Wikipedia talk:Citing sources - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images

Like journals, essays and reports, can articles be referenced with e.g. (Sugar, 1937)? Simply south 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assuming the article uses Harvard-style inline citation, the answer is yes. Just put the full info in the references section at the end. CMummert · talk 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am sure I've seen somewhere a statement to the effect that lead paragraphs do not need to have embedded footnotes if the information is repeated in the body of the article and is properly referenced there. However, I can't find any such statement and it may have been in an FAC discussion, rather than in a guideline. If such as statement does exist in guideline, I'd appreciate a reference. I've seen a couple of "unreferenced" tags go on articles recently, just referring to the lead, and I don't feel that's appropriate but I'd like to find a policy statement (if one exists) to back me up. See James McCune Smith for an example; the editor who added the note used the edit summary "Intro needs them". Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if there is a policy or guideline on this, but notes are a practical necessity if the introduction contradicts any widely-held misconception; otherwise the misconception will be reintroduced almost daily. --Gerry Ashton 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Generally, unless the claim is outstanding as Gerry says then you won't need cites in the lead, so long as the info appears in the body of the text and is cited there, no need to be redundant. IvoShandor 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, that clears it up. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you poke around enough, you'll find out that, in general, there is simply no total agreement whatsoever on this particular issue, although in specific cases, it's generally possible to work/hack out a consensus. Circeus 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What if I want to cite an interview that I conducted, but do not have a transcript or recording, just a report on my findings? --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No good. Is original research. It cannot be used in a Wikipedia entry. IvoShandor 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In WP:CITE#Citation templates it says "editors should not add templates without consensus", but what about the removal of templates? // Liftarn

If the templates were added without consensus, then it's fine to remove them. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A user without a userpage: User:Chestertouristcom, but with a talk page: User talk:Chestertouristcom, and who seems to have a very strong link with an external site: Chester Tourist External Site has added a lot, probably the bulk, of the material to Deva Victrix, which was originally under a different name, and before that, was a part of another article. This material is almost entirely unsourced and unreferenced. I tagged the article as being in need of references back in January 2007. Nothing was done, and the user continued to add a lot of unsourced and unreferenced material. I left a message on the user's talk page on 25th February 2007, asking for citations and references to be added, and this was followed up by an email to the user, but no response was received and new unreferenced material continued to be added up to the middle of March when it stopped.

The problem is, what to do? We are supposed to require entries to be adequately sourced and referenced, and yet hardly any of the material for Deva Victrix is. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to produce references for this material retrospectively when one isn't even the original author, especially so if one does not have a specialised knowledge of this topic. I have asked for assistance on the other wikiproject that has a template on the talk page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology but as yet received no response.

My feeling is that one could simply delete all the material, but I imagine this would cause some consternation in certain quarters (the removal of an external site whose inclusion had not been justified has already caused some negative comment about my action by another user.) The article would then probably be almost just a stub article with a lot of photos. Could I ask for some comments on what to do here? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I forgot to add that I am an active member of the Cheshire WikiProject, which explains my particular interest in this problem.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those editors using the book template seem to be routinely leaving out the page numbers in their footnotes. Also, if the citation is referred to numerous times, it would become difficult to follow the page numbers if they actually included it (imagine: 14; 20; 198; 30; 67; 90; 378). I suggest that either wikipedia discontinue the use of the book template since it encourages users to simply cite an entire book, not a specific page, or demand that they include a separate footnote for each citation that includes a page number. Such a policy should be made explicitly clear on [[WP:ATT] or WP:CITE. Awadewit 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer the option that editors be required to include a separate footnote for each citation. It would completely fulfil the need for full citations, be consistent with what I have experienced and thought of as "best practice", and be of maximum use to anyone wanting to follow up any references.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no requirement that a citation must include page numbers (actually, there is no requirement that articles have footnotes, either). In the case of direct quotes or controversial facts, they are probably warranted. In the case of an article whose title is also a title of a chapter in the book, there is no obvious reason why page numbers must be included in every case. There is a great deal of variation in the norms of citation from one article to another and especially from one field of study to another, so no universal rule is going to fit every situation. CMummert · talk 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but don't you think that page numbers should be encouraged whenever they can be given (which is most of the time, even for a chapter)? I'm shocked that it is not a requirement. It goes against all of the referencing styles, by the way, that wikipedia supposedly says it adheres it. Awadewit 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree. In fact, I would tend to think that if the addition of page numbers where they can be given is not a requirement, then it should be, for the reasons given by Awadewit.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Another advantage to page numbers is that if you're local library does not have the book, a library that does have it will copy a few pages for you for a modest fee, but you have to know which pages to ask for. --Gerry Ashton 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Resp. to Awadewit. Wikipedia makes no claim to adhere to any citation style. Any reasonable form of citation is acceptable. This guideline does not impose any requirements, it only suggests some recommended practices.
Editors should use common sense with citations - if there is a particular reason that the page number is needed, then by all means it should be included. For more general references, such as general references in an article about the French revolution, less precise references often suffice for noncontroversial facts. CMummert · talk 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
But all citation styles recommended by wikipedia demand page numbers. Also, I don't think it is a good idea to just reference a whole article about the French Revolution for "noncontroversial facts" (I'm afraid you've picked a poor example there). There is very little about the French Revolution that is noncontroversial, I'm afraid. There are whole schools of revisionist (in a good way) history that interpret the beginning of the revolution at a different time, etc. Why should a reader have to wade through a whole article to find what the editors were referring to? It is a courtesy to give the reader the clearest, most precise information that enables them to find the editors' source. Also "common sense" is not a universal - when Thomas Paine wrote his pamphlet arguing that Americans should revolt against the British in 1776 he entitled it Common Sense, thereby making the argument with the title alone that his position was obvious. Clearly, not everyone agreed with him - historians estimate that over half of the country was Loyalist. Just because we might want something to be "common sense" doesn't make it so - the phrase is a rhetorical flourish. Awadewit 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It simply isn't true that all the citation styles recommended on this guideline "demand page numbers"; consider the examples on this page of inline citations without page numbers. I don't have the desire to continue debating this issue; maybe someone else will comment. The summary of my position is that page numbers are important in some situations and less important in others, with the need for page numbers varying with field of study and with the information being cited. Wikipedia policy documents have traditionally been written broadly to reflect this diversity. If you feel that page numbers are important in the articles you write, you should by all means add them, but we should not try to force them into situations where they are not common or particularly necessary. CMummert · talk 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you thinking of {{cite web}} when you say that? While it's true that it's often unnecessary to use the page parameter, it's there for a reason: some online sources have multiple pages and some of those are also large enough to make not specifying the page number very unfair to other editors.--165.173.136.251 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
MLA, Chicago and Harvard all demand page numbers. Also, the reason that I brought up this problem in the first place is precisely because editors do not seem to be able to make the nuanced distinction between when to cite page numbers and when not to. Too often, I just see them using the book template without any attempt to cite pages. That is why I started by saying we should either discontinue use of the book template or require that editors put in page numbers. (I am not thinking of the cite web template - as I said when I started this thread, I am concerned about how the cite book template is being used.) Awadewit 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Any serious research demands that facts be fully cited. I agree that there is no requirement to add them but, as ddstretch opined, there should be. We often complain that some academics look down on WikiPedia - this is a way to improve our image. The routine use of full footnotes should, at the very least be encouraged. More work? You bet, but it makes for a better resource. JodyB 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This issue has been discussed before, and it was decided that there is no need to change the titles to author-date. Google seems to show no or little preference, and the ArbCom has ruled that, in the absense of pressing reasons, there is no need to change terms more common in the UK than in the U.S., and vice versa.

The last time I checked this on Google, the searches returned:

  • "Harvard referencing": 61,000 (774 unique hits);
  • "Harvard reference": 32,600 (529 unique);
  • "Harvard system": 110,000 (200 unique);
  • "author-date" without the word "Harvard": 68,700 (757 unique)
  • "Harvard referencing" without the phrase "author-date": 56,000 (769 unique)

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess if they have ruled, they have ruled. I just pointed out in my edit summary that the top google hits are almost all in the UK and Australia. (Also, on a personal note, I had never heard of this style which I thought was odd, since I teach referencing to freshmen; but I have now put that down to my US-bias.) I think the author-date description would be clearer - when I first saw the name "Harvard," I thought to myself, "what is that? wikipedia is making up its own reference style?" quickly followed by "wikipedia is following some obscure reference style I've never heard of? Great." Awadewit 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
For reference, the only discussion I could find in the 14 archives was here: Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive7#Harvard_referencing??. Author Date is undeniably clearer to the layman, and would seem a better choice if acceptable. However, without much personal background in this field, I cannot say whether it is an acceptable alternative title for this technique. ∴ here…♠ 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
People who want to can request a page move to author-date. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what this section means, so I've moved it here in the meantime. Can someone explain? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Wikipedia, in the spirit of the GFDL, encourages referencing of freely available sources, when information is available from both credible free/open access sources (FOASs) and sources which require registration and/or payment (non-FOASs).
"* In cases where either a FOAS or non-FOAS source provides sufficient information to attribute a point in an article, consider citing both if they will help the reader to explore further in different ways.
"* Use of reliable FOASs available on the web is encouraged, as it enhances the credibility of Wikipedia if the reader can speedily verify the veracity of a given fact by use of an outside source with a simple click of the mouse."
  • Personally, while I agree with the sentiment, I think this section is a distraction from the main point of the page. This page primarily explains how to add references and citations; the reader who is coming here for guidance likely has a source in hand already and wants to know what to do next. We should answer that question rather than deviating on an unrelated point. Secondly, reliability is so much more important than free accessibility that the second is rarely going to be the decisive concern in choosing between sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I still can't see what's being said. If we have a reliable source, I don't see what difference it makes that it's GFDL or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sources that are free to access, especially if they are online, are easier for readers to consult than sources which are subscription only or not online. It seems reasonable to me that they would thus be preferable. This might come into play occasionally, say where the same AP news article is available at a subscription-only newspaper site and a free newspaper site -- all in all linking to the free site is probably easier on the reader and thus more useful. But as I said this is a comparatively minor concern and introducing it likely distracts from the main concern when choosing sources. Since choosing sources isn't even the main topic of this page, the value of these paragraphs is very low. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I see now. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm sick of going to a million different places to find help on anything. The intent of the passage is 'when citing a source use the easily accessible source if of equal or better quality'. Improve the wording but why delete? Please consider people who are after help and make it easy for them rather than make them trawl through talk pages and archives to find what is best. thanks - Ctbolt 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
What is meant by "the easily accessible source"? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I realise you're doing a fine job here, Slim, but you've answered your question below - so why ask it?? - Ctbolt 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted the archiving of this talk page, otherwise what comes next looks untidy. If SlimVirgin now sees what the section on free sources was trying to achieve (possibly needing better phrasing, I agree), then to remove the section seems to have been premature. Likewise archiving off above recent threads is unhelpful to understanding the overall discussion on this (see section above Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Free_sources vs Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive15#Free_sources) - a thread with last posting just 1 week ago is too fresh to be archived off surely, especially when a whole article section is deleted 3 days prior ? David Ruben Talk 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please undo your unarchiving, as the page is now rather long, and simply copy and paste in the section you want to refer me to? Or just give me a link to it in the archive? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I see it now, thanks. You wrote: "In essence reliable sources and the discussion held would seem to clearly indicate that the best source (whatever that might be) should be used, and if this is a hardcopy of an article that is not available on the web and only by subscription or a trip to a library, then so be it. The points Nephron discussed and added are only where two otherwise equally reliable sources are available, in which case the free access may be safely preferred to the not-free access, and likewise if all else is equal a web-accessible source over one that is not so readily accessible."
It doesn't make much sense, with respect, and to have a whole (and unclear) section on one point, which seems to boil down to "quality is the most important thing, but ease of access is helpful too" is overkill. Use both sources if one is hard to find. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
So why not put it on the page? Unless we assume that people will always choose the easily accessible source - Ctbolt 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because it's a distraction from the more important content of the page -- it applies only rarely and in those cases, it is relatively unimportant. Also, this material would make more sense at WP:RS (which is about choosing sources) than here, a page which is mainly a style guide concerning how to cite sources once they are in hand. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a convention on whether or not to include the relevant quotation from a source in the citation? ShadowHalo 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not that I know of. A short (one or two sentence) quote is occasionally useful, especially if there is some ambiguity, but probably it's not appropriate for every citation. CMummert · talk 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's a good idea to do it if it's a contentious issue, especially if the source isn't online. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, my question stems from the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. article. The statement in the article is "Love. Angel. Music. Baby. also introduced the Harajuku Girls, an entourage of four Japanese women who Stefani treats as a figment of her imagination." The source (which is online and requires no subscription) states, "The [Harajuku] Girls silently accompanied her on photo shoots and to public appearances, and subsequently appeared on her tour. Stefani regarded the Girls, all of whom looked as if they had come straight off the streets of the capital city's hip Harajuku district, as a figment of her imagination brought to life in a culturally positive manner." It seems really easy to find, so it seems unnecessary to quote (and probably preferable not to since I thought the idea of using a reference was to transform copyrighted text into free text using it as a reference) but I didn't want to undo someone else's edit without asking here first. ShadowHalo 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Am I right to suppose that Wikipedia must not contain references to illegal material (in terms of copyright)? There is a discussion whether the tv documentary posted on youtube could be a valid ref . Alaexis 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The TV show is not the youtube clip. You can cite the TV show itself, whether or not a youtube clip exists. According to WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, don't link to clips that violate copyright. Gimmetrow 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Alaexis 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Gimmetrow, but remember that the editor should cite where the editor obtained the information, so if the only place the editor saw the information was a site that obviously violates copyright, the editor should not cite the material at all. --Gerry Ashton 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It should still be cited, just not linked to. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The current how to cite section describes 3 possible techniques, (embedded, harvard, footnotes), and then immediately describes the citation templates, a topic not required for any of these methods. The how to cite section should get new editors inserting some form of citation as quickly and painlessly as possible. Often editors seeking citation help have no idea how to use a template, and a lesson on templates should not divert their efforts to add citations. The correct location for citation template information is as a sub-heading under 'full citations', where they can be used in conjunction with any of the 3 methods. Editors capable of using the templates will find the citation templates after selecting embedded/harvard/footnotes as an option for full citations. My attempted move was reverted ( diff ), so I bring it up here for discussion. ∴ here…♠ 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The templates aren't required for anything, Here. The point of the section is to make that clear to editors, and it needs to be fairly prominent and not buried. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tools and techniques which are not necessary in this process, such as the citation templates, have no business at the top of the section. Even stranger, they are sandwiched between an introduction to 3 specific techniques and the explanations of those 3 specific techniques. The citation templates are an intermediate citation topic, and should be placed after the basic instructions and principles of the three primary options. They are optional, and not immediately important to the primary target audience of this section.  : shrug : ∴ here…♠ 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies if this has been discussed previously: Is there a view that we must always make references visible? Articles with long references sections sometimes look ugly and a reader may be uninterested in browsing the references. I was imagining references and notes being placed inside a collapsible table with a hide/show button (defaulting to hide). Is there a view on this idea? —Moondyne 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, as I understand it, there is no way to do this without breaking the references; if the references section is hidden by default, then when you click to go to a footnote it will do nothing. Last time that hiding references was brought up, I recall this being the most serious objection. Unless the technical issues have been fixed there is unlikely to be much movement on this issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. Thanks anyway. —Moondyne 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the page that I have recently been maintaining titled "Pine Creek High School", many "(citation needed)" links have popped up. I am a student at Pine Creek, and I know for a fact that the things I say about my school are true. For example, the choirs that I have listed are from my own knowledge of the choirs that I am enrolled in, and I have verified these facts with the choral instructor. How do I get rid of these links? Why do I have to cite information that is my own? (12 April 2007) Live your life 17 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. In order for information to be included in Wikipedia, it does need to be verifiable through a reliable source. Jkelly 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once I came across an article with not a {{references}} or {{fact}} tag but a label saying an article with a list of general references needs more in-line citations. It wasn't aimed at specific information but a good general statement. This is good for long articles for which we have no idea how or which part of the general references (often books with no page no.s) were used. Does anyone know this label? Kind regards --Merbabu 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's no actual benefit to adding templates like that. Look at {{references}} - there are tens of thousands of tagged pages, and no sign that the backlog will ever be cleared. If there is a particular fact you dispute, you should discuss it on the talk page. There is no policy requiring that everything must have an inline citations - only that articles are verifiable in a theoretical sense. CMummert · talk 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
hmmmm - i tend to disagree with the benefit of them. And my point was not about disputing any particular facts. There are a number of large articles that have several, even many, general references. But not one inline citation. THere may not be a policy, but there are some who would like to see each piece of information backed up, or at least detailed references provided. Simply providing a list of books, etc, doesn't do the trick. It's the standard in academia. Why aim low here? Merbabu 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's standard in some areas of academia and not standard in others. That's why we generally avoid one-size-fits-all policies on WP. If you would like to see inline references, why not add them yourself? There is no evidence that tagging articles in general leads to them being improved - look at {{unreferenced}}. CMummert · talk 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, I think it depends, if an active WikiProject uses the tags then they can lead to articles being improved. IvoShandor 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the past the ue of <small> has always been discouraged; aside from anything else, it can cause problems for people with visual impairments as well as for those using small monitors. The main MoS on citations doesn't mention its use, but it's crept in to a great many articles, is part of citation templates, and appears on some MoS sub pages. Where would be the bext place to have its use discussed? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Possibly somewhere on the MoS, but I have no idea where. The thing about it is that it's introduced under a number of different categories — templates and such like, and they all have their own reasons for wanting it. You might have to set up a central discussion yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Visually impaired users typically will have their ducks(tools) in a row for accessibility issues. However, when using someone else's browser, this can be a problem.
  1. Fully portably, Wikipedia offers per-user customization. <small> can be overridden as a matter of personal preference in one's own Wikipedia style sheet Special:Mypage/monobook.css(if you're using the Monobook skin). See Help:User_style. This requires some setup.
  2. Per browser: <small>In a browser's local CSS or preferences. Also requires setup.
  3. Ad hoc: With a browser which supports text zooming. Internet Explorer, (View menu, Font size, Smaller/Larger), Mozilla:(ctrl +), (ctrl -). Opera:(+),(-).
    Opera also has a View | Style menu which allows disabling (parts of) CSS on the fly. --Lexein 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
All the solutions mentioned by Lexein are a pain in the ass. What is the benefit of <small> that would make all this trouble worthwhile? --Gerry Ashton 23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if this is in the wrong discussion section, if it is let me know where this needs to go.

Anyway: I know that this was already up for deletion, but I'm going to dedicate to myself to this one issue (look at how boring and single minded my profile is!):

The citation needed tags are useless. I can't say this enough. As an editor, there's something in an article you doubt, look it up. If you find something, cite the link, if you can't in good faith find anything to verify another user's claim, then delete it, obviously it doesn't belong there. People who are using them are essentially shrugging off work they're fully capable of doing. I feel strongly about wikipedia citing it's sources but a citation needed tag is just lazy.

Let's put this back up for deletion. --Friendship hurricane 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree mostly, but they can be useful when you can't find a source for something, but you're not certain it's false. It gives other editors time to look, and it's faster than leaving a note on talk. Deleting things immediately is often seen as too aggressive, unless it's a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I strongly disagree. I consider {{fact}} tags to be requests for assistance, when placed by an editor who has contributed to an article. I have both (researched and) cited them when found, and placed them as needed. I tagged Idiocracy's unsourced statement that "Early working titles included The United States of Uhh-merica ", because I looked and couldn't find it in a non-blog, and lo-and-behold someone else found the cite. The system works.
  1. {{fact}} tags update the [[Category:Articles with Unsourced Statements]] database, making browsing for such tags easy for those editors who relish that research. Deleting this template is simply a non-starter. However:
  2. To improve the experience for everyone, perhaps the superscript[citation needed] should be replaced with the superscript[?] or[cite].
  3. Deletion is not the next step. I tend to comment out an unsupported sentence, with a note in the comment and in Talk. This permits trivial in-place repair when finally cited.
  4. Deletion of uncited (yet) but plausible assertions is also lazy - only the omniscient can guarantee that no usable supporting evidence exists.[Google not sole source of truth.] Aggressive deletions induce revert wars, or haven't you noticed?
  5. Yes, some lazy editors are performing tag hit and run. Damn you punks (shakes fist)! --Lexein 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Notice the current discussion about citation date consistency in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date formats in cite templates. (SEWilco 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC))Reply

How do you cite the same source multiple times without creating a duplicate footnote? Sr13 (T|C) 08:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You could use named <ref name="multiple">...</ref> footnotes as described at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once, or also more than one (Author 2007) style Harvard reference ( Wikipedia:Harvard referencing ) which refer to a full citation. ∴ here…♠ 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to modify the Mediawiki software to allow users to switch off article quality messages? I'm increasingly finding that my use of Wikipedia is being distracted by the citation needed messages and banners at the top of articles declaring they are disputed, not of neutral tone or of poor quality. While these notes are important for the editors and some readers, for much of my casual rather than formal use of Wikipedia, I don't need to know about disputes, any more than I need to read the talk pages, and their agressive nature is offputting Jrbray 13:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are editing articles, rather than just reading them, this might not be a great idea. But it can be done with no software changes using CSS, assuming that the templates are set up properly. For example, to turn off the fact tags you could use
sup.Template-Fact { display: none; }
in your monobook.css file because {{fact}} is set up correctly. Any template that doesn't have an associated CSS class will have one added as soon as you raise the issue on its talk page. CMummert · talk 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting to see this point-of-view expressed. I wonder how many other casual readers are being put off my what some may see as an overabundance of "butt-covering"? 23skidoo 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't call it that, but it does tend to air dirty linen in public. What is most offputting is the blaring 'this article is poor quality, you must improve it' tone. The CSS suggestion works well, but I suspect there are too many tags, especially stub ones, for it to be truly effective. Wikipedians do need t be less strident to retain their popular support. Jrbray 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I propose changing the order of listed citation styles in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources to:

1. Footnotes (most often using <ref> and <references/> elements)
2. Harvard referencing
3. Embedded HTML links (deprecate or ban from body of articles).
  1. New users who see this revised order will think footnotes or Harvard style are preferred. This is preferred.
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, see WP:5. Embedded links are Wiki-ish and web-ish, not encyclopedic. Encyclopedias use either footnote or Harvard style, so should WP.
  3. All citation details should be visible (without having to click or hover), and if the article is printed out. Embedded links hide URLs. Simple footnotes reveal URLs in <references /> or {{reflist}}. Well formed footnotes or Harvard references may obscure a URL, but reveal the publisher, author, date, title, etc.
  4. Even though WP:CITE#Embedded HTML links "require" a full citation at the page bottom, it's extra work, for which no automation support is provided. As a result, it's rarely done, and when done, there's no connection between that link and the full citation.
  5. Footnote cites and references can be formatted automatically with <ref>{{cite ...}}</ref> and require entering information only once in the article, and provide bidirectional "where used" links. Harvard-type cites can unidirectionally link to Harvard-type refs.
  6. The use of templates should be encouraged in the WP:CITE article.

Secondarily, I prefer a superscripted numeral[1] or a (Harvard, 278) reference over a blue arrow used as a textual elephant element. To sum up:

  • List embedded HTML links last in WP:CITE#HOW, and everywhere else citation styles are mention as guidelines
  • Strongly deprecate embedded links, except in specific circumstances: (and what would those be?)

Please discuss, or point me to prior discussion. --Lexein 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good reasoning, I agree. Would you care to comment my recent open question regarding Location_of_citation_template_information, as you would also like to see them emphasized. ∴ here…♠ 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The use of templates (assuming you mean citation templates) should not be encouraged, since there is no consensus to do so. Many people feel they should be discouraged. The current position is to do neither, due to the lack of a general consensus. As to the other points, we shouldn't deprecate any type of citation. Embedded links, used correctly, are fine, and even if used incorrectly are far better than nothing. On the whole, however, I agree that presenting our two main "ideal" methods first makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Where are discussions/voting on citation template usage? Is there a Project where such discussions usually take place? I've struck some text above, agreeing with encouragement of citations in general. --Lexein 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would also be interested in knowing where the discussions take place about citations templates, since I cannot understand why they should be discouraged. I also think more examples need to be provided, such as how to cite a book or article more than once, with different page numbers in each citation, because I don't know how to do this without duplicating the citation apart from the page-number field.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The archives of this page discuss the issue in various places, but check towards the end of the first archive for the earliest discussion. The main reasons for disliking citation templates are thus: (1) in combination with cite.php, they make it so that any article with significant referencing is unreadable in edit mode; (2) by increasing the barrier to "correct" referencing they worsen our biggest problem regarding referencing (that people don't do it); (3) at the time they were introduced, and indeed now, they have no apparent usefulness. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'll check. re: (1) unreadable in edit mode; - agreed, but so does any verbose interjection, including <ref>[with long link] text</ref>. Harvard citation templates coupled with Harvard reference templates (WP:CITET) neaten this up, as do the old Wikipedia:Footnote3({{ref}} and {{note}}) system. But those both complicate editing, requiring either a full-article edit, or separate editing of an section and references -for lots of references, that's a separate problem.
re: (2) increasing the barrier - this is because template insertion is not assisted by automation (say, popup) which presents the full blank template to be filled in. We're using powerful computers (servers and personal), but they are not being used to assist editors, who are forced to cope. To wit: an editor has to first learn the arcane details of WP footnoting methods (absurd), when an automation tool could exist to assist in the process.
re: (3) no apparent usefulness - other than conformed formatting: relatively free-form input results in consistently formed output, usually not requiring further edits. To be actively useful, template insertion should have some automation assistance. --Lexein 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Can I make persistent private modifications to the Wiki Markup panel below the Edit window?

2. Is there an existing tool or bot which automates conversion of embedded links into cite web or cite news footnote stubs?

3. Where should I have posted these questions? --Lexein 05:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The use of citation templates is not required" is being quoted back to me as justification for adding a simple <ref> around a bare url as a substitution for the inline cite in new content. It looks like a mess in the References section.

I would change this text to: "Citations must be formatted to include relevant information such as title, author, date, publisher where relevant. The use of citation templates is a good practice to achieve a uniform appearance, but not required". patsw 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a guideline. Like all wikipedia guidelines and policies, it recommends, but it cannot require anything. If you see a citation that you wish had more information, why not just add the information yourself? If the other editor is putting in any sort of inline citation, that's already a step forward. CMummert · talk 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a guideline. Like all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, it should promote best practices and discourage incomplete, poorly formatted editing. The other editor is quite capable of adding the information himself but believes that he is not being guided by this guideline to add anything but the bare url. I believe the guideline should be changed to encourage the practice of including relevant information such as title, author, date, and publisher where relevant. patsw 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Point him at the section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Full_citations. CMummert · talk 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I take that as support for the clarification edit I propose above. patsw 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Citation templates may be used to achieve a consistent appearance, but I don't think consensus exists to call citation templates a "good practice". They have both advantages and disadvantages compared to other means. As for URLs, if someone adds a "bare URL" the guideline says to add an entry with appropriate bibliographic information in the References section. Is it not OK to have the formatting there? Gimmetrow 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This page already establishes that all citation methods require "full citations" containing date, author, and other publication to exist somewhere in the article, either in the inline citation or in a separate references section. So your suggested addition would appear to be redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
My point is that some now read "The use of citation templates is not required" as the guideline requiring nothing but the url. I would agree with Christopher, if it were rare new content lacked full citations, but bare url's are all too common. I may have been mistaken is assuming that the fact that (1) new content written very often includes bare urls as citations, and that (2) this guideline ought to discourage that, has some consensus here.
The guideline requiring full citations needs a reminder here. I see it as clarity and not redundancy. Suggest your own replacement wording which you believe ought to discourage bare urls as citations. patsw 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is it possibly misleading to have the "How to cite sources" section immediately followed by "citation templates are not required"? Would putting "Citation templates" after "Full citations" sufficiently clarify the issue, Patsw? See also above. Gimmetrow 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do not concur that citation templates are good practice. One of my objections is that they can only be used in situations anticipated by the temlate authors, and there are many situations not covered by citation tempaltes. --Gerry Ashton 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the wording on WP:FOOT to bring it into harmony with the wording on this page WP:CITE. patsw 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that's appropriate. When WP:CITE talks about cite templates, it means in reference to citation as a whole, but when WP:FOOT talks about cite templates, it talks about them specifically located between the ref tags. Citation templates are optional in the citation as a whole, but more so between the ref tags because footnotes don't need to be bibliographic at all, and you certainly don't need a template to write "Smith, p.5". Likewise, it's acceptable under WP:CITE to have <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</ref> as a "bare URL" if the bibliographic information is given elsewhere in the article. Gimmetrow 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the edit Gimmetrow made to WP:FOOT to address my concerns. patsw 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request_for_consensus:_External_Links_.3D.3E_Incline_Citation_Bot per user CMummert. --Paracit 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I have a paragraph consisting of three consecutive sentences backed by the same source, should I put the reference at the end of every sentence? This seems like a good idea, since further editing could lead to the addition of facts not supported by my source but which may appear to be, if the source is cited only on the first or last sentence. I think this should be addressed on the project page. -Seans Potato Business 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

People can add facts in the middle of sentences as well...it's a given with our current technology that any syntax for sourcing can and will be disrupted. (Fortunately the sources offered by the person who originally added a fact can always be recovered from the edit history.) Given that, I think we should just write normally, and putting the same citation on sentence after sentence is not normal. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I want to cite something with the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). tags and I want use the citation in two different places in the text for example

Statement 1.[1] Statement 2[2]. Statement 3. [1]

1. reference 1

2. reference 2


how would I do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.47.238 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

  1. ^ beep