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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
As part of the above mentioned Wikiproject, I am making a solo attempt to completely refurbish, copyedit and basically glam up all articles related to the 1988 children's television series TUGS. But the problem is, this series was made in 1988 and has since been completely forgotten about, with no official website, just except a handful of fansites and a couple of mentions here and there. What do you do for citing sources in a case like this, where no official sources are apparent? Thanks -- SteelersFan UK06 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on and accept original research. You will never get far if you disallow it. I strongly oppose your rules. You know you are being really stupid about this. Your stupidity and panoraidity will not go unnoticed for long. I will make sure original research is allowed because we can not verify all content. No your fear of original research must stop at ONCE! I will complain to the Original Research Allowers. They think you are being stupid. You better allow it or I will ban you off for good. Beware! of the reseults and take action right now to avoid trouble and jail. The Original Research Allowers will put anyone who hates original research in jail for life! Fairycart 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it standard to use a title that describes what is on the page rather than the title that appears on the page for websites that are not news articles? Lara ♥Love 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion (Reference styles section) leads me to believe that the URL method [1] of writing citations is not the preferred method of referencing, whereas the ref tag method [1] is considered the correct way. While we can never eliminate the use of URL tags, I think we should discourage them.
I propose that the WP:CITE page (and other related pages) make mention of the fact that the REF TAG method is preferred over the URL method, and that the URL method should be discouraged.
Comments? Timneu22 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
How many is too many?
Seems a tad bit overdone to me. Dreadstar † 09:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE lists two methods for inline citations: Harvard Referencing or footnotes with "ref" tags, in that order.
It appears to me, overwhelmingly, that the latter method is more commonly used. The last 10 featured articles have all used inline citations with ref tags. Offhand, I can't recall the last time I saw a FA with Harvard referencing. It has probably happened...but not recently, and certainly not very often.
When I joined Wikipedia, I used Harvard Referencing for a number of articles that I created, since it was the option listed first. I now regret that, as those articles look odd now. I know that in one article I worked on, other editors came in later, and as part of an FA push (which was successful), converted all of the inline cites to use ref tags.
At this point, is it fair to say that "the people have spoken," and Harvard Referencing is the less preferred option? At the very least, I think it should be listed second, with a comment that "ref" tags are preferred by most editors. Marc Shepherd 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. Could an admin please add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup to the See Also section - I can't due to the protection. Thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
lI'd like to request that pursuant with Wikipedia:Explain_jargon, the use of "BLP" in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material ("so long as the article is not nonsensical or a BLP") could be changed to "biography of a living person" to make it easier to understand. -- Hopkapi 02:52, August 30 2007 (UTC)
The two sections on this page...
... both point to the fact that the Footnote style of referencing is the preferred method. I believe we should make this point known. When this page is unprotected, I recommend the following:
Comments? Timneu22 10:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Christopher Parham's comment somewhat misstates the case. What is longstanding is not consensus, but the lack of it. The guideline reads the way it does, because editors could not agree. The result is one of the few Wikipedia style guidelines that fails to recommend a style.
Whatever one's personal preference may be, does anyone here deny that footnotes with "ref" tags have become, overwhelmingly, the most commonly used inline citation method on English Wikipedia? Has not the time come to recognize this? Marc Shepherd 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Reference Style | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
URL links [2] |
|
|
Footnotes [3] |
|
|
Harvard Referencing (www.google.com) |
|
|
This ugly table and comment were done by Timneu22 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I support getting rid of Harvard refs and standardising on Wikipedia refs (<ref></ref> and <ref>{{cite web|etc|etc}}</ref>).-- Gronky 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this:
[4]
As with all inline citation methods, a full reference would also be required in a "References" section at the end of the article, e.g.
Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice. |
” |
I need to know if genres need to be sourced, because Hoponpop69 keeps going to random band articles and adding citation needed tags to the genres, when they've been up for months and nobody objected to them. Tim Y (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul Abrahams 23:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)It would be a good idea to have a citation template for patents. I needed to cite a patent and could not find anything about a standard form for doing so.
Hi-
I am Kris Peterson. I wrote my own bio. All sources were right from the person (S) cited. RE: Jobriath: I was there and knew that he was the first openly gay performer. My parents: anything referring to them were told to me by them. I was there and knew all to be the truth with everything stated .
Kris Peterson (Ladyinabag). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyinabag ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you use an email you have received from someone as a source? Can it be uploaded or something? -- SteelersFan UK06 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) The issue in question was that a number of IP's were adding a new member to the band The Rumble Strips, but i reverted it because it was not added on the bands website or myspace page. I went as far as to email the band's manager, and he confirmed that the new addition was actually a member of the band. Their website has not confirmed this, so I wanted to use the actual email. -- SteelersFan UK06 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindented) I am adamantly against allowing e-mails as sources. That would allow inclusion of opinions that in themselves have no value. We have to acknowledge that there are editors with a hidden agenda and a lack of scientific rigour; hence we should not allow such a subjective loophole in our sourcing guidelines. (Consider one flat earth supporter mailing another flat earth supporter that the world is actually a disc rather than a sphere. The first flat earth supporter suddenly has a source to include in article about the world--- No please, a source should be better than that). Arnoutf 17:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern:
For the Wikipedia page on Alan Nathan, you have the words "citation needed" at the end of the third line as per the following:
"Nathan's style is noted for its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic.[citation needed]"
Below is the "citation" from a leading authority in the broadcast field. I hope the audio/video url referenced will suffice.
“One of the most unusual talk shows in the business because he is a radical moderate. It terrified me the first time I was on because within 30 seconds I realized I was playing in a very difficult sport. It’s a brilliant show and he is a brilliant moderator.” -- MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor & Publisher, Talkers Magazine - STATED DURING INTRODUCTIONS AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION/TALKERS MAGAZINE PANEL DISCUSSION, September 27, 2002
Here's the audio/video url:
http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/lect020927.ram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecentrist ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please throw Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources into the See also section? I've mistakenly come here looking for cleanup templates at least three times - wouldn't hurt to at least link to the list. MrZaius talk 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, my solution has been to use both. See History of artificial intelligence.
I tried to build a "harvard footnote" template that looks like this {{hf|Crevier|1993|p=234}} but works like this <ref>{{Harvnb|Crevier|1993|p=234}}</ref> but I couldn't get it to work: it comes out with "CITEREF" in the footnote. Any suggestions? ---- CharlesGillingham 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
After glancing through the discussion above, I've noticed that others have mentioned that Taboo uses the same system I did. ---- CharlesGillingham 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
harvnb}}
and the ref parameter of {{
Citation}}
(note the uppercase vs. lowercase difference) can be used to suppress the CITEREF, e.g.
{{
harvnb|Dawkins|1986|p=123|Ref=whatever}}
, which generates:
Dawkins 1986, p. 123{{
harvnb|Dawkins|1986|p=123}}
, which generates:
Dawkins 1986, p. 123{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) using #CITEREFDawkins1986 --
Boracay Bill 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to start with just a couple of pages for now because I'm really busy lately.
I made a page on Moshpit Tragedy Records. There are links to two real sources which mention Moshpit Tragedy on the page. I don't know how to do the citations so I was wondering if someone had time just to do a couple.
There is a whole list of news about the label from this reliable music news webpage here:
The first link is about one of Moshpit Tragedy's bands filming a profession video. The next is about one of their bands from Finland having new lvie footage available. The next talks about one of their new releases, etc etc...
please just check it out, maybe give it a quick citation if you know how, I just don't have time to figure it out. Thanks!
moshpit_tragedy@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.1.188 ( talk) 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a situation that I've seen in a handful places, with variations, so I'll use a generic example for my question. In an article that uses inline citations, suppose there's a section where two sources have been used for the entire contnent. How, mechanically, should these be cited? -- that is, where should the <ref>s go? For added confusion, suppose the section is a table, where if you put them in only one cell, it looks like only that cell's being referenced, but putting them in all cells is obviously Right Out.
Any pointers to examples/best practices appreciated. — Quasirandom 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We need to make clear that if the sources are listed under "References" that nothing else, such as further reading, may. Hyacinth 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Those [citation needed] things are very annoying. When reading a page, it's very distracting and makes me, of short attention span, very annoyed. See Once Upon a Time in America for an example. Couldn't you make some sort of script (If you haven't already, which would be great) that makes these go away, just for reading purposes? They're not exactly less annoying when they've been cited either, with this little number right next to some text. How is this justifiable, even if a statement needs a citation? -- Kaizer13 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In a well-written article, inline citations are not really that distracting. They can be distracting if a less-skilled editor throws in stacks upon stacks of superfluous cites, and unfortunately that does happen sometimes.
I do agree that {{ citation needed}} is distracting. It is meant to be. Marc Shepherd 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
So, I just found out about the <ref name=""> method of citing multiple times from the same source, but I can't figure out how to add page numbers into these, and I would really keep those annoying tags off the top of articles that complain about page numbers being missing from cites. Help? Murderbike 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
Sup|p.123}}
" and, elsewhere, "<Ref name=whatever/>{{
Sup|p.147}}
". Another way sometimes used is e.g. {{Ref harv|Jones2006|Jones 2006:123|a}} and, elsewhere {{Ref harv|Jones2006|Jones 2006:147|b}} and in a bibliography section an entry something like:This guideline says that it is a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles.
Noticing that the Eating disorder article has a {{ Citation style}} tag, I've tried to clean it up. In the cleanup process, I've done some nontraditional things which I think have improved the citation style of the article. I would appreciate feedback on whether the improvements I think I've made in the citation style of the article justify working ourside the box in ways which will no doubt confuse some future editors of the article. My current working draft with my changes is here (compare with the unmodified article here. A good side-by-side comparison can be seen by placing the References section headers at the top of the browser windows.
Nontraditional things done to this article: I've used the <span style="display:none"> trick discussed here to group all the <Ref> declarations together in a hidden span, then moved that hidden span to the top of the article. Doing that allows the display order of the expanded Reference section items to be controlled. I then reordered the items into a sensible order. One irritating artifact of this is that all the References section items now have at least two backlinks, and backlink "a" is uniformly nonfunctional. (related material this -- Boracay Bill 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this page or another is the best place. What are your opinions on Internal links use in "references" or notes?
In my experience, because references serve to demonstrate the authoritativeness of the content, only links which serve that purpose further should be included (in addition to respecting the general guideline against linking something too many times in an article, this is basically an adjusted form of WP:OVERLINK). This avoids the references section becoming confused and overcharged with internal links in addition to sometimes heavy use of external links.
As such, red links and links to publishing companies (or, god forbid, locations) should be avoided. Links to works and authors who have articles are fine as long as the link is not present in the text.
For a comparison, see before and after (with additional links removed from {{ The Banksia Book}} and {{ The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)}}). Or before and after.
Any thoughts? Circeus 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My feelings about wikilinks within the references:
Basically, I don't see a sea of blue and red in the references as being a problem at all. One doesn't read references like text, so I'd rather err on the side of greater linkage and less readability. — David Eppstein 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone interpret the following?
In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes.
I'm not aware of any discretion when using footnotes; the text of the footnotes are inserted into the body of the article, but are visible to the reader in a section ("References", "Notes", whatever) at the bottom. Is there really some other option? And if not, would someone please change the wording? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
On a vaguely related topic, should we really be telling people to use <references/>? My understanding is that {{ reflist}} does the same thing with the addition of a small font (and the easy ability to add multiple columns) and is generally preferable. At least, mention both. — David Eppstein 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What if the "References" section is already in place and has citations from one of the other two acceptable citation systems?
Neither Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Embedded citations offers any guidance if there already is a "References" section that is being used for footnotes or for Harvard referencing. I can see three possibilities, none of which currently appear in any guideline, including, Wikipedia:Manual of Style:
As someone who thinks the embedded citations system is problematical (particularly because off-line citations are impossible with it), I'd appreciate the opinions of others.
(Note: originally asked at Wikipedia talk:Embedded citations and cross-posted here; since all comments have been here, I've now posted the full question here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC) )
Comments would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I always thought embedded citations are simply the product of laziness to properly format a reference. Should be fully abandoned, at least any form of recommending it. For some forum-shopping: As suggested below, I'd even go so far as to have {{ fact}} used with <ref> to use it rather as a placeholder than an disruptive inline-tag. — [ aldebaer] 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to add a section on the page, telling people to not use "ibid". As soon as a new citation is intercalated, the "ibid" will no longer be properly cited. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I also posted this on Template talk:Fact, but that talk page is far less active.
I wonder if anything speaks against using the template included in <ref>{{fact}}</ref> tags. It seems to me that it would still work to draw attention to a need for a citation, but would simultaneously work as a reference placeholder which needs to be filled. I got the idea because I believe that References sections are still widely underappreciated as individual and very important sections. There are still far too many articles with unformatted in-line external links, many ref sections are a gigantic mess. — [ aldebaer] 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that the citation needed tag should be done away with. If an editor comes across a statement that is unsourced, and that they they believe should be, they should either: a) have the guts to delete the statement on the spot b) do some research and find a source for the statement even if they didn't put it there (this is often possible) c) leave it alone. I consider the placement of a citation needed tag after an unsourced statement to be less desirable than any of these other options, because the tags chop up articles, and my experience is that they become "permanent" features of articles (as in no one ever provides a source, and yet the unsourced statement is never removed). Librarylefty 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that a fact in the lead of an article that otherwise should have an inline citation does not need one if the same fact is repeated later in the article in a more detailed section, and has an inline citation there. Am I right, and if so, where did I read it? -- Gerry Ashton 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How does one reference something said on a television show? Specifically if a transcript is unavailable but the video is online? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on refs for Manga, with multiple citations from a single book. I like the little numbers that appear when using <ref></ref> in combo with what the "cite book" template produces at the bottom. It doesn't allow for individual pages to mentioned, though. I'm not a fan of having a section that lists all the books, and then having the little numbers go to something like "smith p.38' though. Do the harvard templates allow one to put the number in the body of the article with a link that goes down to something that looks like what "cite book" produces at the bottom inside the ref tags? - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I occasionally see this situation in articles — (example) the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance article currently cites as a supporting source http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/Articles/buffalo-news-2005-01-31.html, which is a personal web page containing a verbatim copy of what appears to be a copyrighted work (see this).
My understanding is that it is considered bad form in wikipedia to cite a source which appears to be violating copyright. However, I see no guidance about this in this guideline. I believe that this guideline should provide guidance on this. (or am I missing something here?) -- Boracay Bill 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll try this more directly. I propose that a new section be added to this project page, as follows:
I further propose that a new subsection be added under Dealing with citation problems, as follows:
Please comment if you disagree. -- Boracay Bill 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
At one point this page listed that Chicago formating is an appropriate method to use when sourcing articles. As my off-line life involves much research in the liberal arts fields (ie. history, anthropology, sociology dealing with food) I use Chicago format for my citations as it is the most popular method. I have been using that method for all of the articles I work on. I recently had someone come in and start converting them to this inline citation which I find incredibly annoying when trying to edit with this large amount of excess text in the middle of a paragraph. So my long winded question is that I would like to know if Chicago formating is now frowned upon and is the inline citation method being promoted? In my opinion it should be the discression of the author, but if there is a policy I would like to discuss it as it doesn't seem "concrete."-- Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this page interferes with it at all actually, another user just became very pushy using the inline citations and I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my analysis of citation policy. -- Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In the examples of best footnote practices, this guideline links the access dates for a website. Why? Access dates have nothing to do with the content of the article and linking the dates serves no useful purpose. (It does, however, clog up Special:What links here.)-- ragesoss 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I need to cite a website where registration is required to read the information. This is the only place the information is avaliable. Is it necessary to inform that the site requires registration? I'm asking because my personal preference is to be made aware if I need to register, 'cos then I don't click the link. So using the {{citeweb}} template, how would I include that note? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Should the references section go before or after the "external links" section?
And should it go before or after the "See also" section?
Or is there any guideline on this at all? Everything I see just says that each should go "near the end of the article". -- Gronky 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just created a subpage of my user space at
User:OwenBlacker/Usability.
User:Everyking and I have a disagreement over matters of accessibility and usability — notably related to <ref/>
citations — that I've just listed on
WP:RFC/STYLE; please come and add your views. —
OwenBlacker 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
For all five articles I've managed to make either Good Articles or Did You Know entries, I've meticulously used interstitial citations because that's what people want, and I reluctantly complied. However, upon finishing my history homework (a document-based question), I realized it is much more satisfying to read several documents, have it amass in my head, and then simply write, than it is to read, write, and cite repeatedly, resulting in piecemeal writing which tends to be disjointed. What would happen if I were to read all my sources, write, list my sources at the end, and then I had the audacity to list my article on Good Article Nominations or even Featured Article Candidates? Obviously I would get panned endlessly for not providing an inline citation for every other word, and so it would fail despite the fact that the article is completely cited. You can trust me to have a reliable source for every word I put on Wikipedia, can't you? I've been around for nearly three years without betraying the community's trust, for goodness sake. MessedRocker ( talk) 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Edward Tufte advocates having wide margins and putting full citations (author, title, publisher, year) in the margin adjacent to the citation. This allows the reader to easily find the full citation. In print it's a tradeoff between space and clarity to "waste" pages of wide margins, but on the web, we could do that or better, with a citation link popping up the full citation rather than sending the user to the bottom of the page. How difficult would this be to mock up? Would that be a good idea? —Ben FrantzDale 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't a good idea at all, but I have two articles I'm working on, To Kill a Mockingbird and Rosewood massacre where a single source is used as the basis of information in an entire section, because there doesn't seem to be any other source available. Instead of footnoting the same source to appear multiple times with no other sources noted, is there a tag that can be anchored at the top of the section that reads something like, "Information in the following section is sourced from Source X" which can be linked to footnotes at the bottom? Thanks for the assistance. -- Moni3 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I think I have a related concern. I want to use a reference that applies (along with other references) to various statements made in the section. Can the reference be given once and referred to subsequently with an id. It looks like wikiref and wikicite do this, but don't use the numbering system that the ref tag uses, which I prefer because it is smaller (less disruptive to reading). Bsharvy 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I found an article that does this, by the way: W. H. Auden is ranked as a good article and posts at the top of at least 2 sections that one to three sources are used for the following sections. -- Moni3 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
... not through any decisive change of views).<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | date = 1973 | pages = p. 517 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... return to the Anglican Church in 1940.<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | date = 1973 | pages = p. 69 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... of the human body<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | date = 1973 | location = New York | pages = p. 68 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... His last prose book was a selection of essays and reviews, ''Forewords and Afterwords'' (1973). ... ==Notes== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div> ... ==Published works== === Books and selected pamphlets === ... * ''[[Forewords and Afterwords]]'' (1973, essays) (dedicated to [[Hannah Arendt]]).
... not through any decisive change of views).<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=517}}</ref> ... ... return to the Anglican Church in 1940.<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=69}}</ref> ... ... of the human body<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=68}}</ref> ... ... His last prose book was a selection of essays and reviews, ''Forewords and Afterwords''.<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973}}</ref> ... ==Notes== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div> ... ==Published works== === Books and selected pamphlets === ... *{{Citation | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | year = 1973 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}} (dedicated to [[Hannah Arendt]]).
OK, here's my dilemma. I had culled genealogical data for Uma Thurman's ancestry some time ago, and I recently culled genealogical data for Ethan Hawke's ancestry. I obtained this data from several different web pages that are themselves sourced; the sources are not available to the general public but are well known to the genealogy community and generally regarded by it as irrefutable. After accumulating this data in my database, I discovered that Thurman and Hawke have several common ancestors. I mentioned this in Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke but didn't know how I should cite it. (I also forgot to use the citation needed tag; Yamla reverted my contributed fact out of Uma Thurman in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP, and I later added the citation needed tag to the contributed fact in Ethan Hawke.) The sourcing of this fact is a house of cards — take away one source, and the fact becomes unverifiable. I have noticed that facts like these exist in some other biographies with any cited sources, but what I'm wondering is:
- John Rigali 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like a fansite. Hoponpop69 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Help Desk
Has there been a proposal about moving references (which takes up more than half of the page in some articles) into their own place or module, much like any comment or question about the article is located in the "discussion" module? This might require a software change... Anyway, could someone point me to a discussion of this sort? Thank you. CG 14:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Many secondary sources on Islam write about the Muslim beliefs, theology and faith in general. These secondary sources often point to the Qur'an as a reference. Question: when a user cites the secondary source, is it alright if the user also cites the references of the secondary source cited?
Example:
Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of God.<ref>Smith (1996) quotes Qur'an 61:6.</ref><ref>Smith, John (1996). ''Muslim beliefs''. New York: A B Press. Pages: 22-23</ref>
Or,
Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of God.<ref>Smith, John (1996). ''Muslim beliefs''. New York: A B Press. Pages: 22-23</ref>
What do you guys think? Bless sins 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
One does not cite the sources of a source. Cite only the source you're using. -- Cheeser1 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish to write about an important figure in Scottish Gaelic culture, Margaret Fay Shaw. I have several trustworthy sources including obituaries from both The Independent and The Guardian. That's okay. My problem relates to a television interview she participated in, shortly before her death, for BBC Scotland. This interview had many quotes that I would like to be able to use which would back up my claims of her paricular fondness for South Uist amongst others. Unfortunately, as with most Gaelic programming, there are no online transcripts which I can cite. What would my best course of action be for it to be recognised by the community? Simply to quote directly from the programme? I can't think of any alternatives. -- Kryters 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
heiia i are to the scool naw butt i mort go no bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.38 ( talk) 07:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any studies in this area. I've done a quick one myself available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment. I would like to see much more research like this conducted, and have provided a few suggestions. Any comments are welcome. Richard001 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Should [Citation needed] types of markup show up in References with a backlink? It would help editors and readers find marked items. ( SEWilco 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
How do I cite references from personal emails or phone calls with or about the subjects of my articles? -- Moni3 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[ [7]] says that it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. How does one approach an entry which purports to have many references, but where the probable reality is that the entry has had only a single source, and the many sources are actually only sources cited within that single source. I am referring to something like this page: [ [8]]. In it, many sources are listed, including original documents held in the British Foreign Office records. However, I think it is highly improbable that the editors of that page have seen such original documents, and is more likely that it is all taken from a single book, most likely of Turkish nationalistic origin. Meowy 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If there is an identified single intermediate source, that source should be cited. It is permissable to use a format which lists both by citing to primary source, cited in secondary source. Secondary sources may translate and/or interpret primary sources. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a quote function in citations, and I use it. Other people have been removing them, saying the are not to be used, and that no featured article uses them. I find them very useful:
What do you think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was encouraged by User:wtmitchell to bring this here
I originally posted that at
WT:RS, then removed it. It's now on my talk page, along with a quick reply from Bill. He suggests that the article itself might by a copyvio since it copies something out of the print media, and as such we shouldn't cite it. I tend to think, though I in no way know for sure, that this is not a brazen copyvio on the part of WWU's site, since they quite frequently post articles from the print media (most are just the Bellingham Herald, though, or other local{er} papers).
Anyway, any and all input on the matter is appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
Omegatron given this history in the archives:
how do you justify the statement "Where to place reference tags - for several years now, with no opposition" -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the [ ref generator no longer functional? -- Jerm ( Talk/ Contrib) 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've come across an issue with another editor who simply insists on including a quote in each and every reference that he puts in. At times, these quotes can run into 2 or 3 sentences. This is done for even a very minor reference such as one for Ben Affleck, reference #5, Encyclopedia Titanica, or all of the references on the Dan Antonioli article. His explanation is two-fold: a) the reader needs to see the reference as it appears in situ (which makes no sense to me since to see the reference in situ requires one to go to the site to view it) and b) the citation template has a space for a quote (although the editor doesn't always use the author space, despite the author's name being available).
My issue is that this practice is usually unnecessary as well as functioning to bulk out the page with unnecessary information in the reference section. In some cases, the references end up having an excessive amount of info in the citation yet leaves the article bereft of content.
Please help on how to approach this and what Wikipedia considers reason to include a quote in a reference. Perhaps someone else might broach this subject with the editor since I've had no luck with it? Wildhartlivie 09:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As a good example of people not wanting to read a whole webpage to look for a reference see the deletion in Ghosttown, Oakland, California where someone deleted a reference because they couldn't find the information on the webpage. This was right after someone deleted the quote function from the reference.
Thus should be debated on a global level rather than the case by case basis as is done now. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have indeed offered reasoning for why I believe the use of this sort of "quote" is inappropriate. I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said the manner in which these quotes are being used is not what is intended for the quote function. Using information from a source to craft new text is entirely different from pasting entire sections of a page into a citation template. Besides the fact that it's bulky, distracting, and excessive, very little of the information contained in them is being utilized. Those sections pasted are copyrighted and the quote options are not being used in the manner they are intended. I didn't just up and decide it was unnecessary. I sought out opinions at two relevant resources within Wikipedia for opinions on this matter and have approached another. The majority opinion seems to be that it's at least bordering on copyright infringement, that it's a rather backhanded attempt to host the article, and its unnecessary. That is why references have an "accessed on" date, to show when it was available, should it no longer be. I did look at the New York City article. There are brief quotes in 4 references - out of 154. That is not what is going on here, which is why I've brought it up. 4 out of 4 references in one article have more quoted material pasted in the reference than the material in the entire article. Refer to the 1st sentence below the edit box: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" and to the policy in Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement. I am doing exactly what Wikipedia asks us to do. Wildhartlivie 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
---
Seeing quotes in situ in Wikipedia references is not the best way to ensure the information is quoted accurately. A better way, certainly more verifiable, is to refer to a properly archived version.
And you don't need to simply hope it'll be findable in some Internet archive at some later date either. WebCite allows you to preempt the possibility of future page deletion with its archive form - http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php
This page allows you to submit URLs for archiving with WebCite. The contents of pages requested will be archived, including any inline images and / or media (up to a maximum size). As part of the archiving process, an e-mail will be sent to your address (as specified), giving a unique archive URL that can be used to access the content, which you can then use in your Wikipedia article reference.
-- SallyScot 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about copyright law, but it looks pretty close to the edge to me. What SallyScot says above me is a good solution for what to do with internet pages that might disappear. From looking at these pages, I can say they look very messy with all the extra data stuck into the citations and as another person said above, quotes should be used to remove ambivalence about a fact in an article, not to recreate the piece where it came from. The last time I saw nearly whole copies of a page accompanying an article, was in college for term papers. AndToToToo 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From the copyright decisions that I've read in detail over the last few days, the issue of displaying the lead paragraph, or a thumbnail of an image, in a search engine has not been found to be the issue. The copyright violation occurs when the search engine or webpage hosts the material. Since Google frames the page which is in actuality loaded by the computer of user employing the search engine, Google has been able to avoid liability on this.
The issue here is, for copy & pasted paragraphs & full biographies into a reference, is that Wikipedia becomes the host for the material, and this example we are considering, material in excess of what is being used in the body of the article. And that, according to the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, is a copyright violation. There have been a whole passel of copyright issues here over improper use that I've come across while researching discussions on WP the last few days - in requests for comment, articles & images for deletion and copyright violations. This issue is representative of the same. Wildhartlivie 06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What are scrolling reference lists exactly? -- SallyScot 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering if the article really needs a section on this. It seems such an obscure (and seemingly non-existent) issue. It would likely cause more confusion than clarification in the reader's mind. -- SallyScot 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
How would an editor implement scrolling reference lists? I mean, would they even possible? -- SallyScot 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I think I understand. It doesn't seem to be anything specific to Footnotes then, or Inline citations for that matter. I mean, the policy then applies to lists of any kind. It would apply as well to a list of full citations - as distinct from footnotes (they're not necessarily the same thing). Anyway, if it's going to stay in, I figured it should be brought up in the section levels, so it's not a subsection of Footnotes or Inline citations. Thanks. -- SallyScot 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In compiling references and footnote citations in combination with article-wide references that can only be shown in bullet points, I've taken a liking to a compact method which lists everything under a References section, and a separation header in bold (but not a subsection) indicating the beginning of the footnotes. It looks like this: (an in situ example here)
==References== <div class="references-small"> * references too article generic for spot cites '''Footnotes''' <references /> </div>
For me, activating Footnotes as a TOC element produces overwhelmingly large types and is just an unnecessary obvious and obtrusive element in the TOC. Not sure where, I've seen this method applied someplace and adapted it, thinking it in line with the WP guidelines and policies.
On making such an edit, I've recently been reverted on sight with adamant comment that this violates policy of WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT, and it apparently it doesn't even warrant discussion. Since I interpret these guideline pages as fairly flexible, offering options and such, I'd very much appreciate a few words of explanation. Am I plain wrong and should undo all these reference sections? MURGH disc. 12:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
=====Footnotes=====It appears exactly same in the TOC but doesn't blow away the actual reference material. Is this contrary to the guidelines? MURGH disc. 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive comments. A few final responses on what I've taken from this would be appreciated, so I may move on in accord with guidelines and don't unnecessarily add to the workload of fellow wikipedians:
It is a little disturbing that simply supplementing a section heading "References" with template {{Reflist}} is inappropriate, because it seems very widespread. Since so many of the articles I edit require a combination of spot citations and article-wide references (publication dates and bibliographies) I've noticed a method used by a frequent GA-building editor, that I quite like and have started to use. In editmode it looks like this:
==Sources== {{refbegin}} * references too article generic for spot cites {{refend}} ;Footnotes {{reflist}}
Here is an example in situ. What do people think about this? OK or revert on sight? MURGH disc. 14:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that people who read the today's featured article, sometimes get a bit intimidated with the extra size that the references section adds to the page, so i suggest publishing thme in scrollboxes, as this would condense the size of articles and make seem more coherent. An issue was raised that the references wouldnt print, but most people dont print off wikipedia and would certainly not wanan print off a reference, unless checkin an FAC. But most people just quote wiki in essays and stuff, so i say bring on the scrollboxes -- Hadseys 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the field of EDA (Electronic Design Automation), almost all of the material is published by the ACM or the IEEE, and is not free. So if you want to do any further reading on these topics, you will want to consult these libraries. (To show how dominant these sources are, 5 of the 6 cites are to these libraries in the article Routing (EDA), and in the referenced book chapter, 50 of 53 are from these sources.) So I added a note to the 'further reading' section stating that if you want more information, you may want to look at these libraries, with a note that they are not free. See the pages Routing (EDA) or Placement (EDA) for examples.
However, editor User:TeamX believes that refering the user to such sources is advertisements or spam, since they are not free.
This appears to be a conflict between two desirable attributes. On the one hand, under the purpose of further reading:
This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.
and the IEEE and the ACM are certainly major recommended resources. On the other hand, under "links normally to be avoided", the guidelines state:
Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content
In my mind, although free is certainly better than non-free, the first objective should be to direct the reader to the relevent material. Note that there is absolutely no controversy over pointing to a book in the 'further reading' section, even though most books cost money. (And just like books, the IEEE and ACM journals are available in many libraries - so you can view them for free if you visit such an library.)
What do others think? Thanks, LouScheffer 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be disastrous for the technical content of WP to have to avoid not-available-free-online academic publishers in references or additional reading. And many university public libraries provide that material, for free, to anyone who walks in. However, I think a pointer to the whole ACM digital library, for a specific topic such as EDA, is overbroad. A better link would be to the ACM or IEEE conferences and journals that cover that specific topic. (I haven't looked at the changes to the EDA article, so maybe that's already what was there. If so, just a point of clarification.) — David Eppstein 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are a list of issues with this template:
1) Redundancy in the template, example: "One major source of additional detail on this subject ([SUBJECT]) is the technical literature". This sentance is not needed.
2) The journals listed are not always the most appropriate for each subject. There are only two listed. As an example, the subject of ATPG is better covered by IEEE's Design and Test publication. This template is not flexible enough to modify it for every subject.
3) The template adds no new information at almost 200 words long - it has been placed on several subjects.
4) The template is better incorporated as text under the topic of Electronic Design Automation since it is a 'general' reference and a specific reference for the topic.
5) It suggests to the reader to coax the author into breaking IEEE rules of publication. The last sentence is "As a last resort, a polite email to the author will sometimes yield a copy". IEEE requires payment for many of these publications and does not grant the author permession to provide a "free" copy in response to an email request.
6) Specific references are much more valuable and appropriate.
7) Wikipedia guidelines state that external link to fee-based sites are not allowed.
8) The "Reference" section and "Further Reading" section is not meant to be an education on guiding the reader to 'general' reference sources. Example: each medical topics does not have a 200 word template describing good general sources for further medical reading.
)) Solution: Move the discussion about sources in the Eletronic design automation, the make sure the EDA topics have Electronic Design Automation in the "See Also" section.
One other note. I appreciate that the author is help guide readers who are completely unfamiliar with the topic. But in doing it with the template with a repeatative 191 words across many topics is not the correct method and breaks guidelines.
TeamX ( talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Harvard references that are listed at the end of the article should have periods at the end of them. However, in this guide, speciifcally in the sections 'Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations' and 'Footnotes,' there are no periods at the end of the examples given. So this footnote: (Miller 2005, p.23) should be: (Miller 2005, p.23.) I am not suggesting the period be used in in-text footnotes, but rather ones placed at the bottom of the page. All the citation guides I have looked at confirms the period at the end of footnotes, so I'd like to change the examples and add a period to the end. Zeus1234 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Have not heard back yet on my Email to Wikipedia. There's another "problem with citation" which is not dealt with, which is, what happens when a source is in error and the error has been confirmed with the author? That should be included as well, it does happen. If there's a specific policy out there already, I haven't found it, and it's not for want of searching. PētersV 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a suggested addition to this guideline to help new users which I think makes a lot of sense. Since new users often have trouble with the complicated (and possibly bewildering) citation guidelines, why not say something in a prominent location like "If you find this confusing, feel free to cite your sources however you want! Someone will fix up the formatting later as long as you provide a complete citation to the sources you used." JoshuaZ 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is time to depreciate the "External links" name for the section and only recommend the alternative named of "Further reading". To keep the discussion centralised please join the discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Propose to change External links section to Further reading -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you cite a note by an editor or translator of a book by someone else? Two somewhat different examples that I've guessed at are in Carmen (novella) (reference by Martineau) and Madagascar Serpent-eagle (Fisher and Higgins). I'll be grateful for an explanation or a pointer to one. — JerryFriedman 06:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Smith, All About Citations, 2005, p.27fn34.
If the work provides the explanatory material as an endnote rather than footnote on the bottom of the page, you still cite as above. The important thing is to find the foot/end note on page 27, and then know which note it is (#34). Not that endnote #34 occurs on page 768 at the end of the book or article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see there are (at least) 3 formats in use for references; inline, Harvard, or just putting an external link or bookref next to each fact. Seems to me from the other threads here that inline (with a list at the bottom) is the consensus choice - is that right? Jamieeeeeeeeeeee ( talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an overall lack of current consensus as to established 'best practice' at the moment. Further efforts could be made in this area.
Arguably, part of the problem lies in the bewilderment of terminology. For example, it might seem more easygoing to suggest that a footnotes section can be called either Notes, Footnotes, or References (or Endnotes even), but in practice I think it just adds to the confusion.
The difficulty would be in actually establishing such consensus though.
My preference would be to call a section generated by <references/> tag, who's content is determined by the what's inside <ref> tags in the article, simply, References.
In earlier discussion however it has been argued that the References section should not contain footnotes. Carl said - "One confusing issue is that the tag that generates footnotes is called <references/> - it should have been called <footnotes/>." - ( CBM • talk) (14:09, 30 October 2007).
I'd go along with this if indeed there was a <footnotes/> generating tag (who's content was determined by what's inside <foot> tags in the article, say). But as it is I think it would be clearer to label such a section References.
Then I would say that a separate section that lists full citations, using Citation templates for example, would best be called, simply, Citations.
But if you look at yesterday's (Nov 19th, 2007) featured article, for example, you'll see that it has what I'd call References labeled as Citations and what I'd call Citations labeled as References. This approach seems rather counterintuitive to me. I'm not saying that article looks bad, but there is a lack of a consistent overall approach for sure.
My preference would be to try and establish an intuitive and straightforward 'best practice' naming consensus. And I'd suggest approaching this with regard to what the said sections actually contained, including consideration of the current syntax (e.g. such as the <ref> tags currently used).
-- SallyScot ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the featured article looks fine, but aren't the terms "References" and "Citations" fairly synonymous? Another way of putting it might be that one section contains a full list of cited works from which the author(s) sourced their writing of the article ("Citations"), and the other contains specific instances in which the author(s) actually refer the reader to those works in order to substantiate the content of the article ("References"). In other words, it makes exactly the same sense put the other way around. -- SallyScot ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with such a definition, i.e. that references are published works and we cite those references in the article. However, if this is agreed best practice, then the existing <ref> and <reference /> tags are definitely not best named. I realise it's a big ask to get such things changed, but ideally, perhaps we'd ultimately be better off with the development and use of <cite> and <citations /> tags instead.
Also, if you look at what the Sophie Blanchard article has done with its Notes section, complimentary <nb> and <notes /> tags, which generated separate [a][b][c] (etc) style tagged notes would really seal the deal (automatic tagging with roman numerals rather than a,b,c would be another option). Such separate notes could more easily support narrative asides and make them quite distinct from citations Otherwise, hard coding such tagged notes (as done in that article) is the only way to achieve this effect (consequently potentially tricky to maintain proper sequence with the addition of any further notes in future edits).
In any case, I think the Citing sources project page here could do with some further updating. It has a section entitled "Full citations" which is in effect asking for full reference details, and saying that these should go in a "References" section. It would be clearer then if the section itself were called "Full references" and subsequent article wording changed accordingly.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
These break the connection between the place a link is used and the full citation, which is not only a problem for editors, but perhaps more so for readers, since they can't simply click their way to the full citation. I propose to drop this citation method entirely. -- Shinobu ( talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen an article which actually uses this, and it sucks. If you want to know where something is cited, first you click on the [#], as usual, and then you have to manually plough your way through the list searching for the citation. The example in the article doesn't at all illustrate what happens when the list of citations gets long. -- Shinobu ( talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is certainly better, although it's still a bit clumsy compared to direct referencing. Perhaps I'll fix the article later today. As for the direct linking, how long do we wait for protests before changing WP:REF? I don't actually think there will be any protests, considering that a obviously better alternative (ref tags) exists, but still, it'd be better not to just change stuff without giving people a chance to have their say, even if said people probably don't care or agree. Shinobu ( talk) 11:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This guideline states that a full citations should include the "date you retrieved it if it is online." But is this really necessary for a page that is clearly dated and unlikely to change, for example, an online version of a printed article from a newspaper or magazine, or an old blog post? I only ask because, to me, it clutters up the reference lists and is kind of annoying to see random retrieval dates for online documents that aren't likely to ever change. I understand the purpose for web pages that are typically updated, like wiki pages or pages about information which changes on a regular basis, but for typically "constant" pages which are clearly dated, is it reasonable to omit the retrieval date? DHowell ( talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to create multiple citations instead of having to write the source over and over again (for example <ref name="">). Yet, when I do this it comes up with “Cite error 8: no text given”. Help! Cinefile81 ( talk) 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an effort to move links from websites to links to articles at Webcite, which appears to be storing copies of webarticles. Has this been discussed before? What is Wikipedia policy. It wants to be an archival site, but what is its relationship to Wikipedia? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WebCite Legal and Copyright Information
Except as described below, all content on the WebCite website is licensed under a Creative Commons license, described in detail here.
Copyright and license for all content archived by the WebCite system are retained by the original authors of the archived pages. If you are the author of such a page, and would like its content removed, please contact us.
The term WebCite is a registered trademark.
---
With regard to http://www.archive.org/index.php (aka the 'Wayback Machine'). - As far I can tell, from reading the site's detail such as its FAQs, it does not seem to be geared toward responding to requests for the archiving of individual web pages. The 'Wayback Machine' seems to treat submissions as requests to archive whole websites rather than just individual pages. An archive request made there will be added to a list for their web crawling programs to pick up, which they say should happen within a couple of days. However, it may take months from such a request being submitted before the website actually appears in the archive.
By contrast, Webcite is geared up for archiving specific pages more interactively. As well as a confirming e-mail, submission of a successful request via the archive form - http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php - results an immediate onscreen message advising you of the archive URL there and then. - So in that case you're ready to use it straight away.
The 'Wayback Machine' is worth a look though. In particular as, aside from any individual requests, it automatically 'crawls' the web on its own. - So, apart from fairly new and 'uncrawled' pages, there's the possibility that an archive version will already exist for any given page. You may wish to check before going to Webcite.
If you use some of specific citation templates such as {{
cite web}} or {{
cite news}} with both the original URL and archive URL (archiveurl+ archivedate) parameters set, then the resulting format should include both. Using {{
cite web}} for example,
*{{cite web | last = Reboletti | first = Rep. Dennis | year = 2007 | month = Mar | title = Reboletti Passes First Bill, Bans "Magic Mint" | publisher = Illinois State Representative Dennis M. Reboletti (R) 46th District | url = http://www.reboletti.com/articles/3-01-07.htm | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5PS7Z0JoH | archivedate= 2007-06-08 | accessdate = 2007-06-08 }}
gives...
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Both the specific template {{ cite journal}} and the generic template {{ Citation}} don't support archiveurl parameters however. It may be that you'd expect formal journal citations to have associated identifiers such as PMID and DOI anyway.
Personally, depending on the suspected fragility of the link, I think it's okay to include the archive URL initially only as <!--comment-->, as an 'insurance' if you will. In other words, should the original link indeed disappear at some future point in time then the comment delimiters can be removed and the backup archive link brought fully into play.
-- SallyScot 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
To sumarise: WebCite is an archiving system for webreferences (cited webpages and websites), which can be used by editors to ensure that cited web material will remain available to readers in the future. You do not have to be the author or publisher of the material in order to cite it.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Gerry Ashtonn wrote "[...]unless the Wikipedia editor has authority to submit the page to WebCite independent of his/her status as a Wikipedia editor". Um, can she say what she means by authority? WebCite's own page says - WebCite® is an entirely free service for authors who want to cite webmaterial, regardless of what publication they are writing for (even if they are not listed as members). -- SallyScot ( talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's some food for thought: What is unique about WebCite that makes copying/archiving with WebCite not a copyright violation? I don't see that being addressed here and until it is addressed, I'm not certain that we should have added material to the policy advising this course of action. While wholesale archiving like the Internet Archive may be permissible, is anonymously initiated archiving a possible violation? Shell babelfish 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
---
For the benefit of those following this discussion, the advice I'd like to include about WebCite can be seen in this previous revision (for example).
At the time of this discussion post, the new section that I've been trying to add has been reverted four times.
I don't want it to start looking like an intractable edit war, but the arguments that have been raised so far do not really stand up.
The objections about having appropriate authority to submit the page to WebCite and those of copyright concerns are based upon misunderstandings, which have been dealt with.
I can appreciate wanting to err on the side of caution, but if you look at the WebCite Consortium's Frequently Asked Questions page on the subject, along with the Creative Commons license itself, it's quite clear that the circumstances we are talking about fall under fair use criteria. From WebCite's FAQs:
The Creative Commons license conditions include considerations of:
This leaves us perhaps with one remaining objection. Christopher Parham suggests that if WebCite removes content upon request from the owner, then "it's unclear whether the service is really valuable". However, I would argue that this is a complete non-sequitur as far a best practice is concerned. The likelihood of an author objecting to WebCite inclusion, and subsequent removal of material at some future point is, I suggest, quite remote. In any case, this simply does not imply that use of WebCite was bad practice in the first place. If it turns out that some author is really determined to delete every trace of their work from the Internet, then, hey, you can only do your best.
I therefore state my intention of reinstating the WebCite advice section to the article, with the welcome invitation of relevant discussion points, further considerations, constructive criticisms and following article re-edits of course.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 11:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies if reference to the Creative Commons license has lead to confusion. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, strictly speaking the license refers to WebCite's own content. I'd say that the listed considerations of attribution and non-commercial use are worth taking into account in any case. It's an overstatement to say they have nothing to with the issue at hand, though I can see how their inclusion could appear misleading. However, I think it's disingenuous to say that I have persistently been unable to grasp the issue and to suggest therefore my interpretations on the matter are unreliable. If you seriously think that WebCite has real copyright concerns then you have to take a look at the article's pre-existing - What to do when a reference link "goes dead" section, as Wikipedia could not then condone the use of any archive site in any context.
WebCite have been going since at least 2003, the Internet Archive since 1996, and search engines such as Google caching since long before that. Just because these parties are not "disinterested" doesn't mean they've been flouting the law all this time. The copyright concerns raised in this discussion so far do not really stand up to reasonable scrutiny.
-- SallyScot 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
An amended edit version, with new reference to copyright concerns and additional advice that an archive version may first be sought on the Internet Archive (using the 'Wayback Machine'), was reverted (01:37, 3 December 2007 by Hu12). From my point of view, the concerns that have been raised have either been dealt with or were anyway insubstantial. Gerry Ashton's point - "The rational set forth in WebCite's FAQ may be true, but they're not exactly a disinterested party, are they?" - can't be taken too seriously. - It's a rhetorical question merely casting aspersions.
Shell babelfish asked - "What is unique about WebCite that makes copying/archiving with WebCite not a copyright violation?" - This question doesn't really make sense. It's more pertinent to ask what's unique about WebCite that would make copying/archiving with WebCite a copyright violation? Search engine caching and the Internet Archive's crawler based approach have already set an archiving precedent. Why would wholesale archiving like the Internet Archive be permissible but individual webpage archiving like WebCite not? - there is no reason - "Fair use is even more obvious in the case of WebCite than for Google, as Google uses a “shotgun” approach, whereas WebCite archives selectively only material that is relevant for scholarly work. Fair use is therefore justifiable based on the fair-use principles of purpose" [11]
The Citing sources project page already contains a section - What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - with longstanding advice (not added by me) - "WebCite allows on-demand prospective archiving and is not crawler-based; i.e. pages are only archived if the author has requested archiving when he cited the piece for the first time, which is highly recommended".
All I'm really suggesting is that it's better to consider archiving before the original link goes dead, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping it'll be retrievable somehow afterwards.
I therefore restate the aim of reinstating new version of Archive advice section to the article, with the welcome invitation of relevant discussion points, further considerations, constructive criticisms and following reworking of course.
-- SallyScot 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just came across this dicussion (via a pointer by Gerry on a related Talk page), and I support Sally's addition. In reading over the whole discussion, I have seen no credible argument for why Webcitation.org is any more legally risky than any other archiving service, and therefore I see no reason not to include it along with the Web Archive. Based on this, I ask Sally, Hu or anyone else to go back through the edit, and merge in the removed material into the current version. If someone objects, let them speak up now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This may well have been addressed in one of the several archives for this talk page. There are cases where references apply to an entire section. Is there a consensus on how to represent those? The particular article that triggers this inquiry is 2001-02 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team. Thank you for the input (or referral to a particular archived discussion). --13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to cite something using a book on Google Books as a source, providing that the link is active and directly linkable? Ekantik talk 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to cite information from Collegio Football in various college football articles. It's a software package that ships with an updatable database and is filled with stats, history and other information. Is there any issue with citing this as a source? It's used by major media sources as a reference. What's the best way to cite information obtained from there? The URL where the software is available from can be used. I'm assuming the title is 'Collegio Football'. The version number of the database could be provided in the refid field and the access date would be appropriate to include as well. Sophosoft could be listed as the pubisher. What other information would be appropriate?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
When reading Buridan's ass, I came across the quote "If I am asked, whether such an one should not rather be considered an ass than a man", putatively by Spinoza. I would think that "one" should be preceded by "a", not "an". As Spinoza wrote in Latin, it is likely that this is an issue with the translation, rather than the original. But the article makes no mention of what translation is used. I've seen similar incidents before, and they suggest to me that we should adopt the following guideline:
Heqwm ( talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems this definition is somewhat relative. I understand the unacceptable concept of 'common knowledge' but surely if something is 'widely known' and 'easily verifiable' then the challenge of a single contributor should not invalidate it. There are all sorts of uncited things that are challengable under this criteria just because one person does not know about something. Having just corrected an incorrect entry that was not cited, I corrected it. This correction was then reversed (and made incorrect again) because a citation was not provided for the correction. This in the same paragraph as a totally uncited quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phileadie ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
---
I must confess I have issues with the current phrasing of the verifiability policy - "Likely to be challenged" - which I find rather weak. I think it simply invites too many edits without references. It encourages laziness as the editor will so often just not bother, thinking - "oh, this is widely known". Phileadie makes a fair point in discussion with Elektrik Blue regarding Orland Airport - "there is a great deal more information on this screen that is far more worthy of reference or challenge than this e.g. 'VS A380 order', 'Plans to build a South Terminal evaporated after 911', 'A380 landed at MCO on Tuesday 14th November (no year)'. The BA A380 order was widely reported, is very clearly in the public domain and easily verifiable through multiple sources (news search, Airbus webside) - surely we are not saying that we have to provide a reference to every piece of information added. If I say 'BA fly to Orlando' or 'It has 23 Gates' do I need to cite this as it is not common knowledge?"
In another discussion on Elektric Blue's talk page 'snowolfD4' wrote - "not everything on Wikipedia has to be cited. If we start blanking entire articles just cos there aren't any citations we'll end up in a fine mess."
But again, I'd have to disagree, and say that many articles are already in a fine mess precisely because the use of references has previously been so lax. So, those other parts, 'VS A380 order', 'Plans to build a South Terminal…' etc, should have indeed included references to news search, Airbus website or wherever the verifying information could be found in the first place.
I'd like to see some change in emphasis from the current - "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" - to material that is challenged or which could possibly be challenged. - With the challenger usually getting the benefit of any doubt. And my response to those who might say - "well almost anything could possibly be challenged" - would be - "Yes. Quite."
-- SallyScot ( talk) 11:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
---
Point taken and I certainly have no problem in including citations for everything I add - although I think it will deter some of the more casual contributors. I guess my issue is more with the way in which the standard is applied rather that the actual rule itself. I would suggest material that is challenged or which could reasonably be challenged might be a better definition as most material 'could' be challenged including birth dates, death dates, names etc.
-- PhilEadie ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
When citing an article in an online encyclopedia, is it sufficient to only state (1) the title of the article and (2) which encyclopedia it came from? Or do you also need to include other info such as the link/URL and access date even if the article can't be accessed unless you've paid for a subscription to the encyclopedia? – panda ( talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
to the page. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we delete an uncited info just immidiatly after its addition or should we have a grace period? I mean if someone added an uncited info, should't we give it the Benefit of the Doubt and wait some time before deleting it? As the current policy for Wikipedia:Citing sources#Unsourced material says we are not obliged to wait or give any time before deleting a new unsourced item. We can put citation needed if we want but also we can choose to immidiatly delete an uncourced material if we have a POV as it is douteful. My proposal is for a small set "grace period" (few days) after the addition of a new unsourced material even if it is doutful. Still harmful material can be immidiatly deleted (like info on live people). With current policy as it is, personal POVs would not let other users to see a new material and help to add sources to it. They can decide it is doutful (a fairly vague word) and immidiatly delete it. Farmanesh ( talk) 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had experience with the primary editor of an article removing {{fact}} tags (that I added) soon after they were added, without replacing with references because he didn't believe the text needed a reference. However, the tagged text was not common knowledge. Should {{fact}} tags be honored or is it acceptable for editors to ignore and remove them? If it is acceptable to remove them without replacing with a reference, then under what circumstances? – panda ( talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
---
Although I have some issues with the current wording of the policy, i.e. what's meant by the word 'likely' with the idea of material that is likley to be challenged ( see above), it seems to be less ambiguous after material actually is challenged. In other words, if you've added the {{fact}} tag, then the material has been, practically by definition, challenged. The material now requires a reference, and you are well within your rights to push for it.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at our edit history, it seems to me, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by registered users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth here. I've created a table showing anonymous edits from the beginning of October 2007.
In arguments given generally in support of anonymous edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic). This is clearly not the case for Citing Sources project page.
Summarising the edits there are over 100 incidents of anonymous vandalism - and that's with article being semi-protected for six weeks during the period from the beginning of October 2007 to 17th December 2007. There's very little of value otherwise being added anonymously to compensate for this level of vandalism.
I'd have to ask if a project page such as this is a place where we really get much benefit from anonymous edits. Personally, from what I've seen so far, I'd be in favour of permanent semi-protection here.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the accepted wikpedia policy on external links as references? There seems to be conflict (either explicit or confusion) about what the proper reference style is. If I were to link to an external site as a reference to a fact, is the proper usage to [14] link it with a numbered link, or to put that link with full information inside a <ref> tag so that the link appears in the reflist and only a numbered link to the reflist is placed? I always thought numbered external links (the first way) was discouraged in favoure of reference lists, but Wikipedia:Embedded citations seems to suggest this as the proper way. TheHYPO ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
First one, I'm citing a short piece that is included in a larger work. Particularly, a piece written by a Norman Jones, that is in a book that has many authors, but is credited as "Edited by so and so". How do I cite the individual author, and not the editor? Second, when the heck is some genius gonna work a page number option into the "ref name" tag? Murderbike ( talk) 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
As part of the above mentioned Wikiproject, I am making a solo attempt to completely refurbish, copyedit and basically glam up all articles related to the 1988 children's television series TUGS. But the problem is, this series was made in 1988 and has since been completely forgotten about, with no official website, just except a handful of fansites and a couple of mentions here and there. What do you do for citing sources in a case like this, where no official sources are apparent? Thanks -- SteelersFan UK06 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on and accept original research. You will never get far if you disallow it. I strongly oppose your rules. You know you are being really stupid about this. Your stupidity and panoraidity will not go unnoticed for long. I will make sure original research is allowed because we can not verify all content. No your fear of original research must stop at ONCE! I will complain to the Original Research Allowers. They think you are being stupid. You better allow it or I will ban you off for good. Beware! of the reseults and take action right now to avoid trouble and jail. The Original Research Allowers will put anyone who hates original research in jail for life! Fairycart 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it standard to use a title that describes what is on the page rather than the title that appears on the page for websites that are not news articles? Lara ♥Love 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion (Reference styles section) leads me to believe that the URL method [1] of writing citations is not the preferred method of referencing, whereas the ref tag method [1] is considered the correct way. While we can never eliminate the use of URL tags, I think we should discourage them.
I propose that the WP:CITE page (and other related pages) make mention of the fact that the REF TAG method is preferred over the URL method, and that the URL method should be discouraged.
Comments? Timneu22 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
How many is too many?
Seems a tad bit overdone to me. Dreadstar † 09:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE lists two methods for inline citations: Harvard Referencing or footnotes with "ref" tags, in that order.
It appears to me, overwhelmingly, that the latter method is more commonly used. The last 10 featured articles have all used inline citations with ref tags. Offhand, I can't recall the last time I saw a FA with Harvard referencing. It has probably happened...but not recently, and certainly not very often.
When I joined Wikipedia, I used Harvard Referencing for a number of articles that I created, since it was the option listed first. I now regret that, as those articles look odd now. I know that in one article I worked on, other editors came in later, and as part of an FA push (which was successful), converted all of the inline cites to use ref tags.
At this point, is it fair to say that "the people have spoken," and Harvard Referencing is the less preferred option? At the very least, I think it should be listed second, with a comment that "ref" tags are preferred by most editors. Marc Shepherd 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. Could an admin please add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup to the See Also section - I can't due to the protection. Thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
lI'd like to request that pursuant with Wikipedia:Explain_jargon, the use of "BLP" in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material ("so long as the article is not nonsensical or a BLP") could be changed to "biography of a living person" to make it easier to understand. -- Hopkapi 02:52, August 30 2007 (UTC)
The two sections on this page...
... both point to the fact that the Footnote style of referencing is the preferred method. I believe we should make this point known. When this page is unprotected, I recommend the following:
Comments? Timneu22 10:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Christopher Parham's comment somewhat misstates the case. What is longstanding is not consensus, but the lack of it. The guideline reads the way it does, because editors could not agree. The result is one of the few Wikipedia style guidelines that fails to recommend a style.
Whatever one's personal preference may be, does anyone here deny that footnotes with "ref" tags have become, overwhelmingly, the most commonly used inline citation method on English Wikipedia? Has not the time come to recognize this? Marc Shepherd 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Reference Style | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
URL links [2] |
|
|
Footnotes [3] |
|
|
Harvard Referencing (www.google.com) |
|
|
This ugly table and comment were done by Timneu22 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I support getting rid of Harvard refs and standardising on Wikipedia refs (<ref></ref> and <ref>{{cite web|etc|etc}}</ref>).-- Gronky 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this:
[4]
As with all inline citation methods, a full reference would also be required in a "References" section at the end of the article, e.g.
Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice. |
” |
I need to know if genres need to be sourced, because Hoponpop69 keeps going to random band articles and adding citation needed tags to the genres, when they've been up for months and nobody objected to them. Tim Y (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul Abrahams 23:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)It would be a good idea to have a citation template for patents. I needed to cite a patent and could not find anything about a standard form for doing so.
Hi-
I am Kris Peterson. I wrote my own bio. All sources were right from the person (S) cited. RE: Jobriath: I was there and knew that he was the first openly gay performer. My parents: anything referring to them were told to me by them. I was there and knew all to be the truth with everything stated .
Kris Peterson (Ladyinabag). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyinabag ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you use an email you have received from someone as a source? Can it be uploaded or something? -- SteelersFan UK06 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) The issue in question was that a number of IP's were adding a new member to the band The Rumble Strips, but i reverted it because it was not added on the bands website or myspace page. I went as far as to email the band's manager, and he confirmed that the new addition was actually a member of the band. Their website has not confirmed this, so I wanted to use the actual email. -- SteelersFan UK06 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindented) I am adamantly against allowing e-mails as sources. That would allow inclusion of opinions that in themselves have no value. We have to acknowledge that there are editors with a hidden agenda and a lack of scientific rigour; hence we should not allow such a subjective loophole in our sourcing guidelines. (Consider one flat earth supporter mailing another flat earth supporter that the world is actually a disc rather than a sphere. The first flat earth supporter suddenly has a source to include in article about the world--- No please, a source should be better than that). Arnoutf 17:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern:
For the Wikipedia page on Alan Nathan, you have the words "citation needed" at the end of the third line as per the following:
"Nathan's style is noted for its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic.[citation needed]"
Below is the "citation" from a leading authority in the broadcast field. I hope the audio/video url referenced will suffice.
“One of the most unusual talk shows in the business because he is a radical moderate. It terrified me the first time I was on because within 30 seconds I realized I was playing in a very difficult sport. It’s a brilliant show and he is a brilliant moderator.” -- MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor & Publisher, Talkers Magazine - STATED DURING INTRODUCTIONS AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION/TALKERS MAGAZINE PANEL DISCUSSION, September 27, 2002
Here's the audio/video url:
http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/lect020927.ram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecentrist ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please throw Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources into the See also section? I've mistakenly come here looking for cleanup templates at least three times - wouldn't hurt to at least link to the list. MrZaius talk 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, my solution has been to use both. See History of artificial intelligence.
I tried to build a "harvard footnote" template that looks like this {{hf|Crevier|1993|p=234}} but works like this <ref>{{Harvnb|Crevier|1993|p=234}}</ref> but I couldn't get it to work: it comes out with "CITEREF" in the footnote. Any suggestions? ---- CharlesGillingham 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
After glancing through the discussion above, I've noticed that others have mentioned that Taboo uses the same system I did. ---- CharlesGillingham 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
harvnb}}
and the ref parameter of {{
Citation}}
(note the uppercase vs. lowercase difference) can be used to suppress the CITEREF, e.g.
{{
harvnb|Dawkins|1986|p=123|Ref=whatever}}
, which generates:
Dawkins 1986, p. 123{{
harvnb|Dawkins|1986|p=123}}
, which generates:
Dawkins 1986, p. 123{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) using #CITEREFDawkins1986 --
Boracay Bill 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to start with just a couple of pages for now because I'm really busy lately.
I made a page on Moshpit Tragedy Records. There are links to two real sources which mention Moshpit Tragedy on the page. I don't know how to do the citations so I was wondering if someone had time just to do a couple.
There is a whole list of news about the label from this reliable music news webpage here:
The first link is about one of Moshpit Tragedy's bands filming a profession video. The next is about one of their bands from Finland having new lvie footage available. The next talks about one of their new releases, etc etc...
please just check it out, maybe give it a quick citation if you know how, I just don't have time to figure it out. Thanks!
moshpit_tragedy@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.1.188 ( talk) 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a situation that I've seen in a handful places, with variations, so I'll use a generic example for my question. In an article that uses inline citations, suppose there's a section where two sources have been used for the entire contnent. How, mechanically, should these be cited? -- that is, where should the <ref>s go? For added confusion, suppose the section is a table, where if you put them in only one cell, it looks like only that cell's being referenced, but putting them in all cells is obviously Right Out.
Any pointers to examples/best practices appreciated. — Quasirandom 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We need to make clear that if the sources are listed under "References" that nothing else, such as further reading, may. Hyacinth 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Those [citation needed] things are very annoying. When reading a page, it's very distracting and makes me, of short attention span, very annoyed. See Once Upon a Time in America for an example. Couldn't you make some sort of script (If you haven't already, which would be great) that makes these go away, just for reading purposes? They're not exactly less annoying when they've been cited either, with this little number right next to some text. How is this justifiable, even if a statement needs a citation? -- Kaizer13 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In a well-written article, inline citations are not really that distracting. They can be distracting if a less-skilled editor throws in stacks upon stacks of superfluous cites, and unfortunately that does happen sometimes.
I do agree that {{ citation needed}} is distracting. It is meant to be. Marc Shepherd 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
So, I just found out about the <ref name=""> method of citing multiple times from the same source, but I can't figure out how to add page numbers into these, and I would really keep those annoying tags off the top of articles that complain about page numbers being missing from cites. Help? Murderbike 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
Sup|p.123}}
" and, elsewhere, "<Ref name=whatever/>{{
Sup|p.147}}
". Another way sometimes used is e.g. {{Ref harv|Jones2006|Jones 2006:123|a}} and, elsewhere {{Ref harv|Jones2006|Jones 2006:147|b}} and in a bibliography section an entry something like:This guideline says that it is a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles.
Noticing that the Eating disorder article has a {{ Citation style}} tag, I've tried to clean it up. In the cleanup process, I've done some nontraditional things which I think have improved the citation style of the article. I would appreciate feedback on whether the improvements I think I've made in the citation style of the article justify working ourside the box in ways which will no doubt confuse some future editors of the article. My current working draft with my changes is here (compare with the unmodified article here. A good side-by-side comparison can be seen by placing the References section headers at the top of the browser windows.
Nontraditional things done to this article: I've used the <span style="display:none"> trick discussed here to group all the <Ref> declarations together in a hidden span, then moved that hidden span to the top of the article. Doing that allows the display order of the expanded Reference section items to be controlled. I then reordered the items into a sensible order. One irritating artifact of this is that all the References section items now have at least two backlinks, and backlink "a" is uniformly nonfunctional. (related material this -- Boracay Bill 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this page or another is the best place. What are your opinions on Internal links use in "references" or notes?
In my experience, because references serve to demonstrate the authoritativeness of the content, only links which serve that purpose further should be included (in addition to respecting the general guideline against linking something too many times in an article, this is basically an adjusted form of WP:OVERLINK). This avoids the references section becoming confused and overcharged with internal links in addition to sometimes heavy use of external links.
As such, red links and links to publishing companies (or, god forbid, locations) should be avoided. Links to works and authors who have articles are fine as long as the link is not present in the text.
For a comparison, see before and after (with additional links removed from {{ The Banksia Book}} and {{ The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)}}). Or before and after.
Any thoughts? Circeus 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My feelings about wikilinks within the references:
Basically, I don't see a sea of blue and red in the references as being a problem at all. One doesn't read references like text, so I'd rather err on the side of greater linkage and less readability. — David Eppstein 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone interpret the following?
In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes.
I'm not aware of any discretion when using footnotes; the text of the footnotes are inserted into the body of the article, but are visible to the reader in a section ("References", "Notes", whatever) at the bottom. Is there really some other option? And if not, would someone please change the wording? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
On a vaguely related topic, should we really be telling people to use <references/>? My understanding is that {{ reflist}} does the same thing with the addition of a small font (and the easy ability to add multiple columns) and is generally preferable. At least, mention both. — David Eppstein 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What if the "References" section is already in place and has citations from one of the other two acceptable citation systems?
Neither Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Embedded citations offers any guidance if there already is a "References" section that is being used for footnotes or for Harvard referencing. I can see three possibilities, none of which currently appear in any guideline, including, Wikipedia:Manual of Style:
As someone who thinks the embedded citations system is problematical (particularly because off-line citations are impossible with it), I'd appreciate the opinions of others.
(Note: originally asked at Wikipedia talk:Embedded citations and cross-posted here; since all comments have been here, I've now posted the full question here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC) )
Comments would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I always thought embedded citations are simply the product of laziness to properly format a reference. Should be fully abandoned, at least any form of recommending it. For some forum-shopping: As suggested below, I'd even go so far as to have {{ fact}} used with <ref> to use it rather as a placeholder than an disruptive inline-tag. — [ aldebaer] 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to add a section on the page, telling people to not use "ibid". As soon as a new citation is intercalated, the "ibid" will no longer be properly cited. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I also posted this on Template talk:Fact, but that talk page is far less active.
I wonder if anything speaks against using the template included in <ref>{{fact}}</ref> tags. It seems to me that it would still work to draw attention to a need for a citation, but would simultaneously work as a reference placeholder which needs to be filled. I got the idea because I believe that References sections are still widely underappreciated as individual and very important sections. There are still far too many articles with unformatted in-line external links, many ref sections are a gigantic mess. — [ aldebaer] 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that the citation needed tag should be done away with. If an editor comes across a statement that is unsourced, and that they they believe should be, they should either: a) have the guts to delete the statement on the spot b) do some research and find a source for the statement even if they didn't put it there (this is often possible) c) leave it alone. I consider the placement of a citation needed tag after an unsourced statement to be less desirable than any of these other options, because the tags chop up articles, and my experience is that they become "permanent" features of articles (as in no one ever provides a source, and yet the unsourced statement is never removed). Librarylefty 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that a fact in the lead of an article that otherwise should have an inline citation does not need one if the same fact is repeated later in the article in a more detailed section, and has an inline citation there. Am I right, and if so, where did I read it? -- Gerry Ashton 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How does one reference something said on a television show? Specifically if a transcript is unavailable but the video is online? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on refs for Manga, with multiple citations from a single book. I like the little numbers that appear when using <ref></ref> in combo with what the "cite book" template produces at the bottom. It doesn't allow for individual pages to mentioned, though. I'm not a fan of having a section that lists all the books, and then having the little numbers go to something like "smith p.38' though. Do the harvard templates allow one to put the number in the body of the article with a link that goes down to something that looks like what "cite book" produces at the bottom inside the ref tags? - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I occasionally see this situation in articles — (example) the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance article currently cites as a supporting source http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/Articles/buffalo-news-2005-01-31.html, which is a personal web page containing a verbatim copy of what appears to be a copyrighted work (see this).
My understanding is that it is considered bad form in wikipedia to cite a source which appears to be violating copyright. However, I see no guidance about this in this guideline. I believe that this guideline should provide guidance on this. (or am I missing something here?) -- Boracay Bill 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll try this more directly. I propose that a new section be added to this project page, as follows:
I further propose that a new subsection be added under Dealing with citation problems, as follows:
Please comment if you disagree. -- Boracay Bill 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
At one point this page listed that Chicago formating is an appropriate method to use when sourcing articles. As my off-line life involves much research in the liberal arts fields (ie. history, anthropology, sociology dealing with food) I use Chicago format for my citations as it is the most popular method. I have been using that method for all of the articles I work on. I recently had someone come in and start converting them to this inline citation which I find incredibly annoying when trying to edit with this large amount of excess text in the middle of a paragraph. So my long winded question is that I would like to know if Chicago formating is now frowned upon and is the inline citation method being promoted? In my opinion it should be the discression of the author, but if there is a policy I would like to discuss it as it doesn't seem "concrete."-- Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this page interferes with it at all actually, another user just became very pushy using the inline citations and I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my analysis of citation policy. -- Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In the examples of best footnote practices, this guideline links the access dates for a website. Why? Access dates have nothing to do with the content of the article and linking the dates serves no useful purpose. (It does, however, clog up Special:What links here.)-- ragesoss 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I need to cite a website where registration is required to read the information. This is the only place the information is avaliable. Is it necessary to inform that the site requires registration? I'm asking because my personal preference is to be made aware if I need to register, 'cos then I don't click the link. So using the {{citeweb}} template, how would I include that note? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Should the references section go before or after the "external links" section?
And should it go before or after the "See also" section?
Or is there any guideline on this at all? Everything I see just says that each should go "near the end of the article". -- Gronky 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just created a subpage of my user space at
User:OwenBlacker/Usability.
User:Everyking and I have a disagreement over matters of accessibility and usability — notably related to <ref/>
citations — that I've just listed on
WP:RFC/STYLE; please come and add your views. —
OwenBlacker 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
For all five articles I've managed to make either Good Articles or Did You Know entries, I've meticulously used interstitial citations because that's what people want, and I reluctantly complied. However, upon finishing my history homework (a document-based question), I realized it is much more satisfying to read several documents, have it amass in my head, and then simply write, than it is to read, write, and cite repeatedly, resulting in piecemeal writing which tends to be disjointed. What would happen if I were to read all my sources, write, list my sources at the end, and then I had the audacity to list my article on Good Article Nominations or even Featured Article Candidates? Obviously I would get panned endlessly for not providing an inline citation for every other word, and so it would fail despite the fact that the article is completely cited. You can trust me to have a reliable source for every word I put on Wikipedia, can't you? I've been around for nearly three years without betraying the community's trust, for goodness sake. MessedRocker ( talk) 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Edward Tufte advocates having wide margins and putting full citations (author, title, publisher, year) in the margin adjacent to the citation. This allows the reader to easily find the full citation. In print it's a tradeoff between space and clarity to "waste" pages of wide margins, but on the web, we could do that or better, with a citation link popping up the full citation rather than sending the user to the bottom of the page. How difficult would this be to mock up? Would that be a good idea? —Ben FrantzDale 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't a good idea at all, but I have two articles I'm working on, To Kill a Mockingbird and Rosewood massacre where a single source is used as the basis of information in an entire section, because there doesn't seem to be any other source available. Instead of footnoting the same source to appear multiple times with no other sources noted, is there a tag that can be anchored at the top of the section that reads something like, "Information in the following section is sourced from Source X" which can be linked to footnotes at the bottom? Thanks for the assistance. -- Moni3 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I think I have a related concern. I want to use a reference that applies (along with other references) to various statements made in the section. Can the reference be given once and referred to subsequently with an id. It looks like wikiref and wikicite do this, but don't use the numbering system that the ref tag uses, which I prefer because it is smaller (less disruptive to reading). Bsharvy 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I found an article that does this, by the way: W. H. Auden is ranked as a good article and posts at the top of at least 2 sections that one to three sources are used for the following sections. -- Moni3 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
... not through any decisive change of views).<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | date = 1973 | pages = p. 517 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... return to the Anglican Church in 1940.<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | date = 1973 | pages = p. 69 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... of the human body<ref>{{cite book | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | date = 1973 | location = New York | pages = p. 68 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}}</ref> ... ... His last prose book was a selection of essays and reviews, ''Forewords and Afterwords'' (1973). ... ==Notes== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div> ... ==Published works== === Books and selected pamphlets === ... * ''[[Forewords and Afterwords]]'' (1973, essays) (dedicated to [[Hannah Arendt]]).
... not through any decisive change of views).<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=517}}</ref> ... ... return to the Anglican Church in 1940.<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=69}}</ref> ... ... of the human body<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973|p=68}}</ref> ... ... His last prose book was a selection of essays and reviews, ''Forewords and Afterwords''.<ref>{{harvnb|Auden|1973}}</ref> ... ==Notes== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div> ... ==Published works== === Books and selected pamphlets === ... *{{Citation | last = Auden | first = W. H. | title = Forewords and Afterwords | publisher = Random House | location = New York | year = 1973 | isbn = 0-394-48359-6}} (dedicated to [[Hannah Arendt]]).
OK, here's my dilemma. I had culled genealogical data for Uma Thurman's ancestry some time ago, and I recently culled genealogical data for Ethan Hawke's ancestry. I obtained this data from several different web pages that are themselves sourced; the sources are not available to the general public but are well known to the genealogy community and generally regarded by it as irrefutable. After accumulating this data in my database, I discovered that Thurman and Hawke have several common ancestors. I mentioned this in Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke but didn't know how I should cite it. (I also forgot to use the citation needed tag; Yamla reverted my contributed fact out of Uma Thurman in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP, and I later added the citation needed tag to the contributed fact in Ethan Hawke.) The sourcing of this fact is a house of cards — take away one source, and the fact becomes unverifiable. I have noticed that facts like these exist in some other biographies with any cited sources, but what I'm wondering is:
- John Rigali 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like a fansite. Hoponpop69 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Help Desk
Has there been a proposal about moving references (which takes up more than half of the page in some articles) into their own place or module, much like any comment or question about the article is located in the "discussion" module? This might require a software change... Anyway, could someone point me to a discussion of this sort? Thank you. CG 14:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Many secondary sources on Islam write about the Muslim beliefs, theology and faith in general. These secondary sources often point to the Qur'an as a reference. Question: when a user cites the secondary source, is it alright if the user also cites the references of the secondary source cited?
Example:
Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of God.<ref>Smith (1996) quotes Qur'an 61:6.</ref><ref>Smith, John (1996). ''Muslim beliefs''. New York: A B Press. Pages: 22-23</ref>
Or,
Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of God.<ref>Smith, John (1996). ''Muslim beliefs''. New York: A B Press. Pages: 22-23</ref>
What do you guys think? Bless sins 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
One does not cite the sources of a source. Cite only the source you're using. -- Cheeser1 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish to write about an important figure in Scottish Gaelic culture, Margaret Fay Shaw. I have several trustworthy sources including obituaries from both The Independent and The Guardian. That's okay. My problem relates to a television interview she participated in, shortly before her death, for BBC Scotland. This interview had many quotes that I would like to be able to use which would back up my claims of her paricular fondness for South Uist amongst others. Unfortunately, as with most Gaelic programming, there are no online transcripts which I can cite. What would my best course of action be for it to be recognised by the community? Simply to quote directly from the programme? I can't think of any alternatives. -- Kryters 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
heiia i are to the scool naw butt i mort go no bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.38 ( talk) 07:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any studies in this area. I've done a quick one myself available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment. I would like to see much more research like this conducted, and have provided a few suggestions. Any comments are welcome. Richard001 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Should [Citation needed] types of markup show up in References with a backlink? It would help editors and readers find marked items. ( SEWilco 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
How do I cite references from personal emails or phone calls with or about the subjects of my articles? -- Moni3 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[ [7]] says that it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. How does one approach an entry which purports to have many references, but where the probable reality is that the entry has had only a single source, and the many sources are actually only sources cited within that single source. I am referring to something like this page: [ [8]]. In it, many sources are listed, including original documents held in the British Foreign Office records. However, I think it is highly improbable that the editors of that page have seen such original documents, and is more likely that it is all taken from a single book, most likely of Turkish nationalistic origin. Meowy 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If there is an identified single intermediate source, that source should be cited. It is permissable to use a format which lists both by citing to primary source, cited in secondary source. Secondary sources may translate and/or interpret primary sources. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a quote function in citations, and I use it. Other people have been removing them, saying the are not to be used, and that no featured article uses them. I find them very useful:
What do you think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was encouraged by User:wtmitchell to bring this here
I originally posted that at
WT:RS, then removed it. It's now on my talk page, along with a quick reply from Bill. He suggests that the article itself might by a copyvio since it copies something out of the print media, and as such we shouldn't cite it. I tend to think, though I in no way know for sure, that this is not a brazen copyvio on the part of WWU's site, since they quite frequently post articles from the print media (most are just the Bellingham Herald, though, or other local{er} papers).
Anyway, any and all input on the matter is appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
Omegatron given this history in the archives:
how do you justify the statement "Where to place reference tags - for several years now, with no opposition" -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the [ ref generator no longer functional? -- Jerm ( Talk/ Contrib) 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've come across an issue with another editor who simply insists on including a quote in each and every reference that he puts in. At times, these quotes can run into 2 or 3 sentences. This is done for even a very minor reference such as one for Ben Affleck, reference #5, Encyclopedia Titanica, or all of the references on the Dan Antonioli article. His explanation is two-fold: a) the reader needs to see the reference as it appears in situ (which makes no sense to me since to see the reference in situ requires one to go to the site to view it) and b) the citation template has a space for a quote (although the editor doesn't always use the author space, despite the author's name being available).
My issue is that this practice is usually unnecessary as well as functioning to bulk out the page with unnecessary information in the reference section. In some cases, the references end up having an excessive amount of info in the citation yet leaves the article bereft of content.
Please help on how to approach this and what Wikipedia considers reason to include a quote in a reference. Perhaps someone else might broach this subject with the editor since I've had no luck with it? Wildhartlivie 09:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As a good example of people not wanting to read a whole webpage to look for a reference see the deletion in Ghosttown, Oakland, California where someone deleted a reference because they couldn't find the information on the webpage. This was right after someone deleted the quote function from the reference.
Thus should be debated on a global level rather than the case by case basis as is done now. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have indeed offered reasoning for why I believe the use of this sort of "quote" is inappropriate. I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said the manner in which these quotes are being used is not what is intended for the quote function. Using information from a source to craft new text is entirely different from pasting entire sections of a page into a citation template. Besides the fact that it's bulky, distracting, and excessive, very little of the information contained in them is being utilized. Those sections pasted are copyrighted and the quote options are not being used in the manner they are intended. I didn't just up and decide it was unnecessary. I sought out opinions at two relevant resources within Wikipedia for opinions on this matter and have approached another. The majority opinion seems to be that it's at least bordering on copyright infringement, that it's a rather backhanded attempt to host the article, and its unnecessary. That is why references have an "accessed on" date, to show when it was available, should it no longer be. I did look at the New York City article. There are brief quotes in 4 references - out of 154. That is not what is going on here, which is why I've brought it up. 4 out of 4 references in one article have more quoted material pasted in the reference than the material in the entire article. Refer to the 1st sentence below the edit box: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" and to the policy in Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement. I am doing exactly what Wikipedia asks us to do. Wildhartlivie 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
---
Seeing quotes in situ in Wikipedia references is not the best way to ensure the information is quoted accurately. A better way, certainly more verifiable, is to refer to a properly archived version.
And you don't need to simply hope it'll be findable in some Internet archive at some later date either. WebCite allows you to preempt the possibility of future page deletion with its archive form - http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php
This page allows you to submit URLs for archiving with WebCite. The contents of pages requested will be archived, including any inline images and / or media (up to a maximum size). As part of the archiving process, an e-mail will be sent to your address (as specified), giving a unique archive URL that can be used to access the content, which you can then use in your Wikipedia article reference.
-- SallyScot 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about copyright law, but it looks pretty close to the edge to me. What SallyScot says above me is a good solution for what to do with internet pages that might disappear. From looking at these pages, I can say they look very messy with all the extra data stuck into the citations and as another person said above, quotes should be used to remove ambivalence about a fact in an article, not to recreate the piece where it came from. The last time I saw nearly whole copies of a page accompanying an article, was in college for term papers. AndToToToo 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From the copyright decisions that I've read in detail over the last few days, the issue of displaying the lead paragraph, or a thumbnail of an image, in a search engine has not been found to be the issue. The copyright violation occurs when the search engine or webpage hosts the material. Since Google frames the page which is in actuality loaded by the computer of user employing the search engine, Google has been able to avoid liability on this.
The issue here is, for copy & pasted paragraphs & full biographies into a reference, is that Wikipedia becomes the host for the material, and this example we are considering, material in excess of what is being used in the body of the article. And that, according to the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, is a copyright violation. There have been a whole passel of copyright issues here over improper use that I've come across while researching discussions on WP the last few days - in requests for comment, articles & images for deletion and copyright violations. This issue is representative of the same. Wildhartlivie 06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What are scrolling reference lists exactly? -- SallyScot 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering if the article really needs a section on this. It seems such an obscure (and seemingly non-existent) issue. It would likely cause more confusion than clarification in the reader's mind. -- SallyScot 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
How would an editor implement scrolling reference lists? I mean, would they even possible? -- SallyScot 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I think I understand. It doesn't seem to be anything specific to Footnotes then, or Inline citations for that matter. I mean, the policy then applies to lists of any kind. It would apply as well to a list of full citations - as distinct from footnotes (they're not necessarily the same thing). Anyway, if it's going to stay in, I figured it should be brought up in the section levels, so it's not a subsection of Footnotes or Inline citations. Thanks. -- SallyScot 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In compiling references and footnote citations in combination with article-wide references that can only be shown in bullet points, I've taken a liking to a compact method which lists everything under a References section, and a separation header in bold (but not a subsection) indicating the beginning of the footnotes. It looks like this: (an in situ example here)
==References== <div class="references-small"> * references too article generic for spot cites '''Footnotes''' <references /> </div>
For me, activating Footnotes as a TOC element produces overwhelmingly large types and is just an unnecessary obvious and obtrusive element in the TOC. Not sure where, I've seen this method applied someplace and adapted it, thinking it in line with the WP guidelines and policies.
On making such an edit, I've recently been reverted on sight with adamant comment that this violates policy of WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT, and it apparently it doesn't even warrant discussion. Since I interpret these guideline pages as fairly flexible, offering options and such, I'd very much appreciate a few words of explanation. Am I plain wrong and should undo all these reference sections? MURGH disc. 12:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
=====Footnotes=====It appears exactly same in the TOC but doesn't blow away the actual reference material. Is this contrary to the guidelines? MURGH disc. 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive comments. A few final responses on what I've taken from this would be appreciated, so I may move on in accord with guidelines and don't unnecessarily add to the workload of fellow wikipedians:
It is a little disturbing that simply supplementing a section heading "References" with template {{Reflist}} is inappropriate, because it seems very widespread. Since so many of the articles I edit require a combination of spot citations and article-wide references (publication dates and bibliographies) I've noticed a method used by a frequent GA-building editor, that I quite like and have started to use. In editmode it looks like this:
==Sources== {{refbegin}} * references too article generic for spot cites {{refend}} ;Footnotes {{reflist}}
Here is an example in situ. What do people think about this? OK or revert on sight? MURGH disc. 14:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that people who read the today's featured article, sometimes get a bit intimidated with the extra size that the references section adds to the page, so i suggest publishing thme in scrollboxes, as this would condense the size of articles and make seem more coherent. An issue was raised that the references wouldnt print, but most people dont print off wikipedia and would certainly not wanan print off a reference, unless checkin an FAC. But most people just quote wiki in essays and stuff, so i say bring on the scrollboxes -- Hadseys 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the field of EDA (Electronic Design Automation), almost all of the material is published by the ACM or the IEEE, and is not free. So if you want to do any further reading on these topics, you will want to consult these libraries. (To show how dominant these sources are, 5 of the 6 cites are to these libraries in the article Routing (EDA), and in the referenced book chapter, 50 of 53 are from these sources.) So I added a note to the 'further reading' section stating that if you want more information, you may want to look at these libraries, with a note that they are not free. See the pages Routing (EDA) or Placement (EDA) for examples.
However, editor User:TeamX believes that refering the user to such sources is advertisements or spam, since they are not free.
This appears to be a conflict between two desirable attributes. On the one hand, under the purpose of further reading:
This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.
and the IEEE and the ACM are certainly major recommended resources. On the other hand, under "links normally to be avoided", the guidelines state:
Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content
In my mind, although free is certainly better than non-free, the first objective should be to direct the reader to the relevent material. Note that there is absolutely no controversy over pointing to a book in the 'further reading' section, even though most books cost money. (And just like books, the IEEE and ACM journals are available in many libraries - so you can view them for free if you visit such an library.)
What do others think? Thanks, LouScheffer 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be disastrous for the technical content of WP to have to avoid not-available-free-online academic publishers in references or additional reading. And many university public libraries provide that material, for free, to anyone who walks in. However, I think a pointer to the whole ACM digital library, for a specific topic such as EDA, is overbroad. A better link would be to the ACM or IEEE conferences and journals that cover that specific topic. (I haven't looked at the changes to the EDA article, so maybe that's already what was there. If so, just a point of clarification.) — David Eppstein 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are a list of issues with this template:
1) Redundancy in the template, example: "One major source of additional detail on this subject ([SUBJECT]) is the technical literature". This sentance is not needed.
2) The journals listed are not always the most appropriate for each subject. There are only two listed. As an example, the subject of ATPG is better covered by IEEE's Design and Test publication. This template is not flexible enough to modify it for every subject.
3) The template adds no new information at almost 200 words long - it has been placed on several subjects.
4) The template is better incorporated as text under the topic of Electronic Design Automation since it is a 'general' reference and a specific reference for the topic.
5) It suggests to the reader to coax the author into breaking IEEE rules of publication. The last sentence is "As a last resort, a polite email to the author will sometimes yield a copy". IEEE requires payment for many of these publications and does not grant the author permession to provide a "free" copy in response to an email request.
6) Specific references are much more valuable and appropriate.
7) Wikipedia guidelines state that external link to fee-based sites are not allowed.
8) The "Reference" section and "Further Reading" section is not meant to be an education on guiding the reader to 'general' reference sources. Example: each medical topics does not have a 200 word template describing good general sources for further medical reading.
)) Solution: Move the discussion about sources in the Eletronic design automation, the make sure the EDA topics have Electronic Design Automation in the "See Also" section.
One other note. I appreciate that the author is help guide readers who are completely unfamiliar with the topic. But in doing it with the template with a repeatative 191 words across many topics is not the correct method and breaks guidelines.
TeamX ( talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Harvard references that are listed at the end of the article should have periods at the end of them. However, in this guide, speciifcally in the sections 'Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations' and 'Footnotes,' there are no periods at the end of the examples given. So this footnote: (Miller 2005, p.23) should be: (Miller 2005, p.23.) I am not suggesting the period be used in in-text footnotes, but rather ones placed at the bottom of the page. All the citation guides I have looked at confirms the period at the end of footnotes, so I'd like to change the examples and add a period to the end. Zeus1234 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Have not heard back yet on my Email to Wikipedia. There's another "problem with citation" which is not dealt with, which is, what happens when a source is in error and the error has been confirmed with the author? That should be included as well, it does happen. If there's a specific policy out there already, I haven't found it, and it's not for want of searching. PētersV 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a suggested addition to this guideline to help new users which I think makes a lot of sense. Since new users often have trouble with the complicated (and possibly bewildering) citation guidelines, why not say something in a prominent location like "If you find this confusing, feel free to cite your sources however you want! Someone will fix up the formatting later as long as you provide a complete citation to the sources you used." JoshuaZ 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is time to depreciate the "External links" name for the section and only recommend the alternative named of "Further reading". To keep the discussion centralised please join the discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Propose to change External links section to Further reading -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you cite a note by an editor or translator of a book by someone else? Two somewhat different examples that I've guessed at are in Carmen (novella) (reference by Martineau) and Madagascar Serpent-eagle (Fisher and Higgins). I'll be grateful for an explanation or a pointer to one. — JerryFriedman 06:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Smith, All About Citations, 2005, p.27fn34.
If the work provides the explanatory material as an endnote rather than footnote on the bottom of the page, you still cite as above. The important thing is to find the foot/end note on page 27, and then know which note it is (#34). Not that endnote #34 occurs on page 768 at the end of the book or article. - Tim1965 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see there are (at least) 3 formats in use for references; inline, Harvard, or just putting an external link or bookref next to each fact. Seems to me from the other threads here that inline (with a list at the bottom) is the consensus choice - is that right? Jamieeeeeeeeeeee ( talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an overall lack of current consensus as to established 'best practice' at the moment. Further efforts could be made in this area.
Arguably, part of the problem lies in the bewilderment of terminology. For example, it might seem more easygoing to suggest that a footnotes section can be called either Notes, Footnotes, or References (or Endnotes even), but in practice I think it just adds to the confusion.
The difficulty would be in actually establishing such consensus though.
My preference would be to call a section generated by <references/> tag, who's content is determined by the what's inside <ref> tags in the article, simply, References.
In earlier discussion however it has been argued that the References section should not contain footnotes. Carl said - "One confusing issue is that the tag that generates footnotes is called <references/> - it should have been called <footnotes/>." - ( CBM • talk) (14:09, 30 October 2007).
I'd go along with this if indeed there was a <footnotes/> generating tag (who's content was determined by what's inside <foot> tags in the article, say). But as it is I think it would be clearer to label such a section References.
Then I would say that a separate section that lists full citations, using Citation templates for example, would best be called, simply, Citations.
But if you look at yesterday's (Nov 19th, 2007) featured article, for example, you'll see that it has what I'd call References labeled as Citations and what I'd call Citations labeled as References. This approach seems rather counterintuitive to me. I'm not saying that article looks bad, but there is a lack of a consistent overall approach for sure.
My preference would be to try and establish an intuitive and straightforward 'best practice' naming consensus. And I'd suggest approaching this with regard to what the said sections actually contained, including consideration of the current syntax (e.g. such as the <ref> tags currently used).
-- SallyScot ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the featured article looks fine, but aren't the terms "References" and "Citations" fairly synonymous? Another way of putting it might be that one section contains a full list of cited works from which the author(s) sourced their writing of the article ("Citations"), and the other contains specific instances in which the author(s) actually refer the reader to those works in order to substantiate the content of the article ("References"). In other words, it makes exactly the same sense put the other way around. -- SallyScot ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with such a definition, i.e. that references are published works and we cite those references in the article. However, if this is agreed best practice, then the existing <ref> and <reference /> tags are definitely not best named. I realise it's a big ask to get such things changed, but ideally, perhaps we'd ultimately be better off with the development and use of <cite> and <citations /> tags instead.
Also, if you look at what the Sophie Blanchard article has done with its Notes section, complimentary <nb> and <notes /> tags, which generated separate [a][b][c] (etc) style tagged notes would really seal the deal (automatic tagging with roman numerals rather than a,b,c would be another option). Such separate notes could more easily support narrative asides and make them quite distinct from citations Otherwise, hard coding such tagged notes (as done in that article) is the only way to achieve this effect (consequently potentially tricky to maintain proper sequence with the addition of any further notes in future edits).
In any case, I think the Citing sources project page here could do with some further updating. It has a section entitled "Full citations" which is in effect asking for full reference details, and saying that these should go in a "References" section. It would be clearer then if the section itself were called "Full references" and subsequent article wording changed accordingly.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
These break the connection between the place a link is used and the full citation, which is not only a problem for editors, but perhaps more so for readers, since they can't simply click their way to the full citation. I propose to drop this citation method entirely. -- Shinobu ( talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen an article which actually uses this, and it sucks. If you want to know where something is cited, first you click on the [#], as usual, and then you have to manually plough your way through the list searching for the citation. The example in the article doesn't at all illustrate what happens when the list of citations gets long. -- Shinobu ( talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is certainly better, although it's still a bit clumsy compared to direct referencing. Perhaps I'll fix the article later today. As for the direct linking, how long do we wait for protests before changing WP:REF? I don't actually think there will be any protests, considering that a obviously better alternative (ref tags) exists, but still, it'd be better not to just change stuff without giving people a chance to have their say, even if said people probably don't care or agree. Shinobu ( talk) 11:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This guideline states that a full citations should include the "date you retrieved it if it is online." But is this really necessary for a page that is clearly dated and unlikely to change, for example, an online version of a printed article from a newspaper or magazine, or an old blog post? I only ask because, to me, it clutters up the reference lists and is kind of annoying to see random retrieval dates for online documents that aren't likely to ever change. I understand the purpose for web pages that are typically updated, like wiki pages or pages about information which changes on a regular basis, but for typically "constant" pages which are clearly dated, is it reasonable to omit the retrieval date? DHowell ( talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to create multiple citations instead of having to write the source over and over again (for example <ref name="">). Yet, when I do this it comes up with “Cite error 8: no text given”. Help! Cinefile81 ( talk) 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an effort to move links from websites to links to articles at Webcite, which appears to be storing copies of webarticles. Has this been discussed before? What is Wikipedia policy. It wants to be an archival site, but what is its relationship to Wikipedia? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WebCite Legal and Copyright Information
Except as described below, all content on the WebCite website is licensed under a Creative Commons license, described in detail here.
Copyright and license for all content archived by the WebCite system are retained by the original authors of the archived pages. If you are the author of such a page, and would like its content removed, please contact us.
The term WebCite is a registered trademark.
---
With regard to http://www.archive.org/index.php (aka the 'Wayback Machine'). - As far I can tell, from reading the site's detail such as its FAQs, it does not seem to be geared toward responding to requests for the archiving of individual web pages. The 'Wayback Machine' seems to treat submissions as requests to archive whole websites rather than just individual pages. An archive request made there will be added to a list for their web crawling programs to pick up, which they say should happen within a couple of days. However, it may take months from such a request being submitted before the website actually appears in the archive.
By contrast, Webcite is geared up for archiving specific pages more interactively. As well as a confirming e-mail, submission of a successful request via the archive form - http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php - results an immediate onscreen message advising you of the archive URL there and then. - So in that case you're ready to use it straight away.
The 'Wayback Machine' is worth a look though. In particular as, aside from any individual requests, it automatically 'crawls' the web on its own. - So, apart from fairly new and 'uncrawled' pages, there's the possibility that an archive version will already exist for any given page. You may wish to check before going to Webcite.
If you use some of specific citation templates such as {{
cite web}} or {{
cite news}} with both the original URL and archive URL (archiveurl+ archivedate) parameters set, then the resulting format should include both. Using {{
cite web}} for example,
*{{cite web | last = Reboletti | first = Rep. Dennis | year = 2007 | month = Mar | title = Reboletti Passes First Bill, Bans "Magic Mint" | publisher = Illinois State Representative Dennis M. Reboletti (R) 46th District | url = http://www.reboletti.com/articles/3-01-07.htm | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5PS7Z0JoH | archivedate= 2007-06-08 | accessdate = 2007-06-08 }}
gives...
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Both the specific template {{ cite journal}} and the generic template {{ Citation}} don't support archiveurl parameters however. It may be that you'd expect formal journal citations to have associated identifiers such as PMID and DOI anyway.
Personally, depending on the suspected fragility of the link, I think it's okay to include the archive URL initially only as <!--comment-->, as an 'insurance' if you will. In other words, should the original link indeed disappear at some future point in time then the comment delimiters can be removed and the backup archive link brought fully into play.
-- SallyScot 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
To sumarise: WebCite is an archiving system for webreferences (cited webpages and websites), which can be used by editors to ensure that cited web material will remain available to readers in the future. You do not have to be the author or publisher of the material in order to cite it.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Gerry Ashtonn wrote "[...]unless the Wikipedia editor has authority to submit the page to WebCite independent of his/her status as a Wikipedia editor". Um, can she say what she means by authority? WebCite's own page says - WebCite® is an entirely free service for authors who want to cite webmaterial, regardless of what publication they are writing for (even if they are not listed as members). -- SallyScot ( talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's some food for thought: What is unique about WebCite that makes copying/archiving with WebCite not a copyright violation? I don't see that being addressed here and until it is addressed, I'm not certain that we should have added material to the policy advising this course of action. While wholesale archiving like the Internet Archive may be permissible, is anonymously initiated archiving a possible violation? Shell babelfish 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
---
For the benefit of those following this discussion, the advice I'd like to include about WebCite can be seen in this previous revision (for example).
At the time of this discussion post, the new section that I've been trying to add has been reverted four times.
I don't want it to start looking like an intractable edit war, but the arguments that have been raised so far do not really stand up.
The objections about having appropriate authority to submit the page to WebCite and those of copyright concerns are based upon misunderstandings, which have been dealt with.
I can appreciate wanting to err on the side of caution, but if you look at the WebCite Consortium's Frequently Asked Questions page on the subject, along with the Creative Commons license itself, it's quite clear that the circumstances we are talking about fall under fair use criteria. From WebCite's FAQs:
The Creative Commons license conditions include considerations of:
This leaves us perhaps with one remaining objection. Christopher Parham suggests that if WebCite removes content upon request from the owner, then "it's unclear whether the service is really valuable". However, I would argue that this is a complete non-sequitur as far a best practice is concerned. The likelihood of an author objecting to WebCite inclusion, and subsequent removal of material at some future point is, I suggest, quite remote. In any case, this simply does not imply that use of WebCite was bad practice in the first place. If it turns out that some author is really determined to delete every trace of their work from the Internet, then, hey, you can only do your best.
I therefore state my intention of reinstating the WebCite advice section to the article, with the welcome invitation of relevant discussion points, further considerations, constructive criticisms and following article re-edits of course.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 11:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies if reference to the Creative Commons license has lead to confusion. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, strictly speaking the license refers to WebCite's own content. I'd say that the listed considerations of attribution and non-commercial use are worth taking into account in any case. It's an overstatement to say they have nothing to with the issue at hand, though I can see how their inclusion could appear misleading. However, I think it's disingenuous to say that I have persistently been unable to grasp the issue and to suggest therefore my interpretations on the matter are unreliable. If you seriously think that WebCite has real copyright concerns then you have to take a look at the article's pre-existing - What to do when a reference link "goes dead" section, as Wikipedia could not then condone the use of any archive site in any context.
WebCite have been going since at least 2003, the Internet Archive since 1996, and search engines such as Google caching since long before that. Just because these parties are not "disinterested" doesn't mean they've been flouting the law all this time. The copyright concerns raised in this discussion so far do not really stand up to reasonable scrutiny.
-- SallyScot 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
An amended edit version, with new reference to copyright concerns and additional advice that an archive version may first be sought on the Internet Archive (using the 'Wayback Machine'), was reverted (01:37, 3 December 2007 by Hu12). From my point of view, the concerns that have been raised have either been dealt with or were anyway insubstantial. Gerry Ashton's point - "The rational set forth in WebCite's FAQ may be true, but they're not exactly a disinterested party, are they?" - can't be taken too seriously. - It's a rhetorical question merely casting aspersions.
Shell babelfish asked - "What is unique about WebCite that makes copying/archiving with WebCite not a copyright violation?" - This question doesn't really make sense. It's more pertinent to ask what's unique about WebCite that would make copying/archiving with WebCite a copyright violation? Search engine caching and the Internet Archive's crawler based approach have already set an archiving precedent. Why would wholesale archiving like the Internet Archive be permissible but individual webpage archiving like WebCite not? - there is no reason - "Fair use is even more obvious in the case of WebCite than for Google, as Google uses a “shotgun” approach, whereas WebCite archives selectively only material that is relevant for scholarly work. Fair use is therefore justifiable based on the fair-use principles of purpose" [11]
The Citing sources project page already contains a section - What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - with longstanding advice (not added by me) - "WebCite allows on-demand prospective archiving and is not crawler-based; i.e. pages are only archived if the author has requested archiving when he cited the piece for the first time, which is highly recommended".
All I'm really suggesting is that it's better to consider archiving before the original link goes dead, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping it'll be retrievable somehow afterwards.
I therefore restate the aim of reinstating new version of Archive advice section to the article, with the welcome invitation of relevant discussion points, further considerations, constructive criticisms and following reworking of course.
-- SallyScot 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just came across this dicussion (via a pointer by Gerry on a related Talk page), and I support Sally's addition. In reading over the whole discussion, I have seen no credible argument for why Webcitation.org is any more legally risky than any other archiving service, and therefore I see no reason not to include it along with the Web Archive. Based on this, I ask Sally, Hu or anyone else to go back through the edit, and merge in the removed material into the current version. If someone objects, let them speak up now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This may well have been addressed in one of the several archives for this talk page. There are cases where references apply to an entire section. Is there a consensus on how to represent those? The particular article that triggers this inquiry is 2001-02 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team. Thank you for the input (or referral to a particular archived discussion). --13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to cite something using a book on Google Books as a source, providing that the link is active and directly linkable? Ekantik talk 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to cite information from Collegio Football in various college football articles. It's a software package that ships with an updatable database and is filled with stats, history and other information. Is there any issue with citing this as a source? It's used by major media sources as a reference. What's the best way to cite information obtained from there? The URL where the software is available from can be used. I'm assuming the title is 'Collegio Football'. The version number of the database could be provided in the refid field and the access date would be appropriate to include as well. Sophosoft could be listed as the pubisher. What other information would be appropriate?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
When reading Buridan's ass, I came across the quote "If I am asked, whether such an one should not rather be considered an ass than a man", putatively by Spinoza. I would think that "one" should be preceded by "a", not "an". As Spinoza wrote in Latin, it is likely that this is an issue with the translation, rather than the original. But the article makes no mention of what translation is used. I've seen similar incidents before, and they suggest to me that we should adopt the following guideline:
Heqwm ( talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems this definition is somewhat relative. I understand the unacceptable concept of 'common knowledge' but surely if something is 'widely known' and 'easily verifiable' then the challenge of a single contributor should not invalidate it. There are all sorts of uncited things that are challengable under this criteria just because one person does not know about something. Having just corrected an incorrect entry that was not cited, I corrected it. This correction was then reversed (and made incorrect again) because a citation was not provided for the correction. This in the same paragraph as a totally uncited quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phileadie ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
---
I must confess I have issues with the current phrasing of the verifiability policy - "Likely to be challenged" - which I find rather weak. I think it simply invites too many edits without references. It encourages laziness as the editor will so often just not bother, thinking - "oh, this is widely known". Phileadie makes a fair point in discussion with Elektrik Blue regarding Orland Airport - "there is a great deal more information on this screen that is far more worthy of reference or challenge than this e.g. 'VS A380 order', 'Plans to build a South Terminal evaporated after 911', 'A380 landed at MCO on Tuesday 14th November (no year)'. The BA A380 order was widely reported, is very clearly in the public domain and easily verifiable through multiple sources (news search, Airbus webside) - surely we are not saying that we have to provide a reference to every piece of information added. If I say 'BA fly to Orlando' or 'It has 23 Gates' do I need to cite this as it is not common knowledge?"
In another discussion on Elektric Blue's talk page 'snowolfD4' wrote - "not everything on Wikipedia has to be cited. If we start blanking entire articles just cos there aren't any citations we'll end up in a fine mess."
But again, I'd have to disagree, and say that many articles are already in a fine mess precisely because the use of references has previously been so lax. So, those other parts, 'VS A380 order', 'Plans to build a South Terminal…' etc, should have indeed included references to news search, Airbus website or wherever the verifying information could be found in the first place.
I'd like to see some change in emphasis from the current - "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" - to material that is challenged or which could possibly be challenged. - With the challenger usually getting the benefit of any doubt. And my response to those who might say - "well almost anything could possibly be challenged" - would be - "Yes. Quite."
-- SallyScot ( talk) 11:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
---
Point taken and I certainly have no problem in including citations for everything I add - although I think it will deter some of the more casual contributors. I guess my issue is more with the way in which the standard is applied rather that the actual rule itself. I would suggest material that is challenged or which could reasonably be challenged might be a better definition as most material 'could' be challenged including birth dates, death dates, names etc.
-- PhilEadie ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
When citing an article in an online encyclopedia, is it sufficient to only state (1) the title of the article and (2) which encyclopedia it came from? Or do you also need to include other info such as the link/URL and access date even if the article can't be accessed unless you've paid for a subscription to the encyclopedia? – panda ( talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
to the page. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we delete an uncited info just immidiatly after its addition or should we have a grace period? I mean if someone added an uncited info, should't we give it the Benefit of the Doubt and wait some time before deleting it? As the current policy for Wikipedia:Citing sources#Unsourced material says we are not obliged to wait or give any time before deleting a new unsourced item. We can put citation needed if we want but also we can choose to immidiatly delete an uncourced material if we have a POV as it is douteful. My proposal is for a small set "grace period" (few days) after the addition of a new unsourced material even if it is doutful. Still harmful material can be immidiatly deleted (like info on live people). With current policy as it is, personal POVs would not let other users to see a new material and help to add sources to it. They can decide it is doutful (a fairly vague word) and immidiatly delete it. Farmanesh ( talk) 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had experience with the primary editor of an article removing {{fact}} tags (that I added) soon after they were added, without replacing with references because he didn't believe the text needed a reference. However, the tagged text was not common knowledge. Should {{fact}} tags be honored or is it acceptable for editors to ignore and remove them? If it is acceptable to remove them without replacing with a reference, then under what circumstances? – panda ( talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
---
Although I have some issues with the current wording of the policy, i.e. what's meant by the word 'likely' with the idea of material that is likley to be challenged ( see above), it seems to be less ambiguous after material actually is challenged. In other words, if you've added the {{fact}} tag, then the material has been, practically by definition, challenged. The material now requires a reference, and you are well within your rights to push for it.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at our edit history, it seems to me, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by registered users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth here. I've created a table showing anonymous edits from the beginning of October 2007.
In arguments given generally in support of anonymous edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic). This is clearly not the case for Citing Sources project page.
Summarising the edits there are over 100 incidents of anonymous vandalism - and that's with article being semi-protected for six weeks during the period from the beginning of October 2007 to 17th December 2007. There's very little of value otherwise being added anonymously to compensate for this level of vandalism.
I'd have to ask if a project page such as this is a place where we really get much benefit from anonymous edits. Personally, from what I've seen so far, I'd be in favour of permanent semi-protection here.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the accepted wikpedia policy on external links as references? There seems to be conflict (either explicit or confusion) about what the proper reference style is. If I were to link to an external site as a reference to a fact, is the proper usage to [14] link it with a numbered link, or to put that link with full information inside a <ref> tag so that the link appears in the reflist and only a numbered link to the reflist is placed? I always thought numbered external links (the first way) was discouraged in favoure of reference lists, but Wikipedia:Embedded citations seems to suggest this as the proper way. TheHYPO ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
First one, I'm citing a short piece that is included in a larger work. Particularly, a piece written by a Norman Jones, that is in a book that has many authors, but is credited as "Edited by so and so". How do I cite the individual author, and not the editor? Second, when the heck is some genius gonna work a page number option into the "ref name" tag? Murderbike ( talk) 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)