Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 17

message: Like journals, essays and reports, can articles be referenced with e.g. (Sugar, 1937)? Simply south 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the article uses Harvard-style inline citation, the answer is yes. Just put the full info in the references section at the end. CMummert · talk 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book citations

message: I am sure I've seen somewhere a statement to the effect that lead paragraphs do not need to have embedded footnotes if the information is repeated in the body of the article and is properly referenced there.  However, I can't find any such statement and it may have been in an FAC discussion, rather than in a guideline.  If such as statement does exist in guideline, I'd appreciate a reference.  I've seen a couple of "unreferenced" tags go on articles recently, just referring to the lead, and I don't feel that's appropriate but I'd like to find a policy statement (if one exists) to back me up.  See James McCune Smith for an example; the editor who added the note used the edit summary "Intro needs them".  Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a policy or guideline on this, but notes are a practical necessity if the introduction contradicts any widely-held misconception; otherwise the misconception will be reintroduced almost daily. --Gerry Ashton 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, unless the claim is outstanding as Gerry says then you won't need cites in the lead, so long as the info appears in the body of the text and is cited there, no need to be redundant. IvoShandor 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that clears it up.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you poke around enough, you'll find out that, in general, there is simply no total agreement whatsoever on this particular issue, although in specific cases, it's generally possible to work/hack out a consensus. Circeus 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations in the lead

message: What if I want to cite an interview that I conducted, but do not have a transcript or recording, just a report on my findings?  --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No good. Is original research. It cannot be used in a Wikipedia entry. IvoShandor 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to cite an interviewee. The person I interviewed was the creator of the subject and provided facts that contradicted the wiki article that referenced incorrect infromation on the web.--KnowBoundaries 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the interview published? There is a citation template Template:Cite interview that may help you format the citation (or give you some ideas how to do it without using the template). And if you conducted the interview yourself, you should read the guidelines on citing yourself found at both WP:COI and WP:OR. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also remember: an interview is a Primary source, even if published, and WP depends on secondary sources. UnitedStatesian 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of MLA format, interviews must be cited.  There is no room to argue this.  Someguy1221 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interviews

message: In WP:CITE#Citation templates it says "editors should not add templates without consensus", but what about the removal of templates? // Liftarn
:If the templates were added without consensus, then it's fine to remove them. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of citation templates

message: A user without a userpage: User:Chestertouristcom, but with a talk page: User talk:Chestertouristcom, and who seems to have a very strong link with an external site: Chester Tourist External Site has added a lot, probably the bulk, of the material to Deva Victrix, which was originally under a different name, and before that, was a part of another article. This material is almost entirely unsourced and unreferenced. I tagged the article as being in need of references back in January 2007. Nothing was done, and the user continued to add a lot of unsourced and unreferenced material. I left a message on the user's talk page on 25th February 2007, asking for citations and references to be added, and this was followed up by an email to the user, but no response was received and new unreferenced material continued to be added up to the middle of March when it stopped.
The problem is, what to do? We are supposed to require entries to be adequately sourced and referenced, and yet hardly any of the material for Deva Victrix is. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to produce references for this material retrospectively when one isn't even the original author, especially so if one does not have a specialised knowledge of this topic. I have asked for assistance on the other wikiproject that has a template on the talk page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology but as yet received no response.
My feeling is that one could simply delete all the material, but I imagine this would cause some consternation in certain quarters (the removal of an external site whose inclusion had not been justified has already caused some negative comment about my action by another user.) The article would then probably be almost just a stub article with a lot of photos. Could I ask for some comments on what to do here? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot to add that I am an active member of the Cheshire WikiProject, which explains my particular interest in this problem.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * This isn't the right place to discuss this (this page is about improving WP:CITE, so I've responded more helpfully on your User talk:ddstretch. (don't delete your comments, if the page gets too large, it will be archived) --Lexein 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice wanted about [[Deva Victrix]] and large amounts of unsourced and unreferenced material

message: This issue has been discussed before, and it was decided that there is no need to change the titles to author-date. Google seems to show no or little preference, and the ArbCom has ruled that, in the absense of pressing reasons, there is no need to change terms more common in the UK than in the U.S., and vice versa.
The last time I checked this on Google, the searches returned:
* "Harvard referencing": 61,000 (774 unique hits);
* "Harvard reference": 32,600 (529 unique);
* "Harvard system": 110,000 (200 unique);
* "author-date" without the word "Harvard": 68,700 (757 unique)
* "Harvard referencing" without the phrase "author-date": 56,000 (769 unique)
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if they have ruled, they have ruled. I just pointed out in my edit summary that the top google hits are almost all in the UK and Australia. (Also, on a personal note, I had never heard of this style which I thought was odd, since I teach referencing to freshmen; but I have now put that down to my US-bias.) I think the author-date description would be clearer - when I first saw the name "Harvard," I thought to myself, "what is that? wikipedia is making up its own reference style?" quickly followed by "wikipedia is following some obscure reference style I've never heard of? Great." Awadewit 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the only discussion I could find in the 14 archives was here: Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive7#Harvard_referencing??.  Author Date is undeniably clearer to the layman, and would seem a better choice if acceptable.  However, without much personal background in this field, I cannot say whether it is an acceptable alternative title for this technique. ∴ here…♠ 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who want to can request a page move to author-date. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard/author-date

message: Is there a convention on whether or not to include the relevant quotation from a source in the citation?  ShadowHalo 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of.  A short (one or two sentence) quote is occasionally useful, especially if there is some ambiguity, but probably it's not appropriate for every citation. CMummert · talk 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good idea to do it if it's a contentious issue, especially if the source isn't online. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my question stems from the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. article.  The statement in the article is "Love. Angel. Music. Baby. also introduced the Harajuku Girls, an entourage of four Japanese women who Stefani treats as a figment of her imagination."  The source (which is online and requires no subscription) states, "The [Harajuku] Girls silently accompanied her on photo shoots and to public appearances, and subsequently appeared on her tour. Stefani regarded the Girls, all of whom looked as if they had come straight off the streets of the capital city's hip Harajuku district, as a figment of her imagination brought to life in a culturally positive manner."  It seems really easy to find, so it seems unnecessary to quote (and probably preferable not to since I thought the idea of using a reference was to transform copyrighted text into free text using it as a reference) but I didn't want to undo someone else's edit without asking here first.  ShadowHalo 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations in citations

message: Am I right to suppose that Wikipedia must not contain references to illegal material (in terms of copyright)? There is a discussion whether the tv documentary posted on youtube could be a valid ref . Alaexis 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TV show is not the youtube clip. You can cite the TV show itself, whether or not a youtube clip exists. According to WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, don't link to clips that violate copyright. Gimmetrow 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Alaexis 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gimmetrow, but remember that the editor should cite where the editor obtained the information, so if the only place the editor saw the information was a site that obviously violates copyright, the editor should not cite the material at all. --Gerry Ashton 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should still be cited, just not linked to. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: The current how to cite section describes 3 possible techniques, (embedded, harvard, footnotes), and then immediately describes the citation templates, a topic not required for any of these methods.   The how to cite section should get new editors inserting some form of citation as quickly and painlessly as possible.  Often editors seeking citation help have no idea how to use a template, and a lesson on templates should not divert their efforts to add citations.  The correct location for citation template information is as a sub-heading under 'full citations', where they can be used in conjunction with any of the 3 methods.  Editors capable of using the templates will find the citation templates after selecting embedded/harvard/footnotes as an option for full citations.  My attempted move was reverted ( diff ), so I bring it up here for discussion.  ∴ here…♠ 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates aren't required for anything, Here. The point of the section is to make that clear to editors, and it needs to be fairly prominent and not buried. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tools and techniques which are not necessary in this process, such as the citation templates, have no business at the top of the section.  Even stranger, they are sandwiched between an introduction to 3 specific techniques and the explanations of those 3 specific techniques.  The citation templates are an intermediate citation topic, and should be placed after the basic instructions and principles of the three primary options.  They are optional, and not immediately important to the primary target audience of this section.  : shrug : ∴ here…♠ 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of citation template information.

message: Apologies if this has been discussed previously:  Is there a view that we must always make references visible?  Articles with long references sections sometimes look ugly and a reader may be uninterested in browsing the references.  I was imagining references and notes being placed inside a collapsible table with a hide/show button (defaulting to hide).  Is there a view on this idea? —Moondyne 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, as I understand it, there is no way to do this without breaking the references; if the references section is hidden by default, then when you click to go to a footnote it will do nothing. Last time that hiding references was brought up, I recall this being the most serious objection. Unless the technical issues have been fixed there is unlikely to be much movement on this issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  Thanks anyway. —Moondyne 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Show/hide references

message: Once I came across an article with not a  or  tag but a label saying an article with a list of general references needs more in-line citations. It wasn't aimed at specific information but a good general statement. This is good for long articles for which we have no idea how or which part of the general references (often books with no page no.s) were used. Does anyone know this label? Kind regards --Merbabu 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no actual benefit to adding templates like that.  Look at  - there are tens of thousands of tagged pages, and no sign that the backlog will ever be cleared.  If there is a particular fact you dispute, you should discuss it on the talk page. There is no policy requiring that everything must have an inline citations - only that articles are verifiable in a theoretical sense. CMummert · talk 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmmm - i tend to disagree with the benefit of them. And my point was not about disputing any particular facts. There are a number of large articles that have several, even many, general references. But not one inline citation. THere may not be a policy, but there are some who would like to see each piece of information backed up, or at least detailed references provided. Simply providing a list of books, etc, doesn't do the trick. It's the standard in academia. Why aim low here? Merbabu 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's standard in some areas of academia and not standard in others. That's why we generally avoid one-size-fits-all policies on WP. If you would like to see inline references, why not add them yourself? There is no evidence that tagging articles in general leads to them being improved - look at . CMummert · talk 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I think it depends, if an active WikiProject uses the tags then they can lead to articles being improved. IvoShandor 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They are presently being used in an uncritical manner. I propose to inser the following paragraph:
* While articles about many subject do need specific links, especially in possibly controversial facts are included, articles about many subjects do not, and there is no policy requiring them. Often the background for an article will be adequately covered in a sufficiently up-to-date manner in a book or magazine article, and this can be sufficient. There is, in particular, no requirement that all (or any) sources be online, or be free. Any reliable source can be used, though it should be available to the public in some form.  Naturally, it is desirable to provide free sources or equivalents when they do exist, but these are considered as convenience links, not essential links. DGG 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Needs more in-line citations" label

message: In the past the ue of  has always been discouraged; aside from anything else, it can cause problems for people with visual impairments as well as for those using small monitors.  The main MoS on citations doesn't mention its use, but it's crept in to a great many articles, is part of citation templates, and appears on some MoS sub pages.  Where would be the bext place to have its use discussed? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly somewhere on the MoS, but I have no idea where. The thing about it is that it's introduced under a number of different categories — templates and such like, and they all have their own reasons for wanting it. You might have to set up a central discussion yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Visually impaired users typically will have their ducks(tools) in a row for accessibility issues. However, when using someone else's browser, this can be a problem.
#Fully portably, Wikipedia offers per-user customization.  can be overridden as a matter of personal preference in one's own Wikipedia style sheet Special:Mypage/monobook.css(if you're using the Monobook skin). See Help:User_style.  This requires some setup.
#Per browser: In a browser's local CSS or preferences.  Also requires setup.
#Ad hoc: With a browser which supports text zooming.  Internet Explorer, (View menu, Font size, Smaller/Larger), Mozilla:(ctrl +), (ctrl -). Opera:(+),(-).  Opera also has a View | Style menu which allows disabling (parts of) CSS on the fly. --Lexein 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the solutions mentioned by Lexein are a pain in the ass. What is the benefit of  that would make all this trouble worthwhile? --Gerry Ashton 23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of <nowiki><small></nowiki>

message: Sorry if this is in the wrong discussion section, if it is let me know where this needs to go.
Anyway: I know that this was already up for deletion, but I'm going to dedicate to myself to this one issue (look at how boring and single minded my profile is!):
The citation needed  tags are useless. I can't say this enough. As an editor, there's something in an article you doubt, look it up. If you find something, cite the link, if you can't in good faith find anything to verify another user's claim, then delete it, obviously it doesn't belong there. People who are using them are essentially shrugging off work they're fully capable of doing. I feel strongly about wikipedia citing it's sources but a citation needed tag is just lazy.
Let's put this back up for deletion. --Friendship hurricane 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree mostly, but they can be useful when you can't find a source for something, but you're not certain it's false. It gives other editors time to look, and it's faster than leaving a note on talk. Deleting things immediately is often seen as too aggressive, unless it's a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this template!

message: Notice the current discussion about citation date consistency in Wikipedia:Village pump %28proposals%29#Date formats in cite templates.  (SEWilco 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation date consistency

message: How do you cite the same source multiple times without creating a duplicate footnote? Sr13 (T|C) 08:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use named ... footnotes as described at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once, or also more than one (Author 2007) style Harvard reference ( Wikipedia:Harvard referencing ) which refer to a full citation. ∴ here…♠ 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing the same source multiple times

message: 1. Can I make persistent private modifications to the Wiki Markup panel below the Edit window?
2. Is there an existing tool or bot which automates conversion of embedded links into cite web or cite news footnote stubs?
3. Where should I have posted these questions? --Lexein 05:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation tools?

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Request_for_consensus:_External_Links_.3D.3E_Incline_Citation_Bot per user CMummert. --Paracit 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for consensus: External Links => Incline Citation Bot

message: If I have a paragraph consisting of three consecutive sentences backed by the same source, should I put the reference at the end of every sentence? This seems like a good idea, since further editing could lead to the addition of facts not supported by my source but which may appear to be, if the source is cited only on the first or last sentence. I think this should be addressed on the project page. -Seans Potato Business 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can add facts in the middle of sentences as well...it's a given with our current technology that any syntax for sourcing can and will be disrupted. (Fortunately the sources offered by the person who originally added a fact can always be recovered from the edit history.) Given that, I think we should just write normally, and putting the same citation on sentence after sentence is not normal. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing the same source multiple times in the same paragraph

message: Hello. what is the preferred way to cite the content of a template? I read nesting the cite template inside another template is probably over my head so I am looking for a simple solution. I see three options for :Template:MinneapolisPeople. We can do 1) references in 'noinclude' on the template page, or 2) references on the template talk page (to save some page load time/server load), or 3) write out the references and include them in the article itself. There might be other ways. #1 and #3 seem equivalent so just moving them to the article in a set of group 'ref's might be simplest. (This template text is off the article Minneapolis, Minnesota to discourage random additions to the list.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template seems like a bad idea to begin with. The purpose you envision this template serving (inhibiting editing by making it more difficult) is rather contrary to the general principles of the project. Is nobody watching this article who can revert undesirable changes? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have you ever maintained a similar list? (I would guess not.) Never mind the question above, we'll figure something out. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly maintained pages that attracted large numbers of unhelpful edits, and I found aggressive reversion of such edits fairly effective. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Would you like another page to maintain? Only kidding but I am quite tempted to try again sans the template. Also, thanks to your note and thinking about it, I did figure out how to cite from a template. Just make 'ref's without the inner 'cite whatever'. So thank you very much. -Susanlesch 08:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help citing text in a template

message: I am in a small dispute over at Talk:Gospel of John. One editor added a sentence that an author held a specific position and cited a book that the author wrote. I asked the editor to please supply a page number with the citation, and my citation request tag has been repeated removed from the article. We have discussed things on talk, and the editor believes that because this page says page numbers are only required when quoting text, that there is no need for a page number. I say, if the author makes the claim that we say he makes in the article, there has to be a page (or pages) where the author makes the same claim in the book. How does it hurt the article or verifiability to simply add the pages numbers to the citations, right? However, the editors have still refused to supply a simply page number. So, is it unreasonable for me to request that they cite the page when the cite a book?-Andrew c 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the comments on that talk page, it looks like this is a content dispute (does the source actually say what is claimed?) rather than a style dispute (given that the source does say something, is a page number necessary?). You are always free to move the disputed content to the talk page if you feel it is likely to be incorrect. It is up to the person who wants to insert material to satisfy reasonable requests for precise citation of doubtful material. CMummert · talk 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd opinion, page numbers and citations

message: I think the  tag (see Template_messages) should be mentioned in WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material, as an "in between" action for unverified facts where the editor isn't sure if the statement is harmful, or for cases where the editor believes the statement is harmful if untrue but is not sure if the statement is true or not.  The reason being you do not want to delete a statement that turns out to be true or one that turns out to be harmless. Davidwr 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mentioning more templates that serve basically the same purpose will only confuse, and that just presenting  should do for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add "dubious" to [[WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material]]

message: I am editing National Anthem of Manchukuo. I got hold of the government registers for the defunct WWII-era country that is related to this article, and next to the document proclaiming the second anthem there is also an official interpretation of the anthem. Given that anthem was entirely new at that time that there would be no "folklore interpretation", should the official interpretation be considered primary or secondary source? --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is a primary source, but consult with an expert on this.  Your local public or university librarian would be a good person to ask.  BTW,  you need to cite the source material.  If the government registers are publicly accessible, then cite them as you would any other defunct-country public government document.  If they are not publicly accessible, consult with an expert on the proper citation.  Speaking of citations, the whole article needs to be better cited. Davidwr 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I have cleanup to do, but I would have the citations ready when I go to the library again tomorrow. These registers are publicly accessible.--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say primary source if there ain't a direct record by the person(s) that ultimately "invented" the interpretation. I.e., closer to the decision-making process. Government files can usually be cited very well, but IONO if you can use the tags for something as non-US as this. Dysmorodrepanis 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary or Secondary Source?

message: I've been having some disputes regarding IMDb profiles for movie articles. Some editors use them as references, but do not fully cite them. An editor has stated that there is no need to add a full citation, since there are no clear authors for the profiles. Is the editor correct? Or should I place refimprove tags on the articles and request that editors include full citations? BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love!  23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will see here. Just linking the page at the bottom is adequate. --Djsasso 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that "External links" are not references, but pointers to further reading. If a source is used as a reference it should be clearly identified as such either with a footnote or with a listing in the references section. IMDb should be used with caution as a references, as many editors do not consider IMDb a reliable source (except for Writers Guild of America credits, which the WGA provides directly to IMDb). Gimmetrow 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb Profiles

message: Say an article were describing the plot of a work of fiction that's available online legally. Is it a good idea to cite the work itself when giving plot points? If so, do you need a separate reference for every single plot point?
I'm mainly asking because the list of reference links for Light Warriors (8-Bit Theater), an article about webcomic characters, seems to be getting unnecessarily and ridiculously long, although I'm sure there are many other examples for this phenomenon, especially in webcomic articles. --R. Wolff 15:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of detail in a plot description is a separate issue from citing the source. At a minimum, the source should be cited. Since works of fiction don't usually have an index, it would be better to indicate where in the source each major plot detail comes from. The method would vary depending on what kind of source it is; page number for a book, minute for a video, etc. --Gerry Ashton 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving plot details of works of fiction

message: I've seen many articles with long plot summaries but no references. Are plot summaries written by the authors of the articles considered original research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boricuaeddie (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I've never forgotten to sign before. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love!  01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summaries are not original research. However, if the source is not cited, how are we to know that it is a summary, and not an original plot written by the person posting it to Wikipedia? --Gerry Ashton 01:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Providing full bibliographic information is important. Different editions of works may be dramatically different -- think extended DVD versions of films, but sometimes this is true of books as well...Down to a Sunless Sea comes to mind. I don't think that inline citations are necessary or useful in general for a plot summary. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Sources for Plot Summaries

message: Virtually every year article (e.g., just a random bunch of choices, 1763, 1451, 1128, 205 BC etc.) has no sourcing, some explicitly say they are based on what WP articles linked there (e.g., 455 BC). So the question is: are a few thousand articles the "occasional exception" noted in the guideline, or should the guideline either be modified to be more inclusive, or should all the content of virtually every year article be tagged with  and after no one bothers to notice or repeat the sources in the linked articles then be deleted?  Seems to me the guideline should yield to common sense, relying on editors at the various articles that link to 1763; however, without a leap of trust we won't know that when someone adds "George Bush is born" to 1693 that George Bush really links there, or the tag is added to 2000 and we don't know that even though there exists a link, that link has nothing to do with his birth. It is a series of the most linked articles at WP so if we believe people follow links, the issue is a common one with a high degree of noticeability particularly where vandalism, misinformation, or just unsourced stuff gets added to already unsourced articles. Carlossuarez46 02:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick follow-up: I came across Wikipedia:Most_referenced_articles, which is more than a year out of date, but there is no reason to think that the relative positions of steady-state articles would move too much. 2000 appears to be the most linked article in all WP, 2005 seemed to be 3rd (United States of America being second), and other years if interleaved in the non-year articles would be fairly represented in the top 10, top 50, top 100, top XXX... Carlossuarez46 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite being the most linked-to article in WP, 2000 has not a single citation, source, reference, footnote, or anything, but one editor did flag that a citation was needed for the purported population change in Europe. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the discussion section Wikilinks as cites, above -- Boracay Bill 03:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion doesn't seem to be consensus: of 5 participants, one is clearly against any wikilinks as sources, another's comments are ambiguous (relating only to when "main" articles are available and flagged thus apparently), which is not the case in any of the year categories.  If however, the "result" is consensus, it should be added to the guideline; the fact that it hasn't seems IMHO to indicate that there may not be consensus on the subject. So it should be teed up. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year articles

message: ...apologies if I'm being dim-witted, but I'm a bit confused about something. I am currently reworking the article on Joseph Szigeti, who was a writer as well as a violinist so a lot of my references come from his own books. (His memoirs, and a book about violin playing as he understood it.) However, in one case, the reference I need is from the introduction to one of Sz.'s books, and the introduction was written by a friend of his, one Mr. Spike Hughes. So who do I attribute the reference to? I suspect I should use something like "Hughes, Spike; introduction to Szigeti on the Violin by Joseph Szigeti, Dover Publications, 1979", but could someone advise me on what best to do? Thanks, K. Lásztocska 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach sounds good. If you want something more official, look in a style guide to see how a chapter in a book would be cited when each chapter is written by a different author. --Gerry Ashton 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. I'll check Strunk and White just to be sure. K. Lásztocska 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a dilemma about attribution to correct author!

message: ~~My name is Anita Nehr.  I am the subject's wife and was assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for my husband and to set his history down.  I placed a basic outline down and was going to go back and put things in more detail as I got more information from his family as most speak German and I have to translate.  I find the site now "Locking me out".  How to I gain exclusive access to complete this historical editing of his page and further updating as his political career progresses.  this is my only contribution to him as my gift to him.  Please help me to understand what it is I am doing wrong.  Thank you in advance for your help.
Anita
Anita, I see no indication that you have been locked out of Wikipedia. Your user name is Anitanehr and your account is not blocked. What do you mean that you are locked out? On the other hand, what do you mean by gaining "exclusive access"? No one has exclusive access to Wikipedia articles; everyone has equal access. Also, the fact that you are the subjects wife and were "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for [your] husband" suggests the potential for violating the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. I am putting a copy of this exchange on your Talk page. Finell (Talk) 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peter Nehr]]

message: Hey, just something I've been thinking about as I peruse and edit etc... Doesn't it make sense for Wikipedia to just pick one reference style and use it uniformly? That way it can both be optimized (in terms of templates and such, for formatting/style consistency), as well as predictable. It just seems strange that an author can just pick whatever citation system s/he feels is best. I personally feel footnotes make the most sense, since they are automatically updated by a single tag in the article body, rather than the other two systems which require the maintenence of separate reference lists. Of course, reference lists can be useful for people looking to do further research, but is that enough to justify including those other formats? And isn't it ironic that the article on Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing uses footnotes? Yuletide 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to build consensus for any particular reference style, so we are unlikely to pick one anytime soon. The cite.php system has problems that would not make it a good choice for a uniform reference system, were we to want one. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple formats?

message: I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, or if the issue is already addressed by the existing templates; please point me in the right direction if so.  It occurred to me that it would be useful to know where a given work is cited.  If something is cited using one of the standard templates, is there any way to find all the articles that cite it?  This could be of interest in a number of ways -- for example, replacing an unreliable source with a more reliable one -- as well as simply being an interesting fact about a source.  E.g. I would like to know which articles cite Frank M. Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England", because though it is a major reference, it is also quite old, and there are more recent references that could be cited that would have more recent information. Mike Christie (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond looking for it on Google with the domain limited to Wikipedia, as far as I know there are not yet any special applications which do this. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Does m:Biblio have that ability?  (SEWilco 04:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indexing cited sources via templates

message: Do they? Because if they do, a reference that pertains to the last sentence of a paragraph is indistinguishable from one that pertains to the entire paragraph. As it is now, it might be even in violation of WP:CSB I'd bet (the "ref after fullstop" format is not a global standard). Dysmorodrepanis 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This rule applies only to a footnote that is adjacent to a punctuation mark, and it is based on typographic appearance. Further, the rule is not limited to sentence ending punctuation; it applies to every punctuation mark. If there is a footnote earlier in the paragraph, there is no ambiguity about a footnote at the end of the last sentence. If not, and you are concerned about potential ambiguity, you can rewrite the last sentence or the paragraph to avoid the ambiguity. Or you can ignore the ambiguity because it is not so terrible in the scheme of things, and is far better than the more common problem of insufficient adherence to WP:SOURCE. English WP is written in the English language, so following the conventions of that language does not violate WP:CSB. On the other hand, it is nice to see another editor concerned about such fine points! Finell (Talk) 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Footnotes come after punctuation"

message: I don't know whether this question has been raised already. I have spent some time studying Wikipedia policy discussion pages looking for prior coverage of the point. The book (TBOGI) is a phenomenon & a bestseller, and its cover is an illustration in the above linked Wikipedia article. It covers a great many topics but does so very briefly and, by its style and nature, does not itself give references. So, although it presents a collection of purported facts about a wide range of general knowledge topics, assures us that the statements it makes have been researched carefully by the people at QI, and (judging from its sales) is clearly being widely read, it is perhaps not quite like any major encyclopedia in the degree of authority that can be ascribed to it. The important point, and the problem from the point of view of this query, is that it appears to make some claims that remain contentious without itself indicating which ones can be so regarded. To give just one small example, TBOGI says that Champagne (sparkling wine) was invented in England. The current Wikipedia article Champagne (wine) says the idea came from Russia, but using stronger bottles developed England. This might lead to these alternative consequences:
* TBOGI is not a reliable source and Wikipedia article content should not be changed relying on it as a source. This is a major exclusion.
* TBOGI is a reliable source and perhaps many articles, that on Champagne included, could be altered basing information on what TBOGI says. This is likely to lead to a considerable number of changes and is a fairly major inclusion because of the number of topics the quite small book touches on in passing, simply because (unlike most other encyclopedias or compendium-type books) it is dedicated to topics about which key questions are widely thought to have answers different from those it gives, and probably some Wikipedia entries differ from its findings. Has anyone addressedthis issue already? Has anyone been doing any of the work of going through TBOGI seeing to what extent Wikipedia agrees or disagrees with it?
Iph 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the publisher? To be considered a reliable source, it should be published by a reputable publisher. Note that the standards for referencing sources found in WP:CITE and WP:NOR only apply to Wikipedia articles; reputable publishers can do whatever they want so long as they don't commit plagarism. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faber and Faber. For more information (of which plenty is already available in Wikipedia) see General Ignorance#Books, and the article on John Lloyd who co-wrote it and is the guiding hand behind QI which spawned it. Iph 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pursuing the main question: I know it may be difficult to lay down any alternative policy that could work; but it is is surely established by past experience that having a book published by a reputable publisher does not guarantee that everything in that book is 100% accurate information; and the kind of book that focusses on presenting statements that contradict previously supposedly well-known "facts" must carry the risk of presenting as certain some findings that are still controversial; my point in raising the point about this particular book at all is that it (and any similar books before or since) is unlike all other non-fiction books which one might cite as authorities: it is neither an encyclopedia with the weight of authority such as a Britannica, nor a specialist book on any given topic (such as a properly researched history title in a narrow fields, or a biography etc.) This is why simply following existing standard policies for authorities may not be entirely adequate. I should perhaps emphasize that I have not against this book; I own a copy, find it fascinating, and would just love to be 100% confident that every statement in it is 100% correct; but I perceive this risk.
By the way I noticed at least one Wikipedian, called QI elf, who may perhaps (judging by the username) be connected with TBOGI. Iph 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is ''The Book of [[General Ignorance]]'' a valid source?

message: In general it is considered good practice to place all the references (e.g the source where one got the information from) between "ref" and "/ref". In this case all references ae shown at the bottom of the page in a section called "references" or "notes".
However, on the articles related to religions (e.g. Islam) many scholars cite verses from the religion's holy scriptures, or sayings of an important figure in that religion. Thus wikipedians, quite correctly, have begin to either add references to the Quran, or even provide the verse of the Quran.
My question is: should these references to the Quran be put in a "ref""/ref" markup? Please note that the citations to the Quran are actual links using a template.Thus a reference would look like this.
The Quran () teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.
Or the sentence could look like this:
The Quran teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.
One thing to be noted is that, often there are many verses in the Quran that are cited. Thus something could look like this.
The Quran (, , , , , ,  and  ) commands Muslims not commit polytheism.
Putting the verses as references would make the sentece look like this.
The Quran commands Muslims not commit polytheism., , , , , ,  and 
What do you guys think?Bless sins 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not uncommon in literature focusing on a single text to use short parenthetical citations for the text in question while putting all other citations in footnotes. Additionally, adopting standards of the relevant academic field is never a bad idea; not knowing anything about Islamic literature I wouldn't know if this applies here. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue seems similar to quotations from the Bible. There are many editions, and they all say pretty much the same thing, and use pretty much the same book names, chapters, and verses. Pagination, however, would vary greatly from one edition to another. In this situation, giving verse numbers is more useful than giving page numbers from a certain edition. If it is known that there are important differences in the way different editions treat a certain passage, a footnote that states the edition would be important. --Gerry Ashton 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The location of citations

message: I tried to find English speaking sources to verify that German politican Heiner Geißler recently joined  attac. There is an abundance of sources in German, but the only non-blog English source I could immediately find was this. The problem is that while that link seems ok to verify the assertion, the rest of it seems somewhat biased and not very journalistically neutral or professional. So my question is: Can I still use this link, simply to back up the fact that Geißler joined attac? I'm not sure, so I'm using reliable German speaking sources from Der Spiegel in the meantime. I'd be grateful for any advice. —AldeBaer 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche publications aren't allowed as sources on anything except the LaRouche movement in articles about them, and even then with restrictions, per V, BLP, NOR, and two ArbCom cases. It's better to ask questions like this on WT:V, because this page is about how to write citations, not about reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks. —AldeBaer 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source backs up fact, but the rest of it is pretty biased

message: I have removed the reference links to the website mirrormoon.org which distributes illegal fan translations for the games Tsukihime and Fate/stay night. Both of my edits were reverted, and I have removed them again. I have brought up the discussion on both of those articles' talk pages, referring them to Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to illegal content. I have brought up the issue here since at WP:EL, it specifically says not to provide links (though web references DO in fact provide links) and at Tsukihime, User:Ganryuu reverted my change under the fact that the website was used as a reference, seen in this edit by him. I'm sure that referencing a site that distributes illegal content should be removed.--十八 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section probably shouldn't even be in the article.  The translation doesn't appear to be official, and I doubt any reliable third-party sources have covered it.  ShadowHalo 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, links used as references should not simply be removed (in this case, the link and the rest of the section, which is trivial, ought to be removed; as ShadowHalo says, the reason a bad link is used as a reference is that no good references are available). Note that WP:EL at the top limits itself to links not being used for citing material in an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References that link to illegal content

message: At least several pages still link to the old URL, , instead of the new one, . The old one doesn't even give a redirect. A way of automatically locating and/or replacing them would be a really good idea. Thehotelambush 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately such a service exists, see Special:Linksearch. Good luck, Christopher Parham (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 228 hits on pages with the old URL with [this google search]. -- Boracay Bill 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to request a bot. It seems the CIA has made a similar change before (see Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#Create_a_bot_to_update_CIA_World_Factbook_links here), so it should be easy. Thehotelambush 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and since most of the links are under "References" or "Notes", that search only uncovers a small percentage of them. There are actually >2000! Requesting help from user Alphachimp. Thehotelambush 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken CIA World Factbook URL

message: I just added a bunch of detailed information to East African shilling#Coins in the form of tables. I'd like to reference my source, but am not sure how. This whole section is sourced from one book. I can use , but don't know how to indicate that the whole section (or perhaps one ref for each table?) is from the one book. Can anyone help me? Ingrid 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put a citation at the beginning or end of the tables, and write in the footnote that it covers all the tabular information. A good place for the citation would be at the end of an introductory paragraph before the tables. Such a paragraph would be useful anyway, to explain things like what is meant by catalog numberChristopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to cite tabular data

message: There is a growing number of articles on books, that are suffering from lack of guidelines. Such articles often contain sections labeled "Cited in other sources", in which a list of works that cite the book are presented to readers. This poses a problem if no context is provided.
For example, lets assume an article on the book, Peter L. Berger's, Political Ethics and Social Change, Basic Books (1974), which is cited in Echoes from the Holocaust: Philosophical Reflections on a Dark Time:
To be accurate and NPOV, we need to provide the context of the citation, as follows:
: The book is cited on  Myers & Rosenberg's Echoes from the Holocaust: Philosophical Reflections on a Dark Time in the context of how modern societies would not be modern without the pervasive use of "functional rationality," the thinking tool of technologists, managers, business persons, and bureaucrats.  
and not
: The book is cited  on Echoes from the Holocaust: Philosophical Reflections on a Dark Time, which is about the murder of six million Jewish men, women, and children during World War II was an act of such barbarity that it constitutes one of the central events of our time.
The latter version, is misleading as it describes the content of the book that cites the book rather than the context in which the book is cited, and implies that the Political Ethics and Social Change is about the Holocaust, which is not.
Any thoughts? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is as much a citation issue as a general editorial issue. The material in the second example simply isn't relevant to the topic of the article. The proper context should be provided not because to do otherwise is misleading (I don't think your latter example is particularly misleading) but because it is the only part that is relevant to the article topic. Even better than either of your examples, in my view, would be a statement that indicates exactly what statement other authors used this book to support. For instance, "cited blahblah as [supporting/dissenting from] the view that modern societies would not be modern without the pervasive use of "functional rationality," the thinking tool of technologists, managers, business persons, and bureaucrats." Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Christopher. The problem I faced is one the editor I was co-editing an article with, created a long list of "cited in xxx" by searching one of the on-line cite databases, and does not have access to these sources at all. My view is that if you do not have the source and you do not know what,  where, and in which context the book is cited, you should not include any commentary at all besides the author, title and ISBN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you describe above isn't really appropriate even if you do have the sources -- an article about a book shouldn't be a directory of citations. A list of citations might be useful background for us to write a section about how the book was received, but the list itself doesn't feel like encyclopedic content. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would then argue that only if you have access to the sources and you can extract and provide the context you could add to the section "cited in other works". Otherwise, don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources and the need for context