Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Question: Referencing something v. promoting it

This edit has been reverted twice now under an accusation that it is a promotional link. But it is serving a purpose of referencing the claim that goes before it. Is it possible that the removing user is being a bit over zealous in their enforcement of the rules, or is it that the including user (i.e. me) should find a different way to reference that statement? -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that there is no other source for the claim, it may not be worth including. The company's own site is obviously not a great source for referencing the quality of its product. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive moves and indexing, okay to set up?

Would it be agreeable to everyone to:

1. Move the archive pages to a standardized Talk:Citing sources/Archive <#> name;
2. set up indexing of this page using User:HBC Archive Indexerbot;
3. change the auto-archiving config to the more standard format by capitalizing the word Archive, and adding a space between the archive and the digits;
4. changing the archive box to auto(Requires the page moves), and adding an auto archiving notice.

Not to sound lazy but 21 archives is a lot to sift through. I would think the previous suggestion of splitting discussion into sub-pages would get unwieldy to maintain. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why not just switch to yearly archives and combine the old ones as needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is already archived by Miszabot. It doesn't matter to me, but why change? Gimmetrow 07:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The indexing is the main thing I'm looking for, changing the archives to some consistent naming just makes it easier for setting up the mask. The same is true for not archiving based on year. Also looking at comments above where the same topic seems to come up repeatedly it helps to see the previous discussions on the index without having to load them all up on the latest discussion[1], or to simply title the conversation Topic Name(Part II), and the previous ones would be found based on naming. I find auto-indexing to be helpful and complementary to auto-archiving. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. Although Google searches can provide some of this information, I'd much rather have indexed keywords from the archives available here. I regularly comb the archives and find out that the few words that made it onto the project page can't be understood properly without the context. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

STYLE1.0

Version 0.7 decisions are being made now, and the printed and DVD Wikipedia Version 1.0 is not that far off. Wikipedians don't have absolute discretion in formatting decisions (where the periods should go, where the lines should break, end section format, etc) in the printed version; there's also the publisher to deal with. Why formatting decisions in the printed version might affect Wikipedia style guidelines is a bit complicated (short answer: "Jimbo said so"), so anyone interested in either is encouraged to join the discussion at WT:STYLE1.0. Some of the discussions above do seem to involve these kinds of issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on how to deal with citation issues

Please note the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divine_Science#References_were_deleted

Wouldn't the correct procedure be to leave the citations in place, flag the article for cleanup (not sure what tag) and then wait a reasonable amount of time for the editor to correct his/her own error? Low Sea (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-print references

Can it be appropriate to cite a documentary? If so, can someone point me to a good example that I can emulate? Mingusboodle (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can cite a documentary, if the publisher is reliable. The format of the citation should be in the same family as the citations already in the article; which article are you thinking of adding the citation to? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between factual material present in the documentary and the editorial material that accompanies it. Both may be of value to articles but they need to be presented differently in articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Over-referencing

Is there such a thing as over-referencing? The article which inclines me to ask is smokeasy, which currently has more than seventy references for a ~1-page article. Any advice on how to approach this, or is it OK as is? — Epastore (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a thing as over-referencing. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta/archive1. It would help to collect all the notes to the same text into one long note, by taking out the </ref><ref> tags between them; at that point you can see where the documentation is repetitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference here is Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta at the time of the FAC nomination. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The references haven't changed much: chiefly by consolidating references to the same page in consecutive sentences, which is also a good thing; but that's not smokeasy's problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My gut reaction on seeing a long list of references isn't "They must go" but "What is really going on here?" Clearly, the idea in smokeasy, from the word itself and from the number of references, is to draw a parallel to Prohibition (both inside and outside the U.S.). In a sense, the number of references itself, if taken to an extreme, could be considered a kind of POV-pushing. I don't have an argument with the article; I'm just saying that it's an interesting take on the signficance of the number of references. Another interesting situation is the 84 references at Robot, where the number of references and size of the article reflects the fact that the article itself has become kind of a "hangout" for a certain group, and a prime target of people who want to add wikilinks to their favorite article. For those and other reasons, people were not willing to break up the article when I suggested it a couple of months ago, and given the size and scope of the article, the references are well-chosen. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First to recite the credo: The authority of Wikipedia comes from the authority of its sources. I'd like to see two reliable sources for every sentence in Wikipedia, but that's just me. There are literally millions of sentences in wikipedia that should be sourced but aren't. Who cares if there are a couple of sentences that have six or ten sources? I think we should give the article a medal of some kind.

Having said that, I would consolidate the big sets of footnotes (you know, etc.) into a single footnote. It's prettier and easier to read. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

yes Blogs Again

As Blogs become more ubiquitous perhaps wikipedia could consider other exceptions than just the "under the direct supervision of a newspaper".

There is a situation going on right now where we have an AfD on a holiday. One of the many claims made by the nominator is that "I don't know if this is a 'holiday' that's just celebrated by three guys in a room."

A check of Google show 3,550 entries for the days' name, easily refuting that statement. However given that it is an annual holiday celebration, many of the entries are now being placed in Blogs -- either listings local events or of individuals commenting on their plans for the day. Without violating wikipedia policy that Blogs are not to be used as a reference is there some way to dig our way out of this quandary?

Especially given that the nominator explicitly did not assert that there were no references that might easily be found, just that they had not been used as references. BiAndBi (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the idea is, if all the mentions are in blogs that don't have some special claim to credibility, then this doesn't really meet a solid level of reliability. Looking at the article, however, it seems that some non-blog sources have been discovered, so I don't quite understand the "quandry" -- if anything this is an AFD where the system worked and the article will, correctly, be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I of course Assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I am guessing that should the article survive the AfD process soon Citation needed tags will be blossoming across the articles text. Especially where there is a statement that the holiday is widely celebrated and lists several countries/continents. Just trying to get ahead of that eventuality. BiAndBi (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would make more sense to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Should I just re-enter the question verbatim over there? Should this one be left and just a pointer be put in? How should I move it over there correctly? BiAndBi (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You could just raise the same question there, and indicate here that the discussion is taking place elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As suggested have reintroduced the topic over at Reliable sources - yes Blogs Again BiAndBi (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How to cite quotes of quotes?

I am the primary contributor to Michael Sinclair (British Army officer). I haven't worked on the article for quite a while but am trying to get back into it, and I have a question.

I have been going to great length to cite everything I write in the article, using the two books I have available about the subject. In order to make it easier for people to verify the information, I have included short snippets of the sections being quoted. This is particularly important since one of the books (Colditz / The Latter Days) has been published in numerous editions, originally as two books but later as one combined volume. The page numbers that I cite will not be valid for most editions.

I have indicated quotes from the books in italics and, in the cases where I am quoting a quotation in the book, I also enclose it in quotation marks. Someone mentioned that I should enclose all the quotes in quotation marks to indicate that they are quotes from the book, but then how would I indicate a quote of a quote? Two sets of quotations marks just doesn't look right to me.

Sorry about the excessive use of the word "quote" in this post, but there was no other way of putting it ;). Any ideas or comments?

Qarnos (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:PUNC, top of that section, and also WP:MOSQUOTE, and see if that covers it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Citation}} and other citation templates

I have a problem with the following guideline:

There are (at least) two families of citation templates. The {{Citation}} template is intended to provide citations for many types of references. The other family has names of the form {{Cite xxx}} (for example, {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}}). These two families produce different citation styles. For example, the "Cite xxx" family separates elements with a full stop, and gives page ranges as plain numbers, while the "Citation" template separates elements with a comma, and precedes page ranges with "pp." Thus, these two families should not be mixed in the same article.

Unfortunately, there are no instructions in the documentation of {{Citation}} on how it should be used for web pages. Should some be added? Also, what about simply making the two types of citation templates consistent with each other? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

references vs. footnotes

I'm bringing rongorongo up for GA or FA, and have a question about notes.

The article has a large amount of supporting material in footnotes, things which are excessive for the body of the article, but which would be important for someone who really wants to delve into the subject. Since there are a lot of amateur epigraphers out there, and decipherment is a popular hobby, this is particularly important for articles such as this one.

The problem I have is with mixing these footnotes with the references, which is the style I've seen on Wikipedia and which is assumed by this page here. If they're mixed together, then the reader won't know until following it whether a note is simply a page number reference, or supporting material which may be important for fully understanding the text. This results in readers who are interested in the footnotes being distracted by each little reference as well.

My solution is a hybrid system, with inline Harvard refs for page numbers and separate footnotes. Is this justifiable, or is it something I'll eventually be forced to change?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Parenthesised in-text citations in combination with numbered content footnotes would be consistent with (for example) APA style, so I don't think there should be any problems. [2][3] --SallyScot (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki development?

It'd be good if we had an easy to use 'notes' equivalent to go with <ref>. So, in addition to <ref>'s numbered references for citations, we could have something distinctive and separate for discursive notes. I'd suggest that these could have automatic assignment of roman numerals to coexist with and compliment <ref>'s Arabic numerals, for example <nb> and <notes /> tags (or <nbi> and <notesi /> tags) which automatically generated separate numbered notes.

At the moment this can be achieved as in the following...

Example text, more example text. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

However, if you look at the editing behind the example above you'll see it involves a degree of html coding that would make it something of a chore to maintain.

I'm not a wiki developer. Does anyone have any suggestions how this idea for automatically generated distinctive roman numeral identified notes might be further progressed?

--SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up in WT:FOOT. I don't know if it can be implemented without future improvements such as mentioned near bottom of WP:FOOT. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

SallyScot, the coding behind your example can be simplified a bit by using currently-existing templates something like the following:

Example text, more example text. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

• ^a This is an example discursive note.
• ^{a b} This is an example discursive note.Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of <ref> and <references/> tags). Instead it uses the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.

This example is missing the css class="references" hilite styling. Perhaps the Ref and Notes family templates could be modified to do that, but I've looked briefly at that and there seems to be some sort of a hitch in MediaWiki:Common.css with {{Ref}} and the plainlinksneverexpand css class. I'm not css-literate enough to see what the problem there is off the top of my head. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks Bill. The difficulty with the way either you or I coded it would be of course with the renumbering which would need to be done to all the subsequent notes when adding a preceding new one.

There are also some other slight differences via {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates I think. For example, it's difficult to get the emphasis and italics exactly the same as generated by <ref> for the back-links. Perhaps more importantly, the alignment of the notes isn't as clear (as I substitute your bullets for actual roman numeral below). The closest I've got so far this way is...

Example text, more example text. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

i. ^{^} This is an example discursive note.

ii. ^ ^{a b} Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of <ref> and <references/> tags). Instead it uses the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.

And yes, its a shame about the hilite not being there too. I don't think that's easily fixable either. What's in {{note label}} is actually highlighted, but that is in effect just the back-link not the note content which has to be outside the template of course.

--SallyScot (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editions

Just wondering, is citing sources from another Wikipedia language edition allowed? Say, I would like to cite my sources from the French Wikipedia. I think it's not, is it? -- Felipe Aira 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For some languages, there is a tag, like {{de}}; you should note indebtedness in this style. But this is a GFDL notice that you have begun with a translation, not a citation. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, in any language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use sources that are not English (if there are no alternatives), you can use foreign language Wikipedia versions to find these sources. But you cannot use the foreign aticle itself as a reference (just like you cannot use another English article as reference). Arnoutf (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a long relevant discussion at WT:V#Radical change... recently. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug with the reference tags?

Hi has anyone come across a possible bug in the reference tags where the tag hides the sentence it is supposed to provide the reference for? In the Traffic signals section of the utility cycling article I have tried to insert a reference for a sentence on UTC systems and induced traffic. But what happens is that the sentence disappears. I am using Firefox if that's relevant.

See here click edit to see the hidden sentence and ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cycling#Traffic_signals.2FTraffic_control_systems

--Sf (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably [4] was the problem? Gimmetrow 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for that! --Sf (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification re WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

Seeking clarification: It seems to me that if a citation is a printed work as found on a site like JSTOR or Google Books, where the actual work, as published and paginated, is presented, then the printed work really is the source, and the web site was just a medium through which it was read, like reading a newspaper article on microfilm in lieu of having a copy of the printed newspaper in hand. Sound reasonable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would list both the printed version and the electronic site I used to read it; there could be a deliberate or accidental difference between the printed version and the electronic version. In the case of microfilm, the chance of a difference is less. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In case of things you get from Jstor, I don't see any reason not to cite them directly - what's there is a scanned copy of the original. It's nice to include the JStor links so other people can look up the articles quickly if they also have JStor access. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Google Book Search contents are scanned. They aren't a transcription of the print document's text, they are an image of it. I agree that it doesn't hurt to provide the link in addition to the citation of the printed document, but I see that as a convenience, not as part of the citation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's how I feel as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing museums

I have photos of a museum artifact that I would like to upload and use in the Kamapua'a article. The information about the artifact, for example where it was found, the identification of the artifact, etc., is contained in the informational plaque alongside exhibit (of which I also have a photo). How should I cite the informational plaque? Regards, Oscar (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any WebCite alternatives? Need to maintain verifiability.

WebCite is not working : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouPorn&diff=203585025&oldid=203567497. Anyone know of (free) WebCite alternatives that work? Need to maintain verifiability when using a source that has a robots.txt (I think that's why WebCite is not working here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Discursive notes

...earlier part archived...

'My' version looks and behaves more like <ref> tags. Bill's is probably easier to code. But the main point I think we'd both agree is that both (both 'my' HTML and Bill's {{ref label}}+{{note label}} solution referred to in archived part) require the numbering to be manually kept in sync. All I was really trying to suggest is that the ordered list part should be fairly easy for a wiki-developer to do as it would just require style="list-style-type: lower-roman" instead of the default.

To be clear, the request would be for code so that something like the following...

Example text,<nb>This is an example discursive note</nb> more example text.<nb name=Discursive>Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).</nb> A point made with a supporting reference.<ref>Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> A second appearance of a note.<nb name=Discursive /> 

== Notes ==

<ol class="references" style="list-style-type: lower-roman"><!-- ol tag gives following list elements roman numerals -->  
<li id="note01"
><b>[[#nb01|^]]</b> This is an example discursive note.</li>
<li id="note02"
>^ <sup><i>[[#nb02a|a]] [[#nb02b|b]]</i></sup> Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the [[Footnotes]] method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.</li> 
</ol>

Generates:

Example text, more example text. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

A point I'd emphasise about 'my' html code code above is that it is in many respects essentially similar to html generated by <ref> tags. I copied and tailored it via viewing the page generated source html of a Wikipedia article; the main difference as far as the generated list of notes is concerned being my setting style="list-style-type: lower-roman". I figure it would be fairly easy for a wiki developer to give us automatic assignment of roman numerals to coexist with and compliment <ref>'s Arabic numerals, for example <nb> and <notes /> tags (or <nbi> and <notesi /> tags) which automatically generated separate numbered notes. You'd need to clone the existing code behind <ref> tags, only setting the output list-style-type to lower-roman. My assumption is that doing a similar thing (i.e producing lower-roman case) for the numbered reference tags themselves (the numbers that appear in the body text) would not be overly problematical.

--SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? It seems simpler to do:

Example text,{{ref label|note1|i|a}} more example text.{{ref label|note2|ii|a}} A second appearance of a note.{{ref label|note2|ii|b}}

== Notes ==

i. {{note label|note1|i|a}} This is an example discursive note.
ii. {{note label|note2|ii|a}}{{note label|note2|ii|b}} Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the [[Footnotes]] method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.

Which produces output similar to:

Example text, more example text. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

i. ^a This is an example discursive note.

ii. ^{a b} Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is not generated via the Footnotes method (i.e. via use of ref and references/ tags). Instead it uses hard-coded wikilink values to link forward and back to and from the notes and their reference points.

This, of course, requires that the {{ref label}} parameters be manually kept in sync with the matching {{note label}} parameters. Having that done automatically is not a big issue technically but, if my experience with bugzilla:12796 is anything to go by, getting anything to happen on putting a change in place after the coding is done is a big hurdle. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for nb tags

'My' version looks and behaves more like <ref> tags. Bill's is probably easier to code. But the main point I think we'd both agree is that both require the numbering to be manually kept in sync. All I was really trying to suggest is that the ordered list part should be fairly easy for a wiki-developer to do as it would just require style="list-style-type: lower-roman" instead of the default.

To be clear, the request would be for code so that something like the following...

Example text,<nb>This is an example discursive note</nb> more example text.<nb name=Discursive>Discursive notes can be shown separately from references or citations - giving a neater appearing alternative compared to having mixed "Notes and references" or "Notes and citations" sections. This is an example of such a note. It is wishfully generated via a companion to the ref footnotes method (i.e. via use of nb and notes/ tags).</nb> A point made with a supporting reference.<ref>Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> A second appearance of a note.<nb name=Discursive /> 

== Notes ==

<notes />

== References ==

<references />

And maybe we could have curve brackets instead of square for some further distinction, producing...

Example text, more example text. A point made with a supporting reference. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

References

--SallyScot (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point with Bill's is not that it's easier to code, but that it already exists. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be asking for <nb> tags that handled auto numbering if they already existed. --SallyScot (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When is it okay to remove a "citation needed" tag?

Sometimes I see "citation needed" tags for things that would be common knowledge to anyone with a moderate level of experience in the topic. In these cases, I have usually done a quick Google search to find a paper mentioning the fact, and then I cite that totally random paper. I think this kind of citation is really useless and clutters the reference list with things nobody actually wants to read. However, the alternative is just removing the tag, and that seems like a slippery slope as well.

I propose this compromise: If you think that a "citation needed" tag is on something which is common knowledge, just make sure by doing a Google search. If you get several hits that would have been adequate sources, just delete the tag, but don't actually add a citation. This compromise prevents the buildup of superfluous citations, but it also ensures that the user deleting the tag was not mistaken in their belief that the fact was common knowledge.

I see this example all the time: "X can be used for Y. " Okay, everybody I know who does Y uses X to do Y, so I believe this to be true. However, that is original research. Google turns up 10 websites about using X for Y, but it is just mentioned in passing. If the article read "X is often used for Y," or "X is very good for doing Y," then that statement might require some research. But "X can be used for Y" is essentially proven by the fact that I use X for Y.Fluoborate (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "random citation" method has problems. There is some advice on uncontroversial knowledge at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which explains the best practices for that sort of thing in science articles. For a fact that is particularly obvious, I sometimes leave the reference on the article's talk page, pointing out how standard the fact is.

There are some issues with "X can be used for Y" claims, involving due weight for uncommon uses. So those have to be handled on a case by case basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Several guidelines for writing scientific papers give examples when something is obvious. For example Newton's F=MxA does not require reference. But there is a large grey area; forv example where something maybe common to a very small expert group, but uncommon to almost everyone else. Arnoutf (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an area of active discussion, in several different places, including a current thread on WT:V#Detailed analysis of this page, which started out argumentatively but has a lot of intelligent discussion from regular contributors to WT:V. There is wide agreement that we prefer articles written by people who are experienced in a subject; however, these people may be writing more to impress their peers than to impress us. I might say, "You need a cite here, because it's not obvious to me", and they might reply, "It's common knowledge among everyone who can and will read this article." If I then start inserting {{citation needed}} tags everywhere, and if the people who hang out on that page really don't feel the citations are needed, they could invoke the "impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" clause from WP:POINT. There's no requirement that articles have to be written so that everyone can understand them; how would everyone understand, say, a mathematical proof? There's only a requirement that difficult material should be written so as to be as accessible as possible. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The page Carl pointed out is great, and WP:WHEN and its talk page are useful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The method you suggest is sort of dangerous unless you feel you are qualified enough on the topic to be aware of any pitfalls. The disputed statement may, for instance, be supported by some sources but rejected by more modern or more mainstream sources. Generally I would check the talk page for any clarification of the citation request; if it's not there, post a new section asking someone to explain why the statement is disputed; and if nobody responds, remove the tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher's answer seems like the best one (the most direct answer to the question) in a pile of good answers, to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make several points.

1. I thiink it is always better to simply do a little research and a find a source for an "obvious" fact. These kind of obvious facts should appear in an introduction to the topic for undergraduates, or high school students, or "dummies", or "idiots". Just pick up one of these books and add the source. It's not hard, and it's the responsible thing to do. Research is an editor's main job.
2. A {{citation needed}} tag is not an insult or a criticism. It's a kind of "todo" list—one editor asking everyone else to help with some research. It also lets readers know that Wikipedia is a work in progress; that we're constantly trying to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia.
3. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of nonsense in Wikipedia. Some editors add paragraphs and entire articles that sound intelligent but are actually nonsense. Wikipedia attracts exactly this kind of armchair intellectual. (It was this kind of thing that got me started as an editor—I discovered an entire family of articles on a major academic subject (artificial intelligence) that were filled with misunderstandings, nonsense, and self-promotion. In a word, they were bull----.) This kind of nonsense hurts Wikipedia's reputation, and readers who have read nonsense are unwilling to believe anything else they read in Wikipedia, unless there is a citation to reliable source. The point of this story is that, for many subjects, you can't trust the authority of a Wikipedia editor—the authority of Wikipedia comes from the authority of its sources. I would like to see a reliable source for every word in Wikipedia, but that's just me. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis of CharlesGillingham (although I would not stretch it to referencing all of wiki's words ;-)

In general I think the caption "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" captures it all. In my opinion the addition of the {citation needed} tag means that the statement is either challenged, or according to someone is likely to be challenged. Therefore I would argue that the simple addition of a fact tag alone places the tagged line into the need of a reference. Circular, perhaps, but IMHO a nice method of bootstrapping in Wikipedia improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "you can't trust the the authority of a Wikipedia editor": if they have a history of reliability, they're no more and no less likely to be reliable in the future based on that history than anyone else. I certainly do not think that, just because someone is an academic or journalist or professional, they have some kind of inherent trustworthiness not available to Wikipedians. Btw, there has been a dramatic change in consensus on this point in the last two years; see WT:Verifiability/Archive 26#Academics and journalists. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that although we use different arguments and style of reasoning, most of us basically say that:

• If something is such an obvious fact to people in the expert community providing the reference should be easy. So why not do it
• The aim of Wikipedia is to address topic to people outside the expert community, so facts obvious to experts may not be to everyone
• There is no way to check the expertise of an editor, in another way than by the sources provided by that editor (by the way, in scientific publishing academics are required to provide references as well, even if they are experts).

In summary it seems most of us think we should not remove the "citation needed" tags except for some very rare situatioons. Or have I misinterpreted now? Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Citation needed tags should be removed if, in fact, no direct citation is needed for that claim. Perhaps the is covered by a more general reference already cited, for example. Excessive citation hides the interdependence of statements, and makes uncontroversial statements appear as if they "need" a citation — as if they are surprising or controversial. So judgment is needed to decide the right way to respond to each "citation needed" tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl, couldn't we just use a ref tag to say, in effect, "This doesn't need a citation"? There are lots of ways of saying that, depending on the situation. If the article has a math proof, say in abstract algebra, and someone wants a cite to prove that something is a "group", perhaps we could put a ref tag at the very start to one of the general references, and a description after the general reference that says "For people unfamiliar with abstract algebra, this is a good general reference to the terms in this article." - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you seem to think that more references are always preferable to fewer. I disagree. Excessive referencing disrupts the flow and is ugly; the text starts to look like something from some pomo Master's thesis rather than an encyclopedia article. References that have some serious utility for non-experts, great; references for references' sake, please no. There has to be a balance, and therefore in some cases it has to be acceptable to remove the tag. This will always, of course, be subjective, and people will have to argue about it case-by-case. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I think you misunderstand me. No I am not in favour of more references perse; I have experience with at least one "verify or I'll delete everything" fundamentalist, who I think does more damage to Wikipedia as a project than leaving some semi-disputable claim up. I also agree that once something is referenced by a general source that should cover the broader section.

However, if new facts, not covered by a reference in the same section, are presented these should in principle always be referenced, and many Wikipedians do not have the discipline, or mindset to do so, and this is causing opinion to kreep into debates as if facts. One of the problems it that not all editors know which facts maybe disputed. I have stumbled upon many articles (within my personal expertise) that seem to be written by undergraduate students reflecting the opinions and positions of what I guess are their university professors as facts; even if their theory is not mainstream in the scientific community. Unsourced introduction of such "facts", by people who identify themselves as experts is another serious problem.

Of course we all know this, and the fact tag was designed to flag this up. So, if some editor in good faith has added the {fact} tag, (and it is indeed a new fact which is not covered by a running reference) then in princile the reference should be provided.

If you can manage consensus on the talk page I would agree that sometimes even in such situations the tag may be removed. However, personally I would argue that this must be a major consensus in which non-experts are involved (otherwise experts may manage to create reservations for unsourced TRUTHS (e.g. in rewriting articles like Hollow Earth) which IMHO goes against the core spirit of Wikipedia). So while in theory I support talk page discussion to resolve fact tags, I would be extremely careful, to an extent that it would be practically impossible. Perhaps the best practical solution would be to convince the person originally tagging the sentence that it really does not require such a tag. But habing some experience with some editors that may not be practically feasible. [That was Arnoutf ... where's Sinebot when you need him?] (Sorry for not signing) Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty resonable -- sorry I misread your point. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if my statements were misunderstood, I should have expressed more clearly ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my question sparked quite a lot of discussion, but I learned a lot from it. Many good points were made. At the end of the day, I stand by my original method and will apply it under the same circumstances: First I will do a Google search of the fact in question to make sure I was not mistaken, and there is no debate that I am not aware of, and then I will remove the tag IF AND ONLY IF I feel that a citation would be detrimental to the article. A needless citation can be detrimental - it makes something look less-than-common-knowledge, and it draws attention away from the article's other sources which should be more interesting and harder to find. If there are lots of citation needed tags in the article that I feel meet these criteria, I will not simply delete all of them, I will bring it up on the discussion page. But one tag could obviously be the work of one surprised reader thinking "What? Whales are actually mammals? No way, they don't have hair, or four legs, or anything."Fluoborate (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and remember that if you're doing that much work, doing a search and following up on sources, you can always use a footnote (using the same ref markup) to say why you're not giving an inline citation, for instance, "Basic information on whales can be found in any college zoology textbook", or even better, mention a textbook. That reduces the chance that the article will go through the same cycle later on. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wtmitchell

Sorry about labeling Wtmitchell as a vandal for blanking most of the page in the edit summary, my fingers were faster than my eyes. I'm sure it was an accident. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misedit, and thanks for fixing it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

What about sources that aren't in English? There doesn't seem to be a policy against it, so is it okay to use a non-English reference in the English Wikipedia? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:RSUE for the nitty gritty. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The most recent discussion, pretty much covering the bases, is at WT:Verifiability/Archive 26#Radical change of impostation to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. It points to and supports the section Christopher mentioned. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Easier way to make refs using Javascript or whatever

I'm an experienced editor who can now make nicely formatted refs without too much difficulty. When I started I found the ref process difficult. I imagine this has been discussed a bunch somewhere and would like to know where to talk about our options with javascript of whatever for making adding refs transparent to the average user. Anyone know where we discuss this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Scattershot answer: see the Tools section on this page (not the talk page, I mean), Template:Cite, and the links at the bottom of that page. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see Gadgets/RefTools in your "my preferences" link, and Diberri's tool. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (Tweaked my answer - Dan (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Is there a rule for citing one source that will constitute paragraphs of text?

In my sandbox, I'm working on Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.

Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several interesting issues here, and I'm not the expert. Could you run it by the noticeboard? Those guys are incredibly good at answering questions like these. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, posted. I never know where to ask questions like this anyway 8-} Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source

I find this absurdly restrictive, especially for historical images that have been widely reproduced. The original author might be relevant, but the ephemeral website that the original uploader gets it from is completely unencyclopaedic. I will reword this section in due course, unless someone more experienced in copyrights on WP has something to say. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What section? the phrase "Image source" does not appear anywhere in the guideline. Also, this guideline is about citing sources, not uploading images. It is not a copyright violation to cite a source, except that if the source we cite is obviously violiating copyright, we might be considered to be contributing to the violation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. I refer to the text in WP:CITE#IMAGE. Is there some reason I should not rewrite it in light of the concerns I raise above about widely available/PD images? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a courtesy to those wanting to verify that the source is genuine, to provide a link to a reliable webpage (not a link to the file itself) that includes the image information so that information can be verified. If this can't be done, fair enough, but it will reinforce the image against future people questioning it. For example, we link to the Library of Congress image information pages using {{LOC-image}}. You might also want to talk to User:MECU about this, as he has strong views on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We met on his talkpage after he templated me, remember? :)

If it is merely a courtesy, I don't think it should be in this guideline at all, nor should it be part of the deletion criteria. That is unacceptable. Let me explain: if I were to come across, for example, a fair-use criterion written for a fairly well-known set of photographs of historical importance, but which do not specify a URL from which they came, I do not think we have the right to assume that criterion is incomplete and delete the files. For one thing, websites are ephemeral. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember MECU making a change with little discussion. If that is what you are referring to, I agree, change it back and start a discussion. If it is a case of making different pages consistent, could you point out which ones they are? Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New examples

I have just created an essay Wikipedia:Verification methods and I wonder if any of the regular posters here would like to take a look at it and comment. It is basically intended to provide some clear examples of the most common methods of verification (i.e. citation styles) that are in use. It has both schematic examples and lists of articles that use the various styles.

I hope to merge Wikipedia:Verification methods into this article, but I thought I would save my work as an essay for now, until I have a feel for what the community thinks of this approach. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like uncontroversial examples, thanks for working on that. Just a reminder (not directed at you in particular): the first infobox says: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Also, style guidelines pages in general tend to link to pages that give extended examples rather than covering the examples themselves, so someone might object on those grounds (not me...I'm neutral on the general principle, I'd have to see the proposed changes), although obviously there's already a lot of detail on this guidelines page. - Dan (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference/source format/style

I read the article about how there are several styles and none should be encouraged nor discouraged. I wonder though, how many other things are prescribed here on Wiki, and why references, etal should not be done the same on every article. When someone reads an article on Wiki they then know what to expect because the format of each article is common. That doesn't mean every article has all the same parts, but if an article contains a certain type of content/part (body, intro, refs, external links, etc...) then all articles look the same.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone agrees with me.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing conflicting sources

Something struck me last night, growing out of recent discussions I've seen at WT:RS and/or WT:V (this one and others}. I'm in a bit of a rush, and so cannot take time to agonize over the wording here. Hopefully, I can make my thoughts understandable. What struck me is that an unsupported assertion is weak, and open to challenge. A cite-supported assertion is stronger, but is still open to challenge. Sometimes cite-supported assertions are contrasted against conflicting cite-supported assertions. It seems to me that this guideline project page should provide some guidance covering this situation. It seems to me that the guidance provided should be essentially that in cases where cite-supported assertions in an article conflict with one another, the conflicting assertions should be attributed inline to their supporters in the article prose.

e.g, not

"Assertion 1.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1989|p=123}}</ref> Conflicting assertion 2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1943|p=45}}</ref>"

but instead something like

"John Jones asserts that assertion 1.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1989|p=123}}</ref> Contrarily, Stanley Smith asserts conflicting assertion 2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1943|p=45}}</ref>"

(Smith and Jones either being well-known authorities or having had their credentials established earlier in the article, and their referenced works being listed with full citations in the article's References or Bibliography section). The point here being that WP article prose should strive to present verifiable facts. As long as Smith's assertion 1 is unchallenged, that can be presented as a verifiable fact; once someone brings up Jones' conflicting assertion 2, neither assertion is a verifiable fact, but it is verifiable fact that Smith and Jones made the conflicting assertions. Am I onto something here, or do I have too many angels dancing on the head of this pin? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I get your good point, and it seems particularly true where there are limited people stating views on a topic. However where one viewpoint has overwhelming support in the literature, we only need a limited number of citations to act in support (we can't go listing hundreds of papers). In such a situation an opposing source, whilst needing mention under NPOV if it is credible (ie reliable source and not a frivilous trivial claim), does not warrent giving equal space under WP:Undue. Hence mentioning the details of the opposing author in any length to give the view authority, may give undue credence to their position if we do not give balancing authority to the initial opinion and this can look ungainly . So whilst I like your examples, more generally I think it depends on the situation and the phrasing chosen, eg look at:

1. Current understanding is that X,<ref>"1997 Consensus of Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> but recently this has been questioned,<ref>2008 Time to re-evaluate ? Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> following the results of a couple large studies.<ref>2006 X sometimes associated with Y - Bloggs UK Cardology</ref><ref>2007 X may occasionally be caused by Z - Fred, Cardiology Today</ref>.
   Current understanding is that X, but recently this has been questioned, following the results of a couple large studies.
2. Amercian Cardiology Society's previous agreed position was stated in 1997 as X,<ref>"1997 Consensus of Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> but recently some in the society have questioned whether this needs to be reassessed,<ref>2008 Time to re-evaluate ? Amercian Cardiology Society</ref> following the results of the large studies of Bloggs 2006<ref>2006 X sometimes associated with Y - Bloggs UK Cardology</ref> and Fred 2007.<ref>2007 X may occasionally be caused by Z - Fred, Cardiology Today</ref>
   Amercian Cardiology Society's previous agreed position was stated in 1997 as X, but recently some in the society have questioned whether this needs to be reassessed, following the results the large studies of Bloggs 2006 and Fred 2007.

I prefer the former as the second is far less succinct.David Ruben ^Talk 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the former is better although it will sometimes bring out accusations of weasel word usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

What is BLP? I can't find an article about it. Renduy (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP Wikipredia policy on Biographies of living persons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty finding a full citation

I'm hoping someone can help me out here. Or tell me I can stop looking.

I added the majority of information to the article for Mulholland Dr., and I would like to put it up for FAC, which means my citations have to be perfection. I added a quote from an article I found here, which looks like a David Lynch fansite. So I am suspect in using fansite citations. I contacted the New York Times Syndicate who confirmed they sold the story to LesbiaNation. I called LesbiaNation's parent company gaywired.com, who no longer has the story - or can't find it. They suggested I contact the author of the article. I am willing to do that, but before I bust more nuts trying to find the original citation for this story, is this all necessary? Is anyone here experienced in FA review and can say you would forbid this article based on that citation? I apprecaite your reponse. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the website specifically gives all the source information, as an FA reviewer I would let this pass. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, per WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not voting :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be voting, at some future date. I need to know if I need to take this quote out (I really don't want to do that at all - seriously - it's a significant quote). Or continue to pester the hell out of the author. Or, since there's a procedure to follow in the case of dead links, surely there must be a procedure to follow for lost archived articles? --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you check archive.org? Do you have a hard copy or have you checked a library? If so, you can verify the text and it can be found in a library, and you don't need the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I called the New York Times Syndicate who gave me the fansite. When I said the fansite was unacceptable, they told me to contact LesbiaNation. I called and emailed them, and they said they don't have it in their archives due to a server crash several years ago. I searched LexisNexis and ProQuest for the author, subject, actress' name, title of the film, but nothing comes up. I did check archive.org, but was unsuccessful (was my first search with them, so I may not know what I'm doing). I am now attempting to contact who I think is the author... --Moni3 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The fansite is fine, Moni, because the article has been published elsewhere by a reliable source, so the link to the fansite is only a courtesy link. It's the article that is your source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you come to my rescue, o brave SlimVirgin, when I'm drowning amid multiple opposes based on that one source during FAC? White steed and everything? --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed come to your aid, not only with a white steed, but with knowledge of the policies, links to previous discussions about this if I can find them, and other people who will support what I'm saying if needed. It wouldn't make sense to refuse a citation because of a website that it happens to be hosted on, because an online link is never required for a citation, so you can just leave it off if someone objects. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The writer of the story responded:

"Hi:

Don't think I can help you much. The article is copyright 2001, New York Times Syndicate. It ran the week of September 24, 2001 and I distinctly remember the day I talked with her (September 11, 2001) because she was stuck in Toronto due to the attacks that day (and was driven home because all fights were canceled)

What you saw on that site is the full story, but I don't think the Syndicate has it on file anymore and there's no URL to send. Stories for the Syndicate go over the wire like a Reuters or AP story, so the only URLs would be those of the outlets that ran the story. Any page or volume info would, again, be outlet-specific. I don't even have my finished copy of the story anymore, since that was two or three computers ago. So, all I can tell you is it'd be accurate to flag the piece as: Sept. 24, 2001, New York Times Syndication Sales Corp.

Hope that helps,

Ian"

Any tips or suggestions on how to cite this? --Moni3 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation would be:

<ref>Spelling, Ian. [http://www.davidlynch.de/harringnyle.html "Laura Elena Harring Explores The World of David Lynch"], ''LesbiaNation'', November 2001.</ref>

If you like, you can add at the end of the citation: "first distributed by the New York Times syndicate, September 24, 2001." SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an e-mail address on the Web for what looks like the author. It's ianspelling at filmstew dot com. He'll know the exact date of publication in LesbiaNation and elsewhere, and whether it's hosted anywhere else. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I got hold of Ian Spelling through scifi.com. That's his reply up there to my inquiry. He doesn't have the story, but he verified that what is on the fansite is the full article. I'll amend the citation, and I appreciate your support. I've been able to track down almost every other fansite citation I used. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help, Moni, though it was stupid of me not to notice that the thing you posted above was from the author — I just glanced at it and missed "Ian." Anyway, feel free to give me a shout if you need further help. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic I think you are using is absurd. the article has been published elsewhere by a reliable source, so the link to the fansite is only a courtesy link That would be true only if one had access to the reliable source. We can't, as general practice, pretend we have seen articles that may not exist, and such pretense should not pass our most rigorous review. The idea that one can use a fansite as a reliable source for a reliable source is surprising. Is that what you were saying above, or are you factoring in the other attempts at verification? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is moot, but what would you suggest if, hypothetically, The New York Times archives burned down and all past copies of the newspaper were destroyed forever? --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a helpful thought experiment, but I wouldn't suggest using purported mirrors on unreliable websites to imply one had the article to hand. That's unacceptable ethically and in terms of best practice. And "courtesy linking" to the mirror would be in breach of our policy about linking to copyright violations. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of how neat or not my thought experiment is, this should probably be addressed at some point. A story was written, and the distributor and original publisher no longer have a copy of it. The author verifies the mirror site story is correct. If there's no procedure in place for a case similar to this, there should be. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

—You're talking about a case such as yours here. I was addressing Slim's view, which did not seem to factor in any attempt at verification, and which said that it was fine to give the impression you had seen the source, and not a mirror of it (which remains bad advice in my view even in your case, I think you need to add something like "Reprinted on davidlynch.de, verified as correct by original author.") 86.44.30.169 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What to cite if I translate them from Thai Wikipedia?

I would like to translate some articles from Thai Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. I'm not the person(s) who wrote those in Thai Wikipedia. I feel a little awkward to copy those references without knowing what are those. So now my question is that

• (1) Should I copy all the sources and paste into English Wikipedia although I never read those sources before?
• (2) If the original article has no reference, what should I cite? Thai Wikipedia itself with the revision number?
• (3) What should I do if someone else found out those the references and the articles themselves are irrelevant? or no one really care to read the references part?

I realize that some of those sources must be in Thai language, but poor sources are better than no sources. Thanks. --Manop - TH (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V#Non-English sources -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? --Manop - TH (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did. You said:

“ I would like to translate some articles from Thai Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. ”

and asked:

“ I realize that some of those sources must be in Thai language, but poor sources are better than no sources. ”

I replied with a pointer to a policy page which says, in part:

“ Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. ”

I realize that this is not a complete answer to your question, but I thought that it might give you some useful info.

Pardon me for trying to help. It has been said that no good deed goes unpunished.

Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my words. I would like to help Wikipedia. I didn't mean to be mean. If you feel sad, I really sorry about that. According to the (strict) policy, it seems to me that if I cannot find any reference, I should not write any single thing and turn back. --Manop - TH (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I've just seen wiktionary cited as a source in the Till Disambiguation page. Is it possible that I can propose that this be discouraged by wikipedia policy? I say this because of the possibility of feedback loops.

For example, a vandal makes a change to a wiktionary page which is then copied into wikipedia by a legitimate user, who assumes it to be true. He then cites Wiktionary as the source. Meanwhile, at Wiktionary, the vandal's edit is checked by looking at the relevant wikipedia article. The wiktionary "checker" then cites wikipedia as a source - Wikipedia cites Wiktionary, and Wiktionary cites Wikipedia. May I suggest users cite the source which wiktionary cites, or not at all.--82.152.177.245 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations to wikis are strongly discouraged per the reliable sources guideline because of just the scenario you mention. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Date format in footnotes

The format listed in the example footnotes here is, I believe, Month Day, Year (with the month written out and the day/year as numerals). Should this not be the same as the guideline date format in the Manual of Style, ie without a comma separating the Month/Day and Year and perhaps with a choice between Month Day and Day Month based on article consistency? Or should the Month Day, Year format be used universally for references per Harvard style? I've just been reformatting the dates on a couple of articles, and while the article itself is straightforward there seems to be some confusion as to the exact format of the footnote dates. Adacore (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting your information; Month Day, Year is the standard American style and is one of the formats found in the manual of style. Day Month Year is the standard Commonwealth style. Both styles are options found in the date autoformatting menu. Citations in articles generally wikify these dates so that they conform to reader preferences. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The dates section of the manual of style specifically states "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year." It's this use of the comma I'm querying, mostly, along with whether the choice between commonwealth/american date formatting is available. Adacore (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your quote from the MOS refers to the case with only month and year without day. If the date to cite were "January 2001", there would be no comma. "Full date formatting" (with day month and year) is the next section of the MOS. I've edited to indicate that phrase only applies to "partial dates". Gimmetrow 08:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense - thanks! So as I understand it, date format in references, like date format in articles can be of any acceptable style so long as consistency is maintained, yes? Adacore (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing DVD's

Can you cite a DVD as a source for information ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same as video and other film formats. Arnoutf (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and punctuation

The para should be changed to one standard, the wiki and Chicago MOS standard of footnotes coming after punctuation, not both. There's some to be said for consistency. The option to have footnotes before punctuation should be stricken. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The current language was the result of a recent lengthy dust-up on that issue. Personally I think that we might as well have editors act at their discretion in areas where consistency is of no discernable value. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think simply having consistency over either a large segment of Wikipedia, or over at least the more prominent articles, would be a discernable value. I'm not interested in revisiting that "lengthy dust-up", but I would like to ask a related question: is the Vancouver system of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or not? Gimmetrow 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's of value if a reader likes consistency for its own sake, but it's not obvious to me why one might do so. Most readers will approach Wikipedia one article at a time and minor inconsistencies across the collection will not be troublesome. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are benefits to editors, too. But like I said, I'm not really interested in revisiting that. Now what about Vancouver? Gimmetrow 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rlevse and Gimmetrow; the last go-round wasn't so much a dustup as people just grew tired of the edit warring from a few editors. Wiki has reached a level of importance that warrants having our own housestyle, for consistency and maintenance purposes. I support a return to the long-standing, previous wording, which reflects consensus and practice on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording before the edit warring last October was:

Where to place ref tags

Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.<ref name="location">This is the convention used in the Chicago Manual of Style</ref> The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks,<ref name="location"/> without an intervening space in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.<ref name="location"/> The same is true for successive ref tags.<ref name="example"/><ref name="location"/> The exception is a dash<ref name="location"/>—which should follow the ref tag. This is the format recommended by the [[Chicago Manual of Style]].<ref>"''Note reference numbers.'' The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." (''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494)</ref>

Example:

According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005</ref>
however the moon is not so big.<ref>Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 46(78):46</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>

Comment: It might be useful to think of users as human beings, members of a species able to keep only a limited number of things in their heads at one time, particularly when their participation is as volunteers without renumeration. Which policy or guideline are we willing to put up with users forgetting about to make room for this? Feels WP:CREEPy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I'm not against easy-to-use tools that assist users in providing nice-looking, standardized styles or the creation of bots that can conform styles after-the fact. I'm against imposing these sorts of style requirements on the backs of ordinary users, particularly if not accompanied by any proposal for tools or bots to make the burden easier. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shira, this is not something brand new. It was the guideline for over a year, and there are tools to take care of it, so it imposed nothing on the backs of ordinary users. Gimmetrow 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very helpful and very easy to understand. I don't know why it was removed and it needs to be reinstated asap. Tyrenius (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Programmatically, writing a tool to "fix" misplaced references after punctuation would not be a terribly difficult task—assuming such tools are not already available, as it appears there might be—and should little affect the decision. The MOS has previously drawn hard boundaries on style considerations which vary outside of Wikipedia, for example, on punctuation inside of quotation marks. The guidelines should do the same here, without any pussyfooting. I recommend restoring the previously existing rule to a simple, easy-to-follow, requirement to put ref tags after punctuation as indicated. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation." - This wording, given in support of the option of punctuation before ref tags, seems rather a weak rationale to me. Now, if I were invited to contribute an article to Nature, then, sure, I'd follow their house style too. But as I contribute to Wikipedia then I'll try to follow Wikipedia's established style. The expectation for different editors to follow consistent style guidelines rather than all simply doing their own thing is really the whole the point of establishing style in the first place. I don't really see the need for guidelines to pander to one or two editors who can't get their heads around this. --SallyScot (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where were you all when this was dragging on for months? Gimmetrow 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Asking a question again for lack of response: is the Vancouver system of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or not? Gimmetrow 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Vancouver. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles it sounds like pretty much anything goes. Whether we might want to be more selective and venture to establish a smaller subset of preferred styles for Wikipedia is another question. --SallyScot (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the CITE guideline is clear that any system is acceptable: "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." This is an ENGVAR-type issue: everyone believes their own system is superior, so we generally just take the first established style unless the editors of an article agree to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Re. where were you all when this was dragging on for months? - From my initial readings on the subject I'd kind of assumed that the dispute had been going on forever. If on the other hand it's more true to say that the CMoS recommendation was in place well before one or two editors came along with their alternate style then I'd suggest they need to do better with their argument than "some editors prefer...". It would be like a new editor coming along now and insisting on capitalising all words in section headings (e.g. Where To Place Ref Tags instead of Where to place ref tags) on the basis of their preferring the style of some other publication.

Perhaps I've missed some salient argument, perhaps previous discussions became entrenched and adversarial instead of encouraging consideration of alternate rationales. In any case I invite proponents to summarise their reasoning again here.

I must say however, if all that can be vouched for the approach of putting references before punctuation is "some editors prefer" it, then I'll suggest there as no serious objections to restoring the CMoS recommendation that references should follow punctuation - on the basis it is the style which was established here first.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you look through the archives of this talk page and that of footnotes. If you do you will see that this dispute had gone on for more than a year. I strongly suggest that the compromise is left in place. No it is not true that "the CMoS recommendation was in place well before one or two editors came along with their alternate style". I can provide links to archived sections links dates of page edits etc etc but you can find those in that archives. Let me know if you need them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW "many" and "some" was a compromise but the editors in the dispute were more evenly spread than that. So one can equally argue it is "some" like CMS and "some" like Nature and the thundering herd don't care. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Philip. Yes, if you can provide links to relevant archived sections links, dates of significant page edits etc that will be of great assistance. I realise such stuff is preserved in the archives, but with it being spread over this and the Footnotes article, and with there being so many archives overall, I don't think I'll find it that easy having not been involved with the discussion before.

I suppose what I'd really like to see is a key summary of the main points. I understand such occasional summarisation is recommended practice for lengthy discussion topics. I'd like to understand the reasoning, such as it was. Surely there was something more substantial put forward in terms of argument in a dispute that's gone on for more than a year than it being simply a matter of personal preference.

I don't want to prejudge the issue, but I have some concerns from comments such as SandyGeorgia's above "people just grew tired of the edit warring from a few editors". If indeed, as you suggest, it is not simply the case that a few editors were trying to get their way using brute force with relentless reverts and edit warring until others just grew tired, then it should be possible instead to briefly surmise the actual rationale of the arguments given.

Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I've read some of the archives (namely archives #17 & #18) and I can see that it's probably unfair (and unhelpful) to just imply one side in edit warring over the other. However, while I accept that some editors will simply have become exhausted over this and hence understand how the compromise wording came to be, I have to say, for anyone seeking guidance as to appropriate style, it looks rather like a lame fudge. In that respect the "some editors prefer" wording doesn't really resolve the issue, and it's likely to continue getting raised in discussion as people read it and just think, ...huh?

If indeed it turns out we cannot agree a style here then at the very least I think we should somewhere summarise the rationales for the different approaches. That way a new editor has some assessment criteria and can hence judge for themselves as to what might be the best approach for their article. - Which is really what I was getting at with my earlier requests for summary.

One thing that I didn't see enough of in previous discussion was people trying to rationally justify their own POV. Comments such as "Citations/footnotes before punctuation looks awful. This is obvious..." are practically useless in moving things on. If anything such remarks are counterproductive as they only encourage an "oh no they don't", "oh yes they do" pantomime and consequent further entrenchment.

Now, I would suggest that one of the reasons underlying the argument that punctuation before the reference looks bad is because it cuts the punctuation adrift. With the references being superscripted as they are, commas and full stops are inevitably left somewhat floating in space.

It seems to me as if this issue has not been properly recognised or addressed by those arguing for punctuation before the reference. Not only that, regardless of the separate issue of whether Wikipedia house style should allow any approach in this regard, I haven't actually seen any examples which really demonstrate such precedent. The example that's been given over and over is the style of "Nature". However, it seems to me that there is an important difference between typical "Nature" references and typical Wikipedia references; a difference which has a direct bearing on the punctuation "floating in space" concern.

The point is that punctuation will inevitably be cut further adrift by longer reference notations. And Wikipedia reference notations will be at least three times, and typically four times, the length of "Nature's". Wikipedia's inclusion of square brackets practically ensures that by itself. "Nature" references are of course not parenthesised. I don't know why this difference in parenthesis hasn't been picked up already. But in any case, and in addition, I'd also suggest that you'd be hard pressed to find many articles in "Nature" which extend to double digit references, whereas this will be typical for mature, well referenced articles in Wikipedia.

The guideline wording saying - "Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature" is trying to suggest that this¹, in effect, is really the same as this^[10], or even this^[12][34].

I doubt if what I've written above will alter positions which have already become entrenched, but, as I say, some summaries of the main points and counterpoints could be included perhaps on a "Further considerations" subpage and referred to by way of a note / link from the main project page. This would inform editors of the reasoning that has been put forward on either side. It would hence facilitate assessment as to the relative merits of each approach, and thus help editors decide overall for themselves what might be best.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (June 2007) for what at the time was thought to be the agreed compromise wording, that is roughly what is in the guideline now.

But see also:

The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes by SlimVirgin at 05:38, 17 May 2006 without any agreed consensus to do so. The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Citing sources by SlimVirgin at 18:54, 29 October 2006.

• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#citation_location (March 2006)
• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#Citations and punctuation (April 2006)
• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive4#Period/Full Stop and reference location (May 2006)
• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive4#Every sentence should have a reference? (May 2006)
• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive5#Ref after punctuation and the no consensus trap (May 2006)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive5#Position of footnotes (July 2006)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive6#American/British style (March 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation this includes: (June 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#Where to place reference tags (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#What do we agree on? (straw poll on ref tag placement) (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#The fundamental issue (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#Compromise (August 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#Tags placed after punctuation: continuing a previous dispute (8 November 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Referenced at the end (December 2007)

• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive14#Footnotes come after punctuation (October 2006)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive16#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (May 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (June 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive18#Placement of footnote reference tags (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive18#Always place references after punctuation (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite_sources/archive18#Refs after punctuation (July 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:Cite_sources/archive19#Reference tags (October 2007)
• Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive20#Deterioration (January 2008)

Also:

• Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7#Reference tags and spaces (19 November 2007)

The reasons for the preferences for different styles are spelled out in detail in these archives. But if you want them listed out yet again I can do so. I would point out to you that the wording of "many editors prefer ...CMS" and "some editors ..." was a compromise as Septentrionalis has pointed out it is actually "some editor prefer ... CMS" and "some editors ..." is a more accurate reflection of the number of editors involved in this debate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than be dogmatic, it makes sense for the location of a reference relative to punctuation to depend on what element is being refereneced. I.e., if a particular reference supports an entire sentence, the reference should be after the full stop. If a reference is used to support only a particular word or phrase, it should go directly after the element it supports. E.g. "The ball is big,^[1] blue, and heavy^[2].^[3] ... 1. A. Smith, "The ball is big"; 2. B. Jones, "the ball is heavy"; 3. C. Baker, "The big blue ball is heavy""--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What do other style guides say?

Thanks for the links Philip. Hopefully I'll get a chance to have a read through more of them. Though I'm not sure I'll manage everything that's been said since the year dot. At this stage I'm a bit concerned that some contributors on this subject have been abandoning good principles of encyclopaedic research in favour of their own POV+OR.

I know there's more latitude in discussion pages, and I realise we're talking about guidelines rather than a regular article here, but really, if more editors thought along the lines of citing their sources instead of simply making stuff up, I'm sure this debate would've moved on quicker. For example, Jeffro77's point above - "it makes sense for the location of a reference relative to punctuation to depend on what element is being referenced" - I have to ask... where does that come from?

With regard to any issues of this sort, the case will always be stronger with good supporting references to existing style guides, ones well-established and already out there which set such precedents. One would still be entitled to argue that sticking to a single house style would be preferable, even if that style choice was somewhat arbitrary, but it would have to be conceded that the case for alternatives would at least be stronger if it could be shown that they weren't simply on-the-spot contributor inventions.

With this in mind I Google searched: footnote number punctuation

I got a number of results, in addition to Chicago Style, including University style guides such as the University of Minnesota and the Australian National University, and other institutions such as the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)'s style guide and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) style guide.

It could be argued that some of these bodies may simply be copying Chicago and in that sense they're simply multiple references to the same style. Perhaps more significantly then, it seems as if other major guides including Dictionary.com, APA and MLA, also suggest that superscripted numbered footnotes are placed after punctuation.

I haven't yet found any major style guides that explicitly recommend superscripted numbered footnotes before punctuation. So it could be suggested that the practice of the journal Nature doing this looks rather idiosyncratic in this context.

Does anyone know if 'Nature' has a formal style guide published as such? Or, in lieu of reading back through further archive discussion on this, do we have any other style guides out there which support the adoption of the 'superscripted numbers before punctuation' approach?

--SallyScot (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are others (Eg an EU one), there are others (journal of the ICRC) that leave it to the editor to decide, please read the sections I have given you to read to find the links to those and others. Why are you so dogmatic about this? It seems to me that you wish to do away with a compomise that took a long time to agree on. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If Sally really is doing a lot of work and making a good-faith effort to contrast and compare style guidelines, that would be the opposite of "dogmatic", but I don't know the history of this argument. Potentially, the consensus here could be affected by Version 1.0. Please see the discussion below at WT:CITE#STYLE1.0. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the links above for a history of the dispute? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'll try and get through as much as I can with the archives. But I invite other contributors to summarise previous arguments in the hope of eliminating some of the prior repetition, static and noise.

Now, as Philip quotes the EU guide above, I can take it that he considers this one of the stronger examples. Reconfirming its candidacy in this way clarifies for me that it's something I should consider seriously and look further into.

I meant this one: "3.4.1. Citations and recitals (preamble)" as well as the one you mention below "8.1. Footnote references" and not the one specifically for bibliographies. Indeed as pointed out in an earlier thread the EU seems to have no problems with different forms of citation for different types of documents.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What you pointed out in an earlier thread (archive 17) was erroneous. There you said that page was "a page specifically about writing Biographies, not any other type of EU document." The guideline is of course not specifically about writing biographies, neither is the EU guideline particularly suggestive of different forms of citation for different types of document. Their style guideline suggests different formats for bibliographic references in comparison to other types of footnotes, including EU 'citations'. The EU's use of the term 'citation' is more in a legal sense. It's not the same as Wikipedia's and is not interchangeable with our encyclopaedic sense of a bibliographic reference. Their 'citations' refer to the EU's own legislative documents, such as Official Journal treaties, accession acts, agreements, protocols, and conventions. Any other type of reference, i.e. to that of the work of another author or organisation (i.e. what we might also call a citation) would fall under its categorisation covered by section 5.3.4 Bibliographies. --SallyScot (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, from Eurpoa (the portal site of the European Union) - Interinstitutional style guide - 5.3. Preliminary pages and end-matter - 5.3.4. Bibliographies...

There are two different systems for presenting the references in the text for a bibliography; one is numerical (the numbered system), the other is alphabetical (the Harvard system). In the numbered system, references are indicated by numerals in square brackets, placed after the punctuation, and the bibliography is printed in numerical order, also using the numerals in square brackets.

- Note my emphasis on phrasing above. This is quite explicit about the placement of references with respect to punctuation. It doesn't mention the use of superscript and doesn't include an example; it may not look quite the same as Wikipedia, but in any case, it clearly contradicts the 'references before punctuation' argument here.

However, the EU style guide does make a distinction between bibliographic references and other types of footnotes (an issue also in discussion on this talk page further below), saying that one of the footnote forms is...

figure in superscript between parentheses with same value as the text, preceded by a fine space and followed by any punctuation:

References to the Commission Regulation (¹) also appear in the Council communication (²); but not in text of the Court of Justice (³).

Here note that the parenthesis are clearly not superscripted. I suppose this is one way of avoiding the issue of punctuation floating in space, but I'd suggest it isn't really applicable for Wikipedia, given that our square bracketed numbers are wholly superscripted, and there being little likelihood of this changing just to follow an EU style.

A particular reason for bringing up the issue of further examples is that our guideline wording says...

Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation.

...and the "such as" phrasing looks rather like weasel words unless some other supporting examples can be found.

Once again please, can anyone provide examples, other than the journal Nature, which put wholly superscripted references before punctuation? - I'm looking for established style guides that explicitly describe such practice. And yes, I have been searching myself, but so far this has only resulted in me finding further style guide examples in support of putting them after punctuation.

Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"but I'd suggest it isn't really applicable for Wikipedia" is of course your opinion :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that using parenthesis which are not superscripted like the EU do for footnotes isn't really an applicable way of avoiding the punctuation 'floating in space' issue here because Wikipedia's ref tags look like this.^[99] I'm not really sure what your counterargument would be. Are you suggesting that editors could include them manually and additionally like this (^[99])? Or are you suggesting that some further development work needs to be done to change the way Wikipedia's ref tags work purely to support the EU style? --SallyScot (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we use one or the other. I was just pointing out that that is a style guide that places numerical footnotes before punctuation. I am not suggesting that we ape any particular style. See below for my comment about a serious problem with using the CMS on paragraphs that change over time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for style guide examples that explicitly suggest putting superscripted references before punctuation. My point was clearly about the EU's use of parenthesis which are not superscripted. You suggested the EU guide, so I assumed it to be a good candidate. Yet it advises bibliographic numbered references in square brackets after the punctuation, and only includes footnote reference numbers before punctuation with full (not superscripted) parenthesis. On that basis the issue of superscript does seem to have significance. And, if anything, it looks like the EU has specifically adopted an approach which acknowledges this. --SallyScot (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have not found anyone or anything else (a manual of style or otherwise) that follows Nature's example. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the earlier discussions on this subject I provided an ICRC journal article which uses the same style as Nature. There are other articles other that use other styles as the ICRC journal style guide does not specify where to put the superscript notes. I am sure that other journals could be found, but I see not point when guidelines are meant to suggest styles that editors use, and clearly in Wikipedia more than one style is used. For scientific articles about subjects that clearly ones that appear in Nature, editors and readers are likely to be more familiar with Nature style citations and I do not see why this guideline should force on them a style that they are not familiar.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following SallyScot's argument, Harvard referencing or non-superscripted before-punctuation referencing should become SOP - they are the most widespread styles by far on a global basis. Superscripted numerical after-punctuation referencing is not very frequently seen outside American English sources, and when it is it is mostly limited to the social sciences, which make up only a fraction of the total material which is citeworthy on Wikipedia. I estimate (from a very quick-n-dirty check in my library) that some 75% of natural science journals use Harvard refs, and the rest is about equally divided between some sort of after-punctuation (almost all US publications) and some sort of before-punctuation (almost all non-US publications) numerical footnoting. I do not think it is wise even to recommend a style that is largely limited to one particular country and only predominant in one particular subject matter. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Arguing that Harvard referencing or non-superscripted before-punctuation referencing should become SOP is not really following my argument at all. Others have successfully argued for the inclusion of Harvard referencing in Wikipedia on the basis that it is widespread; if you want argue that Wikipedia ought to support non-superscripted numbered referencing on the same basis then go ahead and argue for it. The fact remains that Wikipedia's footnote references are otherwise currently superscripted and it's in that context that the placement of punctuation should be considered.

There are efforts hereabouts to suggest that the use of reference tags after punctuation is something of a Chicago American English oddity "mostly limited to the social sciences, which make up only a fraction of the total material which is citeworthy on Wikipedia". But from my investigations it isn't just the Chicago Manual of Style. Other guides including Dictionary.com, APA, MLA, Oxford/Hart's style and Bluebook legal style also suggest that superscripted numbered footnote references are generally placed after punctuation.

Editors coming to these pages for guidance on such matters might consider what other style guides say in the main to have some bearing. As it stands at the moment I feel that the guidance wording ought to be changed. I intend to include a further note advising of the above guidelines, all of which have explicit advice on the matter, in addition to the existing CMS note. And on that basis I will also reword the advice closer to that prior to Philip's edit of 11:50, 22 March 2008 as I believe the pre-existing was a more accurate reflection of the situation. Also, if anyone wants the "style of journals such as" wording to remain with regard to the journal Nature, then I think it needs to be better supported to avoid the accusation of weasel words.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit restored a compromise worked out over many months. If you have read the archives, then you will realise that the current wording was a compromise and that no one particularly liked it but was one that everyone could live with. The current wording on the page does not claim that "the use of reference tags after punctuation is something of a Chicago American English oddity" it only claims that some editors prefer CMS and some editors prefer Nature, both of which are easily proved by reading the archives. Please explain how that is using weasel words and please do not change the wording in the section without demonstrating a consensus to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly stand to see refs before punctuation, but I see no benefit in stirring the issue up again. It led to a nasty series of edit wars over multiple pages, leading to page protection, with no one emerging from it looking very sensible, so I think we should let sleeping punctuation wars lie. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Philip, I don't think it is true to say that your edit restored a compromise worked out over many months. Your edit of 14:40, 20 March 2008 claimed in its edit summary "The balance for footnote placement. has been tipping in favour of afterendians so put back more balanced wording for beforeedians". This was reverted by SandyGeorgia a few minutes later at 14:43, 20 March 2008 with the edit summary "Restore footnote placement, did I miss the discussion somewhere?". You reverted again claiming "Yes SandyGeorgia you must have done please see the talk page.", suggesting that somewhere in this discussion you believe you've established a new consensus. You changed the wording that said "many editors put the reference tags after punctuation" to say "some editors put the reference tags after punctuation". The many editors wording had in place for months before your change. You seem to have just forced your preferred version through based on your personal feeling that what was already there wasn't quite balanced enough for your liking. You did not get consensus. However, rather than get involved in a discussion about the difference in what exactly was meant by 'some' and what by 'many', I thought I'd do some further investigation as to what a range of other style guides say, in order to contribute something more substantial.

My proposed wording follows from that investigation.

Ref tags and punctuation

Footnote reference numbers may appear mid-sentence, but are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph.

Editors following established style guides, such as Chicago/Turabian, Oxford/Hart's Rules, MLA style, APA style, IEEE style and others, will observe that, except for dashes, superscript footnote reference numbers generally appear after punctuation.

Some editors prefer the approach of the journal Nature, which places superscript reference numbers before punctuation.

If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.

Notes

1. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494 - "The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." - See also CMoS Online, Style Q&A, Punctuation.
2. ^ Other established style guides suggesting that superscript note reference numbers should generally be placed after punctuation include: Oxford/Hart's Rules, the MLA Style Manual, APA Style, Dictionary.com, IEEE style and Legal Blue Book Style.

Believe me, if I'd found an even 50-50 split in the guides, I'd be happy to reflect that. I can see why you might want a new editor think it really was six of one and half a dozen of the other, but it's not what I found.

I think if an editor comes here looking for style advice then they may reasonably want to factor this information into their decision. If you think I've specially cherry picked references to some guides and conveniently ignored others and been biased in that way then that would be a different matter. Otherwise I don't really see a reasonable justification in suppressing the information.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would draw you attention to the second from last paragraph in the section #Where to place ref tags immediately above this one that starts "The reasons for the preferences...". If you would like to add a second footnote after the CMS that notes the other styles also use this style,<ref>This is a style also recommended by CMoS Online, Oxford/Hart's Rules, MLA style, APA style, IEEE style and others</ref> I personally would have no objection, but I do object to your changing of the paragraph so fundamentally as it bloats the section unnecessarily, destroys the current symmetry and will encourage others to add many more style guides in an arms race that will not bring clarity. This is after all a style guide and not an article on citation styles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The part you refer to above "The reasons for the preferences..." may be your justification for making the 'many' to 'some' change, but you didn't necessarily have consensus, and it doesn't necessarily square with your later claim - "My edit restored a compromise worked out over many months". Your objection to my breaking the "current symmetry" seems something of a golden mean fallacy. I didn't want to get into a tiresome debate over what constitutes 'many' and what constitutes 'some', so I've instead proposed a wording which doesn't try to categorise the number of editors preferring references after punctuation. It simply suggests that the 'after' approach is consistent with other style guides. If a style guide 'arms race' ensues and it starts to get silly we can look at it again and deal with it then, for example, by creating a project sub-page for those that want to drill-down to such detail. Who knows, we might even find a widely established guide which explicitly advises superscript references before punctuation. I'd be more than happy to see such inclusion. As it stands though, I don't agree that my edit bloats the section, and I think it is much more informative than the woolly false compromise "some editors" edit.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"and I think it is much more informative than the woolly false compromise 'some editors' edit." of course you do otherwise you would not have made the edit! I do not agree with you that it is a false compromise which is why I made the reversal. That you are trying to force through a change suggests to me that you are in support of after punctuation citations and are not interested in a compromise, but wish to force your views on everyone else. It was an insistence on footnotes after punctuation that caused the disagreement in the first place. Why do you think that after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation? Have you read the problems mentioned below that this style causes given the dynamic nature of Wikipedia articles? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference would be for Wikipedia to have a consistent style. I would comply with references before punctuation if that were the established convention. As I've already said, if I were invited to contribute an article to Nature, then I'd have no problem following their particular in-house approach. However, having now investigated a number of general and widely applicable style guides, it is apparent that the more common convention is to place superscript reference numbers after punctuation.

Even so, though I may argue for it, I have not tried to force through any change to the guideline wording that eliminates the before punctuation option. Your accusation that I'm not interested in compromise is unfounded. My proposed wording does not correspond to "an insistence on footnotes after punctuation". Meanwhile, I have pointed out that your claim above^, that your 14:40, 20 March 2008 edit "restored a compromise worked out over many months", is not in fact true. The compromise wording you refer to actually said "many editors put the reference tags after punctuation" (my emphasis).

Even though I believe it's the case that more editors go with references after punctuation than before, I could see how the definition of "many" could be argued over. I've proposed a new wording which doesn't get into this.

In reverting my initial implementation of new wording you suggested in the edit summary that it had "given undue weight to the after-endians." - A point which remains unsubstantiated. You suggest that including reference to major style guides breaks some kind of preordained symmetry. In this discussion the references after punctuation approach is characterised by yourself as "the CMS style", which you suggest should not simply be aped. But your reaction to other guides being mentioned is now concern about the section becoming too bloated.

Considering the amount of discussion there's been on this topic, brief mention of four major style guides in addition to CMS in the text, with a footnote to support and suggest a couple more, is fairly succinct. It's one single sentence. It's just better substantiated than your "some editors" version (or the previous "many" editors version come to that).

You need to raise a substantial objection to the content as it is proposed rather than change the subject. By which I mean the question - "Why do you think that after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation?" - isn't relevant. Read it again and you'll see that I'm not proposing a wording change which says "after punctuation citations are better than before punctuation". I've simply included some referenced information, worded fairly and neutrally, which adds to the overall value of the guidelines.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you were putting in words that explicitly stated that after-endian is better, but one can make a point through presentation, as any graphic artist will testify. As a compromise solution I have added the additional guidelines. I would prefer not to do so because I think it over eggs the pudding, but I hope you will accept it as a compromise so we can put this dispute to bed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. My 'presentation' is only intended to suggest what I found - here that superscript reference numbers appearing after punctuation seems to be the more usual convention. I think it's reasonable for the guideline wording to reflect this. The 'established' wording pre 20th March did this by saying "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are normally placed immediately after the punctuation…" I'd like to see that restored, with the addition of my new supporting reference.

I realise the process can seem painfully slow, but I have to say I also have issues with the supporting wording around Nature. The style guides suggesting "after" punctuation are more widely applicable than a single journal. As it stands, Nature's approach should really be identified as being a particular in-house style rather than "the style of journals such as..."

--SallyScot (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations at the end of a paragraph

My major objection to the CMS style is end of paragraph references. It is impossible to tell if a citation at the end of a paragraph is a reference from the start of the paragraph -- or from the last reference (which ever is closer) -- or if it is just covering the last sentence. This is a particular problem for Wikipedia because at any time an editor may add a sentence to a paragraph which the reference tag at the end of the paragraph does not cover and without a detailed study of the history of the article it is not possible to tell which unless one has access to the referenced material. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating this stuff about ambiguous references. It has been pointed out ad nauseum that your proposed solution to this alleged issue would not fix the issue one single bit. Gimmetrow 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it is a problem and it needs to be solved. By whatever means are expedient; unambiguous sourcing is (IMHO) the single most critical point in Wikipedia. Did you notice how the lack-of-quality naysayers have largely disappeared in the last year or so, coincident with the Wikipedia community placing more emphasis on sources?

Every few weeks I come across factual errors, which ultimately turn out to be based on ambiguous citations and sourcing - be it by the Wikipedia editor, be it by the authors of the original sources which have simply not read or ambiguously cited their sources. This phenomenon is considered a pressing problem in the natural sciences; see here for a review. (It may or may not be interesting that they use before-punctuation footnoting despite being UCLA scientists) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

With "whatever means are necessary" I mean: if Wikipedia - considering the limitations and opportunities given by the underlying codebase which make it precedentless (see also WP:NOTPAPER) - establishes its own style guide, so be it. (From my personal experience with a range of style guides common and in-house, ChiMOS is the last thing I could recommend with good conscience.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the goal of referencing is to help people who do have access to the referenced material? Anyway, in a paragraph that has a topic sentence, references for that sentence will mostly likely support the overall paragraph, while references on subsidiary sentences are more likely to be for those sentences alone. So if there is a genuine opportunity for confusion, it can be remedied by rewriting the paragraph to make it more clear what the overarching claims are, and attaching the general references to those claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am doing mainly referencing and no source is too obscure or exotic for me as long as it's scholarly. From my experience it would be nice if the approach you suggest worked. However, it does not; on the contrary, simply assuming that the topical sentence is referred by the source at the end of the paragraph is highly misleading. This is because Wikipedia articles are not generally written as scientific articles are (you take a source and reword its content, then you take the next source, etc) but piecemeal; content is added irrespective of relevancy of sources, but rather where it fits best from an aesthetical standpoint. And many paragraphs do not have a topical sentence.

(As I see it, the aim of referencing is to encourage people to read more and educate themselves and do not just believe something just because it's written, without caring about where it comes from. Sources provide a "do you want to know more?" for all sorts of cool and interesting facts. Therefore I always try to provide links to full-text versions of sources.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The goal of citing sources is not primarily about "encourage people to read more" -- that can be done through simple "References" and "Further reading" sections -- it is as a quality check as Dysmorodrepanis pointed out "lack-of-quality naysayers have largely disappeared [since citations started to appear]". On reading a Wikipedia article it would be very tedious to check every citation if all one is interested in is an overview of a subject. I suspect that most readers assume that someone else has checked the validity of the citations in an article. But the dynamics of Wikipedia editing means that although an after punctuation citation may still fully support the sentence next to the citation, one can not guarantee that it covers all the sentences from the start of the paragraph up to the citation. Unfortunately with CMS style citations at the end of paragraphs readers will often assume that it covers the whole paragraph and not just the last sentence (which in many cases, when additional sentences have not been added to a paragraph, may well be true and the intention of the editor who put the citation there). Personally I would like to introduce a hybrid style, to deal with the unusual dynamic environment that is typical of the writing and maintaining of a Wikipedia article, however I recognise that at the moment there is not a consensus for such a combination, but at at least for those articles that are written using the Nature style of citations, there is less chance of misunderstanding than for those articles written using the CMS style, and for those articles written using the Nature style it would be a retrograde step to alter them to the CMS style because it introduces the ambiguity I have mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your alleged "hybrid" style does not solve the alleged problem you are claiming exists. This has been pointed out multiple times. Gimmetrow 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the problem not exist Gimmetrow? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't shift the topic. Whether the "problem" exists or is significant is not the critical issue here; your proposed "solution" doesn't fix it. Gimmetrow 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not shifting anything, I am asking do you think it is a problem because as you wrote "alleged problem" you might not think it to be a problem. Does the problem exist Gimmetrow? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are shifting. You point to an alleged problem, and then present a "solution". You have continuously been challenged for months to demonstrate that your solution even fixes the problem you claim exists. Not only have you utterly failed to make any such demonstration, you do not even change your argument to reflect the fact that your solution has been challenged on this precise point for months. Gimmetrow 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh cut it out already! The question to ask here is "What can be done to alleviate the situation?", no? "How can it be achieved that to the average reader, references are as clear and as unmistakeably placed in regards to referenced claims/statements as by any means possible?"

"The average reader", I'd guess, is likely to be from Europe, North America or Australia but may come from anywhere in the world and is at least capable of understanding Special English.

From the growth pattern, language and style of "amateur" contributions - basic formatting, no fancy tagging, reffing, catting, templateing etc - as far as I can observe them I would say that there is a general growing popularity of the en.wikipedia in (S(E)) Asia. Which may raise the stakes here; one can assume that someone from say Brazil will have no problems understanding any "Western" referencing style, but we might be getting many new members who are far from being embedded in Western culture and might not understand just any style with ease. I don't know if I'm correct; to seek out input from novice users may well be worthwhile. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? It seems to be irrelevant. Gimmetrow 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you contribute anything or are you just here to troll? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You interjected comments into a discussion that appear to be completely unrelated to that discussion. Care to explain your comments, while respecting WP:NPA? Gimmetrow 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

←Let's ask the question another way: what you're saying seems to be incomplete, Dysmo. Can you point to an article or a series of articles that seem to be a problem? I hate to be self-promotional (no I don't), but I believe Good article usage is about the right level to attack problems like this. We should keep a firm eye on changing trends in layout, wikification and language usage, but the study needs to be large, random, and careful. Take away any one of those adjectives, and what you've got isn't very useful. Feel free to come help out by reviewing articles which have been newly nominated for GA status, which is probably as close to random as we need to get. There are a few more details in the long discussion (and support) at WT:MoS, but WP:GAU reasonably covers it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It can not really be random as it takes a specific set of circumstances to throw up the problem. The article needs to carry sufficient citations of the CMS type that it could be taken for granted that the citation at the end of the paragraph refers to the whole paragraph, but that paragraph has had text added that is not covered by the citation. Typically these are controversial pages edited by a number of editors who are not very familiar with citing sources. Articles up for Good Article are usually in fairly good fettle before they are nominated and are not usually controversial or still under development (they tend to be fairly stable). I'll have a look through a couple of candidates that I can think of, but most of it would be historical (as I fix such things when I see them) and I have more pressing ways to spend my time. Next time I come across an example though I will be sure to place it here :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example notice the movement of the Paddy Ashdown sentence from below the citations to above. It is impossible to tell from the arrangement after the edit that the citations at the end of the paragraph do not cover the Ashdown sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Try for example Protoavis, where precise referencing is crucial because this thing is one huge controversy (luckily, not the article - but the sources are full of mud-slinging). I have footnoted some sources; somebody had added a whole bunch of refs that are not cited already, so I suppose eventually it'll be more than just the few cases where it's ambiguous. I guess that the good Dr Witmer would not find it amusing if his name is connected with any of the reconstructions of that thing (as per the Zhou quote). That is a good example - you have a paragraph that ends on a contradictory statement. If properly shourced, the paragraph itself would probably be full of Chatterjee references - so full that one could actually use "The Rise of Birds" as default ref for the entire para. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

References

And maybe we could have curve brackets instead of square for some further distinction, producing...

Example text, more example text. A point made with a supporting reference. A second appearance of a note.

Notes

References

--SallyScot (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point with Bill's is not that it's easier to code, but that it already exists. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be asking for <nb> tags that handled auto numbering if they already existed. --SallyScot (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a "How to write them" section for Harvard or author-date referencing

Hi. I went ahead and did this edit, but User:Hu12 reverted it and says I should make sure nobody has trouble with it first. Two points: 1) the main Harvard referencing has been retitled to Author-date referencing; it's more descriptive, got more hits on Google, and doesn't have uncertain usage (I'd never heard of Harvard referencing before Wikipedia). 2) The footnotes section jumps right into a "How to write them" section. If people are looking at Wikipedia's citation guidelines, it's likely that they already understand what citing sources means. It's best to get them into the mechanics fast -- that increases the likelihood that they actually will cite things. ImperfectlyInformed | talk - contribs 00:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a good change and no one has a comment, I'm putting it back it back in. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the {{Harv}} and {{Citation}} templates have several advantages over the cite id html tag. Would you object to changing this section to recommend their use? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can add those in as a separate option, but citation templates should not be required: those both look overly complex, and generate more wordiness on the page. If you want to make them more understandable, that'd be nice but the anchor method needs to stay in as an option. I don't like templates like that -- they take up far too much space (especially in the References section). Doing simple anchors makes a lot of sense; it's very easy to understand. Unless I'm missing something, I see no advantages. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a professional editor, but here are two advantages I see: (1) I am sometimes mystified by the hidden meanings apparently intended to be implied by the various italicizings, boldings, parenthesizings, groupings, orderings, etc. done in hand-formatted citations. Looking at the wikitext de-mystifies this if it's a templated citation. (2) If WP ever does standardize on a citation style, a lot of hand-editing of individual articles will be needed to bring hand-formatted citations into line; templated citations, OTOH, can be brought into line by adjusting the template. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are fair points, but until we start requiring templates for regular citations, I don't see why we should require them for author-date citations. As far as the referencing of articles goes, you're right that it can be a little mysterious, but generally the first number is the volume, the second the issue (usually in the parentheses), and the pages have a dash in between them. Does that help? It's no harder to remember than those citation templates -- actually much easier. Also, someone could probably write a bot which could format all citations with anchors or bots in a certain way, could they not? Given that author-date citation have a strict format of [Author (date) 'Title' Journal ect.] it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Feel free to add the templates in addition. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates: How to use them

Following on the discussion above, I've added a "How to use them" subsection under Citation templates. Since that Citation templates section follows both Inline citation styles and Footnotes, I've made the example I used relevant to both. Feel free to improve what I've done. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-in-line citing

What should be done when in-line citing is not appropriate in an article? In The Tales of Beedle the Bard, all the summaries (scroll down) are referenced by a single link, which I just placed in the References section, since I thought in-line citing was not appropriate here. Is this fine? Also, is there a need for separate sections for the 'standard' references and the link; can't they be included in one single section, entitled 'References' or 'References and notes', like in Caesar cipher? diego_pmc (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They can be included in one section as "references" or "references and notes". Plot summaries are a good example of where inline citation is probably not needed and I don't see why it would be in this case. However, a reviewer of the article would probably complain (incidentally to your question) that the reference is not properly formatted. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed citation style guideline

In my opinion, we need a detailed Wikipedia guideline establishing recommended citation styles a) that are not redundant, b) that are compliant with widely accepted formats, such as the APA style and Harvard referencing, c) that are possibly dependent on the field of study considered, and d) that are flexible enough to include links to external and internal pages. Note: Whether or not we should use templates to achieve this should also be addressed. To implement the proposed standards, we can start by recommending the agreed upon citation styles for new articles and by encouraging uncontroversial changes to old articles. Some time later, we can add the recommendations to the GA or FA criteria.

Opinions?--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re a) I don't understand what you mean with redundant. b) Harvard is one of 3 allowed citing styles (although the footnote type is more frequently used) So I do not completely understand that this would change anything. c) We already have 3 options that cover natural (footnote type) and social science (Harvard type), although this is not linked to type of article. To be honest I disagree as the encyclopedia should provide information to the interested lay-reader. In other words, if you are a psychologists you should not use Wikipedia (but primary sources such as scientific papers) for psychology topics, but you might be interested in robotics articles (so APA style for the Robot article would be my favourite as reader ;-) d) Http: adresses already allow external linking, wikilinking seems less necessary, but ISBN numbes for example already do this.

In brief, I think most of your ideas are already implemented and I do not see what would change. Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. What we have now is a free for all system in which any Joe can use any citation style in any article. What I am proposing is a system where one widely recognized citation style, for example APA or Harvard, (or possibly a number of non redundant citation styles such as these) is specifically recommended across Wikipedia. By "redundant", I mean equivalent and interchangeable. For example, the template families "Citation" and "cite" can both be used for the same purposes in the same articles, they are redundant. They also do not comply with any widely used citation formats, such as the aforementioned. The result is confusing for newbie editors and alienating for scholars, who have to learn various wiki-specific citation styles and other styles made up by wikieditors. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For example, the template families "Citation" and "cite" can both be used for the same purposes in the same articles, they are redundant. No they can't; citation and cite shouldn't be mixed in the same article, because they use different styles. See WP:CITE#Citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that they are equally appropriate for the same articles, unlike Harvard and APA, which are not redundant in the sense that in some articles one citation style may be more appropriate than the other. "Citation" and "cite" are essentially redundant in that sense. Of course, articles must not mix different styles. I hope this is clearer. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference would be a single referencing style fo all of Wikipedia; with a single set of supporting templates. I don't mind whether this is APA, Chicago, Harvard, Science or Nature as long as it is consistent and comprehensive. However, the history of Wikipedia has been fairly organic on this file and it seems unlikely any consolidation will be achieved soon. I am ~very sceptical about a topic specific style as this would open up all kinds forks and/or edit wars arguments (consider Neuropsychology - Should that have a medicine, physics or psychology style??). Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and consensus will likely be easier to reach if we allow the use of several non redundant citation styles without imposing "topic specific" style restraints and if the use of templates for this purpose remains optional. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates certainly need to stay optional. I'm not sure there needs to be a single system, but there's pretty close to a single system among all scholars: it's either footnotes a la Chicago style or author-date a la APA. we should endorse a hybrid system of footnotes and author-date referencing for all articles; do what makes sense. Why? Author-date makes it easier to reference lots of different pages and sections from one very good resource (i.e. a book), while footnotes are handy for the things which don't have to be referenced by the page. As far as I can tell, to reference different pages with footnotes requires an entirely new footnote. And actually the Chicago Manual of Style endorses a hybrid system. See CMOS §16.26 and §16.63. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on a long wikibreak. When I come back, I'll file a formal comprehensive proposal (not sure whether I should do it here or at the village pump). I'm ok with both Arnoutf's and OptimistBen's recommendations, so if they decide to go ahead with their proposals, that would be great. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

←I'm sorry you're leaving for now.I've reopened this discussion a few sections below. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is generally that people are more likely to add citations if they can add them in whatever style they personally favor, without feeling that they aren't doing it "right". I also find that conformity across the whole encyclopedia is rarely of value to either editors or readers, despite the fact that achieving it usually requires many man-hours or work. As such I would be very hesitant to support a proposal like this. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Parham on this. The underlying question, as I see it, is this: should this style guide recommend a single standard way of verifying all of Wikipedia's articles? I can see arguments on both sides:

PRO:

1. If there was a single standard, it would be easier to learn, so new editors would be more likely to use it, so articles would be verified quicker and easier, resulting in a more thoroughly verified Wikipedia, and therefor a more accurate Wikipedia.
2. A single standard would simply look better and be more professional, giving Wikipedia more authority.

CON:

1. A single standard can't be created by simply changing a style guideline. A single standard requires changing thousands of articles. This an enormous task, but could be carried out by a dedicated group of editors. This would also allow the participation of all of Wikipedia's editors. (See #2)
2. Wikipedia's style policies should represent a consensus of all of Wikipedia's best editors, not just the few who happen to be watching this style guideline on a particular week. Editors who disagree with the style guideline will be unwilling to change their articles and will argue that the style guideline should be changed. If a consensus has not emerged amongst the articles as to which method is best, then a consensus is unlikely to emerge for the style guide.
3. This is an example of instruction creep, which creates problems where there are none and can lead to arguments that cause talented editors to leave Wikipedia for good.
4. If one method is truly superior, then it will eventually be adopted by more and more editors. Enforcing a particular method in a style guide prevents this bottom-up, quasi-evolutionary method from finding the best solution. This violates the very spirit of Wikipedia.

I'm persuaded by the second set of arguments. This issue is best decided by the editors of each article. I support any "dedicated group of editors" who actually take the time to standardize large numbers of articles (provided they always take the time to discuss their proposed changes with the editors who watch those pages, of course). But I don't think a style guideline is the right place to attempt to force standardization. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'd like to clarify a couple of things. What I'm proposing for the implementation of the guideline is that we require new GA, A, FA and FL articles to comply with the new citation style standards. In this regard, we could create an "official" team of editors dedicated to fixing citations in articles nominated for formal reviews as well as in those article that have passed formal reviews. Also, any disputes among individual editors regarding citation styles would be resolved by administrators in favor of the new guideline. In articles not formally reviewed where there would be consensus to keep the old citation styles, these would stay. This way, people would be allowed to add citations to B-class, Start-class Stub-class articles in whatever style they personally favor, unless individual disputes would occur. But in order for those articles to be "vetted" by a formal review process, the citation styles would have to comply with the recommended formats. This way, B-class, Start-class Stub-class articles will not be required to follow the guideline unless disputes arise, in which case, individual editors who prefer the recommended formats will be free to change the citation styles, but no citations will have to be deleted on the grounds that they are not compliant. This sort of lenient approach, will work far better, in my opinion, than a more restrictive approach in achieving the intended result, which is the implementation across Wikipedia of consistent, professional, widely known and easy-to-learn citation style standards.

The enormity of the task that we face in this regard in no way lessens it's merit. In an ideal world, all Wikipedia editors would be watching this page and commenting on guideline proposals. The fact is only a handful do. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to create standards to improve Wikipedia? I don't think so. My contention is that, if we implement this guideline change, we will gain more editors in the long run than we might lose in the process, because of possible disagreements and disputes, which would be minimized with the approach that I'm advocating. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I personally believe that compliance with a specific citation style guideline should be a requirement for new GA, A, FA and FL articles, I also think that simply having such a guideline will likely encourage editors to follow it, whether or not it is in fact added to the formal review criteria. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the main drawbacks in the citation style that is incorportated in Wikipedia is the reliance on one style (APA) and disregarding the most common referenceing style, the Modern Language Association (MLA) guide which is predominately used in publishing and academia for social sciences' works. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

punctuation and cites.

In regard to my discussion for a bot request, I've noticed Wikipedia policy does not as of yet strictly conform on this issue. I believe the Chicago Manual of Style is more encyclopedic and readable (and made to be a standard) than the Nature journal, which isn't necessarily an encyclopedic structure and mimicking a use in a popular publication isn't a valid precedent to starting and encyclopedia standard. It doesn't portray itself as a standard, and I think Wikipedia should make a move to place full stops before & against (i.e. no spacing) the citations. Furthermore it violates proper grammar (and therefore the integrity of the article itself as readable) by truncating the punctuation of the sentence structure and leaving what is conveyed unfinished before it can even be questioned by the cite or tag. (Which I think is impulsively jumping ahead and not a cool headed way to smoothly convey an idea into an encyclopedic context, which I feel violates the spirit of NPOV as well). By this reasoning I think there should be a vote to make this. the standard over this. At least in the permanent regards (I can see it as being transitory as in the "citation needed" in-line tags but not where it is a fixture in the article). 67.5.147.10 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We just discussed this at great length recently, and I'm not sure this is the best time for another drawn-out discussion on the matter. For my part I disagree with your proposal; I don't see a compelling benefit to readers or editors in requiring the use of any particular format across the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that imposing formulas may be counter-productive, although since many editors are unfamiliar with style guides and exclusively rely on templates, is there a reliable Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide? The MLA style is widely used for referencing social science works which represents the vast majority of Wikipedia writing. As for guides, the MoS already states that articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

The main problem with the ChiMoS is that it's very geographically restricted in use at present. You may not be aware this is you are US American, but it has rather little use outside the US, whereas it is really "the" standard in some branches of science there. From what I've seen, more people on a global scale are familiar with Nature-style footnoting than with ChiMoS-style footnoting. The former is globally widespread, the latter is overwhemlingly common in the US and little-used anywhere else.

This is a huge problem; IMHO the ChiMoS is the worst to use as a general guideline. Not because it's so region-specific, but beause it's so radically so. As an evolutionary biologist, I would say that it mandatorily demands one of the most autapomorphic Standard Englishes anywhere in the world. Where would one stop? The same argument that is rehashed ad nausaeam by SallyScot and a few others can be used to argue for Wikipedia to make certain other types of punctuation mandatory, many of which are to any non-US American clearly erroneous - and the citation style of the ChiMoS is a direct consequence of its general way of dealing with punctuation, not something that is derived independently.

Two examples:

• Serial comma
• Verbatim cites. To add a fullstop inside quotation marks if there is none in the original text (as the ChiMoS demands IIRC) is a butchering and garbling of the source, unfit of an encyclopedic work striving for (and arguably still having some problems with) accuracy.

In brief, were the ChiMOS not so ardent in its promotion of what according to the vast majority of the world's English speakers constitutes bad and even wrong English, I would be more equivocal. But I have professionally encountered most of the MoS commonly used in the natural sciences, and the ChiMoS absolutely blows by comparison when it comes to being exact. I would go as far as to say: if there is any commonly-used MoS that must not be allowed at all in an encyclopedic work, it is the Chicago MoS. It allows more than any other commonly-used MoS to deliberately fake citations and butcher quotations. In the restricted and competitive field of the sciences this may be acceptable. In an open and cooperative project like Wikipedia, the ChiMoS is just a vandal tool. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question posed

Is there a specific requirement that a bibliography only list the full notations of a Harvard-style citation? I could not find a MoS note but this may exist in an FA, GA or other guide. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Proposed rewrite of 'What to do when a reference link "goes dead"'

I propose a rewrite of the article section portion, Wikipedia:DEADREF#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. Previous discussions on the topic appeared in the following article talk sections.

1. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 8#Sources that are defunct external sites
2. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 8#Dead link details
3. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 9#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"
4. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 14#dead links and MLA style
5. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 14#blacklisting known expiring web sources
6. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 15#Marking links as inactive
7. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 18#Intermediary sites, dead links, retrieval/access dates

Start of proposed rewrite, to replace all the section text after the WP:DEADREF shortcut:

---

When a link "goes dead" (see link rot and Wikipedia:Dead external links), it should be repaired or replaced, if possible. In most cases, one of the following approaches will give an acceptable alternative.

• First, check the link to confirm that it is dead. If the link has returned to service but has been labeled as a dead link, simply remove the labeling. See Template:dead link.
• Find a copy of the referenced document. There may be a copy of the referenced document in a web archiving service. If so, update the dead link to point to the copy of the referenced document.
  • For the Internet Archive, go to http://www.webarchive.org/. Also, see Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. Note that there may be a delay of six months before a recent link shows up in the Internet Archive.
  • For WebCite, go to http://www.webcitation.org, and use their search page.
• Find a substitute for the referenced document. Enter key words or phrases or other content from the cited material into the referenced website's search engine, into a similar website's search engine, or into a general search engine such as Google. (A search engine may hold a cached version of the dead link for a short time, which can help find a substitute.) Or, browse the referenced document's website or similar websites. If you find a new document that can serve as a substitute, update the dead link to refer to the new document.
• Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. (This may happen, for example, when an online copy of material that originally appeared in print is no longer online.) In the remaining citation, note that the dead link was found to be inactive on today's date. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions. In order to deactivate the dead link, do one of the following.
  • Turn the dead link into plain text. Remove only enough of the dead link's wikitext or markup language or URI scheme (square brackets, "http://", and so on) so that clicking on the link does not take you to its destination. This will make the link visible to both readers and editors of the article.
  • Turn the dead link into an HTML comment. Place HTML comment markup language around the link. This will make the link disappear when reading the article, but will preserve the link for editors of the article.

If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link.

To help prevent dead links, consider citing reference sources using a persistent identifier such as a digital object identifier, if available; or consider archiving the referenced document online when writing the article section, if permitted by copyright. Also, consider avoiding links to web pages that usually disappear after short periods of time, such as at some news sites.

---

End of proposed rewrite. Please comment on this proposal through 2008-05-20 to build consensus. BrainMarble (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the language about removing contentious BLP statements supported only by dead links. Do you believe that your rewrite incorporates any material changes to the actual advice, or do you intend it simply as a rewrite for clarity? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the rewrite proposal after working through a series of backlogged dead links using the original version, and after reading the previous discussions. The rewrite is a clearer version of the procedure, to me; but I'd like to find out how it appears to you and other editors in this discussion, before posting it.

Thanks for your note on biographies of living persons. Would the following statement work, inserted as a paragraph between "If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced..." and "To help prevent dead links..."?

Whether a dead link can or cannot be repaired or replaced, remember that Wikipedia policy (including policy on sources and biographies of living persons) still applies. Consider doing further edits of the citation and cited material, if appropriate, to improve the article. --BrainMarble (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Does a Myspace bulletin count as a reliable reference even if it was posted by a reliable source?RaptorX (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the source can be written out as reliable source without the myspace connection, it would have a better chance of being accepted as reliable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

Flash Websites

When dealing with a purely Flash driven official website, is it considered acceptable to source it with the main URL? How should one indicate when "page" of the site the information is being sourced from? As an example: http://www.lastexiledvd.com/ is the official English site for the anime series Last Exile and is being used as a source for the English titles and the English DVD and CD releases for the series. It may also be used later for the character descriptions and other plot related stuff. However, the entire site is in Flash, with no HTML alternative. For now I've sourced it using:

"Official Last Exile website" (Flash). Geneon Entertainment. Retrieved 2008-05-14.

I basically just want to be sure this is acceptable, or if there is something more I should add to ensure its being cited properly. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

citation patent

User:Wackymacs referred me to the {{citation web}} type of template to use in history of computing hardware. Is there support for the needs of a patent citation, e.g. {{citation patent}}? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The analog to {{cite web}} is {{cite patent}}. {{ref patent}} looks superior, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Parham, thank you. I incorporated your suggestion. Do you have a recommendation for a Nobel lecture citation. It's for the same article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal citations for modern English law

I've been trying to bring the citations in Paul Diamond (lawyer) into conformity with WP:CITE, but an English lawyer is rather unhappy with how I formatted them, and disdains Bluebook as too Yankee. Could somebody come to the talk page of that article and offer some advice? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This English lawyer is amused that a Yankee quaker is beginning an argument in the first place. Wikidea 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation of subscription-only content

I've just discovered a citation link to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary, a subscription-only site to which the majority of the world does not subscribe. There doesn't seem to be anything in WP:Cite on whether such citations are permitted or not. Have I missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.198.70 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline disallowing them, so they are allowed. This makes perfect sense, because paper books, newspapers, and magazines are also allowed, and those must either be purchased, or viewed in a library. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't abbreviate journal names

We often read that something was published in J. Am. Phys. Soc. or something like that. That's standard in scholarly journals. I'd prefer to have a policy against such abbreviations, in favor of writing Journal of the American Physical Society instead. Wikipedia does not have the limitations of print journals, and hence doesn't have the need for such abbreviations, and often there can be uncertainty about the name of the journal, especially when it's not in one's own field. If such a policy were established, the huge volume of editing to conform to it in all the articles we've already got might require a bot to go through and search. Mistakes might happen and might offend some people, so we'd have to take some precautions against that, maybe even notifying people who've edited an article so they can vet the bot's work. Or the Wikipedian's work.

Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur, wholeheartedly. Within a given discipline, many journal titles are familiarly known by an abbreviation, but Wikipedia is not restricted to a single discipline. For example, the abbreviation MLA is used for the Music Library Association, the Modern Language Association, and the Medical Library Association, all of which publish journals (not to mention the Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council, and the Mississippi Library Association, neither of which seem to have a journal, but share the abbreviation).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose time is being volunteered to go back through the 2.3 million pages either writing out journal names or vetting a bot? Are you offering? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All of us, of course. Millions of Wikipedians. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A simpler thing is just to add it to the guideline, perhaps as a recommendation, and let people gradually implement it over time after that. By the way, I also think it's better not to abbreviate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would make it a guideline; and support Carl in not strictly enforcing it and go for gradual improvement. Abbreviations are not always consistent; so a bot would be difficult. By the way not all scholarly journal use abbreviations, journals published using APA (american psychological association) style have the full journal title. So yes I also support full journal title guideline. Arnoutf (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. (Changed from neutral.) I'm not okay with "We've changed our minds, let's go back and change the formatting on all our articles, this looks nicer." I'll ask WP:FAC and other people to join the discussion. - Dan (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I shouldn't have put it that way, people might say I'm canvassing. I made a post on WP:FAC, and when I saw quick response, I didn't notify anyone else. The people who have to deal with these things every minute clearly have to be notified of this kind of proposed change. - Dan (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that a complete citation is preferable because our product is geared to a general rather than a specialist audience and full citations are clearer and more understandbable for a general audience. However, because many of our editors are specialists used to specialist methods of citation, and because abbreviations are standard practice in the specialist world, using abbreviations which are standard in the field shouldn't be made wrong or unacceptable or be a basis for removal. Because it can be hard just to get people to give citations at all, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So I wouldn't phrase it as "we shouldn't abbreviate" or give people yet another no-no, I'd phrase it as full citations are preferable and try to explain to editors why, and try to educate editors to take a look at the point of view of the readers. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should write the reference to this article as: Pis'ma v Zhurnal Eksperimental' noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki 45:1943,1963  :( Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping (I think!) the use of templates for this purpose: {{j am phys soc}} could expand out to its full name easily , the above example moreso. (I know certain behavior of wikilinks fail in ref templates, but I think templates remain ok...) --MASEM 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to this notion, which comes around periodically. For entries in PubMed (which is a lot of journals), Diberri's tool has been used on Wiki for years to generate citations, with abbreviations, and changing them all would be a poor use of editor time, since the full journal name is in the PMID link, one click away. For a sample of the unnecessary work this idea would generate, look at DNA, and notice the full journal name is always one click away, on the PMID or DOI link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the PMID or DOI link any additional information is redundant. Add to that the fact that if you Google any of these abbreviations (I just tried it with about ten) you get the journal as the top hit. Therefore, as this information serves no vital purpose, and the abbreviations are just as good search terms as the full titles, I don't see requiring full titles in part of a policy as making things any easier for our readers. However, if Diberri's tool or the Scholar Wiki search engine spat out full titles as default, that is what I'd use, but I certainly wouldn't bother filling them in by hand since that would be a complete waste of time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, since (I believe) the PubMed database accessed by Diberri stores the journal names as abbreviations, this would invalidate Diberri's tool, and the natural sciences articles folk would have to start generating cite templates by hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be possible to produce a tool that retrieved the PubMed abbreviation and referred to the list of standard PubMed abbreviations (link) to expand the title, but it might not be that straightforward. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no techical reason Diberri's tool cannot output the full journal name as an option (of which the tool has many). The tool reads an XML document such as this (view source to see the structure), which contains:

<Title>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America</Title>

<ISOAbbreviation>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.</ISOAbbreviation>

So this could be an option that editors can choose, much like they choose the citation format they prefer. And with Tim's list, there is no reason a bot/tool could not be used to help automate conversion -- though I would be opposed to making it anything other than editor choice on an article basis. Colin°^Talk 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Whilst I accept the initial proposition's observation that "Wikipedia does not have the limitations of print journals" there is a "need for such abbreviations" and that is our poor readers who do not have an unlimited ability to scan through full journal names that may easily stretch to nearly the whole width of a line. Any article that gives a few references to "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America" is going to look horrible and we are supposed to also care about copyediting issues as editors, and not just the bulk of text we can type in as writers. What I look for first in a reference is the title and whether it has relevance to the question or issue that I seek to understand better. Next is still not the journal name, but the year; frankly a discussion on best chemotherapy for a cancer written in 1980 is of (almost) no relevance now, irrespective of how good the journal was. I can probably make a reasonable guess at say "Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg", "Am J Gastroenterol", "J. Pediatr. Surg" or "J Clin Exp Neuropsychol" and yet have never seen nor read any of these journals. The last thing I need cluttering up articles is drawn out screens of references and nor would anyone who seeks to print out several articles. Have a guess at “Acad Rev Calif Acad Periodontol” – we can have a good idea, but full title of “Academy review of the California Academy of Periodontology, United States Section, ARPA Internationale” is just silly in our attempts to allow people with 800x600 screens to also read pages. We also forget that the full journal name often includes mention of the publishing medical group; hence “Acta Belg Med Phys” is clearly about Belgium Physical Medicine, yet the full name parameter would show “Acta Belgica. Medica physica : organe officiel de la Societe royale belge de medecine physique et de rehabilitation” or “Int J Dev Neurosci” clearly International Journal of Developmental Neurosciences, but take a look at “International journal of developmental neuroscience : the official journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience” and at 135 characters long, cite 10 articles and the journal name alone occupies 4% of a "reasonable" 35Kb sized article.

The next proposal no doubt will be to insist on full names of authors with expanded forenames, indeed lets never have "et al" as Wikipedia is not short of space. There again, let’s not be miserly and consider why we do not advocate freely including the complete abstract paragraphs of PubMed (it is a publication of the US government after all) ... :-)

Clearly this is not how most biomedical journals format their references, and we have come to accept abbreviations throughout the rest of cite journal format with "12 (6): 25-7" being in full: "volume 12, issue 6, pages 25 to 27". Indeed this is part of the learning curve for people to understand references in the real world when they look at hardcopy papers and their reference list sections, nor do we treat our readers as infants wikilinking on section titles to help them understand what "Symptoms", "Diagnosis" or "References" are, so why oblige as a guideline on full journal names ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If a journal is notable enough to be a reliable source, it is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. So, when using Diberri's tool, click "Link journal" to Wikilink the journal abbreviation. Then, create a stub for the journal if it doesn't exist yet (using Template:Infobox Journal where appropriate), and create the needed redirect. (Perhaps someday we could include the brackets directly in Template:Cite journal.) --Arcadian (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, although unfortunately (in my opinion) some deletionists regularly go after academic journals on "notability" grounds: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion contains a history. The inevitable deletion nom tends to dampen the enthusiasm of anyone inclined to chip away at Wikipedia:List of missing journals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a sea of blue WP:OVERLINKing in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're opposed to linking the sources in citations? I have to say I find it extremely useful (about a billion times more useful than linking the dates). I'm not suggesting it be required, but am more concerned about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on journals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm opposed to bots, scripts, templates or whatever methodology automatically linking journals in citations. If you have, for example, The New York Times used 30 times to cite an article, I don't see the need for a sea of blue to link every occurrence. As in all linking, WP:OVERLINKing should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got the overlinking now, because Diberri added automatic links to his tool, and it's not optional (at this point). That means if you use the same journal multiple times in one article, they all get automatically linked now by Diberri, so we get not only a sea of blue, but a sea of red as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is such an incredible statement that I'm going to add you to my list of Wikipedian absurdities. On second thought, you make a good point about bots doing it, but I certainly think that journals do need to be wikified once per page if they appear. If you're trying to evaluate science, it's helpful to know the track record of academic journals and researchers. OptimistBen (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is overlinking. WP os not a source for tracking journal reputation. Our coverage of topics is much too erratic for thatto make any sense at all. It's an encyclopedia of articles of subjects. DGG (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias serve purposes: they are references. Journals, since they output primary knowledge, are almost always notable. So is their science, regardless of whether the general public is aware of it. If a journal is involved in something controversial or has a follow-up on some big issue, that likely belongs on their Wikipedia page. And surely Wikipedia is not too erratic to cover journals; Wikipedia's erraticness makes it better at covering these things. I don't know if I'm for wikifying all journals. I'm not sure if I'm in favor of bots doing it either; I prefer that journals be cited in-text and wikified there. OptimistBen (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support 100% This is a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. The argument that would we be required to include subtitles if we didn't abbreviate holds no water. PNAS has a website www.PNAS.org, and it is commonly written on this. Wikipedians, I've come to notice, tend to argue polarized positions: we can't do something one way, because if we did, then everything in the Wiki universe would be forced into that one method. The full title of a journal, in English, less subtitles, is a courtesy to the general reader glancing through a list of references who wants to pick and choose what to read. I research professional journals for a living and come across names of publications, abbreviated, that I can't make heads or tails of, can't find on the Internet, but need as sources (the librarian has a reference for these occasions.) If Wikipedia's goal is a lot of diverse knowledge, journal titles should not be routinely abbreviated because they hinder access for the laymen. Too many editors on Wikipedia argue that additional knowledge is one click away. I disagree with this. An article should be a complete discrete unit of its own, not a collection of clicks. I write for both a technical and a general audience, most scientists do have to communicate with lay audiences. It's no hinderance ot me to include full journal titles. It's the least of the things at Wikipedia keeping experts away. --Blechnic (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support In general I think that studies should be cited in the text with the full journal name. In the citation all you need is the title, the link to the source if possible, and the doi/PMID. It's best to try to citations to the essentials to make editing easier. If there is no link/doi/PMID (in other words, it's a very old article), then you need to do a full citation. But it's preferable to reference the author, the journal, and the date in-text. In the future we can use these to analyze past errors and ethical concerns; it will be HIGHLY useful. I agree that we could be doing more articles on academic journals and academics, and that they are deleted far too often. OptimistBen (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want inconsistently cited articles, one kind of citation if there's a PMID, another if not. Doesn't sound good. What we have now in medical/biology/etc articles are consistently cited articles thanks to Diberri's tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there's certainly consistency in citing internet-available articles one way and the others another way. We should keep in mind that citation templates make editing articles more difficult. Brevity in citations is thus valuable, at least for some (myself). At the same time, PMID/doi's allow even readers of the print version to find the articles. OptimistBen (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Linking in with general use: Pubmed holds medical science related articles. Can you expect an engineer to be familiar with that database. In my field everyone know the abbreviation JPSP, PSPB, JCR and JASP; I guess most of you don't (and anyway JCR can mean any of three academic journals). Pubmed uses different abbreviations to confuse the matter. So Yes, I support full titles as that is clearly non-biased, non-arbitrary and least likely to create ambiguous reference. Arnoutf (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I don't mind if either full names or recognised abbreviations are used (preferably without the dots, IMV), as long as consistent within a list. It's very easy to work out what they mean, and for the user, there's this and this. Tony (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose making this a requirement. WP has a history of allowing freedom in the choice of citation format but cares about consistency within an article. I don't believe any move towards requiring a certain format will achieve consensus. FWIW, WP:MEDMOS has long stated that "Some editors prefer to expand the abbreviated journal name." -- indicating that either style is acceptable, but that neither is preferred by WP. David Ruben makes a good case for why full journal names may be impractical, particularly in a long article with lots of references. Looking to the future, there is no reason why Wikipedia 2010 couldn't take a PMID, DOI or ISBN in the wikitext and format a citation according to reader preferences rather than author preferences. However, given the total inactivity wrt fixing date formatting, I'm not holding my breath. Colin°^Talk 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is open source and written by volunteers. Everyone hates doing their references and endnote is Horrible. I often copy and paste my citations from my work (all abreviated and mostly harvard style). I am against having a standard for references that has to be mannually imposed: There are few editors that try and keep everything togheter and fixing cleanups (way more important), those people are gold and must not be taxed. A unified standard can be discussed when and only when there is a good bot that autonomously fixes all the references using a database index, like pubmed. I for one will not abide by extended references as it will only mean wasting my time. Sorry --Squidonius (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I support this along the lines laid out above. As for the cumbersome task of formatting citations etc.: in Wikiproject:Mathematics, we are using a database called zeteo (which I wrote), which stores all the information (about journals, authors, and the references, as well). So it gives something like

• Milnor, John Willard (1956), "Construction of universal bundles. I", Annals of Mathematics. Second Series, 63: 272–284, ISSN 0003-486X, MR 0077122

(notice not only the fully written name of the journal, but also the issn, which is another valuable information for locating the journal, etc). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is a small step towards making Wikipedia articles on scientific topics more accessible to non-experts, which I see as a good thing, and one that doesn't add significantly to our work as editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as recommendation, oppose as anything stronger. The full name does look nicer; that's why I did it that way in my own dissertation. But I'm afraid that even strong language in a guideline has the potential to become a distraction and irritant. Let's put it in a guideline but make it clear that it's just a recommendation (even more so than guidelines already are). --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as plain unnecessary hassle. Why not leave it alone? Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should move closer to established scholarly practice and not farther away. If this does go through, please make it no more than a recommendation, and please discourage editors going around changing J Clin Psychiatry to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. God knows we have enough lame quasi-edit wars as it is. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment This seems to assume old-fashioned print journals are the standard to which other media should conform. Maybe that's true today, and certainly a decade ago, or five decades, etc., but how long will it still work that way? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (per Trovatore). I think this is a good idea, but it is already a guideline (or was, last time I was up to date) to not use abbreviations. I say, keep it a guideline! That way we have the best of both worlds: well-intentioned (but busy) editors can more quickly cut-n-paste references, and the more detail-oriented folks can fill in the abbreviations if they wish. silly rabbit (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. Keep it a guideline. --Squidonius (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes refence lists harder to read by adding a lot of redundant info (since the abbreviations are standardised it is easy to check in google if there isn't a doi or pmid), and it makes it harder to read journals if you've had to learn another system for wikipedia, and the other way around. Narayanese (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment in my scientific discipline (psychology) full journal names is the accepted standard, so using abbreviations demands me to learn the abbreviations, which may not be standardised at all. So your argument could be used both for and against full names. Arnoutf (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it makes sense to use full names for psychology journal references. Narayanese (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Euhm that's not what I said, in these journals the author is required to provide the full reference, also when a medical journal is cited. I am in favour of: Always being consistent within an article (cf either UK vs US spelling); If possible be consistent in Wiki. So I would accept full ref use in Psychology Wikipedia articles; and standard abbreviations in e.g. medical articles; but not a mix of styles within an article Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Oh, they're standardized? What is the reference for the standardized names of journals? --Blechnic (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is one Narayanese (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One? So how many are there? Do they all agree with each other? Is it inclusive? It looks like, from this resource, that if I want to find what a journal abbreviation means, I have to know what the subject matter is (for example, a biology article may have a medical journal, but would I have to search one of the 11 sources for abbreviations for journal titles in medicine? Or one of about the same number for abbreviations of bioscience journals?)[5]

When I can't find what an abbreviation is for, I have a librarian who looks it up for me. I think she uses primarily one resource for this, but I do use some foreign language journals and some fairly obscure ones, and their titles are not available so readily to the layman as people on this board seem to be saying. I, on the other hand, have to know the full title of any journal I reference. If I, as a writer, am using a journal as a reference for a citation, I have to know what it's full name is. Why not go the sensible way, honor the reader (the person the encyclopedia is written for), rather than the writers? Why not ask the person who already has the knowledge right at hand (the person using the reference) to simply provide it? If it is in the citations list, the reader can see its title. If the writer is using it, they know the title. Technical journals often have very relevant titles, and the reader can decide if they want to access it, or a more familiar one. The writer is giving fuller, more complete information every time they include the full name of the journal for the reader to see, right there, not obscured in its abbreviation. If you've never sat and puzzled through the references in a lengthy research article in Science to get the background for something technical you may not appreciate how much work this is, and not just for the layman, but for the expert.

Consider the audience of Wikipedia. Is it the writer? Or the reader? Is it the technical reader or the general reader? Generally the audience at Wikipedia appears to be the educated general reader. This is the person for whom including the full name of a journal is perfect. It gives him or her sufficient additional information to make an educated decision about the quality of a citation and decide whether or not to pursue it further. The abbreviated title is for the specialist reader of that topic alone, not just for the educated technical reader in general, but for the person already educated in that topic. And, are they coming to Wikipedia for their knowledge? No. I don't get any of my information for my research from Wikipedia. I won't be reading or needing your references, as I can't use them for anything. So, you've designed a system for an audience you don't and won't have. --Blechnic (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PS And references are important to properly written encyclopedia articles. The reference is not a throw-away piece of information for a well-researched, verifiable article. Consider how valuable it is. Is it valuable enough that it should be written out in full and accessible, easily, by the audience? Or is it secondary? It's never secondary if you're not writing original research: you must credit those who contributed. The entire article should rest upon the sources who did the original research upon which the Wikipedia article is based. Don't obscure the sources in any way. --Blechnic (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I think journal names should be expanded to full form to be as understandable as possible to the general reader. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - whatever the result, there are probably people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals who are willing to refine and implement the required edits. I think linking journals from citations to articles about the journals (and sometimes the authors, if they have articles) is an important part of providing the background to the authors and journals we are citing. If a journal has an article, I would say link and either write in full or abbreviate, like we do with qualifications and titles (eg. MD FRCS, FRS). If the journal does not have an article, either create one (if needed) or write the name in full and provide the abbreviation. Citation style is less important than avoiding confusion over what we have cited. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • An example of my idiosyncratic citation style is seen at Thomas Snow Beck. As long as the information makes it into the article, someone else will eventually tidy it up. OK, that's lazy rather than idiosyncratic, but I linked to Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. I agree that there are concerns for overlinking, and maybe some way should be found to identify all the journal links that come from citation templates, and all those that come from elsewhere in an article. Both sets of information are useful. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some journal names are absurdly long and would look poor when cited multiple times. Those people who don't use templates and have to type them in by hand would be likely to make mistakes or shorten very long titles by omitting subtitles, which would hinder finding the journal. I would prefer a guideline which suggested using the long form of the abbreviation, preferably without the points, (for example Proc Natl Acad Sci USA), and generating redirects for journal abbreviations to the full title. That would remove the ambiguity over short-form abbreviations such as PNAS, without taking up too much space. The journal title is generally obvious from the long-form abbrevation, and a glossary of what the common abbreviated words expand to could easily be written. Wikilinking the first occurrence seems reasonable, but guidelines should not encourage multiple linking of the same title in a single reference list. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Since Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, I think that accessibility should be the primary factor in deciding which (if any) guideline to use. The space issue doesn't seem that compelling, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and the difference between, for example, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America isn't really that much (especially in small type in a list of references). Listing the full name of the journal is much more accessible to a general audience, and thus seems to be the best option. Another good option, as has been suggested, is wikilinking each occurrence of the journal title. That way, anyone could easily find out what on earth something like Z Naturforsch B means. Of course, this requires that every cited journal has an article about them, but I (and others) are working on that. ;-) ~ Danelo (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is a non-specialist encyclopedia and should aim to be as accessible as possible. Make this a MOS requirement for FACs if it's not already. I'm not sure a bot could parse all these (and would probably end up only doing some of each reference list, creating inconsistencies, so I don't think it's a good bot task. Mangostar (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia users may not be as conversant with standard sources and their "short hand" abbreviations. The use of full names for jounranls and periodicals will allow a easy reference connection. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
• Technical alternative?. Can the wiki infrastructure support hovering 'thought balloon' type annoation? If so, the abbreviation could be used, but hovering would reveal the full name. This would keep the article shorter, and only those who wanted more information need see it. It would also resolve the case of ambiguous abbreviations. LouScheffer (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concur - general audience accessibility must prevail. Would (for example) the naysayers know what AMI is? Hint: it is not American Megatrends, even if Google says so. Also, one shouldn't intra-link titles (if at all such articles exist) since it fscks up COinS. And what about standard works, like ZZZ, that are not journals? What may be plain-as-day for one person is just alphabet soup for someone else. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Harvnb

With Harvnb, which I am trying to get my head round, how to do you cite a plate? For example, I want to cite Loach, 1999, plate 22. (The plate pages don't have page numbers.) Cheers. I could just write it out, but the rest of the notes are all neatly blue, and I don't want to let the side down.qp10qp (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You can use the "loc" parameter: (Loach 1999, plate 22), or with "nb" (no braces) form, you can just do this: Loach 1999, plate 22. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. (I thought I'd tried that second one and screwed the formatting, but obviously I did something wrong.) The first one is new to me. Many thanks! qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with named references that have never existed in an article.

{{RFCstyle}} I've recently discovered a lot of broken references. These are the short version of named references like <ref name="Lemmey"/>. The long version <ref name="Lemmey"> something here </ref> does not exist in the current version. Using the article history I've found it has never existed in the article. These ref tags give the appearance of a sourced statement that can mislead the reader if they do not look at the reflist. Furthermore it is difficult to link to and from the reflist with the broken reference. The list of broken references and articles can be found at User:Lemmey/L --Lemmey talk 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with these broken ref tags?

• Replace them with fact tags {{subst:Fact-now}}
• Supplement them with <ref name="Lemmey"/>^{[[Wikipedia:Footnotes|[broken footnote]]]}
• Comment them out <!-- <ref name="Lemmey"/> -->

--Lemmey talk 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the BRFA, replacing non-existent named refs with {{fact}} makes them more difficult to correct for a human looking at the last version. In the two examples you gave in the BRFA, I was able to find the intended references, but I don't usually do such searching for mere fact tags. I think simply commenting it out wouldn't work, since the comment is likely to be removed too. Identifying broken named refs for a cleanup category might be an option. Gimmetrow 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All but one were fixed in the example. I also point out that United States housing market correction may not be representative of the majority of other faults in that it was essentially a copy of another article and had rather descriptive tags. With less descriptive names it is virtually impossible for users to find the material in question. By searching the article history the user has already assumed all good faith that can be considered reasonable.--Lemmey talk 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Garrison, North Dakota <ref name="population"/>
• 1921 Detroit Tigers season <ref name=OReilly/>
• Cigarette smuggling <ref name=a/>
• United States housing market correction <ref name="WP April 24 2007"/>
• Bank Rakyat Indonesia <ref name="factsheet"/>
• Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 <ref name=mm/>

--Lemmey talk 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OReilly ref is: Replace that with a fact tag or something equally obscure, and I doubt anybody would find it. Gimmetrow 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: - there are multiple sources of orphaned (missing a parent) or or born-orphaned (never had a parent) named references.

1. Copy and paste from other wikipedia articles, without importing the parent.
2. Re-naming of the parent, or for born-orphaned, renaming of the orphan.
3. Intentional creation of the born-orphaned references.
   

The first two require human research, and I speculate are far more common than the third. This implies that a Bot fixing these cites may not be that helpful, and human intervention is desirable. I guess if you're going to "quiet" incorrect references, a citation needed template with a comment about its apparently lost or never created parent is a step in the right direction. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the following:

• Garrison, North Dakota <ref name="population"/>— Ref tag was added in Revision as of 05:55, November 25, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've removed it, leaving unsupported population figures. Apparently originally sourced from US Census data, but I don't know where to find that specific info.
• 1921 Detroit Tigers season <ref name=OReilly/>—Fixed by LemmeyBOT (Brilliant!! I've awarded a da Vinci Barnstar)
• Cigarette smuggling <ref name=a/>Ref tag was added in Revision as of 03:23, December 31, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've replaced it with a {{cn}}.
• United States housing market correction <ref name="WP April 24 2007"/>—LemmeyBOT has been busy here. I've replaced this remaining uncorrected ref with a . Some googling suggests that the related assertion might have come from a blog.
• Bank Rakyat Indonesia <ref name="factsheet"/>— Ref tag was added in Revision as of 15:28, April 25, 2007 with no ref definition supplied. I've replaced with {{cn}}
• Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 <ref name=mm/>—(and other refs) These were added without ref definitions in Revision as of 07:58, May 8, 2008, cut & pasted from Trevor Lyman. I've imported the missing definitions from there. This article is still a mess.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote Fonts? Current footnotes destroy layout, presentation and readability

One of the reason contributors are reluctant to lather their articles with inline citations is that the g-d footnotes destroy the paragraph formatting and readability of the article. The footnotes introduce unwanted extra line spacing that makes paragraphs visually run together and appear very unprofessional in presentation, with random and choppy confusing line spacing. The more citations, the worse this gets. Isn't there any way to code the footnotes so that the footnotes don't devastate the layout in this way? In a printed book or journal article, footnotes are of such a small font that they don't disturb the line spacing. Can't Wikipedia be the same? Is there any code to do this now in a ref tag? Rep07 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Using the ref tag = using a foot note. I do not understand your statement about it introducing extra line spacing or making paragraphs run together at all. Never seen any instance of that at all. You can maybe resize them for yourself using monobook.css, if its something that particularly bothers you. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes don't introduce a whole extra line spacing, but they do make the line spacing wider than normal, at least on Internet Explorer. Thus the gap between two lines with footnotes will be wider than the gap between two lines without footnotes, and it can make paragraph spacing harder to distinguish. This was explained as part of WP:Footnotes to be a bug. See 2nd paragraph.[6] There's a fix for logged-in users, but not casual readers. It would be better if it were fixed for everyone. Ty 06:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great fix. I've always hated those uneven paragraphs. Is there any kind of a movement to include this as a part of cite.php? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You can start one! Ty 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing Author-date referencing to Parenthetical referencing

I'm sorry to bring this up so soon after I changed it from Harvard referencing based on the misgivings a few people had raised (see that talk page), as well as my own misgivings about the title (nondescriptive, and I hadn't heard it before; wasn't in my reference manuals). After I did it, though, I realized that author-date really refers to the system of citing with (<author> <date>) in-text, APA style. MLA doesn't do this. The broadest, most descriptive name for this type of citation is parenthetical, because it appears in parentheses. Thus, I feel we should switch it to that. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking to full-text articles copied by non-mainstream sources

I'd like some input on this edit. Basically we're linking to the full text of an article. I undid Shot info's edit and added the NYT archive link, but left the full-text for convenience. Petergkeyes claims to have seen the full text, and the NYT archive looks the same for what we can see. I often see links to the full-text of for-pay articles for convenience. Is this wrong? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My input: Wikipedia:Copyrights says, "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." This link should be removed or tagged {{copyvio link}}. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

For clean NYT links, see User:Gadget850/New York Times. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you search for the link you provided back on that article, however, they ask to charge for it. Are you sure you're not kind of overcoming that and breaking copyright? ImpIn | (t - c) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I considered that, but links like these come up in Google searches. I registered with the NYT, but I don't have a subscription. As I noted, the URL comes up in different ways— I don't know why. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/kennerly.html appears to be a copyright-violating link. If it is, it should not be linked from WP. Period. End of story. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as a source

Are blogs an acceptable source?(Bonzai273 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Generally not. See WP:SPS. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whose (am I using the correct word?) blog it is , as SPS notes. RealClimate has been used as a RS. By the way, Bill, did you see my comment on getting the vote out on that code improvement for footnotes? ImpIn | (t - c) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep—never say never. I saw the comment and the vote on bugzilla:12796. Thanks. That makes two. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

alphabetizing authors with different naming traditions

Cambodian names follow a surname + given name pattern. Given names are the names most commonly used in formal discourse. In an alphabetized reference list, should it be Given name, surname or Surname given name? (e.g. name is Chea Phalla [Chea=surname, Phalla=given name], should it be Phalla, Chea or Chea Phalla?) Thanks, Mangostar (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even when English language names would appear as "Smith, Michael", it should appear as "Chea Phalla". If you are alphabetizing a list of authors, the entry would be alphabetized with the "C"s. This is true in all systems I am familiar with. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up: I have changed it so now I'm not alphabetizing, but I'm doing last names first in in-line cites for Western names, and first names first for Cambodian names. But now the issue is how to do op cits for Cambodian names. If you were addressing Chea Phalla in polite company you might say something along the lines of Mr. Phalla, or if you were writing an encyclopedia you would write Phalla. Should I then use Phalla in the op cit refs? It has the disadvantage of being visually confusing, since it's not the leftmost name (since we're righting "Chea Phalla", it is harder to skim for Phalla than if we were looking for "Jones, Smith" based on a Jones reference). Mangostar (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the relevant article is Ratanakiri Province. Mostly now it's just the Sith Samath one that's tripping me up. (And I guess Phat Palith.) Mangostar (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to stick to surnames and use "Chea, op. cit" but you would have to consult the style guide you are trying to adhere to for a definitive ruling. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Best reliable sources

In case of multiple possible references for a statement, the "best" reliable sources should be used. This line from WP:WHEN indicates that best practice is not to cite every possible reference for a statement, but to select responsibly among them; otherwise people are often tempted to string five or more citations together for a single proposition. I believe this is an important balancing guideline for WP:CITE#When to cite, that needs to be stated to affirm best practices; where and how would it best be inserted? JJB 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something which should be left up to the judgement of the editors of a particular article. Some subjects are non-controversial and hardly need a reference at all. Other subjects require intensive sourcing. (For example, when there is a constant flow of original research and fringe points of view. If several major sources make the same point, it proves that it is an essential part of the subject matter.) Sometimes a few extra sources doesn't hurt. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we need a statement about that on this page. It is part of the NPOV policy, and this page doesn't need to repeat everything in the policies. Multiple references for a statement (I mean more than three) are not as common as you imply, and the phenomenon is usually related to talk page controversies of some sort. qp10qp (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates considered harmful

I have grown to loath the citation template system, which I believe is seriously degrading the source text of the wiki to the point of inedibility. I am not alone; when this discussion opened in the tech mailing list, it went on for days. But nothing came of it. I want to make sure people are aware of this problem, and hopefully get some sort of solution.

To be exact, it's not a single problem, its really a combination of two different issues. The first is that the CITE template is, itself, complex. Careful editing is required to ensure that a single-character problem doesn't render the entire article unreadable. But because there are so many "subparts" to the template, this sort of mis-edit is all too easy to make. The second aspect is that references are supposed to be placed in-line. Since the REF tag requires the CITE to be "inside it". The result is that, if one uses CITE + REF, the article source text can be made almost completely uneditable.

How big is this problem? Well a good example came up when I wanted to make a few minor edits to the excellent Cygnus X-1 article. Please take a moment and go read it over. It's fantastic. Now click Edit and try to find anything at all. It's completely indecipherable gobblygook. This is precisely the sort of technicality that can scare away the very editors we need to encourage on the wiki.

The general consensus last time this issue came up was that it was fixable through a change to the way REF works. If we could put the "body" of the CITE at the bottom of the article, where it belongs IMHO, the entire problem would go away. Not only that, but it would make finding, updating and editing references far easier than it is today. In a general sense, what we want to do is place all of the CITEs together, with whitespace of course, at the bottom of the article somewhere, likely inside the References section. Then we would "wrap" these somehow so they would not appear (a hidden DIV almost works). Finally we would place REF tags in the body text as we do today, except they would all be the "short form" that we have today <ref name=thingy/>. This makes everything much easier to read, easier to edit, and IMHO, easier to understand. There were several suggestions on how this could be accomplished.

I really believe that this is a significant technical problem that needs to be addressed. How do I go about trying to get some traction on this issue?

Maury (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but the problem seems to be more how the editors of Cygnus X-1 used the cite template (with each term on a separate line) than with the template itself. It's entirely possible, and in my opinion preferable, to list the terms one after another, separated by the | symbol. In that case, the CITE template isn't much more of an obstacle to editing than the standard footnote entry -- and it does have the advantage of forcing stylistic consistency in the notes.

BTW, it took me a while to accept the CITE template; it lacks the flexibility historians like, but for most published works (which are what we cite in Wikipedia) it seems an acceptable solution. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your claim, and raise you a John Titor. As you can see in this example, the "inline CITE" doesn't really change the situation very much. I'm shooting for perfection here, and I'll happily accept half-way. Maury (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IONO how many people came up with the shortened notes style independently, but I am one of them and I cranked out a lot of such-referenced articles last autumn to make it more familiar. I came to use this style (I found out later it was already being used by many SocSci people, but primarily in combination with Harvard cites and I usually don't do SocSci stuff) to be able to combine a clean referencing format with annotations, i.e. explanatory footnotes in the strict sense. (For me it's basically a Popperian consideration: I don't care how cool a referencing system works under ideal conditions; my aim was a way of referencing the most outlandish sources without breaking, that additionally looks tolerably well and codes cleanly.)

Shortened notes can be spiced up with whatever you like. I needed something that did not break easily, something to handle things like the poetry in Senna obtusifolia or the diversity of footnoteable information in Buteo or things like Passerine#cite_note-13, and I categorically needed alphabetically-sorted reference lists and so on. And there is perhaps one source in 150-200 where I cannot use it straightforwardly.

But I would not recommend to treat it as one of "the" referencing systems. Shortened notes are really more something like a building block or a foundation that can be used in combination with most all referencing systems to make the code neater and articles better-referenced and more informative. The advantage of the shortened notes style is that it can be used (and I can only highly recommend using it) as a baseline. It is clean and flexible, and it is code-wise nonintrusive, does not require templates or scripting except the barest necessity.

It provides a lot of benefits for the scholarly-minded editor: it is easy to see, at one glance, how much of the article is based on up-to-date sources, and what if any parts would benefit from digging up a newer, better source perhaps. References can be neatly sorted; it is very easy to see if one particular source is missing (this can be hard if the entire source is footnoted, as many editors cut corners to avoid overlong footnotes e.g. by just linking to an online fulltext). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found the template to be seriousöly lacking and do not use it. For one thing, it creates between 10 and 50% code overhead, and this is simply bad programming style. But more importantly, as soon as you e.g. cite a text with a lot of East Asian or Hungarian authors in rudimentary style (only initials, comma delimitation), you are likely to run into trouble. Ditto nobility-based names etc. The templates work well for most Germanic and many Romance authors; they are liable to produce ambiguous or wrong cites for anyone else. I have noticed this when I came across some citations that proved to be untraceable, because the shorthand style in combination with the template messed up the authors' names. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I also would like to see the changes suggested above to support the "body" of the CITE at the bottom of the article where it belongs. That said, it's probably worth bearing in mind how the Shortened notes method already described in the project page achieves this. I've copied relevant subsection below.

Clearer editing with shortened notes

Because footnotes work by placing the required content inside <ref> tags within the article text they necessarily break up the text to some degree when in edit mode. Article text can become difficult to read and maintain. In this respect well referenced articles can unfortunately suffer disproportionately in comparison to those not so well sourced. In any case the disruptive effect can kept to a minimum by using shortened notes.

See the "Example edits for different methods" page for some comparative examples using shortened notes and full length references in footnotes. These offer representations of edit mode views with examples of how they render to the reader.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I like the "Shortened notes with wikilinks" version very much. However I find the internal portion "too complex", I would prefer a "fully shortened" version like you outline above. The downside to that version, which is also on that page, is that you have to hunt around for the unlinked reference. But that said, I think that it might be easier, technically, to introduce these changes because all it really needs is an additional tag in the CITE and REF to refer to each other...

<ref cite=smith pages=99-100/> would be the "placeholder" in the text, and by adding a similar "name=smith" in the CITE would allow the system to be completely automated. I threw in the page numbers because everyone complains about that :-) Maury (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One can actually simulate, although not perfectly, this concept. See this version of the water memory article for instance. I used a "trick", and if you look at the source text I think you'll agree that it's very editable. It seems quite reasonable to suggest that there will be some sort of marker where the numbered note will appear in-line, and using the short refs makes it almost trivial. Maury (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution proposed by you here has been suggested before (about 6 months ago). One of the reasons, I recall listed against it, that it may be instable in certain situations/editors. I do agree however that some kind of "reference library" somewhere at the end of the article, only using pointers inside the maintext would be a great development. This, apparently, needs some hardcore code rewriting (which I don;t know anything about). Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes two of us! I did look into the code, and in spite of a relatively knowledgeable background in programming in general, I was completely stumped by the syntax in question and decided it was best left to the experts. :-( I am quite heartened to see that I am not entirely alone in believing this needs some attention though! Maury (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another argument which came up against this "trick" is that all the footnotes produced contain a nonfunctional backlink. In the example article, the final backlink in each footnote is nonfunctional. Placing the hidden div (<div name=cites style="display:none;"> ... </div>) containing the footnote declarations at the beginning of the article instead of at the end provides the additional capability for the editor to control the ordering of the footnotes by declaring them in that hidden div in the their desired appearance order. In that case, however, the nonfunctional backlink in each footnote would be the initial backlink instead of the final one. Bugzilla:12796 is a proposed mediawiki enhancement which would provide this functionality without resorting to the hidden div "trick" and without producing a nonfunctional backlink. Code to implement this is included there. This was submitted to Bugzilla on 2008-01-26, and is tagged "need-review". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a simpler way to do this: use author-date/Harvard referencing. In fact, if you use anchors and then the cite tag at the bottom, you completely avoid these hassles. Now, you can clutter the visible page up some with authors and dates, but I believe that as an electronic encyclopedia we don't have to do that necessarily. We could just do away with the author and date in-text if we wanted and anchor page numbers to the source; if there were no page numbers to reference we could do the author or some sort of title. We're electronic; the author-date isn't necessary in-text. The CMOS basically says: ultimately do what makes the most sense for your reader, and in this case I think we could use an entirely new system, for the benefit of the readers and writers. Also, I like raw citations. The templates are terrible to read, and terribly wordy as well. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I've got nothing against author-date referencing, but it isn't really much simpler than Shortened notes. Shortened notes can be coded as pretty much the same thing, only with the opening bracket of the author-date reference replaced with a <ref> tag, and the closing bracket with a closing </ref>.

An author-date example:

The Sun is pretty big (Miller 2005, p.23),
but the Moon is not so big (Brown 2006, p.46).
The Sun is also quite hot (Miller 2005, p.34).
== References ==
*Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
*Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

Same example using Shortened notes:

The Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller 2005, p.23.</ref>
but the Moon is not so big.<ref>Brown 2006, p.46.</ref>
The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>Miller 2005, p.34.</ref>
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
== References ==
*Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
*Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

--SallyScot (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And author/date doesn't really work well when you're using a reference for a single item. I really hate having to jump from section to section to read it. Maury (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

but how well does "when you're using a reference for a single item" relate to WP, where you are not the only editor of the article at issue?

A-D is less repetitive, however. With your shortened footnotes you would have to glance down at the bibliography, while with A-D you would be taken immediately to the source. I'm not sure I'm following when you say "jump from section to section". If you anchor your A-D references, how is it any different from footnotes? ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, author-date in-text references, if wikilinked, do allow the reader to link straight to references rather than two steps as with shortened notes. The disadvantage with parenthetical systems is that they break the flow of the text for the reader more than less intrusive footnotes references. The effect that this has varies from article to article depending on the number of references of course. Author-date references are fine for articles about uncontroversial subjects which may not require so many references. A footnote system (of some sort) comes into its own the more references are used. --SallyScot (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In a controversial article, readers might or might not find the author-date system more intrusive. If the reader is checking the source of each claim, and the reader becomes familiar with the various source authors, it is more convenient to have the source of the claim right there in the text. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The option to use inline author-date referencing is available. No technical barrier exists which would prevent use of both inline author-date and footnoted author-date references. Without closely re-reading the current version of this project page, my recollection is that it has little or nothing to say on the subject of inline author-date vs. author-date in numbered footnotes vs. both intermixed. The project page probably should provide some guidance in this area. In practice, when I see author-date, my impression is that it's usually either inline or in numbered footnotes — seldom if ever intermixed — and the choice of inline vs. footnoted seems to be made by the creator of the initial ref, and changing from that initial choice seems to be by consensus (either through prior discussion or by discussion of a reverted WP:BOLD change) on an article-by-article basis. I tend to use footnoted author-date myself, as most pages I edit have preexisting footnoted citations. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying inline, perhaps you should differentiate between parenthetical author-date and footnote author-date (I should have changed "Harvard referencing" to "Parenthetical referencing"). I suspect that's what you mean. Structuring references by author and date is a very simple and useful way to structure references in general because the author and the date are two of the most relevant facts, whether the inline is a footnote or not. I think that both parenthetical in-line cites and footnotes should be allowed on any one page. That way you can avoid repetitive footnotes and give people freedom. The Chicago Manual of Style does not appear opposed to using both for references, although I don't know that I've ever seen it professionally. WP, as electronic, should not be constrained by style: it should be constrained by functionality. And, as I said before, we don't necessarily need to use the author and date inline when your citation is anchored; could just use (p. 32) and let people click to see the reference. I know this sounds radical, but it makes sense. Of course, that does reduce the advantage when you're familiar with authors, and it makes it useless in print...but Wikipedia should not be printed anyway. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At present, there does not seem to be any citation template that uses the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide. The MLA guide is widely used and is the most commonly used style guide worldwide in the area of the social sciences which represent much of the Wikipedia material. I find that APA guides are often assigned at university as a "simplified style" most often associated with the sciences. What is often difficult to determine in the APA style is the use of multiple editions as the date is tied to the author note. As well, dropping the place of publication also leaves a gap as many publishing houses operate international offices. Due to these limitations, I often "scratch" catalog or reference source using the MLA guide of: Author, title, place of publication, publisher and date format. The APA citiation template also has certain limitations in its format including the use of ISO dating only which often introduces a jarring element in the article as invariably, two date conventions are in play. I would almost (repeat, almost) accept the APA guide as a standard if the ISO dating could be altered to a more readable m-d-y or d-m-y format. I had earlier asked a question as to why no MLA template exists? Again, why not? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

MLA is certainly not the most commonly used style for the social sciences. It is mainly used in the humanities. Since Wikipedia does more scientifically-oriented documentation than humanities documentation, we haven't added the MLA format. However, I think we should change the "author-date referencing" to "parenthetical referencing"; which is a more global and descriptive term. Under that system author-date is the most common method, but we should also mention MLA style. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I write mainly in history-related articles, I would see the need for the use of the MLA system, especially for editors unfamiliar with the conventions of setting up a reference notation or citation, and rely on templates. One of the common issues that I see is that the information provided from templates are rife with errors, mainly due to inputs being made inaccurately. Again, I tend to "scratch" catalog and do not use the templates, but I can see the need to have templates to suit diverse subject areas, especially in the humanities. Wikipedia had primarily scientific-oriented articles? Really? maybe my reading of articles is too limited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

I would also like to endorse Shortened notes. They easily resolve the problems detailed at the beginning of this thread and are quite easy to use and edit, even for novices. Madman (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A method that doesn't require big changes

I don't foresee using the proposed shortened notes for articles I am typically involved with. It might be suitable for low-editor-activity articles that are stable. One un-described method (in this thread) is what I would describe as "formatted references & text" which separate the text from the references, and actually do make it easier to edit both text and references, and have been used on very actively edited articles. The good result of my technique for reference-heavy articles, is that the editor can locate the end of any reference easily, since the closing </ref> is on the first column of the editing window. This should make it easier to add or edit the text of the article while noticing where the end and start of each reference is. Here is the format, with a two-reference example:

some text at the end of the sentence.NOSPACE<ref>NEWLINE
body of reference material hereSPACE-NEWLINE
</ref><ref>
body of second citation reference materialSPACE-NEWLINE
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

The result looks like this while editing:

some text at the end of the sentence.<ref>
body of reference material here
</ref><ref>
body of second citation reference material
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

---

Recapitulating:

• The intended result is that the editor can easily find:
  - the end of any reference,
  - the beginning and start of each reference when there are several together at the end of a paragraph or sentence,
  - and not least, easily find the start of the sentences,
  - plus generally all sentences are set-off from the references, instead of all being run-on together.
• The run-on aspect of references and text in a reference-intensive article--is avoided. The run-on aspect is challenge for most editors.

This is not a theoretical item. It's in use here: Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Return to the "shortened notes" topic

I agree with User:Madman, User:SallyScot, User:Dysmorodrepanis who lean towards shortened notes. The short footnotes keep the source as clear as I can imagine and they don't clutter up the text for the non-academic reader. When they are also linked (with anchors or with {{Harv}}) there is very little functionality lost. In this system, the original complaint (that templates take up too much space in the source) is moot. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the current system of letting the primary editors use what works best for them. I personally find the shortened notes system ugly, non-user friendly, and a pain to use. I much prefer using cite templates within a ref tag, as do many others. Why try to force other people to use such a system when its clear that Wikipedia allows and endorses several different methods. Shortened notes seems to primarily be preferred in topics with primarily academic type editors. Let them be used there then, but I see no reason to try to force all other articles to use it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have misread me. I think we're just making suggestions here -- exploring some of the possibilities that an editor could choose. I never intended to suggest that we should "force" anyone to do anything. There are articles where shortened notes are appropriate and articles where they are not. Shortened notes solve a few problems (for example, if you are citing several different pages from the same book, it saves you from repeating the citation for each new page reference). They are useless for articles that use a different source for every paragraph (like articles on current events) or articles that use mostly online sources (no page numbers).

More to the point, shortened notes clutter the source a little less, and cluttered source text is the problem that this discussion was trying to solve. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...cause it read to me like this was an attempt to make this the preferred method. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring up an opinion (that can be a disturbing image, I agree), contrary to Collectie's reversion to the shortened notes, I think they are actually more readable and less obtrusive then full reference citations. Again, only IMHO. LOL Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

I don't like shortened notes (too repetitive), but I do want less of the references cluttering up the edit window. Why can't we have some sort of way to build a special footnote reference (the "base" reference) without turning it into a footnote, and instead having it display the reference in full? That way we could give it a name and reference it all we want with the given name in the article, with each reference adding an a b c d ect to the main reference. If anyone's not following me, let me know and maybe I could make it more clear. Impin | {talk - contribs} 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to describe the current status quo, with the use of named references, such as <ref name ='some convenient name'/> . Not sure what your point is. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The difference is that in the current system, the "base" reference creates a footnote. What has been repeatedly requested is a way to put all the base references outside the actual text, for instance in the reference section, without creating anything visible at that location. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ...such as the cite.php extension submitted in January of 2008 as Bugzilla:12796, including code to implement it, still marked "need-review". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we get people to vote for this? I just voted. By the way, I'm inclined to put this in Persistent when it's archived to make sure it gets noticed. I really want this to happen, and it seems to have consensus. Perhaps I could just put a summary of it, with a reference to your Bugzilla fix? ImpIn | (t - c) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd stop back here and cite (so to speak !) Wrigley Square as an example of the non-shortened-notes citations making it very difficult to read (in edit mode) the text of the article. The frequent long citations, many of which containing random-ish strings of numbers, just overwhelm the actual text.

And, no, I don't want to force anyone to use shortened notes, but I'm thinking that it should perhaps be the suggested format. Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cosider voting for Bugzilla:12796

A fair amount of people were involved with this discussion. It appears that there is a relatively easy way to hide all of the reference junk at the bottom of the article. Boracay Bill has done much of the work, it just needs to be glanced over and plugged in. Please vote so that we don't have to deal with all this junk when we edit; it's terribly distracting. If you disagree with the change, please let us know. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)