Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 16

message: **Incorrect: blah blah. [1]
**Correct: blah blah.[1]
**Incorrect: blah blah." [1]
**Correct: blah blah."[1] This looks much better since the space pushed the quotation mark away from the superscript. So how did no space become the standard?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TeX does put extra space between quotes and footnotes vs. between spaces and footnotes.  I would guess the no-space convention follows from the typewriter era, where footnotes were in full-size type and no space was needed in any circumstance. Professional typesetters certainly know how to do proper intercharacter spacing, but web browsers are notoriously poor at typesetting. CMummert · talk 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No space helps prevent detached reference marks. See image. Gimmetrow 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Space vs no space in citations

message: How much specification is necessary to indicate where in a film/video something you're citing is? For example, how could one reference details of a specific scene in a movie? If it's on DVD should you just note the approximate time at which the scene takes place? Or is just one citation for the whole movie good enough? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give as much information as reasonably possible, including the particular time that the material supporting your claim appears. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, where might one put a time in a  citation? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go at the end of the citation. I don't know how this would work with the tempalte, it may not even be possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a time parameter to ; not sure if this is the formal way to write it but I think this is the most comprehendible way, IMO. Any other thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times in a video 

message: That forgotten unlinked and uncategorized page can perhaps be merged here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Finding articles that contain unreferenced material]]

message: are "External Links" sufficient verification of an artical? or is an article that has no references, and only a few External Links technically unverified? 
and should i be tagging such unverified pages with  because from what ive read on wiki, it seems like i should. Sahuagin 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "External Links" is a form of further reading and therefore doesn't verify particular material. If those links are used under notes, however, they indicate that a specific fact or quote can be found in a particular source, and so, if done carefully (all other things being equal), that counts as an attribution, IMO. qp10qp 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the number of entries in "External links" is manageable, I would read them and see if I could verify the article with them. If so, I would move them to the "References" section, and possibly provide inline citations. --Gerry Ashton 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be acceptable to cite the entire rule book. It would be even better to point out the section that would be most likely to contain the rule, if it existed, but the note should make it clear the entire rulebook was searched for the nonexistent rule, not just the most likely section. I would also be careful that the mention of a nonexistent rule is not original analysis. --Gerry Ashton 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that might work.  I realize that stating that a rule does not exist is usually not original analysis, but this particular rule comes after a series of specific rules about the rugby playing field then makes a note that the rules do not require a flat or level surface.  I just played a game on a sideways slanting, severely convex field a few days before I saw that statement and thought it was actually pretty valid to point out there is no rules saying it needed to be a flat field.  And after searching the official online rules of the IRB, the closest it says is that it must be safe and that if either team objects the referee must try to resolve the issue before the games starts.Billy Nair 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth finding a story in a newspaper, or the memoirs of a famous rugby player, discussing some of the more uneven fields, so that the issue can be shown to be a real issue, not just an abstract possibility. --Gerry Ashton 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I suggest a review of the "Tagging unsourced material" section, which represents the style guide for the "citation needed" tags.  I feel it contains two ambiguous statements.  The first is the last sentence of the first paragraph: "...but be careful not to overuse these tags. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material."  At first I thought the intent was a warning against being overly aggressive in removing sourceless material, in order to prevent the tagging of trivial and common-knowledge statements.  But it could also be read as having the opposite meaning, that the act of tagging a questionable statement can sometimes show inappropriate caution and that if you are really in doubt about the unsourced material, don't be afraid to remove it.  So the sentence is a statement that could have contradictory meanings.  
The second statement that I feel is ambiguous is in the first summary point: "...use the  tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time."  Again, at first I thought the 'claim' referred to is the claim that a citation is needed and that the tag should be removed after a time, but the equal and opposite interpretation is that the claim referred to is the statement needing a citation and that if no source is found, the statement being tagged should be removed.
I propose replacing each statement with less ambiguous wording that is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Verifiability core content policy, which states "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source," meaning that in each case my second interpretation should be made unambiguously correct.
70.157.33.51 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tagging unsourced material": clarity 

message: Is adding sources with passim acceptable, even if one has not read the source but is extrapolating from the title. Should someone wishing to verify the source be able to ask for page or paragraph details? See Talk:Kingdom of Germany#Last King of Scotland for a discussion on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing a source you haven't read is obviously not appropriate in sourcing a disputed statement. As for the rest, I don't really want to wade into the dispute but whether a citation is specific enough depends on the situation and is a matter for talk page discussion. An RFC might be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  passim 

message: If you do this, how does it meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards for the user? He/she is not going to want to go to a library that may or may not have this book that claims that a certain fact is true...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent of the verifiability policy is not that any user be able to verify a fact at the touch of a button. It is simply to ensure that all claims are supported by reliable sources. In judging sources, accessibility is very much a secondary concern to reliability. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing printed sources, not available on the web at the touch of a button, only in a library or bookshop 

message: can a source be your own knoledge, as what i've written is stuff i've known for years, i can't remember who told me what. post resonses on my homepage. Millm0w 12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information has to be verifiable from published reliable sources. Your personal knowledge or what was told you by someone else doesn't qualify, and is considered to be original research. -- Donald Albury 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antoine Howard]] 

message: ::
::
I've made this template to notify users on their talk page when an edit of theirs has been reverted because it could not be verified. A bit like the warning templates, but then just a notice of what's happened to their edits.
update
I've also made one specifically for video game releasedates, since that's the issue that brought up the idea.
Feedback or ideas are welcome. JackSparrow Ninja 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might annoy people. Maybe editors will be watching the pages they're interested in and notice for themselves. I'm set to have any page I've edited come up on my watchlist. qp10qp 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mainly for new users and ip's, who might not understand why their edit has been reverted and try to add it again. Just a little notice of explanation to people. JackSparrow Ninja 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User notification template 

message: Are links/refs to books available on Google Books allowed as links? I have this edit in mind. Sorry if this has been answered before, but it might be a good idea to give it a mention on the Project Page. Ekantik talk 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the pages being referenced are available online it seems like a good idea to link to them, all else being equal. If you are actually using Google Books as the source, rather than a convenience link as it appears to be in this case, you could note that in your reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to Google.books is a very good idea, but optional. Rjensen 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Books?

message: A recent edit claims that some templates support machine readable COinS tags. The term "COinS tags" is wikilinked, but there is no such article. So, what is a COinS tag? --Gerry Ashton 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. It's at COinS.Circeus 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tested this in my sandbox. I could see the COinS tag if I used subst:, but not if I didn't. Is this feature of any use if the subst: feature is not used? --Gerry Ashton 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It,s worked just fine for me so far with Zotero.Circeus 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COinS tags

message: I'd not for a minute suggest we don't need to cite source or put in our reference sources.  In the military hardward section of our store we now have come to the sorry conclusion that our customers don't need to do anything as silly and stupid as to be actually able to read our articles...  We have lost sight of our primary purpose when we scrapped after legitimacy.  I have one guy running amok putting 60+  in an article and walking off... then threating anyone that starts to remove any so that article might actually be readable again... and make no mistake there is no reading it when every sentence is now marked with a  and our customers are not always going to be interested in editing. We need a single small mark like an inline footnote for this or a way to mark a section for review of footnotes.  Its gotten to the point where we now have a subclass of editor that thinks running through a article pasting  60 times and leaving it that way (contributing nothing whatsoever to actually footnoting it either) and calls it a day well spent...  5 minutes and done and days of work for anyone that cares... we have lost completely our mission... to have a wonderful readable online resouce... and only our customer suffers.  We might well and truely lower our heads in shame.  Have we completely lost our sense of mission?  If anyone really cares about our customers and how our product looks to the world would you please let me know? Tirronan 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathize, the reality is that reliability is a much bigger part of our obligation to our "customers" than aesthetic quality. The best solution to these problems is to provide sources for any of the tags for which this can easily be accomplished. If you believe a particular editor is disruptive or uncooperative in a situation such as this, you may want to contact an administrator. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You could try replacing the individual  tags with one big .  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: is not for facts that "could" or even "can" be sourced specifically, but for those that should be sourced, and it,s better to just remove them, especially if they reek of original research or unsourced attacks. Example of accurate such tags would be a population number for a Canadian city in 2004 (the last canadian censuses are 2001 and 2006).Circeus 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No. --Gerry Ashton 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{fact}} overload or we missed the point 

message: Hello! I'm writing an article but it is my first one and I'm feeling quite insecure. My article is about a singer, Justin Hayford. I contacted him personally and he gave me biographical information, which is not available anywhere else on the net. This means that the only source which proves that the information I provide is correct is the email he sent to me. How must I indicate this? What kind of reference must I give?
Thank you! :-)
Trilby*foxglove 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use information that isn't published in a reliable source. Find a magazine that would like to publish an article about Justin Hayford, get your article published, then write the Wikipedia article. Publishing interviews is the job of magazines, newspapers, and similar publications. The job of Wikipedia is summarizing information that has already been published elsewhere. --Gerry Ashton 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can't find a magazine or some reliable source to publish your article, you could try Wikinews, which allows original research.  However, note that Wikipedia does not consider Wikinews a reliable source, and many magazines will want exclusive rights.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is no information on a subject that is already published in a reliable source, it is very likely that the subject is not sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You also can publish your information on WikiSource.  However, first learn about copyrights and permissions concerning unpublished material.  Justin Hayford owns the copyright to his e-mails to you.  Una Smith 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you all for your help! :) Trilby*foxglove 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research (was: Please give me advice) 

message: How do I cite television documentaries? Patiwat 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to get down the following information: title; date of broadcast; network; production company; executive producer or director. If it is part of a running series, also include the name of the series. Format is less important, but a try to be reasonable consistent with other references in the article; a good general format would be Person, Title, Network, Date. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We have , which might help.Circeus 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing television documentaries 

message: When citing something, does the particular order of what one is citing matter? For example, let's say I end up getting, "GameSpot.com, Resident Evil 5 debuting simultaneously on 360, PS3 Retrieved on February 19, 2007", (which is Publisher, Article name, and access date). Is okay to use that particular order on Wikipedia, as long as I consistently use it throughout an article? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For similar articles (i.e. web sources with no author) that order would be okay, although the citation might be improved by adding the date of publication. For books, articles with authors, etc. you need to include different information, usually putting the author first rather than the "publisher". Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, thanks for the help! :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: uses a Article, Publisher format, and since it,s very widely used, you might preer to copy it. Consistency is good. Circeus 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Information 

message: Hi. After looking around a bit on Google and this page, I couldn't really find an answer to my problem.
I'm currently working on the article about Derrick Carter. On his record labels site (http://www.classicmusiccompany.com/) are biographies about the artists releasing on that label, including Derrick Carter himself. The site is build entirely in Flash.
I'm facing the following problem: I can't include an URL to the actual article, because with Flash-only sites the addressbar-URL always stays the same. (ie no deeplinks)
My questions: 
* Is it OK to use Flash-only sites as references/resource, if it is 100% certain the information on it is correct?
* If it is OK, what is the correct way to include a reference to the specific section on the site?
Thanks for your input. DaSjieb 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously CAN'T link to a specific section, so your best bet is to cite the page as a whole and specify [flash content], or whatever.Circeus 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ofcourse you are right about the specific section, stupid me :) Thanks for responding DaSjieb 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a Flash Website 

message: User:Circeus/Referencing styles is an essay about the various referencing styles used on Wikipedia, and specifically FAs. I'd really appreciate some input to it, as I intend to eventually place it in projectspace.Circeus 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  essay on referencing style and formats 

message: Is there a template or model suitable for citing a brochure? I have in mind in particular brochures released by CERN about an experiment there. -- SCZenz 12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brochures are generally cited the same as books. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing brochures 

message: Is it perfectly acceptable to use textbooks as references on Wikipedia? Of course the information would be fully copy-edited and fully referenced. Thanks. Bobo is soft 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Essentially any book published by a large professional publishing house or university press is considered a reliable source. CMummert · talk 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Polar coordinates. Most of the sources there are actually textbooks.Circeus 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Textbooks 

message: I posted this over at Category talk:Citation templates a week ago, but it seems that is not checked very often. I am after some one (who knows what they are doing) to create a template for citing maps. This would be very useful, especially when some maps contain some quite relevant information on their reverse side, particularly hiking maps. I am thinking the citation should show something similiar to what is listed here. Anyone up to the challenge? Nomadtales 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing maps 

message: I asked about this on the Just another Perl hacker discussion page, but got no answer, so I'm asking here.
Someone posted an example of a JAPH that happened to be written by me.  Whoever it was left it with a "(Attribution is missing)" notation.
I am the author of that JAPH; I wrote it in August of 2004.  But I haven't published it, except to use it as an occasional e-mail signature, and to show colleagues and friends.  I'm more than happy to have it appear in Wikipedia (it is rather unusual in that it is a syntactically correct Perl program that contains no alphanumeric or whitespace characters, and actually does something non-trivial); but I'm wondering how to remove the "missing attribution" note.
Suggestions?
Sue D. Nymme 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing myself 

message: Hello everyone.  This medium is popular enough I think someone should specify the procedures for it.  I personally do not think that is a good source, whatever the circumstance is.  If you agree/disagree/comment, please let me know.  Does anyone want to add a section on it?  Yongke 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs? 

message: I'm working on Comparison of online music stores which has been tagged with not having not enough sources. I went looking for sources on [Bleep.com] but the entire site is made out of flash and javascript so I can't properly source pages talking about price and such. How are pages in flash and such, where the URL doesn't change, sourced? Chevinki 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would give a brief description of how to navigate from the home page to the information you wish to cite. --Gerry Ashton 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The article Great fire of Newcastle and Gateshead is drawn mainly from one source, *A record of the Great Fire in Newcastle and Gateshead, 1855, George Routledge & Co, from Google Book Search. It was rightly  knocked back from consideration as a Good Article for lack of inline refs.
Can anyone provide advice on how best to reference the article in a way that might get it to GA, in light of the single source problem. (There are actually three references cited at the foot, and I've found one or two other passing mentions in other publications, none of which are better sources than the main source.) 
The issue for me is that I could, with ease, reference every second sentence to the same book. That doesn't seem helpful.
Is there a case for accepting as a valid form of reference a single pointer at the foot of the document to the primary source. Alternately, do we debar from GA status articles which have only a single (albeit relatively unimpeachable) source?
(This same issue applies to articles ripped from EB1911. Assuming the coverage has not dated, we again have a single source situation, what is probably a good article, but we deny the article promotion for lack of (arguably redundant) inline tags.)
Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk)
: I had one article which was created from a single source, and cited only that source.  Then other info was added in.  I cited the first source at the end of each Wikipedia section (when everything in the section was still from the first source), and also added a citation to the first source before the inserted material.  My intent was to try to retain citations for blocks of text, but don't know how well it will survive future editors.  Note that m:WikiTextrose will help track such sourcing.  (SEWilco 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing advice / whinge / minor rant

message: Does Wikipedia have a policy for citation to the Bible?  Some parts of Criticism of Christianity have an inline parenthetical of the form (Book chapter:verse) after the quote.  Should there be a footnote instead?  What is the appropriate way to indicate the translation used?  Elliotreed 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Talk page for .  Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. (SEWilco 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing to/Quoting the Bible 

message: I've noticed lots of articles with really long 'References' sections (100+ citations). Is there any way for the citations listed in the 'references' section to be placed behind some sort of 'click here for full listings' link, that would reveal (in the same page) all of the references (kind of like the hide contents function used for the table of contents? Dr. Cash 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Reference Sections

message: I would like to propose that wikipedia choose one or two common citation styles (such as MLA or Chicago), lay them out extremely clearly on a citation page and require all articles to use those. The endless debates on FAC and article talk pages regarding citation styles is counterproductive. I suggest that the community either vote (an endless discussion regarding the merits of one style over another would be ridiculous) or ask Jimbo for his opinion. Publishing companies have in-house styles that authors are required to adhere to when they publish with them (meaning, if you as the author don't like it, too bad). To encourage editors and reviewers to focus on substantive issues in the articles, I ask that wikipedia make its policy regarding citation as clear as possible. Awadewit 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a common style could be chosen, doing so would essentially mean upsetting a large number of contributors for minimal gain.  (See also "Why isn't everything in AmEn/BrEn?", "Why isn't everything in AD/CE?", and so forth.) Kirill Lokshin 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over some of the FACs might demonstrate what I mean. Instead of being debates over substance, they often descend into debates over form. If there were a standard, that wouldn't happen. So, actually, I do think there is a lot to gain. More articles would be put up for FAC (see WT:FAC for proof that editors are reticent to nominate their pages due to this problem) and FAC in particular would result in better articles rather than bad feelings. Yes, initially there would be contributors who were upset, but instituting such a standard would be to the benefit of the content of the encyclopedia. Less time spent on the small things and more time spent on improving the content of the articles themselves. Awadewit 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's made pretty clear that either citation style is acceptable. Unfounded objections in FAC are routinely ignored, as I understand it. I don't see the problem. -Amarkov moo! 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that I was surprised to find the MoS so vague. However, it advises the use of certain recognised style guides, and so I stick to CMS. The tricky thing is that where a different style is used on a page, I have to conform to that, which can be counter-intuitive. The best principle is that all the information be clear and available to the reader. I sense that consistency over the whole encyclopedia is always going to be a bridge too far, but I don't see why FA couldn't insist that articles stick to one of, say, five recognised systems, and thereby deprecate hybridity. qp10qp 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choose a style!

message: I'd like to propose an addition to the Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources section, along the following lines:
:Transcribe citation details and quoted content verbatim; do not correct spelling errors or otherwise copyedit cited material. You may wish to use [sic] to indicate incorrect material is quoted verbatim and is not a transcription error.
Your thoughts? --Muchness 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbatim transcriptions

message: I explained our case at Talk:Winston Churchill#Multiple References quite understandable, I hope. But as the experts I asked will look around here more often, I'll crosslink it, OK?Thanks, FloK 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple References 

message: Someone has added material that contradicts ATT:
Wikipedia, in the spirit of the GFDL, encourages referencing of freely available sources, when information is available from both credible free/open access sources (FOASs) and sources which require registration and/or payment (non-FOASs). 	 
* If a FOAS is deemed to be less reliable than a non-FOAS, use of a non-FOAS is perfectly acceptable. 	 
* Use of reliable FOASs available on the web is encouraged, as it enhances the credibility of Wikipedia if the reader can speedily verify the veracity of a given fact by use of an outside source with a simple click of the mouse.
First, we don't allow open-access sources. Secondly, we don't engage in checking the veracity of facts; all we do is attribute material to reliable sources. Please be careful to read ATT before adding anything to this page.
Also, there's nothing wrong with "didn't" instead of "do not," and in fact the latter is usually preferable, so there's no need to keep changing it. SlimVirgin (talk)
:If you follow the Wikilink to Open access, you find it means "immediate, free and unrestricted online access to digital scholarly material, primarily peer-reviewed research articles in scholarly journals" [footnote omitted]. So anyone who takes the trouble to follow the link will understand this section is not advocating the use of self-published material. However, it might be better to find a less ambiguous phrase.
:Also, when it comes to verifying the veracity of a given fact, the passage is talking about what the reader might do, not what the editor did. Still, all the reader can really do with his mouse is check the reference, not verify the fact. --Gerry Ashton 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks, Gerry. Perhaps it can be worded to exclude self-published material, and the last bit about veracity of facts probably isn't necessary at all. This page is meant to be about how to write citations, not about which sources to use or why, so it's best to restrict it to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page must be consistent with the policies

message: Please don't keep adding the different kinds of templates people can use depending on whether something is OR or unreferenced or primary source. All it does is confuse people, because it's impossible to remember them all. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: The section on what to do if a link goes dead should be expanded a little to discuss a variation of "going dead" which is falling behind a subscription wall. Many people cite online news sources such as newspapers, perhaps not realizing that in 99% of cases those links are only available to the general public for a couple of days before they become available only to subscribers. In fact CNN.com is the only site that I've found that doesn't do this, so when I find a source on a newspaper site, I try to find the equivalent article on CNN.com and use that link for Wikipedia. Anyway, I think some words of advice as to how to handle subscription links would be helpful. I know WP:LINKS indicates that links requiring registration should be avoided, but a lot of people don't seem to equate news links with membership-required links. 23skidoo 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this is much of a problem in this context. The important thing is to provide attribution to the source where you found the information. Frequently this will be a subscriber-only site, and that's not really a problem if things are being cited properly. The external links guideline is not intended to apply to citations, at any rate. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps but given the realities of the Internet age, and the number of articles on Wikipedia that are based upon current (or recent-current) events, more and more articles are going to be relying on these sources. In the case of one example I found (a link related to Doctor Who that had gone behind the subscriber wall) I suggested the link be replaced with a date-and-page citation for the newspaper. But the odds of anyone having that information at hand is almost nil. So although as stated both in WP:CITE and WP:LINKS the very fact a link was at one time accessed serves to indicate a source at one point existed at that location, it still damages the ability to verify (or follow up on) the information. I guess my concern is whether the use of citations for web-based articles that disappear from public access could affect an article's survivability on Wikipedia given the increasing emphasis that articles must be cited or face possible deletion. And it works the other way too, as someone who is unable or unwilling to find a source/citation could simply make up a link and then claim it had already gone behind the subscriber wall. 23skidoo 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your issue; there's no obligation that sources be freely  available, or even accessible online at all. Whether the cited source is publicly available should not affect the survivability of an article. Why would it? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When a link goes behind a subscription wall

message: Is there a template for marking links as inactive? I mean one for links that are in references but cannot be found using the Internet Archive or WebCite? What to do when a reference link "goes dead" states that they shall be marked with the date when they were identified as broken. — Ocolon 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking links as inactive 

message: Hi. I roughly translated the Italian Wikipedia page for Images (album). What is the proper template to use? - PGSONIC 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation from another language's Wikipedia 

message: Please be aware of the proposal for a microformat for marking citations in (X)HTML. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat for citations

message: In  (and several other citation templates), the date appears just after the author.  Is it supposed to be different for newspaper references?  has it appearing after the "work" parameter (the name of the newspaper).  Is that correct? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the citation templates do not claim to follow any particular style manual, nor do they follow any master Wikipedia specification, there are no criteria to judge whether they are correct or incorrect. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  But shouldn't they at least be consistent? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Cite news}} formatting error? 

message: I'm raising this topic before editing the article.  I've seen confusion (in Harry S. Truman) with autonumbering of citations.  Basically, each citation system uses its own autonumbering sequence, so if all the citations aren't the same, then there will be duplicate numbers (for example, two 1's: one for the first embedded citation and one for the first footnote).  I think it's important for this article (probably as another bullet in How to cite sources to emphasize the importance of consistency within an article --- if all the citations use the same method, it's very important to use the same method if you're adding a new citation. Rickterp 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Systems and Autonumbering Confusion

message: What is Wikipedia's stance on citing Google search results? For instance, when making a statement regarding the popularity of an opinion, it is very handy to cite the number of hits returned from a Google search. SharkD 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Handy, but unfortunately mostly meaningless. Extrapolating popularity from Google numbers is original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Google

message: I'm working on editing the entry for the (late) writer Gilbert Odd, and have sent out requests for information to his former publisher and various professional groups in the UK that he was involved with -- the information received is certainly believed to be factual, but is to my knowledge heretofore unpublished.  Two questions:Can I use this information for a biographical entry?If so, how do I cite it?
--Tthaas 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing personal communication