Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Citing using ISBN or key only

Is there a standard way I should cite a book giving the ISBN or a key only, something like {{cite isbn=1234}}, and then modifying a single entry for this book somewhere? Do you have to create a template yourself? (As here: Template:Cite isbn=0-521-58519-8) Will this template be deleted? (Sorry I didn't notice the template sandbox before I made this.) -- Nils Grimsmo 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I don't think there is a way to specify a book by the isbn and have all the details come up. If you want to cite a single book, just use {{cite book}}, if you need to do the same book several times, you could create a page in your userspace, which contains the specific use of {{cite book}} you need for that book, and then wherever you need to use it, use subst:, eg {{subst:User:Nils Grimsmo/mybook1}}. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Keeping something like this in my user space strikes me as a bit odd. Would not others hesitate to change it then? I think it would be great if there was a standard "built-in" way of doing this, as some books are cited many hundred times, as for example Introduction to Algorithms. Assume that somebody would want to make a page about a specific author. Instead of finding all references by searching, and updating them by hand, she could just update the template. Having one instance of the {{cite book}} would also minimise the number of unfixed errors. Citing by ISBN avoids misunderstandings with mismatching page numbers in different versions and such things. Considering the amount of trafic on this page, I assume it was not the right place to ask. What would be? Village pump (technical)? -- Nils Grimsmo 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Village pump (technical) -- Nils Grimsmo 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This has been proposed a few times, but so far hasn't been implemented. I agree wholeheartedly. References should be an identifier for a book; not the citation itself. The citation information should be stored and cataloged elsewhere, and referenced from the book's id when needed. This is the basic idea behind m:Wikicite, which seems to be far, far in the future. — Omegatron 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How should an editor be listed in Book reference

If the referenced book has an editor, show should that be indicated in any of the Book reference style of references? Nereocystis 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I have the same question, i.e. what about edited volumes. The "Harvard references template" seem to introduce the possibility of referencing chapters in edited volumes. But what about just edited volumes as such? This would be exactly the same as "cite book", but the possibility of identifying the book as an edited volume so as to have "(ed.)" after authors' names. Any idea about this with current templates? Typewritten 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL link but no author link for Book reference

How do I put a reference which for a book which has a URL, but no author link? Nereocystis 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Catholic Encyclopedia template

Can an adminstrator delete the {{CatholicEncyclopedia}} template? It has been deprecated in favor of the {{Catholic}} template, all articles using the template have been removed. Thanks Reflex Reaction 16:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language websites

Can someone add a list of the symbols used to indicate foreign language websites? The only ones I know are {{svenska}} (giving ) for Swedish and {{de icon}} (giving ) for German. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error near the top?

Brian Ryans 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In the very top table, wouldn't it need a "Where it goes" section for consistency with the other sections? I'd add it myself but I'm still working on learning Wiki.

[edit] Wookieepedia

A number of Star Wars related articles have begun using content from Wookieepedia, which as a part of WikiCities, is distributed under the GFDL[citation needed]. Would it be appropriate to create {{Wookieepedia}} to mark those articles, link back to the original work and the edit history? [citation needed] --SparqMan 08:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additional Templates to list

Do you feel that the following templates should be added to the list?

Thanks for considering this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • {{Citenews}} should be listed too, since it's getting used. --Jdlh | Talk 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting sources - {{cleanup-verify}} also deprecated?

How about {{cleanup-verify}}? Is it also deprecated?

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

[edit] Automation of template contents

There may be a better forum to ask this sort of thing, but maybe someone here can at least point me in the right direction. I'm curious whether the citation templates lend themselves to programmatic aggregation. I suppose this has something to do with the backend database design, but it might conceivably be accessible via some of the robot libraries available for Python, Perl, Java, etc.

The sort of thing I have in mind is, e.g.:

  1. Create a list of articles that reference Journal of Philosophy.
  2. Find all the web references that point to the same URL in order to check if other citation information is consistent.
  3. Find every journal article that "Sally Chou" has written (that WP thinks is worth mentioning).

Obviously, all this could only work inasmuch as editors use the citation templates, and use them relatively consistently. But this sort of robot-ish stuff could be very useful in obtaining citation consistency across articles, and on indexing/navigating sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request quote - new template

I just created the {request quote} template. Anyone who has been involved in articles engaged in heavy edit warring and POV pushing knows that sometimes people --let's just say "misinterpret" sources. When someone makes an assertion about what a source says, and doesn't provide a quote, and the source is not available online or it is very obscure, checking the editor's interpretation can be very challenging or impossible. The template requests that a quote from the source being interpreted is provided on the Talk page so that we can see that the editor has interpreted the source correctly, and also whether he just made something up. Sure, he can make up a quote, but it's much more unlikely. I think this is crucial if we are to have a somewhat reliable encyclopedia. RJII 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not just ask the editor on the talk page, and instead, comment out the disputed quote, instead of loading down the article with tags? -- infinity0 13:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Test successful. RJII 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have this page on my watchlist, Mr "I see conspiracies everywhere". -- infinity0 15:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary source template

Should this template be added to this page? I don't see a location for it. Maybe this article needs a section for "Disputes" over sources? Or just leave it on the templates for disputes page?

 This article may contain improper references to self-published sources.
Please help improve this article by removing unreliable sources. A self-published source may only be cited as a primary source in an article about the author or source itself and not as an authority.


[edit] Citepaper-related templates up for deletion

I just noticed that four templates have been nominated for deletion:

  • {{Citepaper}}
  • {{Citepaper version}}
  • {{Citepaper publisher}}
  • {{Citepaper publisher version}}
Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of Source Template Tag

This Wiki page indicates that the source placement tag is to be placed at the bottom of the page. Is it appropriate to put it up at the top of the page? Is that a variance acceptable from the source policy? Just want to check, for we have a page where the placement of the source template has become a point of some discussion. Thanks. Ptmccain 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template idea

I often need to tag external links section with {{External links}}. However, sometimes I see links that could be used as references instead of plainly external links, and somehow using that template isn't right, as users may just delete them instead of adding the information found in them to the article. I suggest creating a new template, one that informs that some external links could be used as references, suggesting editors to move the links there. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PD sources

For the templates for use of the now out of copyright PD sources, shouldnt the wording be not " some of this article ..." but rather "some or all of this article"  ? The current wording implies quotations; in reality it is likely to be sections or the entirety. Perhaps a template saying "some or all of this article... The part(s) copied have not been indicated", as most of the people doing this do not indicate what part, which is legal but midleading.  ? DGG 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another new template idea

I see too many long articles that have plenty of references, but no (or very few) inline citations. How about a template marking such articles? (Although I'd like to see such a template, I'm not sure how many others will consider refs-but-not-inline articles to be a serious enough problem to warrant a template.) --Allen 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit

I often find myself wanting to add one of these templates with the suffix "...and my well be utter made-up bullshit". Is there something like that already, or can one be added? --Dtcdthingy 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hoax is the strongest I can think of. You can also subst the template, save, and modify it afterwards. But if you think it's bullshit, you should have it deleted, so I'd go for Template:Prod (or AfD, if you're not so sure). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. There's a big category of articles where someone's written from what they know, and it's impossible to know whether they've got it right or not. The current templates imply the article is correct and just needs confirmation. I want one more like "This article contains unverified statements and should be read with caution". --Dtcdthingy 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Template:Not verified? However, please be careful. Editors might not take it kindly if you say that an article might be incorrect just because there are unreferenced statements while you don't know anything about the subject. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How about the Original Research template? It reads "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details." Eleven even (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience templates to share

I made up some copy and paste named reference stubs for my own convenience. Just fill in a unique "refname", (or use the short tag for already-defined refs) and fill in the blanks. Feel free to use them, or even incorporate them on this project page. They save me a lot of time not having to add the ref tags to the existing templates. See: User:Crockspot#Often used templates. - Crockspot 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags for bad sources

Are there tags which could be used for sources such as

  • another Wikipedia article (same or a different language), which doesn't seem to be allowable
  • a mirror of Wikipedia, possibly out of date.
  • a source which doesn't seem reliable enough (e.g. a blog entry, a usenet post to source an external fact).
  • a source which is otherwise considered to be unsuitable, but this is more in the level of a dispute, such as what might be argued to be acceptable sources writing outside their level of expertise (example: A TV guide describe a film as dystopian, while it is not believed any critical work has ever done so; i.e. no counter source; it has been argued that TV Guide's reviewers aren't qualified to make such distinctions).

Thanks. I could have used all of these. Notinasnaid 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITET

Why is all that crap over here? People need to stop pushing these templates forward, there's already a page for them. Aaron Bowen 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Retrieved on" accessdate notation

Drawing the attention of citation interested editors to this discussion at Village pump (proposals). --HailFire 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subpages

These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#subpages for main discussion -Eep² 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How do you Cite a CD?

I'm trying to citate the page on D.C. Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_C._Lee) on the part where she was featured on Jazzmatazz vol. 1. I have the CD and would like to citate the source. It only tells you have to citate books and documents.

Well, you can just use {{cite book}}, clarifying in the format that it is CD booklet or something like that. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of {{Unreferenced}}

The usage guide for {{Unreferenced}} in this article says 'Where it goes' is 'Articles, in a "References" section' whereas the main article on Unreferenced says, "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page".

I have found that common usage is to place this tag at the top of an article.

I sampled 32 articles with the {{Unreferenced}} tag (all {{Unreferenced}} articles in "Category:Articles lacking sources" from June 2006 through Dec 2006 containing the string "comput") and found that 26 of them had the tag at the top of the article, 4 of them contained the tag in an empty References section, 1 had the tag at the end, and 1 had the tag in a Notes section. Not one was placed in the corresponding article Talk instead.

Can we change the guide for this tag to match {{Unreferenced}}, common usage, and other, similar tags?

i.e. "Articles: at the Top, in an empty "References" section, or on top of the talk page."

(I don't like the "talk page" since I believe that that location should be reserved for adding references for a discussion, if then. It is not the talk page that needs references and I don't like removing anything from a talk page. A comment about adding or deleting tags seems to me to be appropriate for a talk page.)

Softtest123 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go in the referenced section. But the place to discuss this is on the template's talk page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article missing from "Requesting sources" section

In the "Requesting sources" section, the word article missing throughout the display of template results. This is obviously some tech issue, but how to fix it is beyond me. Finell (Talk) 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better quality citation needed

Is there a template like {{fact}} that says something like "better quality citation needed" or "cited source is not reliable" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've answered my own question there are some in the {{fact}} template:

  • {{Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
  • {{Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English references

How do I tag a source that leads to a non-English document which is not translated. The reference is completely inaccessible tot he English reader!--mrg3105mrg3105 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates to add citations (like {{cite web}}, {{cite press release}}, {{cite book}}, etc, have a Language argument you can use. For links formatted in "external links" way (that is, at the end of the article without specific inline citations) you can use {{en icon}}, {{fr icon}} or any other language template at the beginning of the link, like
(English) Wikipedia official page
Hope that helps. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of article-level tags

There seems to be little consistency on guidelines/suggestions for placement of article-level tags:

  • Template:Unreferenced states: "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page."
  • Template:Citecheck & Template:Self-published state: "Place this template at the top of the article or section tagged."
  • Template:Onesource states: "There is currently no consensus as to where on the article to place templates such as this."
  • Template:Refimprove states: "There is currently no consensus on where to place this template, but it is suggested that the template be placed in the references section at the bottom of the article."
  • Template:Citations missing states: "This template can be placed at the top of the article, at the top of one of its sections, or less obtrusively at the top of the "References" section (though see also Template:Unreferenced-end for a tag intended specifically for that third purpose)."
  • Template:Nofootnotes states: "To add this template to an article, copy and paste {{Nofootnotes}} into the references section of the article."

Given that these templates are closely related, wouldn't it make more sense to have consistent guidelines for their placement, to save confusion? Also, would it be possible to have the guidance on Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles rather than on the individual template pages, for greater visibility? The current convention seems to be to place them at the top of the article, though I've come across at least one activist who seems to be determined to unilaterally change this. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are strong arguments to be made against clean-up tags being placed at the top of articles, where they disfigure the page and get in the way of the casual user of the encyclopedia. Since tags are, essentially, internal memoranda between editors, the most logical place for most of them is on the talk page, with perhaps a general icon (i.e. not a specific one for each tag) in the upper-right corner of the article page to indicate that there are clean-up tags on the talk page. Clean-up tags are not facts subjected to the normal Wikipedia process of give and take, they are opinions about the state of an article, and subjecting the user of the encyclopedia to opinions -- boxed and set atop the article as if they were paramount -- seems to go against the entire philosophy of the project.

Absent the option of putting tags on the talk page, the next best place for them is at the bottom of the article. This is especially the case with tags that have to do with references and citations, since the bottom is where the references and citations are. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the characterisation that "tags are, essentially, internal memoranda between editors" -- in fact the documentation for Template:Citecheck, Template:Self-published & Template:Onesource explicitly state that "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted." These (and similar) templates serve a useful purpose for readers by warning them that the information in the article may be poorly sourced, inaccurate, biased, etc. HrafnTalkStalk 10:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to look a little past the tertiary level of documentation and consider the primary level, the reality of the situation. Were someone to suggest that it be allowed for any editor to place at the head of an article a box which says "I, Wikipedia Editor X, think that this article is a lot of hooey." the idea would be shouted down as ridiculous. Wikipedia is in the business of presenting facts and not in the business of presenting opinions. And yet, that is precisely what clean-up tags are, an editor's (and frequently one editor's) opinion about the state of an article. There is no process by which clean-up tags are vetted before they are placed, so any editor can place one at any time, and because there is a general taboo against removing tags, those tags are rarely discussed or adjusted according to any consensus-based evaluation. They get placed, and there they stay.

Tags are, essentially, opinions not facts, and worse, they are opinions disguised as innocuous adminstrative reminders, which cloaks their true nature. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am amused that you are presenting your own, unsubstantiated, opinions as "reality". That there are many articles in wikipedia that are poor referenced, and in many cases completely unreferenced, WP:OR is hardly controversial. There are three main ways that an article can get itself plastered with tags: (1) it actually is "hooey", a matter that is largely undisputed (meaning that it is likely to be deleted/redirected/merged/rewritten soon); (2) it's contents are disputed (meaning that there are at least likely to be some NPOV/balance/etc issues with it); (3) it gets sufficiently little attention that nobody has noticed that the article is so plastered -- which also means that nobody is likely to notice if somebody turns the article into "hooey" (even if it isn't already). Tags rarely stay on well-trafficked/well-maintained articles for long. That an article is tagged is probably a good sign (one way or another) that it may not be up to scratch. HrafnTalkStalk 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you object to my observations as an accurate description of reality, but you are willing to accept that any Tom, Dick or Mary who comes along and slaps a tag on an article is accurately representing the article?

The question is not whether there are articles which are under-referenced -- there certainly are. (In fact, I would say that the majority of articles on Wikipedia do not have enough references.) There are also articles that are very badly written, articles that need to be expanded, articles that are biased, and articles that need to be "Wikified", and articles that fill the objections of every other of the myriad number of tags that exist. That is not the point. The point is that there is no process in place which regulates the use of these tags, it's left up to the individual judgment of the individual editor, and because of this, the tags do not represented a consensual effort to determine the faults of an article, but the opinion of one editor. Nowhere else on Wikipeia are unfiltered personal opinions given such prominence, and yet people want them to sit at the top of articles, boxed and apparently authoritative, telling people what to think about an article before they have even read it and had the opportunity to decide for themselves! That's just crazy!

If, however, you're able to adjust your perception of tags to see them not as authoritative markers representing the factual state of an article, but as messages from one editor to others about what (in their opinion) needs to be done to the article, then they make a heck of a lot more sense, and clearly the top of the article is not the right place for them. Instead, they belong on the Talk page, perhaps with a marker in the upper right hand corner of the article to indicate that there are clean-up tags associated with the article; and if not on the Talk page, then the next best place is at the bottom of the article. Certainly, putting these bits of opinion, internal memoranda between editors, at the top of the article makes no sense, not under the existing regimen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpret me. To me you are "any Tom, Dick or Mary", worse you are somebody who has demonstrated that you have a definite axe to grind. What I do have some trust in is the consensus process, at least to the extent of believing that where there is a good, well-maintained, article, there will be a sizeable consensus of editors willing to keep the article both free of the need for tags, and free of spurious tags. This is the "process" that regulates the tags. This is the "filtering". This, at a very basic level, is wikipedia. If you do not understand this, then you quite simply do not understand how wikipedia works. HrafnTalkStalk 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not being clear, so I'll try once more: There is no "consensual" process by which it is decided if any particular tag is appropriate to be put on an article, and because of the informal taboo on removing tags, and their perceived status as facts and not opinions, they are not subject to the normal give and take which one would expect such material to receive.

Thanks for your time and attention, but I rather think this conversation has reached the end of its useful life, as we seem to be mostly talking past each other.

BTW, the only "axe" I am grinding is my desire to see Wikipedia be better. I happen to think that rigid dogmatism, in whatever form it takes, is not helpful and does not generally improve the project. As I put it on my user page, my basic philosophy is: Wikipedia exists for the people who use it, not for the people who edit it. Every edit should either improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia or make it easier and more useful for the reader. Any edit which does not serve these goals is a waste of time and energy, and quite possibly counterproductive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "there is no consensual process". There is merely no formal consensual process, but I have seen informal processes work repeatedly. The "informal taboo on removing tags" is by no means universal, and what I have seen typically happen is that a less-inhibited editor makes the initial removal, and more moderate editors thereafter act to re-impose its removal or return and/or support either move on talk, based on whether they see a substantive issue being at play. I think you are misrepresenting your philosophy. It appears to be "I get to decide what's in the best interests of readers, and to unilaterally inflict this viewpoint on the rest of the wikipedia community, and have no interest on achieving a consensus on any controversial changes first." It is not a philosophy I find attractive. HrafnTalkStalk 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project page errata

For the template "unreferenced", under the heading "What it makes", it reads "This does not cite any references or sources." The template actually makes "This article does not cite any references or sources." Eleven even (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because this page is in the Wikipedia: (Project:) namespace. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS)

note: crossposted from Template talk:Citations missing#Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS) by Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account at 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC); signature/timestamp updated; please comment here and not there

Have a look at User:Thinboy00/Template editing#Make a new template, or retool an old one? (please read, title is counterintuitive). Why don't we do that? --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:Proposal now has a user sub page at User:Thinboy00/GUCCS (actually a redirect to save virtual ink and typing). --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC:Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS)

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Should the references templates identified at User:Thinboy00/GUCCS be merged as explained there? Failing that, should {{citations missing}} be deprecated?

I don't quite understand what he is proposing, but I suggest you not merge any templates that sort article into different categories. When we have categories which contain 120,000+ articles we should be looking for ways of splitting such a category up rather than merging it with a category contain 40,000+ articles.--BirgitteSB 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This proposes merging the templates so that they can all be referenced under a single name using parameters. To get a {{refimprove}}, you would type {{citations missing|zone=references|level=few|date=(date)|article/section}}. The categories would not be tampered with at all. The advantage is that you don't need to memorise/know about four ref templates ({{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{nofootnotes}}, {{morefootnotes}}) and you are encouraged to be specific when using this template. Instead, you use one and give it parameters to specify the type of problem. Ideally, the old templates ({{refimprove}} etc.) could be set up to transclude this one so the wikitext isn't duplicated and the old names continue to work. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)