Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 20

message: As part of the above mentioned Wikiproject, I am making a solo attempt to completely refurbish, copyedit and basically glam up all articles related to the 1988 children's television series TUGS. But the problem is, this series was made in 1988 and has since been completely forgotten about, with no official website, just except a handful of fansites and a couple of mentions here and there. What do you do for citing sources in a case like this, where no official sources are apparent? Thanks --SteelersFan UK06 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Best would be to dive into the archives of 1988 and find the original press coverage. However, that would not be feasible to most editors. So you will propably have to do with the fansites; weak sources as they are. Arnoutf 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Thanks for your help i knew i could count on you guys =) --SteelersFan UK06 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try getting scripts or transcripts. As mentioned somewhere above, it would not make for a particularly interesting article, but still... Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah right, ok I do not see any curve in the earth (personal observation) hence I deduce the earth is flat after all (QED). Nice bit of original research from me; let's rewrite Wikipedia..... And that is why original research is not allowed. Btw I LOVE original research, that's why I am a scientist, I publish it in peer reviewed journal though, not on Wiki ;-) Arnoutf 10:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very likely that there are no secondary sources about individual episodes or characters, so the articles will probably need to be deleted or possibly merged into one list.  17Drew 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One alternative solution is to create your own primary sources on the Internet via a web site. Because editors look at on-line sources more than printed, if you publish the hard-copy information to your personal web site, then you can reference it on Wikipedia. I've seen this work in several situations, such as Brat Pack where virtually 100-percent of the article is based on a hard-copy magazine article. If you don't have the energy to create your own site, try contacting those other fansites and see if you can incorporate your newly found information into them. I've actually been told by one editor to do this as a way to stay within the rules of Wikipedia. Groink 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject TUGS]] 

message: Is it standard to use a title that describes what is on the page rather than the title that appears on the page for websites that are not news articles? Lara♥Love 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally use the title that appears in the title bar if there's not one on the page itself.  17Drew 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing the web

message: This discussion (Reference styles section) leads me to believe that the URL method of writing citations is not the preferred method of referencing, whereas the ref tag methodhttp://www.google.com is considered the correct way. While we can never eliminate the use of URL tags, I think we should discourage them.
I propose that the WP:CITE page (and other related pages) make mention of the fact that the REF TAG method is preferred over the URL method, and that the URL method should be discouraged.
Comments? Timneu22 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference. For example when providing a showcase in a list (e.g. the list of museums in the Utrecht (city) article I would use a weblink (but not numbered), whereas when I use the information as a source for the article I think the ref method is the best way. So yes, with this caveat, I fully support your idea. Arnoutf 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "preference for ref tags over URLs" proposal isn't for lists, just for inline citations. You are correct that the museum list in that article should be weblinks. I'm glad you support this idea. I'll wait for a few more... Timneu22 19:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find external jumps mid article, distracting and misleading, I wouldn't use them. I also support discouraging external jump only citations mid article for the same reason. IvoShandor 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  THIS DISCUSSION MOVED BELOW: #Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use! Timneu22 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL Refs vs. Tag Refs - tags preferred: proposal 

message: How many is too many?  
*Three short paragraphs:23 reference links
*One short paragraph: 15 reference links
*Total 66 reference links
Seems a tad bit overdone to me.  
Dreadstar † 09:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally every time a point is made a reference might be pertinent. Generally one main point per paragraph, but it's sometimes possible that two or three references might be used to make one point, but in Wikipedia that could be bordering on synthesis. Those examples could possibly be trimmed by tracing back the multiple references to their original sources. I start by removing the aggregation services that refer elsewhere. --Monotonehell 09:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your first example I fully agree, that is overdone. The notes are more examples than real source. E.g. The sentence about being first Italian Am, and wearing a golden pin is an easily verifiable (albeit double) message that is unlikely to be contested. Hence a single, or at max 2 (for the two points made in the sentence) reference would suffice. The other 10 (12 citations for a single line....) are over the top. Arnoutf 09:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments!  That's exactly what I was thinking too.  Another editor drew my attention to the article, so I thought I'd double-check my view on the vast number of reference links.  Thanks for confirming. Dreadstar † 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of citations

message: WP:CITE lists two methods for inline citations: Harvard Referencing or footnotes with "ref" tags, in that order.
It appears to me, overwhelmingly, that the latter method is more commonly used. The last 10 featured articles have all used inline citations with ref tags. Offhand, I can't recall the last time I saw a FA with Harvard referencing. It has probably happened...but not recently, and certainly not very often.
When I joined Wikipedia, I used Harvard Referencing for a number of articles that I created, since it was the option listed first. I now regret that, as those articles look odd now. I know that in one article I worked on, other editors came in later, and as part of an FA push (which was successful), converted all of the inline cites to use ref tags.
At this point, is it fair to say that "the people have spoken," and Harvard Referencing is the less preferred option? At the very least, I think it should be listed second, with a comment that "ref" tags are preferred by most editors. Marc Shepherd 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard referencing is alive and well, thanks. There's no reason to worry about it - it isn't better or worse than the footnote method. I don't really understand why there is so much concern about Harvard referencing, when it's still a very common style in journals. Moreover, this guideline is not just for featured articles, which must meet the idiosyncratic interpretations of the FA reviews; it's a general recommendation for all articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not passing any judgment on which method is better. I'm just making the empirical observation that, overwhelmingly, it seems that the "ref" style has prevailed on English Wikipedia, to a point where it is now considerably more common. This is not merely true in Featured Articles (which purport to represent the best of Wikipedia), but all over the site generally. Marc Shepherd 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A comment on Harvard / Footnote.  In my line of work (applied social psychology) I prefer Harvard because you can deduct a lot about the underlying assumptions/position in a paper or report if you know who the cited authors are. This is particularly useful for a field where there is a lot of disagreement about models and paradigms (such as in social sciences). For Wiki purposes, however, it is essential that we present a view that is as balanced as possible and reflect all points of view. For such purposes the Harvard style has not such an explicit benefit (as you try to exclude pov and assumptions of models as much as possible). So, yes there are objective reasons for using Harvard; although perhaps not for most Wiki articles, but that is something else. Arnoutf 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to continue to recommend Harvard is that if an article is found on a site with a suitable copyright license status, and the article uses Harvard citations, the article could be copied as-is into Wikipedia. Or, an author who wrote for a publication that requires Harvard citations could copy it to Wikipedia too, if the agreement with the publisher allows him/her to do so. (This assumes, of course, the article is suitable for Wikipedia.) --Gerry Ashton 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting Harvard Referencing would go away. There are almost 2 million articles in English Wikipedia. Harvard Referencing could very well be employed on tens of thousands of them. It's not going away. I'm just wondering whether it remains appropriate to list "ref" tags and Harvard as two equivalent styles, with Harvard listed first? Marc Shepherd 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the Harvard citation templates work, and if so, could someone give me an example of an article that uses them?  The footnote method with "ref" tags works, and provides a link from the superscript down to the footnote at the bottom of the page, and another link to go back up to the text.  The Harvard citation template claims to do this, but I didn't find any article where it seemed to work.  I think it's good style to name the authors and year in the text.  I don't see why you can't do this and then put a ref-style footnote after it, too, like this (Smith and Jones, 1960)Smith and Jones' book that goes to the full citation.  If footnote style is used more often, I think it's a good idea to describe it first on this page, as Marc Sheppard suggested, though perhaps without any comment about which is preferred. --Coppertwig 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One example of what I think you are asking for is Taboo.  The <ref>s use  templates to generate clickable links in the Notes section to matching named elements which are generated by the  templates which mark items in the Referneces section.  No backlinks are provided from the References section items — it is necessary to use the browser's Back button (or alt-left-arrow, or whatever) to retrace the history of pages viewed. -- Boracay Bill 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  THIS DISCUSSION MOVED BELOW: #Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use! Timneu22 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Harvard Referencing be deprecated? 

message: Hello fellow editors. Could an admin please add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup to the See Also section - I can't due to the protection. Thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t believe the goals of this project, specifically maximizing the use of citation templates, are compatible with this guideline, which does not encourage their use. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the project is still in its infancy (e.g. illustrated by goals that do not follow this guideline as observed above). It was after all only started 2 weeks ago. I would suggest to let it develop to maturity first before requesting to add it to this page. That time lage will allow time to resolve such issues before there is a semi-official endorsement of the project through its linking from here. Arnoutf 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I understand. I'll come back later. Thanks for the advice. Onnaghar tl ! co 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup 

message: 
lI'd like to request that pursuant with Wikipedia:Explain_jargon, the use of "BLP" in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material ("so long as the article is not nonsensical or a BLP") could be changed to "biography of a living person" to make it easier to understand. --Hopkapi 02:52, August 30 2007 (UTC)
:Seems reasonable. Done. --- RockMFR 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could "BLP" be replaced with "biography of a living person"? 

message: Hi-
I am Kris Peterson.  I wrote my own bio.  All sources were right from the person (S) cited.  RE: Jobriath:  I was there and knew that he was the first openly gay performer.  My parents:  anything referring to them were told to me by them.  I was there and knew all to be the truth with everything stated .
Kris Peterson (Ladyinabag).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyinabag (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all writing your autobiography on Wikipedia is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Second, you imply that your sourcs are comments by certain people. I think in most cases this will be considered as original research, (sse WP:OR) which is not considered an acceptable source in the Wikipedia community. Consider whether you want to take this (your own) biography further or maybe you should leave it. Arnoutf 17:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: To Whom It May Concern:
For the Wikipedia page on Alan Nathan, you have the words "citation needed" at the end of the third line as per the following:
"Nathan's style is noted for its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic.[citation needed]"
Below is the "citation" from a leading authority in the broadcast field.  I hope the audio/video url referenced will suffice.
“One of the most unusual talk shows in the business because he is a radical moderate. It terrified me the first time I was on because within 30 seconds I realized I was playing in a very difficult sport. It’s a brilliant show and he is a brilliant moderator.” -- MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor & Publisher, Talkers Magazine - STATED DURING INTRODUCTIONS AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION/TALKERS MAGAZINE PANEL DISCUSSION, September 27, 2002
Here's the audio/video url:
http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/lect020927.ram  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecentrist (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line from your source states he is a brilliant moderator; so you can put that in; but it does not quantify this brilliance as "its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic." so you would still need a reference for these claims. Arnoutf 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video as source

message: Would someone please throw Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources into the See also section? I've mistakenly come here looking for cleanup templates at least three times - wouldn't hurt to at least link to the list. MrZaiustalk 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: We need to make clear that if the sources are listed under "References" that nothing else, such as further reading, may. Hyacinth 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A tiny part of an authoritative work might be used as a reference, but that should not eliminate the entire work from possibly being a "Further reading" item.  (SEWilco 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that subject matter on this project page relating to References, Further reading, and other endmatter sections overlaps and sometimes conflicts with similar subject matter on the WP:GTL project page. -- Boracay Bill 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References vs Further reading

message: On a vaguely related topic, should we really be telling people to use ? My understanding is that  does the same thing with the addition of a small font (and the easy ability to add multiple columns) and is generally preferable. At least, mention both. —David Eppstein 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning the reflist option is fine IF it's also mentioned that it should be used only when the list of references is reasonably long - at least 10 references (in my opinion) is a good rule of thumb.  The problem with reflist is that the reduced font size of the text of the footnotes makes them (in my opinion) somewhat less readable.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><references /> versus {{reflist}} </nowiki> 

message: I want to add a section on the page, telling people to not use "ibid". As soon as a new citation is intercalated, the "ibid" will no longer be properly cited. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ibid" would be used (mistakenly) only with the footnoting or the Harvard referencing system. I strongly reommend that you review the detail pages regarding those two systems, and, if necessary, change one or both of those.  Let's not make the Citing sources page the place where every single bit of information about citing sources is collected; this really should be more of a summary page that points editors to other pages with more details, should they so desire.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibid 

message: I think I read somewhere that a fact in the lead of an article that otherwise should have an inline citation does not need one if the same fact is repeated later in the article in a more detailed section, and has an inline citation there. Am I right, and if so, where did I read it? --Gerry Ashton 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen it, but it seems a reasonable idea. On the other hand most lead sections (being summaries) will not contain controversial statements so no refs needed anyway. Arnoutf 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the subject of a (In my opinion lame, because both opinion were square within the limits of current policy at the time) edit war that left 2 Project pages fully protected for weeks. It's probably not going to get added again, it's usually settled ona case-by-case and statement-by-statement basis anyway.Circeus 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, any guideline on this should be in WP:LEAD and not here. It would probably be a good idea, though, for this guideline on (I do keep repeating this bit from this article's own lead section) how to write citations in articles to point to WP:LEAD#Citations_in_the_lead_section. IMO discussion about whether or not and/or in what circumstances the lead section should contain citations should take place in WT:LEAD#Citations_in_the_Lead, not here. -- Boracay Bill 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's clear  that the insertion of such citations is totally unnecessary if the matter is cited later in the article. It  is only necessary to cite everything once per article. The lede is just an abstract. I think most requests for such citations are the result of edit wars carried too far, and should be promptly halted,  as being unproductive..  DGG (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even in abstract of scientific journals is occasionally notice a reference. So it is not this clear cut. In general I would say it is not needed, but situations may ask for exeptions. Sadly not all introductions are abstracts, there is often unrepeated information in them but that is indeed a discussion for WP:LEADArnoutf 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Citations are very important in the lead because they get changed more often than any other part of an article. When someone reads something they don't like in the lead of an article, they sometimes "add their two cents", so many leads get continually whacked by people trying to push their own pet theory of a subject (see History of science for an example of a lead that is reworded twice a week). One purpose of citations is to stop this kind of low-level, ongoing edit war. It's hard to rewrite a sentence that is properly verified and it gives editors an objective way to judge new changes. ---- CharlesGillingham 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a better way to enforce this than requiring citations be to follow WP:LEAD and remove additions to the lead that aren't backed up by more detail in the main article? We don't need a citation requirement for this purpose. —David Eppstein 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations in lead

message: How does one reference something said on a television show? Specifically if a transcript is unavailable but the video is online? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can cite it just like any other website, probably with a notation that it is a video, so that people with slow connections won't waste their time trying to view it. Of course, don't cite any websites that appear to be violating copyright laws. --Gerry Ashton 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing video? 

message: I've been working on refs for Manga, with multiple citations from a single book.  I like the little numbers that appear when using  in combo with what the "cite book" template produces at the bottom.  It doesn't allow for individual pages to mentioned, though.   I'm not a fan of having a section that lists all the books, and then having the little numbers go to something like "smith p.38' though.  Do the harvard templates allow one to put the number in the body of the article with a link that goes down to something that looks like what "cite book" produces at the bottom inside the ref tags? - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  See the Scat singing article for examples of how to do it. –panda (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool.  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the Harvard citation templates allow pages that link to a single ref at the bottom 

message: At one point this page listed that Chicago formating is an appropriate method to use when sourcing articles.  As my off-line life involves much research in the liberal arts fields (ie. history, anthropology, sociology dealing with food) I use Chicago format for my citations as it is the most popular method.  I have been using that method for all of the articles I work on.  I recently had someone come in and start converting them to this inline citation which I find incredibly annoying when trying to edit with this large amount of excess text in the middle of a paragraph.  So my long winded question is that I would like to know if Chicago formating is now frowned upon and is the inline citation method being promoted?  In my opinion it should be the discression of the author, but if there is a policy I would like to discuss it as it doesn't seem "concrete."--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by "Chicago formatting"? Kirill 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicago Manual of Style is style of citation like Harvard, MLA, APA, etc.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm familiar with the CMoS, but I'm not sure (a) which of the styles detailed in it you prefer and (b) how the contents of this page would interfere with that.  Certainly, both short-form-note (as here or here) and long-form-note styles (can't think of an example at the moment) remain popular, and are easily implemented. Kirill 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago Manual of Style

message: In the examples of best footnote practices, this guideline links the access dates for a website.  Why?  Access dates have nothing to do with the content of the article and linking the dates serves no useful purpose.  (It does, however, clog up Special:What links here.)--ragesoss 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For user date preferences to kick in. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-23t15:26z  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Access dates have a lot to do with the content of the source (and hence the article). Simply put, a printed source stays the same, a website not necessarily. A website may disappear, the story maybe withdrawn, or dramatically altered. Giving the access date does not overcome this but at least makes clear when (ie what version of) the website was used. This has by now become standard in using website when cited in scientific publication for this reason. Arnoutf 15:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about giving the access dates (of course that should be done), but linking them.  It doesn't seem worth the added link clutter, just for the user preferences that so few people use.--ragesoss 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry I misunderstood. Do you mean in the "when a link goes dead" section; the rationale is explained there I think? Otherwise I cannot find it. Arnoutf 16:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no explicit explanation on this page; the example occurs in the the Footnotes section, and begins "Plunkett, John".  Implicitly, the reason is that given by Jeandré above: when a pair of dates are linked (September 23, 2007), then they can automagically be reformatted (e.g., to read "23 September, 2007" or "2007-9-23") if users have date preferences set.  This makes sense for dates within the text of articles, which mark something significant connected to that date, so that readers might want to see the associated date articles (and for the few who set their preferences, to see the date in a preferred format).  It also makes Special:Whatlinkshere somewhat useful, by providing a list articles that have something to do with a particular date.  But linking access dates creates a flood of irrelevant links; I can think of no circumstances where a reader would want to know more about the date of access.--ragesoss 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I get it now, seems over the top to me as well to link access dates; muddling up the text and giving little to no benefit. Arnoutf 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why link access dates?

message: Should the references section go before or after the "external links" section?
And should it go before or after the "See also" section?
Or is there any guideline on this at all?  Everything I see just says that each should go "near the end of the article". --Gronky 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to move further away from the article as you go down. So, in my opinion, an ideal order would be: See also/Notes/References (bibliography)/further reading/external links (though you don't always need all of those).qp10qp 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so there's no policy?  Ok, thanks.  FWIW, my personal preference is to put the refs at the very end because they can be quite long unreadable, so readers will probably think the article is over when they get to the refs "small print" and that might make the External links section be missed.  --Gronky 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Qp10qp's ordering sounds like the right one to me. I've always seen further reading and external links after the references, when they exist. If the references are too long, make them two-column and smaller. —David Eppstein 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are structured to be read sequentially.  The External links section is part of the article in that it too should be read as part of the sequence, albeit last.  The refs section, on the other hand, is only meant to be read in the special case where a reader wants to check the accuracy of a claim in the article.  Readers shouldn't have the read the refs in order to learn about the topic of the article.  Refs're thus not part of the article and they should go at the very bottom with the other small print (copyright info etc.) that is visible for anyone who's looking for it but is out of the way of those who want to read the article.  The 2-column small font just (rightly) increases the not-for-reading appearance of a refs section. --Gronky 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. 17Drew 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the refs section go on the page? 

message: I've just created a subpage of my user space at User:OwenBlacker/Usability. User:Everyking and I have a disagreement over matters of accessibility and usability — notably related to  citations — that I've just listed on WP:RFC/STYLE; please come and add your views. — OwenBlacker 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement between two editors over a matter of accessibility 

message: http://www.glampunk.org/
It looks to me like a fansite.Hoponpop69 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this site a valid source?

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Help Desk
Has there been a proposal about moving references (which takes up more than half of the page in some articles) into their own place or module, much like any comment or question about the article is located in the "discussion" module? This might require a software change... Anyway, could someone point me to a discussion of this sort? Thank you. CG 14:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against, the sources should be directly visible in the main article. Arnoutf 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? In many books, any refs or notes are located at the end in an appendix of its own, followed by a bibliography appendix. It is similiar to WP articles but instead of cluttering each page they are grouped in a separate section. I don't see any real disadvantage in it. CG 08:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem re-structuring refs and notes (although the software implementation may be difficult), but the information should be somewhere in the main article and not in a separate page. With regard to your comparison to books, in Wiki articles this is already the case, references are located at (or near) the end in a separate section called references. Following the metaphore of a book, in my opinion your suggestion would not be to put the refs at the end, but in a different volume altogether, but of course that is an opinion. Arnoutf 10:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah you're right, my analogy with books is already implemented, but there's still a problem. A huge list of refs (as it is required for FAs) has many disadvantages: It takes up more than half of the space making estimation of the size of the article difficult, but more important not all readers are interested in checking references. Not all WP visitors are making researches and very few of them have an interest in checking the refs (other than editors who are concerned about the quality of articles), therefore there's a frequent loss of downloading time and even printing paper, in addition, bottom templates, external links and "see also" sections located after the refs are becoming harder to spot. I know that implementing this sort of thing require a great software change (and a request at Bugzilla not here), but after seeing complaints about huge list of refs, I was surprised that no one has suggested a way to solve it (or at least that what I think). Thank you. CG 11:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving references

message: I'm not aware of any studies in this area. I've done a quick one myself available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment. I would like to see much more research like this conducted, and have provided a few suggestions. Any comments are welcome. Richard001 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research on reference use in Wikipedia articles

message: Should [Citation needed] types of markup show up in References with a backlink?  It would help editors and readers find marked items.  (SEWilco 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag could include Citation Needed, causing all those tags to show up in the References section below.  (SEWilco 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would be the added benefit? Using search function citation neededs are easily found in the text. Only by seeing them in context you can adjust the text, or find a reference. Arnoutf 07:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And all "fact" tags are linked to that template; you can see them via "What links here" at Template:Fact. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation needed" reference? 

message: How do I cite references from personal emails or phone calls with or about the subjects of my articles? --Moni3 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may cite articles that you wrote if and only if they have been published in reputable publications. You may not cite personal emails or phone calls because they are not publications. --Gerry Ashton 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I spoke to the subject of one of my articles I'm not able to cite any information provided during our call? --Moni3 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, information on Wikipedia should be verifiable through published sources.  17Drew 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thanks. --Moni3 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal involvement with references 

message: I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about particular attribution

message: [] says that it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. How does one approach an entry which purports to have many references, but where the probable reality is that the entry has had only a single source, and the many sources are actually only sources cited within that single source. I am referring to something like this page: []. In it, many sources are listed, including original documents held in the British Foreign Office records. However, I think it is highly improbable that the editors of that page have seen such original documents, and is more likely that it is all taken from a single book, most likely of Turkish nationalistic origin. Meowy 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fair to consider a claim to be unreferenced if the citation provided does not allow a person with reasonable skill in using libraries and the Internet to figure out where the reference document is located. It might turn out that actually viewing the reference document requires traveling to a particular library or government office; that's OK. --Gerry Ashton 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that was the case with most of the references given in the[] page I mentioned. I feel that most of the information in that page has come from a single uncited source and not from the multiple sources that are cited. So how should the problem be addressed? Ask the editor that put the content there? And how is he/she going to prove those multiple sources were actually used? Meowy 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the cites to which you refer include those added in this edit and this edit, both by OttomanReference. If you have a question about whether that editor used an intermediate source and, if so, what that source might be perhaps it might be a good idea to ask that editor.  Yes, if an intermediate source was used the cites should say so and should identify that source.  Incidentally, googling around a bit turned up this, which looks like it might have been a source for some of this material. -- Boracay Bill 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (continuing) Ah, I see that while I was putting the above together you did inquire about this on OttomanReference's talk page.  Hopefully, that'll help clear this up. -- Boracay Bill 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that input. There do seem to be similarities with that Googled article, but more in the style of the writing and in its listing of Foreign Office documents than in the subject matter. Bilal Simsir is a well-known writer much used by the Turkish State to advocate its official history of events, and will use only sources which agree (or which can be made to appear to agree) with that official history. That's why it will be important to know the intermediate source, if one was used. As you just noticed, I've asked OttomanReference about his sources. Meowy 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible false citiation of sources

message: There is a quote function in citations, and I use it. Other people have been removing them, saying the are not to be used, and that no featured article uses them. I find them very useful:
*They show a full quote in situ with the surrounding text
*They aid in reconnecting to the web source if the link is broken. Try finding: "John Smith dead" vs "John Smith, the Anglican bishop was found dead today". Links on the web are mutable, especially links to Associated Press articles, which by contracts are not to be archived, such as the one used at Yahoo. It makes it easier to find the article again, in another newspaper or news archive, sich as CNBC, CNN, or the BBC. 
What do you think?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all citation templates support the quote parameter.  In particular,  does not, though it is easy enough to add a quote inside of a footnote containing  but outside of the template. This sounds like a difference between you and other editors about writing style in some particular articles.  The manual of style doesn't lay out hard and fast rules about placing quotes inline vs. placing quotes in footnotes (see this), though I get the sense that inline placement is preferred.  Even if placed inline, of course, paraphrases and direct quotations do require supporting citations identifying the source used {see this).  Another article which might be useful is this, which contains wikilinks to other possibly useful articles.-- Boracay Bill 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion appears to be the same as that in the section below, and the consensus seems to be running against the practice. As for direct quotations making it easier to find permanent versions of the story at places like CNBC, CNN, and the BBC, why don't you use those sources initially, rather than a transient AP story? That way, someone looking for more information from the story can find it much more easily. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote function in citations 

message: I was encouraged by User:wtmitchell to bring this here
:I'm not sure how to format a source I used for Michael Koenen. The source is . Now with the  template, it asks for a "publisher." Is this the Atlanta Journal-Constitution or wwuvikings.com? Tromboneguy0186 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying an entire newspaper article to one's website would be a copyright violation, unless one has permission to do so. Copying a sentence or maybe a paragraph would be fair use. The fact that one does it all the time and hasn't been caught yet does not mean it isn't a violation. --Gerry Ashton 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My assumption is not that the WWU site "hasn't been caught," it's that they do have permission. Why else would they do it, and how would they not have been "caught" after doing it for three years-plus? I'm sure I could find this out with a little digging, though, being as I work part-time for the WWU athletic department. Tromboneguy0186 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher? 

message: From the history of the article:
:04:14, 25 October 2007 Omegatron (Talk | contribs | block) (28,869 bytes) (→Where to place reference tags - for several years now, with no opposition) (undo)
Omegatron given this history in the archives:
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#citation_location (March 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#Citations and punctuation (April 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive4#Period/Full Stop and reference location (May 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive4#Every sentence should have a reference? (May 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive5#Ref after punctuation and the no consensus trap (May 2006)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive5#Position of footnotes (July 2006)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive6#American/British style (March 2007)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#References and punctuation
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation (June 2007)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Where to place reference tags (July 2007)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Intellectual honesty July 2007
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#What do we agree on? (straw poll on ref tag placement) (July 2007)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#The fundamental issue
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Compromise
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Reference tags
----
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive14#Footnotes come after punctuation (October 2006)
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive16#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (May 2007)
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (June 2007)
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive18#Always place references after punctuation (July 2007)
how do you justify the statement "Where to place reference tags - for several years now, with no opposition" --Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be an instance of "If I only act as if; and shout it out very loudly, many people will believe I am right/represent consensus; without me giving any arguments". Sadly I have seen this behaviour before. Arnoutf 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference tags 

message: Is the [ref generator no longer functional?  --Jerm  (Talk/ Contrib) 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it; it seems fine, if you use a URL that doesn't include a pipe at the end. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference tool

message: :Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers.
What are scrolling reference lists exactly? --SallyScot 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are boxes that shorten the citation list, providing a scroll bar on the side for scrolling down through the list.  Only the shortened box shows on mirrors or printout, so all of the citations are lost. I can't show you an example because there shouldn't be any, but envision a long list of citations where you only see the first five or so, and have to scroll down a box to see the rest.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The question comes up periodically. I think it needs to be written in some guideline for editors to reference, and this seems an appropriate place to have it. Gimmetrow 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't speak HTML, but those who were using them knew how to do it;  all we need to do is tell them to stop doing it :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seen them around, and removed them.... It can be done (sadly enough). Arnoutf 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because of its original section title and placing in the article I thought scrolling reference lists may have perhaps been implying the use of some esoteric template (e.g. some scrolling template variation of ). But it seems as if it's really more of a point about scrolling lists in general. I'd therefore assume that it has more to do with html implementations of scrolling text (of any kind). Something like e.g.  may actually be quite robust in terms of which browsers it works in (I don't know I haven't looked into it that much). I would say that the article should argue against scrolling lists in legitimate terms though. Concerns over readability and printing still stand, but perhaps the argument of browser compatibility is being overstated. --SallyScot 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the readability and printing always were the main arguments. Arnoutf 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is addressed in WP:CITE#Scrolling lists but it may need to be more prominently covered. ElKevbo is working to remove them from the FAs and has taken out a dozen so far. KnightLago 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrolling reference lists

message: I think that people who read the today's featured article, sometimes get a bit intimidated with the extra size that the references section adds to the page, so i suggest publishing thme in scrollboxes, as this would condense the size of articles and make seem more coherent. An issue was raised that the references wouldnt print, but most people dont print off wikipedia and would certainly not wanan print off a reference, unless checkin an FAC. But most people just quote wiki in essays and stuff, so i say bring on the scrollboxes --Hadseys 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This matter was discussed two sections above this one; if you want to continue that discussion, please do so, above, rather than starting it over again. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrollbox references 

message: Harvard references that are listed at the end of the article should have periods at the end of them. However, in this guide, speciifcally in the sections 'Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations' and 'Footnotes,' there are no periods at the end of the examples given. So this footnote: (Miller 2005, p.23) should be: (Miller 2005, p.23.) I am not suggesting the period be used in in-text footnotes, but rather ones placed at the bottom of the page. All the citation guides I have looked at confirms the period at the end of footnotes, so I'd like to change the examples and add a period to the end. Zeus1234 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Periods at the end of references

message: Have not heard back yet on my Email to Wikipedia. There's another "problem with citation" which is not dealt with, which is, what happens when a source is in error and the error has been confirmed with the author? That should be included as well, it does happen. If there's a specific policy out there already, I haven't found it, and it's not for want of searching. PētersV 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website of an author who is "an established expert on the topic" (WP:RS) can be used, so if the author can be pursuaded to publish the correction on his/her website, that would suffice. Even better would be to have the correction published on the publisher's web site. --Gerry Ashton 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The author himself does not have a site. I have in the meantime contacted the publisher to find out if they have any sort of online "errata" compendium. No word back yet from either WP or the publisher. PētersV 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems (error in source) with citations 

message: I think it is time to depreciate the "External links" name for the section and only recommend the alternative named of "Further reading". To keep the discussion centralised please join the discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Propose to change External links section to Further reading --Philip Baird Shearer 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose to drop mention of External links section for just Further reading

message: How do you cite a note by an editor or translator of a book by someone else?  Two somewhat different examples that I've guessed at are in Carmen (novella) (reference by Martineau) and Madagascar Serpent-eagle (Fisher and Higgins).  I'll be grateful for an explanation or a pointer to one.  —JerryFriedman 06:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that, generally speaking, the citation should include the footnote as part of the page number.  For example:
 Smith, All About Citations, 2005, p.27fn34.
If the work provides the explanatory material as an endnote rather than footnote on the bottom of the page, you still cite as above. The important thing is to find the foot/end note on page 27, and then know which note it is (#34). Not that endnote #34 occurs on page 768 at the end of the book or article. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing notes 

message: Hi, I see there are (at least) 3 formats in use for references; inline, Harvard, or just putting an external link or bookref next to each fact. Seems to me from the other threads here that inline (with a list at the bottom) is the consensus choice - is that right?
Jamieeeeeeeeeeee (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Harvard, at least, is equally acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best reference format to use 

message: There is an overall lack of current consensus as to established 'best practice' at the moment. Further efforts could be made in this area. 
Arguably, part of the problem lies in the bewilderment of terminology. For example, it might seem more easygoing to suggest that a footnotes section can be called either Notes, Footnotes, or References (or Endnotes even), but in practice I think it just adds to the confusion. 
The difficulty would be in actually establishing such consensus though. 
My preference would be to call a section generated by  tag, who's content is determined by the what's inside <ref> tags in the article, simply, References. 
In earlier discussion however it has been argued that the References section should not contain footnotes. Carl said - "One confusing issue is that the tag that generates footnotes is called  - it should have been called <footnotes/>." - (CBM • talk) (14:09, 30 October 2007).
I'd go along with this if indeed there was a <footnotes/> generating tag (who's content was determined by what's inside <foot> tags in the article, say). But as it is I think it would be clearer to label such a section References.
Then I would say that a separate section that lists full citations, using Citation templates for example, would best be called, simply, Citations.
But if you look at yesterday's (Nov 19th, 2007) featured article, for example, you'll see that it has what I'd call References labeled as Citations and what I'd call Citations labeled as References. This approach seems rather counterintuitive to me. I'm not saying that article looks bad, but there is a lack of a consistent overall approach for sure. 
My preference would be to try and establish an intuitive and straightforward 'best practice' naming consensus. And I'd suggest approaching this with regard to what the said sections actually contained, including consideration of the current syntax (e.g. such as the <ref> tags currently used).
--SallyScot (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, that article seems fairly intuitive to me. One list contains a list of works to which the author referred in writing the piece ("References"), and the other contains instances in which the author actually cites those works in order to substantiate the content of the piece ("Citations"). Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't want the "References" section to be the one that uses the <references> (or ) markup, I want it to be the one that contains the list of references. We should be structuring things so they make sense to article readers, not to article editors, if there is a conflict between the two. For the same reason, if I am using ref-references style markup, with citations and other footnote-like material within the ref tags but the actual list of references elsewhere, I'd prefer to call the section containing the reflist tag "Notes" rather than something else, because that describes how it should be interpreted by the readers. I don't see what's so confusing about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This style-guideline page and the guideline page Wikipedia:Guide to layout both address this issue. Unfortunately, the two seem to be in a continual state of disagreement. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe there is different jargon in different fields. In the field I'm in (math), references are published works and we cite those references in the papers we write. So the article Sophie Blanchard matches our usage of the terms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total consistency is perhaps impossible owing to the different size and scope of articles. I think short articles should mix the notes and references together and have no separate list of referenced books. Here's an example of an article culled from a few pages of one book: Bruno Liljefors: two sections would seem over the top here. Where the bibliography would be enormous, it is also sometimes necessary (though unsatisfactory) to combine notes and references: for example at William Shakespeare, where a hybrid system is used. For the average article, I think it makes sense to separate the notes from the alphabetical list of books. These days, I favour a "notes and references" section, followed by a bibliography. I've stopped adding "further reading" sections and add those books to the bibliography. qp10qp (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference section names

message: ;Embedded links
These break the connection between the place a link is used and the full citation, which is not only a problem for editors, but perhaps more so for readers, since they can't simply click their way to the full citation. I propose to drop this citation method entirely. -- Shinobu (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, embedded links as inline citations should at least be discouraged. --SallyScot (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The short references can (and should) be linked to the full citations. The example has this. For an example with a long list of citations see the Salvia divinorum article. --SallyScot (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two notes on usability 

message: This guideline states that a full citations should include the "date you retrieved it if it is online." But is this really necessary for a page that is clearly dated and unlikely to change, for example, an online version of a printed article from a newspaper or magazine, or an old blog post? I only ask because, to me, it clutters up the reference lists and is kind of annoying to see random retrieval dates for online documents that aren't likely to ever change. I understand the purpose for web pages that are typically updated, like wiki pages or pages about information which changes on a regular basis, but for typically "constant" pages which are clearly dated, is it reasonable to omit the retrieval date? DHowell (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On-line articles are constantly changing. In your examples the content will probably not change, but old material is often simply removed, or the content is moved to a different location. So, date of retrieval is always useful. We could argue that it's not necessary as long as the cited material is still there, but it will be the day it's gone. An online version of a printed article is not the primary source, so in such cases it is more important to specify actual date or issue of the publication (and its name), author and/or title of the article, page number, etc.   Oceanh (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Retrieval date is a standard part of "works cited" today. The retrieval date makes it easier to find the right historical version. I once really puzzled over some data in a wiki article cited to the bio page of the subject's commercial site. It seemed very specific and AFAICT correct, but it wasn't on the subject's page. I thought maybe it was mis-cited. Eventually I looked through the page history, determined when the sentence was added, and found through archive.org that the data *had been* on the subject's page when the wiki edit was made. So yes, the access date *could* be determined from edit history, but it's really inconvenient. Ideally, all relevant info should be provided with a cite. Gimmetrow 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Oceanh and Gimmetrow, and note that I've spent hours working on locating and replacing dead links on WP:FARs, and the retrieval dates are sorely needed.  There is one situation I know of when they aren't needed.  PubMed is an NIH-indexed database of the abstracts only of all medical journal-published research.  A PMID entry gives all of the information necessary to locate the actual journal-published article in a library (article title, authors, journal, volume, issue, page nos, etc).  PMID information is never going to change; it merely points you to the journal, which is already given in the citation.  Per WP:MEDMOS, retrieval dates are not needed on PMIDs.  See Autism, Asperger syndrome, and Tourette syndrome to understand how PMIDs work.  You'll see on those articles that, even if the PMIDs went dead someday, the actual citation gives you everything you need, and the PMID is just an extra.  On the other hand, newspaper article URLs frequently change. Also, a PMID is not a link to the actual article; it's a link to an abstract (typically one paragraph) of the article.  Sometimes you get lucky, and a PMID links to a free full-text article ().  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. To keep it simple I would state each and any source on the internet requires a date of access. If you do not want to provide that, refer to a printed source. This is the only way to keep the references good (similar things are required for most reference styles in scientific journal). Pubmed (or other database site - e.g. Scopus) abstracts are in general not really satisfactory as source for full article; as the articles conclusion may pose caveats not in the abstract. Anyway, these sites refer to a printed article anyway, so why not cite that? Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if I am citing a printed source, but linking to an online version of that printed source, do I need to give the retrieval date? DHowell (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the retrieval date always necessary? 

message: I want to create multiple citations instead of having to write the source over and over again (for example <ref name="">). Yet, when I do this it comes up with “Cite error 8: no text given”. Help! Cinefile81 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reference should look like Some text, and the others should look like . Error 8 usually happens either because the re-uses don't have a / at the end, or somewhere else in the page a ref tag isn't closed with a </ref>. Gimmetrow 07:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't figure it out, give us a link to the article so we can look.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple citations 

message: An amended edit version, with new reference to copyright concerns and additional advice that an archive version may first be sought on the Internet Archive (using the 'Wayback Machine'), was reverted (01:37, 3 December 2007 by Hu12). From my point of view, the concerns that have been raised have either been dealt with or were anyway insubstantial. Gerry Ashton's point - "The rational set forth in WebCite's FAQ may be true, but they're not exactly a disinterested party, are they?" - can't be taken too seriously. - It's a rhetorical question merely casting aspersions.
Shell babelfish asked - "What is unique about WebCite that makes copying/archiving with WebCite not a copyright violation?" - This question doesn't really make sense. It's more pertinent to ask what's unique about WebCite that would make copying/archiving with WebCite a copyright violation? Search engine caching and the Internet Archive's crawler based approach have already set an archiving precedent. Why would wholesale archiving like the Internet Archive be permissible but individual webpage archiving like WebCite not? - there is no reason - "Fair use is even more obvious in the case of WebCite than for Google, as Google uses a “shotgun” approach, whereas WebCite archives selectively only material that is relevant for scholarly work. Fair use is therefore justifiable based on the fair-use principles of purpose"
The Citing sources project page already contains a section - What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - with longstanding advice (not added by me) - "WebCite allows on-demand prospective archiving and is not crawler-based; i.e. pages are only archived if the author has requested archiving when he cited the piece for the first time, which is highly recommended". 
All I'm really suggesting is that it's better to consider archiving before the original link goes dead, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping it'll be retrievable somehow afterwards.
I therefore restate the aim of reinstating new version of Archive advice section to the article, with the welcome invitation of relevant discussion points, further considerations, constructive criticisms and following reworking of course.
--SallyScot 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amended revision

message: Is it acceptable to cite something using a book on Google Books as a source, providing that the link is active and directly linkable? Ekantik talk 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking only from my personal experience, I have cited books found in Google Books using .  I listed all of the usual info needed for a book citation, but also included the Google Books link in the url field. –panda 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response. That's exactly what I've done. The cite template will take care of the general reference in case the link is no longer available. Ekantik talk 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Books as a reference?

message: I'd like to cite information from Collegio Football in various college football articles.  It's a software package that ships with an updatable database and is filled with stats, history and other information.    Is there any issue with citing this as a source?  It's used by major media sources as a reference.  What's the best way to cite information obtained from there?  The URL where the software is available from can be used.  I'm assuming the title is 'Collegio Football'.  The version number of the database could be provided in the refid field and the access date would be appropriate to include as well.  Sophosoft could be listed as the pubisher. What other information would be appropriate?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to cite a database or software as a source? 

message: It seems this definition is somewhat relative.  I understand the unacceptable concept of 'common knowledge' but surely if something is 'widely known' and 'easily verifiable' then the challenge of a single contributor should not invalidate it.  There are all sorts of uncited things that are challengable under this criteria just because one person does not know about something.  
Having just corrected an incorrect entry that was not cited, I corrected it.  This correction was then reversed (and made incorrect again) because a citation was not provided for the correction.  This in the same paragraph as a totally uncited quote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phileadie (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest there are numerous accounts of actors who listed themselves as younger, inofficially changed names, etc. so indeed date of birth and name can sometimes be challenged. I would say that if something is likely to be challenged it should be cited. As soon as it is challenged (e.g. by a good faith fact tag) it is obviously likely to be challenged, and thus the (good faith) request for a (specific) reference should (IMHO) be honoured in (practically) all situation Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely to be Challenged? 

message: When citing an article in an online encyclopedia, is it sufficient to only state (1) the title of the article and (2) which encyclopedia it came from?  Or do you also need to include other info such as the link/URL and access date even if the article can't be accessed unless you've paid for a subscription to the encyclopedia?  –panda (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the link, but I would include the access date, because the contents could change. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing online encyclopedias 

message: Comments on template based implementation examples to overcome difficulties with editing due to our non-see-what-you-get editing interface led me to add:
:See :Category:Specific source templates for some template based implementation examples.
to the page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template based implementation examples 

message: Looking at our edit history, it seems to me, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by registered users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth here. I've created a table showing anonymous edits from the beginning of October 2007.
In arguments given generally in support of anonymous edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic). This is clearly not the case for Citing Sources project page. 
Summarising the edits there are over 100 incidents of anonymous vandalism - and that's with article being semi-protected for six weeks during the period from the beginning of October 2007 to 17th December 2007. There's very little of value otherwise being added anonymously to compensate for this level of vandalism.
I'd have to ask if a project page such as this is a place where we really get much benefit from anonymous edits. Personally, from what I've seen so far, I'd be in favour of permanent semi-protection here.
--SallyScot (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous vandalism 

message: What is the accepted wikpedia policy on external links as references? There seems to be conflict (either explicit or confusion) about what the proper reference style is. If I were to link to an external site as a reference to a fact, is the proper usage to  link it with a numbered link, or to put that link with full information inside a <ref> tag so that the link appears in the reflist and only a numbered link to the reflist is placed? I always thought numbered external links (the first way) was discouraged in favoure of reference lists, but Wikipedia:Embedded citations seems to suggest this as the proper way. TheHYPO (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Embedded reference are tolerated, but full bibliographical information is better, because if the link goes dead, there will be better clues to help figure out where the information might have moved to, or where to find equivalent information. The full bibliographical information can be included with <ref> tags or with Harvard referencing. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the Wikipedia:Embedded citations article to suggest that, because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice. --SallyScot (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded references