Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 13

message: I have specific permission to cite material that will be appearing in a book from an academic publishing company later this year.   Strictly speaking, such information would not be verifiable at present (since the book is not yet available), but it would be of interest to Wikipedia readers as it provides important elaboration of work already covered in Wikipedia.  What is Wikipedia's policy regarding citation to work that is "in press" (i.e. accepted for publication, but not yet published)?  Dragons flight 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about Wikipedia's policy, but it was briefly discussed concerning articles in the archives: Citing stuff in press. HTH. -- Woseph 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As the policy says "published", IMHO, you need to wait until the book is published before adding the material and citation to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Press" material 

message: I'm confused as to the current status of the , especially in light of this conversation. Please advise. TewfikTalk 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the current status of "fact" tag? 

message: I'm running across a lot of articles that have a hefty references section (where they list all the works) but nary an inline citation. Is  really appropriate then? Is there tag we can put at the top that says "References need to be cleaned up and modified to WP:Citing sources" or something like that to get the idea across that they either have no inline citations (or very few) or they didn't format their references correctly or something? plange 03:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this can be used:  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, thanks! plange 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually prefer .  When I tag with that for this reason, I also leave a note on the talk page, for clarity. -- Beland 02:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a tag for inline citations needed? 

message: Just how far to we go with citations? Look at this: Chainmail. The article consists of literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of facts. Yet someone has picked out one of these facts (third sentence in History section) and flagged it for citation. The guy who did it gave no explanation in the edit summary as to why he thought a citation was needed. Are we saying all facts should have a citation - individually? Reading the Wiki policy I begin to wonder! I would have thought in the vast majority of articles a general citations or references are all that's needed, referring the reader to alternative, hopefully verifiable sources. Even that is not always possible. Some facts speak for themselves: Earth is the third planet out from the Sun - does that need a citation? Arcturus 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is, if an item is challenged, then it is the burden of any editor that wants to item to remain in the article to supply an appropriate citation. If a 'fact' is verifiable (published in a reliable source), then there should be no problem supplying the citation. If no editor can find a suitable reference, the item nedds to come out as unverifiable. As for the Earth being the third planet from the Sun, reliable published souces are plentiful, so what's the big problem about pointing to one? BTW, I am getting really tired of people throwing up examples like that in an effort to weaken Wikipedia policies. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "BTW, I am getting really tired of people throwing up examples like that in an effort to weaken Wikipedia policies." Are you! Well go away and find something else to do then! Earth is third planet out from the Sun (ref: the monster book of facts for five year olds). Come off it! Do you really expect people to reference facts such as those. As I say, for the most part, general references to the topic are usually sufficient. If an editor thinks that a particular fact/opinion etc. requires citation then he should go and cite it rather than passing the buck. Presumably if he knows that a citation is needed, he also knows the subject matter to a certain extent. We could all go sticking that citation tag all over the place without having to answer for it. Arcturus 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, no.  A request for a citation is just that: a request that the editors who added the material to the article—or else someone who merely happens to be familiar with the topic—provide a source for the fact under discussion.  In the particular example you bring up (the chainmail one, not the planet one), the tag is eminently reasonable.  The fact in question is not at all obvious, and without a citation, the reader has no way of determining whether it is correct. Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is Kirill Lokshin entirely correct, but a person who wanted to learn more about the discovery of 5th century BC chainmail would have to search through all the external links in the hope that one of them might have the information. However, since the article does not have proper citations for any of its material, it is quite possible that the editor put the information in based on his/her personal recollections, and hasn't the slightest idea where the 5th century BC discovery was written about. --Gerry Ashton 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, you guys might be interested in a very heated debate over inline citations at Bob Dylan plange 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far does this go? 

message: The text recently added is missing important giudelines. The text proposed opens a massive gap to allow the linking to purportedly reliable sources from blogs, personal websites, anonnymous websites, partisan websites, etc. The distinction needed is that the website in which the convenience link is hosted must be a reliable source on its own right. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good.  I think so to and, actually, would prefer no personal website appear anywhere as a secondary source of information.  As you know, Jossi, convenience link has been a topic of discussion at WP:RS.  The "how do you make a convenience link" should go here, right?  But the question, "what quality is required for a convenience link" should take place at WP:RS ? Terryeo 09:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenience links 

message: Now that an increasing number of articles are being referenced, I am more frequently questioning exactly what claims a given reference is supposed to be documenting. If a reference footnote is at the end of a paragraph, does it support the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence, or just the last phrase?  It's important to disambiguate so that people who wish to challenge or remove fishy-sounding claims will know which are at least supposedly properly referenced, and which have just been stuck in randomly.  I asked about this problem on the Village Pump, and the recommendation was to put a note in the footnote part briefly describing the claims being supported.  If you're referencing a whole paragraph, probably you'll want to refer to a specific version of that paragraph, since unreferenced facts may sneak in.  Does that make sense?  Should it be added to this style guide?  -- Beland 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of references 

message: I am trying to figure out a more appropriate way to reference this section: Backgammon#Rules. Excluding the section lead, for the first subsection (Setup), all three sources support every claim (with one exception, regarding the numbering of points). For the next subsection (Movement), all three sources support every claim, with the exceptions of the explanatory sentences placed after the end of the footnotes. For the last subsection (Doubling cube), all three sources support the first paragraph, the second paragraph is explanation, and the remaining paragraphs are supported only by the one source. One editor complained on the talk page that the numerous footnotes are an eye sore (and, to some extent, I agree), but I would like to be clear about which source supports which statement throughout. Is there a better way to do it than it's done now? 
As well, If there is a better place to ask this, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to stop you from citing multiple sources in a single footnote. In this case, that might be best, since the same collection of sources are being used for multiple paragraphs. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea! Thanks! :-) —ptk✰fgs 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sections when numerous sources are involved

message: I recently was admonished for adding inline citations to an article, as the admonishing editor believed them not to be the "preferred style" of Wikipedia. Any validity to this assertion? --Tcatts 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that editor is definitely wrong. Inline citations are now required for any FA article plange 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, plange. It's good to know I'm on the right track. If anyone else has a point of view here, I'd be glad to hear it. --Tcatts 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a fairly new WP editor, and to me, the phrase inline citation is rather vague. Certainly WP style is to include information about citations within sentences or paragraphs, and not just put a list of references at the end of the article. However, there are several competing systems to accomplish that. It is preferred that if you edit an existing article, you follow whatever system already exists for that article, or if a change is necessary, get consensus for the change on the article's talk page before proceeding. --Gerry Ashton 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. There are several methods... you should also check with any WikiProjects that might have your article in their scope to make sure they also don't have a preferred method. But, as Gerry said, a big no-no is mixing inline citation styles in the same article.plange 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations not preferred style? 

message: I propose that the section How to ask for citations be modified to discourage the overuse of Template:fact.  Citing sources is good and necessary, but I think the ease of insertion of the template leads to cluttering of otherwise good articles. Often, a paragraph expressing many ideas needs only one reference, but the uninformed are likely to come along and litter every sentence with  tags. A better approach is to bring it up on the talk page - that way, cooler, wiser heads prevail. Verifiability is a must, but that doesn’t mean that citations need to be applied with religious fervor to every last little detail. The use of Template:fact by inexperienced editors is out of control. For examples, see any of these articles: Weight loss, Duck and cover, Nation building, Walgreens, 1968 Democratic National Convention, University of Westminster, Albany High School (California), Haifa, IPod photo, State of Origin, David L. Gunn. I could go on all day, but you get the idea. The problem is getting worse each day: Template_talk:fact#Viral growth. I favor the deprecation of Template:fact, but until that day, let's at least stop actively encouraging people to plaster every inch of Wikipedia with this thing. I propose to change the section to read as follows (with thanks to User:Mzajac, from whom I have borrowed some of his great suggestions on Template_talk:fact):
:How to ask for citations
:If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the templates  or .   should be used sparingly, if ever. Before applying , strongly consider one of the following alternatives:
:* Look it up, correct or remove unverifiable information, and add the citation for anything that remains (strongly preferred).
:* Post a note on the talk page.
:* Move doubtful text to the talk page with a comment.
:* Be kind to the environment.  Don't litter articles with endless  tags.!
:In short, do a small thing to improve the article, rather than adding this template.
:Please:
:* Don't add this template when you are frustrated.
:* Don't add this template as part of a dispute.
:* Don't add this template just because you doubt a statement.
:* Don't add this template to a low-traffic article and forget about it.
: and  both redirect to the  tag and may be preferred by some editors, for the sake of clarity or brevity.  All of these tags can be placed in the same place that you would place an inline reference.
:All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is policy.
dryguy 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:fact

message: Is there any way we could (at some point in the future) separate the references from the main text by having a separate editing window for references and just footnote markers in the text? This would unclutter the main window and make working on Wikipedia closer to the way editing and writing works in the word processor programs that most people are used to. 
I would actually propose having a third window for the actual bibliographical details in some kind of standard formatting. Editing and adding a footnote would go something like this:
#Write text, add footnote marker in main window.
#Empty footnote magically appears in footnotes window.
#Add reference details in bibliography window according to standard format depending on the kind of reference (book, journal article, online database etc)
#Drag and drop individual reference from bibliography window to footnotes window. It is automatically reformatted in footnote style.
#Add page number or other specifics and any other commentary needed in footnote.
#Next time the same reference (book, article etc) is used in the text, one can just drag and drop it again.
Even more useful would be if the bibliography window was connected to a general bibliographic database. That way already entered items could be re-used not only in the same article but in others, and it would be possible to go there and add any additional metadata (biographical notes on author, different editions, availability of rare books etc) that aren't usually required to just reference the publication. 
Theoretically I guess this system would even be able to allow people to set their favourite referencing style in Preferences and have all footnotes and bibliographies conform to that, unless this would require too much database resources.
But this is perhaps all science fiction at this point... up+land 08:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's Wikipedia Signpost has a notice about a project to bring WYSIWYG editing to MediaWiki, although there are no details. In the meantime, the <ref> system (see Cite.php) allows you to reuse a citation within an article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This could probably be made a natural part of WYSIWYG editing, and Wikicite looks interesting as well. I also glanced through the page on the Wikicat project on meta, which would help with creating a general bibliograhic database from which to to fetch references in a standardized form. up+land 08:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References in a second editing window, bibliography in a third?

message: JA: 'Nuff said.  Jon Awbrey 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no.  I don't think anyone knows what you're referring to here. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nicely put. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, particularly {Sad Fact}(2). --SteveMcCluskey 23:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Incredible Shrinking Policy Of Verifiability

message: If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the templates , , or .  It is often more useful to indicate specific statements that need references, by tagging those statements with .  The  and  both redirect to the  tag and may be preferred by some editors, for the sake of clarity or brevity.  Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false.  The  tag should be used to label text which appears doubtful or false, in order to request for source verification.  All of these tags can be placed in the same place that you would place an inline reference.
To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced information:
# if it is not doubtful, you may use  or  tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
# if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use  tag to ask for source verification. 
# If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source. 
# If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.
All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged.  See the official policy statements: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.
----
Unless there is strong objection, I'll put this up in a day or two.  --SteveMcCluskey 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to ask for citations

message: The guideline should mention how foreign language sources should be cited. For example, if I want to cite a Russian book, should I write the title in Russian or translate in English? CG
: Common practice is to transliterate (see WP:RUS), and also provide a translation.  But if you can't that's okay, just type in the original, and someone will come along and add the translit & translation.  —Michael Z. 2006-08-12 22:15 Z
::Russian was just an example. But could you add a sentence to this guideline? CG 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language source 

message: JA: Just so we're all talking about the current versions, here they are:
WP:CITE
There is no recommendation and no requirement in Wikipedia:Citation guidelines to use Citation templates.  They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article.  Some editors find them helpful, and other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text.  Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus.
WP:CITET
There is no recommendation and no requirement in Wikipedia:Citation guidelines or WP:CITE to use Citation templates.  They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors working on the article.  Some editors find them helpful, but other editors find them objectionable, especially when used inline in the text.  Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus.
JA: Policies and guidelines are instituted to deal with actually occurring events.  City councils do not make up ordinances against smoking in restaurants on the abstract speculative possibility that someone might someday take a notion to light up in a restaurant.  The real and present empirical fact is that various contingents of WP editors have seized on the device of template invention as a weasel way of trying to create de facto policies and guidelines.  A firm No-Go is therefore warranted in order to deal with this real and present misapprehension and the ensuing potential for misinformation of all WP participants.  Jon Awbrey 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how, exactly, precisely, specifically, does saying Templates are not required fail to do this? Or Templates are entirely optional; they are neither encouraged nor discouraged?  Or any of the other alternate texts I have suggested? (Yes, I am getting frustrated by your consistent refusal to address my concerns.) Gimmetrow 21:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Templates are entirely optional; they are neither encouraged nor discouraged" seems perfectly adequate to me.  If the complaint is that individual editors (rather than the formal guidelines) have been recommending these templates, I can only say that editors have always been perfectly free to recommend whatever they find to be most convenient to their colleagues. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, most policy on Wikipedia is, indeed, descriptive rather than prescriptive.  Policy—particularly if it's a style guide rather than one of the basic content policies—is meant to be a guide for editors, and should therefore describe the current consensus as to the best practices in the field. Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the practical problem here, though?  We've already determined that these templates are not required, and that you can ignore anyone who claims otherwise (and remove any silly tags they may be inclined to paste everywhere); is there actually anything more serious going on than the dispute over the exact wording of this page? Kirill Lokshin 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you could be rather more specific—what templates are being abused, and how?—it would be a lot easier to come to a workable agreement.  The citation templates themselves are merely tools; I can't see how they are being used to create the false impression of anything, so I assume that you're referring to some other templates?  Or, if you're not, how is "entirely optional" not sufficient to limit the unwanted insertion of them into articles? Kirill Lokshin 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm back from a relaxing walk. I can't believe this has gone on so long. The word "recommend" in all its forms is a problem. I grant it may be possible to phrase it with "recommend" and be clear that you are only affirming the absence of a statement, but the current phrasing falls short. I've suggested numerous alternatives which completely avoid the problem by simply not using the word. All you had to do, JA, was pick one and the issue would be resolved. Why make it so complicated? Gimmetrow 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A point of extreme pedantry: the appropriate template would be  ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kirill; I've placed that template on the page. Banno 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Templates Are Not — They Are Not a Backdoor Tool for Creating Policy

message: JA: When it comes to End Matters — like the distinctions among various sections of References, Bibliography, Further Reading, and External Links — I think that it is probably best not to try and write overly OCD rules, but rely on the common sense of the editors working on a particular style of article as it relates a particular area of interest.  I'll give some reasons and examples in a minute.  Jon Awbrey 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End Matters 

message: JA: Let me try to explain my last revert, as it occurs to me that some people of good will may not have heard the reasons why other people of good will dislike the imposition of citation templates so much.
* Reason 1.  Information Erosion.  Despite all good intentions in principle, human nature is such that the use of these Procrustean cookie cutters in practice just naturally leads to the eventual loss of accurate bibliographic information.
: Example 1.  Here's a typical example that arose just this morning.  I supplied the following accurate reference for a classic work in logic:
* Boole, George (1854), An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, Macmillan, 1854.  Reprinted with corrections, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1958.
JA: Another editor, who I know from prior acquaintance to be a very nice person, but who has of late evidently fallen prey to the perils of template enthusiasm, promptly proceeded to cut and dice my citation and pour it into the following mould:
* 
JA: This is a bad thing for many reasons.  But it's time for dinner, so I will count the ways later.  Jon Awbrey 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The underlying reference here has been changed (to what appears to be a different edition of the book); the change would therefore have been a bad one regardless of whether a template was introduced.  (Which is not to say that introducing the template was a good idea.  The double-date in the new citation is quite unpleasant, at least—but that's why I prefer CMS-style citations!) Kirill Lokshin 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of template cruft 

message: Greetings, Jon Awbrey. It looks as though you and several other editors are embroiled in a phraseology tussle over templates, and I suspect that is why you immediately leapt to revert my cleanup. I understand that, and I have no desire to enter the fray; you all may decide amongst yourselves whether to strongly censure or firmly reprimand or sharply condemn or tacitly permit or neither encourage nor discourage or cautiously recommend the use of templates.  Please do respect the letter and intent of the advisory at the top of Wikipedia:Citing sources.  It states, inter alia,  (emphasis added). Grammatical cleanup and clarification is not a major change, so there was no need for discussion or consensus. I certainly do not wish to get in a legalistic debate, but immediate reversion of a legitimate cleanup edit made in good faith is not very nice. Remember, it's easy to get overly wrapped up in a battle. It is not necessary, productive, coöperative or helpful to jerk your knee when someone not involved in the template fight comes along to vacuum, dust, remove superfluous spaces and make minor grammatical improvements. Friendly greetings, Scheinwerfermann 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already said, I have no interest in participating in this particular pissing contest. Have it how you will. --Scheinwerfermann 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And when you combine two premesses, you get a postmess. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical cleanup does not require consensus

message: The page numbers section is a little vague. I'm in a dispute with someone who says he doesn't have to provide a page number.  Specifically, he claims that an author claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. He gives the name of the book by that author as a reference but that's it. No page number or quote. So there is no way to verify it without reading the whole book hoping to find the sentence where the author makes the claim. Can't page number section in this article be a little more specific about the necessity for a page number? It says they are necessary for quotes and paraphrases but nothing about claiming an author makes a specific claim. DTC 06:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly good practice to give page numbers for book citations.  I suspect that someone refusing to give page numbers actually doesn't have the book, in which case referring them to the "Say where you got it" section would be a good idea.  --Zerotalk 10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also possible that the editor had the book at the time the article was written but no longer has the book, as in the case of a book being returned to a library. ``Gerry Ashton 15:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers