Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 11

message: There is currently a small problem with footnotes: until you click, you don't know whether it's supposed to give you additional information, or just a reference.  That is, it's common to see footnotes that provide, in fact, notes, but also common to see footnotes that provide sources.
So, my proposal is that we eat stop using baby footnotes for references.  Instead, we should use linked Harvard-style citations for references (Simetrical 2006), and use numbered footnotes for notes.E.g., a hypothetical illustration of what should go in a note.  This would allow us more flexibility with less confusion, plus the Harvard style is more informative in that it tells the reader the year of publication right up front.  And as an added bonus, Harvard-style references wouldn't be subject to the same confusion that occasionally arises over the same number being used multiple times, which I've seen people mistake for some kind of glitch when actually it's just the same reference being used twice.  And scientific texts universally use Harvard references, for what that's worth.
If any kind of consensus emerges around this, of course, we can ask for the functionality to be implemented in cite.php; for now this is purely hypothetical, since <ref> is so much more convenient than templates. I also recognize that this is really kind of a solution looking for a problem, but what the heck, I may as well throw this out there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea: Harvard for cites to [Smith page 200] and a numbered not for everything else.   Rjensen 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally in agreement with Rob. Harvard style references are obtrusive in style and when there are many many references, such as in the AIDS or HIV articles, the text becomes almost unreadable due to the number of harvard references. Numbered refs look much much better, and are easier to use, expecially when they are using the cite.php system  --Bob 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would that be necessary?  There's no reason the two can't coexist. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestion, but if footnotes and references use the same system, perhaps footnotes could be lettered and references numbered, each going to a seperate list specific for each group. --Bob 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about footnotes that include both citations and further discussion? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, all good points. I wonder if these issues have already been addressed. I'm trying to pull together a higher-level discussion in my new thread: Summarizing appendices issues. Go there for my response to your points here. --J. J. 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No  If we eliminate non-reference footnotes then we should just eliminate footnotes.  The main point above (which I actually came to this web page to make) is that Harvard style is the right way to do referencing, because it gives you information as you read. I'm agnostic as to whether footnotes should be allowed at all, but they certainly shouldn't be being used for references.  --Jaibe 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: The problem is that due to the nature of Wikipedia (being open to anyone, and subject to sneaky vandalism) we need to have vastly more references than most publications.  A substantial number of articles properly have a footnote reference for every sentence (some times more than one).  A superscript number is not that distracting.  But a Harvard-style reference, done frequently, can be.  Also, many readers don't care to know the names of the sources, and the Harvard-style ones are giving them information that's not meaninful to them.  --Rob 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally in agreement with Rob. Harvard style references are obtrusive in style and when there are many many references, such as in the AIDS or HIV articles, the text becomes almost unreadable due to the number of harvard references. Numbered refs look much much better, and are easier to use, expecially when they are using the cite.php system  --Bob 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would that be necessary?  There's no reason the two can't coexist. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestion, but if footnotes and references use the same system, perhaps footnotes could be lettered and references numbered, each going to a seperate list specific for each group. --Bob 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about footnotes that include both citations and further discussion? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, all good points. I wonder if these issues have already been addressed. I'm trying to pull together a higher-level discussion in my new thread: Summarizing appendices issues. Go there for my response to your points here. --J. J. 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No  If we eliminate non-reference footnotes then we should just eliminate footnotes.  The main point above (which I actually came to this web page to make) is that Harvard style is the right way to do referencing, because it gives you information as you read. I'm agnostic as to whether footnotes should be allowed at all, but they certainly shouldn't be being used for references.  --Jaibe 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Is it okay to use another encyclopedia as a source? I am thinking about making an list and I was wondering if citing the Canadian Encyclopedia and using it as a source is acceptable. !!!!
::I think it's bad policy to cite another general encyclopedia (like Expedia). Specialized scholarly encuyclopedias are ok. I think the Canadian falls in the latter group when it comes to topics like flora, fauna, cities, rivers. I would not use it for biography or history. Rjensen 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: Personally, Harvard referencing without page numbers is fine for academic papers, which usually cite other academic papers. It was developed specifically for this purpose. It's relatively easy to find the sourced material when the paper cited is say twenty pages.
It's another thing entirely when one cites books. Imagine the pain we cause the reader, and other editors trying to check us, when we say something like "Some law codes revolve around punative measures." (Bible, KJV, (1611)). How on God's green earth is someone supposed to find and verify that?
In my opinion, we are very weasely when this guideline says "if you add pages it looks like this:". Frankly, we should say that we prefer page numbers for books at least. According to Harvard referencing practice: "When you can (or should) provide a page number, the convention is (Smith 2005: 73)". Most other style guides too consider that an integral part of a citation.
This has probably been hashed-out before, so sorry for re-opening an old, closed, discusion; but this has been an issue for me to check and correct articles I'm active on. MARussellPESE 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree - we most certainly need to cite page numbers and especially so for direct quotations. Re the academic papers issue: let's not forget that published academic papers are peer review by experts and often checked by grad students (for refs etc.). Wikipedia has none of these mechanisms. To foster a reputation for reliability, we need to start getting very serious about citations. Mikker (...) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing page numbers

message: Is there a references/footnotes WikiProject?  References and footnotes are very inconsistent across the Wiki and a group of people to get together and fix them would be very helpful.  --Cyde Weys 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References WikiProject? 

message: I observe that both general and in-line citations are listed under reference section in some articles. Is it an professional way to do?
Xplorer 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that this calls for separate "Notes" and "References" sections, but I could be mistaken. Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixing general and in-line citations

message: In the present article, the "See also" section is located at the very bottom, below all the other appendix sections, but this is not the place it should have according to the example sequence in the GTL. Or is the standard(?) section sequence covered in another guideline/policy article (which overrides the GTL)? Or is this simply a (somewhat limited) choose-yourself thing? --Wernher 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a standard, but I'm trying to compile as many as I can for a draft: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Appendices and their order. --J. J. 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking: this article contradicts the Guide to layout 

message: The article in question is dnd (computer game).  dnd is important because (1) it was the first computer game with a boss and (2) it was the 3rd dungeon crawl type game.  There were four of us who wrote the game.  How do we reference that we are putting up our own knowledge about the game?  user talk:ratwod.
:You don't.  That could be considered original research and self-promotion, and highly discouraged.  References should be to reputable third party publications.  If you can find any articles about your work, you can cite those.  Coyoty 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations to an individual 

message: Hi all. There is a proposal to put the font size for  into CSS and not into article text (by using ).  Please respond on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (not here). Thanks! --Ligulem 08:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size for references 

message: Would anybody else find it useful to have a reference bot that could do things like compare references to the same book in different articles to see if the ISBN/spelling of various fields/etc varies, and add info where deficient (e.g. if one article has a location defined for a book, but another doesn't, the bot can add the location).  Would it be possible for a bot to take an ISBN and compare the data to another source and flag down possible problems on the talk page? Tuf-Kat 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to fix references 

message: I created , to be used, when a category is applied to an article, its use is disputed, and there are no sources to back it up, and nothing in the article to explain its usage.   can't be used, because there's no text to add it to.   is to vague.  So, I'ld like opinions if this is a good idea, and on what category such articles should be placed in.  Currently I put them in :Category:Articles with unsourced statements, but there's probably something better.  I don't like "tag clutter", but I thought, in this case, its worth it.  Its frustrating so many articles are in categories, with no apparent reason.  --Rob 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New message box template for unsourced categories 

message: See the end of the first section of the second paragraph Seduction Community:
of which there are more than a hundred worldwide[3][4].Is this proper style?  What should be done in such a case? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how this is handled by other style guides, but the CMS says that they should be combined into a single footnote that contains both citations.  I'm not sure how this would play out if either of them is a back-reference to a citation given elsewhere, though. Kirill Lokshin 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Both citations are link farms, which IMO do not meet WP:RS, and are really linkspam. In fact, I will remove them as linkspam. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it depends on the reference system you are using. As I am now using the cite.php method, I would keep them separate. I think that would hold true for Harvard reference style, as well. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Harvard reference it would be impossible to combine them—you'd have to give both names/years.  For footnotes, I think it looks kind of sloppy to have two.  Any other opinions? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite.php seems to be the preferred method for footnotes now, with Harvard references still acceptable, and neither lends itself to combining refs. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're using unnamed ref tags, cite.php will quite happily combine citations, like so: Source 1; Source 2..  It only breaks if you need naming to refer to a source already used. Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two citations for one statement 

message: I've spent several hours searching around the Wikipedia project namespace, Help namespace, and even Meta. I think this talk page is the best place to summarize the issues I've found; as usual, there are lots of different conversations going on around the wikisphere, so hopefully this will help to look at things from a higher level. I've listed several relevant topics at the end of this section in order to bring together their interrelated issues. I think my concerns fall into two main categories, but I think it makes sense to discuss them together:
===Footnotes vs. Harvard references===
I think Simetrical, Lulu, and others are making very good points about separating references from footnotes. Footnotes in general have come a long way in the past six months. I realize that footnotes are controversial, but I think some of the new templates and tools being developed to differentiate them from reference citations are usable. I think the Harvard referencing example shows the most logical way to set up "Notes" and "References" sections. It would probably make more sense to new users if the extension syntax used <footnotes> instead of <reference>, but it may be too late (or controversial) for that.
===Appendices and their order===
:Note: This issue has been discussed and updated on the WP:GTL; while there isn't a required order, the proposal below is generally agreed-upon. See the Responses subsection here for the latest comments. --J. J. 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually looked into that... I couldn't find anything that says a reference has to be cited in order to be in the list. Can't you just put relevant books in the "References" section? --J. J. 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be cited, strictly speaking; the (minimum) qualifications for being listed as a reference are, in my opinion, (1) that the book have actually been examined by the editor in question, and (2) that the book support the material in the article.  The second point is the key one; if we put down books as references that later prove to not support the points in the article, we make the entire referencing system quite meaningless. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that sources that don't support the material in the article (or just other interesting sources) should be listed in "Further reading"? --J. J. 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the available sources don't support the material, then you have a different problem ;-)  But, broadly speaking, yes; (potential) sources that were not consulted by editors working on the article should be listed in a "Further reading" section. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no need to enforce a single citation standard, though.  The use of footnotes for citation remains quite alive in professional publishing, primarily because they allow more flexible citation than pure Harvard references (which are primarily designed for straight citation of journal articles, and don't work very well for unusual types of source); why should we abandon them here? Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Can you elaborate? What do you mean by "straight citation of journal articles" and "unusual types of source"? As a general point, though, it seems like you're using the "do it however you see fit" Wikipedia mentality; and that's fine with me! I'm just trying to seek out the pros and cons of each method. Hopefully we'll  be able to avoid massively re-editing the way we use citations in articles as Wikipedia evolves. --J. J. 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Harvard reference typically includes (a) the author and (b) the year of publication.  In cases where these aren't meaningful, though—the Bible or the Declaration of Independence, for example—you start having problems with the citation.  In addition, footnotes allow explanatory text beyond a simple Author-Date-Page combination; if the source is disputed or controversial, for example, or if there is disagreement between several sources, this can be given in a footnote.  In Harvard style, such annotation must be included in the article text directly or not at all. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if footnotes are also used for explanatory purposes.  So you could say, for instance,the sky is neon pink (Bob 1432).1 . . .Some dispute the validity of Bob as a reference source.  See, e.g., Sam 1229.To be honest, though, if different sources conflict, I can see no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the article text, unless one source is a crackpot. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that works (but it seems less neat than simply putting everything into the footnote).  As far as conflicting sources go, you might have something like casualty figures for a battle given in the article text as 10,000–30,000 and a footnote detailing which sources give which numbers; while the disagreement might be mentioned in the text itself, listing all of the various opinions there might not be the best way to go about it. Kirill Lokshin 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good.  I would say that "Further reading" is probably a better heading than "Bibliography", since "Bibliography" is often used interchangeably with "References" in other style guides; but it's a minor point in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarizing appendices issues

message: :Note: This issue has been discussed and updated on the WP:GTL; while there isn't a required order, the proposal below is generally agreed-upon. See the Responses subsection here for the latest comments. --J. J. 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appendices and their order

message: Yes, I know it's kind of ironic that I'm not using the <footnotes> hooks here; didn't seem to be the right thing to do on a Talk page rant.
*Wikipedia:Cite sources#Technical issues with footnotes
*Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting citation styles
*User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation tool
*Wikipedia:Harvard referencing
*m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#When Harvard is .28much.29 better
*m:Help:Footnotes --J. J. 11:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant pages

message: Just a note: Further reading should not be replaced with References.  The Further reading section is for stuff that was not used as a reference, but has additional value for the reader who wants to know more. Tuf-Kat 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually looked into that... I couldn't find anything that says a reference has to be cited in order to be in the list. Can't you just put relevant books in the "References" section? --J. J. 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be cited, strictly speaking; the (minimum) qualifications for being listed as a reference are, in my opinion, (1) that the book have actually been examined by the editor in question, and (2) that the book support the material in the article.  The second point is the key one; if we put down books as references that later prove to not support the points in the article, we make the entire referencing system quite meaningless. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that sources that don't support the material in the article (or just other interesting sources) should be listed in "Further reading"? --J. J. 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the available sources don't support the material, then you have a different problem ;-)  But, broadly speaking, yes; (potential) sources that were not consulted by editors working on the article should be listed in a "Further reading" section. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no need to enforce a single citation standard, though.  The use of footnotes for citation remains quite alive in professional publishing, primarily because they allow more flexible citation than pure Harvard references (which are primarily designed for straight citation of journal articles, and don't work very well for unusual types of source); why should we abandon them here? Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Can you elaborate? What do you mean by "straight citation of journal articles" and "unusual types of source"? As a general point, though, it seems like you're using the "do it however you see fit" Wikipedia mentality; and that's fine with me! I'm just trying to seek out the pros and cons of each method. Hopefully we'll  be able to avoid massively re-editing the way we use citations in articles as Wikipedia evolves. --J. J. 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Harvard reference typically includes (a) the author and (b) the year of publication.  In cases where these aren't meaningful, though—the Bible or the Declaration of Independence, for example—you start having problems with the citation.  In addition, footnotes allow explanatory text beyond a simple Author-Date-Page combination; if the source is disputed or controversial, for example, or if there is disagreement between several sources, this can be given in a footnote.  In Harvard style, such annotation must be included in the article text directly or not at all. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if footnotes are also used for explanatory purposes.  So you could say, for instance,the sky is neon pink (Bob 1432).1 . . .Some dispute the validity of Bob as a reference source.  See, e.g., Sam 1229.To be honest, though, if different sources conflict, I can see no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the article text, unless one source is a crackpot. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that works (but it seems less neat than simply putting everything into the footnote).  As far as conflicting sources go, you might have something like casualty figures for a battle given in the article text as 10,000–30,000 and a footnote detailing which sources give which numbers; while the disagreement might be mentioned in the text itself, listing all of the various opinions there might not be the best way to go about it. Kirill Lokshin 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good.  I would say that "Further reading" is probably a better heading than "Bibliography", since "Bibliography" is often used interchangeably with "References" in other style guides; but it's a minor point in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: : And the complete reference would be:
:: Marx, Karl [1867] 1967  Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. Edited by Frederick Engels.  New York: International Publishers.
No full stop after name? Or just a mistake? Skinnyweed 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be a mistake. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard referencing 

message: There is a worthwhile discussion at :Template talk:Unreferenced, over whether the  should may be used on stubs (or whether the stub itself suffices).  --Rob 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion isn't whether the tag should be used on stubs, but whether it may be. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you're right.  --Rob 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should stubs be tagged as unreferenced? 

message: Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Interpreting WP:CITE in the context of [[Mnemonics]] 

message: Brought up by recent edits to Kerry Packer:
Is there a policy/convention/etc on the use of link abbreviation services in Wikipedia references? Various websites exist (snipurl.com, tinyurl.com, makeashorterlink.com) that will input a long and unwieldy link and output a much shorter one that then redirects to the original link. (Removed link to blacklisted site snipurl.com because editing this page is otherwise forbidden. Gerry Ashton 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say your right.  This edit of yours seems very justified.  We should pretty much always point to the "target" url.  The rare exception, is when linking to somebody's official web site, and the person/organization, has a registered a domain, based on their name (indicating permenance), which temporarily points to another url that looks obviously temporary.    --Rob 03:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Tinyurl is already on the spam blacklist as a vector for vandalism. If snipurl works, then it is only because the admins who maintain the spam blacklist haven't discovered it yet. Never use them. Pcb21 Pete 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, there are several discussions about TinyURL, Snipurl, and other "URL shortener" sites: m:Talk:Spam blacklist. You mention the "rare exception," but unfortunately with blacklists, it's all or nothing; you can't have exceptions. Also, it looks like someone is having a technical problem with extra long URLs in WP; doesn't look like this one has been resolved yet. --J. J. 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link abbreviation (tinyurl.com etc) 

message: Just a quick note to make you aware of this budding wikiproject. If you know of any existing projects with similar scope, are interested in participating or have any other suggestions, please drop us a note there!
Cheers,
Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA]] 

message: I've just added to Finding a good source.... Does anyone object to adding a wiki link to this in an appropriate place here? --CTSWyneken 12:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish to add "See" reference 

message: When I was trying to find out what to do about plagiarism that I found on the United Nations Secretary-General page(Talk) I went to Wikipedia:Plagiarism and was redirected to this page, which has no information at all about plagiarism or what to do about it. This isn't a case of someone needing to cite a source, but rather that someone deliberately copied text directly from another web page on the same topic and pasted it here. As such, I believe there should be a page separate from this one describing plagiarism, how to spot it, what to do about it, and the consequences of it. Uniqueuponhim 11:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: plagiarism is not copying, it's when someone takes personal credit for material written by others. Wiki has no personal credit system and hence no plagiarism. Rjensen 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be technically true—in the sense that most plagiarism would also qualify as some sort of copyvio—but certainly it's valid to speak of, say, adding GFDL-licensed text from an external source without crediting the author as being in the spirit of plagiarism. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And technically, if you want to talk about taking credit for something, while no one person would be taking credit, it can still be considered as wikipedia 'taking credit' for something, which obviously we want to avoid at all costs. I would personally make the page, except that I am not knowledgable enough on Wikipedia regulations and procedures for this type of thing, so I'm not really qualified to. It would be nice if somebody else would, though. Uniqueuponhim 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: most encyclopedias (and textbooks) have no footnotes or detailed references. The rules of plagiarism do not apply to them--only to real people who falsely claim credit. Rjensen 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a practical level, it's probably already covered by the copyright policy; I'm not sure if we would really benefit from another obscure policy page at this point. Kirill Lokshin 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason I ask is because the plagiarism on that page that I mentioned is still there, and I don't know what is supposed to be done about it. None of the material on wikipedia should be plagiarized, and if someone finds materials which are, they should be able to go to a page which explains what to do about it. Uniqueuponhim 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out the plagiarized section(s) and exactly where it comes from? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, in the talk section for that article. Sorry I didn't mention that here. Uniqueuponhim 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Page for Plagiarism 

message: Is there any move to standardise legal citations where the name of a case is the article name, i.e. Roe v Wade?  Two things are particulary beginning to frustrate me:
# the use (or non use) of a period after the "v" (contrast Roe v. Wade and Roe v Minister of Health; see the mix and match at: "Category:English case law")
# the use of corporate suffixes (see confusion between Salomon v Salomon and Salomon v. Salomon & Co.)
I haven't been able to find anything which suggests move to standardise this, but if I have missed something, I'd be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.  If there isn't such a move, should there be?
Legis 10:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Case citation for a description of how cases are cited. That is an article, not a style guide, but it is referenced by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases as guidance. IMO, the article names should match the citation style (except perhaps in cases where a specific case might have a more common popular name). older ≠ wiser 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Citations 

message: How do you cite unpublished sources, or does that count as "original research"?
Example: I'm wanting to write an article about Browning Hill in Indiana.  Browning Hill is near Brown County State Park.  The sources I'm finding, both on-line and in book form, seem to have contradictory information as to whether or not Browning Hill is actually in Brown County State Park or just private property near Brown County State Park.  My intention is to call Brown County State Park on the telephone and ask so that I have reliable information for the article.  
Is that "original research"?  If not, how the heck do I cite a telephone call? ONUnicorn 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience (the hard sciences) unpublished sources are as a rule "bleeding edge research" that one can expect to see in print within the year. What you are referring to is of no urgency at all, the question can be solved by consulting an official map. Dr Zak 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished sources? 

message: What is the convention for citing verses from the Quran or the Bible? External link to (for example) Bible gateway? Or just leave it as unlinked text? ntennis 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, seems to be fairly common practise to link to the actual passage through www.biblegateway.com for the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, and do the same on www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran for the Quran. Wonder if this info should be added to the manual of style somewhere? ntennis 11:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the variety of interpretations, I think one needs to cite the exact publication as with any other book reference, along with the passage numbers.  Coyoty 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing scriptures 

message: Is there a correct way to cite an e-book? I've tried using cite web to include the URL & cite book to show the ISBN but am having problems combining both into one citation.
The ref is in the article on Stowey in the section on Sutton Court. A resident in the late 19th & 20th century wrote an autobiography which talks about his life there. The book is available via project Gutenburg as a e-book from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6567 but I've ended up with a citation which looks like:
Is there a better way? Rod 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are citing there isn't an e-book, it's an ordinary book on paper whose text has been made available via Project Gutenberg. The authoritative source is still the book on paper, we don't know about scanning and proofreading errors made by the Gutenberg folks. This the electronic text is merely a convenience. Dr Zak 22:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing e-books - cite web or cite book? 

message: I imagine a lot of people come to this page to find the wikimedia syntax for standard citations, and this does not appear to be here.
:Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but isn't that what this section is for: Wikipedia:Citing sources#How and where to cite sources? You'll notice that there is an "example styles" subpage linked there, as well. --J. J. 16:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==How to cite?== 

message: WikiBib mentioned in the project page (in the section Citing sources) seems not to work anymore. Does anybody know whether this page has been moved somewhere? Thanks in advance. (I've already tried to ask at User Talk:Alterego and WikiBib at wikimedia.) --Kompik 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiBib

message: Is it possible to include references in templates?
For example, consider Template:RRHF500. You'll see that there is a link to the external web-site, that should be included on each page that this template is included. (If this is wanted is another discussion, one for the talk page of the template, here I only ask about the technical details.)
However, for example Surfin' USA uses this template. Look at the page to see a [1] next to the inserted template, but no reference list below.
A better example is maybe God Only Knows. The template is included (currently below "Recognition and Influence"), and the number [10] is next to it. However, number [9] is below it. And in the sources list, there is no number 10.
Seems that references in templates are counted after the references in the original article, and they are not included in the articles references. Is there a solution for this problem? Or is there some guideline forbidding to include sources in templates? Pie.er 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a known issue with Cite.php.  Refs in templates get numbered after "regular" refs, and end up missing from the endref section.  See here for a short demo of these issues. Gimmetrow 17:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with including sources in templates 

message: Someone added MLA citation style to the list yesterday. I noticed while fixing what looked like just a typo. But this is a major change, and I don't see any discussion here?
(Sorry I'm not logged in; I'm in Nairobi using someone else's computer. 81.199.118.173 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting rid of it because not only is there no discussion about it on the talk page as you noted, but MLA also is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles in most cases, in my opinion. Bayerischermann 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLA Citation Style 

message: I grow kind of tired of people putting up citation needed at general (weasel word-ish) meanings, statements, and viewpoints. For example, the article on Mario states that "...most do not consider the animated series part of the Mario video game canon.".
Most people wouldn't have any difficulty accepting a statement like that, but it is marked with "citation needed"... how are you going to cite a source for things like that? --Ifrit 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that can't be verified somehow (and thus, by extension, sourced) doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  If you can't conceive of a way to source a statement, you should probably consider removing it.  In this case, changing "most" to "some" and citing one or two Mario fansites is probably the way to go. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing statement sources? 

message: I noticed that here it is suggested that citations be placed after the period, or when placed within a sentence after a clause, then after the comma. I assume this might be some sort of an Anglo-Saxon tradition, as in where I live it is more common to add citation marks and references before the punctuation marks. That way it is clear to which sentence is the reference referring to. My question is: is this some kind of a rule in English or is it yet another wiki-only convention? //Halibutt 07:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it's a standard rule in (American?) English. Kirill Lokshin 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it depends on whether or not you are using in-line citations, such as Harvard, or footnotes. For footnotes, The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS 16.30), “A note number should be placed at the end of a sentence or at the end of a clause. The number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes. It follows a closing parenthesis.” There is one minor possible exception in the paragraph regarding a parenthetical phrase within a sentence, in which case it may be preferable to place the number after the punctuation and before the closing parenthesis. For text (in-line) citations CMS 16.112 states “Author-date citations are usually placed just before a mark of punctuation.” Block quotations are handeled differently. -- Avi 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I prefer using in-line citations for references using the  and  templates to link the parenthetical citation to the full reference list at the bottom, where I use the various  templates. I think having those ... notes interspersed in the text just adds confusion. I will sometimes use them for footnoting, or sometimes use . It is a matter of preference. I just do not like how the cite.php/ref system works so much. De gustibus non est disputandum. -- Avi 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period 

message: Please see here for discussion about two (possibly there are more?) templates indicating that the article is based on translation from non-English wikipedia and how they may be made more useful, especially in terms of citing reliable sources (reference as a translation from other wiki is poor but better then no reference, and the original texts have various levels of quality in their refs).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing translations from national wikis 

message: One of the lists of missing articles calls for an article on "Hybrid coupler". I've found a U.S. Navy article, Power dividers and directional couplers, which is in the public domain, and which I intend to copy into Wikipedia. The Navy article covers hybrid couplers as a subset of directional couplers. I will edit it to change the markup from HTML to Wiki markup. What is the best way to cite the original source? Gerry Ashton 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was not so much about the mechanics of writing the reference, but rather, whether I should include some statement that the WP article will have started out as a copy of the Navy article, and if so, if there is a template or custom about what form the statement should take? Gerry Ashton 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Often such a free source (which would also include translation from other-language Wikipedias or the 1911 PD Brittanica) include a little blurb at bottom that "this article was based on <source>".  However, I've taken out those blurbs at times, when I think they're not really informative.  For example, I think some programming-related article I edited was based on the German Wikipedia, but that source was from 2001, a thousand edits earlier (or whatever).  At some point, the source seems less interesting.  Of course, even then, the citation to the Navy document you mention would still be relevant as a "reference". LotLE×talk 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Form of citation when an article is copied from public domain

message: In the "Notes" section section, it says "==Notes or Footnotes==". Was it not intended for this to actually say "==Notes== or ==Footnotes==" (alternatively a seperate bullet point for "==Footnotes==")?
– Andreas Blixt ☺ 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight confusion 

message: From the guideline:
"Footnotes are normally simply numbered numerically. Thus, determining who said what typically requires a reader to continually jump back and forth between the main body and the footnote/endnote to see if there is something of value. When footnotes are simply providing a much more detailed argument, this is often not a problem, but if the footnotes are the primary citation method, this can be critical (since it is sometimes important to keep track of who claims what)."
I know most Wikipedians don't use popups, but they are a great way to get around this problem.  Also great with tabbed browsing, so you can check the source without navigating away from the main article.  Should this option be mentioned in the guideline?  Thanks, GChriss 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pop-ups also have a tendency to cause your cursor to freeze when you do not want them to, I have found. Regardless, another reason to use in-line citations and the / system, IMO. -- Avi 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy on Footnotes + Popups 

message: IMO it is necessary to add a clarifying sentence, something along the lines
:"Normally it is sufficient to cite sources only in articles which are most immediately relevant to the fact in question. For example, it is natural to cite the source for the population numbers of the United States only in the United States and Demographics of the United States articles and refer to these from other places for numbers."
This would achieve four goals: coherence of citations (and the resulting ease of maintenance), prevention of unnecessarily long lists of citations, proviving a slightly broader context to the reader, and last but not least (which is actually the reason for this proposal) it would be a cheap way to kill possible trolling and system gaming by formally requesting quotations for each and every sentence one does not like (not to say about outright deletion as "unreferenced" in "strict" accordance with wikipedia policy) 
Opinions, please. `'mikka (t) 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing at the "root of the cause"