Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: 2006 - discussion from the creation and initial adoption of this guideline

Contents 1 Different referencing systems (footnotes versus inline text) 2 Summary Style 3 Uncontroversial knowledge 4 Discussion over on WP:AN regarding DOIs in citations

[edit] Different referencing systems (footnotes versus inline text)

I see that this guideline shows the use of footnotes for referencing. WilliamKF has started using a system where the author and date of publication are inserted into the text. See Stingray Nebula, for example. See the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Citation systems. Do the people who wrote this policy have a comment on using footnotes versus inline text? Could someone please comment at the WikiProject Astronomical objects discussion? Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see at Stingray Nebula is a combination of Harvard-style references, which are a standard in much of technical publishing and an approved Wikipedia variant, with hypertext links for the convenience of the reader. Combined with use of the browser "BACK" button, this works as well as, or better than, the cite.php system. I personally much prefer Harvard-style references; Wikipedia (and the scientific citation guidelines) are explicitly neutral. Some editors want to insist on peppering articles with mass numbers of cite.php references, to the extent of completely wiping out Harvard-style references. This is officially rejected, and should be reverted on sight, with a polite note to the offending party.

Just as we do not insist that Brits know how to spell more correctly than Yanks (but prefer consistency within an article), we do not insist on a universal citation style. --KSmrq^T 10:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. I left a comment to that effect on the astronomy page. The discussion should move over there, rather than splitting into two different discussions. The end of the intro to this guideline has always stated that Harvard referencing is acceptable. CMummert · talk 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary Style

Doesn't this contradict WP:OR?--Sefringle 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That section of this document is just a restatement of what already appears at WP:SS, not any sort of new policy. I think that WP:SS does not contradict WP:ATT in that if the material is sourced in the subarticle as WP:SS requests then it is certainly attributable and so meets the requests of WP:ATT. Of course there are issues where a citation ought to be included - for example BLP issues - but common sense says that if the reader is interested in the summarized material then she/he will go to the main article. CMummert · talk 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncontroversial knowledge

Can we change the location of the sources so that they are at the end of the paragraph instead of at the beginning, since that is how most of the featured scientific articles cite their sources?--Sefringle 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not morally opposed to having a policy that condones both practices; as long as the information is there and prominently displayed, the reader will find it. Which featured articles are you looking at? Maybe we can find a good wording that explains when it is reasonable to put the references at the end. CMummert · talk 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See DNA for example--Sefringle 10:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems there are two conventions: either attach the footnotes to the initial sentence (especially when it is the thesis sentence) or put them at the very end regardless of paragraph structure. It seems reasonable for this guideline to accept both conventions. The ordinary advice is to follow the practice of the first contributor who adds footnotes to the article. Does that seem reasonable? I would like to wait a day or two before making any changes to give others a chance to comment. CMummert · talk 12:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is reasonable.--Sefringle 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. There's not always a good place to put one at the start where it will be clearly a general ref for the paragraph. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it some just now; please feel free to change it further if its not clear yet. CMummert · talk 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion over on WP:AN regarding DOIs in citations

There's an ongoing discussion relevant to these guidelines at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration. Partly it's about whether the bot is sufficiently unbuggy to be allowed to run as a bot, but some people over there seem to feel that DOIs are an evil to be eradicated altogether from Wikipedia. (I disagree, but let's not have the same discussion here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)