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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
It appears that WP:QUESTIONABLE is misleading in its current form in that, when compared to WP:NOTRELIABLE, part of the policy which the lede of this guideline makes clear controls, it:
I get it that this guideline isn't intended to just be a regurgitation of the policy, but the current phrasings are actively misleading. I propose rewriting the section to read:
(Link nowikied for draft purposes.) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This diff removed a statement about notability (that if there were no independent sources about something, then Wikipedia should not have an article about it). Is that okay with everyone? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. It appears that your understanding of "power" is different than mine. However, there is an explicit "hierarchy of power" specifically mentioned here. That is, all users; should normally follow policies, and should attempt to follow guidelines (though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply). Essays are the weakest because "they are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established and they do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval". As long as these definitions stand there, do you think that your WP:PGE can be superior to WP:PG or any other policy? Definitely not: WP:POLCON. Besides, I see that you have been heavily editing both WP:PG and WP:PGE, and it was your edit which placed the link of an essay into a policy as a reference/guidance [1]. Had you sought any or wider consensus for that change? I don't think so. I recommend you to remove that "see also" link to WP:PGE in WP:POLICIES, because there are outright contradictions and possible conflicts in WP:PGE. For example, your WP:PGE says that "all policies need to be applied with common sense" which directly contradicts with clear definition of policies in WP:POLICIES. Even the very first two sentences of WP:PGE are all wrong: (The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure. There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay"). Due to the clearcut hierarchy of power in WP:POLICIES, "mainstream view" (i.e. the majority of the editors) will not care about what WP:PGE or any other essay grumbles about. As an example, as you will see here, although half of the arbitrators disagree about the verdict, it is pretty clear from their comments that all of their grasps of essay are in-line with WP:POLICIES. There might have been some/many more cases in arbitration or other venues of wikipedia. Similar to the bias against fringe as put forth by DGG in their comment above, there will always be a strong bias against essays in wikipedia. Logos ( talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Today I discovered your listing of Railroad Presidents and I noticed that there are several missing from the Western Pacific Railway and Railroad. The information contained herein is from the March 1983 issue of Mileposts, the railroad's house organ. The 12 presidents are follows:
1. Walter J. Bartnett March 3, 1903 - June 23, 1905 2. Edward T. Jeffery June 23,1905 - November 6, 1913 3. Benjamin F. Bush November 6, 1913 - March 4, 1915 (listed already) 4. Charles M. Levey July 14, 1916 - March 30, 1927 5. Harry M. Adams March 30, 1927 - December 31, 1931 6. Charles Elsey January 1, 1932 - December 31, 1948 7. Harry A. Mitchell January 1, 1949 - July 1, 1949 8. Frederic B. Whitman July 1, 1949 - June 30, 1965 9. Myron M. Christy June 30, 1965 - November 30, 1970
10. Alfred E. Perlman December 1, 1970 - December 31, 1972 (already Listed) 11. Robert G. "Mike" Flannery January 1, 1973 - June 9, 1982 12. Robert C. Marquis June 9, 1982 - January 11, 198322:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 50.53.134.131 ( talk)
Janaury 11, 1983 was the day the Western Pacific became part of the Union Pacific and ceased to exist fro then on.
does this rules valid to all the languages on wikipedia or just in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.140.96 ( talk) 12:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the
reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the
biographies of living persons noticeboard. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
This is a question about the usability of court records. Wikipedia has pages for me, [ [14]] and Edward Wegman [ [15]]. I have never edited either of these pages and have zero intent to do so, but I am interested in getting clarification, as the generally well-intentioned Wikipedia rules sometimes seem to forbid rock-solid real-world factual evidence. My blog post Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million is itself obviously not RS, but it attaches copies of online court records of lawsuits related to events described in both Wikipedia pages above. Those are the files named 1-1.pdf - 20.pdf. pp.15-18 of the detaled PDF (not RS of course) summarize the chronology, but also explain how to find the online records via PACER. Of course, claims in court files easily may not be correct (and indeed, some of them are not), but [ [16]] is even stronger: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That seems to mandate that even the following sentence would absolutely be disallowed. Is that true? "Edward Wegman filed a $1M lawsuit against John Mashey 0n 03/10/14 in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia and his Wegman Report coauthor Yasmin Said filed another there 06/12/15. Both were removed to Federal Court 04/15/15, and on 04/30/15 they submitted voluntary dismissals of the combined case." JohnMashey ( talk) 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
I'm doing research for a red-linked article on a historical manuscript, on which there seems to be quite a bit of information, and I came across a thesis presented for a master's degree on a university website. I suspect that it is, but I might be incorrect, so I'd like some other opinions. (I can provide a link to the paper if needed.) -- Biblio worm 02:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think such sources are more primary than secondary, and a bit questionable. They are certainly acceptable, but within limits. Should we discuss them in a separate section? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the
reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the
biographies of living persons noticeboard. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}
I would like to add Comedian John Carfi to list of comedians -John is also an actor which will show up if you put his name in your search -a reliable source is shown on the Ricki Lake show .
If you go to John's website you can see all of his credits.
www.johncarfi.com If you google John Carfi you can see the proof of his credits -he has been in the business over 33 years.here is a video at a well known comedy club on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K__5DexheU Johncarfi ( talk) 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Replicating here the RFC posted on WP:BLPNOTICE.
Will be an info source (publication, website) run by the Awarding Entity, announcing the instance in question, considered a "primary source" in relation to Person X' biography?
Exhibit A: Sir Winston Churchill's Nobel Prize. In Winston Churchill article the used reference is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/nomination.php?action=show&showid=3319, i.e. info on nobelprize.org.
Exhibit B: Paul Krugman, living person. Again nobelprize.org is used.
The present question: For Minna Sundberg article in a clause on her NCS Reuben's Award for 2015, can http://www.reuben.org/2015/05/reuben-awards-winners-2015/ i.e. info on the Award's site, be considered as a "primary source" for Minna Sundberg's bio? The alternative is to cite the media reports. Thanks! DBWikis ( talk) 13:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Recently I deleted a good amount of information from Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor, claiming that Twitter was an unreliable source. User:TonyTheTiger reverted me and said it can be used in certain situations. Who is correct? Most of the information sourced to Twitter on both articles was rather fluffy anyway. I would revert but I don't want to start a revert war. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If not, I'd like a section in this article describing why one can't use youtube. Thanks. 88.90.245.52 ( talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the others. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube and WP:YouTube. Where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or the official YouTube channel being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles, using the YouTube source is usually fine. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This RFC about the use of columns as sources may be of interest to editors here. Columns are opinion content, but they are typically written by professional journalists that work for the publication. I have a disclosed conflict of interest on that page. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned on WP:RSBREAKING that the current event templates are "not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." These points have been discussed and debated extensively on Template talk:Current, Wikipedia talk:Current event templates and elsewhere well before WP:RSBREAKING was added in December 2014. [18] And I see no mention of this specific issue addressed on the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 45#Breaking news. So the original consensus on Template talk:Current should still prevail. Thanks. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 11:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Three related issues, and suggestion of what to do about them:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Among quite an array of material, there's a section suggesting continuity/verisimilitude of use, reported separately in previous peer-reviewed publications, of various Northern and Western European words for "cat" as vulgarities, simultaneously in reference to female genitals and to imply male cowardice. I haven't found a peer-reviewed paper that makes the same connection, which is only barely synthetic/analytic (namely that "puss" and its equivalents have a triple use with a long, multi-language history). I actually need the same paper for another pretty obvious, non-controversial synthesis of prior work, this time about cat demographics in historical Scandinavia (about which very, very little has been published in journals, even in the Scandinavian languages; one of the only two papers I can find on this is a doctoral dissertation, with only one journal paper on the subject).Conclusion: It's important that we include something about academic (and tech, and other industry) conference proceedings and how to approach them as sources, because of the frequency with which they publish material we want to cite. My take: they are primary or mostly primary (unless just summarizing the state of current research, in which case they're tertiary), and should be used with caution, attributed as such presentation, and replaced with secondary, or at least peer-reviewed primary sources in journals, when possible. Tech and consumer conference presentations of new products, technologies, methods, and draft standards should be treated as strictly primary sources. But when inclusion criteria in academic conferences are very stringent, presentations can be treated the same as journals if publicly available in [e-]paper or recorded form. I think what I wrote above about industry journals can easily be directly adapted into guideline wording about them. Finally, the statement that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" is a bit overbroad. As long as they present nothing controversial, such a paper should be treated like any other primary or semi-primary source, if it"s completed, approved, and published/archived by an accredited university, in publicly available form, or is in the online equivalent of a Gedenkschrift/Festschrift or other scholarly compendium, and it isn't making controversial or extraordinary claims. This would of course not extend to undergraduate papers, unfinished theses/dissertations, and other pure-primary sources that are not from reputable publishers. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, yes, I myself made the point that quality control differs; that's the essential issue. It even differs for mainstream academic journals, though not as widely. I'm suggesting we account for this, in the guideline, because current WP de facto practice is to cite conference proceedings precisely like journals, other than the template is different. I have yet to find a single case of conference proceedings being challenged on reliability grounds. Admittedly I haven't been searching for it, but in almost 10 years of editing (over 10, counting early anon editing), I should have seen it by now. We have a reliability blind spot here. The impact factors note is interesting (I hadn't noticed that before), but we do precious little with impact factors to begin with, unless one heck of a dispute breaks out. WP relies mostly on secondary sources, but other than literature reviews, most material in academic journals is primary, or a mixture of primary and secondary, that we must "use with caution", because it is presenting novel claims for others to test and develop, and does not yet represent the mainstream, accepted view or even necessarily a noteworthy minority one. Much of it, especially in the hard sciences, is just experimental "noise". The second point of my original post (aside from the blind spot) is the "inverse" blind spot, of treating certain primary sources published as theses by universities as if verboten, when they're really just published primary sources like any others. They're not as useful as fully peer-reviewed ones, but in cases like I've outlined, the idea that they must have had a notable impact is probably too stringent, if we at least directly attribute them, and make it clear what kind of publication they are, in the article text, not just cite them as if authoritative. For some topic like the early history of domestic cats in Scandinavia (one of the above examples), it may well be that there will never be any further research. At bare minimum it should be enough that something in a peer reviewed journal has cited the thesis in question. I think the language we have about graduate theses was written with big, hard-science fields in mind, where new ideas are usually wrong and are very difficult to test. In many of the softer disciplines this isn't really the case, and much of the work in question is rote reporting of data with minimal synthesis. The "caution" needed is lower, and we can probably account for that in the guideline without much effort. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Off-the-cuff replies:
Conclusion: Classification as primary, secondary, and tertiary is largely irrelevant, since it usually changes what a source is reliable for, rather than whether it is reliable for anything at all. We don't need WP:CREEPy rules for every separate type of publications. I recommend focusing on the general principles: fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial control are important. Context always matters. A source can be reliable for a given statement without being the best possible source for that statement (and you aren't required to use only the best possible source). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This topic has had a lot of churn on various pages lately, so I thought people here might be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Citation needed#When to remove unsourced info vs. when to add this tag?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
I have a problem with the unqualified declaration made in the second sentence. I believe it should read, "However, reliable sources do not always have to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (addition in italics)" My fear is that Randy in Boise will read that simplistic sentence and conclude, "Hey, I can just quote what somebody says as fact, because I got it from an RS!" ( I have already encountered such a "Randy".)
I appreciate that "no RS is perfectly unbiased", but this is a special case where we must hold our sources accountable to some of the same standards to which we hold ourselves; at least we have to exercise discretion. The guideline must make clear that opinionated sources are only properly used in the context described: i.e., a topic has been recognized to be controversial, and the source is only to be used (ideally with in-line attribution) to verify the existence of the opinion (subject, of course, to WP:WEIGHT), never the alleged truth of the opinion. There is no way we can build a NPOV encyclopedia if we don't expect the sources for the facts we represent to have both a similar NPOV, and a healthy respect for fact checking; else we are building our house on sand. JustinTime55 ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The key to understanding NPOV is this: it applies to Wikipedia, not to our sources.' — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
WP doesn't actually care about "a reliable publication process"; that means a process that reliably produces a publication. We need to reword this to make some kind of sense that is the same kind of sense to anyone who reads it. I would strongly suggest we work the word "reputable" in, with regard to the publisher as an entity, and distinguish this from the editorial process. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If what is published at arXiv are preprints and there's no review process but "moderation" to categorize them correctly, that would seem to make them low-quality, primary sources, maybe too low for science/medicine citations at least (maybe okay in the humanities, as directly attributed primary sources used with caution for non-controversial claims and only when necessary. They would seem to have the reliability level of, e.g., a thesis/dissertation, maybe less.
An argument can be made that they're self-published sources, since arXiv is acting as a self-publishing house for academics (in WP:RS terms, if not in intent; I gather their intent is more like that of WikiSource and Project Gutenberg and Archive.org, but narrowly tailored).
Another argument can be made that it's WP:UGC; people all over the world uploading what they've written to a website (with an administrative user class) where it is categorized for public, free consumption ... that's a description of a Wiki.
Exception made for material that is actually published in a journal by the time we need to cite it; the arXiv URL might be the only one we have, if the journal is behind a paywall.
(I asked this initially at Template:arXiv and got nothing in response but a trolling comment, so asking it here might be more productive.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a citation template of this sort. Scenario #1 is already covered by the |arXiv=
parameter of {{
Cite web}}
. This method is "idiot-proof", because the |journal=
parameter contains the name of the actual journal it was reputably published in; it can't be used (except in an obviously detectible way, e.g. |journal=arXiv
) to improperly cite unpublished [in the
WP:V definition of "published"] research. Meanwhile, #2 can be done with {{cite web|title=Nutritional Analysis of Cat Hair|first=A. U.|last=Thor|site=arXiv.org|publisher=self-published|...}}
, if it's ever needed. Unless the site itself recategorizes papers after they have been published, and this difference is detectible in the URL so tools can distinguish between published and unpublished and do something (warning? cleanup category?) with citations to unpublished papers, I think this template should be
TfDed. It's two legitimate functions are redundant with existing templates, and its potential for abuse is high. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{cite arXiv}}
is citing the unpublished version of something, then we don't need a separate template for that. {{Cite web}}
exists for a reason. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)|arxiv=
or |url=
or |contribution-url=
when they are discovered. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Cite journal}}
is the one to use for citation of something at arXiv that has been reputably published. If the only use-case for {{cite arXiv}}
is citing unpublished research, we have {{Cite web}}
for that. The {{Cite arXiv}}
template is redundant in either scenario, and provides as easily-abused avenue for source misuse. Due to rampant misinterpretation
WP:CITEVAR as a license to
WP:OWN every detail of citation formatting, it's extremely unlikely that checking uses of {{Cite arXiv}}
on a case-by-case and replacing them with the equivalent, long-standing, general templates to indicate "this has been checked out and is a valid use of an arXiv citation" (using the appropriate replacement template for whichever of the two scenario types the use qualifies as), would not be met with revertwarring. There is thus no clear avenue for patrolling abuse of this template, which serves no purpose anyway. The obvious solution is to deprecate it, convert all of its in situ uses, and then TfD it. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|title=Title_of_paper|journal=The_Real_Journal|arxiv=arXiv_ID_to_generate_the_arXiv_URL|...}}
. This even has the benefit of following
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT more closely; you can provide the URL to the official published version (if such a URL is available) while also providing a convenience link to the arXiv copy, which also help guard against linkrot. It's not like |arXiv=
wasn't added to the extant templates for a reason. The good reason to remove {{Cite arxiv}}
is that there is no use case for it that is not already covered by extant templates (among other reasons, already covered). The {{
arXiv}}
{{
cite arXiv}}
template doesn't do anything special. It's just another identifier-specific template, which were all deprecated as a class, not because of exactly how they were coded, as you go on about above, but because they're redundant and their purpose was merged into the main citation templates. Same story. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)|noedit=
option has been used). Additionally, because {{
cite doi}} is only used for citations that have dois, which in practice means journal articles, it's redundant with {{
cite journal}}. The same goes for the other ones you list. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
Cite arXiv}}
is only used for citations that have arXiv eprint IDs, which is already supported by both {{
Cite journal}}
and {{
Cite web}}
, it's redundant with them." —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC){{
Cite web}}
, etc., do particular special formatting and variances of that formatting for particular source types. This one does not (it does do one special linking thing that it shouldn't, which we'll get to). There is no difference at all between these two:
{{cite arXiv |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 }}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial; new dimensions are timelike".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1.{{cite web |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |arxiv=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 }}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial; new dimensions are timelike".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help){{cite arXiv |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=July 2006 |journal=Nature Physics |volume=XIX |issue=2}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (July 2006). "Spacetime is spinorial".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite arXiv}}
: Unknown parameter |issue=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume=
ignored (
help)|journal=
, etc. But you can do the following, just leaving |journal=
, etc., blank (or omitting them):
{{cite journal |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 |journal= |volume= |issue=}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{cite journal |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=July 2015 |journal=Nature Physics |volume=XIX |issue=2}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (July 2015). "Spacetime is spinorial". Nature Physics. XIX (2).
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1.|doi=
, that {{
Cite arXiv}}
can't handle).{{
Cite web}}
in any case at all. And it's worse than redundant, because you can't add any new information to it, only totally replace the template. It's just pointless.The one and only thing unusual that this template does is create links to arXiv "class" categories, optionally, with the |class=
parameter. But these do not help the reader find the source, they're just linkspam that fails
WP:EL, and they're hardly ever used anyway, not being among the default, recommended parameters. If there were an odd case where this link was actually important, it can be done with |at=
in {{Cite journal}}
.
Conclusion: I still do not see any reason this shouldn't be TFD'd, just
WP:AADD arguments. I'm looking for reasons to keep it. I thought "Surely, |class=
does something important?" Nope. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason {{
cite arxiv}} doesn't support |journal=
is that it shouldn't. If you're citing the journal article, you use {{
cite journal}}. If you're citing the arxiv, you use {{
cite arxiv}}, much like you wouldn't ask {{
cite book}} to support |journal=
. This is a clearly different case than the {{
cite doi}} (and {{
cite pmid}}/{{
cite jstor}}) you keep comparing them to. I don't know what's so damned hard to understand about this. Send it to TFD if you hate it so much, and enjoy seen it being snow kept.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|class=
does something important. It indicates the classification of the paper, and is how arxiv papers should be cited generally. E.g. LHCb collaboration (2015). "Observation of...".
arXiv:
1507.03414 [
hep-ex]. tells you this paper is from the High-Energy Physics Experiments repository.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
that puts the same repository class link in |at=
. This would have the benefit of auto-accepting later additions of |doi=
, |journal=
, etc., after something has been published (as long as the parameters were passed, of course). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|journal=
or |doi=
on a {{
cite web}} citation rather than fixing it to be {{
cite journal}} as it should be is ignorant and wrong and if that's the best argument you can come up with for turning other kinds of citations into {{
cite web}} then I think we should just close this thread, because it's not going anywhere useful. If you want a one-template-fits-all-citations template, use CS2 and {{
citation}} instead of CS1 and the cite template family. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|journal=
, so using that parameter is permissible. These template names are a shorthand, just mnemonics, and all those templates are simply wrappers for what's done with the CS1 meta-templating module and its submodules. There is
no policy requiring that a particular template with a certain name be used to format a reference because of how you want to classify the publication. They're just tools to get the job done. It's standard operating procedure to merge them when what they do is redundant. I'm fine if the discussion here stops, though, since the case for merging these is clear, and this is no longer an
WP:RS question. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)The above discussion just makes me glad that I don't use citation templates in the first place... I manually type my citations the "old fashioned" way, using the "<ref>citation information</ref>" format. Then I don't have to worry about parameters, null fields, or any of that sort of stuff. Just saying. Blueboar ( talk) 11:19, 27 July 2015 (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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
It appears that WP:QUESTIONABLE is misleading in its current form in that, when compared to WP:NOTRELIABLE, part of the policy which the lede of this guideline makes clear controls, it:
I get it that this guideline isn't intended to just be a regurgitation of the policy, but the current phrasings are actively misleading. I propose rewriting the section to read:
(Link nowikied for draft purposes.) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This diff removed a statement about notability (that if there were no independent sources about something, then Wikipedia should not have an article about it). Is that okay with everyone? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. It appears that your understanding of "power" is different than mine. However, there is an explicit "hierarchy of power" specifically mentioned here. That is, all users; should normally follow policies, and should attempt to follow guidelines (though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply). Essays are the weakest because "they are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established and they do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval". As long as these definitions stand there, do you think that your WP:PGE can be superior to WP:PG or any other policy? Definitely not: WP:POLCON. Besides, I see that you have been heavily editing both WP:PG and WP:PGE, and it was your edit which placed the link of an essay into a policy as a reference/guidance [1]. Had you sought any or wider consensus for that change? I don't think so. I recommend you to remove that "see also" link to WP:PGE in WP:POLICIES, because there are outright contradictions and possible conflicts in WP:PGE. For example, your WP:PGE says that "all policies need to be applied with common sense" which directly contradicts with clear definition of policies in WP:POLICIES. Even the very first two sentences of WP:PGE are all wrong: (The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure. There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay"). Due to the clearcut hierarchy of power in WP:POLICIES, "mainstream view" (i.e. the majority of the editors) will not care about what WP:PGE or any other essay grumbles about. As an example, as you will see here, although half of the arbitrators disagree about the verdict, it is pretty clear from their comments that all of their grasps of essay are in-line with WP:POLICIES. There might have been some/many more cases in arbitration or other venues of wikipedia. Similar to the bias against fringe as put forth by DGG in their comment above, there will always be a strong bias against essays in wikipedia. Logos ( talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Today I discovered your listing of Railroad Presidents and I noticed that there are several missing from the Western Pacific Railway and Railroad. The information contained herein is from the March 1983 issue of Mileposts, the railroad's house organ. The 12 presidents are follows:
1. Walter J. Bartnett March 3, 1903 - June 23, 1905 2. Edward T. Jeffery June 23,1905 - November 6, 1913 3. Benjamin F. Bush November 6, 1913 - March 4, 1915 (listed already) 4. Charles M. Levey July 14, 1916 - March 30, 1927 5. Harry M. Adams March 30, 1927 - December 31, 1931 6. Charles Elsey January 1, 1932 - December 31, 1948 7. Harry A. Mitchell January 1, 1949 - July 1, 1949 8. Frederic B. Whitman July 1, 1949 - June 30, 1965 9. Myron M. Christy June 30, 1965 - November 30, 1970
10. Alfred E. Perlman December 1, 1970 - December 31, 1972 (already Listed) 11. Robert G. "Mike" Flannery January 1, 1973 - June 9, 1982 12. Robert C. Marquis June 9, 1982 - January 11, 198322:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 50.53.134.131 ( talk)
Janaury 11, 1983 was the day the Western Pacific became part of the Union Pacific and ceased to exist fro then on.
does this rules valid to all the languages on wikipedia or just in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.140.96 ( talk) 12:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the
reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the
biographies of living persons noticeboard. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
This is a question about the usability of court records. Wikipedia has pages for me, [ [14]] and Edward Wegman [ [15]]. I have never edited either of these pages and have zero intent to do so, but I am interested in getting clarification, as the generally well-intentioned Wikipedia rules sometimes seem to forbid rock-solid real-world factual evidence. My blog post Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million is itself obviously not RS, but it attaches copies of online court records of lawsuits related to events described in both Wikipedia pages above. Those are the files named 1-1.pdf - 20.pdf. pp.15-18 of the detaled PDF (not RS of course) summarize the chronology, but also explain how to find the online records via PACER. Of course, claims in court files easily may not be correct (and indeed, some of them are not), but [ [16]] is even stronger: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That seems to mandate that even the following sentence would absolutely be disallowed. Is that true? "Edward Wegman filed a $1M lawsuit against John Mashey 0n 03/10/14 in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia and his Wegman Report coauthor Yasmin Said filed another there 06/12/15. Both were removed to Federal Court 04/15/15, and on 04/30/15 they submitted voluntary dismissals of the combined case." JohnMashey ( talk) 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
I'm doing research for a red-linked article on a historical manuscript, on which there seems to be quite a bit of information, and I came across a thesis presented for a master's degree on a university website. I suspect that it is, but I might be incorrect, so I'd like some other opinions. (I can provide a link to the paper if needed.) -- Biblio worm 02:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think such sources are more primary than secondary, and a bit questionable. They are certainly acceptable, but within limits. Should we discuss them in a separate section? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the
reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the
biographies of living persons noticeboard. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}
I would like to add Comedian John Carfi to list of comedians -John is also an actor which will show up if you put his name in your search -a reliable source is shown on the Ricki Lake show .
If you go to John's website you can see all of his credits.
www.johncarfi.com If you google John Carfi you can see the proof of his credits -he has been in the business over 33 years.here is a video at a well known comedy club on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K__5DexheU Johncarfi ( talk) 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Replicating here the RFC posted on WP:BLPNOTICE.
Will be an info source (publication, website) run by the Awarding Entity, announcing the instance in question, considered a "primary source" in relation to Person X' biography?
Exhibit A: Sir Winston Churchill's Nobel Prize. In Winston Churchill article the used reference is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/nomination.php?action=show&showid=3319, i.e. info on nobelprize.org.
Exhibit B: Paul Krugman, living person. Again nobelprize.org is used.
The present question: For Minna Sundberg article in a clause on her NCS Reuben's Award for 2015, can http://www.reuben.org/2015/05/reuben-awards-winners-2015/ i.e. info on the Award's site, be considered as a "primary source" for Minna Sundberg's bio? The alternative is to cite the media reports. Thanks! DBWikis ( talk) 13:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Recently I deleted a good amount of information from Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor, claiming that Twitter was an unreliable source. User:TonyTheTiger reverted me and said it can be used in certain situations. Who is correct? Most of the information sourced to Twitter on both articles was rather fluffy anyway. I would revert but I don't want to start a revert war. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If not, I'd like a section in this article describing why one can't use youtube. Thanks. 88.90.245.52 ( talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the others. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube and WP:YouTube. Where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or the official YouTube channel being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles, using the YouTube source is usually fine. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This RFC about the use of columns as sources may be of interest to editors here. Columns are opinion content, but they are typically written by professional journalists that work for the publication. I have a disclosed conflict of interest on that page. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned on WP:RSBREAKING that the current event templates are "not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." These points have been discussed and debated extensively on Template talk:Current, Wikipedia talk:Current event templates and elsewhere well before WP:RSBREAKING was added in December 2014. [18] And I see no mention of this specific issue addressed on the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 45#Breaking news. So the original consensus on Template talk:Current should still prevail. Thanks. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 11:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Three related issues, and suggestion of what to do about them:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Among quite an array of material, there's a section suggesting continuity/verisimilitude of use, reported separately in previous peer-reviewed publications, of various Northern and Western European words for "cat" as vulgarities, simultaneously in reference to female genitals and to imply male cowardice. I haven't found a peer-reviewed paper that makes the same connection, which is only barely synthetic/analytic (namely that "puss" and its equivalents have a triple use with a long, multi-language history). I actually need the same paper for another pretty obvious, non-controversial synthesis of prior work, this time about cat demographics in historical Scandinavia (about which very, very little has been published in journals, even in the Scandinavian languages; one of the only two papers I can find on this is a doctoral dissertation, with only one journal paper on the subject).Conclusion: It's important that we include something about academic (and tech, and other industry) conference proceedings and how to approach them as sources, because of the frequency with which they publish material we want to cite. My take: they are primary or mostly primary (unless just summarizing the state of current research, in which case they're tertiary), and should be used with caution, attributed as such presentation, and replaced with secondary, or at least peer-reviewed primary sources in journals, when possible. Tech and consumer conference presentations of new products, technologies, methods, and draft standards should be treated as strictly primary sources. But when inclusion criteria in academic conferences are very stringent, presentations can be treated the same as journals if publicly available in [e-]paper or recorded form. I think what I wrote above about industry journals can easily be directly adapted into guideline wording about them. Finally, the statement that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" is a bit overbroad. As long as they present nothing controversial, such a paper should be treated like any other primary or semi-primary source, if it"s completed, approved, and published/archived by an accredited university, in publicly available form, or is in the online equivalent of a Gedenkschrift/Festschrift or other scholarly compendium, and it isn't making controversial or extraordinary claims. This would of course not extend to undergraduate papers, unfinished theses/dissertations, and other pure-primary sources that are not from reputable publishers. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, yes, I myself made the point that quality control differs; that's the essential issue. It even differs for mainstream academic journals, though not as widely. I'm suggesting we account for this, in the guideline, because current WP de facto practice is to cite conference proceedings precisely like journals, other than the template is different. I have yet to find a single case of conference proceedings being challenged on reliability grounds. Admittedly I haven't been searching for it, but in almost 10 years of editing (over 10, counting early anon editing), I should have seen it by now. We have a reliability blind spot here. The impact factors note is interesting (I hadn't noticed that before), but we do precious little with impact factors to begin with, unless one heck of a dispute breaks out. WP relies mostly on secondary sources, but other than literature reviews, most material in academic journals is primary, or a mixture of primary and secondary, that we must "use with caution", because it is presenting novel claims for others to test and develop, and does not yet represent the mainstream, accepted view or even necessarily a noteworthy minority one. Much of it, especially in the hard sciences, is just experimental "noise". The second point of my original post (aside from the blind spot) is the "inverse" blind spot, of treating certain primary sources published as theses by universities as if verboten, when they're really just published primary sources like any others. They're not as useful as fully peer-reviewed ones, but in cases like I've outlined, the idea that they must have had a notable impact is probably too stringent, if we at least directly attribute them, and make it clear what kind of publication they are, in the article text, not just cite them as if authoritative. For some topic like the early history of domestic cats in Scandinavia (one of the above examples), it may well be that there will never be any further research. At bare minimum it should be enough that something in a peer reviewed journal has cited the thesis in question. I think the language we have about graduate theses was written with big, hard-science fields in mind, where new ideas are usually wrong and are very difficult to test. In many of the softer disciplines this isn't really the case, and much of the work in question is rote reporting of data with minimal synthesis. The "caution" needed is lower, and we can probably account for that in the guideline without much effort. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Off-the-cuff replies:
Conclusion: Classification as primary, secondary, and tertiary is largely irrelevant, since it usually changes what a source is reliable for, rather than whether it is reliable for anything at all. We don't need WP:CREEPy rules for every separate type of publications. I recommend focusing on the general principles: fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial control are important. Context always matters. A source can be reliable for a given statement without being the best possible source for that statement (and you aren't required to use only the best possible source). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This topic has had a lot of churn on various pages lately, so I thought people here might be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Citation needed#When to remove unsourced info vs. when to add this tag?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
I have a problem with the unqualified declaration made in the second sentence. I believe it should read, "However, reliable sources do not always have to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (addition in italics)" My fear is that Randy in Boise will read that simplistic sentence and conclude, "Hey, I can just quote what somebody says as fact, because I got it from an RS!" ( I have already encountered such a "Randy".)
I appreciate that "no RS is perfectly unbiased", but this is a special case where we must hold our sources accountable to some of the same standards to which we hold ourselves; at least we have to exercise discretion. The guideline must make clear that opinionated sources are only properly used in the context described: i.e., a topic has been recognized to be controversial, and the source is only to be used (ideally with in-line attribution) to verify the existence of the opinion (subject, of course, to WP:WEIGHT), never the alleged truth of the opinion. There is no way we can build a NPOV encyclopedia if we don't expect the sources for the facts we represent to have both a similar NPOV, and a healthy respect for fact checking; else we are building our house on sand. JustinTime55 ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The key to understanding NPOV is this: it applies to Wikipedia, not to our sources.' — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
WP doesn't actually care about "a reliable publication process"; that means a process that reliably produces a publication. We need to reword this to make some kind of sense that is the same kind of sense to anyone who reads it. I would strongly suggest we work the word "reputable" in, with regard to the publisher as an entity, and distinguish this from the editorial process. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If what is published at arXiv are preprints and there's no review process but "moderation" to categorize them correctly, that would seem to make them low-quality, primary sources, maybe too low for science/medicine citations at least (maybe okay in the humanities, as directly attributed primary sources used with caution for non-controversial claims and only when necessary. They would seem to have the reliability level of, e.g., a thesis/dissertation, maybe less.
An argument can be made that they're self-published sources, since arXiv is acting as a self-publishing house for academics (in WP:RS terms, if not in intent; I gather their intent is more like that of WikiSource and Project Gutenberg and Archive.org, but narrowly tailored).
Another argument can be made that it's WP:UGC; people all over the world uploading what they've written to a website (with an administrative user class) where it is categorized for public, free consumption ... that's a description of a Wiki.
Exception made for material that is actually published in a journal by the time we need to cite it; the arXiv URL might be the only one we have, if the journal is behind a paywall.
(I asked this initially at Template:arXiv and got nothing in response but a trolling comment, so asking it here might be more productive.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a citation template of this sort. Scenario #1 is already covered by the |arXiv=
parameter of {{
Cite web}}
. This method is "idiot-proof", because the |journal=
parameter contains the name of the actual journal it was reputably published in; it can't be used (except in an obviously detectible way, e.g. |journal=arXiv
) to improperly cite unpublished [in the
WP:V definition of "published"] research. Meanwhile, #2 can be done with {{cite web|title=Nutritional Analysis of Cat Hair|first=A. U.|last=Thor|site=arXiv.org|publisher=self-published|...}}
, if it's ever needed. Unless the site itself recategorizes papers after they have been published, and this difference is detectible in the URL so tools can distinguish between published and unpublished and do something (warning? cleanup category?) with citations to unpublished papers, I think this template should be
TfDed. It's two legitimate functions are redundant with existing templates, and its potential for abuse is high. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{cite arXiv}}
is citing the unpublished version of something, then we don't need a separate template for that. {{Cite web}}
exists for a reason. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)|arxiv=
or |url=
or |contribution-url=
when they are discovered. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Cite journal}}
is the one to use for citation of something at arXiv that has been reputably published. If the only use-case for {{cite arXiv}}
is citing unpublished research, we have {{Cite web}}
for that. The {{Cite arXiv}}
template is redundant in either scenario, and provides as easily-abused avenue for source misuse. Due to rampant misinterpretation
WP:CITEVAR as a license to
WP:OWN every detail of citation formatting, it's extremely unlikely that checking uses of {{Cite arXiv}}
on a case-by-case and replacing them with the equivalent, long-standing, general templates to indicate "this has been checked out and is a valid use of an arXiv citation" (using the appropriate replacement template for whichever of the two scenario types the use qualifies as), would not be met with revertwarring. There is thus no clear avenue for patrolling abuse of this template, which serves no purpose anyway. The obvious solution is to deprecate it, convert all of its in situ uses, and then TfD it. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|title=Title_of_paper|journal=The_Real_Journal|arxiv=arXiv_ID_to_generate_the_arXiv_URL|...}}
. This even has the benefit of following
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT more closely; you can provide the URL to the official published version (if such a URL is available) while also providing a convenience link to the arXiv copy, which also help guard against linkrot. It's not like |arXiv=
wasn't added to the extant templates for a reason. The good reason to remove {{Cite arxiv}}
is that there is no use case for it that is not already covered by extant templates (among other reasons, already covered). The {{
arXiv}}
{{
cite arXiv}}
template doesn't do anything special. It's just another identifier-specific template, which were all deprecated as a class, not because of exactly how they were coded, as you go on about above, but because they're redundant and their purpose was merged into the main citation templates. Same story. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)|noedit=
option has been used). Additionally, because {{
cite doi}} is only used for citations that have dois, which in practice means journal articles, it's redundant with {{
cite journal}}. The same goes for the other ones you list. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
Cite arXiv}}
is only used for citations that have arXiv eprint IDs, which is already supported by both {{
Cite journal}}
and {{
Cite web}}
, it's redundant with them." —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC){{
Cite web}}
, etc., do particular special formatting and variances of that formatting for particular source types. This one does not (it does do one special linking thing that it shouldn't, which we'll get to). There is no difference at all between these two:
{{cite arXiv |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 }}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial; new dimensions are timelike".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1.{{cite web |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |arxiv=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 }}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial; new dimensions are timelike".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help){{cite arXiv |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=July 2006 |journal=Nature Physics |volume=XIX |issue=2}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (July 2006). "Spacetime is spinorial".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite arXiv}}
: Unknown parameter |issue=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume=
ignored (
help)|journal=
, etc. But you can do the following, just leaving |journal=
, etc., blank (or omitting them):
{{cite journal |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=2006 |journal= |volume= |issue=}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (2006). "Spacetime is spinorial".
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{cite journal |last=Sparling |first=George A. J. |eprint=gr-qc/0610068v1 |title=Spacetime is spinorial |date=July 2015 |journal=Nature Physics |volume=XIX |issue=2}}
– Sparling, George A. J. (July 2015). "Spacetime is spinorial". Nature Physics. XIX (2).
arXiv:
gr-qc/0610068v1.|doi=
, that {{
Cite arXiv}}
can't handle).{{
Cite web}}
in any case at all. And it's worse than redundant, because you can't add any new information to it, only totally replace the template. It's just pointless.The one and only thing unusual that this template does is create links to arXiv "class" categories, optionally, with the |class=
parameter. But these do not help the reader find the source, they're just linkspam that fails
WP:EL, and they're hardly ever used anyway, not being among the default, recommended parameters. If there were an odd case where this link was actually important, it can be done with |at=
in {{Cite journal}}
.
Conclusion: I still do not see any reason this shouldn't be TFD'd, just
WP:AADD arguments. I'm looking for reasons to keep it. I thought "Surely, |class=
does something important?" Nope. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason {{
cite arxiv}} doesn't support |journal=
is that it shouldn't. If you're citing the journal article, you use {{
cite journal}}. If you're citing the arxiv, you use {{
cite arxiv}}, much like you wouldn't ask {{
cite book}} to support |journal=
. This is a clearly different case than the {{
cite doi}} (and {{
cite pmid}}/{{
cite jstor}}) you keep comparing them to. I don't know what's so damned hard to understand about this. Send it to TFD if you hate it so much, and enjoy seen it being snow kept.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|class=
does something important. It indicates the classification of the paper, and is how arxiv papers should be cited generally. E.g. LHCb collaboration (2015). "Observation of...".
arXiv:
1507.03414 [
hep-ex]. tells you this paper is from the High-Energy Physics Experiments repository.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
that puts the same repository class link in |at=
. This would have the benefit of auto-accepting later additions of |doi=
, |journal=
, etc., after something has been published (as long as the parameters were passed, of course). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|journal=
or |doi=
on a {{
cite web}} citation rather than fixing it to be {{
cite journal}} as it should be is ignorant and wrong and if that's the best argument you can come up with for turning other kinds of citations into {{
cite web}} then I think we should just close this thread, because it's not going anywhere useful. If you want a one-template-fits-all-citations template, use CS2 and {{
citation}} instead of CS1 and the cite template family. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
|journal=
, so using that parameter is permissible. These template names are a shorthand, just mnemonics, and all those templates are simply wrappers for what's done with the CS1 meta-templating module and its submodules. There is
no policy requiring that a particular template with a certain name be used to format a reference because of how you want to classify the publication. They're just tools to get the job done. It's standard operating procedure to merge them when what they do is redundant. I'm fine if the discussion here stops, though, since the case for merging these is clear, and this is no longer an
WP:RS question. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)The above discussion just makes me glad that I don't use citation templates in the first place... I manually type my citations the "old fashioned" way, using the "<ref>citation information</ref>" format. Then I don't have to worry about parameters, null fields, or any of that sort of stuff. Just saying. Blueboar ( talk) 11:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)