Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 10

message: I have on occasion referred to information in a Wikipedia article (typically a permalink reference) as the source of a definition or an etymology in Wiktionary.  I've been a bit leary of doing this, but have not done it often and consider it a compromise between retaining Wiktionary-type data in Wikipedia, the gut feeling not to use Wikipedia in this manner, and the "conservation of information" philosophy I try to work under.  Should I be confessing my sins at doing this, or just break a sweat and move on? As examples of my actions consider Wiktionary:Abu, Wiktionary:abracadabra, Wiktionary:atom and Wiktionary:Ásgarðr. P.S. I've not brought this up in the Wiktionary community nor have I met with any opposition to date ... but the latter is an especially weak excuse considering the relatively small number of people who contribute to Wiktionary, let alone take it seriously. Courtland 04:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia as a source for Wiktionary

message: Hi SE, please leave the citation examples as examples of what we're actually describing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I created examples of what we're actually describing.  (SEWilco 19:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your latest edits. Could you explain here please? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using templates so the examples show what those templates presently produce in articles.  Whatever the "present" appearance is with future versions of the templates.  Well, except for that hand-coded footnote-like number that someone inserted.  (SEWilco 04:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the example I gave, which is how most people currently write references, and replaced it with a template, which you prefer, but which isn't used as often. By all means, add your template as another example, but please don't delete mine. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would recommend that the examples of citation style do NOT use templates, since template use is not mandatory. —Morven 06:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also templates are used.  (SEWilco 06:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's best to leave templates out of it, except perhaps as extra examples. I've never been able to see the point of them because it's faster to type the citation without the template. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They produce a consistent appearance and are easier for automation to parse.  (SEWilco 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I submitted an article (Canon T90) for featured article status.  I had used Harvard-style references.  These were not found acceptable by at least one FAC regular, who pushed inote heavily.  I'm not very keen on inote, and I notice that this page does not mention it at all.  I chose to avoid the issue by switching to Footnote style.
It seems to me that this is another case of the FAC regulars deciding their personal opinions over-ride Wikipedia's style guide.  Any other people encountered this? —Morven 05:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say the below, but upon looking at the article, the problem is you have a strange mix of footnotes and Harvard referencing. There is only one Harvard style reference in the text, but all of the notes have them which is very strange in my opinion. Why not just have each note in the notes section contain the full reference information? I've left the below for general information though. - Taxman Talk 11:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, that will more or less be ignored. Unless there is some recent consensus that I am missing, it has long been held that there is no consensus standard for the format of references, and until there is, any form that contains the full reference information somewhere in the page is acceptable. That means objections based on reference format aren't valid. - Taxman Talk 11:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the comments, the article only contained Harvard references.  The notes did not contain the full reference information because (a) all references should be in References, and (b) I didn't want to duplicate information between Notes and References.  However, I've now changed them so that the Notes section still describes the source in text and links and the References section gives full information. The lone Harvard reference was simply one I hadn't noticed to convert. —Morven 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could add a link here to a version that you provided/supported and stood at the beginning of the dispute prior to the introduction of compromises to achieve FAC acceptance?  That might help clarify this matter. Courtland 04:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard references not being accepted at WP:FAC 

message: When referring to books with multiple editions, should we use the first date the book was published, the last, or both?  This should be made clear in the style guide.  --Dforest 10:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The date of the copy which you're reading.  (SEWilco 17:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you're adding a reference to a book someone else mentioned without citing?  Or cases when you aren't quoting from the book, don't have a copy, but make reference to it? Dforest 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds as if you then don't know the date.  (SEWilco 18:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: While it is standard to indicate the date of the copy which you're reading, it can also be useful to indicate additionally an "originally published" date, especially if this would be highly relevant to understanding the nature of the material. For example, when citing a 1980 reprint of a 1937 book on Nazism, I would certainly want to indicate the date of original publication, because it radically changes the apparent nature of the document. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The reason I bring this up is that I wanted to give an ISBN for a book mentioned, but not quoted, in the article Plain English.  Rather than include it in the article text, I thought it better to give a full reference including publishing information. I wasn't sure in that case whether it is better to give the original date or the date of the most recent edition available. The original date would be useful in a chronology, such as of an author's works, but the most recent date would be useful for someone wanting to obtain a current edition of the book. --Dforest 02:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing dates in book citations 

message: NUMBER 1
External_links/Further_reading (this wikipage):
"The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article."
So this sentence says:
#References
#External links
NUMBER 2
Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout:
Lists 
# 1.1.6.3 External links
# 1.1.6.4 References
Which is it?  I think it is #2.  Am I correct? User:Travb
:Thanks for pointing this out, Travb. This page is correct; the other page has been changed, so they're now consistent. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: I have quoted a person from the foreword to a book.  Another contributor, while acknowledging the veracity of the quote, has advised that Wikipedia requires that quotes can only be used if from the actual book author, not from the person contributing the foreword.  I can find no such rule.  I am attributing the quote to the foreword author, not to the book's author, so that is not an issue.  Is there such a rule?  And if there is such a rule, does this make any sense?  Thanks for any assistance.  Jtmichcock 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issues are the reliability of the source and properly citing it.  The location and format are factors in that.  However, we could use something scribbled on peculiar surfaces.  The message JFK wrote on a coconut could be quoted and cited as a source.  (SEWilco 22:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Assuming that your description here is accurate, you are totally in the right. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course the coconut shell would have to be verifiable, that's part of "reliability of the source".  The citation would have to provide enough information for verification.  In the case of this foreword, that involves mentioning both the author of the book and of the foreword.  The book's citation requires its author (so one can find the book), and the quote's sourcing requires the author of the foreword (both to credit the foreword's author and to help confirm the relevant section of text).  (SEWilco 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation has been verified.  The contributor has seen the book's text as have I.  The dispute is whether the foreword to the book is a "primary source."  My position is that it doesn't matter if an author writes a book or contributes a foreword to another person's book, in either event the person writing can be quoted.  Jtmichcock 02:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I cannot imagine a reason for saying that the fact that something is a foreword makes it uncitatble. It is of course necessary to be clear that you are citing the foreword, not the main body of the book. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A citable source for WP is one published by a credible publisher. Writing something on a coconut shell doesn't constitute publication. A foreword in a book is part of the book's contents, just like any other part. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks to all for your assistance.  I have referred the person over to the discussion here and my text hasn't been deleted for a while.  So I think this has helped.  Jtmichcock 13:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, please come back here if it does get deleted.  Published information is verifiable, whether in the foreward or the book contents.  As long as it is properly attributed, there is no issue with it. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreword in Book

message: A straw poll is being taken based on whether using only URLs in an article is an acceptable style for citing sources instead of having more detailed citations.  See Talk:Global cooling#SEWilco.2C disruptive reverts.2C and citations.  (SEWilco 23:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vsmith is presenting a misleading view of the situation, where the original article had dead URL-only links with numbered format, being replaced with standard Wikipedia:Footnote numbered links to citations.  See the discussion in Talk:Global cooling, and if you wish see Vsmith's alternative whose errors and weaknesses are described in Talk:Kyoto Protocol.  While he complains of consensus, Vsmith's edit is even more dramatic a style change than numbered links.  (SEWilco 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are URL-only links an acceptable citation style? 

message: There's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.
The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: # Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/external links headers name-change proposal 

message: I see this has become a massive tome for academics. A pity, then, that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and nothing more. It's nice if people use Harvard style or whatever, but surely the most important bit is just encouraging editors to tell readers where they got their info from?? 
It is worth emphasising that people do not read or heed these kinds of texts. Dan100 (Talk) 18:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive feature creep... again 

message: I am famous as a Bureaucratic Fuck, but what's going on here is way over even me. I understand that the goal is to provide better verifiability of information, but the prime idea of wikipedia as an open source project  was that the sheer number of many editors should guarantee both NPOV and verification. Many articles are edited by hundreds of people, many of them addind 1-2 facts. If following strictly this rule, the articles will eventually trun into ugly collections of superscripts and enormous lists of references. It is OK to have a list of fundamental sources or to provide a citation is the case of dispute, but to require a citaion for each and every addition is utterly ridiculous. 
Also some seem to forget that this wikipage is a guideline, not a policy. mikka (t) 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikka, even if this were a policy (and I completely agree with you that it is not), like all policies it would express an ideal to which we are supposed to strive, not solely through our individual efforts but through collective efforts.  One contributor can add a valuable fact to an article without knowing the proper source; another contributor can go find the source and put it in.  Isn't this how everything here works? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You totally miss the point: where have you seen encyclopedias with each fact superscripted? It is one thing to source obscure data, opinions, or things that require exact quotation, like various statistics. But to source general knowledge available at hundreds of sources A wikipedia is not a sci journal article. mikka (t) 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello, good work on Rises and falls, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Rises and falls? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 20:26
So, for each and every policy we will put a warning onto each user's page each time he is a bad boy?  Not to say that articles should be discussed at article's talk pages. It is one thing to point newcomers at things he does not possibly know. I myself wrote innumerable number of messages about image copyrighting, but what some our colleagues do here is way overboard. mikka (t) 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I couldn't agree more. I had a very similar discussion about workers versus the surveillance team with Angela already two or three years ago when that nonsense was started. Also the "verifiable sources" guideline can be carried ad absurdum, as can clearly be seen at Talk:Stephen Dixon. <KF> 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for copying and pasting my comments around as you please. Feel free to continue. -- BRIAN0918  23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I don't need your encouragement.This is Wikipedia after all. <KF> 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup. So requiring citations annoys you Mikka, BFD. Think about it from the other way around. Material without a source is nearly useless to Wikipedia if it can't be verified. In fact I'd say it can be worse than if it wasn't there. All time spent adding material without doing research with reliable sources is wasted. Even if you disagree with my view, which one is the bigger gain--demonstrably reliable material or not having facts cited/having to cite them? And while the format of the citations (this page) is guideline, requiring verifiability is of course policy. - Taxman Talk 13:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are not deading what I was writing: verification is by the multitude of editors.  We are not living in middle ages, so that there was only one authority and everyone had to read an ancient gimoire to find a fact. I didn't deny references completely; I agreed that a reasonable amount of references of general reading, of someone's quotations and of obscure fact is OK, but to require a reference to each fact added is an absurd. mikka (t) 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it, it just doesn't hold up. Lots of articles are read by lots of people that don't know the topic (and even some that do) but still contain horrid errors. The only successful way to combat that is to cite sources. Now I would be most happy with a way the footnotes or whatever form of citation could be hidden from users if they so desire to not be annoyed by them. I do agree they can make readability suffer a bit. But I would say the gain from easily verifiable facts is infinitely greater that the cost of both having to do the research and the cost to readability. I've yet to hear any coherent arguments on any true benefits to less strenuous encouragement of citations and better referencing that are more important that the benefits to increased verifiability. The basic act of forcing an editor to do some research to back up their position is very likely to result in more accurate material and typically reduces POV wars and the like. Is there a limit? Probably, but we're terribly far from it, and like I said, any downsides to greater referencing and citation could pretty much be eliminated by making them invisible. - Taxman Talk 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enormous overkill 

message: Blimey.  I haven't been watching this page and it has certainly changed a bit.  What concerns me is the above section, specifically where it says:
*Wikipedia does not currently have a policy for what to do when none of those strategies succeed, but here are some suggestions.
**Be careful not to remove a link prematurely. If you reach the site, and it says the particular page is gone, that is pretty definitive, but one failure to access a site does not mean it is permanently dead. In the latter case, note (in an HTML comment) the date on which the link seemed dead. 
**You can place the link in an HTML comment, marked as dead. Date the comment. The Internet Archive deliberately lags by six months, so there is a fair chance that at any time in the next six months we might, again, be able to get an equivalent link. 
**If the link has been dead more than six months, keep it (commented out) as the record of a reference used.
I'm puzzled, because we used to have a poloicy, it used to be on this page and it read:
*Because the Web is dynamic, it is possible that a web page used as a reference may become inactive. Do not remove such inactive references—even inactive, they still record the sources that were used. Make a note of the date that the original link was found to be inactive. If an Internet Archive copy of the page is known, add a link to that.
Is there any reason why it can't be reinstated. Hiding  talk 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with the change you made, but we lost the statement about the Internet Archive lagging and the likelihood that the link may be recoverable in the future. Any chance of restoring that? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added in something to that effect, does that covers it? Hiding  talk 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when a reference link "goes dead" 

message: * Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples. (SEWilco 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V citations 

message: As proposed by SlimVirgin above. (And maybe WP:V too?) This should be renamed "how to cite sources", which although as I've demonstrated above was never the purpose of this page, it's what it's become. So it's time the name caught up with the contents. Dan100 (Talk) 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Does anyone have a view about changing WP:V? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear that WP:V has become what "Cite sources" used to be, and "Cite sources" is now just a somewhat scrambled style guide.  I'm fine with moving this to "How to cite sources" and WP:V to "Cite sources". —Steven G. Johnson 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Were you aware that User:Mistress Selina Kyle has changed the redirect target for Wikipedia:Cite sources to point at Wikipedia:Verifiability? User:Ceyockey 03:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a poor decision; I'll redirect it here, if no one's beaten me to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's rename this page 

message: A series of recent changes to this page appear to me to amount to a major style change without apparent consensus. Looking at the history, the changes all seem to be by Speedoflight who apparently has not, at least under that name, even participated in discussion on this talk page. There are several edits; the key changes can be seen in  this series of edits. Normally, I'd just rever, but this has sat for over 24 hours, so perhaps some discussion occurred and I can't find it?
A typical example of the change would be that rather than citing: 
*"Trauma of quake's shattered children" by Dan McDougall, The Observer, October 23, 2005, retrieved October 23, 2005
… one would cite:
*McDougall, D. (2003). Trauma of quake's shattered children. Guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1598627,00.html
For the record, I'm strongly opposed. The normal reader of the article has no need to see the URL. I'd like to hear from others. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be out of the question to revert (if possible) the bulk of the changes pending further discussion.  I've not looked at the history to see if this has already been done, but I don't think it would be overly protective to do so if it hasn't been done. User:Ceyockey 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major style change without apparent consensus 

message: Someone put a boatload of references into Colonial America, many of which look something like this:
*  Bonomi, Patricia U. A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (1971)
They link to an online library that requires payment to view materials.  No ISBN is provided.  Is this okay, or should I change them to a less commercial style? --Smack (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should do what you suggest. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreeing with User:Slrubenstein ... a less commercial link would be preferable, I think. User:Ceyockey 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A strange way to do references 

message: Has there been a discussion about developing a source template for the Internet Archive, something that would sit on Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, perhaps something that would take the original URL and a date as parameters. User:Ceyockey 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I've seen something floating around, but if I remember correctly it wasn't well done. Yes, we should make something slod and place it there. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Archive source template 

message: Harvard citation style calls for the use of double quotation marks surrounding periodical, journal, magazine, and newspaper articles.  See http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/Refer.htm . I've added these in the two examples on this page.  Badagnani 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: Could you please consider the short discussion thread at Talk:Credibility/Archives/2013#References vs. Sources and let me know if the "References" vs. "Sources" usage cited is consistent with current practice?  Thanks. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a response. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of the section: "References" or "Sources" 

message: FYI: m:Cite/Cite.php It looks great!
-- nyenyec ☎ 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new cite.php appears, to me, to ahve the potential for defusing a lot of the citation-style format disputes, because it ought to be able to generate either format from the same text. At the moment, unfortunately, it can only generate footnote style URL cites (I think: am I wrong?), but there is no obvious reason why it can't do inline/harvard ones too. I tried to ask about this but didn't understand the answer :-(. It should be possible to have it pick up a page-specific "default style", which could be overridden by a reader-preferences. William M. Connolley 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite.php 

message: Could we have a style for disambiguating newspapers with common names? Try googling Guardian, Independent or Times and you'll see what I mean... And while it's common for outsiders to refer to a paper by adding a specifier (I believe The Times is known as the London Times in the RotW), it is often not part of the masthead, and may never be used by readers. I know clicking or hovering on an external link (if there is one) can help, but this is not much use if you've taken a printout, and excrutiating if you're a dial-up user in a country/area with poor telecoms. I've just been adding "(national UK title)", but that's ugly. Any suggestions? JackyR 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the U.S. is part of the RotW, London Times is relatively rare (at least among the literati); "The Times of London" would be the traditional locution. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good eg - so even the non-local names for a given paper vary. (And yes, if I'm using UK examples [or Indian, or ...], then of course RotW includes the US.) Any suggestions for a neat, consistent solution? JackyR 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newpaper names 

message: I've recently rewritten the above page, and there is currently discussion on the talk page regarding the viability of certain websites as reliable sources.  Comment would be appreciated. Hiding  talk 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability (websites) 

message: Does everything need to be cited, or is there a threshold of obviousness? And if so, what is that threshold? As you may know, in the discussion here and on WP:V I've been one of the ones arguing that some things can go without citing, but I've generally been over-ruled. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dixie (song), BrianSmithson has been pressured to remove what some are deeming excessive citations, and has accordingly removed some that even I would have preserved. This makes an interesting test case, I suggest that people look at it. If this policy is going to mean something, we need to look at where the rubber meets the road. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold 

message: Having several standards/accepted formats for citing sources is confusing, and it looks messy if two or more are used in a single article. I think there should be only one set standard each for humanities and sciences. This makes everything more uniform and brings articles closer to how they appear in "real world" off-line publications. Eilu 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd never agree on a single standard, though.  It seems more productive to live and let live to an extent (similar to British/American spelling, Continental/American dates, etc.) instead of having a protracted bloodbath over which form is the one true citation style. —Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are quite clear that the same style for citation should be used consistently within one article, so "it looks messy if two or more are used in a single article" is not an issue.  As for a uniform standard for all articles, the guidline provides its rationale, but Kirill Lokshin's explanation is succinct and sufficient Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards 

message: The primary source for many album articles are the album liner notes or sleeve notes. How does one properly cite liner notes? Kaldari 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I decided to answer my own question. See Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Liner_notes. Kaldari 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing liner notes 

message: Is there a standard for how to quote a documentary as a source?  For example, information presented on a "National Geographic" special?  Elonka 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing television documentaries and news programs 

message: "If quoting an English translation, the foreign language original must be given since mistakes may be made in translation meaning that the original should be used for verification." I find this a bizarre policy. Does this mean, for example, that when writing "At the height of his personality cult, Mao was commonly known in China as the 'Four Greats': 'Great Teacher, Great Leader, Great Supreme Commander, Great Helmsman'," we have to track down the original Chinese? That when we quote Flaubert saying of Tolstoy "What an artist and what a psychologist!" and Thomas Mann saying "Seldom did art work so much like nature", we must track down the original French and German, respectively? That Old Testament quotations must always provide the original Hebrew? That every time a non-English-speaking politician is quoted in the English-language press we cannot cite that unless we track down the original foreign-language quotation? Somehow I doubt it. So what, if anything, does it mean? It has the ugly potential to be used as grounds to remove quite well-cited material that someone dislikes and cannot object to on a more reasonable basis. It is hard to imagine its application for any other purpose. I do not believe this should be here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been well over 48 hours & no one has responded, so I have deleted the sentence. - Jmabel | Talk 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought, but is it not worth placing something along the lines of providing the original text if there is no sourcable translation, i.e. the editor in question has translated the quote.  I agree that if the quote is already translated we don't need to provide the original text, although we should cite the translation, for example, as translated by The Guardian. Hiding  talk 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you cut that out, Jmabel. I don't think the guidelines do a good job of dealing with foreign-language sources as things stand. I've written a couple of articles based on foreign sources, for example Puhdys, where I avoided inline citing altogether because almost all available sources were in German. I mentioned some sources in hidden comments but otherwise left the article with a literature list at the end (which listed the books that were, after all, my main sources). The German Wikipedia article wasn't much help, and I'd like to think that what I wrote was more comprehensive, so I ignored it as a source. But I didn't find any guidelines that were really applicable to the situation at hand. ProhibitOnions 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in translation 

message: I read that the numbered external links should be placed after a period. However, this would seem inconsistent when there are multiple external links in a sentence.
Example: the quick  brown fox jumps  over the lazy dog.
Does the last external link given refer to "dog"? Or does it refer to the complete sentence? This is unclear by the current style guide.
I suggest that we change this section to reflect that unnamed external links must appear directly after what they represent or are relevant to; whether this is just one word, or a whole sentence or paragraph. --Michiel Sikma 07:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this is a fall-out of the great punctuation divide. My own personal opinion, which nicely accords with my Brit-centric punctuation style, is that—as you say—references should be placed immediately after whatever they are supporting. The main problem with showing references after a full stop (what we call the period :-) is that it is then possible, due to Murphy's interference with formatting—i.e. screwing up the line-wrapping,for the appearance to be given that it refers to the next sentence. So I vote for it always being inside the full-stop/period regardless. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered external links - before or after period? 

message: I would like to suggest, we make things simple, and always call the relevant section "References", and put footnotes, and more general references together.  Here's my logic:  for notes its insignficant what you call it, as somebody gets to the section by clicking on the footnote number.  For references, its important to have a standard name.  Also, I find with the new "references/ref" tag, its much easier than before to take a "general" reference (something that supports facts throughout the article) and turn it into a "footnoted" reference.  Since a single reference can easily be used to support/footnote multiple sentences, without retyping it, it always makes sense to put all the detailed reference info with the "note" itself.  Of course, its trivial what people call references, as long as they do it, but I just want the recommendations to be ultra simple.  Also the word "Notes" is sometimes used for different purposes (e.g. side items, worthy of "note", but not included in the main body of article).    --Rob 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says somewhere (WP:MOS?) to use "Notes and references" in such a case.  Jkelly 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I'm not asking what the current standard is, I'm suggesting we adopt a new standard of using just "References" as the one and only section name; instead of "References", "Notes", "Notes and references", and "Footnotes".  --Rob 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are valid reasons (not least of which are simply aesthetic ones) to allow footnotes and general references to be in separate sections, however; I don't see the benefit of forcing everyone to combine the two. —Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Echo that. Not all footnotes are references. ··gracefool |☺ 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to call the References section when using footnotes 

message: How would one cite Oral sources, such as  Oral history and oral Didactics, especially if there is a lack of written documentation but can easily be verified by asking another person?
(In the world of Oral transmissions, there are little or no written sources but plenty of confirmations, and if confirmable, it isn't considered original research).  If the issue is over unglossed word translation, how would one cite words, without being a dictionary, if the words are common-knoledge words that just haven't previously been recorded or have been recorded but poorly glossed (... since this is Wikipedia is not a Wiktionary)? CJLippert 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't.  Obtaining information from oral sources is original research and is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  If you wish to do this kind of research, publishing elsewhere is advisable.  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then.  What about written sources that broach the topics but only through oral sources the specifics are given, and specific recording of an oral source is forbidden?  Unless *strict* guidance on oral sources can be established, Wikipedia will exclude cultures with very strong oral traditions and will become very European-based, rather than being truely international.  In an oral culture, oral sources with verifiable confirmer is not considered original research.  In oral societies, they ensure information is transmitted accurately.  In this day of age, Informational Racism, Technological Racism, or any other excusion based on print-media alone is unexcusable.  If Wikipedia continues with this approach without setting oral guidance, Wikipedia might just as well delete all non-Indo-Euopean pages. CJLippert 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of information, WP:V states: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources" and it is this publication (i.e. published to public) that is the foundation of Wikipedia.  Admitedly this prevents some informations from being included.  On the other hand it circumvents the knotty problems of confidential information, military secrets, expose' (as newspapers do) and establishes a foundation of a certain broadness for any article.  To state it in another manner, If it isn't published, it isn't real.  Perhaps there is some criteria for acknowledging oral publication in oral cultures? Terryeo 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is.  Citation usually goes in the formula of "As it was taught to me by XXX of xxx, and confirmed by YYY of yyy and by ZZZ of zzz, it is said that ...."  In transmission of oral information, there must be a "chain of custody" of information that must be cited as well as the confirmers.  The term for "traditional teachings" in the Ojibwe language, for example, is aanike-gikinoo'amaadiwinan, which literally means "the chain of teachings down to each other."  The oral tradition is considered "invalid" if that oral chain is broken or cannot be confirmed.  Even if Wikipedia includes oral sources under strict guidelines, since is ultimately a written document collection, there would be many oral information that would not be transmitted (since it would be considered "original research" as well as breaking the "chain" of teachings), so what would be acceptable for putting in print would be limited anyway.  The Talmud is a good example of oral teachings.  However, in the case of the Jewish societies of the past, being nearly extinct, the Rabbis of the past chose to write things down.  This yielded recording of two different types of Talmud: Babylonian and Jerusalem.  However, in the case of many Indigenous peoples of the Americas where oral teaching are still strong, having the specific details recorded by ethnographers are now considered stealing of culture, but yet there is the need to ensure the information the ethnographers have recorded are accurate, this puts many Indios/Indian Tribes/First Nations and their close friends in a bind to try to correct the incorrectly recorded information without divulging the actual teachings.  For example in the case of the Ojibwe language, Fr. Frederic Baraga lists "Manâbisi.  A kind of small swan; pl. -wag." which will tell you that the word exists, but it doesn't tell you that it is specifically the "maanaabizi(-wag)" to mean "Red Swan" (often found as part of a woman's name Maanaabiziikwe).  As for what exactly the "Red Swan" is, that is something that is restricted under the Oral Teachings of the Ojibwe. CJLippert 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is fasinating information.  Do such people use the internet much? Terryeo 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot speak for other Indigenous peoples, but I can say something about the Ojibwe, who are my employer, neighbours and friends.  Some do.  Others do not.  Some are writers and share just enough without giving specific details.  Others never write and require one on one instruction.  Some live among the European Invaders:  Wooden-Boats (Franco-Canadians), Soldiers-Here (Anglo-Canadians) and the Long-Knives (Americans).  Others refuse to associate with non-Indians, let alone have the outside world further "steal" their culture and continue with "covert genocide."  (And yes, they do often express these sentiments.)  Some recognize cultures change but Traditional Teachings cannot.  Others say culture must not ever change.  However, no matter what their personal views of the world in general, when it comes to oral transmission of Traditions, history, mythology, medical arts, etc., due to the rules of Oral Transmission, the student learns from the teacher (the chain of teachings) but then must confirm the teacher have instructed correctly and would require to study with others to provide the confirmation. CJLippert 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is fascinating stuff, but as far as I can see it the position of Wikipedia is simple.  Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to first record such oral knowledge.  Maybe Wiki technology can help such material to be recorded.  But not this specific Wiki.  --Robert Merkel 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Oral sources? 

message: Is there a way to make two footnotes that go to the same source in the References when using {ref|whatever}? I understand you can say "Ibid" if it's sequential, but what if it's not? It seems to be a lack in the software, unless I'm missing something. RJII 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Ref label.  Jkelly 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citing a source twice

message: I believe there is a fair to great need for an effort to maintain citations. I do this to the best of my ability with articles I have added citations to. I find commonly that citations are removed without reason, information is added to cited sections indicating that this new unsourced information is sourced, and sources cited in other sources are unindented or deleted. Hyacinth 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintenance

message: The above DRV is voting to undelete a template that has been used to make external links to google searches in articles.  The consensus is that the template has bona-fide uses outside the article space, but never in the article space.  I think it would be useful to include a note in this guideline indicating that search results do not constitute encyclopedic references and should never be used in articles, but I'm not sure where best to put this. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems intuitive to me that google searches, as a link, are good for talk pages (to indicate commonality, to indicate popularity of a POV) and googled, searched out pages (webpages) are good cites for articles.Terryeo 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DRV#Template:Google]] 

message: How should I go about citing information from user manuals, specifically for the List of Final Fantasy VII Characters page which contains information from the character biographies? QmunkE 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that we have a standard.  If it were me, I would enter the reference as if it were a normal book, and include [User manual] after the name of the book.  Jkelly 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing user manuals 

message: Ideally, should the date that an URL is accessed be included, as in the MLA style manual? Shawnc 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and we often do.  It's a optional paramter in . JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked to add similar parameters to . ··gracefool |☺ 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL date of access 

message: Isn't it true that, instead of an embedded link as well as a full citation 
(which leads to the two links getting out of sync), a footnote linked to the full citation is preferred? ··gracefool |☺ 04:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an incredibily fraught issue.  See SEWilco, etc, ad nasuaum.  Unless you enjoy pain, and causing lots of trouble and stress for lots of people, I'd avoid the issue.  If you really want to work on it, write a new article, and you can use whatever kind of footnotes you like.  Or learn MediaWiki and write code to allow it to be a preference.  Other than that, IMO, all roads lead to great pain and stress. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the wise answer. ··gracefool |☺ 10:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes better than inline URLs? 

message: Style guides don't have to go on forever.  One thing a good style guide should do is advise what good style looks like.  We should clarify what the standard set of reference sections should be for articles; if there is more than one good standard, we should mention both.  Having all three of these sections in an article, at the same outline-level, seems wrong to me.
My thoughts: 
* Every article should begin with a "References" section -- all content has some reference, whether an author's private memory or a newspaper report or a pov official-website that someone tried to npov and summarize.    
* Articles should eventually develop a "Further reading" section, for all other external links, books, journals, and other sources that somehow didn't get explicitly cited or referenced; with a short 3-word to 1-sentence description of each item's relevance (perhaps with its own look; e.g., small italics).  
*: The "Further reading" section would include good secondary sources that had once been References, but were supplanted by better ones.
* Articles that have long "Further reading" lists may break it down into subsections.  "External links", "Books", "Articles and essays", "Blogs and fansites", ...
+sj +, comma zealot
** In history articles we often have hundreds of edits a month and keeping track of the references would be hopeless. In that case the reference section should guide the reader to the best sources. Rjensen 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "References", "External links", and "Further reading" 

message: I think this guide should have the Five Ws. Hyacinth 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Five Ws

message: In this section books are referenced, but no page numbers or other details are given. I think this is quite unhelpful, are there guidelines that deal with this question? The author is unwilling to make amends. --tickle me 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers are certainly prefered.  While any source is better than no source for our readers, and for the help of future editors, at last IMO, a specific quote from a specific page of a specific book or other reliable source is the proper response to being challenged as to the validity of a statement.  If such confirmation cannot be provided, move the statement to the talk page, until it can either be disproved or supported, with such a sourced quote. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the specific case mentioned above, it seems like the best solution there is for as many of the editors involved to get copies of the books that have been mentioned (as well as adding any others they may be aware of and consider useful) and start throwing lots of quotes on the talk page, working to nail down as many statements as possible.  I would help, but I am somewhat too busy at the moment.  Good luck everyone. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When referencing books: Are page numbers needed? 

message: A minor issue to be aware of with referencing is that some people (e.g. most Javanese people) have no surnames. For example, if Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wrote something, a Westerner might be inclined to reference the source with 
* Yudhoyono, Susilo Bambang (2000)...
but presumably the correct way is 
* Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2000)...
The reason I mention it is that I'm starting an article on Kamal Kar and referencing his works. I don't know if (Bengali?) people use surnames... I'll assume so, but will check with an Indian friend.  --Singkong2005 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing people with no surnames 

message: Is there an accepted standard way of citing a patent?  See Chemnitzer_concertina#Innovations, where I have cited several.  Would it be worth creating a template that would automatically link to the appropriate document on a patent database, such as USPTO or the EPO?  --Theodore Kloba 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a patent? 

message: *"For one author, add the author's surname and the year of publication in parentheses (round brackets) after the sentence or paragraph, and before the period: for example (Smith 2005). (Jones, 2006)"
Regarding the above, how can one put the surname and year after the paragraph and before the sentence? Hyacinth 12:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it's saying. It says after the (sentence or paragraph), and before the period. So it's saying you can either put it at the end of the specific sentence cited or at the end of the paragraph, but in either case it goes before the period. Now I had always thought that for a single sentence it can go before the period, but for a paragraph it should go after to be more clear it's just not for the final sentence (Foo 2006). - Taxman Talk 13:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant period. So still, how can one put the surname and year after the paragraph and before the period? Hyacinth 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like I added above. After the whole paragraph, but before the last period. Maybe I'm missing something here, because that seems straightforward. - Taxman Talk 11:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how does one tell the difference between a citation which applies to the last sentence and one which applies to the entire paragraph? Hyacinth 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well like I said, putting it outside the last period seems workable for making that difference clear. In the above Smith would be for the last sentence and Jones would be for the paragraph if there was one. Now that just makes common sense to me, but I haven't consulted any citation guidelines to verify what their position is. If you really want to settle the issue, you'd have to check all the major citation style guidelines. - Taxman Talk 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After paragraph

message: The article List of movie appearances of the Statue of Liberty presently contains no references as such.
In material such as movies, do we accept that the work itself can serve as its own reference? If so, what is considered an appropriate citation? 
We would not accept a book reference that didn't give a page number, even if it described a scene or a context. We don't expect a reader to page through an entire book to verify a reference.
It seems to me that a reference to a movie should give a specific DVD (or other) edition, and the number of minutes into the film that the scene occurs. 
Is there already a policy on this? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well yes we do accept book references that do not give the page number. (for example the books online at Gutenberg do not have page numbers). Rjensen 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought about that, but it's not a problem as you can perform a text search on a PG text. I don't know how you'd automatically search a movie. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Most movies are fiction and can be treated like a novel. Some are documentaries and can be treated like a history book. Rjensen 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the statements are purely descriptive, I don't see why a film cannot be cited as a source. If the statements are putting forward an interpretation, that would certainly need a secondary source. However, even for purely descriptive statements, not every factual statement that can be made about a movie is relevant to any given article. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of a movie, by itself, isn't an good citation because it takes an unreasonable amount of work to verify the source. It's sort of like saying "it says so somewhere in the laws of Massachusetts." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone want to study how the Statue of Liberty is being used (which is where this thread started), they will very much want a list of movies.  They may or may not watch each movie--that will take only 2 hours or less-- but may be more interested in the year, the director, or the genre. It's a waste of Wiki effort  to tell them at which minute the scene appears. Rjensen 03:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies, etc. 

message: I would like input on List of famous prostitutes and courtesans.  Perhaps responses specific to the article could be there, but general thoughts on such lists (e.g. lists that a person wouldn't want to be on), could be discussed here.  There seems to be a few levels of sourcing
*uncited redlinks - This seems totally bad to me
*uncited in list, but cited in article - Normally this is ok with me, but I feel in articles like this (or sex offendor lists, homosexual list, criminal lists, etc...) one should have some citation.
*uncited, but mentioned in article - seems just bad
*cited, but only an allegation - That means anybody can be blacklisted.  You just have to get a rumor published somewhere
I feel, normally uncited material, if not doubted, should be left, at least initially.  But I feel if something is negative claim (being a prostitute is negative) then it should be remove on-sight.  We shouldn't leave fixing these articles to people who are experts on the history of prostitution.  Researching these claimes should be the up to the person adding them, not to others.  If we make it to difficult to remove uncited claims, they'll just be left in, and nobody's going to go through the laborious process currently required.   --Rob 08:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you've said there.  Well done.  I urge you to put it into practice. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. These things are troublesome. I notice that the category Alcoholics was recently deleted. In any case, anything particularly negative about any person, dead or alive, needs to be well-documented. I agree that such entries can be summarily removed until properly sourced. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations when calling people hookers 

message: I have made a new proposed project.  WikiProject Reader aims to group people reading through sources to add references throughout Wikipedia.   It's complementary to Fact and Reference Check.   You could help by 
* suggesting sources (e.g. ones you find when fact checking an article)
* joining and reading sources.
Hopefully we will be able to help Fact and Reference Check by leaving sources in place which you can use when you get round to fact checking the articles that have been improved by Wikiproject Reader.  Anybody who likes the idea and wants to help please add your name to the project page.  Mozzerati 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reader|WikiProject Reader]] 

message: Yes: Some editors insist that Wiki should ONLY link to totally free and open sites, and should never link to sites that require some sort of registration.  Taken to an extreme that says we should not list books because you have to buy them.  In fact tens of millions of Wiki users--I think a majority--have access to many subscription services through their libraries. In the US that includes over 15 million college students for example, and about 25 million high/middle school students. So these 40 million users have access but usually do not know they can download free articles and books from digital libraries.  Wiki can really help them by providing links to sources.  I might add that people who are not students, like me, are probably paying about $40 a month to a cable provider to get access to WWW and Wiki. They can get free access at their local library (and of course there they can free get access to subscription services like EBSCO.) Rjensen 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop creating controversy where there does not need to be one. Again, if a source is used, cite it with full citation information (publisher, year, author, etc) as long as it is accessible by some manner whether that is free, paid access, or going to a library. That's all that's needed for a resource that isn't freely accessible to all. If the resource is freely accessible online it can be beneficial to also link to where it is available. For non freely accessible resources it is not helpful to link to pay access databases. If someone has access to those they can use the citation information provided to look up the resource in the database, they don't need a link to it from the Wikipedia article. That's common sense. - Taxman Talk 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are Wiki users and what access do they have? Nobody actually knows, so it's a weak argument to say that as long as 1% of Wiki users do not have access then the other 99% should be kept in the dark.  I suggest that well over 90% have access to libraries for books, and they have access to the same libraries for Digital Libraries.  Wiki should be at the forefront of promoting digital access to information. Rjensen 14:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is being kept in the dark. If they do have access to pay access databases, they can look information up by using the citation information, just like you can by going to the library. But linking to resources implies they are available for all. If they are not, it amounts to an advertisement of those services which is innapropriate. We're not here to promote pay access digital libraries. - Taxman Talk 15:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. It seems fairly self-explanatory to me. If a free reliable source is available then cite it. If not, but a source that costs money exists, cite that. That's freedom of information, that's making an article useful. If the user doesn't have access to that information, then that's hard lines, because a free equivalent doesn't exist. Books are obviously preferable to the NYT, not only because they are more likely to be more serious but because they are more accessible. Anyone can open a book in a bookstore. Although you could always peer over someone's shoulder in a net-cafe. BigBlueFish 15:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the issue. Of course you cite whatever was used as a reference. You cite it whether it's available for free or not. That is self explanatory, so ignore that part of it. The question becomes, do you link to a proprietary database/subscription service that makes the full text/book/article available to paying customers. The answer to that is clearly no, because if you include one, you'd have to include others to be fair, and there is no need for them. For example Mdconsult is a paid medical journal and text book service I have access to. It is very proper to cite the specific paper or textbook I found with the service because someone else can use whatever resources they have available to go look up that citation and get the article. What is not proper is for me to cite the book I used and in the citation link to http://mdconsult.com/example-book. That's an advertisement and isn't appropriate, and in any case it isn't needed. - Taxman Talk 17:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, directing people to a subscription library is like citing a book and linking it to Amazon.com.  Coyoty 19:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes there are additional free materials such as excerpts and tables of content that are available nowhere else. Our users who may not know how to access it will appreciate our help. Rjensen 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a difference between a library and a subscription service? I think not.  The fact is that students are turning away from libraries, which Wiki supports, and turning instead to subscription services which Wiki should support. These services get their $$ from libraries, which usually subscribe to multiple services.  Note that public libraries are free only to taxpayers, and are closed to outsiders. I fear some Wiki editors havbe a POV theat they are imposing on users and other editors--a violation of the open free spirit that motivates Wiki. We get these THOU SHALT NOTS, to the detriment of users and Wiki itself. Rjensen 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Students are not the only users of Wikipedia. I find it very annoying when I click on a link and get a log-in screen. (I don't like 'registration-only' sites, either, but that is another issue.) If my local library doesn't have a book, I can request it thru inter-library loan. If my local library doesn't subscribe to a particular service, I'm stuck. Wikipedia is for everybody, not just for those fortunate enough to have access to libraries rich enough to pay for subscription services.  -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's allow connections to all free services, available to all whether or not the user pays for premium services. But don't assume libraries are free--many of them limit usage to taxpayers (Denver is a good example of that--I live in the Denver suburbs and can NOT use the city library.)  As for inter-library loans, those cost the libraries an average of $30 each to service. (two staffers at each end are paid twice.)  As for Wiki--I think most of us pay $$$ to internet providers to get the access--it is NOT free.Rjensen 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you can't use the Denver library, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.  We're not talking about libraries, we talking about what is appropriate content for a free encyclopedia.  Advertisments are not appropriate.  I too find it highly annoying to click a link from Wikipedia and get a screen telling me to subscribe to some sort of service.  Use ISBN, and let the user decide where to get the book, whether from a library, subscription site, or wherever.--JW1805 (Talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Free" sites that require registration are money-free but still have a cost.  Users can expect to get emails from the site or its partners, which they may consider spam.  That said, however, I think there are or should be exceptions in and only in cases where the subject of an article is available only through subscription or registration, such as some webcomics.  In those cases, it should be clearly noted that registration or payment is required for access.  Coyoty 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to subscription services?

message: I want to gain some insight into this policy. I understand the desirability to not repeat the same sources. On the other hand, in the further reading section one might include more detailed information about the book or article that would be useful to the reader. Increasingly, people have been adding weblinks to online versions of the book or article.
What are the best practices around this? Are there any guidelines on how the Further Reading should be structured? joshbuddytalk 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading should not contain books, articles already cited 

message: For better or worse, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia about things out of fiction TV series. Such articles are ripe for "no original research" violations, which can be combated more easily with better citations. I couldn't find an appropriate citation template so I created Template:Cite episode, anyone have any suggestions for ways to improve or standardize it? I've never created a template like this before so I figured I should mention it somewhere to draw more experienced eyes. Bryan 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing episodes from televison series

message: What is the proper way to note the reprint of an article in a book?  
*Article full citation
*Book full citation (reprinting Author  (year))
or
*Article full citation (reprinted in Book full citation)
or
*Book full citation (reprinting Article full citation)
?  Thanks.  Шизомби 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noting reprints in citations?

message: Right now this page starts with a good amount of policy before getting into the style guide. I believe that style guides should be just that. The "why to cite sources" is covered in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. The "When to cite sources" deserves its own page as it's a separate guideline, which I've tenatively created as Wikipedia:Try to verify.
In other words:
* WHAT sources to use: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline)
* WHEN to use sources: Wikipedia:Try to verify (guideline)
* WHY to use sources: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (policy)
* HOW to use sources: Citing sources (style guide)
--The Cunctator 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating policy from style