Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guidelines
Discussion
Open Tasks
Participants

How to reference

Discuss the WikiProject

Things To Do

WikiProject Members
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Sites

I've made a page on User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card (yes, a nice short title..) which lists, funnily enough, those reference sites such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, OED and The Times Online database that are accessible to holders of a UK Library Card.

Is there anywhere in wikispace that this should be linked to? Neither WP:FACT or WP:RS seems to trade in this type of information, which is kinda handy if you need to find a source even if WP:NOT#DIR may allude to it not being welcome - Foxhill 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered just the same--there should be a much more organized system of providing this sort of help. (a WP:References perhaps, and subpages thereof?) This could be done more generally. it is much easier than it was even a few years ago, and there are some librarians around who could help, if there was enough interest. Its hard to do as isolated individuals. But don't ask me (smile) I'm too busy with getting the open access journals indicated. There are 200 done and 4000 to go. But Foxhill, perhaps your list could be incorporated into the bibliographic databases articles (a slightly smaller project--there are about 100 done & 1000 to go). I'll take a look, because many will be available in the US also at many libraries. DGG 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Research_resources. It could use some reviving... -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category sorting

There are quite a few (to put it mildly) entries in Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:All articles lacking sources. I recently received a suggestion that these articles could be sorted into more specific categories, much as stubs currently are, and I think this would probably be quite helpful, allowing those with access to a lot of information on certain topics to quickly find unsourced articles that are good matches. What are anyone's thoughts on this? Seraphimblade 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malfunctioning template in use

I find some {{citation}} templates used instead of {{fact}}. I cleared all articles in "what links here" of Template:Citation. But it might be used again. Can someone please either correct the template, or delete it? It does say "For testing only", but not everyone visits the template page before transcluding it. Hoverfish Talk 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Formant

Just of out curiosity, but what citation format dose wikipedia use, i know APA, MLA and Chicago.

if some one would fill me in that would be great!

thanks --'•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook) 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a consistent format since all formats are acceptable. The process seems to be to adopt whatever reference format is currently being used on that particular article to at least have consistency in the article. Agne 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suitable sources: forums?

What types of websites are suitable sources for citing? I'm specifically wondering about internet forums and message boards. One of the pages I want to contribute sources to (Hoover sound) contains information which is not, generally, written down and published, but is passed from one interested party - in this case, electronic music producers - to another, basically by word of mouth. This does not invalidate the information contained in the article. In fact this article, though concise, is factually correct. But the only area that such a topic would be discussed and therefore verifiable would be public domain forums. To what extent are they acceptable as sources for fact citation? DrSuperbo 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-03t11:32z

[edit] citing sources - required in WP space?

Hi. I've seen some uncited "facts" mentioned in WP: space, and when I added the [citation needed] tags, a user removed them saying that they were not appropriate for WP: space, only for use within articles. Is this correct please? Thanks, --Rebroad 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly ask for people to justify what they write in Wikipedia space. Just like anything else, if it is not properly referenced, it is just speculation. However, finding reliable sources for the bits you tagged might be difficult. Certainly some justification is needed though, more than is there at present. Carcharoth 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-weekly special article

I replaced Ancient Rome with Poetry of the United States, which was one of the last articles nominated on WP:ARD (Ancient Rome had been there since December). I'm hoping the article referencing drive will become active again; if not, I'll take poetry down in a couple weeks. -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Findsources}}

Hi, I've created a {{findsources}} template, to help web-based seaches. Addhoc 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using open access research.

"examines the degree to which Wikipedia entries cite or reference research and scholarship, and whether that research and scholarship is generally available to readers" "The open access references that we were able to locate for the smaller sample of twenty entries in the course of the study have now been added to the relevant Wikipedia articles and clearly marked with a link to the “open access copy” (by Sarah Munro" — Willinsky, John (2007-03-05). "What open access research can do for Wikipedia". First Monday 12 (3). 

-- Jeandré, 2007-03-17t06:37z

The problem is, some of the greatest sources are restricted to evil paid databases. What's more important: a source being openly accesssable or a source being reliable and trustworthy? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marking links as inactive

I've already posed this question at WP:CITE but didn't get an answer, so maybe you can help:

Is there a template for marking links as inactive? I mean one for links that are in references but cannot be found using the Internet Archive or WebCite? What to do when a reference link "goes dead" states that they shall be marked with the date when they were identified as broken.

Maybe we could create a template if there isn't one yet, e.g. {{deadsource|link=http://en.wikipedia.org|date=2007-03-31}} ? Thanks in advance. — Ocolon 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Cite web#Link rot date?. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-01t19:10z
The web citation templates could have optional parameters for "urlstatus" and "urlstatusdate" added. This would prevent ambiguity about which of several links is being referred to. (SEWilco 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts

As a result of several very long discussions on the mailing list, I've launched a proposal that should promote the addition and maintainance of references and make it easier to find articles to reference in a specific field of interest. Since this is a topic closely related to your project, I invite you to share any thoughts and additional ideas on the proposal's talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping Future Editors To Verify References Speedily

I was about to add a reference to an article from a 40 page paper when I realised and remembered back to the last time that I saw a "suspect" reference. I had to read through a lot of tripe just to determine that the reference did in-fact, not support the fact it had been used support (judging from the summary, the editor hadn't read it (thoroughly) which is what incited me to check). Checking the veracity of a reference could be made a lot easier if a page number of even a page and line number could be provided. Alternatively, if such a practice wouldn't voilate copyright laws, a character string could be provided in the form "modular character of transcription factors allows natural" (<< this is an actual snippet from the 40 page paper I just mentioned) which would allow a fast computer-powered search to the correct point in the text. It would of course be as voluntary as any of the other referencing paramters but would be helpful in a few obvious and considerable ways.

Edit: After verifying references, inclusion of one of these pinpointers would avoid future reference-verifiers having to spend so long scouring the supposed source. --Seans Potato Business 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This format is currently possible:
Addhoc 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for the info. It's a shame that more people don't use it. Perhaps this WikiProject should advise its usage among members. Otherwise, how do you know that you aren't going round in circles, each checking the same sources in the same slow and inefficient (for want of the quote attribute) manner? I would like to suggest that the use of the 'quote' attribute is added to the guidelines of this project. It only a little extra work, and could save a lot of work by many in the future. --Seans Potato Business 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I believe there should be a merge of two WIkiProjects, this one and Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts. Both projects are relatively slow right now and both seem to be redundant; a merger will be more efficient. Sr13 (T|C) 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that proposal. --Seans Potato Business 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, improving referencing efforts isn't another wikiproject - instead it was a proposal to strengthen this wikiproject. Addhoc 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you plan on making sure "Fact 1" and "Fact 2" aren't indeed same "fact"

There are some articles on WP that supposedly provide multiple sources from different and unrelated origins. But when you look at source number 2, it is in fact using source number 1, thus not a corroborative or verifying element, just a dupe designed to fool the layman. As illustrated here on Ordu page where source 4,5,6 and 7 are in fact all are identical in regards to the reference made, just published in different places.

The only way to tell if a source is really original is to read the entirety of all the sources where the reference is made, and who has time for that? So, how do you plan on efficiently maintaining credibility while filtering out underhanded and sneaky sourcing like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I assume your title should read 'How do you plan on making sure "Source 1" and "Source 2" aren't indeed the same "source"?'
If that is what you mean, please remember that we are doing this through human editing, not a bot. Therefore, we do have to read both sources. Also, part of the goal of the project is to encourage people to use multiple sources as the write the article. If the author includes the sources from the start, then they don't have to be added later.
Finally, two links to the same source does provide some value. It serves as a backup in case one copy becomes unavailable. It also gives some indication that the "fact" received some circulation vs just being in one publication. Johntex\talk 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced BLPs

There are over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Take a look at my lists: User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flagged Revisions

As I am nearing completion of the so called "stable versions" extension, I'm wondering what implications that might have for this project? Any ideas? Voice-of-All 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for verification

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

This page has been listed in Category:Requests for verification.
It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days. (This message was added: 14 June 2008.)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.


Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Sea

This article is in the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and has a template upon it...Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 as well as All articles with unsourced statements. I have tried to address several points / sections with references. How many references are required? How is this template reviewed? How is the template discussed? How is the template removed? Help please. SriMesh | talk 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is in the Category:Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 (and Category:All articles with unsourced statements) because there is a dated {{fact}} tag in the section Geological history following "This is what is normally called the "Strait of Dover Land Bridge". Over all the article is fairly well referenced as with any work in progress it has a few under referenced areas. There are two choices for removing this article from the categories -
  1. Reference the statement with the {{fact}} and remove the tag at the same time
  2. Move (to talk) or completely delete the challenged statement.
I did notice when scanning the article that Info box "North Sea" and last section "Location" have different but similar areas and volumes. Also neither is referenced. You may also be interested in using named references (User:Jeepday/Cite) so that it is easier to cite the same reference in multiple areas of the article. If you have other questions let me know. Jeepday (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh! thank you. I have now remedied the tag, and the citation naming is oh so awesome! I wish it was on "tip of the day" Thank you so much. SriMesh | talk 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants list

I made a rather drastic change there in the form of a table and alphabetization(mostly). Comments?--Cronholm144 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sister projects

As this seems to be the most active of these four projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, Wikipedia:Research resources, Wikipedia:Library. I propose a content merger. If there is support for this idea I can get working on it straightaway. Cheers --Cronholm144 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of 1 merged WikiProject, how about 2 subpages of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources:
  1. list of good open reference sites online, and
  2. list of good restricted references (books small libraries won't have, subscription sites/archives) and the people to contact who have access and are willing to add refs to articles;
with this project's activities moved to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and the merge templates pointing to that talk page also? -- Jeandré, 2007-08-12t11:19z


I looked in envy on all these seemingly narrow, but very active biology and television WikiProjects and created a similar banner template {{WPFACT}}. Can we go hang that banner on interesting talk pages, to pull people into this project? I started on the category talk:Citation templates. Such pages also get listed in the new category:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.

No sooner had I set up that category before I learned that there is already a user box. You can paste this into your user page:
{{Participant|Fact and Reference Check|image=Nuvola apps kpdf.png|background-color=#f0d5f0}}

Also today, I wrote comments about bad ISBNs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Citations and ISBNs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Citations and ISBNs. Should we aim to foster other WikiProjects to do the fact and reference checking? How does that relate to the WikiProject Council? --LA2 05:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking book.

[Question] I'm not sure how to proceed with this. However, I believe you all might be the best people to know. There is currently a discussion regarding the page Saint Maurice regarding the reliability of a source. The source is a book published in 1981 which is said to indicate that the subject was presented as being white before a certain period, after which time the subject was presented as black. The book in question is The Image of the Black in Western Art, Volume II. There had been one copy of this volume available locally prior to the current school year. However, that library has since for whatever reason removed the book from their holdings. There is only one other copy available in the state, to the best of my knowledge, and that's an eight hour drive one way, and I have no way of ensuring that the book will even be there if I do make the trip. Would there be any way in which I could inquire that perhaps others check to see if the volume is available to them, to determine what the book says? Thank you in advance for your consideration. John Carter 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking users nearby (Category:Wikipedians by location) is more likely to get a confirmation. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-24t21:31z
Tried that already. Nobody really lives in the vicinity of that school, at least so far as I can see. No one's listed as attending it, either. John Carter 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You can try to find it at a large library (e.g. The New York public library has 2 copies, 1 available) and ask an active Wikipedian from that city (Manhattan Wikipedians) to check it for you. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-27t19:21z
Or ask your local library to order it by interlibrary loan. Walkerma 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, I know this thread is a bit old, but I thought I'd throw in that I have access to large libraries here in St. Louis and could go look it up if it's still needed.  :) --Elonka 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics based ISBN improvement

Since a few weeks back, I'm compiling statistics on the ISBNs mentioned in the Wikipedia database dumps for a number of north European languages, now also German and English. I'm sorting my ISBNs into 4 categories: formal errors (typically 1%), checksum errors (2%), bad hyphenation (25%), and fully OK (72%). Many errors are easy to fix: "ISBN:", "ISBN-13", "ISBN 13-978-", using ndash or period instead of hyphen, and using Cyrillic X instead of Latin X, etc. For other errors, I need to search for the title in a library catalog (or Amazon.com). Fortunately, it is often the same ISBN that has the same error in many articles, because of copy-and-pasting. Based on statistics I can look up a few ISBNs and correct a large number of errors. This work has started to pay off in the Scandinavian languages, where the error categories are down from 2% to 0.2%. I have also started to process bad hyphenation with a bot in some languages. I'm using a Perl program with the Business::ISBN module from CPAN to determine the correct places for hyphens. This has moved the fully OK ISBNs up to 98% or so.

However, that only means the checksum and hyphens are OK. I still don't know if this is an ISBN that refers to the right book, if the citation is complete (perhaps the author name is missing or the year is wrong), or if that book is any good. How am I to determine that? Again, I can use statistics for the frequently cited ISBNs, to see if the same ISBN is cited with the same bibliographic details. If templates such as {{cite book}} are used, my analysis of the database dump can automatically find the author name, title, publisher, etc. But citation templates are not used very often, because they bring so little visible advantage to the article editor.

In the September 8, 2007, dump of the English Wikipedia, the most frequently occurring ISBN error is one zero too many in the ISBN of a Guide to The Simpsons, which is cited in 60 articles (all cites having the same error, of course). In this case, since there is a WikiProject for that TV series already, I called their attention to the problem, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Citations and ISBNs. This is not because I couldn't have fixed the error myself, but because I thought that perhaps WikiProjects have a greater role to play in fact and reference checking. Instead of us here doing the work, we could guide the projects to it.

These are the most frequent ISBN errors in the recent dump:

Not yet dispatched: 26× ISBN 051243811X (checksum), 22× ISBN 0873403194 (checksum), 21× ISBN 186373986, 21× ISBN 1570035982 (checksum), 21× ISBN 08129310698, 21× ISBN 0321049404 (checksum), 20× ISBN 1840133092 (checksum), 18× ISBN 86844430009, 18× ISBN 086176118X (checksum), 17× ISBN 9985441529 (checksum), 16× ISBN 0195121006 (checksum), 15× ISBN 1576070400 (checksum), 14× ISBN 048626896, 14× ISBN 037010107X (checksum), 13× ISBN 853312702, 13× ISBN 081032048, 13× ISBN 0796706929 (checksum), 13× ISBN 0007275325 (checksum), 12× ISBN 398710333, 12× ISBN 1903341726 (checksum), 12× ISBN 1557491475 (checksum), 11× ISBN 185709171, 11× ISBN 06910147879, 11× ISBN 0517489904X, 11× ISBN 0319237083 (checksum), 11× ISBN 00907521134, 10× ISBN 9994925822 (checksum), 10× ISBN 979968451, 10× ISBN 9637323147X, 10× ISBN 8090110538 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0802005910 (checksum), 10× ISBN 07769101X, 10× ISBN 0752442501 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0395199798 (checksum), 10× ISBN 0380758963 (checksum), 10× ISBN 007034003. --LA2 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal for WikiProject reference library templates

When you think of it, it's actually braindead to copy an entire citation (using {{cite book}} or not) into dozens of articles. If there is an error, you have to go back and fix the error in every place. Of course, there is a whole category:Citations of templates that contain exactly one book citation each. However useful each of them can be, when you consider that the English Wikipedia mentions ISBNs in 349,816 places, referring to 197,327 distinct ISBNs, and that 8165 ISBNs are mentioned in 5 places or more, we'd be flooded with such templates.

Some people have taken the thought one step further. About a year ago, {{Ref Jane's}} was created. This template contains a whole list of citations of works by one person. A parameter to that template is used in a #switch, to select the right work to cite. The talk page to that template is worth reading.

If we could encourage WikiProjects to each maintain such a template, containing their most frequently cited works, maybe we could make them care for it as their standard reference library. Any errors would be entered (and needed to be fixed) in just one place. The need to write, copy and maintain full citations in multiple articles would disappear. All you need to write in each article is {{Ref The Simpsons|Guide-1}} or something similar. Citing these standard works would become far easier than citing some odd book the article editor happened to find. Entering new books (bad books, bad editions) into the WikiProject's standard library would on the other hand become harder, since it could be questioned by other project members. I think the overall effect would be higher quality of cited sources.

The use pattern I'm suggesting is that "WikiProject XYZ" create a "template:Ref XYZ" with a single parameter, a citation label, that is used in a #switch expression, to select one citation from a list. Each citation in the list can be written in free wiki text or using templates such as cite book. --LA2 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on template:Ref Stockholm and template:Ref Kentucky. --LA2 12:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Today, a template:Ref Ethiopia was created. --LA2 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dance

Lusine Vagarshakian, choreographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianagor (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relaunch?

This project does not appear to have the profile it deserves. How about a relaunch? Suggested name change: "Fact and citation testing". Yes, you got it, FACT for short. Wikipedians love a recursive acronym. Geometry guy 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A list of tools that would help with this task would be great.. seen one? I've seen some chatter about a tool for medical references... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention in the signpost's new wikiproject segment would help. As it stands now this is quite possibly the most inactive wikiproject I have ever encountered, yet it is also arguably one of the most important. —Cronholm144 15:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The new name is cool, I support it.
I agree that this is one of the most important initiative's on Wikipedia. I'm thinking about using my time here rather than at the Resource Exchange (by the way, this is maybe something that you could consider as a 'tool', Ling Nut). The Resource Exchange isn't very active either, although I've been trying to revive the Resource Exchange for months. A revive is not that easy apparently. Key to the city (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it can be done if needs be. The question is what do we want to revive? What is the structure of this reincarnated project going to follow? I'd be strongly in favour of something akin to the League of Copyeditors, perhaps even pirating their listing system (which I'm the primary architect of, so perhaps a slight COI). See my comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Even though this is not main space, inactive but important WikiProjects are places to be bold. If anyone has a vision for making this project work more actively, I suggest they try it. If you think the LOCE model will work well here, and have the energy to take it forward, go for it. Other interested editors will surely comment and help you to steer your ideas. Geometry guy 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with G-Guy. All this project really needs is one person dedicated enough to put in some time & energy. I think if WP:FLR comes to this project next year this project could suddenly become even more important, coordinating all of the fact-checking work going on in WikiProjects, etc. And FACT is a great acronym! Walkerma (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to be a gnome on this project, so I support efforts to get it going but won't be the be bolder person myself. Cronholm, I believe you are witnessing a large horizontal line of people all nodding and taking a step back, leaving you "stepped forward". Good luck; we're all counting on you! --Lquilter (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Melon and Cronholm are both encouraged to take this forward, hopefully with support from each other, but also from LA2, and a collection of Wikignomes. Geometry guy 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll step forward :D Happy‑melon 09:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliographic record keeping discussion.

On the Village pump (technical) there is a discussion to simplify the citing of commonly used sources, and more generally to improve our bibliographic record keeping. There are a number of options presented, some of which are ready for prime-time, and an organised effort is required to consider their suitability and prepare a well rounded proposal if any option appears to be workable. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

Wikipedia:Attribution is not a core policy. Rather, the relevant core policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Original research; thus the page is currently slightly misleading. Superm401 - Talk 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assisting Programs

I have created a program to assist FACT members in inserting citation requests and warning messages into articles. I use it very heavily myself (because I have a hard time remembering all the commands.) If you're interested, it's Licensed GNU General Public License. An installer , source code, and a few screen shots are located here. It should be noted that Wikipedia has not endorsed this program in any way. It is a third party application created by me. Feel free to hit me up on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do give it a try... please drop me a line and tell me what you think. I'd like to get an idea of how many people might use it.. how often I ought to maintain it. Matthew Glennon (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)