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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but why was this proposal to create a template for citing photographs held by GLAM institutions never taken further? It strikes me as eminently sensible to allow for citing an historical photograph as an object in an of itself, as opposed to merely citing the webpage that carries its collection record. — Hugh ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Legal Citations in articles dealing with U.S. law Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: can you say why you reverted this? Edition number is definitely optional. The Google Books page examples just showed another two ways of writing them. And the page number edit tried to explain when page numbers are needed. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that the usual reason for a new edition number is a nontrivial change or revision from one edition to the nextYou must not be familiar with the textbook industry. -- Izno ( talk) 21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the information that ordinarily would be conveyed by an edition number is included in the title. For example, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised or Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017. The front matter for these works doesn't contain any clear statement of an edition number. (In the latter case it's debatable whether to treat it as a book or a serial). Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It is quite commonly the case (especially in physics and mathematics) that the final peer-reviewed published version of a paper will be pay-walled, but the preprint version of the same paper will be openly available to read on arXiv. In such cases, should we link to the final pay-walled version or the preprint version? Kaldari ( talk) 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Where do I report complaints about users (including admins) who revert my introduction of verifiable citations for material? 146.229.240.200 ( talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any issues on Commercial Radio Australia either on computer desktop view or phone mobile view or phone desktop view. Nor do I see any issues with a direct link to the current or previous edits. Atsme, on the other hand (ref User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide#Commercial_Radio_Australia) sees:
Anyone have any idea on where the problem is and how to fix it? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
These links in the box below (copied from the article) lead to short pages stating "This is a redirect" etc, rather than to in-depth explanatory pages. Is this intended?
This page documents an English Wikipedia
content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
Thanks, GeeBee60 ( talk) 17:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
When adding a footnote that references an article from a news source or other web site, is it preferable to put the title of the article in title case? [1] Or is it better to use the same case that the cited website does, which is often sentence case? [2] I somehow got the impression that the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends title case, but I can't find that anywhere.
References
— Mudwater ( Talk) 11:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus being where? :D- "Absent a community-level discussion, the consensus is what editors do."
If a template wants to have documentation- The point is that the documentation lacks community consensus - either by discussion or, as far as we can tell at this point, by common practice. The doc itself states that it has not been vetted by the community. Its proper weight approximates zero. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Titles of works are to be titlecased (journals, booktitles, etc...) per WP:MOSTITLES, which applies everywhere (including citations), while parts of those works (e.g. chapters, articles, etc...) can be either titlecased, or sentencecased. Doesn't matter which as long as the article is consistent with its choice. I prefer sentence casing myself, but if the dominant style used is title case, then I'll use title case. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
when the SHOUTING the whole title and IS MORE THAN ONE WORD. The module would drop pages with recased titles into a maintenance category so that gnomes and bots could apply appropriate fixes.|title=
in sentence case and calculate the title case as opposed to doing the reverse. It can be difficult for a program to reliably determine whether a capitalized word in title case is a
proper noun or not, but by storing the sentence case the difficulty is mooted.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)I know I sound dumb, but is this whole "Citation needed" thing a meme on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.240.110 ( talk) 19:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
When inline citations appear on talk pages, the references often appear as part of the last comment section. If the usual ==References== <references/> is added at the end, then the references themselves appear in a separate section, and perhaps other comments will follow. This article should provide help for editors for that situation.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear by CITEVAR but would the bulk addition and/or removal of the wikitext spaces between the elements between a citation template parameters? Eg, an edit like this one [1] where the bulk of the article used spaces generally between the "|" and "=" elements of the cite templates with a few exceptions, but this edit principally removed them all. (If it were bringing a handful of refs in line to the same spacing style, I would agree, but its clear the spacing version was predominate). -- MASEM ( t) 14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
{{cite foo |last=Surname |first=Forename |title=Whatever}}
While there are many instances of an additional space after each pipe, and of spaces after or on both sides of the equals signs, and of all such spaces removed for maximum compression, none of those are as frequent as just the space before the pipe, which groups the parameter name and its value as a unit, and separates each such unit from adjacent ones. It's also common to insert a space after =
and before a URL, to provide a line-wrapping point (many URLs are long).Whether this is accessible enough is an open question; it probably has a lot to do with individual browsers and how they define a "word" when selecting one. E.g., I've noticed that Chrome has inconsistent behavior between how it treats text in a text entry box like the one I'm editing now and how it treats text in the URL and search entry bar at the top of the window, and neither of these are entirely consistent with what Safari or Firefox do, or what is done by various "stock" Web browsers that ship with Androids. Does a :
divide "words"? What about a /
or a |
or a =
? And so on.
Anyway, in
WP:LDR blocks, each citation template parameter is typically on its own line with its value, though sometimes author info is grouped on one line. That vertical formatting is useful for refs grouped at the end of an article, but terrible in mid-article, since it interferes with the ability to easily get a sense of paragraphization.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello - I would appreciate opinions on a situation I've encountered in the past couple of days, involving the article Khai khrop. It came up during New Page reviewing, and I tagged it for needing improvements to citation style as it had no inline citations (still doesn't at this time). After a bit of back-and-forth with an editor who is building the article, s/he removed the citation style tag with the edit comment "rm pointless maintenance tag: article uses a perfectly normal text-only inline variant of the harv style: if anyone dislikes it feel free to change it any way you want". The article is something I know nothing about, so I'm not about to get more involved in it.
References have been supplied in this article, but as general footnotes, without inline citations. I would appreciate more eyes on this little situation - if the editor's opinion is valid according to Wikipedia policy, then great - file closed. However, if his/her opinion on not needing inline citations is offside, can somebody with more gravitas please step in to 'advise' the editor to not remove a reasonable 'citation style' tag? Thanks in advance! PK T(alk) 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Does consistency in citation style imply that if one citation uses author last name and initials, one should not use last name and full first names for other citations in the same article?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For citations that emit metadata for publication dates, is it necessary that the value of the date agree with the calendar that the metadata purports to use? For example, if a publication is 1 July 1750 Julian calendar, and the metadata emits it as 1 July 1750, Gregorian calendar, is this acceptable? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This issue was raised at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Truthful publication dates but I believe it should be discussed by a wider audience. I believe metadata should be either accurate or absent. The simplest fix for the problem is to avoid emitting publication dates with a precision of a day or month if the year of publication is earlier than 1924, since Greece was the last country to change its civil calendar from Julian to Gregorian. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
up to the person who reads the citation to interpret the date in whatever way they prefer". Where publications (sources) have dates more specific than just year – typically newspapers, magazines, government bulletins, military orders, etc. – that is a definite datum not open for interpretation or alteration, and which we should ALWAYS supply as specifically and completely as possible, as otherwise we greatly impair verifiability. (Note that omitting the day or month does not make the remaining part less accurate, only less precise.) That a date may be incorrect if the wrong calendar is assumed is not an issue of date "accuracy", but in the assumption of a calendar, and we should not be coercing dates into any specific calendar
metadata system" can "handle" Julian dates is not an issue, as all of Julian/Gregorian/cs1/COINS "handle" date strings as years, months, and days. I don't know that any metadata "purports" to use any calendar, and I don't believe it really matters, just as a book that says it was published in September but didn't come off the presses until November would still have September as its publication date. The only exception I can think of would be a source that claimed dual Old Style and New Style dates, but that is such a special case we need not worry about it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
|date=
is manually filled and does not match the auto-calculation. Use that calculation to emit COinS Gregorian dates, which is the only format that spec can handle. Displayed to our users should be something like DD Month YYYY (Julian: DD Month YYYY) or Month DD, YYYY (Hijri: Month DD, YYYY), always putting modern, Western, Gregorian date first to agree with all the other date presentation on this site. No alternative dates should be shown if one taken from the source wasn't supplied to the template, since our goal is not to show converted dates in all the various calendars. The goals are and only are to a) have a consistent Gregorian-calendar date for our users (even if not a consistent date format, MDY vs. DMY) and for COinS users, and b) preserve the in-source date in another calendar if and only if that source used one (and didn't also provide a Julian date). In other words, avoid adding date-conversion trivia. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)|date=13 September 2015
for a book. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)|date=
parameter in our wikitext, but at least we shouldn't lie by claiming it was a Gregorian date.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
tell no lies") about what the source actually says is its publication date? Or the "real" time the asserted date corresponds to? Are we "lying" if we do not assert a calendar where COinS has not explicitly required that?
If we are all clear that the date of an event is not to be confused with the date of publication of a source: could we get back on-topic?
I should like to learn: how do libraries handle Julian dates? How do other generators of COinS data handle Julian or other non-Gregorian dates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
From DGG's comments I am more confident in my theory that, for bibliographic purposes, the importance of a "publication date" is not in capturing the exact moment in "time" (however it is pinned down) a source is "published", as for giving librarians, scholars, etc., an unambiguous identifier for (primarily) distinguishing different versions or editions of a work, and (secondarily) placing a given publication in the relative context of publishing history. As such, publication dates of "1776" and "1789" suffice to distinguish the first and fifth edtions of Smith's Wealth of Nations, and it matters not a wit whether those dates are New Style or Old Styler. Or even if the fifth edition was delayed and did not come until 1790. For bibliographic purposes "date" is simply a system of ordered identifiers. We don't need the precise number of seconds a date comes after (or possiby before) some event in 1970; that is entirely irrelevant.
On the otherhand, ISO 8601 is concerned with having an unambiguous data representation of actual time intervals. Which it pins to the Gregorian calendar.
Jc3s5h has framed this discussion as a matter of accurate dates, and whether the value of a publication date should agree with "the calendar that the metadata purports to use
" (i.e., the Gregorian calendar). But is this to be "accurate" in respect of a clock? Or of the "date" specified on the title page, by which a book is identified and catalogued?W
At 10:40 29 Sep. Jc3s5h quoted 8601 that it "is applicable whenever dates in the Gregorian calendar
" are used, which he summarized as implying that 8601 is "inapplicable" (his emphasis) for other representations or calendars. If COinS requires (as he implies) Gregorian dates, then feeding it Julian dates is wrong. But so would be alteration of the data, or providing incomplete or misleading data.
I think there is a simpler solution: don't generate COinS data when an Old Style or non-Gregorian date is involved. That avoids any conflict between a COinS date and what is on the title page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed some wikignomes remove authorlinks from footnotes when a particular author is mentioned somewhere in the text. In my opinion, a wikilink to an author is useful in the "References" section, since the section is usually remote from article text where the name may have possibly be mentioned, and usually when I see a book, I am curious what else the author wrote, regardless article content. What is your opinion? Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
|author-mask=
). If the authorlinks occur in inline references, they should usually be linked every time. Linking when author=subject is obviously a bad idea. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 04:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Linking when author=subject is obviously a bad idea.Not necessarily so. In the cs1|2 templates, an
|author-link=
to the author page on the author page renders in plain text; it does not link to the current page nor does it bold the author name. There is some benefit to this because that template can be copied elsewhere and the link to the author's article works without need for tweaking the template. Additionally, |author-link=
in combination with |author-mask=
does not link the underscores that mask the author's name. And one last thing, setting |display-author=0
hides a linked author name; this can be useful when listing the author's writings (where the author is the only author).are articles allowed to consist only of general references? Are inline references essential? Egaoblai ( talk) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
all of the content has a single source". (And especially if all of the content is supported from just, say, a single page.) The role I see for "general" references is where some source has something that applies "generally" to the whole article. (Though I have yet to see a clear instance of that.) But all the specific content in an article should be specifically cited. Which implies having inline "references". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
based purely on general references" – that is, without any in-line citations – to be deficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
what all is attributed to that/those general references." I can see sources being useful generally for understanding a topic, and perhaps even heavily relied on by an editor in evaluating and balancing the content, and therefore ought be referenced. But for purposes of verification specific content needs specific citation. Which is to say: in-line citation.
In the section WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, it says
Now I read the above as telling me that I should cite the book even if I have never seen the physical book but instead read it on an e-reader -- but only if I am confident that my e-reader copy is showing me the same material that I would see if I had the physical book. I also read the above as telling me that I should use the page number from the physical book, not whatever page numbers my e-reader assigns to the material.
Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Kindle location instead of page numbers there are several editors who read the above as telling them that if they read it on a kindle they should cite kindle and use kindle page numbers. When I asked
I got the reply
One of the two interpretations of this policy is wrong. Either I should cite the physical book with the page numbers from the physical book even though I read an electronic version of it on a Zorba, or I should cite the file on the Zorba and use the page numbers the Zorba assigns to the document. Could we have some clarification as to which is correct? Also, would some minor rewording of the guideline help prevent future confusion? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Need a template tag for false citations - citations which are said to support the writing but which do not. - Inowen ( talk) 00:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I have started an RFC at Talk:Tesla Model S#RfC about date format in references about whether an article using MDY date format in the text is allowed to have yyyy-mm-dd date format in references or not. There was also discussion in the talk topic just above it at Talk:Tesla Model S#Date format. Please answer there, not here. Stepho talk 04:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
For example on a famous person's verified Facebook profile if he says his birthplace was so and so is it reasonable to write on Wikipedia what their birthplace is and provide their Facebook post for a reference? Facebook has the "verified page" checkmark which tells that facebook confirmed a page actually belongs to a famous person. A145029 ( talk) 05:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[2] See #Images for our policy on self-published images.
Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it against Wikipedia rules to put the Reflist for a page inside of a collapsing frame?
Something like:
|
|
|
<div class="NavFrame collapsed">
<div class="NavHead"> References</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align: left;">
{{Reflist|3}}
</div>
</div>
I'm thinking specifically for a
sports transaction page I have been helping with that has nearly 350 references, and the list just takes up so much space. –
uncleben85 (
talk) 04:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
"Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions."Apart from anything else it's an accessibility issue - some users/devices with no javascript support would not be able to "un-collapse" the content, and therefore could never access it. -- Begoon 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of citations recently that reference sources via ProQuest, with a URL of the form https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/107708906?accountid=13902. This takes you to a login page, which asks for an account number. I've discovered that you can enter the account in the URL (always 13902), and that will get you through to the document. However, it seems a little questionable. Is this account something it's legit for any Wikipedia reader to use, or are we piggybacking on some individual's account? Should these citations be marked as 'subscription/registration required'? Colonies Chris ( talk) 15:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the |title=
parameter in {{
Cite magazine}} is the title of the magazine issue? I've been looking through some magazine citations and noticed that some citations are using the title parameter for the section title where the cited material came from, which is problematic for consolidating multiple citations of the same magazine issue.
More generally, for some magazines, I'm unsure what would actually be the title; the front of the magazine does not necessarily have a clearly distinguished title. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=
gets magazine article name in the same way that |title=
in {{
cite journal}}
gets article name. For cs1, the distinction between {{
cite magazine}}
and {{cite journal}}
is how |volume=
and |issue=
are handled; otherwise, they are more-or-less the same. |magazine=
holds the name of the magazine.I'm citing http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic-report-2016.pdf for Brooklyn Bridge. The information I'm using is located on page 21 according to the PDF viewer and page 7 according to the PDF (see image).
So which one do I use?
-- Annoyedhumanoid ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
What about an interpretation board in the official museum of the history of the Salvation Army, are you expecting me to upload photos of what's published as visitor information in the visitor centre in the International Heritage Centre or merely state "this information can be verified by sending an email to (Salvation Army employee email address)" Adrian816 ( talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a pretty basic question, but I can't find an answer anywhere. Let's say you want to cite a reference which is behind a JavaScript action, for example if you wanted to cite a specific corporate filing found using the search form at this URL. Once you make a choice on that starting page, then enter a search term on the next page, you get search results, and then you can click one to display a filing. The problem is that all of these pages are under the same URL. Is there a suitable way to cite a live URL like this if it requires the reader to supply his own input to get the actual intended citation? Or is there a way to cite an archived page of the actual filing page? It seems like this must have been discussed multiple times on Wikipedia, but I don't know where. A lot of potential citations are behind "walls" like this. -- Iritscen ( talk) 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Thanks for both of your input. I searched WP's external links for previous uses of the Illinois SOS URL and found that there was some precedent for applying it as a citation for incorporation dates. The state's listing for each corporation filing provides a file number which can be supplied to the Citation template as a parameter, telling the reader which listing was the basis for the citation. -- Iritscen ( talk) 14:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a few things I'm not sure about while I've been formatting some citations for a video game article. My citation formatting has taken place here, but I have three specific concerns below (although you are certainly welcome to go and correct things there, whether or not I've mentioned them here.)
1. When should {{ Cite news}} be used? Since I'm doing an article about video games, I don't know if some of the sources technically count as news. My choice of when to use Cite web over cite news has been largely based on whether the information in question has a date, since most things with dates were published in a news-like way, while webpages without dates haven't. Is this news or web:
Keiser, Joe (August 2, 2006).
"The Century's Top 50 Handheld Games". Next Generation. Archived from
the original on October 10, 2007. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
2. Should pseudonymous authors be cited under their pseudonyms:
"GameSpy's 2003 list of the 25 most overrated games of all time". GameSpy. Archived from
the original on 24 February 2006. Retrieved 1 May 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
3. And what should I do when I want to use a source in a short citation ({{ sfn}}), but it doesn't have an author:
"1UP's 2005 list of the 10 most overrated games".
1UP.com. Ziff Davis. 4 April 2005. Archived from
the original on 12 May 2012. Retrieved 14 October 2007. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
It would be easiest to provide the example: Someone has asserted on /info/en/?search=Donna_(given_name), that Donna occasionally, albeit rarely as a surname, and there was an indicator there saying a reference was needed. I went out to the Census Bureau reports on the Census Bureau site, and they serve a spreadsheet with every surname that they saw more than 100 times in the 2010 Census. That CSV or XLS spreadsheet supports the above statement, but is a file served up to be downloaded. How can we, if possible, use this data as a reference and cite it? Spawn777 ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
of that page will do. Note that every census bureau that I know of is limited to a single country, so you will need to qualify the reference with the |location=
parameter.
Stepho
talk 22:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Hey. I've just pondered something I've never actually thought about before. I'm adding web sources from sites/periodicals that are now owned by a different publisher than when the content was written—for example, Engadget was owned by Weblogs, now it's owned by Oath. Does it make the most sense to use the current publisher or the publisher of the content when it was written? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles, so I hope this doesn't come across as canvassing, but I didn't really know which project was best placed to answer the question. I am interested as to what extent MOS:TITLECAPS applies to citations and external links. To take an example, MOS:TITLECAPS instucts that the preposition "with" is not capitalised in titles of works, and on that basis "with" is not capitalised at Gone with the Wind (novel). However, many of the sources used in the article do capitalise the "with" such as The Making of Gone With The Wind, Part I. How does MOS apply to citations and external links? MOS:TITLECAPS states that "WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles" which implies we adopt the case appropriate to the citation style." I am trying to figure out how this applies to Wikipedia articles. I presume if a certain citation style uses a specific case and that is established in the article we continue using that style? If there isn't a specific citation style/case then would we apply title case apply to our citations (i.e. the title is thus cited as "The Making of Gone with the Wind, Part I"), or should it retain source purity and mimic the style of the source (i.e. "The Making of Gone With The Wind, Part I")? Betty Logan ( talk) 15:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article.
I just recieved an e-mail from the Food and Drug Administration’s Food and Cosmetic Information Center in response to my inquiry about Miraculin and how it was banned from importation as an additive. The e-mail contains some useful information that I believe would deem necessary to put on the Miraculin article. I want to add this info, but I have no idea how I should cite it. Should I cite it at all? Can you cite e-mails? Thanks. OblivionOfficial ( talk) 19:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Should I cite it at all?- I would not add the information unsourced. If it exists nowhere on the vast World Wide Web, that is to me an indication that (1) it is false, or (2) the world deems it insignificant. Either way, it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. I think in this case I would reply asking where this information is found in published sources. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have searched around some and do not find any information on my question. As an active participant in fighting link rot and citation errors within WikiProject: Oregon I have run into this with newspaper archives most commonly, but other referenced sources have been affected similarly. I would like to know what the community's position would be on the matter.
It has become my practice when a source is behind a paywall to set the url= to a preview of the source or a pre-defined specific search result giving the reader the choice to click for paywall yet verifying the source is real and obtainable.
However, some archive sites does not have a simple and direct way link to a result or preview page, such as the Oregonian newspaper for articles from 1923 to 1987.
The only linkable pages that can be offered the reader are the empty search page for entering the search data themselves or a link direct to a paywall login screen with no other information.
What I want to discuss is:
When a reasonable url of a source location can not be produced between search and paywall, what would the community prefer as a solution? (Thinking like there was such a thing as MOS:Cite Paywall... ect)
1) No url at all. Link publisher= if appropriate and treat as a standard citation.
2) A url to the blank search page of the publisher for locating the source. (I would ask to then consider adding a template something like {self search} to label as such. See {closed access}.)
3) A url direct to paywall screen of publisher, label {closed access} and or set subscription=yes . (I use both)
4) (Intentionally left for community use)
5) (see # 4)
I ask this to provide a guideline as to what the community would like done about it. There are many of these citations and each way of doing this has its pros and cons. I feel it bears some discussion for a consensus. If this has already been done elsewhere and I have just missed it in my searching... please advise. Darryl.P.Pike ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
|others=
parameter which is documented to be for To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith.but I have seen it be used to mention that you should search. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but why was this proposal to create a template for citing photographs held by GLAM institutions never taken further? It strikes me as eminently sensible to allow for citing an historical photograph as an object in an of itself, as opposed to merely citing the webpage that carries its collection record. — Hugh ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Legal Citations in articles dealing with U.S. law Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: can you say why you reverted this? Edition number is definitely optional. The Google Books page examples just showed another two ways of writing them. And the page number edit tried to explain when page numbers are needed. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that the usual reason for a new edition number is a nontrivial change or revision from one edition to the nextYou must not be familiar with the textbook industry. -- Izno ( talk) 21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the information that ordinarily would be conveyed by an edition number is included in the title. For example, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised or Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017. The front matter for these works doesn't contain any clear statement of an edition number. (In the latter case it's debatable whether to treat it as a book or a serial). Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It is quite commonly the case (especially in physics and mathematics) that the final peer-reviewed published version of a paper will be pay-walled, but the preprint version of the same paper will be openly available to read on arXiv. In such cases, should we link to the final pay-walled version or the preprint version? Kaldari ( talk) 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Where do I report complaints about users (including admins) who revert my introduction of verifiable citations for material? 146.229.240.200 ( talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any issues on Commercial Radio Australia either on computer desktop view or phone mobile view or phone desktop view. Nor do I see any issues with a direct link to the current or previous edits. Atsme, on the other hand (ref User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide#Commercial_Radio_Australia) sees:
Anyone have any idea on where the problem is and how to fix it? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
These links in the box below (copied from the article) lead to short pages stating "This is a redirect" etc, rather than to in-depth explanatory pages. Is this intended?
This page documents an English Wikipedia
content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
Thanks, GeeBee60 ( talk) 17:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
When adding a footnote that references an article from a news source or other web site, is it preferable to put the title of the article in title case? [1] Or is it better to use the same case that the cited website does, which is often sentence case? [2] I somehow got the impression that the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends title case, but I can't find that anywhere.
References
— Mudwater ( Talk) 11:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus being where? :D- "Absent a community-level discussion, the consensus is what editors do."
If a template wants to have documentation- The point is that the documentation lacks community consensus - either by discussion or, as far as we can tell at this point, by common practice. The doc itself states that it has not been vetted by the community. Its proper weight approximates zero. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Titles of works are to be titlecased (journals, booktitles, etc...) per WP:MOSTITLES, which applies everywhere (including citations), while parts of those works (e.g. chapters, articles, etc...) can be either titlecased, or sentencecased. Doesn't matter which as long as the article is consistent with its choice. I prefer sentence casing myself, but if the dominant style used is title case, then I'll use title case. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
when the SHOUTING the whole title and IS MORE THAN ONE WORD. The module would drop pages with recased titles into a maintenance category so that gnomes and bots could apply appropriate fixes.|title=
in sentence case and calculate the title case as opposed to doing the reverse. It can be difficult for a program to reliably determine whether a capitalized word in title case is a
proper noun or not, but by storing the sentence case the difficulty is mooted.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)I know I sound dumb, but is this whole "Citation needed" thing a meme on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.240.110 ( talk) 19:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
When inline citations appear on talk pages, the references often appear as part of the last comment section. If the usual ==References== <references/> is added at the end, then the references themselves appear in a separate section, and perhaps other comments will follow. This article should provide help for editors for that situation.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear by CITEVAR but would the bulk addition and/or removal of the wikitext spaces between the elements between a citation template parameters? Eg, an edit like this one [1] where the bulk of the article used spaces generally between the "|" and "=" elements of the cite templates with a few exceptions, but this edit principally removed them all. (If it were bringing a handful of refs in line to the same spacing style, I would agree, but its clear the spacing version was predominate). -- MASEM ( t) 14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
{{cite foo |last=Surname |first=Forename |title=Whatever}}
While there are many instances of an additional space after each pipe, and of spaces after or on both sides of the equals signs, and of all such spaces removed for maximum compression, none of those are as frequent as just the space before the pipe, which groups the parameter name and its value as a unit, and separates each such unit from adjacent ones. It's also common to insert a space after =
and before a URL, to provide a line-wrapping point (many URLs are long).Whether this is accessible enough is an open question; it probably has a lot to do with individual browsers and how they define a "word" when selecting one. E.g., I've noticed that Chrome has inconsistent behavior between how it treats text in a text entry box like the one I'm editing now and how it treats text in the URL and search entry bar at the top of the window, and neither of these are entirely consistent with what Safari or Firefox do, or what is done by various "stock" Web browsers that ship with Androids. Does a :
divide "words"? What about a /
or a |
or a =
? And so on.
Anyway, in
WP:LDR blocks, each citation template parameter is typically on its own line with its value, though sometimes author info is grouped on one line. That vertical formatting is useful for refs grouped at the end of an article, but terrible in mid-article, since it interferes with the ability to easily get a sense of paragraphization.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello - I would appreciate opinions on a situation I've encountered in the past couple of days, involving the article Khai khrop. It came up during New Page reviewing, and I tagged it for needing improvements to citation style as it had no inline citations (still doesn't at this time). After a bit of back-and-forth with an editor who is building the article, s/he removed the citation style tag with the edit comment "rm pointless maintenance tag: article uses a perfectly normal text-only inline variant of the harv style: if anyone dislikes it feel free to change it any way you want". The article is something I know nothing about, so I'm not about to get more involved in it.
References have been supplied in this article, but as general footnotes, without inline citations. I would appreciate more eyes on this little situation - if the editor's opinion is valid according to Wikipedia policy, then great - file closed. However, if his/her opinion on not needing inline citations is offside, can somebody with more gravitas please step in to 'advise' the editor to not remove a reasonable 'citation style' tag? Thanks in advance! PK T(alk) 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Does consistency in citation style imply that if one citation uses author last name and initials, one should not use last name and full first names for other citations in the same article?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For citations that emit metadata for publication dates, is it necessary that the value of the date agree with the calendar that the metadata purports to use? For example, if a publication is 1 July 1750 Julian calendar, and the metadata emits it as 1 July 1750, Gregorian calendar, is this acceptable? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This issue was raised at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Truthful publication dates but I believe it should be discussed by a wider audience. I believe metadata should be either accurate or absent. The simplest fix for the problem is to avoid emitting publication dates with a precision of a day or month if the year of publication is earlier than 1924, since Greece was the last country to change its civil calendar from Julian to Gregorian. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
up to the person who reads the citation to interpret the date in whatever way they prefer". Where publications (sources) have dates more specific than just year – typically newspapers, magazines, government bulletins, military orders, etc. – that is a definite datum not open for interpretation or alteration, and which we should ALWAYS supply as specifically and completely as possible, as otherwise we greatly impair verifiability. (Note that omitting the day or month does not make the remaining part less accurate, only less precise.) That a date may be incorrect if the wrong calendar is assumed is not an issue of date "accuracy", but in the assumption of a calendar, and we should not be coercing dates into any specific calendar
metadata system" can "handle" Julian dates is not an issue, as all of Julian/Gregorian/cs1/COINS "handle" date strings as years, months, and days. I don't know that any metadata "purports" to use any calendar, and I don't believe it really matters, just as a book that says it was published in September but didn't come off the presses until November would still have September as its publication date. The only exception I can think of would be a source that claimed dual Old Style and New Style dates, but that is such a special case we need not worry about it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
|date=
is manually filled and does not match the auto-calculation. Use that calculation to emit COinS Gregorian dates, which is the only format that spec can handle. Displayed to our users should be something like DD Month YYYY (Julian: DD Month YYYY) or Month DD, YYYY (Hijri: Month DD, YYYY), always putting modern, Western, Gregorian date first to agree with all the other date presentation on this site. No alternative dates should be shown if one taken from the source wasn't supplied to the template, since our goal is not to show converted dates in all the various calendars. The goals are and only are to a) have a consistent Gregorian-calendar date for our users (even if not a consistent date format, MDY vs. DMY) and for COinS users, and b) preserve the in-source date in another calendar if and only if that source used one (and didn't also provide a Julian date). In other words, avoid adding date-conversion trivia. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)|date=13 September 2015
for a book. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)|date=
parameter in our wikitext, but at least we shouldn't lie by claiming it was a Gregorian date.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
tell no lies") about what the source actually says is its publication date? Or the "real" time the asserted date corresponds to? Are we "lying" if we do not assert a calendar where COinS has not explicitly required that?
If we are all clear that the date of an event is not to be confused with the date of publication of a source: could we get back on-topic?
I should like to learn: how do libraries handle Julian dates? How do other generators of COinS data handle Julian or other non-Gregorian dates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
From DGG's comments I am more confident in my theory that, for bibliographic purposes, the importance of a "publication date" is not in capturing the exact moment in "time" (however it is pinned down) a source is "published", as for giving librarians, scholars, etc., an unambiguous identifier for (primarily) distinguishing different versions or editions of a work, and (secondarily) placing a given publication in the relative context of publishing history. As such, publication dates of "1776" and "1789" suffice to distinguish the first and fifth edtions of Smith's Wealth of Nations, and it matters not a wit whether those dates are New Style or Old Styler. Or even if the fifth edition was delayed and did not come until 1790. For bibliographic purposes "date" is simply a system of ordered identifiers. We don't need the precise number of seconds a date comes after (or possiby before) some event in 1970; that is entirely irrelevant.
On the otherhand, ISO 8601 is concerned with having an unambiguous data representation of actual time intervals. Which it pins to the Gregorian calendar.
Jc3s5h has framed this discussion as a matter of accurate dates, and whether the value of a publication date should agree with "the calendar that the metadata purports to use
" (i.e., the Gregorian calendar). But is this to be "accurate" in respect of a clock? Or of the "date" specified on the title page, by which a book is identified and catalogued?W
At 10:40 29 Sep. Jc3s5h quoted 8601 that it "is applicable whenever dates in the Gregorian calendar
" are used, which he summarized as implying that 8601 is "inapplicable" (his emphasis) for other representations or calendars. If COinS requires (as he implies) Gregorian dates, then feeding it Julian dates is wrong. But so would be alteration of the data, or providing incomplete or misleading data.
I think there is a simpler solution: don't generate COinS data when an Old Style or non-Gregorian date is involved. That avoids any conflict between a COinS date and what is on the title page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed some wikignomes remove authorlinks from footnotes when a particular author is mentioned somewhere in the text. In my opinion, a wikilink to an author is useful in the "References" section, since the section is usually remote from article text where the name may have possibly be mentioned, and usually when I see a book, I am curious what else the author wrote, regardless article content. What is your opinion? Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
|author-mask=
). If the authorlinks occur in inline references, they should usually be linked every time. Linking when author=subject is obviously a bad idea. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 04:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Linking when author=subject is obviously a bad idea.Not necessarily so. In the cs1|2 templates, an
|author-link=
to the author page on the author page renders in plain text; it does not link to the current page nor does it bold the author name. There is some benefit to this because that template can be copied elsewhere and the link to the author's article works without need for tweaking the template. Additionally, |author-link=
in combination with |author-mask=
does not link the underscores that mask the author's name. And one last thing, setting |display-author=0
hides a linked author name; this can be useful when listing the author's writings (where the author is the only author).are articles allowed to consist only of general references? Are inline references essential? Egaoblai ( talk) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
all of the content has a single source". (And especially if all of the content is supported from just, say, a single page.) The role I see for "general" references is where some source has something that applies "generally" to the whole article. (Though I have yet to see a clear instance of that.) But all the specific content in an article should be specifically cited. Which implies having inline "references". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
based purely on general references" – that is, without any in-line citations – to be deficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
what all is attributed to that/those general references." I can see sources being useful generally for understanding a topic, and perhaps even heavily relied on by an editor in evaluating and balancing the content, and therefore ought be referenced. But for purposes of verification specific content needs specific citation. Which is to say: in-line citation.
In the section WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, it says
Now I read the above as telling me that I should cite the book even if I have never seen the physical book but instead read it on an e-reader -- but only if I am confident that my e-reader copy is showing me the same material that I would see if I had the physical book. I also read the above as telling me that I should use the page number from the physical book, not whatever page numbers my e-reader assigns to the material.
Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Kindle location instead of page numbers there are several editors who read the above as telling them that if they read it on a kindle they should cite kindle and use kindle page numbers. When I asked
I got the reply
One of the two interpretations of this policy is wrong. Either I should cite the physical book with the page numbers from the physical book even though I read an electronic version of it on a Zorba, or I should cite the file on the Zorba and use the page numbers the Zorba assigns to the document. Could we have some clarification as to which is correct? Also, would some minor rewording of the guideline help prevent future confusion? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Need a template tag for false citations - citations which are said to support the writing but which do not. - Inowen ( talk) 00:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I have started an RFC at Talk:Tesla Model S#RfC about date format in references about whether an article using MDY date format in the text is allowed to have yyyy-mm-dd date format in references or not. There was also discussion in the talk topic just above it at Talk:Tesla Model S#Date format. Please answer there, not here. Stepho talk 04:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
For example on a famous person's verified Facebook profile if he says his birthplace was so and so is it reasonable to write on Wikipedia what their birthplace is and provide their Facebook post for a reference? Facebook has the "verified page" checkmark which tells that facebook confirmed a page actually belongs to a famous person. A145029 ( talk) 05:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[2] See #Images for our policy on self-published images.
Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it against Wikipedia rules to put the Reflist for a page inside of a collapsing frame?
Something like:
|
|
|
<div class="NavFrame collapsed">
<div class="NavHead"> References</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align: left;">
{{Reflist|3}}
</div>
</div>
I'm thinking specifically for a
sports transaction page I have been helping with that has nearly 350 references, and the list just takes up so much space. –
uncleben85 (
talk) 04:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
"Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions."Apart from anything else it's an accessibility issue - some users/devices with no javascript support would not be able to "un-collapse" the content, and therefore could never access it. -- Begoon 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of citations recently that reference sources via ProQuest, with a URL of the form https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/107708906?accountid=13902. This takes you to a login page, which asks for an account number. I've discovered that you can enter the account in the URL (always 13902), and that will get you through to the document. However, it seems a little questionable. Is this account something it's legit for any Wikipedia reader to use, or are we piggybacking on some individual's account? Should these citations be marked as 'subscription/registration required'? Colonies Chris ( talk) 15:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the |title=
parameter in {{
Cite magazine}} is the title of the magazine issue? I've been looking through some magazine citations and noticed that some citations are using the title parameter for the section title where the cited material came from, which is problematic for consolidating multiple citations of the same magazine issue.
More generally, for some magazines, I'm unsure what would actually be the title; the front of the magazine does not necessarily have a clearly distinguished title. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=
gets magazine article name in the same way that |title=
in {{
cite journal}}
gets article name. For cs1, the distinction between {{
cite magazine}}
and {{cite journal}}
is how |volume=
and |issue=
are handled; otherwise, they are more-or-less the same. |magazine=
holds the name of the magazine.I'm citing http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic-report-2016.pdf for Brooklyn Bridge. The information I'm using is located on page 21 according to the PDF viewer and page 7 according to the PDF (see image).
So which one do I use?
-- Annoyedhumanoid ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
What about an interpretation board in the official museum of the history of the Salvation Army, are you expecting me to upload photos of what's published as visitor information in the visitor centre in the International Heritage Centre or merely state "this information can be verified by sending an email to (Salvation Army employee email address)" Adrian816 ( talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a pretty basic question, but I can't find an answer anywhere. Let's say you want to cite a reference which is behind a JavaScript action, for example if you wanted to cite a specific corporate filing found using the search form at this URL. Once you make a choice on that starting page, then enter a search term on the next page, you get search results, and then you can click one to display a filing. The problem is that all of these pages are under the same URL. Is there a suitable way to cite a live URL like this if it requires the reader to supply his own input to get the actual intended citation? Or is there a way to cite an archived page of the actual filing page? It seems like this must have been discussed multiple times on Wikipedia, but I don't know where. A lot of potential citations are behind "walls" like this. -- Iritscen ( talk) 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Thanks for both of your input. I searched WP's external links for previous uses of the Illinois SOS URL and found that there was some precedent for applying it as a citation for incorporation dates. The state's listing for each corporation filing provides a file number which can be supplied to the Citation template as a parameter, telling the reader which listing was the basis for the citation. -- Iritscen ( talk) 14:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a few things I'm not sure about while I've been formatting some citations for a video game article. My citation formatting has taken place here, but I have three specific concerns below (although you are certainly welcome to go and correct things there, whether or not I've mentioned them here.)
1. When should {{ Cite news}} be used? Since I'm doing an article about video games, I don't know if some of the sources technically count as news. My choice of when to use Cite web over cite news has been largely based on whether the information in question has a date, since most things with dates were published in a news-like way, while webpages without dates haven't. Is this news or web:
Keiser, Joe (August 2, 2006).
"The Century's Top 50 Handheld Games". Next Generation. Archived from
the original on October 10, 2007. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
2. Should pseudonymous authors be cited under their pseudonyms:
"GameSpy's 2003 list of the 25 most overrated games of all time". GameSpy. Archived from
the original on 24 February 2006. Retrieved 1 May 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
3. And what should I do when I want to use a source in a short citation ({{ sfn}}), but it doesn't have an author:
"1UP's 2005 list of the 10 most overrated games".
1UP.com. Ziff Davis. 4 April 2005. Archived from
the original on 12 May 2012. Retrieved 14 October 2007. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
It would be easiest to provide the example: Someone has asserted on /info/en/?search=Donna_(given_name), that Donna occasionally, albeit rarely as a surname, and there was an indicator there saying a reference was needed. I went out to the Census Bureau reports on the Census Bureau site, and they serve a spreadsheet with every surname that they saw more than 100 times in the 2010 Census. That CSV or XLS spreadsheet supports the above statement, but is a file served up to be downloaded. How can we, if possible, use this data as a reference and cite it? Spawn777 ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
of that page will do. Note that every census bureau that I know of is limited to a single country, so you will need to qualify the reference with the |location=
parameter.
Stepho
talk 22:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Hey. I've just pondered something I've never actually thought about before. I'm adding web sources from sites/periodicals that are now owned by a different publisher than when the content was written—for example, Engadget was owned by Weblogs, now it's owned by Oath. Does it make the most sense to use the current publisher or the publisher of the content when it was written? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles, so I hope this doesn't come across as canvassing, but I didn't really know which project was best placed to answer the question. I am interested as to what extent MOS:TITLECAPS applies to citations and external links. To take an example, MOS:TITLECAPS instucts that the preposition "with" is not capitalised in titles of works, and on that basis "with" is not capitalised at Gone with the Wind (novel). However, many of the sources used in the article do capitalise the "with" such as The Making of Gone With The Wind, Part I. How does MOS apply to citations and external links? MOS:TITLECAPS states that "WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles" which implies we adopt the case appropriate to the citation style." I am trying to figure out how this applies to Wikipedia articles. I presume if a certain citation style uses a specific case and that is established in the article we continue using that style? If there isn't a specific citation style/case then would we apply title case apply to our citations (i.e. the title is thus cited as "The Making of Gone with the Wind, Part I"), or should it retain source purity and mimic the style of the source (i.e. "The Making of Gone With The Wind, Part I")? Betty Logan ( talk) 15:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article.
I just recieved an e-mail from the Food and Drug Administration’s Food and Cosmetic Information Center in response to my inquiry about Miraculin and how it was banned from importation as an additive. The e-mail contains some useful information that I believe would deem necessary to put on the Miraculin article. I want to add this info, but I have no idea how I should cite it. Should I cite it at all? Can you cite e-mails? Thanks. OblivionOfficial ( talk) 19:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Should I cite it at all?- I would not add the information unsourced. If it exists nowhere on the vast World Wide Web, that is to me an indication that (1) it is false, or (2) the world deems it insignificant. Either way, it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. I think in this case I would reply asking where this information is found in published sources. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have searched around some and do not find any information on my question. As an active participant in fighting link rot and citation errors within WikiProject: Oregon I have run into this with newspaper archives most commonly, but other referenced sources have been affected similarly. I would like to know what the community's position would be on the matter.
It has become my practice when a source is behind a paywall to set the url= to a preview of the source or a pre-defined specific search result giving the reader the choice to click for paywall yet verifying the source is real and obtainable.
However, some archive sites does not have a simple and direct way link to a result or preview page, such as the Oregonian newspaper for articles from 1923 to 1987.
The only linkable pages that can be offered the reader are the empty search page for entering the search data themselves or a link direct to a paywall login screen with no other information.
What I want to discuss is:
When a reasonable url of a source location can not be produced between search and paywall, what would the community prefer as a solution? (Thinking like there was such a thing as MOS:Cite Paywall... ect)
1) No url at all. Link publisher= if appropriate and treat as a standard citation.
2) A url to the blank search page of the publisher for locating the source. (I would ask to then consider adding a template something like {self search} to label as such. See {closed access}.)
3) A url direct to paywall screen of publisher, label {closed access} and or set subscription=yes . (I use both)
4) (Intentionally left for community use)
5) (see # 4)
I ask this to provide a guideline as to what the community would like done about it. There are many of these citations and each way of doing this has its pros and cons. I feel it bears some discussion for a consensus. If this has already been done elsewhere and I have just missed it in my searching... please advise. Darryl.P.Pike ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
|others=
parameter which is documented to be for To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith.but I have seen it be used to mention that you should search. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)