Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 7

message: The recently added statement that external links should come after references: is this actually a general agreement, or did someone just decide arbitrarily to make a new rule? Seems to me like I haven't seen any particular consistency on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
AS I understand things, ==External links== is for sites that contain substantial additional information not covered in the article.  Where a site has been used for reference it should be included in ==References== irrespective of its inclusion in ==External links==.  Because of this, I feel that ==External links== should be placed before ==References== since it is part of the main body of the article (like ==See also==). —Theo  (Talk) 09:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning: External links vs. References

message: I certainly understand and relate to the need to supply sources, as well as links to further reading. That's one of the primary problems with so much online information. However, there's certain areas where the citation becomes a bit tricky and/or redundant, and that's particularly true in relation to non-text materials: films, radio shows, etc. I'm not talking about citing information from an audio commentary or so forth, which can easily be mentioned within the article. I'm referring to information derived directly from credits within the production itself: text credits in regard to films and modern TV series/animated productions etc., and spoken credits for audio productions and early television series, provided in the form of opening or closing announcements. In terms of radio, particularly in the later era, from the 40s and especially 50s and beyond, much of what is known about the creators and participants (to say nothing of being able to accurately describe the characters used, tone, quotes, etc). comes from thee broadcasts themselves. 
How can one go about citing this information? If I were to simply list the show/film, would it be perceived and deleted as a redundancy? Can one simply include an in text citation number, leading to a note in References along the lines of "Information taken directly from film credits/audio announcements" or something along those lines? Some way to mark that the information is not taken purely from often fallible secondary sources such as IMDb, but from the films/programs themselves? 
Whew, that became long winded. Any help on how to approach this for a new user, who expects to do a fair amount of updating in this area, would be appreciated.
Aleal 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting!  But if I understand you correctly, how different is this from saying that "I know who the author of the book is because his/her name is on the cover?"  Do I understand you?  Then the point is that some texts are self-identifying.  This is a fact I think few would dispute.  We have two choices: either just say "Gone with the Wind, directed by Victor Flemming" and provide no source other than information about the film itself (perhaps even VHS and DVD info, like we provide ISBN numbers for books).  Or, we say "According to the credits, Gone With the Wind was directed by Victor Flemming.  According to (cite sourc), however, George Cukor was the first and uncredited director."  Does this help? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct sources/credits for media articles (film, radio, animation, etc). 

message: (moved to Template_talk:Book_reference#Change suggested) — MFH: Talk 23:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  guidelines vs scientific reality 

message: An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in   subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]]