WikiProject Manual of Style	Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

	WikiProject Help	HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Help ProjectHelp articles
v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Help, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the help system on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Shortcut: WT:CITE

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 14 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

Contents 1 Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates? 2 Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes 2.1 Link to discussion from July 2009 2.2 Refname footnotes [start of discussion, from the Village Pump (Policy) page] 2.3 Named references [Start of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources] 2.4 Discussion location 2.5 Postdlf's three arguments against named references 2.5.1 Discussion of Postdlf's three arguments against named references 2.6 [Why not?] 2.6.1 Content Section 2.6.2 References 2.6.3 Content Section 2.6.4 References 2.7 SmackBot is at it again 3 Regarding The Guardian/Guardian.co.uk 4 Citing BLP-controversial stories from British newspaper websites 5 Dealing with citation problems 6 Contentious statements 7 Bot from changing multi line refs to one line refs

[edit] Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates?

This subject keeps coming up. There are extensive discussions in the archive: 1, 2. Please add new comments here, not in the archive. --EnOreg (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes

Note: Discussion was started by User:Hegvald at the Village Pump (Policy) page on 17:43, 14 November 2009. User:CBM started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources later that same day. The two discussionw went on in parallel for a few days until CBM moved the original discussion to this page. It is now in the section in the blue box below. --Hegvald (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Link to discussion from July 2009

Btw, the initial discussion on list-defined refs, with good points made on both sides, is at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_26#Improving_.3Cref.3E. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Named references [Start of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]

It has been suggested that WP:CITE should have more firm guidance about replacing duplicate footnotes with the same content with multiple references to the same, named footnote (as in this edit). Right now, WP:CITE says,

"Optionally, one may add the name attribute by using <ref name="name">details of the citation</ref>. Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding <ref name="name"/>."

Apparently, AWB automatically implements this "optional" aspect, thus changing the referencing style in articles where duplicate footnotes were intentionally kept separate. Should the policy here say that named footnotes are recommended? Required? — Carl (CBM · talk)

As I noted on WP:VPP, the inconsistency encouraged by this "style guideline" is frankly, terrible. I would strongly support this, and any change that helps us move toward making articles easier to edit (as refs are one of the most confusing aspect, and having half a dozen or so different options just makes it worse). Mr.Z-man 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When refs need to be repeated multiple times in an article, it is largely in the interest of editors to use named refs. This should be encouraged. Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not in the interest of all editors. --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem with list-defined references is that they're meant to make the editing screen easier to read, but Harvard refs, aka shortened refs, (<ref>Harris 2006, p. 4.</ref>) have less distracting code than even the list-defined refs, so I prefer Harvard refs. OTOH, most of my references are books that I cite more than once ... people who tend to use only one citation per reference sometimes say that Harvard references and list-defined references are extra work. Maybe there's some script that could save keystrokes, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dank this isn't about LDR. Just names. Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

I use shortened footnotes a lot, and often choose ref names which work for article editors like Harvard refs, e.g., <ref name=smith1996pp5-6 />. I haven't been using LDRs to move the ref declarations out of the article prose, though. I'm currently working up a new article here; perhaps I'll give LDRs a try there and see how they "feel" style-wise using this ref naming style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion location

Is it really a good idea to have this discussion in two places? Wouldn't it be better to keep it at the village pump, where it is more likely to be seen by more people? --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer a pointer from VPP to whichever is the appropriate guideline or policy page, because people will actually be able to find previous conversations about citations if you keep them at WT:CITE. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Postdlf's three arguments against named references

I'm strongly opposed to any mandatory imposition of named refs. The only virtue I can see in them is that they condense the footnotes section of an article, but that certainly shouldn't come at the expense of clarity within the body of an article, or at the expense of more information being provided. I think ref names have at least three main drawbacks.

1. Because all cites to the same ref name will display the same numbered superscript link (i.e., footnote) within the body of the article, the use of ref notes will cause the numbering of those footnotes within the article body to be confusingly out of order.

2. The use of ref name for all duplicate references discourages editors from combining multiple cites for the same statement of fact into one footnote; this is commonly seen in many articles, where one single sentence will end with half a dozen or more footnotes. This causes distracting and confusing clutter within the article body (particularly given the inconsistent numbering that results from ref name usage), all apparently for no other purpose than to condense the footnotes section. Which is not a sensible trade-off.

3. The use of ref name for all duplicate references discourages editors from adding explanative annotations (or often even specific page cites) to footnotes for separate citations to the same reference, where those citations are in support of different statements of fact within the article.

The first drawback is a simple fact, a consequence of how ref name works. The second and third drawbacks are easily observed in practice, even though ref name doesn't absolutely prohibit the individualization of some cites. But it definitely discourages it, whether because editors think they can't deviate from using a ref name for all instances of a particular cite once that's begun within an article, or because editors are simply more likely to lean on the crutch that ref name provides of relieving the need to retype or copy a full ref in a new place. And certainly editors are less likely to expand upon the content within individual footnotes when they aren't already maintained in separate form. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Postdlf's three arguments against named references

1. Because all cites to the same ref name will display the same numbered superscript link (i.e., footnote) within the body of the article, the use of ref notes will cause the numbering of those footnotes within the article body to be confusingly out of order.

Not so, AWB can and does order cites so they appear not as^{[13],[3],[8],[1]} but ^{[1],[3],[8],[13]}.Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

I think the point is, rather, they will appear as ^{[1],[2],[3],[1],[3],[2],[4]}. That's an odd way to count to 7. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the last comment. Why would an article ever cite exactly the same source twice at the same place? I've never seen a Wikipedia article that said anything like "It is possible that regressive autism is a specific subtype.^[3][5][3]" and if I did see one, I'd change that trailing "^[3][5][3]" to "^[3][5]" without a second thought. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed it was clear that there were intervening sentences each being cited; that's not one block of citations for a single fact. I mean A.^[3] B.^[5] C.^[3] Christopher Parham (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB, and all other automated tools that I am aware of, don't change the layout of references with are separated by text at all. Meaning, in the A.^[3] B.^[5] C.^[3] example which you gave, AWB wouldn't change that layout at all. It may convert the second ^[3] reference to a named ref, which is important and a good change because a)it's shorter, and b)doing so prevents later editors from changing one ref without changing the others (it helps maintenance).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that it changes the second reference to a named reference. It's not necessarily shorter (oftentimes longer when the change is made by AWB). However, it is easy to revert AWB editors so I don't see this as a serious issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that I really don't understand the criticism of using the name parameter. It's not as though the parameter is a recent addition either, which actually starts me scratching my head when it comes to this discussion. The increase in maintainability and readability (both of the page source and the list of references) easily justifies the general use of the name parameter, though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, this discussion as I understand it is about whether to make use of the name parameter for duplicate references mandated or encouraged by this guideline. I've not problem with it as an option for editors, where it is indeed quite longstanding. I don't really see much improvement in maintainability or readability that comes from use of this feature, and it has a number of features that can make editing more difficult, including separating the content of a citation from the text it references in the edit box (getting them together was one of the main innovations behind cite.php). I can see that if you are using citation templates, it might be a helpful feature to reduce the size of references. Sometimes it's useful, others not; I think maintaining its optional status is the best choice. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2. The use of ref name for all duplicate references discourages editors from combining multiple cites for the same statement of fact into one footnote; this is commonly seen in many articles, where one single sentence will end with half a dozen or more footnotes. This causes distracting and confusing clutter within the article body (particularly given the inconsistent numbering that results from ref name usage), all apparently for no other purpose than to condense the footnotes section. Which is not a sensible trade-off.

I don't see what this has to do with the WP:CITE document and/or named references, though. I agree that having a single sentence (or even a paragraph) referenced to 8 different news stories get's to be ridiculous, but that problem isn't something which should be addressed through the reference name parameter at all really. An actual solution to that problem is to editorially select 2 or maybe 3 of the more important references and get rid of the others.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3. The use of ref name for all duplicate references discourages editors from adding explanative annotations (or often even specific page cites) to footnotes for separate citations to the same reference, where those citations are in support of different statements of fact within the article.

I understand this criticism, but I don't find it very convincing. That sort of practice really requires larger editorial planning and work in general, so I think that it falls a bit outside of the scope of this discussion. However, just to take this criticism at face value, I am generally willing to accept this as a tradeoff to using the name parameter in the interests of reducing lists of references to more managable numbers. What may be acceptable in small article with up to a dozen references isn't as good of an idea in an article with 120 references (which often could be more like 300 references if all instances of use of the name parameter were deprecated).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for this to happen if combined cites are appropriate. In fact there is no reason a footnote cannot read:

{1] See for example Bloggs ^[12], chapter 4, LeBowski ^[13] especially the section on pigeons, and Bond - Annals of Defenstration, July 1999 pp228.

Doubtless the much requested "page number" fix would provide relief from these uncertainties too.

Anyway no-one is talking about mandatory, we are talking about names being provided for duplicate refs.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Postdlf on all three points; the implementation of named references, particularly the way they are displayed in a non-intuitive manner that defies the conventions found in most printed and online matter (sequentially numbered footnotes), is not ideal. I support use of named references being optional and regularly revert AWB edits to add them when they pop up on my watchlist. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, your "non-intuitive manner" is the standard convention in many scientific publications, including both Science and Nature. It's a choice of style and not a particularly unusual one. Dragons flight (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware this is a standard in some fields. The use of the style for articles on scientific topics would seem eminently reasonable, if that is the style with which writers and readers in that field would be most familiar. Nobody is suggesting it not be an option. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another "Oh I'm a professor, they re-used ref-1 after ref-4 my head is going to explode." type effect? Because the people who read these learned journals can only cope with increasing numbers, while we expect Little Johnny to grasp abbreviations like pp. ed. Ann. Phy. and so forth intuitively? Or is it the "ZOMG the people who write in APA style will never take WP seriously if we do thus and so?" Because if that's the problem - news flash - "Those that mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind." Storm meet teacup. Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I am quite happy to call this a storm in a teacup and keep the current language in which the use of named references to consolidate duplicate citations is optional. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I came late to this discussion and would want to be counted among those who want to keep the optional nature of named notes. I much prefer consolidating several references in a single note (sometimes with comments like Jones , p. 123 and Smith, p. 45 but Brown, p. 67 disagrees.) to a string of numbers at the end of a sentence. But then I'm a humanist (who also writes in the sciences and social sciences sometimes). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it would make it easier for editors to move towards one (or a small number of) "recommended" styles rather than allowing editors to do whatever they want. Having an encyclopedia broken up into a dozen different styles makes it harder for editors working in one area to move into other areas. I have a personal opinion about what should be recommended, but I'd say having recommendations is more important than exactly what they are. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I think that we should essentially "do nothing" here. I agree that it would make things easier if we could all agree on one (or a small number of) "recommended" styles, but as is probably evident to most here already I do see any firm consensus developing on this topic (for some reason). The curious fact (to me) is that we already use our own house reference style, so it's not as though we're forcing people to choose some standard over another. The real issue is that our house referencing style is ad hoc I guess, but it seems to me that is at least somewhat intentional.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [Why not?]

Wait, why wouldnt we want named references. Consider this:

[edit] Content Section

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,^[1] consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque et eros lorem. Nullam mi dui, euismod id ultrices ut, posuere id ante. Maecenas metus felis, bibendum in iaculis eget, pretium vitae turpis. Donec vel condimentum sem.^[2] Quisque sit amet pharetra libero. Aliquam dolor urna, sagittis et bibendum sit amet, pulvinar sed sem. Pellentesque nec porta nibh risus eu massa. Aliquam imperdiet fringilla metus eu aliquet. Maecenas convallis nulla id sem euismod suscipit. Etiam fringilla lorem placerat augue convallis cursus. Nullam quis lectus id risus volutpat sagittis. Integer quis turpis lacus. Praesent adipiscing nisl porttitor lacus gravida lacinia. Fusce lectus justo, rutrum ^[3]vitae consectetur sit amet, faucibus vitae lacus.

[edit] References

1. ^ google.com
2. ^ google.com
3. ^ google.com

Versus

[edit] Content Section

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,^[1] consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque et eros lorem. Nullam mi dui, euismod id ultrices ut, posuere id ante. Maecenas metus felis, bibendum in iaculis eget, pretium vitae turpis. Donec vel condimentum sem.^[1] Quisque sit amet pharetra libero. Aliquam dolor urna, sagittis et bibendum sit amet, pulvinar sed sem. Pellentesque imperdiet, dui at ornare rutrum, urna est vulputate enim,^[1] nec porta nibh risus eu massa. Aliquam imperdiet fringilla metus eu aliquet. Maecenas convallis nulla id sem euismod suscipit. Etiam fringilla lorem placerat augue convallis cursus. Nullam quis lectus id risus volutpat sagittis. Integer quis turpis lacus. Praesent adipiscing nisl porttitor lacus gravida lacinia. Fusce lectus justo, rutrum ^[1]vitae consectetur sit amet, faucibus vitae lacus.

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c d} google.com

I like the second one more, because the same source is grouped into one reference, instead of having duplicates. Tim1357 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you would wish to employ this optional feature in articles you are writing. Others prefer not to use them for the reasons cited above. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot is at it again

SmackBot is again changing reference system. I am taking this to the administrators' page now. --Hegvald (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding The Guardian/Guardian.co.uk

When citing articles released on the above website by the above newspaper - such as this, how should the "publisher" parameter of Cite web be written? I'm sort of split between the following:

• Simply "The Guardian" probably "The Guardian" actually
• "Guardian.co.uk"
• "The Guardian (Guardian.co.uk)"

etc.? There are a number of variations and I would love if someone could clear this up for me. Thanks, ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a style selection issue, which can vary from article to article, but should be constant within an article. Publishers are not normally given for Newspapers in respectable styles; they're very rarely given for Journals; and can often be given for obscure magazines or periodicals. My recommendation, regarding Teh Gridanau, is that being a newspaper it :doesn't need its publisher. Unless it was an obscurely named supplement, say Things about horses (Guardian.co.uk). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Things about horses" line threw me off a bit. So drop mention of "The Guardian" and just use "Guardian.co.uk"? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is in The Guardian you shouldn't be using "cite web" in the first place, but "cite news". The "publisher" parameter is left blank, and "The Guardian" goes in the "newspaper" parameter. Preferably also put "London" in the "location" parameter, since there are other Guardians elsewhere. -- Alarics (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they no longer the Manchester Guardian for some stupid reason? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Oh.  :( Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, The Guardian dropped that in 1959. Martinvl (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And in 1964 its main editorial office actually moved physically from Manchester to London. -- Alarics (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citing BLP-controversial stories from British newspaper websites

FYI there's a potential problem—I don't know how often it happens—if BLP articles use British newspaper websites to support controversial claims that haven't yet appeared in print. The risk is that we cite their story and they then amend it so we no longer have cover for a libellous allegation. The potential problem is that some sites (e.g. telegraph.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk, newsoftheworld.co.uk, thesun.co.uk) now flag their content as "NOARCHIVE", so the publisher can amend a story at any time and there's no official way an editor can snapshot their page as proof that a claim appeared there. Given that Google seems to track our changes within minutes (example) this might be important in future. Possible solutions are (A) use – and archive – publishers like ft.com, guardian.co.uk or mirror.co.uk who don't currently "NOARCHIVE" their content; and/or (B) instead of {{Cite news}} use {{Cite web}} with a full accessdate=yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss parameter so there is some way to trace back from the citation to the web version cited. This problem will only get worse now that Rupert Murdoch is arguing (BBC report) that those he calls "aggregators and plagiarists" should "have to pay a price for the co-opting of [news providers'] content". - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) BTW, if this should have been posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources please accept my apologies and move the discussion without consulting me. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing fee-sources: I want to evolve around the troubles mentioned by Pointillist, i.e. using technically unreliable and unavailable sources that must be controlled but who provide technical obstacles. My troubles occurred when browsing Formation and evolution of the Solar System specifically Timeline of Solar System evolution. I wanted to control the numbers but found a "Douglas N. C. Lin (May 2008). "The Genesis of Planets" (fee required). Scientific American 298 (5): 50–59., which made me wish to add a second source that wasn't requiring fees. The troubles with using fee-required-sources are obviously

• only those having a fee-account at the site can control the source, which practically makes the source unavailable to less financially able (poor) folks, or people having less general interest in the payment site,
• it borders to kind of marketing a payment site, if no free backing sites are available, for anyone to read and learn, if Wikipedia live on charity, why should profit sites make a lot of money from free marketing?

I don't say that we shall avoid payment sites entirely, just that they should preferrably be backed by free sources. If we use too many payment sites, it negatively affects the general culture and philosophy of Wikipedia: freely available to everyone, all editors, irrespective of background, nationality and social class, attain integrity and "status" by Wikipedia achievements only, not by external achievements. (The random Burkinabé noneducated farmer guy should count equal to any random university level Swede).

Now, my troubles and Pointillist's troubles can partially be addressed by the fact that we are referring to secondary academic sources, not primary research reports, but the primary research reports are not seldomly hidden behind a payment site too, so I propose a few extra guide lines, such as:

• a payment site requiring login, should if possible, be backed by free sites,
• it is then desirable that the editor adding the payment reference verifies that the free sites tell us the same story as regards to the article text using the reference,
• the backing sites should be marked as backing sites, so that the cleanup-guy doesn't in good faith remove the backing site, while keeping the payment site; the backing site should preferrably be contained within the same <ref></ref> in order to achieve this,
• it would be a good thing to have templates displaying ^{[reference requires fee — please add a backing site]}
• and for Pointilist's case ^{[reference provides NOARCHIVE content — please control the reference against the article]} or ^{[reference has variable content — please replace with a stable contents reference]}

(Except of course that those messages must be much shorter).

Opinions?! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would hope the libel problem that Pointilist raises is pretty theoretical. Is it likely in practice that Wikipedia might get sued for good-faith quoting of something that appeared on a respectable newspaper website, even if the latter subsequently disappears? Has such a thing ever actually happened? If it is really a problem, why not just take a screen grab of the web page (free software that does this very easily includes "Siteshoter") and upload it to Google docs, thus bypassing the NOARCHIVE problem. But it might also be a good idea not to quote on WP anything that seems potentially libellous until you have definitely seen it in print.

On pay sites, one can always cite a newspaper source without it being a web link. If Murdoch starts requiring payment for online access to articles in The Times, as long as the article can be assumed to have appeared in the printed paper one can still cite it, just as one already does with pre-1985 Times articles, which have always been fee-paying (unless you have the right library card, i.e. it is your library that is paying the fee). Of course in many cases one can find the same thing reported in some other source (e.g. The Guardian) which is free, and that would be preferable. -- Alarics (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For this reason, anytime that an editor uses a web source, they should provide an access date in the citation. As for pay sites, I don't think there needs to be any restriction in that regard, so long as the sources are reliable. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

•  ?. I just successfully archived a Times [2][3] and Telegraph [4][5] page with WebCite. I wouldn't bother worrying about tabloids, they are unlikely to ever be considered RS for BLPs. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with citation problems

I have noticed a number of articles that have a citation needed flag which at times I think is "over the top". If a statement is made that can easily be verified by an independent third party, is a citation really needed? I recently removed a citation needed flag from an article where I was able to verify the fact inside five minutes using Google Earth, but I would not know where to start if I were to try and find a real citation for this particlar item. (Or should I have replaced the Citation Flag with coordinate references and a suggestion to use Google Earth?) For the record, I had no prior knowledge of this particular fact nor had I ever visited the country concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious statements

A flurry of recent changes, conducted without discussion, made (among other things) the following edit to Qualifying references:

"For statements about which reliable sources are in conflict or that are matters of differing opinion, the text should include sufficient context to qualify the statement or attribute its source. But, for contintious statements, often when references are in conflict, the text should qualify the statement."

This change goes too far. In-text aqualification is not required for any contentious statement: otherwise, in-text attribution would be required for claims such as "Humans evolved from other animals" that are not controversial among reliable sources on evolution, but which are controversial in some religious circles. Wikipedia articles don't (and don't need to) use in-text attribution for claims opposed only by unreliable sources. (The change also contains a misspelling, but that's a minor problem.) Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your reversion although in the context of the revisions I don't believe any change in meaning or practice was intended. I think you provide a good rationale for the additional wording in the original version. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Come to think of it, why does the longstanding wording say "or that are matters of differing opinion"? If reliable sources agree on a topic, surely there's no need to use in-text attribution. Otherwise, a contrarian editor could say "It's just the establishment's opinion that humans evolved from other animals, so any such claim in Wikipedia about evolution must use in-text attribution." Eubulides (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As with the case you point out, I think that the advice needs to be taken with a grain of common sense, but I think the idea is that it applies on "matters of opinion" - I wouldn't usually put issues of scientific consensus under this category. Especially where there are very few reliable sources commenting on a topic, I might want to qualify statements even where they agree, if it is a matter of subjective opinion. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bot from changing multi line refs to one line refs

Currently many refs are spread over 10 - 15 lines of text. Is there a bot that could put the ref all on one line to make editing easier? For example this:

 {{Cite journal   | last =    | first =    | authorlink =    | coauthors =    | title =    | journal =    | volume =    | issue =    | pages =    | publisher =    | location =    | date =    | url =    | issn =    | doi =    | id =    | accessdate = }} 

to this

 {{cite journal| author = | title = | journal =  | volume = | issue = | pages = | year = | pmid = | doi = | month =| issn =}} 

On highly referenced pages it is hard to find the text between the citations in the first example and much easier in the second. Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have posted over at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_from_changing_multi_line_refs_to_one_line_refs to find consensus there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the bot will have a poor reception as many people prefer the expanded format - that is why you see it used so often. =) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that a simple script can be created to give everyone the appearance that they wish. Thus all shall be happy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)