Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 →


Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject TUGS

As part of the above mentioned Wikiproject, I am making a solo attempt to completely refurbish, copyedit and basically glam up all articles related to the 1988 children's television series TUGS. But the problem is, this series was made in 1988 and has since been completely forgotten about, with no official website, just except a handful of fansites and a couple of mentions here and there. What do you do for citing sources in a case like this, where no official sources are apparent? Thanks --SteelersFan UK06 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Best would be to dive into the archives of 1988 and find the original press coverage. However, that would not be feasible to most editors. So you will propably have to do with the fansites; weak sources as they are. Arnoutf 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your help i knew i could count on you guys =) --SteelersFan UK06 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You might try getting scripts or transcripts. As mentioned somewhere above, it would not make for a particularly interesting article, but still... Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on and accept original research. You will never get far if you disallow it. I strongly oppose your rules. You know you are being really stupid about this. Your stupidity and panoraidity will not go unnoticed for long. I will make sure original research is allowed because we can not verify all content. No your fear of original research must stop at ONCE! I will complain to the Original Research Allowers. They think you are being stupid. You better allow it or I will ban you off for good. Beware! of the reseults and take action right now to avoid trouble and jail. The Original Research Allowers will put anyone who hates original research in jail for life! Fairycart 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, ok I do not see any curve in the earth (personal observation) hence I deduce the earth is flat after all (QED). Nice bit of original research from me; let's rewrite Wikipedia..... And that is why original research is not allowed. Btw I LOVE original research, that's why I am a scientist, I publish it in peer reviewed journal though, not on Wiki ;-) Arnoutf 10:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's very likely that there are no secondary sources about individual episodes or characters, so the articles will probably need to be deleted or possibly merged into one list. 17Drew 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
One alternative solution is to create your own primary sources on the Internet via a web site. Because editors look at on-line sources more than printed, if you publish the hard-copy information to your personal web site, then you can reference it on Wikipedia. I've seen this work in several situations, such as Brat Pack where virtually 100-percent of the article is based on a hard-copy magazine article. If you don't have the energy to create your own site, try contacting those other fansites and see if you can incorporate your newly found information into them. I've actually been told by one editor to do this as a way to stay within the rules of Wikipedia. Groink 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing the web

Is it standard to use a title that describes what is on the page rather than the title that appears on the page for websites that are not news articles? Lara♥Love 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally use the title that appears in the title bar if there's not one on the page itself. 17Drew 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

URL Refs vs. Tag Refs - tags preferred: proposal

This discussion (Reference styles section) leads me to believe that the URL method[1] of writing citations is not the preferred method of referencing, whereas the ref tag method[1] is considered the correct way. While we can never eliminate the use of URL tags, I think we should discourage them.

I propose that the WP:CITE page (and other related pages) make mention of the fact that the REF TAG method is preferred over the URL method, and that the URL method should be discouraged.

Comments? Timneu22 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. For example when providing a showcase in a list (e.g. the list of museums in the Utrecht (city) article I would use a weblink (but not numbered), whereas when I use the information as a source for the article I think the ref method is the best way. So yes, with this caveat, I fully support your idea. Arnoutf 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The "preference for ref tags over URLs" proposal isn't for lists, just for inline citations. You are correct that the museum list in that article should be weblinks. I'm glad you support this idea. I'll wait for a few more... Timneu22 19:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I find external jumps mid article, distracting and misleading, I wouldn't use them. I also support discouraging external jump only citations mid article for the same reason. IvoShandor 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
THIS DISCUSSION MOVED BELOW: #Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use! Timneu22 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of citations

How many is too many?

Seems a tad bit overdone to me. Dreadstar † 09:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Should Harvard Referencing be deprecated?

WP:CITE lists two methods for inline citations: Harvard Referencing or footnotes with "ref" tags, in that order.

It appears to me, overwhelmingly, that the latter method is more commonly used. The last 10 featured articles have all used inline citations with ref tags. Offhand, I can't recall the last time I saw a FA with Harvard referencing. It has probably happened...but not recently, and certainly not very often.

When I joined Wikipedia, I used Harvard Referencing for a number of articles that I created, since it was the option listed first. I now regret that, as those articles look odd now. I know that in one article I worked on, other editors came in later, and as part of an FA push (which was successful), converted all of the inline cites to use ref tags.

At this point, is it fair to say that "the people have spoken," and Harvard Referencing is the less preferred option? At the very least, I think it should be listed second, with a comment that "ref" tags are preferred by most editors. Marc Shepherd 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Harvard referencing is alive and well, thanks. There's no reason to worry about it - it isn't better or worse than the footnote method. I don't really understand why there is so much concern about Harvard referencing, when it's still a very common style in journals. Moreover, this guideline is not just for featured articles, which must meet the idiosyncratic interpretations of the FA reviews; it's a general recommendation for all articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not passing any judgment on which method is better. I'm just making the empirical observation that, overwhelmingly, it seems that the "ref" style has prevailed on English Wikipedia, to a point where it is now considerably more common. This is not merely true in Featured Articles (which purport to represent the best of Wikipedia), but all over the site generally. Marc Shepherd 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A comment on Harvard / Footnote. In my line of work (applied social psychology) I prefer Harvard because you can deduct a lot about the underlying assumptions/position in a paper or report if you know who the cited authors are. This is particularly useful for a field where there is a lot of disagreement about models and paradigms (such as in social sciences). For Wiki purposes, however, it is essential that we present a view that is as balanced as possible and reflect all points of view. For such purposes the Harvard style has not such an explicit benefit (as you try to exclude pov and assumptions of models as much as possible). So, yes there are objective reasons for using Harvard; although perhaps not for most Wiki articles, but that is something else. Arnoutf 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Another reason to continue to recommend Harvard is that if an article is found on a site with a suitable copyright license status, and the article uses Harvard citations, the article could be copied as-is into Wikipedia. Or, an author who wrote for a publication that requires Harvard citations could copy it to Wikipedia too, if the agreement with the publisher allows him/her to do so. (This assumes, of course, the article is suitable for Wikipedia.) --Gerry Ashton 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting Harvard Referencing would go away. There are almost 2 million articles in English Wikipedia. Harvard Referencing could very well be employed on tens of thousands of them. It's not going away. I'm just wondering whether it remains appropriate to list "ref" tags and Harvard as two equivalent styles, with Harvard listed first? Marc Shepherd 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Do the Harvard citation templates work, and if so, could someone give me an example of an article that uses them? The footnote method with "ref" tags works, and provides a link from the superscript down to the footnote at the bottom of the page, and another link to go back up to the text. The Harvard citation template claims to do this, but I didn't find any article where it seemed to work. I think it's good style to name the authors and year in the text. I don't see why you can't do this and then put a ref-style footnote after it, too, like this (Smith and Jones, 1960)[2] that goes to the full citation. If footnote style is used more often, I think it's a good idea to describe it first on this page, as Marc Sheppard suggested, though perhaps without any comment about which is preferred. --Coppertwig 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
One example of what I think you are asking for is Taboo. The <ref>s use {{Harvnb}} templates to generate clickable links in the Notes section to matching named elements which are generated by the {{Citation}} templates which mark items in the Referneces section. No backlinks are provided from the References section items — it is necessary to use the browser's Back button (or alt-left-arrow, or whatever) to retrace the history of pages viewed. -- Boracay Bill 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
THIS DISCUSSION MOVED BELOW: #Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use! Timneu22 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup

Hello fellow editors. Could an admin please add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup to the See Also section - I can't due to the protection. Thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t believe the goals of this project, specifically maximizing the use of citation templates, are compatible with this guideline, which does not encourage their use. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the project is still in its infancy (e.g. illustrated by goals that do not follow this guideline as observed above). It was after all only started 2 weeks ago. I would suggest to let it develop to maturity first before requesting to add it to this page. That time lage will allow time to resolve such issues before there is a semi-official endorsement of the project through its linking from here. Arnoutf 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I'll come back later. Thanks for the advice. Onnaghar tl ! co 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Could "BLP" be replaced with "biography of a living person"?

{{editprotected}}

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

Seems reasonable. Done. --- RockMFR 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use!

The two sections on this page...

... both point to the fact that the Footnote style of referencing is the preferred method. I believe we should make this point known. When this page is unprotected, I recommend the following:

  1. Add more of an introduction in the Inline citations section, discussing the three types of referencing methods and their pros/cons. State what has been stated here: footnotes are recommended.
  2. Reorder the Inline citations section so that footnotes are first (they are recommended). Embedded links second? Probably up for debate but you see where I'm going.
  3. Make it clear to the user — while several methods DO exist, we like footnotes.

Comments? Timneu22 10:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the consensus that multiple reference styles are acceptable is extremely longstanding. Two sections don't demonstrate otherwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Christopher Parham, just a few editors putting up their opinion, which is contested in the mentioned sections as well, is not an illustration of anything more than that there are some editors who prefer a certain used style (which is tautological because there would not be articles in that style if there were no editors preferring it). Not an indication of Wiki community preference; let alone consensus whatsoever. Arnoutf 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Parham's comment somewhat misstates the case. What is longstanding is not consensus, but the lack of it. The guideline reads the way it does, because editors could not agree. The result is one of the few Wikipedia style guidelines that fails to recommend a style.

Whatever one's personal preference may be, does anyone here deny that footnotes with "ref" tags have become, overwhelmingly, the most commonly used inline citation method on English Wikipedia? Has not the time come to recognize this? Marc Shepherd 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some freedom of choice makes editors happy. Guidelines should support the editing process and not put it in a straightjacket. Therefore I am an active fan of guidelines that allow different possibilities.
Yes the ref tags are most commonly used. Yes I would be happy to acknowledge that this is most common. No I would not be happy to change the text to reflect any preference of one style over another. Arnoutf 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, but then we should at least add the stuff I mentioned to the Inline citations section: REF tags are most prominent. And we need to add pros/cons: URL links in mid-sentence are ugly, REF tags may not be easily grasped, etc. It's fine to say "here are three methods", but my gosh there's no direction given as to why or when a user should use what. A new editor won't know what to do or why there are multiple methods, because WP:CITE just says "here are ways to do it." I think it should be mentioned — at the very least — that the REF tags are the most popular. And that they are prettier. ;-) Timneu22 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I question whether they are the most popular -- far more users employ embedded links than anything else, I would be willing to wager, simply because they are much simpler. The problem with pros and cons is that its not clear there would be any agreement on what the pros and cons are. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is quite difficult for newish editors to grasp the complexities of the 3 (or more) different ways to go about referencing and citations, (and footnotes), and a style guideline should give clearer instructions. Harvard referencing has its uses. URL's in the middle of text are ugly. Where Harvard referencing has been used correctly in an article, there should be no wholesale changing unless the concerned editors agree on the talk-page. And Harvard referencing should be continued to be used where appropriate under the same provisions. But please, somewhere the Ref or Ref-notes system has to be explained clearly, at the moment all one can do is poke around in articles, and try to pick up what best practice is by *osmosis*. Editors should have freedom to use all of the types of Referencing available in Wikipedia - they are so many, and clearly written instructions would be most appreciated. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as making the instructions clearer, that would be fine. How do you think the section on footnotes could be made more clear? (note however that the main page for detailed advice on footnotes is not this one, but WP:FOOT) Christopher Parham (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Newbyguesses. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and lately I've been thinking why do some articles use footnotes and others use Harvard; what's up with the ugly URLs? There are no clearly-written instructions. We need to give some examples about best practices. As for explaining how to make REF tags easier, I don't think they are hard at all, but we can address that later. I think a pros/cons chart will be pretty easy to do, if people are just open-minded. Here's a quick summary as a starting point.
Reference Style Advantages Disadvantages
URL links[2]
  • Easy to use. Just add [http://www.google.com] within the sentence, and the link is created.
  • Readers and editors often find the links distracting in the middle of text.
  • Unsuitable for many high-quality sources (peer-reviewed research papers, books)
Footnotes[3]
  • Aestheitcally pleasing. These tags tend to be less distracting than other methods.
  • Creates automatic reference list (usually at the bottom of an article).
  • Easy ability to use the same reference multiple times in the article.
  • To some users, the use of <ref> tags may not be intuitive.
  • Incorrect use of these tags (forgetting to add a closing tag, for instance) could cause problems with page rendering.
Harvard Referencing (www.google.com)
  • Easy to add - just put text in parentheses.
  • Unlike footnotes, the reference for a statement can be found without additional clicks.
  • May be distracting within the middle of text.
  • No automatic reference list

This ugly table and comment were done by Timneu22 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Christopher Parham, my viewpoint here is obviously that of a novice. WP:FOOT is a separate GL, and I did not want to widen the scope of the discussion concerning thispage unnecessarily. What I would suggest, is that all info on REf be in one place, and that on Harvard a separate para, or sect. I would wish for something along the lines of a how-to guide. How-to-reference, step by step. In the meantime, I must admit I have not read the guideline through completely enough times yet to have specific helpful criticisms. But I will be trying to get up to speed. Referencing is key, as verifiabilty is key. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of that is completely subjective, though; why are footnotes aesthetically pleasing and the others distracting? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also,
  • regarding URL links[3], the requirement here that "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article." is generally ignored.
  • Footnotes[4] and Harvard Referencing (www.google.com) can be combined. This is done, for example, in the Taboo article. -- Boracay Bill 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Add to advantages of Harvard referencing: Use of the author's name as the subject of a sentence is often convenient to avoid weasel words. ("Helps avoid weasel words" for short?) Re combining footnotes and Harvard referencing: I think "Harvard referencing" refers to a style in which the authors' names appear in the text. The Taboo article does not do this. It does use the templates which are usually used with Harvard referencing. (Maybe someone could still provide a good example of a page that uses Harvard referencing?) Under advantages of footnotes: "automatic links down to the reference list and back". Under advantages of Harvard referencing: "automatic links down to the reference list (but not back)". (assuming that the templates are used.) --Coppertwig 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the specifics of style guidelines regarding the construction of inline references to endmatter material which might be laid down by a Harvard referencing system style manual. In practice, several styles are used, and styles are often mixed. (see this). Regarding the example you are looking for, see Albert Einstein, Alexander III of Scotland, Alexios II Komnenos, Bengali language, Brigham Young. You can probably find other examples among the list of pages here. --Boracay Bill 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have been working on this article. Several references have been added to the article, improving it (Harvard and REF are both used in the article). The task ahead of me, in just *tidying* that Footnote-reffs section, will be more arduous than actually finding the REFFs and writng some text was. I like tidy REFFS, but the work is difficult, and could be less so, if a *how-to* style guide was in place. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just incidentally, I've come across this, which indicates that the Harvard system traces back to a paper published in 1881 by Edward Laurens Mark, with parenthetical inline citations in that paper looking like "(75, p.5)" indicating the item number of the full citation in an endmatter list and the relevant page number in the cited item. -- Boracay Bill 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To Christopher Parham, I say that, yes, this is somewhat subjective. However, the goal here is to give new users an easier time. These "subjective" statements are coming from people who have been around for a while and can see the good/bad of different styles. Why are footnotes more attractive? I don't know, but multiple users on here have stated this, so it is certainly a "pro". After getting all this feedback, I'm sure that we need to add this chart. We should also add, as Boracay Bill mentioned, that all types of styles can be mixed on one article, but again it seems a best practice would be to stick with one style for an article. Also, Coppertwig, where to Harvard references link down but not back? It's only text, that I've ever seen. Timneu22 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the title of this discussion, Merge two sections into one - tell users which method to use!- For me, it is more a question of - Tell'm HOW TO reference, explain different methods, if the methods are different, and discuss which method works best when we all know HOW the methods (are supposed to) work. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have opined previously (not on this subthread) that I believe that this particular guideline article should limit itself to, as the article intro says, "describing how to write citations in articles." rather than to veer off (arguably — I see it as veering off, some others do not) into questions regarding where in the article these properly-constructed citations should be placed and whether/how they should be linked/backlinked. I was shouted down on that, and I consider it to be an argument lost. Rots of ruck. -- Boracay Bill 12:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Add to disadvantages of footnotes: (I think) if a large number of <ref></nowki> tags are used in an article, it significantly slows down the page loading or rendering, to view the page or to view a diff link of the page. The user has to wait, and perhaps it takes up the time of the Wikimedia servers. I think it depends mainly on the number of <nowiki><ref></nowki> tags even if many of these go to the same few footnotes. I wonder whether it's feasible to make the software more efficient. I don't know whether the Harvard citation templates have the same problem. I think superscripts rendered with <nowiki><sup> do not have this problem to any significant degree, but they don't provide the automatic links and other benefits. --Coppertwig 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Why Harvard references are distracting: Most people who come to the Wikipedia for information are probably not interested in the references. I expect the vast majority of references are simply ignored, read over. Harvard references add a chunk of text, irrelevant to most people, into the middle of a sentence, which the reader must skip over. A paper with lots of these refs can become quite tiresome to read. Footnotes can be ignored more easily. Since most people probably choose to ignore refs, footnotes make the Wikipedia more accessable for most users. Remember, the Wikipedia is not a paper in a scientific journal. The people reading it are not necesserally super smart, and are not out to check the correctness of a paper, as they may be in a journal. Rocketmagnet 09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You will find that an significant number of people find footnotes more distracting than Harvard referencing. As with American/British spelling, everyone has some preference they use when writing their own articles, but changing existing articles just leads to arguments. It isn't really worth discussing again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is not about changing existing articles. This is about making it more clear which is the preferred method (which is apparently refs). Rocketmagnet 11:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have, out of sheer frustration with the existing possibilities, switched to using Harvard refs as footnotes and citing a nice alphabetical list of sources - to which the footnotes refer - separately; it is interesting to see (Taboo) that others have come to the same conclusion. It was a bit odd at first, but I found it to satisfy the needs of the inexperienced editor (as the ref tags are kept brief) and the professional scholar (as there is a neat ref list rather than an arbitrary hodgepodge).
That (Harvard references within ref-tagged footnote, separate alphabetized list of references) is my preferred style as well. Two more advantages of this style over putting everything directly into a ref: (1) it's easier to read and edit the source text of the article because it isn't as broken up by the long references, and (2) listing the references alphabetically in a single place within the article's source text makes it easier to keep them formatted consistently with each other. I will still use un-footnoted harvard cites when I want to use the author's name as part of the prose, though. I find {{citation}} and {{harv}} (or {{harvnb}} or {{harvtxt}}) very helpful for this referencing style. —David Eppstein 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That "Wikipedia is not a paper in a scientific journal" is no excuse for sloppy reference lists, which are off-putting to scientists and other experts which do on occasion consult WP (and which are the single social group - apart from political extremists with NPOV problems - which still pooh-poohs WP). The cite template will always be crufty and is decidedly non-intuitive to use, and only using tags results in a list that is so chaotic as to render it useless to the professional (look at Archaeopteryx#Footnotes for example. What a mess that is!). Sources and footnotes are not the same thing even in print media, and WP should not strive to lower itself under an already-existing standard but rather use its advantages to achieve a standard that no print encyclopedia can ever dream to reach.
Altogether I find none of the existing preferences to be able to provide a clean (referencing-wise and code-wise) possibility to properly and thoroughly source an article - at least not with some decidedly non-standard tweaking. Thus I can only conclude that, until a properly working and especially scaleable system exists, none should be unequivocally recommended over the others. Dysmorodrepanis 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(←) There is no preferred method, as there is no preference between American and British spelling. And as with the spelling issue, I don't think that discussion to find a preferred method will go anywhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we could well advise users against using "pure" URL refs except if it works best. Of all methods, URL links provide the least information to the reader, and I for one try to avoid them whenever possible. There is the occasional case where an URL link might even be the preferred way - usually if the linked page has no title, author and whatever else is needed to properly cite a source. In 99% of cases (and that's actually - roughly - the empirical proportion I have found in my edits) a Web source should be citeable via tags.
If an editor is too inexperienced to use tags, s/he can stil use the "URL link" cite, to be corrected later. But for the experienced editor, URL links should come last on the list. Using them without need is to throw away information, and that is, I think, the cardinal sin in an encyclopedia, especially in the world's greatest. Dysmorodrepanis 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support getting rid of Harvard refs and standardising on Wikipedia refs (<ref></ref> and <ref>{{cite web|etc|etc}}</ref>).--Gronky 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the reference is just a link, an inline link is preferable - the target is just one click away. Merely moving a link reference to the "references" section, without adding the full details of a proper citation template, puts it two clicks away and makes navigation up more difficult. You can't just right click and open a reference in a new tab or window, like you can a link.
If a full citation template is provided, then a reference is justified, but if it's just a link, it may not be worth the trouble. If a reference is just a URL, with no user-readable text at all, then putting it in the reference section is clearly undesirable. --John Nagle (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the project page of this article, under Inline citations and Embedded links says:
“ Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this: [4]

As with all inline citation methods, a full reference would also be required in a "References" section at the end of the article, e.g.

Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice.

 ”
As I read that, it's not a matter of "If a full citation template is provided, ..." — this style guideline requires that a full reference be provided in a "References" section at the end of the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Genres

I need to know if genres need to be sourced, because Hoponpop69 keeps going to random band articles and adding citation needed tags to the genres, when they've been up for months and nobody objected to them. Tim Y (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline page says, "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." The policy page WP:V says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I don't believe that any exception to this exists for music genres in band articles.
Perhaps one or more reliable sources for establishing what genres apply for rock bands need to be identified. Also, perhaps more Music genre articles and associated Genreboxes need to be created — I noticed that in the Good Charlotte dispute regarding Genre citations, the genre Synth Rock has a genre article but no genrebox. (note: I am no expert in the subject area of musical genres or of rock bands, as may be obvious). -- Boracay Bill 01:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Patents

Paul Abrahams 23:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)It would be a good idea to have a citation template for patents. I needed to cite a patent and could not find anything about a standard form for doing so.

Inline, I use {{patent|US|1234567|"Soft Collar"}} which generates US patent 1234567 "Soft Collar" using Template:Patent. Alternatively {{cite patent|US|1234567|title="Soft Collar"}} generates US patent 1234567 using Template:Cite patent. Either of these can be enclosed in ref tags. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to use a template, The APA Publication Manual (5th ed., p. 410) offers this suggestion:
Smith, I. M. (1988). U.S. Patent No. 123,445. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
--Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi-

I am Kris Peterson. I wrote my own bio. All sources were right from the person (S) cited. RE: Jobriath: I was there and knew that he was the first openly gay performer. My parents: anything referring to them were told to me by them. I was there and knew all to be the truth with everything stated .

Kris Peterson (Ladyinabag). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyinabag (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all writing your autobiography on Wikipedia is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Second, you imply that your sourcs are comments by certain people. I think in most cases this will be considered as original research, (sse WP:OR) which is not considered an acceptable source in the Wikipedia community. Consider whether you want to take this (your own) biography further or maybe you should leave it. Arnoutf 17:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Emails?

Can you use an email you have received from someone as a source? Can it be uploaded or something? --SteelersFan UK06 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a published source, and thus not appropriate. How would other editors confirm that the email is accurate? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do have the Wikipedia:OTRS system (not that it was ever intended for this purpose).--Pharos 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that OTRS can handle verifying emails. The best thing is if the sender of the emails publishes the contents in a verifiable format. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In scientific literature such a source can sometimes be used in special circumstances (although it is considered as an extremely weak source). If you use such a source the reference would be something like "John Smith (2007) Personal communication". If e-mails, or just a conversation with someone, are ever to be allowed in Wiki, the "personal communication" identifier is in my opinion essential.
However I am personally against this format as it is not verifiable; and secondly allows untrusthworthy editors to introduce their chat with a pal as a source. Arnoutf 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) The issue in question was that a number of IP's were adding a new member to the band The Rumble Strips, but i reverted it because it was not added on the bands website or myspace page. I went as far as to email the band's manager, and he confirmed that the new addition was actually a member of the band. Their website has not confirmed this, so I wanted to use the actual email. --SteelersFan UK06 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, so wouldn't they have just added to their myspace page, like, tomorrow? If we're ever gonna go to the trouble of verifying e-mails, it probably shouldn't be for "breaking news", but rather for things we aren't likely ever to get sources on, like the biographical details of some obscure 1920s Soviet academic, e-mailed by his son who's now a tax assessor in Illinois.--Pharos 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a recognized author using an email as a source for the author's writing, and a Wikipedia editor using an email for a Wikipedia article. The recognized author and the publisher can, to some degree, be trusted to really have possession of the email, and to have taken reasonable steps to assure it really was written by the purported email author. A Wikipedia editor is someone or something that creates electrical signals that may or may not be signs of intelligent life on Earth. --Gerry Ashton 04:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in cases where it is verified that the e-mail belongs to this person, and if OTRS or some other system can verify e-mails (frankly I'm uncertain of the technical details, but I do know it is relied on for image permissions) and the information is valuable and cannot be attained in another manner, I think this might be a tool to consider.--Pharos 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source and not use primary sources to be the first to publish a fact or idea. 17Drew 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing on the content of emails being problematic, but I'd nitpick with that "definition". Wikipedia may be viewed as a tertiary source and currently by policy does not seek to be the publisher of original ideas, but I think that it is a different thing to saying that is what it is supposed to be. What it seeks to be is a free encyclopedia. Other policies at the moment seek to define how it is developed with a view to a means of quality control. Whether the membership of the Rumblestrips is really encyclopedic is another debate, but there is an argument that if they are considered worthy enough to have a page, then there should be no issue with the information being as accurate as possible with reasonable evidence. Is it verifiable? Arguably, the emailer has used a reasonable process: there is unverified information, they have gone to a reputable source and got confirmation. If someone is concerned they can always email again. For this type of article, perhaps we should not be too precious. After all, there are no good scientific or historical papers ever going to be published. Spenny 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Spenny: "Arguably, the emailer has used a reasonable process." Emailer is ambiguous, I don't know if you meant the Wikipedia editor who asked a question or the question-answerer who replied. It doesn't matter; the entire exchange was reported by a Wikipedia editor, and all Wikipedia editors are unreliable.
"If someone is concerned they can always email again." No! It would usually be inappropriate for the Wikipedia editor to provide the e-mail address of the person who provided confirmation, e-mail addresses are subject to frequent changes, and it is unreasonable to expect an individual to reply to queries from Wikipedia readers forever. One problem with such an expectation is the person who provided confirmation will eventually die, and then will be unable to answer e-mails. --Gerry Ashton 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is privacy violation. It is not always allowed to publish personal data that you have received in confidence (such as an e-mail) address without explicit agreement of the sender. I for one would object to have my e-mail address being published on wiki as that would make me very vulnerable to spam. Such privace issues would limit the use of such e-mail source very much (and there are other objections - see my other arguments). Arnoutf 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) I am adamantly against allowing e-mails as sources. That would allow inclusion of opinions that in themselves have no value. We have to acknowledge that there are editors with a hidden agenda and a lack of scientific rigour; hence we should not allow such a subjective loophole in our sourcing guidelines. (Consider one flat earth supporter mailing another flat earth supporter that the world is actually a disc rather than a sphere. The first flat earth supporter suddenly has a source to include in article about the world--- No please, a source should be better than that).Arnoutf 17:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There might conceivably be situations when an e-mail would be acceptable as a source, but I can't think of an example offhand. I would not be inclined to revise the policy to include e-mail, as it is likely to invite citations that are mostly unreliable. If the band Rumblestrips is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia, there should be citable published sources listing its membership. The lack of such a source strongly indicates that Rumblestrips simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia to begin with. When a fact so fundamental as the band's membership can only be ascertained by e-mailing the band, what does that tell you? Marc Shepherd 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think at some point we have to come to terms with the schizophrenic nature of Wiki. There is the academic encyclopaedia, then there is the encyclopaedic repository of other stuff. I think most of the discontent over policy is the stuff bit. The trouble is that you can throw away the "stuff", but then does Wiki lose the magic know-all reputation that might just be the critical mass that makes it the thing it is? The "other stuff" is well suited to the original "many eyeballs" approach of validation and not well-suited to the reliable sources. The point about Rumblestrips notability is well made on the one hand, but I am sympathetic to the lower bar of inclusion that if a group of people are notable enough to have a fan base, then what is the harm? On the basis of little harm, then the policy we are interested in is NPOV, not verifiability.
Fundamentally, why be so up tight about policy on the fluffy end of Wiki? (Just a thought!) Spenny 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against the fluffy end. However I am against introducing dubious sources in any type of article. I would rather see a 'fluffy' article that lacks sources, than one disguised as a 'stuff' article through addition of many weak sources. Arnoutf 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a good take on the issue - the drive for citation producing a false sense of accuracy. A well edited uncited article is a better bet than one with dubious references. We see it in more solid articles too, and I think it is one of the reasons why Wikipedia would benefit from a "quality" vs. "interesting, but at your own risk". Probably more for the village pump, but I think the drive for verification through citation rather than oversight has lost the scope. The community at large seems to want the know-all Wikipedia, and is happy with the health warning. People are often only looking to more dubious sources of verification as they wish to defend truth over verification on essentially unimportant matters, it seems to me. Spenny 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have echoed this point that a well edited uncited article is a better bet than one with dubious references to WT:V and WT:RS, suggesting that this point be made explicitly on the assiciated project pages. -- Boracay Bill 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There exists another name for the "verification through oversight" that you propose: Wikiality. Regards, High on a tree 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"I am adamantly against allowing e-mails as sources" - well, there are things like the DML which (despite the problem of a claim in a mail being refuted as the thread progesses) are certainly much more reliable than the usual newsfeed. Reliability of sources should be the issue, and the DML is the place where people like Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. go to discuss issues nearly, but not quite, fit for publication, and - more importantly - to nitpick the stuff that slipped through peer review. If one of the DML bigwigs picks apart a paper and the others agree, it's safe to say that this publication - no matter it being peer-reviewed, published in a scientific journal and whatnot - is not good to cite without comment.
However, I am ~100% against pers. comm. A source on WP needs to be as reliable and verifiable as possible, as far as I'm concerned. "Personal communication" may be reliable, but it's hardly ever verifiable. Basically, to me it's "can the author(s) be taken seriously?" and "can even average Joes/Janes, with the information I will provide, follow up on the source and check the facts themselves?". If the answer is "yes" on both counts, source is cool, if not, search for another one. Dysmorodrepanis 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One has to wonder how one could reasonably avoid citing email in articles discussing the effect of those emails.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an example?. Anyway, I think discussing the effect of an e-mail would require secondary sources; otherwise the editor is interpreting the effects; which is original researchArnoutf (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Video as source

To Whom It May Concern:

For the Wikipedia page on Alan Nathan, you have the words "citation needed" at the end of the third line as per the following:


"Nathan's style is noted for its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic.[citation needed]"


Below is the "citation" from a leading authority in the broadcast field. I hope the audio/video url referenced will suffice.


“One of the most unusual talk shows in the business because he is a radical moderate. It terrified me the first time I was on because within 30 seconds I realized I was playing in a very difficult sport. It’s a brilliant show and he is a brilliant moderator.” -- MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor & Publisher, Talkers Magazine - STATED DURING INTRODUCTIONS AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION/TALKERS MAGAZINE PANEL DISCUSSION, September 27, 2002

Here's the audio/video url:

http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/lect020927.ram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecentrist (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The line from your source states he is a brilliant moderator; so you can put that in; but it does not quantify this brilliance as "its speed, skilled debate, and rigorous logic." so you would still need a reference for these claims. Arnoutf 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See also

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

Harvard referencing + footnotes

  1. Harvard referencing is extremely useful because of it's functionality: it is a very nice touch to be able to click on (Crevier 1993) have that take you to the list of references. It should not be deprecated, because this functionality would be lost.
  2. Footnotes take up less space and just plain look better. They also make it easy to see a glance whether the article has sources.

So, my solution has been to use both. See History of artificial intelligence.

I tried to build a "harvard footnote" template that looks like this {{hf|Crevier|1993|p=234}} but works like this <ref>{{Harvnb|Crevier|1993|p=234}}</ref> but I couldn't get it to work: it comes out with "CITEREF" in the footnote. Any suggestions? ---- CharlesGillingham 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After glancing through the discussion above, I've noticed that others have mentioned that Taboo uses the same system I did. ---- CharlesGillingham 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not documented, but the Ref parameter of {{harvnb}} and the ref parameter of {{Citation}} (note the uppercase vs. lowercase difference) can be used to suppress the CITEREF, e.g.
vs.
which hook respectively to:
  • Dawkins (1986)  using #whatever
and
  • Dawkins (1986)  using #CITEREFDawkins1986 -- Boracay Bill 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me with citations?

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to start with just a couple of pages for now because I'm really busy lately.

I made a page on Moshpit Tragedy Records. There are links to two real sources which mention Moshpit Tragedy on the page. I don't know how to do the citations so I was wondering if someone had time just to do a couple.

There is a whole list of news about the label from this reliable music news webpage here:

The first link is about one of Moshpit Tragedy's bands filming a profession video. The next is about one of their bands from Finland having new lvie footage available. The next talks about one of their new releases, etc etc...

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=moshpit+tragedy&x=0&y=0

please just check it out, maybe give it a quick citation if you know how, I just don't have time to figure it out. Thanks!

moshpit_tragedy@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.1.188 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Referencing is a lot of hard work. You are probably the person best suited to provide the references yourself, and anyone, I think there are only a few editors happy doing the hard work for articles they are not personally involved in.If you do have time to create articles but not to provide references I would advice to create fewer articles; or help editing on article with many involved editors. In any case my advice would be to learn the editing style.
Basically what you do with referencing is supporting statement put as fact that maybe controversial. For example if you state in an article: "European people do not trust their national governments" this is a controversial fact. Such a fact needs support. If you now have found a study from a good source (e.g. a scientific journal) stating somewhere "The evidence in this paper shows clearly that there is not trust in the national governments by the citizens of Europe" you have your source. (Note that if your statement is as highly controversial as this one there will be discussion about the reliability of the source and pamphlets that maybe acceptable for less controversial claims will be thrown out).
For every fact that you bring anew into an article you must be able and willing to give a source the more so, the more a fact is more likely to be challenged.
Section 3 of this article explains in some detail how to do the referencing. The creator of an article is free to choose from the three styles (the inline style seems the most common at the moment).
I hope this helps you. Arnoutf 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've written some advice, and helped with the article a little. See Talk:Moshpit Tragedy Records ---- CharlesGillingham 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added a bit of info on categories and projects. Dysmorodrepanis 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question of placement

This is a situation that I've seen in a handful places, with variations, so I'll use a generic example for my question. In an article that uses inline citations, suppose there's a section where two sources have been used for the entire contnent. How, mechanically, should these be cited? -- that is, where should the <ref>s go? For added confusion, suppose the section is a table, where if you put them in only one cell, it looks like only that cell's being referenced, but putting them in all cells is obviously Right Out.

Any pointers to examples/best practices appreciated. —Quasirandom 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is from my knowledge of scientific writing (at least how apply it when writing for peer reviewed scientific journals and I have not yet been corrected for this way)
In general whenever a new fact is entered into a discussion the reference has to be given. Follow up arguments do not necessarily need repitition. For example
Bla bla bla (REF A), bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Hear hear (REF A).
Bla is a follow up on the earlier referenced argument and thus needs no new reference if it is from the same source; if it is from another source, a ref can and preferably is given though. Hear is a new argument and thus needs new reference even if it is the same source.
For the table the answer is fairly straigthforward. If you get the whole table from a source add the reference to the table header (or similar). You see this regularly in scientific journals more or less like "Table X. Bigfoot appearance (adapted from Smith, 2001)"
If the table is self compiled from different sources, each cell requires a reference. Or if you combine full columns or rows, you can add the ref to the column or row header. Hope this helps? Arnoutf 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat. Most of these tables don't have much in the way of headers, but possibly it could be worked into the introductory sentence(s). —Quasirandom 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

References vs Further reading

We need to make clear that if the sources are listed under "References" that nothing else, such as further reading, may. Hyacinth 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A tiny part of an authoritative work might be used as a reference, but that should not eliminate the entire work from possibly being a "Further reading" item. (SEWilco 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC))
I note that subject matter on this project page relating to References, Further reading, and other endmatter sections overlaps and sometimes conflicts with similar subject matter on the WP:GTL project page. -- Boracay Bill 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmph

Those [citation needed] things are very annoying. When reading a page, it's very distracting and makes me, of short attention span, very annoyed. See Once Upon a Time in America for an example. Couldn't you make some sort of script (If you haven't already, which would be great) that makes these go away, just for reading purposes? They're not exactly less annoying when they've been cited either, with this little number right next to some text. How is this justifiable, even if a statement needs a citation? --Kaizer13 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple. If a statement has a [citation needed] added to it, you can be sure it is contested (by the editor adding the tag), and no evidence to solve the doubts has been offered. This is a very important signal to all, both short attention span and critical readersnot to believe the line without very very serious second thoughts.
The other way around, the numbers show that there is support for a claim. The reader with short attention span knows the statement can be trusted, even if it seems counterintuitive. The critical leader can check whether the counterintuitive claim is indeed as fully supported as the number suggests by looking up the reference.
The referencing may reduce legibility just a little bit but that has to be taken for granted. Nevertheless, both types or citation are essential to all readers who seriously hope to get any valuable information from Wikipedia. Arnoutf 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand why they're there, and why Wikipedia seems to trust absolutely nothing but "verified sources". Without citations, you say it's not "valuable information"? I'm just asking if it's possible to turn them off and actually read the text without a lot of retarded small numbers disrupting the flow of the text. --Kaizer13 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Try this:
  1. Use the Firefox browser
  2. Download and install the Web Developer Extension from http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/
  3. Create a local stylesheet named nosup.css, containing one line: sup { display:none; }
  4. In the Web Developer Extension toolbar click CSS->Add user style sheet and add the nosup.css style sheet
  5. If/when you want to display superscripts again, click ✔CSS->Add user style sheet to turn the checkmark off
-- Boracay Bill 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A good deal of the disruptive effect is caused by the primitive way most web browsers handle superscript numbers--as colored markers that disturb the line spacing. Properly composed text--even microsoft word quality text--renders better, even on screen, by using relatively fixed spacing and smaller numbers. If we had a convenient way of rendering the pages as pdf format,the visual effect would be much better. DGG (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a lot! --Kaizer13 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Kaizer is bang on. We need a "hide tags" button. There are many potential advantages, not just ease of reading.qp10qp 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree Is this a feature request for Wikimedia? ---- CharlesGillingham 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In a well-written article, inline citations are not really that distracting. They can be distracting if a less-skilled editor throws in stacks upon stacks of superfluous cites, and unfortunately that does happen sometimes.

I do agree that {{citation needed}} is distracting. It is meant to be. Marc Shepherd 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing page numbers

So, I just found out about the <ref name=""> method of citing multiple times from the same source, but I can't figure out how to add page numbers into these, and I would really keep those annoying tags off the top of articles that complain about page numbers being missing from cites. Help? Murderbike 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't really add varied page numbers; that's the disadvantage. Whatever reference you write out will come up for every repeat tag. What you can do, obviously, is make multiple refs for a particular page or page range. In that case, you simply write out the page number or page range between the arrows in the master ref. This is useful if, as often happens, one needs to make several references to a small page range. Here's a very simple example: Bruno Liljefors. The whole article is reffed to nine pages of one book. I don't think I'm in the majority in this, but I like to repeat all the reference information for each multiple tag. My reasons are that it prevents a mess up if someone cuts the master ref, and that it makes it clear on the edit page what the reference contains, which the truncated refs don't. qp10qp 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
there ar workarounds--I give the general ref , and then simply put the page number after it , generally in parenthesies, or as a subscript. I think its worth the doing. Most of the time, the individual exact pages are not actually necessary unless it is extraordinarily controversial, and I say something like (pp. 9 – 14).DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There are several ways to add page numbers. One can be seen in the working draft mentioned in the Request for feedback section following this one. Another way which is used in some articles is something like "<ref name=whatever>The citation text</ref>{{Sup|p.123}}" and, elsewhere, "<Ref name=whatever/>{{Sup|p.147}}". Another way sometimes used is e.g. (Jones 2006:123) and, elsewhere (Jones 2006:147) and in a bibliography section an entry something like:
There are probably other ways as well. -- Boracay Bill 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at {{Harv|.. }} and {{Citation| ... }} templates? This handle a lot of page numbered citations to a single reference work very nicely. See History of artificial intelligence or Taboo. ---- CharlesGillingham 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. See the Request for feedback section following this one.. -- Boracay Bill 12:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for feedback

This guideline says that it is a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles.

Noticing that the Eating disorder article has a {{Citation style}} tag, I've tried to clean it up. In the cleanup process, I've done some nontraditional things which I think have improved the citation style of the article. I would appreciate feedback on whether the improvements I think I've made in the citation style of the article justify working ourside the box in ways which will no doubt confuse some future editors of the article. My current working draft with my changes is here (compare with the unmodified article here. A good side-by-side comparison can be seen by placing the References section headers at the top of the browser windows.

Nontraditional things done to this article: I've used the <span style="display:none"> trick discussed here to group all the <Ref> declarations together in a hidden span, then moved that hidden span to the top of the article. Doing that allows the display order of the expanded Reference section items to be controlled. I then reordered the items into a sensible order. One irritating artifact of this is that all the References section items now have at least two backlinks, and backlink "a" is uniformly nonfunctional. (related material this -- Boracay Bill 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, let me say that you've improved the appearance of the article considerably. It's a massive improvement. The only criticism is that there are several instances of "stacked" footnotes, such as:[3][6]. That kind of layout is distracting. It should always be possible to structure the cites differently, so that this won't be required.
Regarding "stacked footnotes", I left the referencing as it was in the original article mdash; I was only trying to address citation style. Regarding the specific example you mention, my rework changed "... and decreases eating [6]; [7]." to "... and decreases eating.[3][6]" -- Boracay Bill 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the hidden span trick, as I think it will confuse novice editors, and as you observe, it makes the backlink "a" tags "uniformly nonfunctional." Marc Shepherd 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use the hidden span trick, as it invalidates backlinks. I suggest cleaning up the footnotes by eliminating the amount of repeat info in footnotes. If you set out full information about repeat sources of footnotes (like books) in a References section, then the Footnotes section need only mention Author last name (year), p. x. See Alexithymia, but please do not use that span trick, which has been discussed at the talk page of WP:FN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
An older version which had done only that amount of cleanup work can be seen here. I considered that an improvement, but was not happy with it. I think that the hidden span version with the citations re-ordered here is much improved style-wise. The hidden span trick and the nonfunctional backlink which it produces is being discussed elsewhere, and it's been suggested that eliminating the nonfunctional backlink might be a simple and low-risk change to cite-php. A WP:VPT discussion about that may be opened up sometime soon. -- Boracay Bill 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have started a thread at WP:VPT --Slashme 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

internal links in references

I'm not sure if this page or another is the best place. What are your opinions on Internal links use in "references" or notes?

In my experience, because references serve to demonstrate the authoritativeness of the content, only links which serve that purpose further should be included (in addition to respecting the general guideline against linking something too many times in an article, this is basically an adjusted form of WP:OVERLINK). This avoids the references section becoming confused and overcharged with internal links in addition to sometimes heavy use of external links.

As such, red links and links to publishing companies (or, god forbid, locations) should be avoided. Links to works and authors who have articles are fine as long as the link is not present in the text.

For a comparison, see before and after (with additional links removed from {{The Banksia Book}} and {{The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)}}). Or before and after.

Any thoughts? Circeus 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We agreed that wikipages should not be used as reference in other wiki pages. So as source/reference it is a no-go.
Listing them in the references or sources section without inline references, could be considered not to be a breach of the above (although I think that is dubious at best). However, why should you add them there? In general related Wiki articles are listed in a "see also" section. Arnoutf 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just commenting that some wikilinking from inside citations is to some extent encouraged by impilication by the existence of the authorlink parameter of {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite conference}}, {{Cite encyclopedia}}, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite mailing list}} and by the author-link parameter of {{Citation}}. -- Boracay Bill 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. We're not talking about using am article to source another, we're talking about using another article to provide extra information about the source. Circeus 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think that linking pulishers is overkill. Surely, though, links in notes follow the same rules as links in the body of the text. Notes are often more than references: they may provide supplementary material.qp10qp 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree. My comments are specifically about references (wholly inappropriate links in content notes are a whole'nother business, but they are rare.) Circeus 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are all agreed that publishers never should be linked--its internal linkspam. But here's an example. when I give a reference to something from Physical Review Letters, I sometimes have linked it for the benefit of those who might not know how important it is. Or when I give a references from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography similarly--but there will be several thousand of each, so I'm having second thoughts. But what if it were really a unusual source, and the link is needed to show the importance? One solution in that case its to mention the name in the text, not the reference. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My feelings about wikilinks within the references:

  1. Notable authors should always be included, even if they're also linked in the text or in other references. Reasons: references are often copied and pasted between articles, and a wikilink that's present in the text of one article might not also be present in the other. The references are far enough from the text that it might not be easy to find the in-text wikilink for an author. And, the coloring of the author's name allows one to determine that a notable person was interested in the subject which may help establish the notability of the subject itself.
  2. Some author names should be redlinked. If one feels that an author is sufficiently notable for an article, but hasn't yet been written about here, redlinks are a convenient tool for collecting links to that person's work, and the list of redlinks helps establish the importance of the subject on lists such as User:Mathbot/Most wanted redlinks.
  3. Some journal names should be linked, but in general not redlinked. The main use I see for this is not the link itself, but the "what links here" page of the journal's article. But again, for the same copy-and-paste reason as authors, if it is linked, it should be linked consistently in the each reference using that journal rather than only the first one.

Basically, I don't see a sea of blue and red in the references as being a problem at all. One doesn't read references like text, so I'd rather err on the side of greater linkage and less readability. —David Eppstein 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Could someone interpret the following?

In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes.

I'm not aware of any discretion when using footnotes; the text of the footnotes are inserted into the body of the article, but are visible to the reader in a section ("References", "Notes", whatever) at the bottom. Is there really some other option? And if not, would someone please change the wording? --