Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 21

message: Can source code or a comment inside source code be used in a citation? To me, It seems like it should definately be okay if its freely open source. But what if I want to cite something... not completely closed but that comes with a piece of software or book that requires purchasing? For instance, library source that are included with Visual Studio. Can this be acceptable or is it not valid because it cannot be checked be "everyone"?
AllUltima (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things that must be purchased may be cited; the most common example is books. However, software is often protected not just by copyright, but also by a license agreement, so take care to obey your license agreement. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to amplify what Gerry Ashton said -- Sources must be "available" and being available for purchase is fine. Inserts that come with books are therefore fine. As to license agreements, personally, I wouldn't worry too much about licensing terms for books that are sold on the consumer market: citing to content, factually described, within a license agreement would rarely violate the terms of most such licenses. That said, do be careful about stitching together cited information to form a new argument -- wikipedia doesn't publish original research. --Lquilter (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source code citations?

message: This dead link check which I did today turned up several links which it flagged as "Blacklisted link". What is the recommended action here? Could info on the recommended action be added to the project page? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted links 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Notes
See reference 2, ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl(cont.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.100.240 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links should usually be named with the method at Help:Link#External links. A very long link like your example should definitely be named. The second best option is to just put it in brackets with no name, producing a numbered link like this: . PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hasten to draw attention to the following from the "External links" subsection of this project page: "As with all inline citation methods, a full reference would also be required in a "References" section at the end of the article". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least part of that link instructs the browser to highlight the words "friendly" and "fire" in red. If you can find those parameters and eliminate them, you can shorten the link without significantly reducing its effectiveness. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive link length that makes the page scroll horizontally 

message: Regarding the Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style sub-page, another editor asked on its talk page about its status, but has been unanswered since January. Is the sub-page considered a "style guideline" as well? Or is it an "essay"? Or neither? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources/example style sub-page 

message: I've seen a few times people deleting web sources which go dead and often deleting the information soon after as unsourced! I've just read  which says you shouldnt do this.
Could someone put together a user warning template I can use to respond to a user who deletes a dead link without replacing it? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you're the man for the job, if you feel this is important. I would probably just drop that link on their talk page and ask them to keep it in mind. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (by some other kind editor!) - see discussion at  AndrewRT(Talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New uw template? 

message: This subsection leads off with the following paragraph:
:Inline author-date citations can be generated in the article text using  templates. Use of the Harvard citation templates can include an automatic link to the full reference, but only if the full reference uses the  template (and the author last names and year match). Links are not generated to full references using other templates or those written freehand.
I object to the "but only if" clause.  Consider the the case envisioned by the paragraph as written:
:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.{{|Harv|Smith|1943|p=123}}
:(and, in endmatter)
:*
Or, as I've more usually seen in wikipedia articles, something like:
:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
:(and, in endmatter)
:===Notes===
:)
:( this expands as: 1.  — click it )
:===References===
:*
:( this expands as * )
Or something like:
:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.{{|Harv|Smith|1943|p=123|Ref=some_made-up_anchor_name}}
:(and, in endmatter)
:*
Or any of a number of possible wildly differing cases which are linked in a forward direction by wikilinks and in the reverse direction by the browser's "Back" button. Perhaps something like:
:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.{{|Harv|Smith|1943|p=123|Ref=some_made-up_anchor_name}}
:(and, in endmatter)
:*Y'all oreally ought to read the book "Lorum ipsum explained" by John Smith. Look for it in your local library. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the Harvard citation templates can include an automatic link to the full reference if the full reference uses the  template with matching criteria such as author last name(s) and year.
However, it could be argued that the link keyword originally was automatic. The alternate constructions you've given above are interesting (if perhaps a little esoteric), but mostly ways of manually overriding the automatic link criteria as far as I can see.
--SallyScot (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Harvard referencing templates subsection 

message: After thinking about it some more (see discussion above), it seems to me that the stuff about  and  was all a bit fussier than needs be.
I'd said that all  is really is simply a 'wrapper' around the full-format reference with made up id matching that of #Reference-... so that the link between them works. 
Well, if you look at the HTML code that  generates you can see that's quite literally true. It simply puts  tags around whatever is in the reference parameter and sets up cite's id parameter as "Reference-" plus the id value.
So anyway, I've rewritten this part hopefully to help demystify it somewhat.
--SallyScot (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinks from citations to full references

message: Gimmetrow reverted two edits I made a little while back (see this reverting edit), which I thought would be ok. I'm realizing now why I thought this was the normal practice - AWB automatically replaces reflists with  reflists. If this is not the agreed upon practice, why does AWB automatically replace the old system with the new one? TheHYPO (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is a product of some independent group of editors and you'd have to ask them why they chose to add that feature, but it's not based on any consensus that the template is superior. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny you should ask, but according to Rich Farmbrough, this feature is removed in current AWB builds but not yet in the release version. Gimmetrow 01:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References template? 

message: I'm curious as to what others think about providing an external link to a subscription site in a reference. There are some editors who believe that if the "New York Times" (for example) provides an abstract to an article published in 2005 (and the reader has to pay or subscribe to read the full text of the article), the link should nevertheless be made.  I would argue this runs afoul of External links#Sites requiring registration. Additionally, while a link might provide full-text access today, it won't in two weeks or six months (thus creating a dead link or subscription link). The issue is not addressed in the guidelines, insofar as I can see. Thoughts? Comments? - Tim1965 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the lead of the "External links" guideline, "the subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." So if the site is used as a reference, and not just an external link, the "External links" guideline just does not apply. I would say that if the subscription site provides URLs that work for a long time, they should be linked to, so those who decided to buy a subscription should take full advantage of it. If the URLs are only valid for a few weeks, maybe it is just as well not to link. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most newspapers (such as the "New York Times," "Chicago Tribune," "Los Angeles Times" and "Washington Post, for example) keep articles available for free to the public only for 14-21 days.  The URL then changes, and goes subscription. Subscription links exist for forever (insofar as I can tell). Some argue in favor of verifiability, that any John Doe can write a citation. But providing a link provides verifiability for that citation. My argument is "so does looking it up in the public library."  A link is only as good as the person verifying that link. Verifiability is no good if the fact being cited is behind the pay-to-view wall. As for paying for the article, Wikipedia provides ISBN links for books, but doesn't have a system for newspaper or scholarly articles. Should authors be trying to recreate that by providing links? I'm doubtful (there's a similar discussion elsewhere on this Talk page). - Tim1965 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's ISBN system can't be directly  compared to newspaper archive sites, because new and used books can be purchased from many vendors at different prices, while the on-line archives of a newspaper are usually only available through one company. Also, verifiability isn't "no good" if the fact is behind a pay-to-view wall, it's just accessible to fewer readers than if the site were free. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Gerry; you don't seem to be disputing the validity of the sources, and if we are citing the source, we might as well put a link to the most readily available place to find a copy. I can certainly see how many readers would be helped by this practice (e.g. people who already have free access to such archives) but I can't understand how any readers would be harmed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for future reference, what should be done when the validity of the sources is disputed?  If an editor sees an outlandish statement with subscription-only source, how should it be verified? --Hamitr (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully that's a situation that comes up much more in theory than in reality. With the major newspapers, like the NYT, I personally have access to every issue ever printed for free... so if it's really an issue of what an offline source says, you should be able to find someone who has access to the particular newspaper's archives... although it does become more difficult with smaller regional papers. I would think that in such situations, where the citation is to say, a 20-year-old newspaper article available on microfilm in maybe 5 places worldwide... and this is a worst case scenario... that everyone involved try to find a better source. If that fails, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to call a library that has a copy and ask a librarian to look at the story on microfilm for you and see what it says. This is a problem so rare though that you really just need to figure out a workable solution when and if you find yourself in the situation. Ultimately, we need to be able to cite offline (or subscription only) sources if they're reliable. Books, journals, old newspaper articles... it makes verification harder, but do we really want an encyclopedia whose only sources are free webpages? If free webpages were so extensive, Wikipedia wouldn't really be necessary anyway. --W.marsh 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Back issues of newspapers and magazines can be viewed at libraries. If it is a local newspaper, you could try asking for a copy of the article in question from the library in the town where the newspaper is published. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We routinely use (and encourage) DOIs, and in most cases these link to sites requiring subscriptions.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscription links in references 

message: I notice that this was recently added:
:"Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers."
Does anyone know where it was decided that it's best not to use these? I've seen them used in articles with very long Notes or References section to great effect. I can see that printing would be problematic, but then lots of issues in articles can cause problems with printing, and we're an online project, not a paper one. Apart from that, though, are there real problems with these scrolling lists that I'm not aware of? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had no involvement here either but I can see Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive18#Scrolling_Reference_List, Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive19#Scrolling_reference_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/Archive_7#scroll_box_for_references and  Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref. To me such lists look to be a bad thing. Thincat (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I don't think scrolling lists should be used either, particularly for References, which would be at the bottom of the page, where you'd be using the browser's own scroll bar anyway. However, I don't really agree with the inclusion of the argument that it cannot be guaranteed such list will display in all web browsers. Arguments made against scrolling lists should legitimate. Concerns over readability and printing still stand, but the argument of browser compatibility is being overstated. --SallyScot (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering what it is about scrolling lists in particular that is problematic. Image size and placement, for example, will look different on different browsers, will sometimes not print out well etc, but we don't disallow images for that reason. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If I recall correctly, most mirror sites can't handle the scrolling lists; but that may have changed since the last time I checked. Kirill 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The other question is what benefit they provide. There is no particular reason to save vertical screen space within a page when most browsers already have a scroll bar on the right hand side of the window →.  In most of the cases I see where the scroll box is desired, a better solution would be more judicious use of references, a change to a referencing format that uses less space, or a combination of the two. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see. Thanks for the feedback. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrolling lists

message: Just one question, how would one cite a TV documentary or interview? A lot of the time these things don't appear on the internet or on a news broadcast, so it's difficult to include information from a source like that in an article. BalkanFever 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a job for . RossPatterson (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentaries and Interviews 

message: This source:  has been cited in Interstate Highway System, probably to the chagrin of whoever added this Important Note: "Note: do not quote, cite, or reproduce without permission of the author. Contact Essays in History to arrange permission." Going on the assumption that no one has bothered to contact the author, is it unreasonable to just ignore the note? —Rob (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  What the hell were they thinking?  MilesAgain (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine they were thinking, correctly, that the author has no right to require people to ask permission to cite or quote him.  See fair use, the principle on which we cite or quote every source. TomTheHand (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of "no cite / no quote" questions occur occasionally in academic publications. Usually when it concerns a copy of an officially published source. In such cases it means: You should cite the published source. It is customary to provide the full reference in such cases. Alternatively it maybe a source that is not (yet) published or under review. There it means something like: "Be careful to cite as the publication maybe withdrawn" or "Please do not use this freely as this intelectual property of mine is not quite ready and someone may steal the idea and get it faster to publication than my team". However, by publishing a text on the (open to all) internet without giving full referencing information defeats all these. By doing so the author put the ideas (not the actual text) in the public domain, and implicitly agrees with fair use (ie properly referenced cites and quotes). If you don't want to be cited; don't publish your text! In brief I support TomTheHands comment, the use of the cite is fair use. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't cite me, bro! 

message: I've restored a version of the page from a few months ago, but I included the recent version of some issues that I know are important to people e.g. where to place ref tags in relation to punctuation.
The page had deteriorated to the point where parts of it were very difficult to understand, and someone had made substantive changes to the layout -- I believe it was User:SallyScot. The page has to be clear and clearly laid-out, so that people can find things and understand them. Otherwise, there's no point in the guideline existing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "deterioration" means what? gradual changes that you, personally, don't agree with? —Random832 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant changes that made the guideline even harder to follow, with writing that was unclear. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deterioration

message: It's completely one-sided to go looking around for particularly horrendous examples, implying that they're largely the fault of citation template usage, without also including comparative examples of how the same content might look without template usage.
I have attempted to address this by showing comparative examples with fairly realistic edit mode representations. However, if you looked at the first example earlier you may have seen an intermediate version which had been changed by User:SlimVirgin into something which (as far as I could see) did not have realistic edit mode representations. However, I'm prepared to be reasonable, give the benefit of the doubt, and assume SlimVirgin's purpose was simply to include into the comparison the original unaligned citation template examples, and that the hacking of the edit mode representation was just an unintentional misuderstanding. Anyway, the idea is to show representions including a realistic looking editor typeface (a monopitch teletext font) within editor like scrolling windows, so, here they are again if you've not seen the fixed versions:  
/Citation templates example - Jimbo Wales excerpt
/Citation templates second example - Tom Cruise excerpt
The two examples each show show three representations: 
1) with citation templates unaligned (as they were found originally); 
2) with citation templates aligned (re. debate as to whether this improves or worsens); and 
3) without citation parameters (is freehand better than both of the above?).
--SallyScot (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative examples with edit mode representations

message: Re. the sentence - "Because they are optional and contentious, citation templates should not be added against consensus, and editors should not change articles from one style to another if there are objections."
I would like to remove this. It does not make logical sense. It implies that citation templates should not be added against consensus because they are optional. This is a non sequitur. For example, creating a Wikipedia account for editing unprotected pages is optional, it does not follow that someone editing anonymously needs to get consensus first. That's not what optional means. 
It also inappropriately shouts "editors should not change articles from one style to another". When in practice you should find editors more relaxed and accommodating, and you'll see articles happily containing both freehand and template citations. The overemphasised wording here just unnecessarily encourages people to make fuss over something which doesn't need to be such an issue. 
I'd also like to change the second sentence's reference - "subject to agreement with other editors on the article" to say "unless their use is contrary to the established consensus of editors on the article"
The concept of consensus is key, objections could otherwise be of any kind, such as against consensus and quite unreasonable. The wording should encourage consensus, not simply the idea ultimately of stubborn veto.
--SallyScot (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SallyScot, from the time the citation templates were invented until October 2007 the guideline had that (or substantially similar) wording. In October you unilaterally removed these words from the guideline, without, I might add, even a comment stating you were doing so. The reasons for keeping the wording are obvious; the citation templates are a complex language that add huge amounts of bulk to articles for only dubious benefits - in this case, uniformity of citation format. However, even that benefit is illusory - you would be hard pressed to find any reasonably lengthy article that had uniform citations, even among those that use citation templates. The few articles that do have uniform citation styles inevitably have someone closely monitoring them to weed out alternative styles, which are continually introduced by new editors. In addition, the citation templates are themselves often improperly used; for example, I've found people using the web citation template for articles that appeared in print, solely because the article was reproduced on the internet. Citation templates are awkward and complex, and multiply like roaches - currently I count over 80 of them in :Category:Citation templates. Citation templates are made for people who like to fiddle with templates, not for people who actually are trying to write articles. That is why people object to them so strongly, and that is why this wording must remain in the guideline. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the point above - "In October you unilaterally removed these words from the guideline, without, I might add, even a comment stating you were doing so." - For reference, the edit in question was - 18:31, 27 October 2007 - It was accompanied with the following edit summary... (→How to cite sources -make example vol number different to page number for clarity + some Full citation templates rewording) --SallyScot (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sally, the primary points are that the templates rarely provide the benefits claimed for them, particularly consistency. Indeed, with over 80 of them, how could they possibly do so? On the other hand, the issues raised regarding them are (arcane language, bloats the article, inflexible) are entirely valid. What typically happens is that an article writer goes along merrily writing and editing an article. Then a template wonk comes along and "improves" the article by putting citations in templates. The article writer is obviously miffed; the additions have only made his job of editing harder, not easier. Yet what recourse does he have to remove them? He is thus forced to accept this unhelpful imposition, or edit war rather than write articles. The guideline has always rightly recognized this reasonable disaffection for citation templates by including a strongly worded message to template wonks not to go adding them against consensus. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the wording 

message: Re. the concern raised by User:Jayjg above "...Yet what recourse does he have to remove them?"  Well, believe it or not, I actually quite agree with the underlying sentiment here. However, it has to work both ways surely. And I don't think an appropriate sense of give and take is clear from the current guideline wording.
As a result, I propose the following revision…
:The use of citation templates is on the whole neither encouraged nor discouraged. Some editors find templates helpful, arguing that they help maintain a consistent style across articles; while other editors prefer writing freehand, saying that they find templates distracting when used inline in the article text and arguing that they make it harder to edit. Given the diversity of opinion, editors are encouraged overall to be respectful, tolerant and accommodating of the different preferred approaches as long as the results render similarly well to the reader. Pre-existing citations added by other editors should not subsequently be changed from freehand to template, or vice-versa, if there are objections.
--SallyScot (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the sentiment, but it seems long. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The use of citation templates is on the whole neither encouraged nor discouraged. Some editors find templates helpful, others argue that they're a distraction.[1] Given the diversity of opinion, editors are encouraged overall to be respectful and accommodating of the different preferred approaches as long as the results render similarly well to the reader. Pre-existing citations added by other editors should not subsequently be changed from freehand to template, or vice-versa, if there are objections.
Notes
1. ^ Some editors find templates helpful, arguing that they help maintain a consistent style across articles; while other editors prefer writing freehand, saying that they find templates distracting when used inline in the article text and arguing that they make it harder to edit. 
--SallyScot (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised wording proposal

message: The issue here is not the citation templates, it's the use of full citations directly in footnotes. If the full citations were moved to the end of the article, and the footnotes only gave author, year, and page number, there would be no issue. This system is used in several featured articles, I believe. Or Harvard referencing could be used, which is even more editor-friendly. For example, see the work in progress at Mathematical logic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates always include more text than is necessary, and so they invariably add to the problem. Plus they're inflexible, they can introduce inconsistency, and they don't prevent errors. Above all, they're unnecessary. It takes less time just to write the citation -- whether a long or a short one -- without adding a template structure around it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, when used at  a the very end in a references section, the templates encourage consistency when possible (of course they don't cover every possible situation). See Mathematical logic#References and its source.  In that article, many of the references are not simple enough to only use the citation template, but its use does help with consistency, and gives HTML anchors to which the in-text references can link. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates encourage consistency only insofar as all editors use them, use the same ones, and use them correctly. That, however, is rarely the case. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not to argue that it doesn't have its place, but the style used in the work in progress at Mathematical logic article pointed to above can draw a  tag, and placement of that tag may be justifiable. IMO, intrusion of fotnotes into the article prose needs to be minimized while still providing inline footnoting capability. I'll again mention Bugzilla Bug 12498, which attempts to do this. (I filed that bug, but I'm not wedded to the specifics of the solution suggested there. An alternative approach would be fine with me if the approach taken there is judged suboptimal.) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses Harvard referencing; anyone who puts on a nofootnotes tag gets a free trout. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (hangs head) I missed that at a quick look, I'm so used to seeing superscripted cite.php refs in WP articles. I've often seen articles formatted similarly but which deserved  tags.    Not to defocus this to a general gabfest about wikitext alternatives for references, but I've seen similar utilization of the ID element provided by  done with e.g., (Katz 1998, p. 686) vs.  vs. <Sup></Sup> vs. , etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue is not the templates, it's the referencing system 

message: You (SlimVirgin) reverted my edit which was intended to make it so that this guideline does not express a preference one way or the other for having templates or not having them. If you think the guideline should specifically say that not using the templates is better than using them, you should get a consensus to that effect (probably at TfD) - otherwise this guideline should recommend against unilateral changes in either direction, rather than forbidding them in one direction (adding templates) while silently endorsing the opposite. —Random832 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply, if there is a rule saying that I can't go in and change all of someone's citations to templates, but there is no rule saying they can't go in and change all the templates on another article to not using templates, that is saying it is NOT an optional style difference, and that is not something that the community seems to agree with. —Random832 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the edits to this page, but removing the templates from a page that already uses them would be a poor way to spend your time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said in the edit summary, there's no need for a template once the citation is properly written, so there shouldn't be a problem removing them. What the guideline is saying is that they shouldn't be added to a page over objections, given how hard they make the page to edit. If we want well-written articles, templates tend to get in the way of that. That's the only point. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (editconflict)Honestly, I'm not a fan of these templates anymore - i used to be, but ever since the stuff about date wikilinking, etc, it just seems like more trouble than it's worth. But unless the templates themselves are deprecated, I see no reason to permit people to go in and remove them any more than to let people add them.(/editconflict) I don't think there is a consensus that the templates are not indefinitely useful. And, for the record, I think that the problem is the fact that the whole citation's inline, and IMO it's not substantially more readable without templates than with them. There needs to be a way to define the content of a reference somewhere other than in the middle of a sentence. and I have filed bugzilla:12765 to that end. —Random832 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin, Templates aren't what makes articles hard to edit, it's placing footnotes which are intended to appear elsewhere inline in the article prose which makes articles hard to edit.  Earlier, you provided a horrific example of how templated citations got in the way of editing. I hand-converted your horrific templated example to just-as-horrific hand-formatted citations which also got in the way of article editing -- no improvement at all with hand-formated citations vs. templated citations. (see here). Again, Templates aren't what makes articles hard to edit, it's placing footnotes which are intended to appear elsewhere inline in the article prose which makes articles hard to edit. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Random832: there is. You can just put author, date,pages in the footnotes, and references in their own section. Or you can use Harvard referencing. As I pointed out somewhere else, the real issue here is the use of full citations in footnotes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Random832 and Carl (CBM) Please look at bugzilla bug 12796, which addresses this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is certainly a problem with people removing templates. I am quite sure there is no consensus that templates get in the way of a well written page; otherwise we wouldn't have them still. Now I need to go look at the edits to the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin: Please look at Bugzilla bug 12796, which provides a way of removing footnote clutter from the flow of the article prose. (whether the clutter consists of textual asides, complicated hand-formatted citations, template-formatted citations, something else entirely, or some combination of the foregoing) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. I was going to say, at some point when an article gets long enough, the active editors should discuss on the talk page and pick a style to be used. This is completely parallel to the British/American dialect issue, and should be handled the same way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those of you who are changing this are forgetting what's behind it. We don't force style changes on editors. If an article has been written using Harvard refs, and if there's no problem with it, we don't turn up and change to footnotes. Or if it's in British English, and again is unproblematic, we don't change to American English. This is a principle that's been upheld by ArbCom several times. Ditto with templates. Particularly so with templates, because they inevitably cause the writing to deteriorate. I'm not aware of any Wikipedian who is a regular article writer who likes them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because you are'nt looking hard enough . Unless, of course, you have a new definition of "regular" article writer? -- Avi (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, your approach to this is illustrative of the problem. You told me that you don't write articles. You said you're a wikignome, and that you go around imposing these templates on existing articles. What you're in effect saying is that the writers can go hang -- once they've done their job, you will impose your citation style, and if that means they can't write anymore because they can't see what they're doing, tough. That's exactly the attitude this guideline seeks to protect editors against. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. We don't force style changes on editors. So how is it that you use that to justify removing my edit, which said not to force the style change of "templates -> no templates"? —Random832 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against templates 

message: An anomaly which comes up in use of what I believe to be a standard Citation reference, is that use of "accessdate=January 20, 2008" ends up generating a red-link to January 20, 2008, while use of "accessdate=2008-01-20" does not.  Seems like a bug to me, I am trying to report it here.  Please advise on where it should be reported, if not here.
This came up for me in editing List of National Historic Landmarks in Oklahoma.  I tried eliminating the red-link by going ahead and creating the article on January 20, 2008, but an efficient wikipedian ever-so-promptly and politely deletes the new article (as is appropriate) :)  doncram (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was changed in this edit. Both  and  specify accessdate in ISO format and wikilink it. Apparently Kaldari changed  such that it's also wikilinked, which means it must be in ISO format to avoid a redlink. [Cite web and Cite news have code which check if the date (not accessdate) is in ISO format, and only wikilink it if it is. This was apparently never extended to accessdate.] Gimmetrow 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for the informed and informative response.  I gather the right place to report it is in "template talk" for the Citation template, and i raised it there (cutting and pasting from this discussion here).  See Template_talk:Citation#Glitch in Citation template treatment of accessdate= field.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch in Citation accessdate= treatment