Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19

message: i currently have an issue with a user on Talk:Battle of Jenin due to a problematic translation to a newspaper article. this translation page is added with personal highly POV thoughts and unverifiable references in regards to the original article.
the user keeps stating that "English sources must be used, while in this case it is clearly a non reliable and unprofessional source that is also known as POV. 
i suggest some statement be issued about such a case in the "Citing sources" article, so that issues like this would not repeat for other users. however, i do not know how to raise the issue in the proper channels and could use a little bit assistance on the matter.
p.s. a comment on the Talk:Battle of Jenin#gush shalom source, would be a generous act to help end this conflict. Jaakobou 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, regardless of language all reliable sources should be cited.  Also, if you are having issues with another user regarding an article, try an request for comment or a mediation case. Miranda 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone interested in helping on working this into the "Citing sources" article? Jaakobou 11:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English-language sources should be given whenever possible 

message: Is there a standard for citing a specific section of a long article in a web page? This section is linked from John N. Gray. I want to format the link as a reference in a citation template. Should I link to the section or to the article? What goes in the title?
—Red Thrush 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of a standard. I would use the {cite encyclopedia} template, filling in as many of the parameters as possible, and put "section 4" in the pages parameter (or possibly the location parameter—check the template's documentation for parameter usage). By all means include the section in the URL (anything that gets your reader to closer to the text you are citing is good). Also, follow the Cite this entry link from the article itself for guidance. Finell (Talk) 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a section of an article 

message: In the section Say where you got it, I'm wondering how far this requirement goes.
For example, it states, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."
Now let's say that author Smith has written a book talking about widgets. In author Smith's book, he supports his argument that widgets can withstand 450 pounds of pressure by citing a book or study written by author Jones. Now, for Wikipedia purposes, let's say that editor Bob merely quotes author Smith regarding the pressure issue and then editor Jim doubts that claim is valid. Is it incumbent upon editor Bob to locate the book by author Jones and instead not only quote author Smith but must also must quote author Jones and give an inline quote to support the whole pressure issue?
I would support the requirement that editor Bob could use author Smith's book but also must quote the info from where author Smith got that info and that would be from author Jones. Plus, an inline quote from author Jones would also be appropriate.
Can someone verify whether this is the correct fashion by which to ideally cite a source? Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes Smith may be more of an expert on the subject than Jones, so although Smith gives credit to Jones for originally writing the material, Smith is the one with the knowledge to do a good job of picking Jones out from all his competitors as the one to believe. If that were the situation, and one were paraphrasing, it would suffice to cite Smith. --Gerry Ashton 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important question about: Say where you got it 

message: I have changed the entry under Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place reference tags to match this article. But I have two points I would like to raise:
* Should we change the section heading in this article from "Placement of footnote reference tags" to "Where to place reference tags"?
* Until I changed it to match this article's section the footnote article's section started with "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." Which is I think clearer than the current wording "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end." Does anyone object with replacing the latter with the former in this article?
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you turned an awkward phrase into a very sleek one! Dysmorodrepanis 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of footnote reference tags 

message: It's handy being able to use the <ref name="XYZ"> function, but when working on a different article you have to start again from scratch. Wouldn't it be possible to create 'fixed' reference names for commonly used reference works, so that people can just use 'ref name' straight away on a new article? Users could just add a new reference to the list each time they needed to use multiple references. My only concern is a) is it feasible with the software and b) What about existing reference names?
In terms of b) I think we could easily solve that problem by using names that would never be used normally. For example, I might add the name "Darwin" to refer to Origin of Species, but another article may already be using the same ref name for Descent of Man. To avoid a clash, we could add some simple code before the name or something like that - for example 'rnDarwin' for 'reference name Darwin'. I doubt there would be any existing references using 'rn'. We could also just use different code perhaps, so that there could not be any clashes. Richard001 03:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See m:Wikicite.  Both the current version and the old proposal.  (SEWilco 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making references for use throughout the project

message: Please comment in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability in lists. `'Miikka 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in wikipedia lists 

message: Hi there,
I'm an admin on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and having a disagreement with a user who only cites the home page of the site from which he downloads images and doesn't link to the page containing the image. The sites where he gets his images from are quite difficult to navigate and in German, which makes it near impossible for a non-German speaker to try and track down the specific page. I have asked him to add the url of the page on which the picture appears, but his argument is that this is not mentioned explicitly anywhere. 
Our policies are based on the English Wikipedia's and I was wondering if anyone could help to point me to a page where this is mentioned explicitly? I provided him with a link to Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources#Images, but I have a feeling he is going to argue that the example is just that: an example, and that it still doesn't say that he has to link to the page containing the image. 
Any help or advice would be appreciated. Anrie 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images? -- Boracay Bill 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed him in this direction - but so far he's refused to answer, even though he's been active there. Thank you for the help though, I appreciate it. Anrie 08:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing image sources 

message: I seem not to be able to edit this page, which is just as well, but I have seen a problem with a contributor citing anybody, at all, and thinking that that justified the use of phrasing that implied that this person's views were generally accepted. People should use language that admits that their statement is based on their citation, unless they are prepared to argue credibly that what they say is generally accepted. To do that, of course, they should be prepared to provide a citation of a work seemingly enjoying wide respect, in which what they say is said to be generally accepted. Do I do this? I doubt it, but Wikipedia should make me and everybody else do it, especially after a challenge. I think that ultimately, any implication of general acceptance is slipshod. Who cares? The rest of the world is crazy. Implying general acceptance without substantiation is easy and feels good, but doesn't serve the reader. FETSmoke 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources rarely say that the source's information is generally accepted. For example, P. K. Seidelmann's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, 1992, University Science Books says on page 56 "many countries also adopt daylight saving time". The words "generally accepted" do not appear in the paragraph. There is no convention in scholarly writing that I know of to routinely present evidence that a source is generally accepted, nor is there any footnote convention to format such evidence. In Wikipedia, if you think a source is not generally accepted, bring it up on the article's talk page. --Gerry Ashton 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerry, could you clarify? I read you as saying two, contradictory things. My complaint was about Wikipedia contributors (NOT source authors) deliberately using language that would lead a reader to believe that an assertion was generally accepted, when it was nothing more (e.g.) than the speculation of some individual who managed to get published. As a test case, an alternative health advocate, initials HC, says that minuscule electric currents taken through the body kill parasites. Would it or would it not be best for me to add to an article on parasites the statement that minuscule electric currents kill them, followed by a footnote reference to a publication of HC, with no language to indicate that this view was far from generally held? FETSmoke 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This style guideline, "Citing sources," is about the methods for citing sources. Given that you (FETSmoke) made your post on this page, I took it to mean that editors should not only word articles in a way that reflects the general acceptance of the source (or lack thereof), but should put something in the footnote to prove that the source is generally accepted. If you just meant editors should be careful about how they word articles, then I agree. --Gerry Ashton 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beautiful. Thanks. I'm looking for anything I can do to get this point more institutionalized (officially stated). I think some people (we don't all have cultural contact with the intellectual world or academia) just assume, innocently enough, that in view of Wikipedia policy, if they provide a citation, they are then justified in using language that implies that the statement is generally accepted in our civilization. FETSmoke 00:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the best defense in this case would be Only the highest quality sources are acceptable as support for extraordinary claims. from Wikipedia:Verifiability. I would suggest that you add that this is not the generally accepted view (or whatever) in the article and then defend your edit on the talk page. Unfortunately I know nothing about the subject myself, so I can't help much. Anrie 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of J. Random does not mean generally accepted 

message: Is the reference for the route description in U.S. Route 50 placed appropriately? If not, where should it go? --NE2 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is it necessary to reference every part of that section to a different map, as in State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) and suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Reformatting of U.S. Route articles? This seems like overreferencing to me; for instance, in that same article, the "Diners of Pennsylvania" cite doesn't give page numbers, and none of the links to scanned maps give locations on the maps (like "grid A2"). --NE2 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References in headings?

message: I think the guideline related to the "Further Reading" sections should be expanded. The guideline should only encourage the inclusion of high quality references in the further reading section, while, for now, the practice is encouraging the multiplication of low quality references.
It seems to me the FR (Further Reading) section is very important, it's where wikipedia is sending people interested to explore the subject further, we should be certain only to include references of high quality. However, this section seems to be taken lightly. I'm currently trying to clean some articles where, IMO, there's too much references of low quality (even some containing misleading remarks contradicting directly the article), but I found that there's some odd reversal of the burden of the proof taking place. Normally, if someone is trying to add something to an article, if it's even moderately controversial, the modification will be reverted and moved to the discussion so consensus can be made, and THEN the article will be modified. 
For the FR section, it's very often the exact opposite. Books are added without any discussion to justify their inclusion; still, attempts to remove the references and talk about it are tortuous. By making it so hard to clean the FR section, and so easy to add new references, the FR section will become (or are already) libraries of poor references. And it's very sad, because the FR should be made to encourage readers to acquire a deeper understanding of the subject. I think it's disrespectful to the readers to allow anything to be added in this section with no or little discussion about the references quality. -PhDP (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above problem statement.  I tend to try to delete the Further Reading section completely if the article is well-referenced and has a credible References section.  The lax approach to Further Reading is connected to the poor referencing on many articles.  If books are listed in Further Reading but are not actually used in Notes (which results in their inclusion as References), why are they being mentioned?  If the book is so wonderful why is it not cited anywhere in the article?  Note that the References section is supposed to contain a list of works actually cited in Notes.  Thus books listed in Further Reading are not "References", they are book suggestions.  See: WP:LAYOUT  Buddhipriya 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also usually eliminate "Further Reading" sections. Then again, I usually do natural science articles; it is certainly different in the Humanities. But often, "Further Reading" should be nothing but a holding pen for future references to work into the text - if the works therein are not popular treatments of the topic (which still may hold some WP-worthy gems), inclusion in a "Further Reading" section usually implies that the editor has not read them; ese they could be cited. Dysmorodrepanis 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: With the recent increase in references people have started to add scroll boxes around the references (see e.g. European_Union#Footnotes), effectively hiding the majority of the references to the reader unless extra scrolling actions are taken.
Do we think references should be treated in this way??
I strongly think not because:
A quick glance at the ref-list (ie without scrolling) gives a lot of information on the quality of citations. It also gives a good overview whether the article relies on a single repeated references, or that there is a true richness of references underlying the article. (being an academic myself this is one of the most powerful ways I use to judge the value of a scientific publication)
Also, some browsers may not depict the boxed references correctly.
Thirdly scrollbars within scroll bar areas are not a very good thing with regard to general usability for the less browser savvy among us.
Furthermore there seems to be no true argument to box the references, as they are usually at the complete back of the article and this will not reduce readability in any way, not even if the list of references is truly staggering (e.g. over 1,000 refs). Hence I would strongly call for a wiki-guideline in the referencing page stating clearly that the refs should not ever be boxed. Arnoutf 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That boxing is a horrible idea; perhaps we can go for a simpler guideline: don't do things that cause the article to no longer be printable. Kirill 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that this is a bad idea, and also concur with Kirill regarding the simpler guideline: don't do anything that makes the article unprintable. Carom 18:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of the reader, the scrolling was removed with this diff.--SallyForth123 07:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we ever box in references 

message: This site appears to be dead. 
* Template builder — Given an ISBN, a PubMed ID, etc., output a citation which can be pasted into a Wikipedia article. 
Pdeitiker 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working now just fine68.90.41.42 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PMID citation filler is no longer working

message: I've found that  seems to give a better display than a bare  tag -- should we change the article to recommend it instead? Or does that violate the "take it easy with cite templates" advice given elsewhere in the article?--SarekOfVulcan 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried them side by side, and couldn't see any difference. Could you explain what the difference in appearance is? --Gerry Ashton 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, it uses references-small: for another, it accepts parameters for column count or width.--SarekOfVulcan 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not studied the fine points you are mentioning. I suggest that a general statement that  is preferred to  is not appropriate because it does not actually describe the preferred appearance. Instead, it would be necessary to make a statement that specifies exactly every single character that the editor should type; otherwise nothing is really specified. --Gerry Ashton 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have observed that "X is preferred" usually actually means "I personally prefer X, and so should you".  I think mentioning  would be useful, though I don't think that this mentioning belongs in this guideline (IMO, this guideline is ranging far beyond how to write citations in articles, but that seems to be a minority view). -- Boracay Bill 23:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References template 

message: What is the policy on references on subpages? For example, Riddick has no references, but the main pages have references. Would that qualify it as referenced? Slavlin 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a subpage would have a name in the form "Riddick/Subpage ttle". I didn't notice any such subpages, and I don't even know if they are allowed in the article space. So I suppose you must mean something else. --Gerry Ashton 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have my terminology wrong. I mean pages which are more specific than the primary page, such as characters in a movie or episodes in a series. Slavlin 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bit of a controversial issue, and the success of this method depends a lot on execution. If there are any quotes or very controversial statements on the main Riddick page, they probably ought to be supported directly there. Otherwise, my view is that placing the references on the daughter article only is reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The policy is that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a ref, and of course the refs must be on the same page as the material itself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References on subpages 

message: This helps a lot, & if there are no outstanding objections here, I will make changes to the guideline text in the next couple of days.
Meantime, I have also decided that more is desirable, so I'm proposing a policy or guideline about plagiarism.  Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed guideline: Plagiarism & join in discussion. Thanks. --Yksin 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed guideline on plagiarism 

message: Currently, the References section of this article contains the following:
* Concordia Libraries (Concordia University). Citation and Style Guides. Retrieved December 28, 2004. (This provides a list of common citation styles.)
* Citation Styles Handbook: APA
* Citation Styles Handbook: MLA
* APA Style.org
* Using American Psychological Association (APA) Format (Updated to 5th Edition)
* Citing Electronic Documentation (APA, Chicago, MLA)
* The Columbia Guide to Online Style
* Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual.  Oxford University Press. 
* University of Chicago Press Staff. (2003). The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition.  University Of Chicago Press.  
Regarding ordering or items, the current version of this article says, "It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order." 
Regarding formatting of items, the current version of WP:GTL says, "... Additionally, notes should be added to the end of any reference that may not be self-evident.  ..." 
I observe that the References section of the current version of this article appears noncompliant with both of these guidelines. I took a whack at making it compliant, and found myself dithering about both item arrangement (alphabetical by what?) and item formatting ( Consider that, though it is not an issue with the entries currently in the section, citation templates are widely used and, if used, force whatever citation formatting the template editors currently favor — which may impact "alphabetical by what?" ). -- Boracay Bill 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an article and isn't intended for public consumption; there's no reason to worry about whether it follows our style guidelines. I'd object to adding citation templates here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering and formatting of Reference section items 

message: The claim that the present text is consensus is a lie. The consensus (with the usual few dissentients) was established a month ago, here; it existed three days ago; and was altered unilaterally by SlimVirgin yesterday. Is there support for an RfC on this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have therefore reverted to the text of Drymordepanis, three days ago, before SlimVirgin's edits; and marked the consensus dispute. If she can establish consensus to change the version that was here for a month, this is the place to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way it works. IPSOS (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to establish consensus for the change that was made a month ago, PMA, and you haven't done that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the version recently restored by SlimVirgin to be superior because it recognizes that obvious facts need not be contained in a reference unless they are challenged, and also it requires that "contentious" rather than "negative" facts in biographies of living persons should be sourced. After all, bad people do exist in the world, and putting in unsourced positive statements about a bad person is little better than the reverse. --Gerry Ashton 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not the issue here, the debate is about position of reference before or after punctuation. The rest are details. Arnoutf 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arnoutf, I should have given the exact diff I was referring to. If you examine the diff, you will see the issues I mentioned are included. --Gerry Ashton 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored an old form before SV's revert warring, in its entirety; I would agree with both the changes Gerry Ashton suggests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see; we need to establish consensus for a compromise has stood undisputed for a month, and has wide consensus behind it; but SlimVirgin can unilaterally overturn a consensus without any discussion at all, and without any evidence of consensus at all. IPSOS and she can suppress any suggestion of dispute from the page. I would like to see policy backing these assertions. I will endorse any RfC on this matter.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 16:07, 24 July 2007 IPSOS (Talk | contribs | block) (27,446 bytes) (revert to User:SlimVirgin, per talk page, consensus to change has never been established) (rollback | undo)
Please read above a consensus was agreed for the wording that is a compromise. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: *Restore as explained above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It is rather disconcerting to see respected users—some of them admins, no less—revert-warring over a policy page.  I have protected the page for the time being; while some of the parties to this unfortunate affair have the technical ability to continue reverting regardless, it should go without saying that doing so would be a profoundly bad idea.  Please work out your various differences without edit-warring. Kirill 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah! It is always the wrong version that gets protected ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that a revert war is not good and think Kirills action is an important de-escalation step.  I would have liked to have a remark at the section that there is no consensus on this policy and a reference to these discussion though.Arnoutf 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I think that we need to make this a reader's preference, not an editor's preference, just as we do with dates. In this whole debate, it is quire clear that both sides are primarily concerned with the appearance fo teh result, and that the appearance is a personal preference. Surely someone can write the code for this? -Arch dude 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reader choice, not editor choice

message: I haven't taken part in this latest round of debate, for several reasons, and I hope that what I say here will be taken by all sides in the conciliatory way in which it is intended. I shall try to consider the matter objectively, although I am aware that my opinion might not be seen as unbiased. Firstly, the original discussions about prescribing pre-punctuation citation cannot be found, leading to disagreement about whether there ever was consensus for it. Secondly, there is widespread and unbending disagreement now about whether citations should go before or after punctuation (and particularly, which "looks better"). Finally, editors who have not previously argued strongly for either side (Arnoutf, GDD) believe that the placement of citations is not especially important, and certainly not important enough to warrant prescription (they should correct me if I've misrepresented their opinions). Against this backdrop, I would like to suggest that the guideline be changed to the alternative wording, which allows editors to apply slightly different styles on different articles; I believe that this would reflect actual usage and the general lack of consensus for enforcing any single style and would also serve to prevent the surprisingly numerous edits that serve only to switch between the two styles. This is not a question of right or wrong, nor of good and bad, but a question of whether we need to prescribe such minutiae, and I think the more widespread opinion is that we don't. I would like to hope that those on either side can agree at least that there is no agreement, even if it just for the sake of peace. --Stemonitis 08:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: A somewhat trivial style question: if I am wikilinking a journal title in a reference in article X to the Wikipedia article about that journal, and the reference list in article X contains multiple items published in that journal, how many times should the journal title be wikilinked - once (first occurrence)? every time? once per article section? or using some other rule of thumb? See List of dragonflies recorded in Britain for an example where only the first has been linked (and which I think looks ok, but it only has a relatively small number of references) and Bird for something altogether more complicated. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. SP-KP 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that contrary to the policy for the body of the article, it's okay to have a title of a journal made into a wikilink multiple times.   The reason is that this should not be distracting to the reader, who has a very different mindset when looking at footnotes (in fact, may just be looking at a single footnote, just dropping down from the body of the article).  Secondarily, a reference might be deleted if a better one becomes available, or information goes out of date, so picking just one reference for the wikilink is problematical.  And third, this approach allows a journal in a reference to be wikilinked without the editor having to check the other references to see if the journal is already wikilinked (he/she should check to make sure the article title isn't already cited, but that's another matter).  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style question re: references list 

message: It looks like the link to Verifiability in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content should be WP:Verifiability. Can you change this?  Thanks.  JordanSamuels 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong [[WP:Verifiability]] link 

message: : NB This discussion was first started on the Wikipedia talk:Citing sources page, however any changes to the policy would be in the Wikipedia:Footnotes policy so I have moved the discussion here.
: See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Scrolling Reference List for a preliminary discussion.
There are currently no guidelines for the use of scrolling reference lists, however they are popping up on many mainspace pages. Examples include Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Sonic the Hedgehog. Scrolling reference lists cause a number of problems, such as:
:(list updated Monotonehell 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't really thought about these effect. The fact that the article cannot be printed is enough to convince me that policy should be against using them. IPSOS (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a problem with printing, and there's probably also a problem on Wiki mirrors.  I don't think they should ever be allowed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Stongly agree with a ban on scrollboxes for all reasons above. Arnoutf 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree There's not much more to say on this, it should be included fairly swiftly. Editors adding these features in good faith simply because they seem neat, may not be aware of the problems they cause other users. There's no real advantage to them, in fact a reader needs to change from one scroll bar to another in order to read them. A list of valid reasons should be included with the guideline to help people understand why. --Monotonehell 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also accessibility issues. Ban these abominations. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They make references less visible to the general reader, and should be banned for the reasons stated above. Finell (Talk) 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have moved section back, I had a little confusion about what each page was specifically referring to. - ARC GrittTALK 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * While I agree, this is the discussion page for the citing sources guideline only, and as such cannot cover all content. This guideline amendment could be used as a precedent or starting point for changes to other guidelines. - ARC GrittTALK 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Disagree about complete generalization. I a number cases, terribly unwieldy diagrams and panorama are made scrollable horizontally. And this is not the place to discuss this. Circeus 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **Hence "Scrolling text boxes". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait until protection is lifted. This is not an urgent change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrolling Reference Lists: Formal Policy Discussion 

message: Please do not change the following text and instead make comments below. I believe that the following should be added at the end of the first paragraph in this section:
Scrolling reference lists should never be used. Issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring arise. Additionally it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers.
====Comments====
*Support - but consider widening this out to cover all content: "Scrolling text boxes should never be used..." Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * While I agree, this is the discussion page for the citing sources guideline only, and as such cannot cover all content. This guideline amendment could be used as a precedent or starting point for changes to other guidelines. - ARC GrittTALK 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Disagree about complete generalization. I a number cases, terribly unwieldy diagrams and panorama are made scrollable horizontally. And this is not the place to discuss this. Circeus 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **Hence "Scrolling text boxes". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait until protection is lifted. This is not an urgent change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary guideline change suggestion

message: *Support - but consider widening this out to cover all content: "Scrolling text boxes should never be used..." Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * While I agree, this is the discussion page for the citing sources guideline only, and as such cannot cover all content. This guideline amendment could be used as a precedent or starting point for changes to other guidelines. - ARC GrittTALK 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Disagree about complete generalization. I a number cases, terribly unwieldy diagrams and panorama are made scrollable horizontally. And this is not the place to discuss this. Circeus 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **Hence "Scrolling text boxes". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "Scrolling reference lists should never be used. Issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring arise. Additionally it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers." should be changed into "Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers." Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait until protection is lifted. This is not an urgent change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor change

message: I agree with the guideline. However, it does not belong in the Citation templates section. Where to put it? I propose that the Further reading/External links heading be changed to Sections for references and links (or something to that effect), and that the section prescribe the placement (after See also, if any), ordering (in the order listed below), formatting, and use of sections for Footnotes, References, and External links. The guideline against scroll boxes would be part of that section. The same guideline, not restricted to reference sections, probably also belongs elsewhere in the WP:MOS, as part of the guidelines for page layout and formatting. Finell (Talk) 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline misplaced

message: --paulkinmPaulkinm 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richie Sambora's Wiki page

message: The project page doesn't appear to mention anything in regards to not removing verifiable references.  I had a situation where an editor was removing references from infoboxes because the information was assumed to be correct and references clutter the infobox.  The references were not in question and were pretty solid.  Example:Robert Duffy is the mayor of Rochester, New York, USA.  That information can be verified at www.ci.rochester.ny.us.  
I've asked a similar question over at WT:V, but shouldn’t this page give better guidance on when it is inappropriate to remove references?    —MJCdetroit 14:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like the issue isn't the references themselves, but whether you need them in an info box or not? Blueboar 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In my view the section of the page which describes what to cite would be the best guide. The example you gives seems like a low value citation. The fact is not likely to be contentious and it's not clear why a reader would find this information particularly useful. So on the whole I sympathize with removing citations for information like that, or (better in my view) replacing them with citation types that do not clutter the readable text--e.g.  or HTML comments. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My example above was to show what kind of information is being removed and not the actual reference itself.  I tried not to pick an example from which this editor had not edited to and a place big enough to be familiar to editors here; hence Rochester. The actual pages where the references were being removed, were small cities in which without a reference nobody from outside of that geographic area would know whether the mayor of Northville, Michigan is Christopher J. Johnson or Joe Schmoe without doing an internet search.  The actual reference shows up as a bracketed number [1].  An Example can be seen at Rochester, New York next to the word Government.  A different example can be seen on the Detroit article where a reference is given for Detroit's elevation being 600 feet. Sorry if I confused anyone. —MJCdetroit 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the reference supports impermanent information which may change without being the change reflected in the article text. Presumably, though, the change would be reflected in the referenced City of Rochester web page, and patrolling editors might pick up on the change. Towards this end, it would be useful to see mayoral term start/finish dates in the infobox and a proper inline citation which puts a full citation (including accessdate) into the References section. -- Boracay Bill 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The reference to support the statement about who the mayor is should stay. If I know nothing about Rochester, but notice the page is being vandalized by several vandals, I would want an easy way to find out who the real mayor is. Also, since number vandalism is popular, no reference supporting a number should be removed unless the number is well known to the entire English-speaking world. --Gerry Ashton 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as the info presented is impermanent and may change at the next Mayoral election, it would be useful to have info about start/finish of the current Mayoral term near the info about who the mayor is, and a proper [[WP:IC|inline citation}} which puts info about the cited source, including accessdate, into the References section.  Presumably, if a different Mayor is elected next term, the City of Rochester will reflect that info in the page the article cites. -- Boracay Bill 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing references 

message: It looks like there's nothing specific for citing magazines - what would the Wikipedia community say to creating a template for doing so? I have no idea how to do so, but I'd like to gauge reactions if possible. Seegoon 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd cite Rolling Stone or GQ using this? Seegoon 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'd use . Circeus 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazines 

message: His recent revert does not correspond to tyhe protecion policy, which does not forbid non-controversial edits. `'Míkka 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate it if you refrain to address me in this manner. If you have any concerns about my use of admin privileges, please follow process by positing a complaint at WP:ANI, including diffs. As for my intervention here, I believe it was appropriate: the edit was not of such urgency that cannot wait until the protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously what you actually believe is that you are smarter and righter than another admin you reverted. I am not going to chase you or sue you, but such your actions in my watchlist will be reverted so that you will not feel yorself too close to wikipedia god. `'Míkka 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would kindly ask that you stop making value judgments about me. It is most unbecoming of you. You do not know what I think or not. I discussed this with the admin and told him to revert me if he found it necessary. See my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red herring. You just reversed him, without any discussion. And it even did not occur to you to apologize when the reerted person questioned your actions. Obviously you feel that the notion of "wheel war" is not applied to you, and you can revert any admin on a whim, without having any doubt that the other admin had no valid reason to do what he did.  `'Míkka 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mikka, this is simply ridiculous. I do not know if you two hav any background, but this thread is completely unwarranted and unnecessary. Circeus 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. Yes, there is a background. Each time I see jossi in my watchlist (not very often), he is acting as a person who knows it better than all of us. And I will continue to remind about such dismodesty. `'Míkka 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give it a break, would you? And please do not make divisive statements in which you include others. You seem to think you know what I think and what others think. Indeed a sign of poor judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mikka, Jossi is actually the last person anyone could reasonably say that of. He's a very considerate editor who's always willing to discuss his edits. As for the revert, he's right that protected pages ought not to be edited, except to fix typos and similar. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you haven't read the policy lately before defending your most righteuos among righteous. You all are changing them so laborously and frequently that you wikilawyers yourselves don't remember what's current. I guess it's high time to set up some kind of version control, like, major updates twice a year max.   `'Míkka 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had experience with Jossi as an editor before he was an admin, and I have seen his work as an admin and a editor since. He is respectful and considerate of others, and I have not observed in him any trace of arrogance or hostility; to the contrary, he often promotes peace and civility when others get heated. Anyone who is as active as Jossi is on WP will make judgments that others may disagree with. I have no doubt that Jossi acted in good faith in this instance and exercised his best judgment based on what he saw at the time. Personal attacks on his motives or character are way out of line. By the way, so far as I am aware, Jossi was not involved in the ridiculous revert war that led to the project page being protected. It is Mika who is being sarcastic and uncivil. Finell (Talk) 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've had a repeated different experience. You think I am doing this for fun? I am not playing your games of wikilawyering and I don't have buddies to defend me, but reversing an admin and not apologizing when he politely protested hardly reads as "respectful" in my copy of the Etiquette for Dummies in 21 Days". `'Míkka 02:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jossi's revert 

message: MOS:CL#All caps says to avoid all caps when naming headlines. Are prepositions for headlines also uncapitalised? For example, this source is titled "Wonder Embarking On Rare Tour In Late Summer". Should "on" and "in" be uncapitalised just like the naming conventions for Wikipedia pages? Spellcast 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, yes. However, in this instance the actual title of the article uses initial capitals for the prepositions. Finell (Talk) 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:CL#All caps gives The New York Times' method of transcribing headlines as an example. That source uncapitalises "on", "as", and "of" from the heading. I'm asking because people tend to copy and paste headlines into the references without taking into account the caps. And even when they fix the all caps, they overlook the prepositions. I know it's a minor issue, but I just want to make sure that uncapitalising prepositions from headlines is what the MoS is saying. Spellcast 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am impressed that someone else is so conscientious about matters of style! That is what MOS:CL#All caps is saying (short prepositions [fewer than 5 letters is the common rule of thumb], conjunctions, and articles [a, an, the]), but it is talking about changing the title of a publication from ALL CAPS (hypothetically, "WONDER EMBARKING ON RARE TOUR IN LATE SUMMER") to title case: "Wonder Embarking on Rare Tour in Late Summer" (see Capitalization#Headings and publication titles). MOS:CL#All caps is not addressing a title that departs from the normal title case convention by capitalizing the first letter (only) of every word. In this instance, one could make a "case" either for rendering the title as it was originally published or for using correct title case. By the way, concerning title case, pedants disagree over whether to capitalize the first letter of to when it is used in the infinitive form of the verb: some do, on the ground that it is not a preposition in that usage; others use lower case for (false, in my pedantic opinion) consistency. Finell (Talk) 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally uncapitalized:a, an, and, at, but, by, else, for, from, if, in, into, nor, of, on, or, the, to, with Dysmorodrepanis 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prepositions

message: Sometimes when I attempt to get something to Good Article status, I over-cite; that is, I add more citations than are necessary. I don't just cite controversial or potentially challengeable material; I cite the obvious. For example, the article Family (band) that I worked on has some citations for material that is not likely to be challenged, such as the band members leaving and joining, and the fact that the albums were released.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticing that someone's asked this question already but if anyone wants to re-initiate the discussion, that'd be good.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If sources are added for non-controversial material, why not to keep them? What may be not challenged today, may be challenged tomorrow... or in ten years... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds like it's probably all fairly well-known information.  Mightn't it be possible to attribute it all to one book or magazine article?  Then maybe, that book or magazine article could just be in a simple non-footnoted "sources consulted"-type section.--Pharos 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing that information comes from a reliable source is not the only reason for a citation. It also allows readers to find sources that discuss the matter in greater detail. If the source provides more information than the Wikipedia article, it should be kept. If a person contemplating removing a source has not read the source, it should be kept, just in case it provides more details. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The example seems like an obvious place to use named references. That way you will get a reference number everywhere but only one entry in the reference list. No reason to reduce number of references. Arnoutf 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't pass GA anyway.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the larger problem with that specific  (family (band)) article is the quality of the sources (all websites) rather than the quantity. Try to get in some printed material, preferably peer-reviewed/edited, less likely to change, and in general some more attention paid compared to websites. Arnoutf 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing too many sources? 

message: I just noticed that the note, "Other Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources." was removed from the guideline back in June: , was this a consensus removal?  Was it moved elsewhere?  I don't see a discussion on it.  Seems like a significant change.  Dreadstar † 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious, and needs to be put back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm definitely a Master Of The Obvious.. :) Dreadstar † 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be put back, allowing that would destroy all effort in the overall quality improvement drive. Arnoutf 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have restored it, but the article is protected.  Dreadstar † 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Wikipedia articles

message: Hi, good day!
I would like to add this site (http://www.2-clicks-stamps.com)on the list of external links on postage stamps article. This site talks everything about stamps. And i believe its necessary to include this because of its contents which will help stamps collector (novice and professionals) educate themselves. And since its a directory site, they will find it very useful and appropriate as external link.--Melvinthegreat 08:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you don't add this site. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. The site doesn't look like it has any actual information on it itself, it's simply a directory itself. Not the kind of site that should be added to Wikipedia at all. --Monotonehell 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Monotonehell. It is a portal to other (especially philately) sites and contains no valuable information in itself. I would not add it to any page. Arnoutf 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to add site  on the postage stamps external links. 

message: I really don´t think it´s is neccessary to provide a source for the exact length of service time, but here is one
§ 3 of the "Wehrpflichtgesetz" 
Which is to be found at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/__3.html
I´m sorry but i guess there will be no better source in english on the internet unless the whole body of german law would be translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
: I am not sure for which article this may be appropriate, but thanks anyway. Arnoutf 10:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  service time 

message: The cite book template at present does not seem to allow for a chapter written by particular authors in a book which is edited by other particular editors.  Have I missed something or is this currently not implemented? --CloudSurfer 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to be "chapter" and "editor" fields in addition to the author and title fields; I expect using those appropriately will produce something like the desired result. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I wasn't looking down the page enough on Template:Citation. On Wikipedia:Citation_templates it is there as well, but only under the encyclopedia section.  To make it easier, it should be in the book area as well. --CloudSurfer 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter in a book