Wikipedia talk:Citing sources - Wikipedia

I'm curious as to what others think about providing an external link to a subscription site in a reference. There are some editors who believe that if the "New York Times" (for example) provides an abstract to an article published in 2005 (and the reader has to pay or subscribe to read the full text of the article), the link should nevertheless be made. I would argue this runs afoul of External links#Sites requiring registration. Additionally, while a link might provide full-text access today, it won't in two weeks or six months (thus creating a dead link or subscription link). The issue is not addressed in the guidelines, insofar as I can see. Thoughts? Comments? - Tim1965 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As stated in the lead of the "External links" guideline, "the subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." So if the site is used as a reference, and not just an external link, the "External links" guideline just does not apply. I would say that if the subscription site provides URLs that work for a long time, they should be linked to, so those who decided to buy a subscription should take full advantage of it. If the URLs are only valid for a few weeks, maybe it is just as well not to link. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most newspapers (such as the "New York Times," "Chicago Tribune," "Los Angeles Times" and "Washington Post, for example) keep articles available for free to the public only for 14-21 days. The URL then changes, and goes subscription. Subscription links exist for forever (insofar as I can tell). Some argue in favor of verifiability, that any John Doe can write a citation. But providing a link provides verifiability for that citation. My argument is "so does looking it up in the public library." A link is only as good as the person verifying that link. Verifiability is no good if the fact being cited is behind the pay-to-view wall. As for paying for the article, Wikipedia provides ISBN links for books, but doesn't have a system for newspaper or scholarly articles. Should authors be trying to recreate that by providing links? I'm doubtful (there's a similar discussion elsewhere on this Talk page). - Tim1965 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's ISBN system can't be directly compared to newspaper archive sites, because new and used books can be purchased from many vendors at different prices, while the on-line archives of a newspaper are usually only available through one company. Also, verifiability isn't "no good" if the fact is behind a pay-to-view wall, it's just accessible to fewer readers than if the site were free. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Gerry; you don't seem to be disputing the validity of the sources, and if we are citing the source, we might as well put a link to the most readily available place to find a copy. I can certainly see how many readers would be helped by this practice (e.g. people who already have free access to such archives) but I can't understand how any readers would be harmed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just for future reference, what should be done when the validity of the sources is disputed? If an editor sees an outlandish statement with subscription-only source, how should it be verified? --Hamitr (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thankfully that's a situation that comes up much more in theory than in reality. With the major newspapers, like the NYT, I personally have access to every issue ever printed for free... so if it's really an issue of what an offline source says, you should be able to find someone who has access to the particular newspaper's archives... although it does become more difficult with smaller regional papers. I would think that in such situations, where the citation is to say, a 20-year-old newspaper article available on microfilm in maybe 5 places worldwide... and this is a worst case scenario... that everyone involved try to find a better source. If that fails, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to call a library that has a copy and ask a librarian to look at the story on microfilm for you and see what it says. This is a problem so rare though that you really just need to figure out a workable solution when and if you find yourself in the situation. Ultimately, we need to be able to cite offline (or subscription only) sources if they're reliable. Books, journals, old newspaper articles... it makes verification harder, but do we really want an encyclopedia whose only sources are free webpages? If free webpages were so extensive, Wikipedia wouldn't really be necessary anyway. --W.marsh 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Back issues of newspapers and magazines can be viewed at libraries. If it is a local newspaper, you could try asking for a copy of the article in question from the library in the town where the newspaper is published. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We routinely use (and encourage) DOIs, and in most cases these link to sites requiring subscriptions. Dragons flight (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of the prose and data on Wikipedia about geographical features is a result of a process that could be called original research: looking at online maps and other changing online services, describing the geographical features visible in them, finding coordinates, comparing the proximity of labels to some location, measuring distances, etc. In my mind this is not a problem, though reliable and verifiable sources would be preferred. What however is a problem is the faithful linking of the services where this work was done as the source of the information, and putting that in the references section. Most of the information has not been published as such in those services, is not static, may be a result of unknown interpolation, and its sources in the services are usually not revealed. For examples, most of the articles with links to mapper.acme.com seem to have references of this type.

Would anyone object if these kind of references were removed (for descriptions of features visible on most modern maps or data derived from non-published services) or converted (to geographical coordinates when referring to a location as a map link)? If not, could these thoughts be reflected in the guidelines in some way? --Para (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might want to talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. If a coordinate is involved, the latter project's {{coord}} links the coordinate to many map services so there are alternatives if one service changes. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also to elaborate, when the location of a feature is not obvious from the location of the article and the editor has felt it necessary to link to a map, then coordinates should be used instead. The coordinate templates have a source parameter for the same purpose people have used a map link as a reference, but it's rarely used for these "original research" coordinates. In the references sections I have found the following types of links:

• Coordinate reference: "The bridge’s WGCB number is 35-04-18[2], and it is located at 41°45′16.632″N, 80°53′52.584″W (41.75462, 80.89794) <ref>map service link</ref>" (from Mechanicsville Road Covered Bridge)
• Map description: "At this point, the highway runs along a viaduct above state route 92 (Nimitz Highway), passing to the north of Honolulu International Airport. <ref>map service link</ref>" (from Interstate H-1)
• Directions: "Turn left, continue x miles, turn right, continue... etc etc <ref>map service link</ref>" (from Mechanicsville Road Covered Bridge)
• Measurements: "Beginning at the east end (traveling westward), under Canyon Road the tunnel turns SSW (202°)<ref>The tunnel was tracked on TopoZone data on ACME Mapper. The angle was measured using Photoshop. The angles are expressed in conventional navigational cardinal direction values.</ref>" (from Robertson Tunnel)
• Data derived from services: "Elevation 3,618 ft (1,103 m) <ref>Note: Topozone.com maps give an elevation of 3,593 ft (1,095 m), while Peakbagger, and Google Earth give 3,618 ft (1,103 m).</ref>" (from Mount Boardman)
• Data interpreted from a map: "Rocky Mountain, elevation 3,080, is located west of Gaddistown, Georgia, less than two miles west of the boundary between Fannin and Union counties. <ref>map service link</ref>" (from Rocky Mountain (Georgia))

Some of these uses may not be too encyclopedic, but I won't go there and would just like to hear people's opinions on the referencing. Should it be done this way? --Para (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do work on highway articles in the U.S. Usually, when writing a route description, I just cite distance information, as a route going through a particular town or mountain range should be verifiable on any good map. I usually pull distances from the department of transportation map, citing it with [shameless self-promotion] {{cite map}}. When working on a junction list, which includes mileages for each junction, I prefer using websites with the values readily available. Otherwise, I'll calculate the distances on Google Maps by placing a destination at each junction and adding the numbers up; I always link to the resulting itinerary as part of my references.

I try to avoid using coordinates because your casual reader doesn't really have a frame of reference for relating to those. I know I live around 37 N, but other than that, coordinates don't have much meaning to me, and I find that saying "five miles northeast of Ozark" or "just south of Republic" is more helpful for placing things in my mind. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I'm reading you right, when something is verifiable on any good map, references are unnecessary. Having a route description in an article would then imply that the information comes from a map.

For distances, it's indeed good to use publications where the result doesn't depend on user input. Many articles however use automatic route finder services as a reference for distances. There's no guarantee that such services always give the same route, or then that the distance will be the same every time. With plotting the points and referencing a link that gives the result, the problem is that the measurements are reproducible only online, only as long as the service uses the same data for calculating a non-linear route between the points, and only as long as that same service is still available. The points used should be given in the article so that the same procedure can be repeated elsewhere, even on printed maps. M62 motorway#Exit list for example gives the coordinates for some of the junctions. There are many tools for visualizing coordinates, and the same information can be included in the "direction format" as well. --Para (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

[1] is an example link for Missouri's Route 73. As mentioned above, I try to use these only as a last resort, when I can't find the information from any other source. I know that some editors working in other states like Pennsylvania use Microsoft Streets & Trips or Delorme Street Atlas and then cite the version of the program they used. Then, at least you know that it won't "break" in the way you described.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting discussion. If I'm following the conversation properly, then these points might be relevant; if not, hopefully they'll prove interesting in their own right.

• I'm not sure that the act of reading a map or measuring distances on a map should be considered "original research" any more than reading and paraphrasing the type on the page of a published book should be considered original research. Of course, it's important to read a map properly, as it is to properly read (and not misinterpret) text derived from a source of information for the construction of a Wikipedia article. That doesn't always happen, but that is one of the shortcomings of Wikipedia that we must live with and wrestle with.
• Topozone and a number of other popular online map viewing interfaces use (in the United States--I can't speak for other parts of the world) actual maps produced by the United States Geological Survey--considered among the most reliable sources for coordinates and elevation data (in most cases). When you're looking at a location in the USA on Topozone, you are looking at an actual USGS map. Whether or not Topozone actually cites USGS (I believe they do. . .somewhere), that is the source they are using. However, see my next point.
• In the last two decades, the accuracy of coordinate and elevation data has improved significantly. USGS measurements for most United States locations were not derived from modern computer assisted/satellite assisted technology. A number of errors--most of them minor--have been discovered since, and it is likely that many more will follow. So, USGS reflects (in most but not all cases) the best information on hand. . .the best published information that is. You may find that your handheld GPS unit actually offers more accurate data than an official USGS map published in the 1980's. Or not, depending on the quality of the unit and service, and how skilled you are at reading it.
• Many other mapping services (Google Earth) tap directly into satellite information for coordiantes just as hand held GPS devices do. This begs the question: can a handheld GPS device be cited? If so, do you cite the device, or do you cite the satellite network itself? Before you say "No! this would be original research!" Keep in mind that the satellite networks that provide the data to handheld GPS units are probably the same networks that provides data to Google Earth and other commonly accessible applications. Furthermore, when USGS gets around to updating its printed maps, it will also probably rely on the same (or many of the same) satellite networks (hopefully more than one). --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No! :-) Seriously, references must be verifiable. Unless everyone is going to send me their GPS devices (note to self: buy a bigger toybox), the reference (the device) is not verifiable. Maps, on the other hand, can be obtained or consulted. RossPatterson (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you for the most part, however, to play the devil's advocate: how is the GPS device different from Google Earth software provided the same source is cited via the GPS device, i.e. the sat. network responsible for providing the original data? I use my laptop to obtain the same data you are now reading, but I don't need to mail it to you to cite this talk page.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A single GPS reading should be similar in quality to Google Earth coordinates in a U.S. city. Google Earth has tried to properly georeference their photos and coordinates in cities should be similar to reality, although problems can be found. Street maps (not images) tend to be generated from data which is strongly linked to geographical locations (such as survey markers). Put a single GPS reading (which varies by 15m/50ft) in Google Earth and you'll see some difference in a city. In rural areas the differences between a GPS location and a Google Earth image is likely to be greater. However, which coordinates are good enough for Wikipedia purposes and how should their source be cited? Is a coordinate considered to be obvious enough to not require a source? As with text, such info might be adjusted by editors with "better" info, so if you're marking something not obvious (such as the original entrance to a fort which was later moved 200 yards) then you need to describe it ("Location of plaque marking original entrance" where the plaque can be seen by someone standing there although not on Google Earth). -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I focus on verifiability, and that means access to the source and enough info to locate it. Based on that, I'd say that neither a GPS device nor Google Earth are verifiable references, and therefore aren't valid references on WP. The GPS device isn't verifiable because it isn't available to others for verification (unless I get that bigger toybox :-) ) — conceptually, it's the same as an email, unpublished correspondence, or the only extant copy of a book on the Pope's private bookshelf. Google Earth isn't verifiable because it isn't fine-grained enough — it would be similar to citing "Rand McNally" or "Encyclopaedia Britannica". Either of the latter can be made verifiable by narrowing down the breadth of the reference (e.g., "Rand McNally's Big Atlas of Wonkaville" or "Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 3 Ch. 25"), so perhaps there's a good way to do that with Google Earth too. RossPatterson (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• As for the actual practice of citing elevation and coordinate data, I think it's no more and no less important than citing anything else edited into an article. In my own work, I've found it most fruitful to check more than one source. This is a pretty good practice in any kind of research. I don't know about the quality of reliability among those internet sources that are vague on where they are getting their info, so it's best to always cross-check to a source that is considered to have longstanding quality standards (such as the USGS). I've found that some packaged software (notably DeLorme) isn't specific enough for very precise measurements, but suffices for general measurements. I've also found that the United States Board on Geographic Names doesn't always associate the name of a landform with the highest/lowest elevation point on that landform (or exact lat./lon), thereby making it a problematic source. Why this is, I'm not sure, but I expect it has something to do with the issue of where the name of the landform is in relation to the contour lines on the map and how the data entry clerk interpreted that relationship when it was entered into the USBGN data bank.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're correct about citing references for coordinates. It's just like interesting dates - we cite references for them, especially if they're subject to debate or if various sources disagree. RossPatterson (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only about 10% of all the 300,000 coordinates on Wikipedia have a source parameter. Some of the rest may have a reference tag, but since they're rarely seen for coordinates, most are probably looked up by people using maps and satellite images, indicating an arbitrary location. When the point has been chosen by a Wikipedia editor, how can there be any reference? I think coordinates should have references (or source parameters, not sure which is preferred) only when there is a static dated publication stating the coordinates for a named point, as otherwise they are not verifiable. --Para (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I'm following you. By "source parameter" are you referring to, let's say, cooordinates linked to the GeoHack? Do map and sat. images produce "arbitrary locations?" I'm not sure that's so; if it is, it may be helpful to determine which ones aren't reliable and which are. As for a "point being chosen by a Wikipedia editor", well, wny not? If maps are sources of information, then reading a map (and by extension, doing simple math to specify that meaning) is not different than reading a book and distilling meaning from it, then translating (or paraphrasing) that information into a Wiki article. As for "static dated publication" I'm not sure that such sources are any more accurate than some of the online sources you question (see my example of the USGS above). Furthermore, how exact should map translations be? When I measure the distance between two cities, for instance, it isn't necessary to be accurate to more than a rounded mile/km, less so if the distance is great or the routes between the two points vary--the kind of accuracy you'd find on just about any online source, and the kind of accuracy you'd expect from anyone reading a map and making no-brainer measurements on it with a ruler. I think we have to assume "intelligent intent" with regard to editors and their capabilities to read simple maps and draw simple measurements from them. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The style manual instructs coordinates to be entered using a coordinate template, so we can assume that all coordinates people have worked on are in that common format. Since all such templates use the common parameters available with coordinates, the source parameter is also available.

In my opinion maps and satellite images do not indicate the location of large scale features such as mountains with a precision necessary for the 1ft elevation precision that many articles use. If the coordinates of the article are appropriately rounded for the scale used, and there are no coordinates for the highest point, how can anyone verify the elevation if the source is just a map or a geographical service with similar information? If the coordinates are an estimate by some guidelines, be that the center of the feature, highest point, some politically chosen point, or just rounded to the closest unit appropriate, and the coordinates can be verified in other maps or services to show the same general location, then the source of the coordinates is all of them together and there is no need for references.

There's no problem if the reference is to a site that always gives the same data (ie. allows linking to data from a given date), that's the case with books, lists, and some online services. Accuracy aside, they are verifiable. Many online services however are not; the elevation mentioned in the Mount Boardman article for example doesn't seem to be shown as such in any of the referenced sources for those coordinates, which makes the references useless.

Perhaps instead of references for those simple measurements and data from common sources, there should be a tag indicating that the data has been verified at the time of the edit, and that all the geographical data in the article is available from the services linked through the coordinates? --Para (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I still don't know if I'm clear about what you are trying to say. I looked at the Mount Boardman article; clearly if you compare the elevation data in the article with the USGS topographic maps (Via Topozone, via GeoHack), you end up with a USGS topographic map showing the mountain but indicating an elevation higher than indicated in the article. So, someone is wrong. The problem here seems to be either a typo/mistake, or the fact that the article writer used a different source than indicated in his reference. But this is an editing problem; it can be corrected by re-editing the article and supplying referenced elevation data--via whatever source. Of course, the writer never specified which of ghe GeoHack sources he supposedly used. . .is that what you are getting at? Yes, it would be better for an editor to be specific about which one he used. . .if he used any of them at all. As for the "1 foot precision" in citing elevations, I think it's generally accepted that such measurements, no matter what the source, are an approximation, not an absolute--even for elevations listed as precise on USGS maps. As for estimating elevation where "exact" elevation is not given, it's obviously important to let the reader know that the measurement is an estimate, better yet, indicate the margin of error inherent in the estimate in a footnote. For instance, "Estimated at 500 feet +9 feet/-0 feet" for a summit with a highest contour of 500 feet and a coutour interval of 10 feet. I'm not sure if that addressed your comment. .. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When the data entered to Wikipedia is not from any single source, but is averaged, estimated or outdated values from an undated source, is not visible as such in the services, and is not a result of a simple calculation (to the reader, as he doesn't know the source numbers but only the result), it is not the same as ideas distilled from words in a book. It is changing the information found from the source, and you can no longer say that the composite information is from that source, but from "all the available topographic services on the map sources page". This is not an isolated problem in a couple of articles, but is evident in all articles that cite services with geographical data without a date or source, and is even worse when "simple measurements" have been done. --Para (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I think I'm closer to understanding you, but not quite there yet. What specific "undated" sources are you referring to? Are you indicating that the problem is with the fact that some editors cite Geohack itself as a reference for geographic data instead of verifying the actual source data via the options listed in Geohack? Or are you indicating that the actual possible sources listed in GeoHack shouldn't be cited and are "undated"?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying that when data is not clearly from any single source where it can be verified, it should not be referenced as if it was from such a source. If the data is originally from a reliable source, but the reference isn't or can't be made to mention the original source and date of the data, the reference should not be made at all, as it is of no use. Google Earth and NASA World Wind for example can easily be used to get some elevation number to make articles look pretty, and other editors may even be able to find the same number from that source for some undefined period of time after the addition, but there is not enough information to make a complete reference for people to verify later. With the Mount Boardman article for example, where we now have to guess if the sources have changed or if the editor made a mistake, had the reference been made with identification and date of the original dataset, we would have the necessary information to find out if the source data has indeed changed since the edit or not. All references to services with no identification information of the source of their data, where the same information either can't be found at all or can be verified in any service with similar data, should be removed from Wikipedia. --Para (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

From purusing your talk page, it seems that you have a strong geo-tech background. Although I certainly respect that, I would encourage you to keep in mind that, since you've brought this issue to a talk page that is not specific to geo-technology, it would be helpful (to me anyway) if you could use specific examples of what exactly you are proposing, and how exactly you see Wikipedia changing. When you say "original dataset" specifically what dataset(s) are you referring to? Which sources specifically are you suggesting that we do away with? How specifically do you envision they might be done away with? How would that be implemented? How do you see it happening that editors can be compelled to stop citing, for instance, Google Earth, and start citing these "datasets" you mention? Seems like a tall order. I'm wondering, if I'm reading you properly (and I still don't know, as your language is still vague or maybe I'm just thick), if perhaps you are suggesting something a little extreme here. There are clearly instances were absolute data should probably be cited (for instance with regard to the finer details of nuclear physics), but in other cases, I do believe that a Rand McNally road map is a legitimate enough source, let's say, to get a general measurement in miles between two cities, regardless if Rand Mcnally reveals its original data source or not. In other words, I don't think it helps Wikipedia to insist on such rigor across the board (if indeed that is where you are coming from). . .not to mention the nightmare of trying to enforce it/make it happen. If that is what you are suggesting, I'd have to strongly oppose such a change. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not specific to geo-technology that full references should be given when citing a source, to allow people access to the same data at any later date. That's why static publications should be preferred as sources. When you can't find a reliable static source for something, instead of citing an everchanging online service, you should go to the original source or not give any reference at all. For example, USGS datasets with sufficient identification can be found from the Geographic Names Information System and National Elevation Dataset among others. Many of the services people reference on Wikipedia may use the same data as a source, but if the service doesn't mention where and when the data is from, and that information is not carried over here to the reference, it might as well have been made up as far as reliability and verifiability is concerned, making the reference worthless.

I'll go to specific details in a #Georeferencing recommendations section then, when I'm up to writing one, using the examples from above. Getting rid of such bogus unverifiable references wouldn't be harder than anything else Wikipedia instructs editors to do. It doesn't need to happen overnight, but there can be guidelines here and in related wikiprojects discouraging bogus referencing, vigilant editors zapping such references on sight, informing mistaken editors on proper referencing, etc. Note that I'm only talking about geographical information here, and of sources that can change, or of information that is the same everywhere. --Para (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working to be clearer :). Although I agree with your statement that "bogus" references to geographic data should be discouraged, I disagree with a unilateral labeling of all sources that do not cite specific "datasets" as "bogus" under all circumstances. For instance, Google Earth, regardless of where it is getting its data, provides direct, easily accessible visual data about the surface of the earth. Websites change all the time, and that is why it's important to include a "Retrieved on (date) reference." Let me give you a specific example. for instance, let's say you wanted to inform a reader about the (relatively) current dimensions of an ongoing stone quarry on a specific mountain--let's call it North Peak. As the article is about North Peak, not the quarry, it's important to a) prove that the quarry exists; and b) provide an estimate of the size of the quarry--a general, not absolute--measurement which is going to be "dated" no matter where the information comes from, unless there is someone out there at the quarry measuring its expansion every time a chunk of rock is removed. So, for the article about North Peak, one might cite a measurement of the quarry taken from Google Earth, and in the reference section, note when the information was retrieved from that source. Of course, you can argue that it would be better to go to the source of the Google Earth data instead, and you're right--it would be better but it wouldn't be necessary. And, as I've argued elsewhere in this article, and have provided specific examples, the Geographic Names Information System is not necessarily more reliable than some of the sources you suggest that we shun, and in many cases it is less reliabile. And yes, I do believe that reliability is something that should be important to us. If I have a source of information that provides consistantly more reliable data than another "official" source of data, then I'd be a fool not to go with the more reliable source, regardless if or not they display their "original datasets" as long as they have a reputation of providing accurate information as it applies to what I am working on, and the level of detail I am working with. I would, however, have no problem with you or anyone editing articles, on an individual basis by replacing a less precise source with a more precise source, but again, I think this has to be done on a case by case basis; I think it's determiental to force it upon all articles. For instance, if it was decided that the USBGN data lookup feature should be the source of elevation data for mountain summits in the United States, we'd end up with quite a mess of misinformation on our hands, as it is not (consistently enough) a reliable source for such information (see my comments and examples below--if you can find them in this anaconda), regarless of the fact that it can cite its original datasets. My fear (and maybe it is unfounded) is that you are suggesting a unilateral change to Wikipedia and a universal branding of certain sources (you have yet to name specific ones) as unsuitable as references because they do not reference the absolute sources of data they are working with. This seems a little extreme to me. Aside: Did I also mention that USGS datasets are often decades more dated (and therefore dependent on less reliable technology) than other current sources? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Finally, I should point out that it's important to match up the proper coordinate format when linking from an article to the Mapsources GeoHack Wikipedia tool; if not, you'll end up directing your readers to Mars.

--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The United States Board on Geographic Names is probably often used for coordinate information although the source is often not cited. Unsourced coordinates often have the USBGN numbers, although it is possible the numbers came from another source (or from the USBGN through another source). However, reading a GPS device should be considered as an acceptable method; the USGS uses volunteers with GPS units to collect coordinate information. If we want to define a coordinate manual of style (driveway, main entrance, or center point?) we'll do that as we have for other source materials. Trivial calculations, such as taking GPS readings on opposing sides of a building and using halfway between the two locations as the location of the building, should also be as acceptable as paraphrasing text is. Another editor with a more precise or authoritative source/device may later correct the info. The source should be specified if it is not obvious or considered common knowledge. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

With regard to your comment "The United States Board on Geographic Names is probably often used for coordinate information", I'd like to suggest that the USBGN online data lookup feature is probably less reliable than a handheld GPS device for a number of reasons; see above and also related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#peak lists?.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think the USBGN is authoritative and official, but probably suffers many of the problems one would expect from a government-affiliated official decision making organization. The USBGN FAQ [2] 29 does state that updates are frequently applied, whatever those are. The USBGN procedures are focused on names and I suspect that USGS workers update coordinate info but I haven't found details. Whether USBGN numbers are correct for Wikipedia use (such as city coordinates being of oldest location, such as city hall) depends upon what Wikipedia wants. At a minimum, USBGN is a citable source of some authority. Locations which are not in USBGN require other sources. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's a specific example of the type of problem one is likely to encounter when using the USBGN: Peak Mountain. If you refer to a USGS topographic map of the mountain (such as this one duplicated on Topozone) you'll note that A) The words "PEAK MOUNTAIN" are shown along the entire length of the mountain ridge, and B), According to the contour lines, the summit is over 700 feet. However, if you look it up via the USBGN (see here), you'll see that the summit is listed as 581 feet. If you then click on the feature name (Peak Mountain) in the USBGN lookup results, it will give you the option to view the mountain via Topozone. Click on that, and you end up with this, which shows you the southern ledge of Peak Mountain at 672 feet, not 581 feet, not the actual 700+feet summit. Obvioiusly, this throws off coordinates and elevation. If this were a rare or isolated incident, not big deal, but it's not. I can cite several more such inconsistancies all within a radius of less than 30 miles. If that is representative of the degree of reliability on a national level (and why wouldn't it be?), I think it brings into question any reference using the USBGN alone. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

USBGN FAQ [3] 16. # How accurate is the elevation data in the GNIS Database? How was it measured? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The USBGN is one source which can be cited on Wikipedia. Other sources maybe be better for specific locations or uses; for a mountain the altitude used by some mountaineering record tracking group might be suitable. If you can park a precision GPS unit on a point for 24 hours that might be better (location of the first Sears store?). -- SEWilco (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

tl;dr the above, so this might have been covered, but on U.S. roads I generally cite Acme Mapper, which is a pretty nice Google Maps/USGS topo combination. For instance, see the route description of California State Route 190. If there's something that's not obvious from any of the three types of imagery - road, satellite, or topo - then I cite a better source. For elevations, unless the topo has a number right at the point, I give an approximate figure based on the contour lines. --NE2 12:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so your preferred map service or user interface is ACME Mapper, but is that tidbit suitable for articles? Any map from after the geographical feature was built provides a similar view that you can look at when writing a description. If something is obvious in the imagery you have looked at, and others, and its location is noted in the article, is it really necessary to cite any particular source, when the same information is available in so many other services for the same location, without any interpretation or other processing necessary? --Para (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not all maps are equal. One might not be as up-to-date, while another might show a different name for a road. Citing exactly where I got the information lets readers check the reference. --NE2 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You recognise that the date information is important, but you're still referencing something that has neither date nor source. That's the same as citing a friend of a friend who read the information from a reliable source; the information will not be verifiable, since the source you used is known to be dynamic and so it may not have the same data from the original source anymore, or may not be available at all. Shouldn't you also mention the discrepancy of the sources in the article and cite the different map in addition to the maps that have common information, instead of making your own judgement on which source is right and citing an aggregate service where you can't know where the labels will be tomorrow? --Para (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's why I say when I accessed it. I'm not saying that there is a discrepancy, just that if there is one it will be clear that there is one. --NE2 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But it won't be clear, that's the point. Look for example at the articles Google Accused Of 'Airbrushing' Katrina, Google's View of D.C. Melds New and Sharp, Old and Fuzzy, and Censorshopping around the Netherlands. Google Maps is such an everchanging cocktail of data that you can't guarantee that others would get the same information tomorrow, and they have no way of knowing the data has changed from since you looked at it, since it's given without sources as if it was factual information. If however you're writing about some large scale present day topic such as roads, small differences in the data are insignificant and it doesn't matter whose map you're looking at. What information does a reference to a single service then convey and will it help convince readers of something? --Para (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I understand your frustration with the changing nature of data provided by internet geographic services, but isn't that the nature of the internet as a whole? I think that's fairly well understood by anyone that when you read an article that references by an internet source, that source may change at any time, without notice or indication that it has done so. But that doesn't mean the source isn't worthwhile and shouldn't be cited. And sure, Google may have airbrushed Hurricane Katrina, and there certainly have been inaccurate news articles that have been printed by generally reliable sources such as the AP, BBC, whatever, but occasional incidents of inaccuracy or fraud should not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To jump in here, as it coincides with another sub-discussion going on inside this beast, I agree with NE2, and I wonder if you are insisting on too rigorous a standard. I think that there are certainly instances where such rigor is justified, but I don't think it is necessary to enforce it in every instance. A map published by a reputable publisher should be citable, regardless if it reveals its original data set or not. Of course, it can be challenged as a source, and replaced with a better source, but it should not be automatically regarded as unsuitable--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what the problem is here. Encyclopedias do not contain page after page after page of stubs about irrelevant hamlets because it would obviously detract from the important stuff, since if people wanted to know how to skin a cat or find the mystical land of Toul Kork, they would go somewhere else. However, Wikipedia is not paper, therefore it may be spammed by bots injecting directory lists that could easily be found on maps.google.com and Google Earth. For an idea of what I'm talking about, simply refresh Special:Random over and over. It is important that we include this stuff, because someday, the ghosts of the Native Americans that died in Adobe Creek might rise from the dead and want to contribute to that article to tell us a bit more about it. Because obviously, the squirrels and bunny rabbits there aren't talking. Until scientists manage to invent a means of immortality, that's not going to happen of course, and it's just going to be a worthless stub -- but give it some time. Consensus is inescapable and will fix things, eventually. Zenwhat (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I must admit to a bit of confusion with the Wiki policy upon citing sources for geographical places altogether. I have been happily adding latitude and longitude for a few years now. This involves "improving" coordinates of existing articles (some Wiki coords come from geonames where previously "near enough was good enough" - I'd find that geonames sometimes locates a place in some nearby field rather than in the centre of an urban area) and also sourcing brand new articles. People leave you alone of you are redoing the coordinates. If you are creating a new article for a village, people now want contributors to cite sources "otherwise an article may be deleted". I think this is overkill - I added Morefield last month as an example. My POV:

• The Wikipedia is infinitely expandable. At least one person comes from every village. I'm not sure waiting until somewhere becomes significant for some reason matters. If it's on the map, I'd want it in the Wikipedia. I leave whether every hillock needs cataloguing for others - I'm only interested in human settlement.
• Indeed sometimes there is no true source. Yes I may have located it using Google Maps or Virtual Earth. But those sources did not suddenly spring into existence this decade - they are built on the work of predecesors. Originally indeed somebody 100 years ago went around with surveying tools which became the Ordnance Survey which became a source for Multimap. Personally my source is "well there it is on the map I'm using".

Does citing sources for geography need a rethink generally? --Scotthatton (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

References are good, but only if they lead the reader to the information cited. Though anything on the internet can change, most reliable online sources cited on Wikipedia are publications that aren't expected to change. If they disappear, it is often still possible to find the material again, and they usually have an author who can be contacted. With dynamic databases such as most online map services none of this is true: their very nature is that they change (or in people's minds, improve), there is no way to see what a service's imagery at a certain date in the past looked like, there is no identification in the material, and no way to contact the authors. Such references are therefore of no use, and only give the false impression that the article is well referenced, when on further inspection the references are not verifiable and all we have is the editor's word for it. To compare with other topics, it is not customary on Wikipedia articles about companies or currency to cite current stock exchange or exchange rate services. With such data there is no expected truth the services would be trying to approach and Wikipedia to catch up on, but only different periodic values, which is why those articles cite published historical data. When there is a truth to something we write about, it shouldn't be an editor choice to decide whose data is closest to it, but it seems that that's exactly the practice in Wikipedia. A rethink is certainly needed. --Para (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apparently we're still at a point where geographic coordinates in a database might be off by a kilometer or two. Checking a database of industrial locations against orthophotos founds such differences.[4] -- SEWilco (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just one question, how would one cite a TV documentary or interview? A lot of the time these things don't appear on the internet or on a news broadcast, so it's difficult to include information from a source like that in an article. BalkanFever 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This sounds like a job for {{cite video}}. RossPatterson (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

---

Here's a real example using {{cite video}}...

--SallyScot (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have been learning how to add citations and references for a while now, but I still do not know exactly how to make multiple references to different pages in the same book. I could just reference a book without a page number, give the reference a name and make multiple references but I want to make my citations more precise.

I hate not backing up statements and claims without the exact page number listed. Despite checking many times, over a period of months, I find that the help pages are not clear enough for me to understand how to do this. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

One solution is to use {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}} in combination with one another. See Philippine-American_war#Notes for an example. Click wikilinks to get from footnotes containing (possibly page-numbered) references to the associated citation or a work to which the references apply. Use the browser's Back button to get back. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The inline citation method Short footnote citations with full references covers this. It's documented with examples on the project page. --SallyScot (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the way most people do it, Shiftchange, is simply to write <ref name=Smith25>Smith, John. ''How to Write References''. Random Publisher, 2008, p. 25.</ref> Then if you reference the same page again, write <ref name=Smith25/>. This avoids the need for citation templates, which can make the text hard to edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice that this was recently added:

"Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers."

Does anyone know where it was decided that it's best not to use these? I've seen them used in articles with very long Notes or References section to great effect. I can see that printing would be problematic, but then lots of issues in articles can cause problems with printing, and we're an online project, not a paper one. Apart from that, though, are there real problems with these scrolling lists that I'm not aware of? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have had no involvement here either but I can see Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive18#Scrolling_Reference_List, Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive19#Scrolling_reference_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/Archive_7#scroll_box_for_references and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref. To me such lists look to be a bad thing. Thincat (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As it happens, I don't think scrolling lists should be used either, particularly for References, which would be at the bottom of the page, where you'd be using the browser's own scroll bar anyway. However, I don't really agree with the inclusion of the argument that it cannot be guaranteed such list will display in all web browsers. Arguments made against scrolling lists should legitimate. Concerns over readability and printing still stand, but the argument of browser compatibility is being overstated. --SallyScot (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering what it is about scrolling lists in particular that is problematic. Image size and placement, for example, will look different on different browsers, will sometimes not print out well etc, but we don't disallow images for that reason. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I recall correctly, most mirror sites can't handle the scrolling lists; but that may have changed since the last time I checked. Kirill 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The other question is what benefit they provide. There is no particular reason to save vertical screen space within a page when most browsers already have a scroll bar on the right hand side of the window →. In most of the cases I see where the scroll box is desired, a better solution would be more judicious use of references, a change to a referencing format that uses less space, or a combination of the two. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see. Thanks for the feedback. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:RFCstyle

Does WP:REF support that all (all, as in everything without exception) PD-sourced material be placed in quotes to avoid the appearance of plagiarism? If PD-sourced material is not in quotes, is it proper to remove the offending text? Please say it ain't so! -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The same editor removed a map and updates which interfered with his wrapping PD text as quotations. He places imaginary plagiarism restrictions above that to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Or, in this case, this wasn't even expired copyrighted material, as the work was created in the public domain. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

SEWilco, that is misleading. You know I made effort to save your contributions here: Talk:Bathhouse Row#Alternative sources, for editing back into the article when more peace prevails. To others, please see the history of edits of Bathhouse Row, reflecting many combative reverts, and the talk page, if you want to review SEWilco and my roles. doncram (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The PD text was still adjacent, with cosmetic blank lines (proposed by another editor), although better organized than in the original, with the source cited at the end of each section. There was no need to destroy the improved presentation and remove material. And you didn't bother restoring the new material, leaving the article for readers and editors with older text and large blocks of text protected from alteration within quotation markings. You say below that "a huge block of text" is intimidating, yet that is exactly what you insist upon. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To focus on the question posed for the RFC, is it wrong for another editor (me) to delete copied text from a 1985 source while leaving a link (change which SEWilco reverted)? Is it wrong for an editor (me) to set aside copied text into block quotes (which SEWilco reverted several times)? I tried both approaches as intermediate steps in editing the Bathhouse Row article, to make some space to improve the article with new writing outside of the copied text sections, toward eliminating all of the copied text. Perhaps either editor approach is fine. Someone can add PD text without violation of copyright but with poor referencing practice (not putting it into quotes to reflect that the wording is copied). In my view, another editor has equal right to remove it all, leaving link to the available source, or to set it aside in block quotes, or to label it as badly referenced / requiring improvement in referencing. SEWilco would even deny me the right to put copied text into quotes, I actually had to beg him to let me. Paleorthid, where do you stand on the right of an editor to set aside text into quotes, or to label an article as poorly referenced? (You posed other side of the question, must you use quotes, in terms of say it isn't so, now what is your view about can you choose to use quotes, or can u label unquoted copied text as poorly referenced?) doncram (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would definitely support the right to place that kind of text in block quotes, or remove it. I suppose it would depend how well-written and informative it was. If the article could easily survive without it, I'd say remove it and link to it. If not, then block quotes would seem fair enough. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To give some more info to Paleorthid's question, I have indeed added the "nofootnotes" tag to a number of articles covered in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government". For some of these articles which show some effort to properly reference other sources, I have added a note to the talk page such as this one related to one of my edits that Paleorthid questions. In response to a a similar posting I made on Talk page of "2007 Brooklyn tornado", an author/editor expressed appreciation for my calling attention to the appearance that the article was poorly sourced due to the use of that "USGovernment" template, and has chosen to fix the article so as to be able to remove that disclaimer. In other cases I have just added the "nofootnotes" tag. In some cases I removed offending text (leaving the appropriate external link to the text source). In one case I returned to add more sources and to set aside copied text in a block quote, see this diff on James R. Allen article. I think all of these interventions are helpful and justified. doncram (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have stated that these types of edits on articles involving big hunks of copied text are needed to avoid the appearance of plagiarism, but that is only one reason. Another reason is to clarify that, in some cases, virtually all the text is copied, perhaps slavishly, from a source that perhaps should be questioned. I noted in the Talk:James R. Allen case that the official U.S. Air Force biography which was the source, had neglected to discuss potential controversy about his role as superintendent of the Air Force Academy when women were admitted, which later led to great controversy and scandals. I don't know in that case whether Allen was involved constructively, obstructively, or not at all, but I do question whether the USAF official biographies are selective in what they report in ways that excludes anything that might reflect poorly on the USAF. I think it is highly appropriate to segregate by quotations or block quotes anything that is directly copied, to avoid being slavish dupes of dated or otherwise questionable sources. doncram (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It occurs to me to look at the official U.S. military bios of officials involved in the Tailhook scandal. Compare the official bio for official U.S. Navy bio for Frank Kelso which does not mention Tailhook to the wikipedia entry Frank B. Kelso II which does cover it. My point is that slavish copies into wikipedia look convincing, but in fact are selective, biased accounts that only show the military in a favorable way. Quite a high proportion of the articles in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government" are virtual copies of US military bios, but are presented not in quotes so they convey a) that the facts stated are accurate, obvious, non-controversial, and further they imply b) the facts stated are the notable ones to be said about the given person. It is intimidating to others who might want to edit, and would naturally search for other sources if they see that the whole block of text is just from one source, that it is not considered obvious, uncontroversial facts. I believe the military bios are valid on most biographical facts, but still if u copy it without putting it in quotes I think you are endorsing the included material and endorsing the omissions of significant negative material. doncram (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another reason is to facilitate entry into the editing of an article by other editors. When there is a huge block of text copied in from another site, it is naturally intimidating to many potential editors. To begin to revise or add to an already big article that may be stated very authoritatively, is difficult, unless and until one understands that all of the article, or huge chunks, is merely copied from one source. This came up in somewhat heated discussion with SEWilco of Bathhouse Row where copied text is currently segregated in block quotes; it certainly applies to Duquesne Spy Ring which is mostly 33 profiles and photos copied from here. doncram (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Doncram says that a huge block of text is intimidating, yet that is exactly the format he has forced upon Bathhouse Row. The copied text was "segregated" by him, replacing a better organized and well sourced format (which also had some updates which he removed). -- [[[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Copied text seems unencyclopedic. Shouldn't an encyclopedia include condensed discussion, that is be shorter than the sources that it cites? It does not add value to merely copy. It potentially adds value to call attention to material, by selective quoting and citing, or by including an external link. doncram (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Copied text is no more encyclopedic than original text, based merely upon whether the text is being reused or newly written. We accept newly written text and consider it for further editing. Would text copied from, say, the current edition of an encyclopedia not be encyclopedic merely because it was copied? It would be a copyright violation, but it would not lose its encyclopedic quality merely due to being copied. Being encyclopedic depends upon an evaluation of the specific text and not its origin. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do appreciate Paleorthid's raising this question here, which may be an appropriate place to raise it. I look forward to your comments. I have also made a point to raise the issue in WikiProjects involved in many of the articles, as here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Copied material in Military History articles, and quality ratings and here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Copied material, inappropriately sourced, in aviation articles. doncram (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I told Doncram (who seems to have then ignored me and gotten into the same dispute with other people) PD text doesn't need to be in quotes. There's no legal or ethical requirement for this... even our copyright/plagiarism critics have never complained once about our use of PD text. There are much better issues to fret over. --W.marsh 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We interacted over editing Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge to improve its referencing and in discussing those edits in its talk page. I did not ignore you at all there, but your assertion of no need to track copied material did not convince me. It turned out that the article was referenced inadequately to start with: it had been tagged with the general disclaimer that it "incorporates text from" one source, but in fact when specific statements were reviewed, some were not supported by that one source after all. Keeping track of which text is copied from where by using quotes is part of sensible, normal practices of good referencing / proper sourcing, that is the lesson I took from our discussion. doncram (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To sharpen my point slightly: use of the general disclaimer obscures new Original Research assertions that can be added to an article, as was the case here. It is fair to label an article having the general disclaimer "incorporates text from" as poorly referenced, given higher likelihood that OR assertions can/ may well have crept in, given no separation between sourced vs. non-sourced material. doncram (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• No - per WP:CREEP first and foremost, but among other things per above. MilesAgain (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • Hmm, the WP:CREEP article is interesting but I don't think it is very relevant. I don't think that keeping copied text in quotes is something that is complex to manage. And it is the practice in most English-speaking educational systems, that students are taught to do that. doncram (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • Students aren't writing papers to inform an audience though, they're writing them to prove their knowledge of the topic, and thus, using someone elses words as body text is a problem, even if used legally and attributed. We're just trying to create good articles, proving how much we the writers know about the subject is irrelevant. --W.marsh 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
      • By mentioning the usual training of students, I was meaning to convey that keeping copied text in quotes is a procedure that is widely understood and hence not unduly "complex" to manage, relating to WP:CREEP. I didn't mean to suggest that the collective of wikipedia editors is involved in writing articles to get a grade. But, come to think of it, perhaps that is sort of true that we writers do need to prove the accuracy of what we know/write. The collective of wikipedia editors can well be concerned with their credibility and the credibility of wikipedia in general, and there are principles of Verifiability and so on. Unquoted copied text simply looks bad, is disappointing and discouraging to come across, and obscures the verifiability (the specific sourcing) of the material. doncram (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Random break 1

When one publisher republishes a new edition of a work from a different publisher and author (after the earlier work has either entered the public domain, or permission has been obtained) the new publisher acknowledges the earlier edition in the front matter, but does not use quotation marks or indention to distinguish text which is being used without alteration. Following that convention, I believe it should be sufficient for Wikipedia to mention in the reference section that an article is derived from a PD article published elsewhere.

If specific facts need to be supported, and rely on the PD edition, a suitable inline citation should be provided. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But exactly! Each fact with a big text copied from a PD source, does need to be supported. You mean one needs to insert an in-line citation for each sentence. (And I think each sentence needs to be put in quotes, to show that the wording, not just the content, is from the given source.) The better alternative is to put the whole text in a big quote. doncram (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no difference between facts in reused PD text and facts in original text. If each sentence of original writing requires a citation to support its facts, then indeed each sentence of reused PD text needs a citation to support its facts. You're blending text with facts in your claim. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's where you and I differ. I think there is and should be a big difference between statements in copied PD text and statements written by the editors. If a statement is not in quotes in an encyclopedia article, it signifies to me as a reader that the editors have carefully considered it and concluded that it is fact, non-controversial. But if I am beginning to work on an article and a big block of text turns out to be merely copied, I am disappointed and I have to revise my expectations. I realize that as a regular reader I was misled. I realise then that careful consideration was probably NOT taken in deciding which facts were controversial or otherwise need specific support. It is too easy for someone to paste in whole blocks of PD text without thinking; I simply do not believe that an editor who copied a 1000 word passage, say, actually went through it and checked whether there were other sources available for every statement in it, separately, and that the consensus view on every point is the one stated in the PD text. Cutting and pasting a huge block equates with noncritical thinking. If an editor has reworded the material, I do believe that she/he cogitated over it, and would likely have been referring to several sources, and has taken care in evaluating whether some statement is a consensus, factual statement not requiring separate support. Even when mainly working from one source, the editor limits her/himself to rewriting what she/he understands to be pretty well known, and refrains from merely rewording statements that she/he knows are questionable or that she/he cannot evalutate the accuracy of. That's how it is supposed to work, in my view, and that's what I think most encyclopedia readers expect. doncram (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

An author did consider their text when they wrote it, and a Wikipedia editor is responsible for reuse... and you're changing to yet another claim from the preceding facts-require-citations statement. Which of your numerous positions is today's statement on formatting for PD text? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you meant to imply that only asserted facts that might be controversial need to be supported separately. However, when a big text is copied to create an article, it is usually not obvious which assertions might require specific support. And it is being copied in by one editor who, perhaps uniquely, believes the PD material is all true, when it may not be. The PD material is given undue credence, it is pasted in and appears to be the received wisdom (behold, it appears in an encyclopedia, it must be true), when in fact the PD source may be outdated, inappropriate, suspect due to bias, and so on which is obscured by not putting that material in quotes. While one editor may slavishly believe one source, there are many other perspectives usually. The editing process requires keeping track of what is the source of facts, particularly when it is just one source that is being relied upon at first. doncram (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant that whether an inline citation is needed is independent of the Wikipedia article being based on a PD article. So if the fact is controversial, or if the fact would be difficult to look up in an index or table of contents of one of the sources in the reference section, then an inline citation should be supplied.

It could be a bit awkward if some passages from the PD article are in quotes, because they are followed by an inline citation, while other parts are not in quotes, because there is no inline citation. This is a problem unique to Wikipedia. It is only in Wikipedia where every controversial fact has to be supported. Other publishers rely on the reputation of the publisher or the author to support many of the facts. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A bunch of sentences together carry no undue credence on their own. Wrap them in quotes and they're set aside as being special and alteration is forbidden. If a paragraph simply has a bunch of text then people will read and edit the paragraph, with the ability to check facts in whatever sources are cited. Evaluation of text being outdated, biased, or inappropriate, has to be done for all text and not only whatever happens to be wrapped in quotation marks. Actually, text in quotation marks is by implication not to be altered and outdated, biased, and inappropriate terms are acceptable in a quotation. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at WP:MOS#Quotations ("Attribution—The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. An exception is that attribution is unnecessary for well-known quotations (e.g., from Shakespeare) and those from the subject of the article or section." and WP:MOS#Quotation marks ("Double or single—Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'."), I'd interpret that guideline as advising that literal quotations, regardless of source and unless the quote is well-known, should be set off by quotation marks and should be attributed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We usually aren't actually quoting the PD source, such as the 1911 Britannica, but just using its wording. Using something as body text isn't the same as using it as a quote. --W.marsh 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But if an article is a total quote from PD but the quoted part is not indicated, and if someone wants to reword a paragraph, how will the reader know what has come from the original source and what may have been altered and therefore may not represent the original PD author? I am thinking of a particular article that is (or was at least) a total quotation from a known writer who donated (or sold) her writing to a site that is now in the PD. This article was just several huge blocks of text -- very reader unfriendly. Does that mean that anyone who alters anything in a PD article MUST reference the alteration? Mattisse 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If Wikipedia publishes an article that is derived from a PD article, it is no different from Dover Publications publishing a revised edition of a PD book. To avoid plagarism, the original edition should certainly be acknowledged, but if readers wish to know what passages remain unaltered from the original, they will just have to buy the original and compare. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the case I am thinking of, it was slavishly copied but not attributed to the particular author who wrote it. It was just labeled PD. Now, of course, if someone went to the PD source, they would eventually discovered it was a word for word copy. (Or maybe it will have be altered in some way they would discover if they did a side by side comparison.) Normally Dover, or whatever publishing house, is very careful about notifying the reader of the copyright status of the material they publish. If Dover revised a PD work, I am quite sure they would copyright the revision. Mattisse 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I daresay Dover would obtain a copyright on the revision*, just as Wikipedia editors copyright their revisions (and immediatley license them under the GFDL license). However, there would be no markings in the body of the text to distinguish passages that changed from passages that remained the same.

*For recent publications, Dover couldn't help but get a copright on revisions; it's automatic. Of course, registering the copyright is another matter. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dover is not striving to be encyclopedic, with the policy of WP:V either. Dover can be POV without having to cite sources. Mattisse 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To Matisse's (00:14 UTC) question "(in a PD originated article) how will the reader know what has come from the original source?": add "and to what degree will they care?" Normally source matters for only select portions of articles, and the need for cites can be dealt with selectively as the need arises, and to the degree it is important. Articles are evolving to using more intext cites. Among weakly sourced facts, those that have the highest demand for verification will be among the first to attract intext cite edits. The rest can wait their turn. --Paleorthid (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It matters to the degree accuracy matters. If accuracy in Wikipedia is unimportant, then we do not need this discussion. Anyone can add any statement or chunks of statements and the source is irrelevant. WP:V is irrelevant as nothing needs to be verified. And it matters to the degree that you want editors to edit. It is the articles that are long blocks of PD text, some of it out of date, that editors seem to avoid as it is daunting to verify a humongous copy/paste article. Easier to start from scratch and find sources. A huge number of articles are copy/paste from Encyclopedia Britannica 1913. My observation is that editors seem to leave them alone. Mattisse 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're reading the minds of editors? Perhaps such articles appear to be encyclopedic. But you're implying that editors verify a humongous copy/paste article differently than they verify any other humongous article. Inventing a likely article name... Is History of Boston humongous, how do editors verify it, and does it matter if it is reused text? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do editors verify a copy/paste article? They have to find multiple secondary sources. Who wants to do that for huge blocks of text. Not very many people. That is why those articles are neglected and stay that way. The point of WP:V is that each reader can verify facts independently while reading the article. For example, some studies have shown inaccuracies in the current Encyclopedia Britannica but since the EB does not source its articles, the reader can not judge the quality of EB sources. Here lies the potential superiority of Wikipedia. That is why Wikipedia desires multiple sources to verify a fact. The template {{onesource}} can be placed on an article that relies on one source overly. Also PD articles can be out of date. WP:RS and WP:V are important. Are you saying they are not? Mattisse 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do editors verify any article? "They have to find multiple secondary sources. Who wants to do that for huge blocks of text." What facts are in huge blocks of text? Facts tend to be in fragments of text, so huge blocks of text are not fact checked in entirety. Facts within text are checked, which is why most text with citations has citation notes scattered throughout. Reused PD text is just text donated by an editor. If the source from which it came supports WP:V then the facts within might be supported by the same source from which the text came. The facts scattered within the text are checked individually and may acquire additional sources. Note that reused PD text might actually not meet requirements such as WP:RS but might still be usable as raw text, conceivably with unrelated citations (in addition to credit for the text, which would be separate from fact-supporting citations). -- SEWilco (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mattisse, do you think that a block of reused PD text is a monolithic fact which must be isolated and cited in totality as being a fact? As a fact, not merely identification of the source of the text? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another problem with this is splits and merges. Under this new standard, if we merged two articles, since we can't just copy text from a free (GFDL) source but most quote it, merged articles would have to formally quote the original articles they were merged from. If we split content off from an overlong Wikipedia article, the new subarticle would have to say, "According to the original Wikipedia article... quote..." and so on. That's another reason why this "quote" thing is silly. We always have re-used, without formally quoting, text from free sources, with proper attribution. It's practically a required part of what we do. --W.marsh 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that raising a problem. Perhaps you need to conceptualize "we the collective of wikipedia editors" as one big collective author. "We" wrote one big article, say, and then choose to split it, "we" have still written each of them. To the extent that either/both contain text sourced from some PD source OUTSIDE of wikipedia, that can be / ought to be tracked, but you don't have to put in quotes "our" wording from the other article. It is "we" that wrote it wherever it is. doncram (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

And "we" track the origin of the text "we" wrote through the article history, not by noting each editor's contribution within the text. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, you say "We have always" done whatever, and I kinda want to separate from that. It is not the practice in the articles covered WP:NRHP where I have mostly participated, for example. It is in fact a few intrusions into that area which raise my concern about this issue. doncram (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with "kinda want to", it's the "absolutely want every article to" that I have heartburn over.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Random break 2

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and we often copy the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships verbatim, with proper sourcing, as a start to many articles. DANFS is a public domain encyclopedia (not really a dictionary) that aims to have a brief history of every ship to ever serve in the U.S. Navy. I completely disagree with the principle that all PD text must be placed in blocks of quoted text. Our uses of DANFS are not a copyright violation, because the source is public domain. They are not plagiarism, because they are properly sourced. Finally, they are encyclopedic, because they come from an encyclopedia. TomTheHand (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rather than placing this kind of material in quotes, would it not make more sense to write it up as your own summary? Cutting and pasting is a little unethical, but it can also lead to strange-looking writing depending on the source, and in particular on the age of the source (some older PD texts use very flowerly language). Also, the point of Wikipedia (as I see it anyway) is that it's meant to be 100 percent our own work, free for others to use. Not 100 percent someone else's work, copied and pasted by us. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you'll check out DANFS, you'll see that it's already a concise summary. For many ships it is the best, and sometimes only, history available. It is not unethical to copy and attribute a public domain source, and it is just as free for others to use as it would be if you wrote it yourself. There is no moral high ground in rewriting it; what's free is free. Keep in mind the number of articles that began as copies of entries from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, and see here for how many articles still include its text. TomTheHand (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but they're often poorly written by our standards, and rarely NPOV. In my view, our own work should be our own work. That's a separate issue from whether we're allowed to copy PD texts, because of course we are. I suppose the question is why anyone would want to, when the articles could be rewritten fairly quickly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I took TomTheHand's suggestion and I see between 12K and 15K articles (here) that still include its text from EB1911. Considering the proliferation of PD source templates, some uncategorized or poorly categorized, the style issue that we are discussing surely affects several 10s of thousands of articles. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a waste of time to rewrite PD text simply for the sake of rewriting, and we have other guidelines that address poor writing and NPOV, so that's not really relevant. DANFS, Britannica 1991, and other PD sources are only a starting point and are cleaned up and expanded as the article evolves. TomTheHand (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that's where we differ. I wouldn't say "simply for the sake of rewriting," as though that's not much of a concern, because to me the way an article is written is very important. But I suppose it depends on priorities. If your priority is to get the material into Wikipedia in whatever format — information over presentation — then I can see your point. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't advocate just dumping an article from DANFS into Wikipedia, tossing in some wikilinks, and saying "Woohoo! We're done!" However, I think it's very valuable to be able to use a DANFS entry as a starting point, then gradually clean up the prose and add additional sources. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:DANFS, you'll see how many hundreds of articles began this way. I suppose you could describe my attitude as "eventualist" in this sense: we should get articles these articles going now, by copying PD sources, and then improve them with time.

The first article of that whatlinkshere list is USS Arizona which includes the DANFS statement "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here" However, I note that article does NOT in fact seem to have any text from DANFS at all, and in particular not at the "here" link given. Perhaps the DANFS template is overused? By the way, for articles originally based on the 1911 encyclopedia britannica, the 1911 eb template is removed from articles after they have been completely rewritten. I would think that editors of articles should want not to give undue credit to DANFS. Perhaps some other sort of legacy DANFS template, like "this article was originally based on a DANFS entry, but no longer incorporates any text from that" would allow you to express your appreciation to DANFS while a) taking proper credit for wikipedia editors and b) avoiding muddying the waters about the extent to which wikipedia is merely copied from public domain texts. 69.226.46.107 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We're at a point now where we don't do a lot of dumping from DANFS any more. We've shifted from quantity to quality. However, it'd be extremely problematic if it suddenly became unacceptable; as Paleorthid points out, tens of thousands of existing articles are based on PD sources. TomTheHand (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What began this discussion, I believe, is the practice mentioned in your first sentence: 'I don't advocate just dumping an article from DANFS into Wikipedia, tossing in some wikilinks, and saying "Woohoo! We're done!" ' I understand that was done previously with PD sourced articles. The question is if we should condone such practices now, especially if the source is not an encyclopedia. Do you think so? Mattisse 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The question is whether the reused PD text must be inside quotation marks. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The quotation marks issue became the question after the creator of a particular article recently did a "dump and desert" from a source that was not an encyclopedia. When another editor suggested rewriting the article, starting with a skeleton of the original "dump and desert" so he could edit it and add sources, the original creator resisted this attempt to rewrite the article, (even though the second editor was willing to collaborate in a sandbox first). Mattisse 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what situation you're talking about, and the question here is: "Does WP:REF support that all (all, as in everything without exception) PD-sourced material be placed in quotes to avoid the appearance of plagiarism?" -- SEWilco (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Our collective answer to that question looks to be "No", at this point anyway. No one here has explicitly stated that they advocate that all of the 10s of thousands of articles with PD source tags must be treated with quotes to satisfy the style guidance that this talk page relates to. Certainly there are deficiencies, and remedies available for those deficiencies, on an article-by-article basis, but that's not the question.--Paleorthid (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But if you were writing an article and suddenly introduced part of a copied PD text, you would have to say something like: "The X Encyclopedia writes that ..." and then quote them, or place the text in blockquotes, or something to indicate that this had been lifted from elsewhere. That's just common sense, and it would take seconds to add it, so I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to do it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the useful question to ask, then, Paleorthid? It is probably not the straw man proposal that you put forward to start this discussion. If it was just that, then the question was posed by you and answered by you. Perhaps you could expand on what you think are appropriate or inappropriate remedies for deficiencies (to be applied on an article-by-article basis, as you say). Or perhaps there should be some distinctions made between text copied from encyclopedic sources (1991 eb, DANFS) vs. just any old random U.S. Federal document that is in the PD. I think it is clear that WP:REF guidance on these matters could be improved. Could you make a real proposal, or suggest where you think discussion would be productive? Sincerely, 69.226.46.107 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Summary so far

Trying to summarize thus far... and the numbers in the list have been hard-coded intentionally so they can be referred to without the numbers changing due to wikilist editing. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. All PD-sourced material must be placed in quotes. (Paleorthid  citing doncram)
2. PD-sourced text does not have to be in quotes. (Paleorthid, SEWilco, MilesAgain)
3. PD text must be in blocks of quoted text. (doncram)
3a. Blocks of text are intimidating to editors. (doncram, SEWilco)
3b. Editors verify facts of huge blocks of text in articles. (Mattisse)
3c. The consensus import of 1911 Britannica used no such formatting (MilesAgain)
4. If specific facts need to be supported a suitable inline citation should be provided. (Gerry Ashton, Paleorthid)
5. WP:MOS#Quotation marks: "Quotations are enclosed within 'double quotes'." (Boracay Bill)
5a. We aren't quoting the PD source, just using its wording. (W.marsh, SEWilco, MilesAgain)
6. Quotation marks are needed so the source of PD text can be identified. (doncram, Mattisse)
6a. Wikipedia tracks the origin of text separately from the text, in article History. (Paleorthid, W.marsh, doncram, MilesAgain, SEWilco)

I added my name and comment to the above. MilesAgain (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Examples

Examples of what placing all PD sourced material into quotes might look like.

• Nimrod Glacier: Before and after (Discuss) --Paleorthid (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Itek: (No before example) after (Discuss) --Paleorthid (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Bathhouse Row: Before and after (Discuss) -- SEWilco (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The above examples all miss the point. Setting aside long copied in texts in quotes is not usually optimal, it is intermediate, in clarifying which stupid text is merely from one source, which can then be evaluated. (Although I reserve judgement about the Itek article, where an editor/author not involved in this discussion was just doing what he/she thought was right and/or was best, maybe that is meant to be an end point article.) Probably large passages should be deleted entirely, replaced merely by a link to the source. Often the material should be rewritten. These examples are being proffered as if they are proof that quotes look bad. Well, don't copy in the long texts! The only thing worse that long copied in quotes, which require lots of referencing, is copied in text that a reader/editor may sense is copied from somewhere else without proper attribution. It is NOT proper attribution to attach a footnote at the end, or even a template that states "text is incorporated from" somewhere. That is the amount of referencing that is appropriate for crediting substantive content to some source. It is inadequate referencing for showing which actual wording is to be credited (or blamed) to a specific source. If you don't want to credit the source, then DON'T COPY THE TEXT, that is a simple rule you could follow. 69.226.46.107 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This source: [5] has been cited in Interstate Highway System, probably to the chagrin of whoever added this Important Note: "Note: do not quote, cite, or reproduce without permission of the author. Contact Essays in History to arrange permission." Going on the assumption that no one has bothered to contact the author, is it unreasonable to just ignore the note? —Rob (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. What the hell were they thinking? MilesAgain (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I imagine they were thinking, correctly, that the author has no right to require people to ask permission to cite or quote him. See fair use, the principle on which we cite or quote every source. TomTheHand (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've restored a version of the page from a few months ago, but I included the recent version of some issues that I know are important to people e.g. where to place ref tags in relation to punctuation.

The page had deteriorated to the point where parts of it were very difficult to understand, and someone had made substantive changes to the layout -- I believe it was User:SallyScot. The page has to be clear and clearly laid-out, so that people can find things and understand them. Otherwise, there's no point in the guideline existing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comparison of two versions for this section under discussion. - Similar parts are grayed here only for contrast, otherwise the emphasis (i.e. the bold closing part of #1) is as per original text.

1. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary and annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit. Because they are optional and contentious, citation templates should not be added against consensus, and editors should not change articles from one style to another if there are objections.

2. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, unless their use is contrary to the established consensus of editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary, arguing that they are distracting, particularly when used inline in the article text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit.

Version two has dropped the final sentence of version one. Version one ends up on the side of discouraging the use of templates, in contradiction to the first sentence, which states that their use is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline.

Version two also drops the reference to some editors finding the use of citations "annoying", as this is an inflammatory emotional response. Version two replaces this with the argument that some find their use distracting. For contrast, imagine if the section were edited to say that some editors are infuriated with formatting inconsistencies that result from non-use of citation templates.

Version two has better balance in suggesting templates may be used "unless contrary to consensus" rather than "subject to agreement" which was again leaning toward discouragement.

--SallyScot (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You keep leaving out the crucial part that the style should not be changed over objections. It's the same with any style change. It avoids arguments. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The issue is not the same as any style change because, unlike say reference tags and punctuation, it is not necessarily visible to the reader. In practice you should find editors more relaxed, and you'll see articles containing both freehand and template citations. Version one discourages such tolerance with its emphasis of annoyance on one side. Why does it shout citation templates should not added against consensus while saying nothing about freehand citations being added against consensus, or about citation templates being removed against consensus? --SallyScot (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can see them if you try to edit. The issue of citation style has been discussed a lot on this page, and it has always been agreed that people shouldn't switch from one style to another over objections, as with any style issue, unless the old style is deprecated; and the principle of not forcing style changes in general on pages over objections has been upheld by the ArbCom. That principle particularly applies to citation templates because many people dislike them and they make pages hard to edit for flow (hard to copy edit). It's a rule of thumb that saves a lot of arguments. If someone wants to start an article using templates, there's nothing to stop them, but they shouldn't change well-formatted references to templates without agreement. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are two somewhat distinct issues here. On a purely templates versus not-templates level, the matter is largely invisible to the reader, and so it's more a matter of editor preference than many of the more obvious "optional style" issues. I'll leave the discussion of this aspect to SlimVirgin, since I don't really care about the presence of the template code one way or another.

The other issue, however, is the question of citation style rather than template use. The templates—at least as they're currently implemented—will generate citations in a particular style (MLA, if I'm not mistaken). Inserting them in an article that already uses that style would bring us back to the first issue, since it would be invisible to the reader; but inserting them in an article that uses a different style (e.g. CMS) would be a reader-visible style change, which is explicitly prohibited without the consensus of the article's other editors. Kirill 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's because the reader-editor distinction breaks down on Wikipedia that we have to look at how the page is read in edit mode too, and there's no question that these templates make pages harder to edit, and especially to copy edit, which can lead to poor writing. I'll post an example here later. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Example of the kind of problem templates cause (and this is by no means the worst I've seen -- the more contentious the article, the worse it is, because the more citations it needs):

From 1994 to 2000, Wales served as research director at Chicago Options Associates, a [[futures contract|futures]] and [[stock option|options]] [[stock trader|trading firm]] in [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]].<ref name="qanda">{{cite news|title=Q&A: Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder|author=[[Brian Lamb|Lamb, Brian]]|url=http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042|work=[[C-SPAN]]|date=[[2005-09-25]]|accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref> By "speculating on interest rate and foreign-currency fluctuations" he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives," according to Daniel Pink of [[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]].<ref name=bookstopshere>{{cite news|url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=3|title=The Book Stops Here|date=[[2005-03-13]]|accessdate=2006-10-09|publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|last=Pink|first=Daniel H.}}</ref> During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the [[web portal]] [[Bomis]], a website featuring [[user generated content|user generated]] [[webring]]s that, according to [[The Atlantic Monthly]], meant the site "found itself positioned as the [[Playboy]] of the [[Internet]]".<ref>Poe, Marshall. "[http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/2 The Hive]". ''The Atlantic Monthly'', [[2006-09-01]]. Retrieved on [[2008-01-15]].</ref> For a time the company sold erotic photographs<ref name=accessforall>{{cite news | last = Brennen | first = Jensen | title = Access for All | journal = Chronicle of Philanthropy | volume = 18 | issue = 18 | publisher = Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. | location = USA | date = [[2006-06-29]] | accessdate =2008-01-16}}</ref> and Wales described the site as having had "a market similar to say [[Maxim (magazine)|Maxim]] magazine. So it‘s kind of a guy-oriented search engine".<ref name="qanda"/> Although Wales is no longer connected with the company his involvement with Bomis has been criticised with questions frequently asked about the nature of its content.<ref>{{cite news | last = Mangu-Ward | first = Katherine | title = Wikipedia and beyond: Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision | journal = Reason | volume = 39 | issue = 2 | pages = 21 | publisher = Reason Foundation | date = June 2007 | accessdate = 2008-01-16}} </ref><ref name="wirednews">{{cite news |last=Hansen|first=Evan|title=Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio |work=[[Wired News]]|publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |url=http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html|accessdate=2006-02-14}}</ref> Bomis also provided the initial funding for the [[Nupedia]] project.<ref name=bookstopshere>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?topic=wiki|title=The Book Stops Here|date=[[2005-03-13]]|accessdate=2006-10-09|publisher=Wired|last=Pink|first=Daniel H.}}</ref>

Some people get round this by having the template stretched out vertically, but that makes it even worse if there are lots of them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

True enough. (To be fair, this is partially due to our having footnote text inline to begin with; even without using the templates, dense footnotes—particularly footnotes with discursive text of their own—will make editing more difficult, particularly for someone not familiar with the text.) Kirill 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

(<-)Why is that worse? In the regular view they are invisible, and in the edit view, it makes quick identification of text vs. cite extremely easy; just look for a horizontal line of text. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In principle, one could make a statement in this guideline that citation templates should not be added against consensus. However, one could not make the statement that freehand citations should not be added against consensus, because the citation templates only handle the sources that the template editors have thought of. From time to time, one will find a source that the existing templates cannot accommodate. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

---

Here's a closer representation of how the above example might more properly look in edit mode...

/Citation templates example

--SallyScot (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, that's not what it looks like because I copied it exactly. But even if it were, you can still see how hard it would be to create any kind of decent writing with these templates in the way. Plus there's simply no point to them. People who know how to fill in the templates properly can write refs without them. People who don't know how to do it make mistakes and fill them in wrongly, so you end up with inconsistency. And as others have said, if introduced on a page using a different style, you end up with a mishmash of styles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've argued that the templates stretched out vertically would make the layout even worse. User: Avarham questioned this. So I'm not sure what your "that's not what it looks like because I copied it exactly" issue is about really. If I've made the example look even worse as you say then surely that's only further supporting your contention that it's hard to create any kind of decent writing with these templates in the way. --SallyScot (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply