to copy any phrases without putting into quotes. Wikipedia article on plagiarization is inadequate). The plagiarizing ought to be abolished, IMO. As a step towards that, discouraging general references in this article on Citing sources would be a help. Another would be a more specific tag which could be attached to articles that identified them as using general references which should be replaced by more specific ones. I participated in the somewhat heated discussion about plagiarism etc here not long ago; that discussion has been archived already. doncram (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't much agreement that there is any issue with us reusing free content; describing it as plagiarism is polemical and inaccurate. But this thread is not about that, in any case; if you want to discuss free content again, another thread would be warranted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't get into articles copied nearly verbatim from the public domain, that isn't the topic of this thread. It is relevant to point out that the criteria for accepting a citation technique is whether there are situations where it can be put to good use in Wikipedia. If you want to prohibit a technique just because it can be misused, go to the Wikipedia servers and pull the plug, because every writing technique can be misused. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to restart all the other arguments about use of public domain sources that do not relate to the specific topic of general referencing, and yes, use of the word plagiarism is polemical. Please ignore that if you like. But, "general referencing" is one aspect of articles that use the PD tags and "incorporate text from" a given site. The site is a general reference. I don't like that kind or other general referencing in articles I contribute to as an editor, because I believe it makes it difficult to keep track of what material is sourced by what reference. Or whether new, unsourced, New Original Research has crept in but is obscured by the general reference(s). I believe that use of General referencing can work for a moment in time, in properly enough documenting the state of an article, when the author with access to the general reference finishes adding material supported by it. But then when other editors contribute anything further, it is messy and works no longer; they can't tell what is supported and unsupported. Articles with general references aren't "scalable", is one way to put it, in my view. doncram (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

General reference datum

To try to get a feel to what extent a good book would use general vs. specific references, I looked at chapter 12, "Calenders", by L. E. Doggett. It is in the book Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, edited by P. K. Seidelman in 1992. I counted 39 entries in the reference list, excluding a personal communication and a work that was still in press. Of these, 24 were general, that is, they did not mention a chapter or page range. That's over 60 percent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a horrible example there, because in the link you provided, there were ZERO references. All it said was, "[to be added later]". Dr. Cash (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I own the printed book, and didn't notice that the references were omitted from the online convenience copy. The fact that a book chapter is not fully available online does not make it a horrible example. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis avoidance of redundant text

I think it should be noted that once a reference is added to the article, no duplicate of it needs to be written in the article itself. For instance, in human papilloma virus, for the reference nr 1 is a good example:

HPV infection is a necessary factor in the development of nearly all cases of cervical 
cancer.[1]

It doesn't have to say:

According to a study by Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV and Manos MM in 1999, HPV infection is a
necessary factor in the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. [1]

All such redundant text should be avoided. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would use the explicit attribution for things that that have been proposed but are not yet commonly accepted; it isn't redundant in that case, since it points out that the claim should only be taken as a proposal. I don't know enough about HPV research to evaluate the example, but I can give one: "Martin Davis has argued that Burgin's work does not disprove the Church-Turing thesis, describing some of Burgin's claims as "misleading" (Davis 2006, p. 4)." from Super-recursive algorithm. Here it is particularly important to identify in the text exactly who is making the claim, since it would be inappropriate for use to simply say "Burgin's claims are misleading." — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I get your point. The format of the reference in the article itself depends on the type of information. I think this dependence need to be described in this article, since there's often too long descriptions in many scientific articles, and probably often too short ones in many controversial subjects. How about this:

Reference description

Apart from the part of the reference at the bottom of the article, how much description the reference should have in the article itself depends on the subject. Generally, no further description is needed, for instance:

Water is a liquid in room temperature [2]

However, if the subject is controversial, the subject may need further description in the article itself, for instance (from Super-recursive algorithm):

Martin Davis has described some of Burgin's claims as "misleading" (Davis 2006, p. 4).

Here it is particularly important to identify in the text exactly who is making the claim, since it would be inappropriate for use to simply say "Burgin's claims are misleading."

How about this piece of information, with perhaps some further revision, into this article? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Need archiving

By the way, this article really needs archiving, since it takes aged to upload. Anybody disagree? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page has had automatic archiving supposedly set up for a few weeks.[14] Gimmetrow 07:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Split into sub-talkpages

This talkpage needs archiving, or anything to shorten it down. However, it's far too long and yet almost everything is written later than a month ago. So another solution would be to split the talkpage into sub-talkpages, in order to keep them from becoming enormous and hard to navigate. How about, for instance, the following categorization:

  • What to cite
  • Citation format
  • Others

Does anybody have further suggestions? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to archive as they see fit. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable?

As pointed out on its talk page, I would also like to know if that statement on {{Citations broken}} is accurate. Is it that if an article uses broken reference urls or outdated sources, those sources are deemed unreliable? « ₣M₣ » 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the statement ". . .uses citations that link to broken or outdated sources, and are deemed unreliable" is a good statement. First of all, outdated is not a black-or-white situation. Whether or not a source is so badly outdated that it is unreliable is a matter for a consensus of the editors to determine. Also, just because a link is broken does not mean it can't be fixed. The citation might describe a print version, which is still reliable even if an electronic verision is no longer available.
In summary, the wording of this template is terrible. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

scrolling lists?

if you're going to say that something shouldn't be used, you should probably mention what this thing is. because i certainly don't know. --dan (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is talking about boxes like that produced by Template:Scroll box. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing primary sources

Does an article on a topic need to cite the topic itself as a source? For example, if I write an article on Album X and include information like a track list and times, does a reference or citation for the album itself need to be explicitly included, or are we assuming users are smart enough to know that the thing itself might be worth consulting for information about the thing itself? —Torc. (Talk.) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily the work itself is not cited as a source, if only simple descriptive claims (like a track listing) are made. If there are complex claims (such as claims from the liner notes) then a reference might be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the reply. Would it be safe to assume that claims about personnel (assuming it was just the band lineup and there wasn't any doubt) wouldn't be considered a complex claim unless specifically challenged? I don't have a specific example in mind or any 'gotcha' situations like that; I'm just trying to get an idea where the threshold is. Basically I'm trying to figure out how much information can be given before the article has to be given a "References" section for a single entry that points back to the album itself. —Torc. (Talk.) 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on what I've seen, if the personnel are detailed in the liner notes and not challenged, you probably don't need to explicitly give the notes as as source. It would be the first thing anyone would look at to verify the information, anyway.
One rule of thumb for a threshold is that if an average person would find a particular fact surprising then it should be given a preemptive citation. If it is a simple matter of fact (such as the name of the producer of a typical album) then it is probably easy enough to verify without having any inline citation given. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as its own reference.

I'm sure I read a guideline stating that one article should not use another as a formal reference. I can't seem to find it at the moment. Can someone point me in the right direction? I assume the same applies between different language versions too. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The location of that has been something of a moving target. Currently it is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." Being in WP:V, it's a statement of policy, not a guideline. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it. Thank you. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Layout#"Notes" to bring Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings more in line with Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. This would encourage editors to combine Notes and References sections where appropriate and both guidelines could use work to improve existing practice and harmony with each other. Jeepday (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably the Layout page that should change, at least the one sentence that conflicts, since practical application is in line with this guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(coped to WT:Layout) "This guideline" being: "Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia are [Notes, Footnotes and References]". Agreed that the various style and guideline pages should at least agree on the names, even if there's disagreement over whether the list of names does a good job or not of describing practice. But to be fair, the proper naming of footnotes isn't a focus of current discussion at WT:Layout. The argument of the moment is whether current wording in MoS (See also comes first, External links comes last) or the current wording in LAYOUT is more accurate, and this article doesn't address that question. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Added one word, "printed"

"A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a printed page..." From context, it seems clear the sentence was trying to describe what a footnote is in general. Without the word "printed", it might have been misunderstood to mean that the Footnotes section, or an individual footnote, should come last on a Wikipedia page, which is not the case if there are External links. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerry reverted with the comment "Revert incorrect edit. Wikipedia has redefined the word footnote. In wikipedia, footnotes are endnotes. To fix this, the revisions must be MUCH more extensive." Agreed with his main point, but people sometimes have a question in mind, search for the relevant answer in a style guideline page, and then act on what they read, without reading everything else first to make sure they're not misunderstanding something. A reasonable reaction to reading only "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page" would be to put a footnote at the bottom of a page...yuck. How about changing "at the bottom" to "in the proper end section"? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please note that my style is to try to describe exactly what I'm thinking, thus, "people sometimes have a question...". There is no implication that this is an original idea or that Gerry didn't understand this. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My sense of the paragraph is that it is about notes in Wikipedia, not in general. I get this sense mostly because of the sentence "Footnotes are often used to add information that might be helpful to later fact-checkers, such as a quotation that supports your edit." [Emphasis added] The paragraph seems to be addressed specifically to a person who is editing Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but are we agreed that the sentence should not encourage people to put footnotes at the "bottom of a page"? Do you agree that "in the proper end section" is less likely to be misinterpreted? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think "in the proper end section" would be better. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Any disagreement? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not disagreement, but a comment from an underinformed non-academic. I don't find this here or in WP:GTL, which surprises me, but I've elsewhere seen discussions regarding article organization describe articles as containing several parts — two of which are the Body part containing article prose and the Endmatter part containing such items as Notes (containing footnotes, and sometimes referencing supporting material), References (sometimes named Bibliography, containing full citations of external material used in the preparation of the article), Appendicies, Recommended reading lists, Index(es?), etc. (WP:GTL calls WP's standard endmatter sections "Standard appendices and descriptions"). My understanding is that "endmatter" is a more-or-less standard term. If I've got that right, I'd suggest "article endmatter section" instead of "artcle end section". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

←"endmatter" only gets 6490 Google hits. There are many non-native-English readers of Wikipedia, so especially on style guidelines pages, we don't want to use words that are too uncommon. Is there anything else you like better than "end section"? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If not "endmatter section", "end section" will serve. Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic but I would still prefer "endmatter"; its not a hotbutton issue with me, though.
I'm not a big fan of this project page in any case — being of the opinion that it is both overly broad and less focused than it should be on describing (quoting from the lead sentence, with emphasis intact) how to write citations in articles. That's another topic for another day, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing a password protected site

Hello! I am wondering if there is a method of citing a password protected site, from which the information cannot be found elsewhere. The page I am aiming to use is a sub-site of the official page for a band (Dir en grey), and the page is only accessible to those who have a barcode obtained by purchasing the album. The site contains comments and notes on every song on their most recent album, The Marrow of a Bone, translated into English, which is (practically) impossible to find for any Japanese band. The article for the album could benefit from the boost in content if the page could be cited. I have already copied all of the information from the site (which is all in Adobe® Flash®) for personal reference when the sub-site is inevitably shut down. Any help would be appreciated! --Jacob Talk 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems fine to me; the site is reliable for the information being cited and not really any different in terms of accessibility from citing the album's liner notes, which would be a normal source for such info. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the response! I think the site may even be accesible after a direct link is placed. The site isn't very well protected (maybe intentionally, as it is promotional material). Nevertheless, it's better to be safe. Thanks again! --Jacob Talk 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles that need sources

Is there a list somewhere? I find when I am not helping out, I tend to participate in arguments, if anyone can point me in the correct direction, it should help someone else sleep better =) --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles lacking sources. --Bazzargh (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations and publisher

I just noticed that this says that citing the publisher of a book is optional. I would think the publisher of a book or article should always be included. Are there any objections to making publisher required? Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can think of two. First, I suspect that a large number of already-written citations don't include publishers, and the FA people might have issues if they were suddenly "required". Second, the publisher is often a very minor piece of information for locating the book being referenced. The ISBN is a much more useful piece of information in many cases, but it isn't required either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nowadays, it takes a few seconds to find out the publisher if you have identifying information about the book, so despite the rules I learned in school, it doesn't seem as important now to mention the publisher. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard a good explanation of why it was once standard to include the publisher and city of publication. Was it so that you could write the publisher directly to obtain a copy of the book? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that was the reason, it was like a URL, and you could go to the publisher in that city and get the book. There was a somewhat obscure math book i once needed, published by Marcel Dekker, Inc., of New York and of Basel, which was out of print or otherwise unavailable, and I found the best way to get it was to go to New York, go up to their offices in some building on Madison Ave, and ask the receptionist. doncram (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the origin of the rule, but knowing the name of the publisher sometimes helps in evaluating the reliability of the source. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Karanacs. The publisher is, at times, one of very few ways to distinguish between different editions of a cited book. ISBNs are a modern invention, essentially just keys to the actual data, and really shouldn't be considered a substitute for it; they are not even universally used by cataloguing systems. As Gerry Ashton pointed out, the publisher name is also an important clue when evaluating reliability of the source. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with everything Maralia says, but if we start requiring publishers for all cites, would you want that to apply to all future FA's, or all future articles, or all articles past and present? That's a lot of work. I don't think I've seen "Never volunteer someone else's time" as a guideline here, but it's a guideline I follow. I think people already shoot for "Always give enough information so that any other information, such as the publisher, can be found in a few seconds with a search". Are you saying that you see a lot of cites where not enough information is given to figure out who the publisher is? Can you give examples? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Because the written version of Wikipedia, Version 1.0, is coming, we can reasonably expect some discussion about how to make the written Wikipedia look more like standard written encyclopedias. I'll add "always list the publisher" to the list of things to talk about...thanks for bringing this up, guys. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an FA reviewer, and we always require that the publisher be included, primarily so we can evaluate the sources properly. That's my primary reason for suggeting this. Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What about very old material whose publisher is unknown? Requiring a publisher would not allow citation of things whose publisher is unknown. Would that also forbid using only a URL as a source? There will be a lot more deletion during RC Patrol then. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There are times when publisher information is useful and times when it is basically valueless. I don't think any hard rule is appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What if we change it to, if available, the publisher should also be included? Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I support having the same language for publisher and ISBN - either both "should" be included, both "may" be, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Policylist template

From WP:CREEP: "The fundamental fallacy of instruction creep is thinking that people read instructions." So true. In particular, people sometimes look at a graphic first and words second, or not at all, so I propose we remove the Policylist template from the top of this article, because generally, only articles that describe policy and not guidelines have it. I think whoever put it there had their heart in the right place, they were trying to graphically illustrate the differences, but my gut feeling is that it hurts more than helps. Opinions? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does no response mean that I can delete that template in a few days, or that people don't know what the heck I'm talking about? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The template is a legacy of the fact that this page used to be listed in the template. It also serves to indicate that the first half of this page is policy-like (and provides detail under WP:V) while the last half is a style guide. I like the fact that this is suggested because it is an important distinction. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it really clear which sentences are policy and which are guidelines? If it's not, shouldn't it be? That's just the sort of thing that tends to lead to misunderstandings. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a black-white distinction, so it's difficult to be 100% clear. But obviously the issues of what to cite are more important than the style issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if some policy wonk would join the discussion here. I agree with Christopher, people do look at this article and think that the top part is policy, and somewhere it kind of shades into a guideline. The WP:WPMoS project has a goal of clearing up everything that's muddy in the style guidelines, and doing it before we all grow old, so some kind of quick clarification would really be nice here. Someone who knows policy inside out mark the policy stuff as policy and the guidelines as guidelines, please. If no one responds here, I'll go ask for help at some policy wonk hangout, like WP:VPP. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of PD text style

We discussed this already at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive20#Style guideline for PD sourced content but the PD isolationist editor continues to delete material in order to isolate public domain text as blocks of text. (diff) Do we repeat again that we don't isolate reused public domain text such as EB 1911 text? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is cause to concern the good people in Citing Sources again, but i guess i should respond. I presume SEWilco is refering to me, here calling me "PD isolationist" which I don't know if I mind or not, and refering in edit summaries at Bathhouse Row to me as a vandal, which I rather do mind. What SEWilco did in the three reverts he applied earlier on that page was remove carefully constructed attributions, via quote marks and block quotes, of one eloquent author's public domain text. It takes a certain amount of work to put that full referencing in. To remove the quotation marks and block quotes is, again, not causing there to be a copyright violation, but it is removing good, full referencing in favor of what I view as poor referencing. doncram (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The author has always been repeatedly credited. We don't isolate PD text within blocks of quotations, and the text had already been edited to better fit the article. Isolating the reused text, and removing edits to it, damaged the article and does not allow further editing of the isolated text. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine for our articles to include PD text directly, without quoting it. Simply add a note to the bottom using a template from Category:Attribution templates. On the other hand, it will be worthwhile to add inline citations for a few particular claims. Converting almost the entire article to quotations isn't appropriate. The point of free content is that we can use other people's free content, if we like, and they can use ours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, it is perfectly fine for our articles to use traditional referencing which puts copied text into quotes, to show full attribution of wording composed by another author. This particular PD material is composed by one very eloquent writer whose words nominated about 30 sets of National Park Service buildings to U.S. National Historic Landmark status. This is not generic, no-author-specified text from an anonymous encyclopedia. I understand fully that it is not copyright violation to take her words and copy them without full attribution, because she wrote then as an employee of the U.S. government. However, it is poor referencing to do so. Or to use a common English term in its most plain meaning, it would be plagiarism to copy the words without quoting them. A generic attribution template is, in my view, insufficient to identify which passages are explicit quotes from this one source, vs. willing-to-be-anonymous wikipedia editors' wordings of facts available in 2 or more sources, or vs. what might be new original research creeping into the article. doncram (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree that it is "plagiarism to copy the words without quoting them". It is only plagiarism when claiming or implying original authorship. Without the intent to deceive, plagiarism loses its core meaning. -- Paleorthid (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Paleorthid that the intent to deceive is a critical component in evaluating the seriousness of plagiarism, but not whether intent is part of whether plagiarism is present or not. You and I can agree to disagree about whether referencing which is incomplete for lack of use of quotations to show which passages are copied is properly termed plagiarism or not.
However, my view is not unreasonable. In my view and in what I perceive to be common understanding, plagiarism is essentially copying with inadequate attribution. The wikipedia article on plagiarism to which you refer is not well written, in my view, but it does start with a definition that is sufficient right now to reflect your narrower view of what plagiarism is (as copying with inadequate attribution plus intent to deceive) and a broader view that plagiarism is copying with inadequate attribution. The definition given there is: "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement." A valid sub-line of that is "Plagiarism is the practice of incorporating material from someone else's written work in whole or in part into one's own without adequate acknowledgement". My view, consistent with this definition, is that a wikipedia article with long copied passages that are not set aside in quotes is plagiarized. An attribution template at the bottom provides some mitigation, but is inadequate. That degree of attribution is appropriate for pointing to a source, but is not adequate to show which passages are copied. The wikipedia article with long copied passages is in fact deceptive to the average reader, who has a reasonable expectation that unquoted passages are written by the collective wikipedia editorship, not by an external source. Effectively, while the reader goes the article, there is an implied claim by the collective wikipedia editorship: the editorship collective has claimed credit for the wording. When an attribution template is encountered at the bottom, the reader gets to do a double-take, and is given the suggestion that all is not as it seemed. The reader is left unclear as to what degree he/she should reevaluate the implied claim: should the reader assume the entire article is entirely copied, should the reader assume hardly any is copied, should the reader go investigate the original source and compare it to the wikipedia article, etc. This detracts from the reading experience, in my view, and it undermines the public perception of the general quality of wikipedia that is applied unfairly to the many articles that are well-written by the collective wikipedia editorship, in my view. doncram (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The author is attributed many times, and the text has been rearranged and edited so it is no longer in the original author's jumbled sequence. Well, it was that way before it was reverted so it could be isolated in uneditable blocks of text. Which rather proves the point that isolating the reusable text blocks it from further editing. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Minor rearrangement of passages, in lieu of complete rewriting, makes proper attribution of the original author's wording impossible, and hence, in my view, would cause the article to be plagiarized. The source is available to you. I suggest that you also collect at least one other source, then sit down and write, in your own words, new writing, then put that into the article. If it is to be viewed as new writing, I suggest that you should seek to avoid using any passage of, say, five words in a row that appear in the Harrison text. doncram (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a free content encyclopedia; it isn't plagiarism for us to use others' free content with attribution at the end of the article any more than it is plagiarism for them to use our GFDL content with attribution, or plagiarism for a software developer to user the Mediawiki source code without rewriting it from scratch. The fundamental goal is to encourage reuse of free content; that's why we have an entire category Category:Attribution templates.
In short, there is no support in the policy, practice, or spirit of Wikipedia for changing articles to quotes simply because the text is reused from other free sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By the definition of plagiarism that I stated above, and with the judgment that an attribution template is inadequate attribution, it is plagiarism to copy long passages without use of quotes. It is consistent with the policy, practice, and spirit of Wikipedia to include passages that are put in quotes (surely you do not claim that we cannot use quotes?). It is a requirement for good articles and for featured articles to use full attribution that includes showing which passages are copied by use of explicit quotes. It is, I believe, reasonable for editors such as myself to judge that an article is improved (closer to good article / featured article status) by using full attribution, and to judge that stripping out full attribution does not improve the article. doncram (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen no other editors advocating your position about plagiarism. There is broad consensus that attribution templates are adequate for their purpose. If you wish to change that, please start an RFC or discussion about it. In the meantime, please don't continue changing articles from the attribution-template style to the all-quotes style before actually finding consensus that it's an improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time this has come up, and I remember the first discussion also had only doncram advocating that these articles are plagiaristic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The prior discussion, archived at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive20#Style guideline for PD sourced content, included other editors advocating that copied texts could and/or should be put in quotes, as well as including your comments that are similar to your current views. That was an RFC. A clear consensus was not created. It seems we are discussing it again, here, now. doncram (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a lot of confusion earlier between quotations, which are intended to reflect exactly what someone had earlier said, as opposed to reuse of previously written text. Quotations are marked as such. Reusing public domain text, such as an EB 1911 article, is not marked as being a quotation. Quoted text can not be altered. Reused text should be edited as any other article text can be. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone in the prior discussion was ever confused about this. You intend to indicate by your choice to use quote marks or not, whether you consider copied text to be a quote or whether you wish to consider it "reuse". But if you leave off the quote marks, then the article is poorly referenced, and you are implicitly claiming that the wording is by wikipedia editors, in my view. If there is nothing special about the text, then you can easily rewrite it in your own words. If it is particularly well written or for any other reason you cannot find your own words, then the original author deserves credit for the wording (indicated by quote marks) as well as for the substance (indicated by footnote and/or attribution template). I think it is inappropriately subjective for you as a wikipedia editor to judge that Harrison's wording is not deserving of quotation credit. Again, if u don't want to credit her for her wording, don't use her words. doncram (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was and remain so. No criteria consistent with Wikipedia practice is available to distinguish quote-worthy psuedo-plagiarism from the quote-unworthy near-verbatim, or a quote-unworthy organizational structure. The response to this concern, that its so simple to copyedit your way beyond the need for such criteria, deftly avoids the issue that such criteria is implicit. I am still stuck on that one point. Definitely confused, Paleorthid (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to make some distinctions like those, and work out some type of formatting that identifies in an article which is which. The very last word in the prior, archived discussion, was a suggestion by User:Gerry Ashton: "The one technique I have seen used when it is important to keep track of revisions is that a vertical line is placed in the margin next to lines that have changed since the previous version. I'm sure Wikipedia is neither equipped nor inclined to do that." I have been kind of stuck on the point that removing the quote marks and opening a passage up for minor rearrangements, wikilinking, and so on, puts it into a not-properly-described state. If the state was adequately described, I would be happy. For example, if there was a thin blue line next to the no-longer-quoted and somewhat morphing passage, and if that blue line ran down the side to a blue-colored template box that explained "Adapted from the public domain Dictionary of Blah article Bathhouse Row available here" then perhaps it would be all okay. Editors could have control so that the blue line would be started and stopped by something like strikeout starting and stopping, so editors could insert new sentences based on other sources, and not confuse what is blue-sourced. That might be equivalent, for the reader, to encountering indented text, which they anticipate will turn out to be explained at the end as being a long quote from a source given at the end. I just want to calibrate readers expectations about authorship of wording with the true state. doncram (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the comments in Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive20#Style guideline for PD sourced content by W.marsh, MilesAgain, Gerry Ashton, TomTheHand, howcheng, Random832, and me. There is certainly no consensus for changing existing articles from one style to another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nor was there a consensus not to change existing articles from one style to another. I think I am offended by user:CBM's attempt to put a preliminary injunction on me to "please don't continue changing articles from the attribution-template style to the all-quotes style before actually finding consensus that it's an improvement". I don't exactly have exactly the right words to express it, but that seems like a personal attack somehow, and seems unjustified. What prompted this particular discussion was a big revert by SEWilco that erased the explicit quotations/full sourcing in the Bathhouse Row article, so an injunction to me to "not continue" seems unfair at the moment. If you look at the history of the Bathhouse Row article and its talk page, I think reasonable people will agree that I have tried to act constructively. Further, I think I have put forth a consistent and reasonable view that it is okay and good to put quotes in quotation marks, or to delete copied public domain text from an article, and the prior discussion and my comments here establish well enough that CBM and SEWilco do not have a consensus on the side of erasing full attribution. In fact it is fine and good to go out and put copied text into quotes. The preliminary injunction enjoinder not to change anything is unreasonable. Given the attempted injunction, i feel like i oughta go out and mark 10 articles with "refimprove" or similar tags today....  :) doncram (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. What prompted this discussion was doncram's isolation of PD text in block quotes (diff); the preceding edit show him removing edits which interfere with the isolation. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed longstanding consensus that the attribution templates are adequate; on the other hand, it's clear there is no widespread support for the claim that using free content in our articles, with attribution, is plagiarism. That's why changing articles to what you call "full attribution" style isn't appropriate. We have literally thousands of articles that incorporate text from public domain or free content sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is quite such an open-and-shut case as some make it out to be; while it is our right under the law to reuse free content pretty liberally, it's often not good intellectual practice or very friendly. I think that SEWilco's version would be misleading to most readers. The attribution template significantly understates the degree to which this text is the work of someone unaffiliated with Wikipedia, and it does not even name that person. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that under some laws (e.g. Dutch law) simply creating something original grants you intellectual property (which is similar to copyright), and placing it in public domain, or selling it to anyone does nothing to the intellectual property right. Placing such creations in the public domain only allows people to reuse your creation for free; not to plagiarise it (i.e. it can only be used if and only if it is properly attributed to the original creator as intellectual property right is still in place). Under such conditions even PD sources require proper references. (I am not sure about non-Dutch law, but can imagine similar provisions do exist). Arnoutf (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Everyone here is advocating attributing the text to its original author. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The attribution being proposed very much misleads the reader about who produced this content. There's a matter of degree involved and the same template might not be appropriate for every case. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the article? My attribution does identify who produced the content. "^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Harrison, Laura Soullière (November 1986). Bathhouse Row. Architecture in the Parks. National Park Service." -- SEWilco (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think readers will understand that in this one instance, the footnote means that you've lifted and copied their text. The implication a normal reader will naturally draw - that the text is supplied by Wikipedia authors but based on the source presented - is false. This is just a consequence of the fact that readers who encounter footnotes, quotation marks, etc. on Wikipedia are likely to assume that we are using them in the same ways as the rest of the English speaking world. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Which template is that? If it's not sufficient, it can always be made better. {{1911}}, the archetype, simply says "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about the template at the bottom of SEWilco's version of the article in question. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Arnoutf, you may be wrong about Dutch law regarding Public Domain material. The Netherlands is a signatory to the Berne Convention, article 18(1) of which says:"This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection."[15] The aforementioned Public Domain article defines such material as "a range of abstract materials [...] which are not owned or controlled by anyone." and says: "The term indicates that these materials are therefore 'public property', and available for anyone to use for any purpose." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not only is doncram isolating PD text in block quotes (diff), he removed improvements which interfered with the quarantine. He also intends to simply delete most of the article text: Talk:Hot Springs National Park#merger of articles. Is this improving the encyclopedia? -- SEWilco (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith; i am struggling to do that myself. SEWilco, as you and I have worked together cordially in other settings, I thought that the Talk page over at Hot Springs was a place where we could have a less prominent discussion about how to improve both articles. Indeed, I proposed a merger of the articles, and indeed, I expressed hope that in the merger the well-debated copied text would just get deleted, and that would resolve the impasse between us. Is that so bad? I have made other proposals to you to try to resolve the impasse, also, such as suggesting that we work cooperatively to write new replacement passages and then delete the "quarantined" passages. I begin to wonder what is the point of this discussion here; I trust it is not for you to prove that I am a bad person. What would resolve this discussion here for you? doncram (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here isn't supposed to be about that specific article, only about how PD text is used. We use it by dropping it in an article and letting editors chop it up as need be, not by putting walls around it. The link to the article provides links to the discussions for other editors. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, of your 8 comments in this discussion so far, all but perhaps two refer specifically to the Bathhouse Row article. You link to the article twice. You comment on how the author of the PD text is credited in the article. You quote from the reference section of the article. You ask: "Did you look at the article?" You state "What prompted this discussion was doncram's (link to a diff from the article)". If you want this discussion not to be about that article, you have a strange way of showing it. doncram (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes talking about a specific case is helpful in discussing a bigger issue. I think we could talk productively "about how PD text is used" if you/we would acknowledge that there is more than one way for articles to get developed in wikipedia, and then discuss general advantages/disadvantages and criteria that would be fair to use in evaluating those ways, and talk about the application to the Bathhouse Row article. I think I have a pretty good idea of what you think is a good way to develop articles, but why don't you say it. It would help a lot if you would acknowledge that there are some drawbacks, in terms of quality of citing sources, to your way. You brought up this discussion in "Wikipedia talk:Citing sources", after all. Then depending on what you say, I could probably explain why I think yours is not a good way, at least for the circumstances of this Bathhouse Row article and the PD text by Laura Soulliere Harrison, and at least for the purpose of developing a good or featured article in wikipedia out of it. You can counter that you have a different purpose, other than developing a feature-quality article, if you like. I hope we could have an exchange of views along those lines, with civility. doncram (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I had to refer to the article when the article was being discussed. Parham referred to a proposed attribution in the article, which consists of repeated citations to Harrison's work. As you've said, those will go away as text gets edited, rewritten, and more sources added, until only a few citations remain to WP:V what she said. The monolithic blocks of text can't go away when they're trapped inside unnecessary walls — walls which were erected after the article was created. If this PD text has to be walled up inside quotes then some EB 1911, city, and ship articles also need walls. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We use PD text, despite flaws, as fodder to start new articles. If the text is perfect it might survive. Some text, such as EB 1911 or EB first edition, is known to have weak points. Even such text can be useful in new or old articles, such as info about the now obscure armillary sphere or then-current physical properties which are now relevant to the history of Chemistry and the periodic table. WP:V requires data be sourced, while fairness to the author requires they get credit for their work. United States copyright law "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" gives actual protection "for limited times" to authors. When stuff is PD and is added to our articles, the facts require WP:V citation be maintained while our editors chop up the text and we don't blame the original author for the resulting mess. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about copyright law; it's about fairness and intellectual honesty. Your versions of this article, in my view, falsely imply that you are the author of this text. A reader seeing this article would most likely believe that it is the work of Wikipedia users and look to the history to find author information. In fact the contributions made by Wikipedia users to this text are insignificant. Adding citations to the work you are are claiming as your own is in some ways a slap in the face to the author of the piece, because you are deliberately using footnotes in a way not congruent with normal practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, "look to the history" — (first version: 'New article with public domain text from NPS site') and you'll see the author has been credited from the first. I added the NPS template when I discovered it, but the source is pretty clear. I wish y'all had found the article back then; I left some obvious improvements and easy to find additional sources so I wouldn't be the only article crafter. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In my view, crediting the author would begin with mentioning her name. Nowhere in your versions of the article was it mentioned that Harrison wrote any of the unquoted text, let alone that effectively the entire content of the page was in her words. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said the readers would look at the history, and now you're claiming the article did not credit her? I think her name is mentioned in "^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Harrison, Laura Soullière (November 1986). Bathhouse Row. Architecture in the Parks. National Park Service. Retrieved on 2007-09-21." with 14 links to her name. Somewhat more credit than {{1911}} gives those authors. And she'll keep getting credited while we improve things, until her facts fade under the mass of the detailed analysis of Professor Winter in 2034. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the source was cited, and then everyone expected to edit the public domain text "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[16]. Is more source citation needed, or should the discussion move to WT:MOS? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not crediting her for writing the text, that's acknowledging that the facts came from her article. You use a citation method which indicates that the text is written in your words, not hers; you know this to be false; therefore it is plagiarism by any widely accepted standard. A reader who is familiar with existing standards will probably assume that we are using one of them, and be misled: since you are claiming the text, they will look in the article history to find the authorship, and mistakenly cite you as the author of these words. I do not believe that misleading our readers promotes the progress of anything. I don't think this is a style issue so it's unclear to me why we would move the discussion from here. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is, once again, far beyond the scope of the manual of style. If you want to discuss changing the rules on making articles based on public-domain text, that needs to be brought up at WP:VPP. And your principle seems flawed? Why shouldn't we also enshrine the previous GFDL version in a block quote each time we make a new version? PD is meant to be less restrictive than the GFDL, why can we edit GFDL text in place but not PD? —Random832 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just quickly on the principle: there's no need to enshrine material copied from previous versions or other wikipedia articles, because all of those are written by us. We, the collective editorship of wikipedia, have written what is not put in quotes or otherwise set aside; we do not have to quote ourselves, it is our words. This was discussed in the previous, RFC, archived version of this discussion. doncram (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that free content not written by a wikipedian must be quoted for us to use it? Can you point to any policy, guideline, or historical precedent for that position? I think you're not giving adequate weight to a key function of free content (free reuse), and also ignoring the fact that our own contributors are equally pseudonymous. Whether free content is taken from another project or written by a wikipedian, it's still free content, which should be judged and edited on its own merits. We don't accept copyright violations; but content that doesn't violate copyright, with proper attribution, is perfectly acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the concept that different intellectual standards apply to free content simply because they have that status is unique to Wikipedia; the copyright status is irrelevant here. While I'm completely free under the law to take Gulliver's Travels, make very minor changes, and then publish it as my work which simply "contains material by an Englishman", not attributing any of the text to its author by name, I think most people would view me as being discredited by this, because it is dishonest. Why would they not view the encyclopedia similarly? In general, I think that rejecting the normal practices of all other modern publications sets Wikipedia apart in a negative way. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As our goal is to assemble a free content encyclopedia, it seems quite intellectually honest to assemble free content both by our own editors and others to create an encyclopedia (with attribution, of course). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting otherwise - the question is whether our attribution should accord to the standards used by the rest of the world, or we should employ standards which the rest of the world would reject as inadequate. I don't think anyone coming from outside Wikipedia would believe there was meaningful or adequate attribution here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If the issue is simply attribution, finding or improving the correct template is a reasonable solution. The {{1911}} template is the archetype here (or, the one I am more familiar with, {{planetmath}}. Do you feel those are also inadequate? How can they be improved? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You raise a very hypothetical question with no specific example, project what my position is, and get mad at me for having the position that you project i have. Interesting. But okay, suppose there is a GFDL guidebook to Emacs software, that you wish to quote from in an article about historical documentation of Emacs. What would proper attribution be? No attribution at all would be legal, not a copyright violation. I am sure it would be fine to quote from it, at length. Setting a long passage aside in block quotes and footnoted as to its source might be appropriate to convey what you want to the wikipedia reader, just as for non-PD material. Because it is PD, you may quote from it further than would be appropriate for copyrighted material where you have to make a fair use argument to use even short excerpts. There, you are already getting benefit from it being free content. Is it improper attribution to take it out of quotes and mix it around, and just leave a generic template that this article includes text from an unspecified GFDL document? I don't know exactly what degree of attribution is appropriate since this is too hypothetical still, but I think it would depend in part on whether the material is idiosyncratic and eloquently written by a named author who a reasonable editor would recognize deserves credit for her eloquent words. I think it might be legal to take any pithy paragraph you want out of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", say, if that is under GFDL, but it would probably be improper, in the sense of deceiving the wikipedia reader, not to credit Eric Raymond with quote marks for writing it. If it is nothing special, and written by an anonymous collection of emacs programmers, I don't know. I "project" that you would prohibit me from using quotemarks of anything under GFDL, whether it is written by anonymous hackers or by Eric Raymond. Hmm, now i am getting mad about that. :) How dare you! :) doncram (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but here's what I think. On one hand, it's acceptable to quote from a GFDL source as part of an article written by a wikipedian. On the other hand, it's fine to simply copy a GFDL source here, wholesale, so that it literally becomes our article. In both cases, we need to give appropriate attribution. But in the second case, there will be no direct quotes,because we aren't quoting the source, we're simply using it as part of our free encyclopedia. That's what the author specifically authorized via the free license, and so if it meets our goal of assembling a free encyclopedia it is perfectly reasonable (as always, with appropriate attribution). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Random that parts of the above discussion concerned policy and therefore don't belong on this page; we've been having the same problem on other talk pages recently. I'm wondering if this article page doesn't contribute a little bit to the confusion between policy and guidelines. It starts off clearly enough: this is a style guideline, WP:V is policy. But then it has the standard Policylist template, and graphics tend to stand out more than words, and the next several paragraphs make reference to WP:V and mix policy and guidelines together. I'm not positive that this is a problem, but maybe it would be a little clearer to remove the Policylist template, then put everything we want to pull in from WP:V in one paragraph, repeating that it is policy, then repeat at the top of the next paragraph that everything that follows is not. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Not creating a new section for this comment was deliberate ... I'll give it a section of its own if it it arouses discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Journal papers, both academic and technical, tend to lean in the direction of preserving quotations and giving more attribution than is strictly necessary to prove a point, whereas mature Wikipedia articles tend to lean in the opposite direction. Academic writers use attribution of their and their allies' work to get grants, attract good students, and win arguments, and there's nothing wrong with that, in theory. And to be fair, academic papers are often seen as one volley in an extended barrage, so proper attribution and exact quotations help avoid the Telephone game. Encyclopedias, by contrast, aren't so interested in who-said-what-when, unless there is a clear divide of opinion and both arguments have to be represented separately. In fact, the more "reverent" attribution in an article, the more likely it is that it will provoke an edit war. This may shed some light on the well-established policy that User:Random832 is referring to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....I'm thinking that this difference between attribution in journal papers and attribution in Wikipedia may be the reason why none of the several teachers I know find Wikipedia an acceptable source for student's papers. The less "reverent" the attribution, the longer it will take for them to change their minds. In my opinion, my preference would always be to know specifically what was copied directly from elsewhere.Lvklock (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a given that more, and more specific, information is better than less information, as long as it's relevant, but some relevant information belongs on the talk page, or linked. An encyclopedia article shouldn't come close to saying "X said, word for word, the following, on this date in this place. Then Y said this. Then Z said this". An article writer has the job of reading the arguments, coming to an independent conclusion of what's important, and then quoting or paraphrasing only the bits that support the important points. And, I don't believe I've read anyone suggesting that Wikipedia should be used as a source, but then, the things I don't know about Wikipedia could fill an encyclopedia. See for instance WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT in this very article. If an article isn't mature enough to have sources for everything, then that's one good reason not to cite it as a source, and if it does give a source, and you're writing a paper on the subject, it's best to consult the source, in which case you should cite the original, not Wikipedia.
Also, I meant "reverent" in the sense of "revered, respected and adored", so that's a bad thing, at least here. A journal article that implies that your professor is the acknowledged world expert in something and quotes them word for word may cause their competitors to gnash their teeth, but it won't start an edit war. On Wikipedia, it probably would, so we have to be a little more careful that quotes aren't too long and don't give the impression of taking statements at face value. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Erk, another problem with contradicting guidelines, except worse, on that subject of citing Wikipedia as a source. See discussion at WT:V#Isn't it policy that WP can't be used as a source at all?. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the public domain quotation request has also appeared in articles about ships, where there seems to not be approval: Wikipedia talk:SHIP#Public domain text quarantine and Wikipedia talk:SHIP#New DANFS section template available. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PD citation proposal 1

Is it agreed that there is no requirement that public domain material use any specific style? The normal WP:V requirements of the content do apply.

  • Agree as proposer. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree; reuse in Wikipedia of P.D. text may, in some cases, be viewed as preparing a revised edition of an existing work, and may be formatted accordingly. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question As noted above, this discussion has gone into policy and rule proposals, and it was suggested that WP:VPP may be the correct place for proposals, not here. I don't want to tell you how to write your own proposal to submit there, but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this proposal, and how you think it could be applied, if ratified. The proposal is vague. I would be hard pressed to explain to anyone else what its implication would be, say with regards to the editing of the Bathhouse Row article. To put it one way: Do you mean to protect an editor's right to use quotation marks and full attribution of authorship, despite a source being public domain, or do you want to legislate away that right? If the proposal would not have application to that example, which was the main subject of this discussion, then why are you bringing it up? Sorry, but I don't have the feeling this is an honest, direct proposal. doncram (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with this, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance here. The question is whether particular styles are acceptable, not whether a particular style is required. Nobody that I can see, on either side, is suggesting that any one particular style be mandated. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Response to comment: No change to WP:CITE is being proposed, only a confirmation that this discussion agrees there is no special requirement for public domain material style. WP:VPP may get involved in a MOSQUOTE proposal, but this discussion can't change WP:MOS. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no dispute over style; the issue is more about attribution and making it clear who wrote what text. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I was trying to respond following Dank55 and put mine in the wrong place. If there are no more comments to your comment you could move mine before yours and delete the chatter between we two. It would clarify the discussion for everyone else but I don't want to delete your comment without approval. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PD citation proposal 2

Should a request be made for WP:MOSQUOTE to clarify that public domain material is not required to be a quotation? This will only cause a request to be made on the Manual of Style talk page, as this discussion is not obvious over there.

  • Agree as proposer. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree; no existing style guide promotes different standards for free or unfree content, this is entirely novel. This needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in general. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just stop Parham, thank you for your principled participation and your support in this discussion and thank you for going to read the actual Bathhouse Row article, its talk page, and the Harrison text. However, I think we're simply being goaded by SEWilco who is being deliberately obtuse, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, who refuses to concede an iota about anything, and who is provoking us. I think he and eventually we have overstayed our welcome. It's not absolutely wrong to participate further, and I don't absolutely promise not to, but I think any votes/polls/whatever here should be abandoned, and nothing further is to be gained by this discussion. I myself am somewhat disappointed about allowing myself to engage as much as I have with this. I think i and SEWilco should both go and contemplate WP:POINTY, to which i was refered to recently, and related articles about consensus-building and so on. Parham and others, thank you for your time and consideration. doncram (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Doncram has not stopped (diff) requiring public domain text be walled inside quotations. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That article was already being worked on. Provided the issue is only with one article at a time, it's probably better to treat it as a content dispute. If he converts additional articles unilaterally, that would be a different matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, as mentioned above he's also invoking PD quoting and attribution requirements at: (USS_Pampanito diff), Wikipedia talk:SHIP#Public domain text quarantine and Wikipedia talk:SHIP#New DANFS section template available. And in wrapping the text in quotation walls he's also removing improvements; the original author's text needs improvement. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing there seems to involve changes as significant as seen at Bathhouse Row; in general I don't think this is at a level of being disruptive. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If doncram, or anyone else, begins to make such changes to a large number of articles that incorporate free content, that would be disruptive, and would be likely to be undone very quickly. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs / web forums

I know that blogs aren't generally held as being reliable references, but I have a problem in that I'm trying to write an article on a planned vessel, and the proposed builder of said planned vessel has posted about it on a web forum. As this has come from the horse's mouth so to speak (Assuming Good Faith that the poster is who they claim to be}, could this be held to be a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is an instance where "assume good faith" is intended to apply. Two questions come to mind: (1) What assurance do we have that the person who is posting is actually the builder of the ship? (2) Since the builder of the ship is an interested party, is he a reliable source for the fact being cited? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Christopher is right on all counts, I think. The only experience I have with a similar issue is how we handle it at Robot. We assume that any competition that's planned...even if they've done all the work and it shows every sign of being a success...should not be listed in the same place as the things that actually have happened, and such competitions should absolutely not be given their own page, just a listing in a section of planned or future events. So, even if you did get a reliable source, you've still got problems, depending on how you want to represent the information. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What assurance? Good question! I'd say that reading what is written it is highly likely that the person posting is who he claims to be. Have a look in my sandbox, and also Google "Atlas Hovercraft Inc." and you should be able to see what I mean. Main blog is the Hovercraft Club of America one. There is not much on the Future Giant Hovercraft on the web that is not in blogs or webgroups. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, after looking at the article, I'm not sure the sources can support a very article at this time. I would place pretty low value on any statements coming from the builder. As far as I can tell it has never actually built a hovercraft and is basically an empty shell hoping to get funding to build this idea; obviously they have significant incentives to exaggerate. However, best of luck with getting it off the ground. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Referencing something v. promoting it

This edit has been reverted twice now under an accusation that it is a promotional link. But it is serving a purpose of referencing the claim that goes before it. Is it possible that the removing user is being a bit over zealous in their enforcement of the rules, or is it that the including user (i.e. me) should find a different way to reference that statement? -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that there is no other source for the claim, it may not be worth including. The company's own site is obviously not a great source for referencing the quality of its product. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive moves and indexing, okay to set up?

Would it be agreeable to everyone to:

  1. Move the archive pages to a standardized Talk:Citing sources/Archive <#> name;
  2. set up indexing of this page using User:HBC Archive Indexerbot;
  3. change the auto-archiving config to the more standard format by capitalizing the word Archive, and adding a space between the archive and the digits;
  4. changing the archive box to auto(Requires the page moves), and adding an auto archiving notice.

Not to sound lazy but 21 archives is a lot to sift through. I would think the previous suggestion of splitting discussion into sub-pages would get unwieldy to maintain. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not just switch to yearly archives and combine the old ones as needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The page is already archived by Miszabot. It doesn't matter to me, but why change? Gimmetrow 07:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The indexing is the main thing I'm looking for, changing the archives to some consistent naming just makes it easier for setting up the mask. The same is true for not archiving based on year. Also looking at comments above where the same topic seems to come up repeatedly it helps to see the previous discussions on the index without having to load them all up on the latest discussion[17], or to simply title the conversation Topic Name(Part II), and the previous ones would be found based on naming. I find auto-indexing to be helpful and complementary to auto-archiving. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me. Although Google searches can provide some of this information, I'd much rather have indexed keywords from the archives available here. I regularly comb the archives and find out that the few words that made it onto the project page can't be understood properly without the context. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

STYLE1.0

Version 0.7 decisions are being made now, and the printed and DVD Wikipedia Version 1.0 is not that far off. Wikipedians don't have absolute discretion in formatting decisions (where the periods should go, where the lines should break, end section format, etc) in the printed version; there's also the publisher to deal with. Why formatting decisions in the printed version might affect Wikipedia style guidelines is a bit complicated (short answer: "Jimbo said so"), so anyone interested in either is encouraged to join the discussion at WT:STYLE1.0. Some of the discussions above do seem to involve these kinds of issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on how to deal with citation issues

Please note the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divine_Science#References_were_deleted

Wouldn't the correct procedure be to leave the citations in place, flag the article for cleanup (not sure what tag) and then wait a reasonable amount of time for the editor to correct his/her own error? Low Sea (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-print references

Can it be appropriate to cite a documentary? If so, can someone point me to a good example that I can emulate? Mingusboodle (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can cite a documentary, if the publisher is reliable. The format of the citation should be in the same family as the citations already in the article; which article are you thinking of adding the citation to? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's important to distinguish between factual material present in the documentary and the editorial material that accompanies it. Both may be of value to articles but they need to be presented differently in articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Over-referencing

Is there such a thing as over-referencing? The article which inclines me to ask is smokeasy, which currently has more than seventy references for a ~1-page article. Any advice on how to approach this, or is it OK as is? — Epastore (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a thing as over-referencing. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta/archive1. It would help to collect all the notes to the same text into one long note, by taking out the </ref><ref> tags between them; at that point you can see where the documentation is repetitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
For reference here is Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta at the time of the FAC nomination. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The references haven't changed much: chiefly by consolidating references to the same page in consecutive sentences, which is also a good thing; but that's not smokeasy's problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
My gut reaction on seeing a long list of references isn't "They must go" but "What is really going on here?" Clearly, the idea in smokeasy, from the word itself and from the number of references, is to draw a parallel to Prohibition (both inside and outside the U.S.). In a sense, the number of references itself, if taken to an extreme, could be considered a kind of POV-pushing. I don't have an argument with the article; I'm just saying that it's an interesting take on the signficance of the number of references. Another interesting situation is the 84 references at Robot, where the number of references and size of the article reflects the fact that the article itself has become kind of a "hangout" for a certain group, and a prime target of people who want to add wikilinks to their favorite article. For those and other reasons, people were not willing to break up the article when I suggested it a couple of months ago, and given the size and scope of the article, the references are well-chosen. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
First to recite the credo: The authority of Wikipedia comes from the authority of its sources. I'd like to see two reliable sources for every sentence in Wikipedia, but that's just me. There are literally millions of sentences in wikipedia that should be sourced but aren't. Who cares if there are a couple of sentences that have six or ten sources? I think we should give the article a medal of some kind.
Having said that, I would consolidate the big sets of footnotes (you know, [3][4][5] etc.) into a single footnote. It's prettier and easier to read. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

yes Blogs Again

As Blogs become more ubiquitous perhaps wikipedia could consider other exceptions than just the "under the direct supervision of a newspaper".

There is a situation going on right now where we have an AfD on a holiday. One of the many claims made by the nominator is that "I don't know if this is a 'holiday' that's just celebrated by three guys in a room."

A check of Google show 3,550 entries for the days' name, easily refuting that statement. However given that it is an annual holiday celebration, many of the entries are now being placed in Blogs -- either listings local events or of individuals commenting on their plans for the day. Without violating wikipedia policy that Blogs are not to be used as a reference is there some way to dig our way out of this quandary?

Especially given that the nominator explicitly did not assert that there were no references that might easily be found, just that they had not been used as references. BiAndBi (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the idea is, if all the mentions are in blogs that don't have some special claim to credibility, then this doesn't really meet a solid level of reliability. Looking at the article, however, it seems that some non-blog sources have been discovered, so I don't quite understand the "quandry" -- if anything this is an AFD where the system worked and the article will, correctly, be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
While I of course Assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I am guessing that should the article survive the AfD process soon Citation needed tags will be blossoming across the articles text. Especially where there is a statement that the holiday is widely celebrated and lists several countries/continents. Just trying to get ahead of that eventuality. BiAndBi (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, it would make more sense to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, Should I just re-enter the question verbatim over there? Should this one be left and just a pointer be put in? How should I move it over there correctly? BiAndBi (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You could just raise the same question there, and indicate here that the discussion is taking place elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As suggested have reintroduced the topic over at Reliable sources - yes Blogs Again BiAndBi (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How to cite quotes of quotes?

I am the primary contributor to Michael Sinclair (British Army officer). I haven't worked on the article for quite a while but am trying to get back into it, and I have a question.

I have been going to great length to cite everything I write in the article, using the two books I have available about the subject. In order to make it easier for people to verify the information, I have included short snippets of the sections being quoted. This is particularly important since one of the books (Colditz / The Latter Days) has been published in numerous editions, originally as two books but later as one combined volume. The page numbers that I cite will not be valid for most editions.

I have indicated quotes from the books in italics and, in the cases where I am quoting a quotation in the book, I also enclose it in quotation marks. Someone mentioned that I should enclose all the quotes in quotation marks to indicate that they are quotes from the book, but then how would I indicate a quote of a quote? Two sets of quotations marks just doesn't look right to me.

Sorry about the excessive use of the word "quote" in this post, but there was no other way of putting it ;). Any ideas or comments?

Qarnos (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:PUNC, top of that section, and also WP:MOSQUOTE, and see if that covers it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Citation}} and other citation templates

I have a problem with the following guideline:

There are (at least) two families of citation templates. The {{Citation}} template is intended to provide citations for many types of references. The other family has names of the form {{Cite xxx}} (for example, {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}}). These two families produce different citation styles. For example, the "Cite xxx" family separates elements with a full stop, and gives page ranges as plain numbers, while the "Citation" template separates elements with a comma, and precedes page ranges with "pp." Thus, these two families should not be mixed in the same article.

Unfortunately, there are no instructions in the documentation of {{Citation}} on how it should be used for web pages. Should some be added? Also, what about simply making the two types of citation templates consistent with each other? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

references vs. footnotes

I'm bringing rongorongo up for GA or FA, and have a question about notes.

The article has a large amount of supporting material in footnotes, things which are excessive for the body of the article, but which would be important for someone who really wants to delve into the subject. Since there are a lot of amateur epigraphers out there, and decipherment is a popular hobby, this is particularly important for articles such as this one.

The problem I have is with mixing these footnotes with the references, which is the style I've seen on Wikipedia and which is assumed by this page here. If they're mixed together, then the reader won't know until following it whether a note is simply a page number reference, or supporting material which may be important for fully understanding the text. This results in readers who are interested in the footnotes being distracted by each little reference as well.

My solution is a hybrid system, with inline Harvard refs for page numbers and separate footnotes. Is this justifiable, or is it something I'll eventually be forced to change?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Parenthesised in-text citations in combination with numbered content footnotes would be consistent with (for example) APA style, so I don't think there should be any problems. [18][19] --SallyScot (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki development?

It'd be good if we had an easy to use 'notes' equivalent to go with <ref>. So, in addition to <ref>'s numbered references for citations, we could have something distinctive and separate for discursive notes. I'd suggest that these could have automatic assignment of roman numerals to coexist with and compliment <ref>'s Arabic numerals, for example <nb> and <notes /> tags (or <nbi> and <notesi /> tags) which automatically generated separate numbered notes.

At the moment this can be achieved as in the following...

Example text,[i] more example text.[ii] A second appearance of a note.[ii]
Notes
  1. ^ This is an example discursive note.
  2. ^ a b Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of <ref> and <references/> tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.


However, if you look at the editing behind the example above you'll see it involves a degree of html coding that would make it something of a chore to maintain.

I'm not a wiki developer. Does anyone have any suggestions how this idea for automatically generated distinctive roman numeral identified notes might be further progressed?

--SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up in WT:FOOT. I don't know if it can be implemented without future improvements such as mentioned near bottom of WP:FOOT. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
SallyScot, the coding behind your example can be simplified a bit by using currently-existing templates something like the following:
Example text,[i] more example text.[ii] A second appearance of a note.[ii]
Notes
  • a This is an example discursive note.
  • a b This is an example discursive note.Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of <ref> and <references/> tags). Instead it uses the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.
This example is missing the css class="references" hilite styling. Perhaps the Ref and Notes family templates could be modified to do that, but I've looked briefly at that and there seems to be some sort of a hitch in MediaWiki:Common.css with {{Ref}} and the plainlinksneverexpand css class. I'm not css-literate enough to see what the problem there is off the top of my head. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks Bill. The difficulty with the way either you or I coded it would be of course with the renumbering which would need to be done to all the subsequent notes when adding a preceding new one.

There are also some other slight differences via {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates I think. For example, it's difficult to get the emphasis and italics exactly the same as generated by <ref> for the back-links. Perhaps more importantly, the alignment of the notes isn't as clear (as I substitute your bullets for actual roman numeral below). The closest I've got so far this way is...

Example text,[i] more example text.[ii] A second appearance of a note.[ii]
Notes
i. ^  This is an example discursive note.
ii. ^ a b  Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of <ref> and <references/> tags). Instead it uses the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.

And yes, its a shame about the hilite not being there too. I don't think that's easily fixable either. What's in {{note label}} is actually highlighted, but that is in effect just the back-link not the note content which has to be outside the template of course.

--SallyScot (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editions

Just wondering, is citing sources from another Wikipedia language edition allowed? Say, I would like to cite my sources from the French Wikipedia. I think it's not, is it? -- Felipe Aira 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For some languages, there is a tag, like {{de}}; you should note indebtedness in this style. But this is a GFDL notice that you have begun with a translation, not a citation. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, in any language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You can use sources that are not English (if there are no alternatives), you can use foreign language Wikipedia versions to find these sources. But you cannot use the foreign aticle itself as a reference (just like you cannot use another English article as reference). Arnoutf (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We had a long relevant discussion at WT:V#Radical change... recently. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug with the reference tags?

Hi has anyone come across a possible bug in the reference tags where the tag hides the sentence it is supposed to provide the reference for? In the Traffic signals section of the utility cycling article I have tried to insert a reference for a sentence on UTC systems and induced traffic. But what happens is that the sentence disappears. I am using Firefox if that's relevant.

See here click edit to see the hidden sentence and ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cycling#Traffic_signals.2FTraffic_control_systems

--Sf (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably [20] was the problem? Gimmetrow 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Doh! Thanks for that! --Sf (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification re WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

Seeking clarification: It seems to me that if a citation is a printed work as found on a site like JSTOR or Google Books, where the actual work, as published and paginated, is presented, then the printed work really is the source, and the web site was just a medium through which it was read, like reading a newspaper article on microfilm in lieu of having a copy of the printed newspaper in hand. Sound reasonable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would list both the printed version and the electronic site I used to read it; there could be a deliberate or accidental difference between the printed version and the electronic version. In the case of microfilm, the chance of a difference is less. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In case of things you get from Jstor, I don't see any reason not to cite them directly - what's there is a scanned copy of the original. It's nice to include the JStor links so other people can look up the articles quickly if they also have JStor access. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, Google Book Search contents are scanned. They aren't a transcription of the print document's text, they are an image of it. I agree that it doesn't hurt to provide the link in addition to the citation of the printed document, but I see that as a convenience, not as part of the citation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's how I feel as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing museums

I have photos of a museum artifact that I would like to upload and use in the Kamapua'a article. The information about the artifact, for example where it was found, the identification of the artifact, etc., is contained in the informational plaque alongside exhibit (of which I also have a photo). How should I cite the informational plaque? Regards, Oscar (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any WebCite alternatives? Need to maintain verifiability.

WebCite is not working : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouPorn&diff=203585025&oldid=203567497. Anyone know of (free) WebCite alternatives that work? Need to maintain verifiability when using a source that has a robots.txt (I think that's why WebCite is not working here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Discursive notes

...earlier part archived...

'My' version looks and behaves more like <ref> tags. Bill's is probably easier to code. But the main point I think we'd both agree is that both (both 'my' HTML and Bill's {{ref label}}+{{note label}} solution referred to in archived part) require the numbering to be manually kept in sync. All I was really trying to suggest is that the ordered list part should be fairly easy for a wiki-developer to do as it would just require style="list-style-type: lower-roman" instead of the default.

To be clear, the request would be for code so that something like the following...

Example text,<nb>This is an example discursive note</nb> more example text.<nb name=Discursive>Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).</nb> A point made with a supporting reference.<ref>Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> A second appearance of a note.<nb name=Discursive /> 

== Notes ==

<ol class="references" style="list-style-type: lower-roman"><!-- ol tag gives following list elements roman numerals -->  
<li id="note01"
><b>[[#nb01|^]]</b> This is an example discursive note.</li>
<li id="note02"
>^ <sup><i>[[#nb02a|a]] [[#nb02b|b]]</i></sup> Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the [[Footnotes]] method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.</li> 
</ol>

Generates:

Example text,[i] more example text.[ii] A second appearance of a note.[ii]

Notes

  1. ^ This is an example discursive note.
  2. ^ a b Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.


A point I'd emphasise about 'my' html code code above is that it is in many respects essentially similar to html generated by <ref> tags. I copied and tailored it via viewing the page generated source html of a Wikipedia article; the main difference as far as the generated list of notes is concerned being my setting style="list-style-type: lower-roman". I figure it would be fairly easy for a wiki developer to give us automatic assignment of roman numerals to coexist with and compliment <ref>'s Arabic numerals, for example <nb> and <notes /> tags (or <nbi> and <notesi /> tags) which automatically generated separate numbered notes. You'd need to clone the existing code behind <ref> tags, only setting the output list-style-type to lower-roman. My assumption is that doing a similar thing (i.e producing lower-roman case) for the numbered reference tags themselves (the numbers that appear in the body text) would not be overly problematical.

--SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Am I missing something? It seems simpler to do:
Example text,{{ref label|note1|i|a}} more example text.{{ref label|note2|ii|a}} A second appearance of a note.{{ref label|note2|ii|b}}

== Notes ==

i. {{note label|note1|i|a}} This is an example discursive note.
ii. {{note label|note2|ii|a}}{{note label|note2|ii|b}} Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the [[Footnotes]] method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.
Which produces output similar to:
Example text,[i] more example text.[ii] A second appearance of a note.[ii]
Notes
i. a  This is an example discursive note.
ii. a b  Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.
This, of course, requires that the {{ref label}} parameters be manually kept in sync with the matching {{note label}} parameters. Having that done automatically is not a big issue technically but, if my experience with bugzilla:12796 is anything to go by, getting anything to happen on putting a change in place after the coding is done is a big hurdle. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for nb tags

'My' version looks and behaves more like <ref> tags. Bill's is probably easier to code. But the main point I think we'd both agree is that both require the numbering to be manually kept in sync. All I was really trying to suggest is that the ordered list part should be fairly easy for a wiki-developer to do as it would just require style="list-style-type: lower-roman" instead of the default.

To be clear, the request would be for code so that something like the following...

Example text,<nb>This is an example discursive note</nb> more example text.<nb name=Discursive>Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).</nb> A point made with a supporting reference.<ref>Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> A second appearance of a note.<nb name=Discursive /> 

== Notes ==

<notes />

== References ==

<references />

And maybe we could have curve brackets instead of square for some further distinction, producing...

Example text,(i) more example text.(ii) A point made with a supporting reference.[1] A second appearance of a note.(ii)

Notes

  1. ^ This is an example discursive note.
  2. ^ a b Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).

References

  1. ^ Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.


--SallyScot (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point with Bill's is not that it's easier to code, but that it already exists. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be asking for <nb> tags that handled auto numbering if they already existed. --SallyScot (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When is it okay to remove a "citation needed" tag?

Sometimes I see "citation needed" tags for things that would be common knowledge to anyone with a moderate level of experience in the topic. In these cases, I have usually done a quick Google search to find a paper mentioning the fact, and then I cite that totally random paper. I think this kind of citation is really useless and clutters the reference list with things nobody actually wants to read. However, the alternative is just removing the tag, and that seems like a slippery slope as well.

I propose this compromise: If you think that a "citation needed" tag is on something which is common knowledge, just make sure by doing a Google search. If you get several hits that would have been adequate sources, just delete the tag, but don't actually add a citation. This compromise prevents the buildup of superfluous citations, but it also ensures that the user deleting the tag was not mistaken in their belief that the fact was common knowledge.

I see this example all the time: "X can be used for Y. [citation needed]" Okay, everybody I know who does Y uses X to do Y, so I believe this to be true. However, that is original research. Google turns up 10 websites about using X for Y, but it is just mentioned in passing. If the article read "X is often used for Y," or "X is very good for doing Y," then that statement might require some research. But "X can be used for Y" is essentially proven by the fact that I use X for Y.Fluoborate (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "random citation" method has problems. There is some advice on uncontroversial knowledge at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which explains the best practices for that sort of thing in science articles. For a fact that is particularly obvious, I sometimes leave the reference on the article's talk page, pointing out how standard the fact is.
There are some issues with "X can be used for Y" claims, involving due weight for uncommon uses. So those have to be handled on a case by case basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Several guidelines for writing scientific papers give examples when something is obvious. For example Newton's F=MxA does not require reference. But there is a large grey area; forv example where something maybe common to a very small expert group, but uncommon to almost everyone else. Arnoutf (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an area of active discussion, in several different places, including a current thread on WT:V#Detailed analysis of this page, which started out argumentatively but has a lot of intelligent discussion from regular contributors to WT:V. There is wide agreement that we prefer articles written by people who are experienced in a subject; however, these people may be writing more to impress their peers than to impress us. I might say, "You need a cite here, because it's not obvious to me", and they might reply, "It's common knowledge among everyone who can and will read this article." If I then start inserting {{citation needed}} tags everywhere, and if the people who hang out on that page really don't feel the citations are needed, they could invoke the "impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" clause from WP:POINT. There's no requirement that articles have to be written so that everyone can understand them; how would everyone understand, say, a mathematical proof? There's only a requirement that difficult material should be written so as to be as accessible as possible. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The page Carl pointed out is great, and WP:WHEN and its talk page are useful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The method you suggest is sort of dangerous unless you feel you are qualified enough on the topic to be aware of any pitfalls. The disputed statement may, for instance, be supported by some sources but rejected by more modern or more mainstream sources. Generally I would check the talk page for any clarification of the citation request; if it's not there, post a new section asking someone to explain why the statement is disputed; and if nobody responds, remove the tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Christopher's answer seems like the best one (the most direct answer to the question) in a pile of good answers, to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make several points.
  1. I thiink it is always better to simply do a little research and a find a source for an "obvious" fact. These kind of obvious facts should appear in an introduction to the topic for undergraduates, or high school students, or "dummies", or "idiots". Just pick up one of these books and add the source. It's not hard, and it's the responsible thing to do. Research is an editor's main job.
  2. A {{citation needed}} tag is not an insult or a criticism. It's a kind of "todo" list—one editor asking everyone else to help with some research. It also lets readers know that Wikipedia is a work in progress; that we're constantly trying to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia.
  3. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of nonsense in Wikipedia. Some editors add paragraphs and entire articles that sound intelligent but are actually nonsense. Wikipedia attracts exactly this kind of armchair intellectual. (It was this kind of thing that got me started as an editor—I discovered an entire family of articles on a major academic subject (artificial intelligence) that were filled with misunderstandings, nonsense, and self-promotion. In a word, they were bull----.) This kind of nonsense hurts Wikipedia's reputation, and readers who have read nonsense are unwilling to believe anything else they read in Wikipedia, unless there is a citation to reliable source. The point of this story is that, for many subjects, you can't trust the authority of a Wikipedia editor—the authority of Wikipedia comes from the authority of its sources. I would like to see a reliable source for every word in Wikipedia, but that's just me. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good analysis of CharlesGillingham (although I would not stretch it to referencing all of [citation needed] wiki's [citation needed] words ;-)
In general I think the caption "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" captures it all. In my opinion the addition of the {citation needed} tag means that the statement is either challenged, or according to someone is likely to be challenged. Therefore I would argue that the simple addition of a fact tag alone places the tagged line into the need of a reference. Circular, perhaps, but IMHO a nice method of bootstrapping in Wikipedia improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "you can't trust the the authority of a Wikipedia editor": if they have a history of reliability, they're no more and no less likely to be reliable in the future based on that history than anyone else. I certainly do not think that, just because someone is an academic or journalist or professional, they have some kind of inherent trustworthiness not available to Wikipedians. Btw, there has been a dramatic change in consensus on this point in the last two years; see WT:Verifiability/Archive 26#Academics and journalists. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that although we use different arguments and style of reasoning, most of us basically say that:

  • If something is such an obvious fact to people in the expert community providing the reference should be easy. So why not do it
  • The aim of Wikipedia is to address topic to people outside the expert community, so facts obvious to experts may not be to everyone
  • There is no way to check the expertise of an editor, in another way than by the sources provided by that editor (by the way, in scientific publishing academics are required to provide references as well, even if they are experts).

In summary it seems most of us think we should not remove the "citation needed" tags except for some very rare situatioons. Or have I misinterpreted now? Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Citation needed tags should be removed if, in fact, no direct citation is needed for that claim. Perhaps the is covered by a more general reference already cited, for example. Excessive citation hides the interdependence of statements, and makes uncontroversial statements appear as if they "need" a citation — as if they are surprising or controversial. So judgment is needed to decide the right way to respond to each "citation needed" tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Carl, couldn't we just use a ref tag to say, in effect, "This doesn't need a citation"? There are lots of ways of saying that, depending on the situation. If the article has a math proof, say in abstract algebra, and someone wants a cite to prove that something is a "group", perhaps we could put a ref tag at the very start to one of the general references, and a description after the general reference that says "For people unfamiliar with abstract algebra, this is a good general reference to the terms in this article." - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you seem to think that more references are always preferable to fewer. I disagree. Excessive referencing disrupts the flow and is ugly; the text starts to look like something from some pomo Master's thesis rather than an encyclopedia article. References that have some serious utility for non-experts, great; references for references' sake, please no. There has to be a balance, and therefore in some cases it has to be acceptable to remove the tag. This will always, of course, be subjective, and people will have to argue about it case-by-case. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I think you misunderstand me. No I am not in favour of more references perse; I have experience with at least one "verify or I'll delete everything" fundamentalist, who I think does more damage to Wikipedia as a project than leaving some semi-disputable claim up. I also agree that once something is referenced by a general source that should cover the broader section.
However, if new facts, not covered by a reference in the same section, are presented these should in principle always be referenced, and many Wikipedians do not have the discipline, or mindset to do so, and this is causing opinion to kreep into debates as if facts. One of the problems it that not all editors know which facts maybe disputed. I have stumbled upon many articles (within my personal expertise) that seem to be written by undergraduate students reflecting the opinions and positions of what I guess are their university professors as facts; even if their theory is not mainstream in the scientific community. Unsourced introduction of such "facts", by people who identify themselves as experts is another serious problem.
Of course we all know this, and the fact tag was designed to flag this up. So, if some editor in good faith has added the {fact} tag, (and it is indeed a new fact which is not covered by a running reference) then in princile the reference should be provided.
If you can manage consensus on the talk page I would agree that sometimes even in such situations the tag may be removed. However, personally I would argue that this must be a major consensus in which non-experts are involved (otherwise experts may manage to create reservations for unsourced TRUTHS (e.g. in rewriting articles like Hollow Earth) which IMHO goes against the core spirit of Wikipedia). So while in theory I support talk page discussion to resolve fact tags, I would be extremely careful, to an extent that it would be practically impossible. Perhaps the best practical solution would be to convince the person originally tagging the sentence that it really does not require such a tag. But habing some experience with some editors that may not be practically feasible. [That was Arnoutf ... where's Sinebot when you need him?] (Sorry for not signing) Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds pretty resonable -- sorry I misread your point. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, if my statements were misunderstood, I should have expressed more clearly ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my question sparked quite a lot of discussion, but I learned a lot from it. Many good points were made. At the end of the day, I stand by my original method and will apply it under the same circumstances: First I will do a Google search of the fact in question to make sure I was not mistaken, and there is no debate that I am not aware of, and then I will remove the tag IF AND ONLY IF I feel that a citation would be detrimental to the article. A needless citation can be detrimental - it makes something look less-than-common-knowledge, and it draws attention away from the article's other sources which should be more interesting and harder to find. If there are lots of citation needed tags in the article that I feel meet these criteria, I will not simply delete all of them, I will bring it up on the discussion page. But one tag could obviously be the work of one surprised reader thinking "What? Whales are actually mammals? No way, they don't have hair, or four legs, or anything."Fluoborate (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and remember that if you're doing that much work, doing a search and following up on sources, you can always use a footnote (using the same ref markup) to say why you're not giving an inline citation, for instance, "Basic information on whales can be found in any college zoology textbook", or even better, mention a textbook. That reduces the chance that the article will go through the same cycle later on. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wtmitchell

Sorry about labeling Wtmitchell as a vandal for blanking most of the page in the edit summary, my fingers were faster than my eyes. I'm sure it was an accident. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misedit, and thanks for fixing it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

What about sources that aren't in English? There doesn't seem to be a policy against it, so is it okay to use a non-English reference in the English Wikipedia? -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:RSUE for the nitty gritty. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The most recent discussion, pretty much covering the bases, is at WT:Verifiability/Archive 26#Radical change of impostation to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. It points to and supports the section Christopher mentioned. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Easier way to make refs using Javascript or whatever

I'm an experienced editor who can now make nicely formatted refs without too much difficulty. When I started I found the ref process difficult. I imagine this has been discussed a bunch somewhere and would like to know where to talk about our options with javascript of whatever for making adding refs transparent to the average user. Anyone know where we discuss this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Scattershot answer: see the Tools section on this page (not the talk page, I mean), Template:Cite, and the links at the bottom of that page. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Also see Gadgets/RefTools in your "my preferences" link, and Diberri's tool. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (Tweaked my answer - Dan (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Is there a rule for citing one source that will constitute paragraphs of text?

In my sandbox, I'm working on Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.

Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several interesting issues here, and I'm not the expert. Could you run it by the noticeboard? Those guys are incredibly good at answering questions like these. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, posted. I never know where to ask questions like this anyway 8-} Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source

I find this absurdly restrictive, especially for historical images that have been widely reproduced. The original author might be relevant, but the ephemeral website that the original uploader gets it from is completely unencyclopaedic. I will reword this section in due course, unless someone more experienced in copyrights on WP has something to say. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What section? the phrase "Image source" does not appear anywhere in the guideline. Also, this guideline is about citing sources, not uploading images. It is not a copyright violation to cite a source, except that if the source we cite is obviously violiating copyright, we might be considered to be contributing to the violation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Naturally. I refer to the text in WP:CITE#IMAGE. Is there some reason I should not rewrite it in light of the concerns I raise above about widely available/PD images? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a courtesy to those wanting to verify that the source is genuine, to provide a link to a reliable webpage (not a link to the file itself) that includes the image information so that information can be verified. If this can't be done, fair enough, but it will reinforce the image against future people questioning it. For example, we link to the Library of Congress image information pages using {{LOC-image}}. You might also want to talk to User:MECU about this, as he has strong views on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We met on his talkpage after he templated me, remember? :)
If it is merely a courtesy, I don't think it should be in this guideline at all, nor should it be part of the deletion criteria. That is unacceptable. Let me explain: if I were to come across, for example, a fair-use criterion written for a fairly well-known set of photographs of historical importance, but which do not specify a URL from which they came, I do not think we have the right to assume that criterion is incomplete and delete the files. For one thing, websites are ephemeral. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I vaguely remember MECU making a change with little discussion. If that is what you are referring to, I agree, change it back and start a discussion. If it is a case of making different pages consistent, could you point out which ones they are? Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New examples

I have just created an essay Wikipedia:Verification methods and I wonder if any of the regular posters here would like to take a look at it and comment. It is basically intended to provide some clear examples of the most common methods of verification (i.e. citation styles) that are in use. It has both schematic examples and lists of articles that use the various styles.

I hope to merge Wikipedia:Verification methods into this article, but I thought I would save my work as an essay for now, until I have a feel for what the community thinks of this approach. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like uncontroversial examples, thanks for working on that. Just a reminder (not directed at you in particular): the first infobox says: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Also, style guidelines pages in general tend to link to pages that give extended examples rather than covering the examples themselves, so someone might object on those grounds (not me...I'm neutral on the general principle, I'd have to see the proposed changes), although obviously there's already a lot of detail on this guidelines page. - Dan (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference/source format/style

I read the article about how there are several styles and none should be encouraged nor discouraged. I wonder though, how many other things are prescribed here on Wiki, and why references, etal should not be done the same on every article. When someone reads an article on Wiki they then know what to expect because the format of each article is common. That doesn't mean every article has all the same parts, but if an article contains a certain type of content/part (body, intro, refs, external links, etc...) then all articles look the same.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone agrees with me.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing conflicting sources

Something struck me last night, growing out of recent discussions I've seen at WT:RS and/or WT:V (this one and others}. I'm in a bit of a rush, and so cannot take time to agonize over the wording here. Hopefully, I can make my thoughts understandable. What struck me is that an unsupported assertion is weak, and open to challenge. A cite-supported assertion is stronger, but is still open to challenge. Sometimes cite-supported assertions are contrasted against conflicting cite-supported assertions. It seems to me that this guideline project page should provide some guidance covering this situation. It seems to me that the guidance provided should be essentially that in cases where cite-supported assertions in an article conflict with one another, the conflicting assertions should be attributed inline to their supporters in the article prose.

e.g, not

"Assertion 1.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1989|p=123}}</ref> Conflicting assertion 2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1943|p=45}}</ref>"

but instead something like

"John Jones asserts that assertion 1.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1989|p=123}}</ref> Contrarily, Stanley Smith asserts conflicting assertion 2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1943|p=45}}</ref>"

(Smith and Jones either being well-known authorities or having had their credentials established earlier in the article, and their referenced works being listed with full citations in the article's References or Bibliography section). The point here being that WP article prose should strive to present verifiable facts. As long as Smith's assertion 1 is unchallenged, that can be presented as a verifiable fact; once someone brings up Jones' conflicting assertion 2, neither assertion is a verifiable fact, but it is verifiable fact that Smith and Jones made the conflicting assertions. Am I onto something here, or do I have too many angels dancing on the head of this pin? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I get your good point, and it seems particularly true where there are limited people stating views on a topic. However where one viewpoint has overwhelming support in the literature, we only need a limited number of citations to act in support (we can't go listing hundreds of papers). In such a situation an opposing source, whilst needing mention under NPOV if it is credible (ie reliable source and not a frivilous trivial claim), does not warrent giving equal space under WP:Undue. Hence mentioning the details of the opposing author in any length to give the view authority, may give undue credence to their position if we do not give balancing authority to the initial opinion and this can look ungainly . So whilst I like your examples, more generally I think it depends on the situation and the phrasing chosen, eg look at:
  1. Current understanding is that X,<ref>"1997 Consensus of Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> but recently this has been questioned,<ref>2008 Time to re-evaluate ? Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> following the results of a couple large studies.<ref>2006 X sometimes associated with Y - Bloggs UK Cardology</ref><ref>2007 X may occasionally be caused by Z - Fred, Cardiology Today</ref>.
    Current understanding is that X,[6] but recently this has been questioned,[7] following the results of a couple large studies.[8][9]
  2. Amercian Cardiology Society's previous agreed position was stated in 1997 as X,<ref>"1997 Consensus of Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> but recently some in the society have questioned whether this needs to be reassessed,<ref>2008 Time to re-evaluate ? Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> following the results of the large studies of Bloggs 2006<ref>2006 X sometimes associated with Y - Bloggs UK Cardology</ref> and Fred 2007.<ref>2007 X may occasionally be caused by Z - Fred, Cardiology Today</ref>
    Amercian Cardiology Society's previous agreed position was stated in 1997 as X,[6] but recently some in the society have questioned whether this needs to be reassessed,[7] following the results the large studies of Bloggs 2006[8] and Fred 2007.[9]
I prefer the former as the second is far less succinct.David Ruben Talk 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the former is better although it will sometimes bring out accusations of weasel word usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

What is BLP? I can't find an article about it. Renduy (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP Wikipredia policy on Biographies of living persons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty finding a full citation

I'm hoping someone can help me out here. Or tell me I can stop looking.

I added the majority of information to the article for Mulholland Dr., and I would like to put it up for FAC, which means my citations have to be perfection. I added a quote from an article I found here, which looks like a David Lynch fansite. So I am suspect in using fansite citations. I contacted the New York Times Syndicate who confirmed they sold the story to LesbiaNation. I called LesbiaNation's parent company gaywired.com, who no longer has the story - or can't find it. They suggested I contact the author of the article. I am willing to do that, but before I bust more nuts trying to find the original citation for this story, is this all necessary? Is anyone here experienced in FA review and can say you would forbid this article based on that citation? I apprecaite your reponse. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the website specifically gives all the source information, as an FA reviewer I would let this pass. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't, per WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not voting :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be voting, at some future date. I need to know if I need to take this quote out (I really don't want to do that at all - seriously - it's a significant quote). Or continue to pester the hell out of the author. Or, since there's a procedure to follow in the case of dead links, surely there must be a procedure to follow for lost archived articles? --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you check archive.org? Do you have a hard copy or have you checked a library? If so, you can verify the text and it can be found in a library, and you don't need the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I called the New York Times Syndicate who gave me the fansite. When I said the fansite was unacceptable, they told me to contact LesbiaNation. I called and emailed them, and they said they don't have it in their archives due to a server crash several years ago. I searched LexisNexis and ProQuest for the author, subject, actress' name, title of the film, but nothing comes up. I did check archive.org, but was unsuccessful (was my first search with them, so I may not know what I'm doing). I am now attempting to contact who I think is the author... --Moni3 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The fansite is fine, Moni, because the article has been published elsewhere by a reliable source, so the link to the fansite is only a courtesy link. It's the article that is your source. SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Will you come to my rescue, o brave SlimVirgin, when I'm drowning amid multiple opposes based on that one source during FAC? White steed and everything? --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I will indeed come to your aid, not only with a white steed, but with knowledge of the policies, links to previous discussions about this if I can find them, and other people who will support what I'm saying if needed. It wouldn't make sense to refuse a citation because of a website that it happens to be hosted on, because an online link is never required for a citation, so you can just leave it off if someone objects. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The writer of the story responded:

"Hi:

Don't think I can help you much. The article is copyright 2001, New York Times Syndicate. It ran the week of September 24, 2001 and I distinctly remember the day I talked with her (September 11, 2001) because she was stuck in Toronto due to the attacks that day (and was driven home because all fights were canceled)

What you saw on that site is the full story, but I don't think the Syndicate has it on file anymore and there's no URL to send. Stories for the Syndicate go over the wire like a Reuters or AP story, so the only URLs would be those of the outlets that ran the story. Any page or volume info would, again, be outlet-specific. I don't even have my finished copy of the story anymore, since that was two or three computers ago. So, all I can tell you is it'd be accurate to flag the piece as: Sept. 24, 2001, New York Times Syndication Sales Corp.

Hope that helps,

Ian"

Any tips or suggestions on how to cite this? --Moni3 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation would be:
<ref>Spelling, Ian. [http://www.davidlynch.de/harringnyle.html "Laura Elena Harring Explores The World of David Lynch"], ''LesbiaNation'', November 2001.</ref>
If you like, you can add at the end of the citation: "first distributed by the New York Times syndicate, September 24, 2001." SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There's an e-mail address on the Web for what looks like the author. It's ianspelling at filmstew dot com. He'll know the exact date of publication in LesbiaNation and elsewhere, and whether it's hosted anywhere else. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I got hold of Ian Spelling through scifi.com. That's his reply up there to my inquiry. He doesn't have the story, but he verified that what is on the fansite is the full article. I'll amend the citation, and I appreciate your support. I've been able to track down almost every other fansite citation I used. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help, Moni, though it was stupid of me not to notice that the thing you posted above was from the author — I just glanced at it and missed "Ian." Anyway, feel free to give me a shout if you need further help. SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The logic I think you are using is absurd. the article has been published elsewhere by a reliable source, so the link to the fansite is only a courtesy link That would be true only if one had access to the reliable source. We can't, as general practice, pretend we have seen articles that may not exist, and such pretense should not pass our most rigorous review. The idea that one can use a fansite as a reliable source for a reliable source is surprising. Is that what you were saying above, or are you factoring in the other attempts at verification? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is moot, but what would you suggest if, hypothetically, The New York Times archives burned down and all past copies of the newspaper were destroyed forever? --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a helpful thought experiment, but I wouldn't suggest using purported mirrors on unreliable websites to imply one had the article to hand. That's unacceptable ethically and in terms of best practice. And "courtesy linking" to the mirror would be in breach of our policy about linking to copyright violations. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, regardless of how neat or not my thought experiment is, this should probably be addressed at some point. A story was written, and the distributor and original publisher no longer have a copy of it. The author verifies the mirror site story is correct. If there's no procedure in place for a case similar to this, there should be. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

—You're talking about a case such as yours here. I was addressing Slim's view, which did not seem to factor in any attempt at verification, and which said that it was fine to give the impression you had seen the source, and not a mirror of it (which remains bad advice in my view even in your case, I think you need to add something like "Reprinted on davidlynch.de, verified as correct by original author.") 86.44.30.169 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What to cite if I translate them from Thai Wikipedia?

I would like to translate some articles from Thai Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. I'm not the person(s) who wrote those in Thai Wikipedia. I feel a little awkward to copy those references without knowing what are those. So now my question is that

  • (1) Should I copy all the sources and paste into English Wikipedia although I never read those sources before?
  • (2) If the original article has no reference, what should I cite? Thai Wikipedia itself with the revision number?
  • (3) What should I do if someone else found out those the references and the articles themselves are irrelevant? or no one really care to read the references part?

I realize that some of those sources must be in Thai language, but poor sources are better than no sources. Thanks. --Manop - TH (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V#Non-English sources -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote, did you? --Manop - TH (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I did. You said:
“ I would like to translate some articles from Thai Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. ”
and asked:
“

I realize that some of those sources must be in Thai language, but poor sources are better than no sources.

 ”
I replied with a pointer to a policy page which says, in part:
“ Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. ”
I realize that this is not a complete answer to your question, but I thought that it might give you some useful info.
Pardon me for trying to help. It has been said that no good deed goes unpunished.
Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my words. I would like to help Wikipedia. I didn't mean to be mean. If you feel sad, I really sorry about that. According to the (strict) policy, it seems to me that if I cannot find any reference, I should not write any single thing and turn back. --Manop - TH (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I've just seen wiktionary cited as a source in the Till Disambiguation page. Is it possible that I can propose that this be discouraged by wikipedia policy? I say this because of the possibility of feedback loops.

For example, a vandal makes a change to a wiktionary page which is then copied into wikipedia by a legitimate user, who assumes it to be true. He then cites Wiktionary as the source. Meanwhile, at Wiktionary, the vandal's edit is checked by looking at the relevant wikipedia article. The wiktionary "checker" then cites wikipedia as a source - Wikipedia cites Wiktionary, and Wiktionary cites Wikipedia. May I suggest users cite the source which wiktionary cites, or not at all.--82.152.177.245 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations to wikis are strongly discouraged per the reliable sources guideline because of just the scenario you mention. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Date format in footnotes

The format listed in the example footnotes here is, I believe, Month Day, Year (with the month written out and the day/year as numerals). Should this not be the same as the guideline date format in the Manual of Style, ie without a comma separating the Month/Day and Year and perhaps with a choice between Month Day and Day Month based on article consistency? Or should the Month Day, Year format be used universally for references per Harvard style? I've just been reformatting the dates on a couple of articles, and while the article itself is straightforward there seems to be some confusion as to the exact format of the footnote dates. Adacore (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting your information; Month Day, Year is the standard American style and is one of the formats found in the manual of style. Day Month Year is the standard Commonwealth style. Both styles are options found in the date autoformatting menu. Citations in articles generally wikify these dates so that they conform to reader preferences. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The dates section of the manual of style specifically states "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year." It's this use of the comma I'm querying, mostly, along with whether the choice between commonwealth/american date formatting is available. Adacore (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your quote from the MOS refers to the case with only month and year without day. If the date to cite were "January 2001", there would be no comma. "Full date formatting" (with day month and year) is the next section of the MOS. I've edited to indicate that phrase only applies to "partial dates". Gimmetrow 08:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah - that makes sense - thanks! So as I understand it, date format in references, like date format in articles can be of any acceptable style so long as consistency is maintained, yes? Adacore (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing DVD's

Can you cite a DVD as a source for information ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same as video and other film formats. Arnoutf (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and punctuation

The para should be changed to one standard, the wiki and Chicago MOS standard of footnotes coming after punctuation, not both. There's some to be said for consistency. The option to have footnotes before punctuation should be stricken. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The current language was the result of a recent lengthy dust-up on that issue. Personally I think that we might as well have editors act at their discretion in areas where consistency is of no discernable value. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think simply having consistency over either a large segment of Wikipedia, or over at least the more prominent articles, would be a discernable value. I'm not interested in revisiting that "lengthy dust-up", but I would like to ask a related question: is the Vancouver system of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or not? Gimmetrow 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's of value if a reader likes consistency for its own sake, but it's not obvious to me why one might do so. Most readers will approach Wikipedia one article at a time and minor inconsistencies across the collection will not be troublesome. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There are benefits to editors, too. But like I said, I'm not really interested in revisiting that. Now what about Vancouver? Gimmetrow 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Rlevse and Gimmetrow; the last go-round wasn't so much a dustup as people just grew tired of the edit warring from a few editors. Wiki has reached a level of importance that warrants having our own housestyle, for consistency and maintenance purposes. I support a return to the long-standing, previous wording, which reflects consensus and practice on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording before the edit warring last October was:

Where to place ref tags

Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.[10]

The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks,[10] without an intervening space in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.[10] The same is true for successive ref tags.[1][10] The exception is a dash[10]—which should follow the ref tag. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.[11]

Example:

According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005</ref>
however the moon is not so big.<ref>Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 46(78):46</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>

Comment: It might be useful to think of users as human beings, members of a species able to keep only a limited number of things in their heads at one time, particularly when their participation is as volunteers without renumeration. Which policy or guideline are we willing to put up with users forgetting about to make room for this? Feels WP:CREEPy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I'm not against easy-to-use tools that assist users in providing nice-looking, standardized styles or the creation of bots that can conform styles after-the fact. I'm against imposing these sorts of style requirements on the backs of ordinary users, particularly if not accompanied by any proposal for tools or bots to make the burden easier. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Shira, this is not something brand new. It was the guideline for over a year, and there are tools to take care of it, so it imposed nothing on the backs of ordinary users. Gimmetrow 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is very helpful and very easy to understand. I don't know why it was removed and it needs to be reinstated asap. Tyrenius (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Programmatically, writing a tool to "fix" misplaced references after punctuation would not be a terribly difficult task—assuming such tools are not already available, as it appears there might be—and should little affect the decision. The MOS has previously drawn hard boundaries on style considerations which vary outside of Wikipedia, for example, on punctuation inside of quotation marks. The guidelines should do the same here, without any pussyfooting. I recommend restoring the previously existing rule to a simple, easy-to-follow, requirement to put ref tags after punctuation as indicated. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation." - This wording, given in support of the option of punctuation before ref tags, seems rather a weak rationale to me. Now, if I were invited to contribute an article to Nature, then, sure, I'd follow their house style too. But as I contribute to Wikipedia then I'll try to follow Wikipedia's established style. The expectation for different editors to follow consistent style guidelines rather than all simply doing their own thing is really the whole the point of establishing style in the first place. I don't really see the need for guidelines to pander to one or two editors who can't get their heads around this. --SallyScot (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where were you all when this was dragging on for months? Gimmetrow 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Asking a question again for lack of response: is the Vancouver system of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or not? Gimmetrow 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Re Vancouver. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles it sounds like pretty much anything goes. Whether we might want to be more selective and venture to establish a smaller subset of preferred styles for Wikipedia is another question. --SallyScot (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the CITE guideline is clear that any system is acceptable: "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." This is an ENGVAR-type issue: everyone believes their own system is superior, so we generally just take the first established style unless the editors of an article agree to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Re. where were you all when this was dragging on for months? - From my initial readings on the subject I'd kind of assumed that the dispute had been going on forever. If on the other hand it's more true to say that the CMoS recommendation was in place well before one or two editors came along with their alternate style then I'd suggest they need to do better with their argument than "some editors prefer...". It would be like a new editor coming along now and insisting on capitalising all words in section headings (e.g. Where To Place Ref Tags instead of Where to place ref tags) on the basis of their preferring the style of some other publication.

Perhaps I've missed some salient argument, perhaps previous discussions became entrenched and adversarial instead of encouraging consideration of alternate rationales. In any case I invite proponents to summarise their reasoning again here.

I must say however, if all that can be vouched for the approach of putting references before punctuation is "some editors prefer" it, then I'll suggest there as no serious objections to restoring the CMoS recommendation that references should follow punctuation - on the basis it is the style which was established here first.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you look through the archives of this talk page and that of footnotes. If you do you will see that this dispute had gone on for more than a year. I strongly suggest that the compromise is left in place. No it is not true that "the CMoS recommendation was in place well before one or two editors came along with their alternate style". I can provide links to archived sections links dates of page edits etc etc but you can find those in that archives. Let me know if you need them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW "many" and "some" was a compromise but the editors in the dispute were more evenly spread than that. So one can equally argue it is "some" like CMS and "some" like Nature and the thundering herd don't care. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Philip. Yes, if you can provide links to relevant archived sections links, dates of significant page edits etc that will be of great assistance. I realise such stuff is preserved in the archives, but with it being spread over this and the Footnotes article, and with there being so many archives overall, I don't think I'll find it that easy having not been involved with the discussion before.

I suppose what I'd really like to see is a key summary of the main points. I understand such occasional summarisation is recommended practice for lengthy discussion topics. I'd like to understand the reasoning, such as it was. Surely there was something more substantial put forward in terms of argument in a dispute that's gone on for more than a year than it being simply a matter of personal preference.

I don't want to prejudge the issue, but I have some concerns from comments such as SandyGeorgia's above "people just grew tired of the edit warring from a few editors". If indeed, as you suggest, it is not simply the case that a few editors were trying to get their way using brute force with relentless reverts and edit warring until others just grew tired, then it should be possible instead to briefly surmise the actual rationale of the arguments given.

Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I've read some of the archives (namely archives #17 & #18) and I can see that it's probably unfair (and unhelpful) to just imply one side in edit warring over the other. However, while I accept that some editors will simply have become exhausted over this and hence understand how the compromise wording came to be, I have to say, for anyone seeking guidance as to appropriate style, it looks rather like a lame fudge. In that respect the "some editors prefer" wording doesn't really resolve the issue, and it's likely to continue getting raised in discussion as people read it and just think, ...huh?

If indeed it turns out we cannot agree a style here then at the very least I think we should somewhere summarise the rationales for the different approaches. That way a new editor has some assessment criteria and can hence judge for themselves as to what might be the best approach for their article. - Which is really what I was getting at with my earlier requests for summary.

One thing that I didn't see enough of in previous discussion was people trying to rationally justify their own POV. Comments such as "Citations/footnotes before punctuation looks awful. This is obvious..." are practically useless in moving things on. If anything such remarks are counterproductive as they only encourage an "oh no they don't", "oh yes they do" pantomime and consequent further entrenchment.

Now, I would suggest that one of the reasons underlying the argument that punctuation before the reference looks bad is because it cuts the punctuation adrift. With the references being superscripted as they are, commas and full stops are inevitably left somewhat floating in space.

It seems to me as if this issue has not been properly recognised or addressed by those arguing for punctuation before the reference. Not only that, regardless of the separate issue of whether Wikipedia house style should allow any approach in this regard, I haven't actually seen any examples which really demonstrate such precedent. The example that's been given over and over is the style of "Nature". However, it seems to me that there is an important difference between typical "Nature" references and typical Wikipedia references; a difference which has a direct bearing on the punctuation "floating in space" concern.

The point is that punctuation will inevitably be cut further adrift by longer reference notations. And Wikipedia reference notations will be at least three times, and typically four times, the length of "Nature's". Wikipedia's inclusion of square brackets practically ensures that by itself. "Nature" references are of course not parenthesised. I don't know why this difference in parenthesis hasn't been picked up already. But in any case, and in addition, I'd also suggest that you'd be hard pressed to find many articles in "Nature" which extend to double digit references, whereas this will be typical for mature, well referenced articles in Wikipedia.

The guideline wording saying - "Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature" is trying to suggest that this1, in effect, is really the same as this[10], or even this[12][34].

I doubt if what I've written above will alter positions which have already become entrenched, but, as I say, some summaries of the main points and counterpoints could be included perhaps on a "Further considerations" subpage and referred to by way of a note / link from the main project page. This would inform editors of the reasoning that has been put forward on either side. It would hence facilitate assessment as to the relative merits of each approach, and thus help editors decide overall for themselves what might be best.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See:

But see also:

The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes by SlimVirgin at 05:38, 17 May 2006 without any agreed consensus to do so. The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Citing sources by SlimVirgin at 18:54, 29 October 2006.


Also:

The reasons for the preferences for different styles are spelled out in detail in these archives. But if you want them listed out yet again I can do so. I would point out to you that the wording of "many editors prefer ...CMS" and "some editors ..." was a compromise as Septentrionalis has pointed out it is actually "some editor prefer ... CMS" and "some editors ..." is a more accurate reflection of the number of editors involved in this debate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than be dogmatic, it makes sense for the location of a reference relative to punctuation to depend on what element is being refereneced. I.e., if a particular reference supports an entire sentence, the reference should be after the full stop. If a reference is used to support only a particular word or phrase, it should go directly after the element it supports. E.g. "The ball is big,[1] blue, and heavy[2].[3] ... 1. A. Smith, "The ball is big"; 2. B. Jones, "the ball is heavy"; 3. C. Baker, "The big blue ball is heavy""--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What do other style guides say?

Thanks for the links Philip. Hopefully I'll get a chance to have a read through more of them. Though I'm not sure I'll manage everything that's been said since the year dot. At this stage I'm a bit concerned that some contributors on this subject have been abandoning good principles of encyclopaedic research in favour of their own POV+OR.

I know there's more latitude in discussion pages, and I realise we're talking about guidelines rather than a regular article here, but really, if more editors thought along the lines of citing their sources instead of simply making stuff up, I'm sure this debate would've moved on quicker. For example, Jeffro77's point above - "it makes sense for the location of a reference relative to punctuation to depend on what element is being referenced" - I have to ask... where does that come from?

With regard to any issues of this sort, the case will always be stronger with good supporting references to existing style guides, ones well-established and already out there which set such precedents. One would still be entitled to argue that sticking to a single house style would be preferable, even if that style choice was somewhat arbitrary, but it would have to be conceded that the case for alternatives would at least be stronger if it could be shown that they weren't simply on-the-spot contributor inventions.

With this in mind I Google searched: footnote number punctuation

I got a number of results, in addition to Chicago Style, including University style guides such as the University of Minnesota and the Australian National University, and other institutions such as the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)'s style guide and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) style guide.

It could be argued that some of these bodies may simply be copying Chicago and in that sense they're simply multiple references to the same style. Perhaps more significantly then, it seems as if other major guides including Dictionary.com, APA and MLA, also suggest that superscripted numbered footnotes are placed after punctuation.

I haven't yet found any major style guides that explicitly recommend superscripted numbered footnotes before punctuation. So it could be suggested that the practice of the journal Nature doing this looks rather idiosyncratic in this context.

Does anyone know if 'Nature' has a formal style guide published as such? Or, in lieu of reading back through further archive discussion on this, do we have any other style guides out there which support the adoption of the 'superscripted numbers before punctuation' approach?

--SallyScot (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are others (Eg an EU one), there are others (journal of the ICRC) that leave it to the editor to decide, please read the sections I have given you to read to find the links to those and others. Why are you so dogmatic about this? It seems to me that you wish to do away with a compomise that took a long time to agree on. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If Sally really is doing a lot of work and making a good-faith effort to contrast and compare style guidelines, that would be the opposite of "dogmatic", but I don't know the history of this argument. Potentially, the consensus here could be affected by Version 1.0. Please see the discussion below at WT:CITE#STYLE1.0. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest you read the links above for a history of the dispute? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'll try and get through as much as I can with the archives. But I invite other contributors to summarise previous arguments in the hope of eliminating some of the prior repetition, static and noise.

Now, as Philip quotes the EU guide above, I can take it that he considers this one of the stronger examples. Reconfirming its candidacy in this way clarifies for me that it's something I should consider seriously and look further into.

I meant this one: "3.4.1. Citations and recitals (preamble)" as well as the one you mention below "8.1. Footnote references" and not the one specifically for bibliographies. Indeed as pointed out in an earlier thread the EU seems to have no problems with different forms of citation for different types of documents.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What you pointed out in an earlier thread (archive 17) was erroneous. There you said that page was "a page specifically about writing Biographies, not any other type of EU document." The guideline is of course not specifically about writing biographies, neither is the EU guideline particularly suggestive of different forms of citation for different types of document. Their style guideline suggests different formats for bibliographic references in comparison to other types of footnotes, including EU 'citations'. The EU's use of the term 'citation' is more in a legal sense. It's not the same as Wikipedia's and is not interchangeable with our encyclopaedic sense of a bibliographic reference. Their 'citations' refer to the EU's own legislative documents, such as Official Journal treaties, accession acts, agreements, protocols, and conventions. Any other type of reference, i.e. to that of the work of another author or organisation (i.e. what we might also call a citation) would fall under its categorisation covered by section 5.3.4 Bibliographies. --SallyScot (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, from Eurpoa (the portal site of the European Union) - Interinstitutional style guide - 5.3. Preliminary pages and end-matter - 5.3.4. Bibliographies...

There are two different systems for presenting the references in the text for a bibliography; one is numerical (the numbered system), the other is alphabetical (the Harvard system). In the numbered system, references are indicated by numerals in square brackets, placed after the punctuation, and the bibliography is printed in numerical order, also using the numerals in square brackets.

- Note my emphasis on phrasing above. This is quite explicit about the placement of references with respect to punctuation. It doesn't mention the use of superscript and doesn't include an example; it may not look quite the same as Wikipedia, but in any case, it clearly contradicts the 'references before punctuation' argument here.

However, the EU style guide does make a distinction between bibliographic references and other types of footnotes (an issue also in discussion on this talk page further below), saying that one of the footnote forms is...

figure in superscript between parentheses with same value as the text, preceded by a fine space and followed by any punctuation:
References to the Commission Regulation (1) also appear in the Council communication (2); but not in text of the Court of Justice (3).

Here note that the parenthesis are clearly not superscripted. I suppose this is one way of avoiding the issue of punctuation floating in space, but I'd suggest it isn't really applicable for Wikipedia, given that our square bracketed numbers are wholly superscripted, and there being little likelihood of this changing just to follow an EU style.

A particular reason for bringing up the issue of further examples is that our guideline wording says...

Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation.

...and the "such as" phrasing looks rather like weasel words unless some other supporting examples can be found.

Once again please, can anyone provide examples, other than the journal Nature, which put wholly superscripted references before punctuation? - I'm looking for established style guides that explicitly describe such practice. And yes, I have been searching myself, but so far this has only resulted in me finding further style guide examples in support of putting them after punctuation.

Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"but I'd suggest it isn't really applicable for Wikipedia" is of course your opinion :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that using parenthesis which are not superscripted like the EU do for footnotes isn't really an applicable way of avoiding the punctuation 'floating in space' issue here because Wikipedia's ref tags look like this.[99] I'm not really sure what your counterargument would be. Are you suggesting that editors could include them manually and additionally like this ([99])? Or are you suggesting that some further development work needs to be done to change the way Wikipedia's ref tags work purely to support the EU style? --SallyScot (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we use one or the other. I was just pointing out that that is a style guide that places numerical footnotes before punctuation. I am not suggesting that we ape any particular style. See below for my comment about a serious problem with using the CMS on paragraphs that change over time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked for style guide examples that explicitly suggest putting superscripted references before punctuation. My point was clearly about the EU's use of parenthesis which are not superscripted. You suggested the EU guide, so I assumed it to be a good candidate. Yet it advises bibliographic numbered references in square brackets after the punctuation, and only includes footnote reference numbers before punctuation with full (not superscripted) parenthesis. On that basis the issue of superscript does seem to have significance. And, if anything, it looks like the EU has specifically adopted an approach which acknowledges this. --SallyScot (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I also have not found anyone or anything else (a manual of style or otherwise) that follows Nature's example. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the earlier discussions on this subject I provided an ICRC journal article which uses the same style as Nature. There are other articles other that use other styles as the ICRC journal style guide does not specify where to put the superscript notes. I am sure that other journals could be found, but I see not point when guidelines are meant to suggest styles that editors use, and clearly in Wikipedia more than one style is used. For scientific articles about subjects that clearly ones that appear in Nature, editors and readers are likely to be more familiar with Nature style citations and I do not see why this guideline should force on them a style that they are not familiar.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Following SallyScot's argument, Harvard referencing or non-superscripted before-punctuation referencing should become SOP - they are the most widespread styles by far on a global basis. Superscripted numerical after-punctuation referencing is not very frequently seen outside American English sources, and when it is it is mostly limited to the social sciences, which make up only a fraction of the total material which is citeworthy on Wikipedia. I estimate (from a very quick-n-dirty check in my library) that some 75% of natural science journals use Harvard refs, and the rest is about equally divided between some sort of after-punctuation (almost all US publications) and some sort of before-punctuation (almost all non-US publications) numerical footnoting. I do not think it is wise even to recommend a style that is largely limited to one particular country and only predominant in one particular subject matter. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Arguing that Harvard referencing or non-superscripted before-punctuation referencing should become SOP is not really following my argument at all. Others have successfully argued for the inclusion of Harvard referencing in Wikipedia on the basis that it is widespread; if you want argue that Wikipedia ought to support non-superscripted numbered referencing on the same basis then go ahead and argue for it. The fact remains that Wikipedia's footnote references are otherwise currently superscripted and it's in that context that the placement of punctuation should be considered.

There are efforts hereabouts to suggest that the use of reference tags after punctuation is something of a Chicago American English oddity "mostly limited to the social sciences, which make up only a fraction of the total material which is citeworthy on Wikipedia". But from my investigations it isn't just the Chicago Manual of Style. Other guides including Dictionary.com, APA, MLA, Oxford/Hart's style and Bluebook legal style also suggest that superscripted numbered footnote references are generally placed after punctuation.

Editors coming to these pages for guidance on such matters might consider what other style guides say in the main to have some bearing. As it stands at the moment I feel that the guidance wording ought to be changed. I intend to include a further note advising of the above guidelines, all of which have explicit advice on the matter, in addition to the existing CMS note. And on that basis I will also reword the advice closer to that prior to Philip's edit of 11:50, 22 March 2008 as I believe the pre-existing was a more accurate reflection of the situation. Also, if anyone wants the "style of journals such as" wording to remain with regard to the journal Nature, then I think it needs to be better supported to avoid the accusation of weasel words.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit restored a compromise worked out over many months. If you have read the archives, then you will realise that the current wording was a compromise and that no one particularly liked it but was one that everyone could live with. The current wording on the page does not claim that "the use of reference tags after punctuation is something of a Chicago American English oddity" it only claims that some editors prefer CMS and some editors prefer Nature, both of which are easily proved by reading the archives. Please explain how that is using weasel words and please do not change the wording in the section without demonstrating a consensus to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I can hardly stand to see refs before punctuation, but I see no benefit in stirring the issue up again. It led to a nasty series of edit wars over multiple pages, leading to page protection, with no one emerging from it looking very sensible, so I think we should let sleeping punctuation wars lie. SlimVirgin talk|edits 10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Philip, I don't think it is true to say that your edit restored a compromise worked out over many months. Your edit of 14:40, 20 March 2008 claimed in its edit summary "The balance for footnote placement. has been tipping in favour of afterendians so put back more balanced wording for beforeedians". This was reverted by SandyGeorgia a few minutes later at 14:43, 20 March 2008 with the edit summary "Restore footnote placement, did I miss the discussion somewhere?". You reverted again claiming "Yes SandyGeorgia you must have done please see the talk page.", suggesting that somewhere in this discussion you believe you've established a new consensus. You changed the wording that said "many editors put the reference tags after punctuation" to say "some editors put the reference tags after punctuation". The many editors wording had in place for months before your change. You seem to have just forced your preferred version through based on your personal feeling that what was already there wasn't quite balanced enough for your liking. You did not get consensus. However, rather than get involved in a discussion about the difference in what exactly was meant by 'some' and what by 'many', I thought I'd do some further investigation as to what a range of other style guides say, in order to contribute something more substantial.

My proposed wording follows from that investigation.

Ref tags and punctuation

Footnote reference numbers may appear mid-sentence, but are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph.

Editors following established style guides, such as Chicago/Turabian,[1] Oxford/Hart's Rules, MLA style, APA style, IEEE style and others,[2] will observe that, except for dashes, superscript footnote reference numbers generally appear after punctuation.

Some editors prefer the approach of the journal Nature, which places superscript reference numbers before punctuation.

If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.

Notes

  1. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494 - "The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." - See also CMoS Online, Style Q&A, Punctuation.
  2. ^ Other established style guides suggesting that superscript note reference numbers should generally be placed after punctuation include: Oxford/Hart's Rules, the MLA Style Manual, APA Style, Dictionary.com, IEEE style and Legal Blue Book Style.

Believe me, if I'd found an even 50-50 split in the guides, I'd be happy to reflect that. I can see why you might want a new editor think it really was six of one and half a dozen of the other, but it's not what I found.

I think if an editor comes here looking for style advice then they may reasonably want to factor this information into their decision. If you think I've specially cherry picked references to some guides and conveniently ignored others and been biased in that way then that would be a different matter. Otherwise I don't really see a reasonable justification in suppressing the information.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would draw you attention to the second from last paragraph in the section #Where to place ref tags immediately above this one that starts "The reasons for the preferences...". If you would like to add a second footnote after the CMS that notes the other styles also use this style,<ref>This is a style also recommended by CMoS Online, Oxford/Hart's Rules, MLA style, APA style, IEEE style and others</ref> I personally would have no objection, but I do object to your changing of the paragraph so fundamentally as it bloats the section unnecessarily, destroys the current symmetry and will encourage others to add many more style guides in an arms race that will not bring clarity. This is after all a style guide and not an article on citation styles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The part you refer to above "The reasons for the preferences..." may be your justification for making the 'many' to 'some' change, but you didn't necessarily have consensus, and it doesn't necessarily square with your later claim - "My edit restored a compromise worked out over many months". Your objection to my breaking the "current symmetry" seems something of a golden mean fallacy. I didn't want to get into a tiresome debate over what constitutes 'many' and what constitutes 'some', so I've instead proposed a wording which doesn't try to categorise the number of editors preferring references after punctuation. It simply suggests that the 'after' approach is consistent with other style guides. If a style guide 'arms race' ensues and it starts to get silly we can look at it again and deal with it then, for example, by creating a project sub-page for those that want to drill-down to such detail. Who knows, we might even find a widely established guide which explicitly advises superscript references before punctuation. I'd be more than happy to see such inclusion. As it stands though, I don't agree that my edit bloats the section, and I think it is much more informative than the woolly false compromise "some editors" edit.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"and I think it is much more informative than the woolly false compromise 'some editors' edit." of course you do otherwise you would not have made the edit! I do not agree with you that it is a false compromise which is why I made the reversal. That you are trying to force through a change suggests to me that you are in support of after punctuation citations and are not interested in a compromise, but wish to force your views on everyone else. It was an insistence on footnotes after punctuation that caused the disagreement in the first place. Why do you think that after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation? Have you read the problems mentioned below that this style causes given the dynamic nature of Wikipedia articles? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference would be for Wikipedia to have a consistent style. I would comply with references before punctuation if that were the established convention. As I've already said, if I were invited to contribute an article to Nature, then I'd have no problem following their particular in-house approach. However, having now investigated a number of general and widely applicable style guides, it is apparent that the more common convention is to place superscript reference numbers after punctuation.

Even so, though I may argue for it, I have not tried to force through any change to the guideline wording that eliminates the before punctuation option. Your accusation that I'm not interested in compromise is unfounded. My proposed wording does not correspond to "an insistence on footnotes after punctuation". Meanwhile, I have pointed out that your claim above^, that your 14:40, 20 March 2008 edit "restored a compromise worked out over many months", is not in fact true. The compromise wording you refer to actually said "many editors put the reference tags after punctuation" (my emphasis).

Even though I believe it's the case that more editors go with references after punctuation than before, I could see how the definition of "many" could be argued over. I've proposed a new wording which doesn't get into this.

In reverting my initial implementation of new wording you suggested in the edit summary that it had "given undue weight to the after-endians." - A point which remains unsubstantiated. You suggest that including reference to major style guides breaks some kind of preordained symmetry. In this discussion the references after punctuation approach is characterised by yourself as "the CMS style", which you suggest should not simply be aped. But your reaction to other guides being mentioned is now concern about the section becoming too bloated.

Considering the amount of discussion there's been on this topic, brief mention of four major style guides in addition to CMS in the text, with a footnote to support and suggest a couple more, is fairly succinct. It's one single sentence. It's just better substantiated than your "some editors" version (or the previous "many" editors version come to that).

You need to raise a substantial objection to the content as it is proposed rather than change the subject. By which I mean the question - "Why do you think that after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation?" - isn't relevant. Read it again and you'll see that I'm not proposing a wording change which says "after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation". I've simply included some referenced information, worded fairly and neutrally, which adds to the overall value of the guidelines.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you were putting in words that explicitly stated that after-endian is better, but one can make a point through presentation, as any graphic artist will testify. As a compromise solution I have added the additional guidelines. I would prefer not to do so because I think it over eggs the pudding, but I hope you will accept it as a compromise so we can put this dispute to bed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. My 'presentation' is only intended to suggest what I found - here that superscript reference numbers appearing after punctuation seems to be the more usual convention. I think it's reasonable for the guideline wording to reflect this. The 'established' wording pre 20th March did this by saying "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are normally placed immediately after the punctuation…" I'd like to see that restored, with the addition of my new supporting reference.

I realise the process can seem painfully slow, but I have to say I also have issues with the supporting wording around Nature. The style guides suggesting "after" punctuation are more widely applicable than a single journal. As it stands, Nature's approach should really be identified as being a particular in-house style rather than "the style of journals such as..."

--SallyScot (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations at the end of a paragraph

My major objection to the CMS style is end of paragraph references. It is impossible to tell if a citation at the end of a paragraph is a reference from the start of the paragraph -- or from the last reference (which ever is closer) -- or if it is just covering the last sentence. This is a particular problem for Wikipedia because at any time an editor may add a sentence to a paragraph which the reference tag at the end of the paragraph does not cover and without a detailed study of the history of the article it is not possible to tell which unless one has access to the referenced material. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep repeating this stuff about ambiguous references. It has been pointed out ad nauseum that your proposed solution to this alleged issue would not fix the issue one single bit. Gimmetrow 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it is a problem and it needs to be solved. By whatever means are expedient; unambiguous sourcing is (IMHO) the single most critical point in Wikipedia. Did you notice how the lack-of-quality naysayers have largely disappeared in the last year or so, coincident with the Wikipedia community placing more emphasis on sources?
Every few weeks I come across factual errors, which ultimately turn out to be based on ambiguous citations and sourcing - be it by the Wikipedia editor, be it by the authors of the original sources which have simply not read or ambiguously cited their sources. This phenomenon is considered a pressing problem in the natural sciences; see here for a review. (It may or may not be interesting that they use before-punctuation footnoting despite being UCLA scientists) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
With "whatever means are necessary" I mean: if Wikipedia - considering the limitations and opportunities given by the underlying codebase which make it precedentless (see also WP:NOTPAPER) - establishes its own style guide, so be it. (From my personal experience with a range of style guides common and in-house, ChiMOS is the last thing I could recommend with good conscience.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the goal of referencing is to help people who do have access to the referenced material? Anyway, in a paragraph that has a topic sentence, references for that sentence will mostly likely support the overall paragraph, while references on subsidiary sentences are more likely to be for those sentences alone. So if there is a genuine opportunity for confusion, it can be remedied by rewriting the paragraph to make it more clear what the overarching claims are, and attaching the general references to those claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am doing mainly referencing and no source is too obscure or exotic for me as long as it's scholarly. From my experience it would be nice if the approach you suggest worked. However, it does not; on the contrary, simply assuming that the topical sentence is referred by the source at the end of the paragraph is highly misleading. This is because Wikipedia articles are not generally written as scientific articles are (you take a source and reword its content, then you take the next source, etc) but piecemeal; content is added irrespective of relevancy of sources, but rather where it fits best from an aesthetical standpoint. And many paragraphs do not have a topical sentence.
(As I see it, the aim of referencing is to encourage people to read more and educate themselves and do not just believe something just because it's written, without caring about where it comes from. Sources provide a "do you want to know more?" for all sorts of cool and interesting facts. Therefore I always try to provide links to full-text versions of sources.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The goal of citing sources is not primarily about "encourage people to read more" -- that can be done through simple "References" and "Further reading" sections -- it is as a quality check as Dysmorodrepanis pointed out "lack-of-quality naysayers have largely disappeared [since citations started to appear]". On reading a Wikipedia article it would be very tedious to check every citation if all one is interested in is an overview of a subject. I suspect that most readers assume that someone else has checked the validity of the citations in an article. But the dynamics of Wikipedia editing means that although an after punctuation citation may still fully support the sentence next to the citation, one can not guarantee that it covers all the sentences from the start of the paragraph up to the citation. Unfortunately with CMS style citations at the end of paragraphs readers will often assume that it covers the whole paragraph and not just the last sentence (which in many cases, when additional sentences have not been added to a paragraph, may well be true and the intention of the editor who put the citation there). Personally I would like to introduce a hybrid style, to deal with the unusual dynamic environment that is typical of the writing and maintaining of a Wikipedia article, however I recognise that at the moment there is not a consensus for such a combination, but at at least for those articles that are written using the Nature style of citations, there is less chance of misunderstanding than for those articles written using the CMS style, and for those articles written using the Nature style it would be a retrograde step to alter them to the CMS style because it introduces the ambiguity I have mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Your alleged "hybrid" style does not solve the alleged problem you are claiming exists. This has been pointed out multiple times. Gimmetrow 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the problem not exist Gimmetrow? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't shift the topic. Whether the "problem" exists or is significant is not the critical issue here; your proposed "solution" doesn't fix it. Gimmetrow 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not shifting anything, I am asking do you think it is a problem because as you wrote "alleged problem" you might not think it to be a problem. Does the problem exist Gimmetrow? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are shifting. You point to an alleged problem, and then present a "solution". You have continuously been challenged for months to demonstrate that your solution even fixes the problem you claim exists. Not only have you utterly failed to make any such demonstration, you do not even change your argument to reflect the fact that your solution has been challenged on this precise point for months. Gimmetrow 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh cut it out already! The question to ask here is "What can be done to alleviate the situation?", no? "How can it be achieved that to the average reader, references are as clear and as unmistakeably placed in regards to referenced claims/statements as by any means possible?"
"The average reader", I'd guess, is likely to be from Europe, North America or Australia but may come from anywhere in the world and is at least capable of understanding Special English.
From the growth pattern, language and style of "amateur" contributions - basic formatting, no fancy tagging, reffing, catting, templateing etc - as far as I can observe them I would say that there is a general growing popularity of the en.wikipedia in (S(E)) Asia. Which may raise the stakes here; one can assume that someone from say Brazil will have no problems understanding any "Western" referencing style, but we might be getting many new members who are far from being embedded in Western culture and might not understand just any style with ease. I don't know if I'm correct; to seek out input from novice users may well be worthwhile. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What is your point? It seems to be irrelevant. Gimmetrow 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you contribute anything or are you just here to troll? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You interjected comments into a discussion that appear to be completely unrelated to that discussion. Care to explain your comments, while respecting WP:NPA? Gimmetrow 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

←Let's ask the question another way: what you're saying seems to be incomplete, Dysmo. Can you point to an article or a series of articles that seem to be a problem? I hate to be self-promotional (no I don't), but I believe Good article usage is about the right level to attack problems like this. We should keep a firm eye on changing trends in layout, wikification and language usage, but the study needs to be large, random, and careful. Take away any one of those adjectives, and what you've got isn't very useful. Feel free to come help out by reviewing articles which have been newly nominated for GA status, which is probably as close to random as we need to get. There are a few more details in the long discussion (and support) at WT:MoS, but WP:GAU reasonably covers it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It can not really be random as it takes a specific set of circumstances to throw up the problem. The article needs to carry sufficient citations of the CMS type that it could be taken for granted that the citation at the end of the paragraph refers to the whole paragraph, but that paragraph has had text added that is not covered by the citation. Typically these are controversial pages edited by a number of editors who are not very familiar with citing sources. Articles up for Good Article are usually in fairly good fettle before they are nominated and are not usually controversial or still under development (they tend to be fairly stable). I'll have a look through a couple of candidates that I can think of, but most of it would be historical (as I fix such things when I see them) and I have more pressing ways to spend my time. Next time I come across an example though I will be sure to place it here :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example notice the movement of the Paddy Ashdown sentence from below the citations to above. It is impossible to tell from the arrangement after the edit that the citations at the end of the paragraph do not cover the Ashdown sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Try for example Protoavis, where precise referencing is crucial because this thing is one huge controversy (luckily, not the article - but the sources are full of mud-slinging). I have footnoted some sources; somebody had added a whole bunch of refs that are not cited already, so I suppose eventually it'll be more than just the few cases where it's ambiguous. I guess that the good Dr Witmer would not find it amusing if his name is connected with any of the reconstructions of that thing (as per the Zhou quote). That is a good example - you have a paragraph that ends on a contradictory statement. If properly shourced, the paragraph itself would probably be full of Chatterjee references - so full that one could actually use "The Rise of Birds" as default ref for the entire para. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al (1999). "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide". J. Pathol. 189 (1): 12-9. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F. PMID 10451482. 
  2. ^ A study made by Tom, Dick or Harry in 2008 (just as an example)
  3. ^ x
  4. ^ x
  5. ^ x
  6. ^ a b "1997 Consensus of Amercian Cardiology Society
  7. ^ a b 2008 Time to re-evaluate ? Amercian Cardiology Society
  8. ^ a b 2006 X sometimes associated with Y - Bloggs UK Cardology
  9. ^ a b 2007 X may occasionally be caused by Z - Fred, Cardiology Today
  10. ^ a b c d e This is the convention used in the Chicago Manual of Style
  11. ^ "Note reference numbers. The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." (The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494)

And maybe we could have curve brackets instead of square for some further distinction, producing...

Example text,(i) more example text.(ii) A point made with a supporting reference.[1] A second appearance of a note.(ii)

Notes

  1. ^ This is an example discursive note.
  2. ^ a b Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).

References

  1. ^ Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.


--SallyScot (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point with Bill's is not that it's easier to code, but that it already exists. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be asking for <nb> tags that handled auto numbering if they already existed. --SallyScot (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a "How to write them" section for Harvard or author-date referencing

Hi. I went ahead and did this edit, but User:Hu12 reverted it and says I should make sure nobody has trouble with it first. Two points: 1) the main Harvard referencing has been retitled to Author-date referencing; it's more descriptive, got more hits on Google, and doesn't have uncertain usage (I'd never heard of Harvard referencing before Wikipedia). 2) The footnotes section jumps right into a "How to write them" section. If people are looking at Wikipedia's citation guidelines, it's likely that they already understand what citing sources means. It's best to get them into the mechanics fast -- that increases the likelihood that they actually will cite things. ImperfectlyInformed | talk - contribs 00:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a good change and no one has a comment, I'm putting it back it back in. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the {{Harv}} and {{Citation}} templates have several advantages over the cite id html tag. Would you object to changing this section to recommend their use? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. You can add those in as a separate option, but citation templates should not be required: those both look overly complex, and generate more wordiness on the page. If you want to make them more understandable, that'd be nice but the anchor method needs to stay in as an option. I don't like templates like that -- they take up far too much space (especially in the References section). Doing simple anchors makes a lot of sense; it's very easy to understand. Unless I'm missing something, I see no advantages. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a professional editor, but here are two advantages I see: (1) I am sometimes mystified by the hidden meanings apparently intended to be implied by the various italicizings, boldings, parenthesizings, groupings, orderings, etc. done in hand-formatted citations. Looking at the wikitext de-mystifies this if it's a templated citation. (2) If WP ever does standardize on a citation style, a lot of hand-editing of individual articles will be needed to bring hand-formatted citations into line; templated citations, OTOH, can be brought into line by adjusting the template. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are fair points, but until we start requiring templates for regular citations, I don't see why we should require them for author-date citations. As far as the referencing of articles goes, you're right that it can be a little mysterious, but generally the first number is the volume, the second the issue (usually in the parentheses), and the pages have a dash in between them. Does that help? It's no harder to remember than those citation templates -- actually much easier. Also, someone could probably write a bot which could format all citations with anchors or bots in a certain way, could they not? Given that author-date citation have a strict format of [Author (date) 'Title' Journal ect.] it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Feel free to add the templates in addition. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates: How to use them

Following on the discussion above, I've added a "How to use them" subsection under Citation templates. Since that Citation templates section follows both Inline citation styles and Footnotes, I've made the example I used relevant to both. Feel free to improve what I've done. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-in-line citing

What should be done when in-line citing is not appropriate in an article? In The Tales of Beedle the Bard, all the summaries (scroll down) are referenced by a single link, which I just placed in the References section, since I thought in-line citing was not appropriate here. Is this fine? Also, is there a need for separate sections for the 'standard' references and the link; can't they be included in one single section, entitled 'References' or 'References and notes', like in Caesar cipher? diego_pmc (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They can be included in one section as "references" or "references and notes". Plot summaries are a good example of where inline citation is probably not needed and I don't see why it would be in this case. However, a reviewer of the article would probably complain (incidentally to your question) that the reference is not properly formatted. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed citation style guideline

In my opinion, we need a detailed Wikipedia guideline establishing recommended citation styles a) that are not redundant, b) that are compliant with widely accepted formats, such as the APA style and Harvard referencing, c) that are possibly dependent on the field of study considered, and d) that are flexible enough to include links to external and internal pages. Note: Whether or not we should use templates to achieve this should also be addressed. To implement the proposed standards, we can start by recommending the agreed upon citation styles for new articles and by encouraging uncontroversial changes to old articles. Some time later, we can add the recommendations to the GA or FA criteria.

Opinions?--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re a) I don't understand what you mean with redundant. b) Harvard is one of 3 allowed citing styles (although the footnote type is more frequently used) So I do not completely understand that this would change anything. c) We already have 3 options that cover natural (footnote type) and social science (Harvard type), although this is not linked to type of article. To be honest I disagree as the encyclopedia should provide information to the interested lay-reader. In other words, if you are a psychologists you should not use Wikipedia (but primary sources such as scientific papers) for psychology topics, but you might be interested in robotics articles (so APA style for the Robot article would be my favourite as reader ;-) d) Http: adresses already allow external linking, wikilinking seems less necessary, but ISBN numbes for example already do this.
In brief, I think most of your ideas are already implemented and I do not see what would change. Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No. What we have now is a free for all system in which any Joe can use any citation style in any article. What I am proposing is a system where one widely recognized citation style, for example APA or Harvard, (or possibly a number of non redundant citation styles such as these) is specifically recommended across Wikipedia. By "redundant", I mean equivalent and interchangeable. For example, the template families "Citation" and "cite" can both be used for the same purposes in the same articles, they are redundant. They also do not comply with any widely used citation formats, such as the aforementioned. The result is confusing for newbie editors and alienating for scholars, who have to learn various wiki-specific citation styles and other styles made up by wikieditors. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For example, the template families "Citation" and "cite" can both be used for the same purposes in the same articles, they are redundant. No they can't; citation and cite shouldn't be mixed in the same article, because they use different styles. See WP:CITE#Citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what I mean is that they are equally appropriate for the same articles, unlike Harvard and APA, which are not redundant in the sense that in some articles one citation style may be more appropriate than the other. "Citation" and "cite" are essentially redundant in that sense. Of course, articles must not mix different styles. I hope this is clearer. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My personal preference would be a single referencing style fo all of Wikipedia; with a single set of supporting templates. I don't mind whether this is APA, Chicago, Harvard, Science or Nature as long as it is consistent and comprehensive. However, the history of Wikipedia has been fairly organic on this file and it seems unlikely any consolidation will be achieved soon. I am ~very sceptical about a topic specific style as this would open up all kinds forks and/or edit wars arguments (consider Neuropsychology - Should that have a medicine, physics or psychology style??). Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and consensus will likely be easier to reach if we allow the use of several non redundant citation styles without imposing "topic specific" style restraints and if the use of templates for this purpose remains optional. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation templates certainly need to stay optional. I'm not sure there needs to be a single system, but there's pretty close to a single system among all scholars: it's either footnotes a la Chicago style or author-date a la APA. we should endorse a hybrid system of footnotes and author-date referencing for all articles; do what makes sense. Why? Author-date makes it easier to reference lots of different pages and sections from one very good resource (i.e. a book), while footnotes are handy for the things which don't have to be referenced by the page. As far as I can tell, to reference different pages with footnotes requires an entirely new footnote. And actually the Chicago Manual of Style endorses a hybrid system. See CMOS §16.26 and §16.63. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on a long wikibreak. When I come back, I'll file a formal comprehensive proposal (not sure whether I should do it here or at the village pump). I'm ok with both Arnoutf's and OptimistBen's recommendations, so if they decide to go ahead with their proposals, that would be great. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

←I'm sorry you're leaving for now.I've reopened this discussion a few sections below. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is generally that people are more likely to add citations if they can add them in whatever style they personally favor, without feeling that they aren't doing it "right". I also find that conformity across the whole encyclopedia is rarely of value to either editors or readers, despite the fact that achieving it usually requires many man-hours or work. As such I would be very hesitant to support a proposal like this. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Parham on this. The underlying question, as I see it, is this: should this style guide recommend a single standard way of verifying all of Wikipedia's articles? I can see arguments on both sides:
PRO:
  1. If there was a single standard, it would be easier to learn, so new editors would be more likely to use it, so articles would be verified quicker and easier, resulting in a more thoroughly verified Wikipedia, and therefor a more accurate Wikipedia.
  2. A single standard would simply look better and be more professional, giving Wikipedia more authority.
CON:
  1. A single standard can't be created by simply changing a style guideline. A single standard requires changing thousands of articles. This an enormous task, but could be carried out by a dedicated group of editors. This would also allow the participation of all of Wikipedia's editors. (See #2)
  2. Wikipedia's style policies should represent a consensus of all of Wikipedia's best editors, not just the few who happen to be watching this style guideline on a particular week. Editors who disagree with the style guideline will be unwilling to change their articles and will argue that the style guideline should be changed. If a consensus has not emerged amongst the articles as to which method is best, then a consensus is unlikely to emerge for the style guide.
  3. This is an example of instruction creep, which creates problems where there are none and can lead to arguments that cause talented editors to leave Wikipedia for good.
  4. If one method is truly superior, then it will eventually be adopted by more and more editors. Enforcing a particular method in a style guide prevents this bottom-up, quasi-evolutionary method from finding the best solution. This violates the very spirit of Wikipedia.
I'm persuaded by the second set of arguments. This issue is best decided by the editors of each article. I support any "dedicated group of editors" who actually take the time to standardize large numbers of articles (provided they always take the time to discuss their proposed changes with the editors who watch those pages, of course). But I don't think a style guideline is the right place to attempt to force standardization. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'd like to clarify a couple of things. What I'm proposing for the implementation of the guideline is that we require new GA, A, FA and FL articles to comply with the new citation style standards. In this regard, we could create an "official" team of editors dedicated to fixing citations in articles nominated for formal reviews as well as in those article that have passed formal reviews. Also, any disputes among individual editors regarding citation styles would be resolved by administrators in favor of the new guideline. In articles not formally reviewed where there would be consensus to keep the old citation styles, these would stay. This way, people would be allowed to add citations to B-class, Start-class Stub-class articles in whatever style they personally favor, unless individual disputes would occur. But in order for those articles to be "vetted" by a formal review process, the citation styles would have to comply with the recommended formats. This way, B-class, Start-class Stub-class articles will not be required to follow the guideline unless disputes arise, in which case, individual editors who prefer the recommended formats will be free to change the citation styles, but no citations will have to be deleted on the grounds that they are not compliant. This sort of lenient approach, will work far better, in my opinion, than a more restrictive approach in achieving the intended result, which is the implementation across Wikipedia of consistent, professional, widely known and easy-to-learn citation style standards.

The enormity of the task that we face in this regard in no way lessens it's merit. In an ideal world, all Wikipedia editors would be watching this page and commenting on guideline proposals. The fact is only a handful do. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to create standards to improve Wikipedia? I don't think so. My contention is that, if we implement this guideline change, we will gain more editors in the long run than we might lose in the process, because of possible disagreements and disputes, which would be minimized with the approach that I'm advocating. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I personally believe that compliance with a specific citation style guideline should be a requirement for new GA, A, FA and FL articles, I also think that simply having such a guideline will likely encourage editors to follow it, whether or not it is in fact added to the formal review criteria. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the main drawbacks in the citation style that is incorportated in Wikipedia is the reliance on one style (APA) and disregarding the most common referenceing style, the Modern Language Association (MLA) guide which is predominately used in publishing and academia for social sciences' works. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

punctuation and cites.

In regard to my discussion for a bot request, I've noticed Wikipedia policy does not as of yet strictly conform on this issue. I believe the Chicago Manual of Style is more encyclopedic and readable (and made to be a standard) than the Nature journal, which isn't necessarily an encyclopedic structure and mimicking a use in a popular publication isn't a valid precedent to starting and encyclopedia standard. It doesn't portray itself as a standard, and I think Wikipedia should make a move to place full stops before & against (i.e. no spacing) the citations. Furthermore it violates proper grammar (and therefore the integrity of the article itself as readable) by truncating the punctuation of the sentence structure and leaving what is conveyed unfinished before it can even be questioned by the cite or tag. (Which I think is impulsively jumping ahead and not a cool headed way to smoothly convey an idea into an encyclopedic context, which I feel violates the spirit of NPOV as well). By this reasoning I think there should be a vote to make this.[1] the standard over this[2]. At least in the permanent regards (I can see it as being transitory as in the "citation needed" in-line tags but not where it is a fixture in the article). 67.5.147.10 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We just discussed this at great length recently, and I'm not sure this is the best time for another drawn-out discussion on the matter. For my part I disagree with your proposal; I don't see a compelling benefit to readers or editors in requiring the use of any particular format across the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that imposing formulas may be counter-productive, although since many editors are unfamiliar with style guides and exclusively rely on templates, is there a reliable Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide? The MLA style is widely used for referencing social science works which represents the vast majority of Wikipedia writing. As for guides, the MoS already states that articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
The main problem with the ChiMoS is that it's very geographically restricted in use at present. You may not be aware this is you are US American, but it has rather little use outside the US, whereas it is really "the" standard in some branches of science there. From what I've seen, more people on a global scale are familiar with Nature-style footnoting than with ChiMoS-style footnoting. The former is globally widespread, the latter is overwhemlingly common in the US and little-used anywhere else.
This is a huge problem; IMHO the ChiMoS is the worst to use as a general guideline. Not because it's so region-specific, but beause it's so radically so. As an evolutionary biologist, I would say that it mandatorily demands one of the most autapomorphic Standard Englishes anywhere in the world. Where would one stop? The same argument that is rehashed ad nausaeam by SallyScot and a few others can be used to argue for Wikipedia to make certain other types of punctuation mandatory, many of which are to any non-US American clearly erroneous - and the citation style of the ChiMoS is a direct consequence of its general way of dealing with punctuation, not something that is derived independently.
Two examples:
  • Serial comma
  • Verbatim cites. To add a fullstop inside quotation marks if there is none in the original text (as the ChiMoS demands IIRC) is a butchering and garbling of the source, unfit of an encyclopedic work striving for (and arguably still having some problems with) accuracy.
In brief, were the ChiMOS not so ardent in its promotion of what according to the vast majority of the world's English speakers constitutes bad and even wrong English, I would be more equivocal. But I have professionally encountered most of the MoS commonly used in the natural sciences, and the ChiMoS absolutely blows by comparison when it comes to being exact. I would go as far as to say: if there is any commonly-used MoS that must not be allowed at all in an encyclopedic work, it is the Chicago MoS. It allows more than any other commonly-used MoS to deliberately fake citations and butcher quotations. In the restricted and competitive field of the sciences this may be acceptable. In an open and cooperative project like Wikipedia, the ChiMoS is just a vandal tool. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question posed

Is there a specific requirement that a bibliography only list the full notations of a Harvard-style citation? I could not find a MoS note but this may exist in an FA, GA or other guide. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Proposed rewrite of 'What to do when a reference link "goes dead"'

I propose a rewrite of the article section portion, Wikipedia:DEADREF#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. Previous discussions on the topic appeared in the following article talk sections.

  1. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 8#Sources that are defunct external sites
  2. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 8#Dead link details
  3. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 9#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"
  4. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 14#dead links and MLA style
  5. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 14#blacklisting known expiring web sources
  6. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 15#Marking links as inactive
  7. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 18#Intermediary sites, dead links, retrieval/access dates

Start of proposed rewrite, to replace all the section text after the WP:DEADREF shortcut:

When a link "goes dead" (see link rot and Wikipedia:Dead external links), it should be repaired or replaced, if possible. In most cases, one of the following approaches will give an acceptable alternative.

  • First, check the link to confirm that it is dead. If the link has returned to service but has been labeled as a dead link, simply remove the labeling. See Template:dead link.
  • Find a copy of the referenced document. There may be a copy of the referenced document in a web archiving service. If so, update the dead link to point to the copy of the referenced document.
  • Find a substitute for the referenced document. Enter key words or phrases or other content from the cited material into the referenced website's search engine, into a similar website's search engine, or into a general search engine such as Google. (A search engine may hold a cached version of the dead link for a short time, which can help find a substitute.) Or, browse the referenced document's website or similar websites. If you find a new document that can serve as a substitute, update the dead link to refer to the new document.
  • Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. (This may happen, for example, when an online copy of material that originally appeared in print is no longer online.) In the remaining citation, note that the dead link was found to be inactive on today's date. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions. In order to deactivate the dead link, do one of the following.
    • Turn the dead link into plain text. Remove only enough of the dead link's wikitext or markup language or URI scheme (square brackets, "http://", and so on) so that clicking on the link does not take you to its destination. This will make the link visible to both readers and editors of the article.
    • Turn the dead link into an HTML comment. Place HTML comment markup language around the link. This will make the link disappear when reading the article, but will preserve the link for editors of the article.

If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link.

To help prevent dead links, consider citing reference sources using a persistent identifier such as a digital object identifier, if available; or consider archiving the referenced document online when writing the article section, if permitted by copyright. Also, consider avoiding links to web pages that usually disappear after short periods of time, such as at some news sites.

End of proposed rewrite. Please comment on this proposal through 2008-05-20 to build consensus. BrainMarble (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the language about removing contentious BLP statements supported only by dead links. Do you believe that your rewrite incorporates any material changes to the actual advice, or do you intend it simply as a rewrite for clarity? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the rewrite proposal after working through a series of backlogged dead links using the original version, and after reading the previous discussions. The rewrite is a clearer version of the procedure, to me; but I'd like to find out how it appears to you and other editors in this discussion, before posting it.
Thanks for your note on biographies of living persons. Would the following statement work, inserted as a paragraph between "If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced..." and "To help prevent dead links..."?
Whether a dead link can or cannot be repaired or replaced, remember that Wikipedia policy (including policy on sources and biographies of living persons) still applies. Consider doing further edits of the citation and cited material, if appropriate, to improve the article. --BrainMarble (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Does a Myspace bulletin count as a reliable reference even if it was posted by a reliable source?RaptorX (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the source can be written out as reliable source without the myspace connection, it would have a better chance of being accepted as reliable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

Flash Websites

When dealing with a purely Flash driven official website, is it considered acceptable to source it with the main URL? How should one indicate when "page" of the site the information is being sourced from? As an example: http://www.lastexiledvd.com/ is the official English site for the anime series Last Exile and is being used as a source for the English titles and the English DVD and CD releases for the series. It may also be used later for the character descriptions and other plot related stuff. However, the entire site is in Flash, with no HTML alternative. For now I've sourced it using:

Official Last Exile website (Flash). Geneon Entertainment. Retrieved on 2008-05-14.

I basically just want to be sure this is acceptable, or if there is something more I should add to ensure its being cited properly. Collectonian (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

citation patent

User:Wackymacs referred me to the {{citation web}} type of template to use in history of computing hardware. Is there support for the needs of a patent citation, e.g. {{citation patent}}? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The analog to {{cite web}} is {{cite patent}}. {{ref patent}} looks superior, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Parham, thank you. I incorporated your suggestion. Do you have a recommendation for a Nobel lecture citation. It's for the same article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal citations for modern English law

I've been trying to bring the citations in Paul Diamond (lawyer) into conformity with WP:CITE, but an English lawyer is rather unhappy with how I formatted them, and disdains Bluebook as too Yankee. Could somebody come to the talk page of that article and offer some advice? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This English lawyer is amused that a Yankee quaker is beginning an argument in the first place. Wikidea 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation of subscription-only content

I've just discovered a citation link to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary, a subscription-only site to which the majority of the world does not subscribe. There doesn't seem to be anything in WP:Cite on whether such citations are permitted or not. Have I missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.198.70 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline disallowing them, so they are allowed. This makes perfect sense, because paper books, newspapers, and magazines are also allowed, and those must either be purchased, or viewed in a library. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't abbreviate journal names

We often read that something was published in J. Am. Phys. Soc. or something like that. That's standard in scholarly journals. I'd prefer to have a policy against such abbreviations, in favor of writing Journal of the American Physical Society instead. Wikipedia does not have the limitations of print journals, and hence doesn't have the need for such abbreviations, and often there can be uncertainty about the name of the journal, especially when it's not in one's own field. If such a policy were established, the huge volume of editing to conform to it in all the articles we've already got might require a bot to go through and search. Mistakes might happen and might offend some people, so we'd have to take some precautions against that, maybe even notifying people who've edited an article so they can vet the bot's work. Or the Wikipedian's work.

Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur, wholeheartedly. Within a given discipline, many journal titles are familiarly known by an abbreviation, but Wikipedia is not restricted to a single discipline. For example, the abbreviation MLA is used for the Music Library Association, the Modern Language Association, and the Medical Library Association, all of which publish journals (not to mention the Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council, and the Mississippi Library Association, neither of which seem to have a journal, but share the abbreviation).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Whose time is being volunteered to go back through the 2.3 million pages either writing out journal names or vetting a bot? Are you offering? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
All of us, of course. Millions of Wikipedians. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A simpler thing is just to add it to the guideline, perhaps as a recommendation, and let people gradually implement it over time after that. By the way, I also think it's better not to abbreviate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would make it a guideline; and support Carl in not strictly enforcing it and go for gradual improvement. Abbreviations are not always consistent; so a bot would be difficult. By the way not all scholarly journal use abbreviations, journals published using APA (american psychological association) style have the full journal title. So yes I also support full journal title guideline. Arnoutf (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. (Changed from neutral.) I'm not okay with "We've changed our minds, let's go back and change the formatting on all our articles, this looks nicer." I'll ask WP:FAC and other people to join the discussion. - Dan (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I shouldn't have put it that way, people might say I'm canvassing. I made a post on WP:FAC, and when I saw quick response, I didn't notify anyone else. The people who have to deal with these things every minute clearly have to be notified of this kind of proposed change. - Dan (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that a complete citation is preferable because our product is geared to a general rather than a specialist audience and full citations are clearer and more understandbable for a general audience. However, because many of our editors are specialists used to specialist methods of citation, and because abbreviations are standard practice in the specialist world, using abbreviations which are standard in the field shouldn't be made wrong or unacceptable or be a basis for removal. Because it can be hard just to get people to give citations at all, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So I wouldn't phrase it as "we shouldn't abbreviate" or give people yet another no-no, I'd phrase it as full citations are preferable and try to explain to editors why, and try to educate editors to take a look at the point of view of the readers. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should write the reference to this article as: Pis'ma v Zhurnal Eksperimental' noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki 45:1943,1963  :( Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping (I think!) the use of templates for this purpose: {{j am phys soc}} could expand out to its full name easily , the above example moreso. (I know certain behavior of wikilinks fail in ref templates, but I think templates remain ok...) --MASEM 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to this notion, which comes around periodically. For entries in PubMed (which is a lot of journals), Diberri's tool has been used on Wiki for years to generate citations, with abbreviations, and changing them all would be a poor use of editor time, since the full journal name is in the PMID link, one click away. For a sample of the unnecessary work this idea would generate, look at DNA, and notice the full journal name is always one click away, on the PMID or DOI link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the PMID or DOI link any additional information is redundant. Add to that the fact that if you Google any of these abbreviations (I just tried it with about ten) you get the journal as the top hit. Therefore, as this information serves no vital purpose, and the abbreviations are just as good search terms as the full titles, I don't see requiring full titles in part of a policy as making things any easier for our readers. However, if Diberri's tool or the Scholar Wiki search engine spat out full titles as default, that is what I'd use, but I certainly wouldn't bother filling them in by hand since that would be a complete waste of time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, since (I believe) the PubMed database accessed by Diberri stores the journal names as abbreviations, this would invalidate Diberri's tool, and the natural sciences articles folk would have to start generating cite templates by hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be possible to produce a tool that retrieved the PubMed abbreviation and referred to the list of standard PubMed abbreviations (link) to expand the title, but it might not be that straightforward. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no techical reason Diberri's tool cannot output the full journal name as an option (of which the tool has many). The tool reads an XML document such as this (view source to see the structure), which contains:
<Title>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.</ISOAbbreviation>
So this could be an option that editors can choose, much like they choose the citation format they prefer. And with Tim's list, there is no reason a bot/tool could not be used to help automate conversion -- though I would be opposed to making it anything other than editor choice on an article basis. Colin°Talk 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Whilst I accept the initial proposition's observation that "Wikipedia does not have the limitations of print journals" there is a "need for such abbreviations" and that is our poor readers who do not have an unlimited ability to scan through full journal names that may easily stretch to nearly the whole width of a line. Any article that gives a few references to "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America" is going to look horrible and we are supposed to also care about copyediting issues as editors, and not just the bulk of text we can type in as writers. What I look for first in a reference is the title and whether it has relevance to the question or issue that I seek to understand better. Next is still not the journal name, but the year; frankly a discussion on best chemotherapy for a cancer written in 1980 is of (almost) no relevance now, irrespective of how good the journal was. I can probably make a reasonable guess at say "Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg", "Am J Gastroenterol", "J. Pediatr. Surg" or "J Clin Exp Neuropsychol" and yet have never seen nor read any of these journals. The last thing I need cluttering up articles is drawn out screens of references and nor would anyone who seeks to print out several articles. Have a guess at “Acad Rev Calif Acad Periodontol” – we can have a good idea, but full title of “Academy review of the California Academy of Periodontology, United States Section, ARPA Internationale” is just silly in our attempts to allow people with 800x600 screens to also read pages. We also forget that the full journal name often includes mention of the publishing medical group; hence “Acta Belg Med Phys” is clearly about Belgium Physical Medicine, yet the full name parameter would show “Acta Belgica. Medica physica : organe officiel de la Societe royale belge de medecine physique et de rehabilitation” or “Int J Dev Neurosci” clearly International Journal of Developmental Neurosciences, but take a look at “International journal of developmental neuroscience : the official journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience” and at 135 characters long, cite 10 articles and the journal name alone occupies 4% of a "reasonable" 35Kb sized article.
The next proposal no doubt will be to insist on full names of authors with expanded forenames, indeed lets never have "et al" as Wikipedia is not short of space. There again, let’s not be miserly and consider why we do not advocate freely including the complete abstract paragraphs of PubMed (it is a publication of the US government after all) ... :-)
Clearly this is not how most biomedical journals format their references, and we have come to accept abbreviations throughout the rest of cite journal format with "12 (6): 25-7" being in full: "volume 12, issue 6, pages 25 to 27". Indeed this is part of the learning curve for people to understand references in the real world when they look at hardcopy papers and their reference list sections, nor do we treat our readers as infants wikilinking on section titles to help them understand what "Symptoms", "Diagnosis" or "References" are, so why oblige as a guideline on full journal names ? David Ruben Talk 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If a journal is notable enough to be a reliable source, it is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. So, when using Diberri's tool, click "Link journal" to Wikilink the journal abbreviation. Then, create a stub for the journal if it doesn't exist yet (using Template:Infobox Journal where appropriate), and create the needed redirect. (Perhaps someday we could include the brackets directly in Template:Cite journal.) --Arcadian (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this, although unfortunately (in my opinion) some deletionists regularly go after academic journals on "notability" grounds: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion contains a history. The inevitable deletion nom tends to dampen the enthusiasm of anyone inclined to chip away at Wikipedia:List of missing journals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a sea of blue WP:OVERLINKing in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're opposed to linking the sources in citations? I have to say I find it extremely useful (about a billion times more useful than linking the dates). I'm not suggesting it be required, but am more concerned about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on journals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm opposed to bots, scripts, templates or whatever methodology automatically linking journals in citations. If you have, for example, The New York Times used 30 times to cite an article, I don't see the need for a sea of blue to link every occurrence. As in all linking, WP:OVERLINKing should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we've got the overlinking now, because Diberri added automatic links to his tool, and it's not optional (at this point). That means if you use the same journal multiple times in one article, they all get automatically linked now by Diberri, so we get not only a sea of blue, but a sea of red as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is such an incredible statement that I'm going to add you to my list of Wikipedian absurdities. On second thought, you make a good point about bots doing it, but I certainly think that journals do need to be wikified once per page if they appear. If you're trying to evaluate science, it's helpful to know the track record of academic journals and researchers. OptimistBen (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is overlinking. WP os not a source for tracking journal reputation. Our coverage of topics is much too erratic for thatto make any sense at all. It's an encyclopedia of articles of subjects. DGG (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedias serve purposes: they are references. Journals, since they output primary knowledge, are almost always notable. So is their science, regardless of whether the general public is aware of it. If a journal is involved in something controversial or has a follow-up on some big issue, that likely belongs on their Wikipedia page. And surely Wikipedia is not too erratic to cover journals; Wikipedia's erraticness makes it better at covering these things. I don't know if I'm for wikifying all journals. I'm not sure if I'm in favor of bots doing it either; I prefer that journals be cited in-text and wikified there. OptimistBen (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support 100% This is a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. The argument that would we be required to include subtitles if we didn't abbreviate holds no water. PNAS has a website www.PNAS.org, and it is commonly written on this. Wikipedians, I've come to notice, tend to argue polarized positions: we can't do something one way, because if we did, then everything in the Wiki universe would be forced into that one method. The full title of a journal, in English, less subtitles, is a courtesy to the general reader glancing through a list of references who wants to pick and choose what to read. I research professional journals for a living and come across names of publications, abbreviated, that I can't make heads or tails of, can't find on the Internet, but need as sources (the librarian has a reference for these occasions.) If Wikipedia's goal is a lot of diverse knowledge, journal titles should not be routinely abbreviated because they hinder access for the laymen. Too many editors on Wikipedia argue that additional knowledge is one click away. I disagree with this. An article should be a complete discrete unit of its own, not a collection of clicks. I write for both a technical and a general audience, most scientists do have to communicate with lay audiences. It's no hinderance ot me to include full journal titles. It's the least of the things at Wikipedia keeping experts away. --Blechnic (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support In general I think that studies should be cited in the text with the full journal name. In the citation all you need is the title, the link to the source if possible, and the doi/PMID. It's best to try to citations to the essentials to make editing easier. If there is no link/doi/PMID (in other words, it's a very old article), then you need to do a full citation. But it's preferable to reference the author, the journal, and the date in-text. In the future we can use these to analyze past errors and ethical concerns; it will be HIGHLY useful. I agree that we could be doing more articles on academic journals and academics, and that they are deleted far too often. OptimistBen (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want inconsistently cited articles, one kind of citation if there's a PMID, another if not. Doesn't sound good. What we have now in medical/biology/etc articles are consistently cited articles thanks to Diberri's tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, there's certainly consistency in citing internet-available articles one way and the others another way. We should keep in mind that citation templates make editing articles more difficult. Brevity in citations is thus valuable, at least for some (myself). At the same time, PMID/doi's allow even readers of the print version to find the articles. OptimistBen (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Linking in with general use: Pubmed holds medical science related articles. Can you expect an engineer to be familiar with that database. In my field everyone know the abbreviation JPSP, PSPB, JCR and JASP; I guess most of you don't (and anyway JCR can mean any of three academic journals). Pubmed uses different abbreviations to confuse the matter. So Yes, I support full titles as that is clearly non-biased, non-arbitrary and least likely to create ambiguous reference. Arnoutf (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. I don't mind if either full names or recognised abbreviations are used (preferably without the dots, IMV), as long as consistent within a list. It's very easy to work out what they mean, and for the user, there's this and this. TONY (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose making this a requirement. WP has a history of allowing freedom in the choice of citation format but cares about consistency within an article. I don't believe any move towards requiring a certain format will achieve consensus. FWIW, WP:MEDMOS has long stated that "Some editors prefer to expand the abbreviated journal name." -- indicating that either style is acceptable, but that neither is preferred by WP. David Ruben makes a good case for why full journal names may be impractical, particularly in a long article with lots of references. Looking to the future, there is no reason why Wikipedia 2010 couldn't take a PMID, DOI or ISBN in the wikitext and format a citation according to reader preferences rather than author preferences. However, given the total inactivity wrt fixing date formatting, I'm not holding my breath. Colin°Talk 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is open source and written by volunteers. Everyone hates doing their references and endnote is Horrible. I often copy and paste my citations from my work (all abreviated and mostly harvard style). I am against having a standard for references that has to be mannually imposed: There are few editors that try and keep everything togheter and fixing cleanups (way more important), those people are gold and must not be taxed. A unified standard can be discussed when and only when there is a good bot that autonomously fixes all the references using a database index, like pubmed. I for one will not abide by extended references as it will only mean wasting my time. Sorry --Squidonius (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this along the lines laid out above. As for the cumbersome task of formatting citations etc.: in Wikiproject:Mathematics, we are using a database called zeteo (which I wrote), which stores all the information (about journals, authors, and the references, as well). So it gives something like
(notice not only the fully written name of the journal, but also the issn, which is another valuable information for locating the journal, etc). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a small step towards making Wikipedia articles on scientific topics more accessible to non-experts, which I see as a good thing, and one that doesn't add significantly to our work as editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as recommendation, oppose as anything stronger. The full name does look nicer; that's why I did it that way in my own dissertation. But I'm afraid that even strong language in a guideline has the potential to become a distraction and irritant. Let's put it in a guideline but make it clear that it's just a recommendation (even more so than guidelines already are). --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This seems to assume old-fashioned print journals are the standard to which other media should conform. Maybe that's true today, and certainly a decade ago, or five decades, etc., but how long will it still work that way? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (per Trovatore). I think this is a good idea, but it is already a guideline (or was, last time I was up to date) to not use abbreviations. I say, keep it a guideline! That way we have the best of both worlds: well-intentioned (but busy) editors can more quickly cut-n-paste references, and the more detail-oriented folks can fill in the abbreviations if they wish. silly rabbit (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur. Keep it a guideline. --Squidonius (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It makes refence lists harder to read by adding a lot of redundant info (since the abbreviations are standardised it is easy to check in google if there isn't a doi or pmid), and it makes it harder to read journals if you've had to learn another system for wikipedia, and the other way around. Narayanese (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment in my scientific discipline (psychology) full journal names is the accepted standard, so using abbreviations demands me to learn the abbreviations, which may not be standardised at all. So your argument could be used both for and against full names. Arnoutf (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Then it makes sense to use full names for psychology journal references. Narayanese (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Euhm that's not what I said, in these journals the author is required to provide the full reference, also when a medical journal is cited. I am in favour of: Always being consistent within an article (cf either UK vs US spelling); If possible be consistent in Wiki. So I would accept full ref use in Psychology Wikipedia articles; and standard abbreviations in e.g. medical articles; but not a mix of styles within an article Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Oh, they're standardized? What is the reference for the standardized names of journals? --Blechnic (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is one Narayanese (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
One? So how many are there? Do they all agree with each other? Is it inclusive? It looks like, from this resource, that if I want to find what a journal abbreviation means, I have to know what the subject matter is (for example, a biology article may have a medical journal, but would I have to search one of the 11 sources for abbreviations for journal titles in medicine? Or one of about the same number for abbreviations of bioscience journals?)[21]
When I can't find what an abbreviation is for, I have a librarian who looks it up for me. I think she uses primarily one resource for this, but I do use some foreign language journals and some fairly obscure ones, and their titles are not available so readily to the layman as people on this board seem to be saying. I, on the other hand, have to know the full title of any journal I reference. If I, as a writer, am using a journal as a reference for a citation, I have to know what it's full name is. Why not go the sensible way, honor the reader (the person the encyclopedia is written for), rather than the writers? Why not ask the person who already has the knowledge right at hand (the person using the reference) to simply provide it? If it is in the citations list, the reader can see its title. If the writer is using it, they know the title. Technical journals often have very relevant titles, and the reader can decide if they want to access it, or a more familiar one. The writer is giving fuller, more complete information every time they include the full name of the journal for the reader to see, right there, not obscured in its abbreviation. If you've never sat and puzzled through the references in a lengthy research article in Science to get the background for something technical you may not appreciate how much work this is, and not just for the layman, but for the expert.
Consider the audience of Wikipedia. Is it the writer? Or the reader? Is it the technical reader or the general reader? Generally the audience at Wikipedia appears to be the educated general reader. This is the person for whom including the full name of a journal is perfect. It gives him or her sufficient additional information to make an educated decision about the quality of a citation and decide whether or not to pursue it further. The abbreviated title is for the specialist reader of that topic alone, not just for the educated technical reader in general, but for the person already educated in that topic. And, are they coming to Wikipedia for their knowledge? No. I don't get any of my information for my research from Wikipedia. I won't be reading or needing your references, as I can't use them for anything. So, you've designed a system for an audience you don't and won't have. --Blechnic (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PS And references are important to properly written encyclopedia articles. The reference is not a throw-away piece of information for a well-researched, verifiable article. Consider how valuable it is. Is it valuable enough that it should be written out in full and accessible, easily, by the audience? Or is it secondary? It's never secondary if you're not writing original research: you must credit those who contributed. The entire article should rest upon the sources who did the original research upon which the Wikipedia article is based. Don't obscure the sources in any way. --Blechnic (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support I think journal names should be expanded to full form to be as understandable as possible to the general reader. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - whatever the result, there are probably people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals who are willing to refine and implement the required edits. I think linking journals from citations to articles about the journals (and sometimes the authors, if they have articles) is an important part of providing the background to the authors and journals we are citing. If a journal has an article, I would say link and either write in full or abbreviate, like we do with qualifications and titles (eg. MD FRCS, FRS). If the journal does not have an article, either create one (if needed) or write the name in full and provide the abbreviation. Citation style is less important than avoiding confusion over what we have cited. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • An example of my idiosyncratic citation style is seen at Thomas Snow Beck. As long as the information makes it into the article, someone else will eventually tidy it up. OK, that's lazy rather than idiosyncratic, but I linked to Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. I agree that there are concerns for overlinking, and maybe some way should be found to identify all the journal links that come from citation templates, and all those that come from elsewhere in an article. Both sets of information are useful. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some journal names are absurdly long and would look poor when cited multiple times. Those people who don't use templates and have to type them in by hand would be likely to make mistakes or shorten very long titles by omitting subtitles, which would hinder finding the journal. I would prefer a guideline which suggested using the long form of the abbreviation, preferably without the points, (for example Proc Natl Acad Sci USA), and generating redirects for journal abbreviations to the full title. That would remove the ambiguity over short-form abbreviations such as PNAS, without taking up too much space. The journal title is generally obvious from the long-form abbrevation, and a glossary of what the common abbreviated words expand to could easily be written. Wikilinking the first occurrence seems reasonable, but guidelines should not encourage multiple linking of the same title in a single reference list. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Since Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, I think that accessibility should be the primary factor in deciding which (if any) guideline to use. The space issue doesn't seem that compelling, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and the difference between, for example, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America isn't really that much (especially in small type in a list of references). Listing the full name of the journal is much more accessible to a general audience, and thus seems to be the best option. Another good option, as has been suggested, is wikilinking each occurrence of the journal title. That way, anyone could easily find out what on earth something like Z Naturforsch B means. Of course, this requires that every cited journal has an article about them, but I (and others) are working on that. ;-) ~ Danelo (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is a non-specialist encyclopedia and should aim to be as accessible as possible. Make this a MOS requirement for FACs if it's not already. I'm not sure a bot could parse all these (and would probably end up only doing some of each reference list, creating inconsistencies, so I don't think it's a good bot task. Mangostar (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia users may not be as conversant with standard sources and their "short hand" abbreviations. The use of full names for jounranls and periodicals will allow a easy reference connection. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Technical alternative?. Can the wiki infrastructure support hovering 'thought balloon' type annoation? If so, the abbreviation could be used, but hovering would reveal the full name. This would keep the article shorter, and only those who wanted more information need see it. It would also resolve the case of ambiguous abbreviations. LouScheffer (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur - general audience accessibility must prevail. Would (for example) the naysayers know what AMI is? Hint: it is not American Megatrends, even if Google says so. Also, one shouldn't intra-link titles (if at all such articles exist) since it fscks up COinS. And what about standard works, like ZZZ, that are not journals? What may be plain-as-day for one person is just alphabet soup for someone else. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Harvnb

With Harvnb, which I am trying to get my head round, how to do you cite a plate? For example, I want to cite Loach, 1999, plate 22. (The plate pages don't have page numbers.) Cheers. I could just write it out, but the rest of the notes are all neatly blue, and I don't want to let the side down.qp10qp (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You can use the "loc" parameter: (Loach 1999, plate 22), or with "nb" (no braces) form, you can just do this: Loach 1999, plate 22. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great. (I thought I'd tried that second one and screwed the formatting, but obviously I did something wrong.) The first one is new to me. Many thanks! qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with named references that have never existed in an article.

{{RFCstyle}} I've recently discovered a lot of broken references. These are the short version of named references like <ref name="Lemmey"/>. The long version <ref name="Lemmey"> something here </ref> does not exist in the current version. Using the article history I've found it has never existed in the article. These ref tags give the appearance of a sourced statement that can mislead the reader if they do not look at the reflist. Furthermore it is difficult to link to and from the reflist with the broken reference. The list of broken references and articles can be found at User:Lemmey/L --Lemmey talk 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with these broken ref tags?

  • Replace them with fact tags {{subst:Fact-now}}
  • Supplement them with <ref name="Lemmey"/><sup>[[Wikipedia:Footnotes|[broken footnote]]]</sup>
  • Comment them out <!-- <ref name="Lemmey"/> -->

--Lemmey talk 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the BRFA, replacing non-existent named refs with {{fact}} makes them more difficult to correct for a human looking at the last version. In the two examples you gave in the BRFA, I was able to find the intended references, but I don't usually do such searching for mere fact tags. I think simply commenting it out wouldn't work, since the comment is likely to be removed too. Identifying broken named refs for a cleanup category might be an option. Gimmetrow 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All but one were fixed in the example. I also point out that United States housing market correction may not be representative of the majority of other faults in that it was essentially a copy of another article and had rather descriptive tags. With less descriptive names it is virtually impossible for users to find the material in question. By searching the article history the user has already assumed all good faith that can be considered reasonable.--Lemmey talk 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

--Lemmey talk 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OReilly ref is:[3] Replace that with a fact tag or something equally obscure, and I doubt anybody would find it. Gimmetrow 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: - there are multiple sources of orphaned (missing a parent) or or born-orphaned (never had a parent) named references.

  1. Copy and paste from other wikipedia articles, without importing the parent.
  2. Re-naming of the parent, or for born-orphaned, renaming of the orphan.
  3. Intentional creation of the born-orphaned references.

The first two require human research, and I speculate are far more common than the third. This implies that a Bot fixing these cites may not be that helpful, and human intervention is desirable. I guess if you're going to "quiet" incorrect references, a citation needed template with a comment about its apparently lost or never created parent is a step in the right direction. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the following:
  • Garrison, North Dakota <ref name="population"/>— Ref tag was added in Revision as of 05:55, November 25, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've removed it, leaving unsupported population figures. Apparently originally sourced from US Census data, but I don't know where to find that specific info.
  • 1921 Detroit Tigers season <ref name=OReilly/>—Fixed by LemmeyBOT (Brilliant!! I've awarded a da Vinci Barnstar)
  • Cigarette smuggling <ref name=a/>Ref tag was added in Revision as of 03:23, December 31, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've replaced it with a {{cn}}.
  • United States housing market correction <ref name="WP April 24 2007"/>—LemmeyBOT has been busy here. I've replaced this remaining uncorrected ref with a [citation needed]. Some googling suggests that the related assertion might have come from a blog.
  • Bank Rakyat Indonesia <ref name="factsheet"/>— Ref tag was added in Revision as of 15:28, April 25, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've replaced with {{cn}}
  • Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 <ref name=mm/>—(and other refs) These were added without ref definitions in Revision as of 07:58, May 8, 2008, cut & pasted from Trevor Lyman. I've imported the missing definitions from there. This article is still a mess.
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)