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.

Contents 1 SayWhereYouGotIt question 2 Citation standards for use with the Geographic Reference templates {{Template:GR}} 3 Same übersource, different content, different newspapers 4 Referencing YouTube 5 Discussion re whether to permit use of all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes 6 How to deal with duplicates ? 7 Citation bot, use of et al, and citation template parameters 8 Wikipedia:Cite#Embedded_links 9 Many authors of a cited work 9.1 Guidelines and info from Wikipedia re use of et al. 10 Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates? 11 Archiving Web pages for verifiability 12 REFERENCE or CITATION? 13 Preventing dead links - idea 14 Say where you found the material 15 Wikipedia maligns former president obote 16 Several quotes from one source in one paragraph 17 Which page number in pdf? 18 Google Scholar Addon/cite template section incomplete/inaccurate. And can't be editted. 19 Question about proper citation format 20 Change 21 Change this page's status 22 Regarding The Guardian/Guardian.co.uk 23 Contentious statements

SayWhereYouGotIt question

If you're citing an article that appears on a newspaper's website, should the cite type be "Web" or "News"? Most of the time, I've no idea if the article appeared in the actual print publication. I've always used "Web" for this, and an editor just changed it to news [1]. I'm sorry if this has been covered before, I couldn't find it in the archives. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We have just had a closely related discussion over at Template_talk:Cite_news#Still_confusion_around_parameters. The short answer to your question, in my opinion, is "cite news". That way, if you put the name of the organ under "Newspaper" or "Work", it will come out in italics, as it should do. In my view, this applies whether or not the article appeared in the printed paper: you should still use "cite news" even if there isn't a printed paper, such as BBC News Online. An online news service is still news, it just happens to be on the web. I think one test of whether something is really a news article or not is whether the item gives a clear publication date (in the case of the BBC, it is the "last updated" date). If an item cannot be precisely dated it is only a website -- in which case the access ("retrieved on") date, a very secondary piece of information when the item has its own clear date, becomes somewhat more significant -- and not a news source.

On your point about not knowing whether the item also appeared in print form, we seem to be in somewhat uncharted territory: I don't think anyone has really thought this through. My own feeling is that if you have seen the item only in web form, maybe you should say so, e.g. by citing the source as guardian.co.uk rather than The Guardian -- although as it happens the Guardian website is one which does actually tell you whether it also appeared in the paper. I say this because there are increasingly cases where the web content is different from what gets printed. I think the print version is preferable because it is the permanent record which (or the microfilm or digitised image of which) will still be available in libraries decades hence.

In your example, though, since it's a local paper that doesn't look like the kind of big outfit that might run extra online-only news items, I think I might take a bit of a chance and cite it as The Virginian Pilot rather than HamptonRoads.com, given that the byline specifically says that the author is of that paper. Either way, I'm sure it should be "cite news" rather than "cite web", so I agree with the editor who changed your citation. -- Alarics (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking it's better to use {{cite news}} for news that is put out by legitimate and reputable news organizations, and not to worry whether it was actually printed. This is by the same reasoning that one should use {{cite journal}} to cite online-only scholarly journals like PLoS Biology. Some judgment is required—many news organizations have blogs by reporters for which {{cite web}} may be more important—but the general rule is pretty clear. Eubulides (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Or sometimes it's best to just use the all-purpose {{Citation}} which accepts all the parameters from cite web, cite news, and cite journal. -- œ^™ 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, great answers. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've used both {tl|cite web}} and {{cite news}} for news articles. As long as you provide the necessary bibliographic info (and italicize publications), I don't think it's a big deal which you use, although it's best to keep the style consistent throughout an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation standards for use with the Geographic Reference templates {{Template:GR}}

I've seen a number of US City articles that make a lot of use of the {{GR}} template as a reference. This expands in the Reflist to " "American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved 2008-01-31. ". This is a census bureau database, not a specific page for the city in question. Now I see two problems with this: 1) by what means does the reader or editor who happens upon this location later on know that this particular city-related article was actually updated when the 2008 census data came out? 2) if the {{GR}} has been inserted manually by an editor, there is no way to easily do followup and check a citation. This is true particularly for a paragraph that makes many assertions, and one cannot easily tell which ones are, or are not, supported by the US Census Bureau fact finder database. What ought to be the guideline for the use of the GR template. N2e (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any of you more citation-savvy editors who frequent this page have any guidance on this? I see many of these citations on paragraphs that make a great many separate claims -- it is very difficult to determine if all the claims are verifiable when the link only take one to a database entry screen. The potentially bogus stuff inserted by vandals and trolls is hard to confirm with this GR-tag method of citation. N2e (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First, note that this template is used in many tens of thousands of articles. (I quit counting at 30,000. Does anyone know how to get the real count? Sometimes I am amazed at how vast Wikipedia really is.) Any changes to the template call is a really big job, requiring the use of a bot and an editor who understands the format of these articles. I quick study of the history page of a few random articles suggests that User:Ram-Man originally created the articles in 2002 using User:Rambot. He may have some insight into how they can be improved as a group.

While it would have been nice if the template accepted the town name and passed this to the census bureau's website, this is not necessary. The website allows a reader to type in the town name and see the information for themselves. So the citation does its job fairly well -- it allows the reader to verify material in the article with just a little typing. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Same übersource, different content, different newspapers

I have a story syndicated through the AP from two different newspapers. Each version includes different details that I want to cite. What's the correct way to source them? Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to do two separate citations to the two newspapers. They can be put together at the end of your sentence, if that is appropriate, there's no reason why they can't both mention that the agency was AP. -- Alarics (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing YouTube

I've seen youtube videos linked and I believe I have seen them refenced in cases where they were very pertinant such as number of views of the Evolution of Dance video. So, what is the scoop on referencing youtube, or perhaps, some other, more strict video hosting sites, such as how to sites with pro submitted material; what is hte name of that one...192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, eHow.com was the pro submitted one I was thinking of. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that You Tube itself is a reliable source, but you should bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.

The issue that concerns this guideline is "how do I write a citation for a You Tube video?" I would cite the original video, not the You Tube website. I would provide the same information that I would if I had rented the video at blockbuster or borrowed it from a library. The title, year, producer, director, production company, and (if appropriate) the exact mins/secs of the material I am citing. See {{Cite video}} for one option. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Be reminded that articles are not to be linked to websites containing material uploaded to the Internet in breach of copyright: WP:YOUTUBE. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re whether to permit use of all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes

FYI -- there is a discussion at [2] as to whether or not to allow the use of the all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes/references.

I'm raising the point here in the event that you would like to follow it or join in. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Update: The discussion is now a RFC at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with duplicates ?

How do one do when use the same reference many times in one article? The reflist list count the exact same reference as independent. So even if only a few references are used one may up with a very large number of duplicates in the reference list ... Benkeboy (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One choice is to use parenthetical referencing. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the reference system you are using:

• Wikipedia:Footnotes#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once)
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes
• Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing (Harvard)

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot, use of et al, and citation template parameters

I just posted a comment at Smith609's talkpage about the citation bot:

I just noticed this edit which added up to nine authors for certain citations. It's standard in scholarly literature to use et al after about three. Adding this many last names is going to make looking at citations more painful. And why not consolidate the first and the last names? In every when we use last names, we will use the first initials with them. Adding a firstname parameter introduces another unnecessary word.

Are these issues being discussed anywhere?

When using citation templates, all authors should be entered as separate parameters so that the metadata is properly preserved. You can limit the number of authors displayed with {{citation}} by using |display-authors=. This is undocumented, but works with at least {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. As to how many authors should be displayed before et al, I have seen one and three.

 {{citation |title=Book title |last1=Imprimante |last2=Drucker |last3=Impresora |last4=Stampante |display-authors=3}} 

Imprimante; Drucker; Impresora et al., Book title 

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need to preserve the metadata. Wikipedia is not a repository for reference metadata. Please help me out here? If I choose not to use "complete metadata" when I add citations (partly because I don't like tons of parameters cluttering up the text), I don't think other people should be able to sweep that away because "there needs to be complete metadata". II | (t - c) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More complete and accurate metadata is useful to our readers to find and reference the original source. The additional parameters are only a burden to editors & that burden is small (compared to, say, using templates vs. not using templates). I think the citation bot is performing a useful service, but perhaps you could use the parameter that prevents the citation bot from editing your articles? --Karnesky (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree as the metadata canard has hung around the neck of wikipedia for far too long. What the h does it really mean? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

How is it an albatross when there is great utility and very little burden? See Zotero and LibX and other examples as to why this stuff is useful to have. --Karnesky (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Metadata such as the COinS generated by the template allows Wikipedia to play nice with reference management software. Using Zotero or other applications, I can grab a reference from Wikipedia and port it into a paper (and yes, I have done this for college work). You can grab a reference from another site, save it in Zotero and plug itinto an article. This makes Wikipedia a more scholarly work. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in other places its standard to use "and others." due to the slow removal of academic latin from citations. And in others its standard to ... . Seriously: our citation system is a horrible horrible mess right now. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If "and others" is preferred (ten years from now, say), it would be a simple matter to change {{Citation/core}} to produce it. That's the beauty of using templates. The system may be a "horrible horrible mess", but this issue is easily fixed anyway, if consensus exists. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And it would be trivial to add a switch for either use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"et al." (note the period as it is an abbreviation for et alibi or et alli which is translated from Latin as "and elsewhere," "and others," respectively) is commonly used to identify the main/lead author of a group that includes three or more authors in at least some bibliographic style guides but not in the APA style that has formed the basis of the citation templates in use in Wikipedia. In APA, all authors are identified in a full bibliographic record which leads to a lengthy list (I have seen as many as 10 authors listed in "References" which makes the entry difficult to read). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Note that in citations that provide a link to the referenced article or its abstract, a reader or editor thus has easy access to the full author list. So in this case, perhaps the full author list doesn't need to be in Wikipedia in any form, if easy access to the author list is the sole criterion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would really love to believe in the promise of permutable citations, but look how biblatex requires extensions to support Turabian, or the issue history articles have in requiring page refs from identical sources. Mechanised promised have not come through particularly well in my field. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite#Embedded_links

"Embedded links should not be used to place external links to websites in the body of an article." was added this month, and I've just appended: "(See Wikipedia:Layout#External_links for exceptions.)" The current exceptions are Wiktionary and Wikisource, although a discussion has just started at WT:Layout on whether these exceptions need tweaking. This conversation comes around every now and then, usually at WT:Layout, so it makes sense to me just to refer people there so they can see whatever the current recommendation is. Does this make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that in response to my queston? If so, no it doensn't make sense. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The only exceptions currently in a guideline or policy that I know of are the ones listed at WP:Layout#External links: Wiktionary and Wikisource. We're talking about external links in the text; most external links that aren't in other endsections belong in External links. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After all of those discussions, I really ought to have remembered that 'complication'. Perhaps I should have said "external links to non-Wikimedia Foundation websites". That would encompass WP:LAY's "generally" statement while preventing the major problem (which is linking to websites for businesses or organizations named in passing). Or perhaps "(except for Wiktionary and Wikisource)" would be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, "(except for Wiktionary and Wikisource)" works for me, and I almost said that, but then I saw that a discussion has just started on the subject at WT:LAYOUT and I didn't want to commit until that discussion is over. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we not use interwiki links rather than external links when linking to non-Wikimedia wikis? Anomie⚔ 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, yes. There's been no response at WT:LAYOUT to Johnbod's question; if nothing happens over there, say, within a week after his question, then "(except for Wiktionary and Wikisource)" here works for me, and we should mention the wikt: and s: markup. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there have been no changes at WP:LAYOUT, so I changed my addition to: "InterWikimedia links to Wiktionary and Wikisource are sometimes appropriate in the body of an article; for details, see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects." Feel free to revert and discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We could probably just eliminate that sentence; it is not really relevant to a citation guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't Wikimedia links "embedded"? If so, and if we make a statement about embedded links, shouldn't we clarify? - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Many authors of a cited work

The various templates akin to {{cite journal}} allow for up to 9 authors to be listed, and each may be specified either as |authorn= or as a |lastn=/|firstn= pair (where n is an integer in the range 1-9). If the article to be cited has ten authors, what is the recommended procedure? At Wikipedia:Help desk#When to use "et al" in a list of authors of a citation, User:DoktorMandrake stated "However, all authors must be present in the references section." (his emphasis).

One idea that I had was to specify the first eight authors individually, and put the remainder together as the "ninth", thus:

 These theorems were later shown to be true.{{sfn|Angle|Baker|Chart|Droog|2009|p=42}} {{reflist}} *{{Cite journal |title=Confirmation of statements |journal=Journal of Strange Ideas |publisher=Justthefacts |year=2009 |month=October |ref=harv |last1=Angle |first1=A.A. |last2=Baker |first2=B.B. |last3=Chart |first3=C.C. |last4=Droog |first4=D.D. |last5=Eagle |first5=E.E. |last6=Freud |first6=F.F. |last7=Green |first7=G.G. |last8=Henry |first8=H.H. |author9=Ink, I.I.; James, J.J. }} 

which gives:

These theorems were later shown to be true.^[1]

• Angle, A.A.; Baker, B.B.; Chart, C.C.; Droog, D.D.; Eagle, E.E.; Freud, F.F.; Green, G.G.; Henry, H.H. et al. (October 2009). "Confirmation of statements". Journal of Strange Ideas (Justthefacts). 

But as you can see, the last two authors are replaced by the "et al", so that they don't get credit. However, If I cheat a little further in {{cite journal}} thus:

 *{{Cite journal |title=Confirmation of statements |journal=Journal of Strange Ideas |publisher=Justthefacts |year=2009 |month=October |ref=harv |last1=Angle |first1=A.A. |last2=Baker |first2=B.B. |last3=Chart |first3=C.C. |last4=Droog |first4=D.D. |last5=Eagle |first5=E.E. |last6=Freud |first6=F.F. |last7=Green |first7=G.G. |author8=Henry, H.H.; Ink, I.I.; James, J.J. }} 

it now shows:

• Angle, A.A.; Baker, B.B.; Chart, C.C.; Droog, D.D.; Eagle, E.E.; Freud, F.F.; Green, G.G.; Henry, H.H.; Ink, I.I.; James, J.J. (October 2009). "Confirmation of statements". Journal of Strange Ideas (Justthefacts). 

so now, I get all ten. Is that permissible, or is there a better, recommended way? User:Gadget850 suggested that I ask here. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:DoktorMandrake is referring to a requirement of the APA style. Other styles (including possibly Wikipedia's various "house styles") may well differ. At the moment, it appears that the "house style" implemented by the citation templates says to use et al after the first 8 authors, but that could change in the future. Anomie⚔ 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely not the "house style" of Wikipedia. It is merely the number of authors that got implemented before the implementers of that template got tired. In biomedical articles it's common to put et al. after 6 authors; or after 3 authors if there are more than 6 authors (styles differ). There is no requirement or consensus that all authors must be listed; it's fine if a citation merely says something like "|author= Filipek PA, Accardo PJ, Baranek GT ''et al.''" and there's no need for it to say something lengthy like "|display-authors= 3 |author1= Filipek PA |author2= Accardo PJ |author3= Baranek GT |author-separator= , |last4= Cook Eh |first4= Jr |last5= Dawson |first5= G |last6= Gordon |first6= B |last7= Gravel |first7= JS |last8= Johnson |first8= CP |last9= Kallen |first9= RJ". Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, we can list the authors separately for metadata purposes, but specify the number to show with an et al. If there is no current way to handle more than nine authors, then we should move this to {{citation/core}} and ask for more author fields. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"et al." (note the period as it is an abbreviation for et alibi or et alli which is translated from Latin as "and elsewhere," "and others," respectively) is commonly used to identify the main/lead author of a group that includes three or more authors in at least some bibliographic style guides but not in the APA style that has formed the basis of the citation templates in use in Wikipedia. In APA, all authors are identified in a full bibliographic record which leads to a lengthy list (I have seen as many as 10 authors listed in "References" which makes the entry difficult to read). FWiW, the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide that is commonly used in research works for the humanities, uses "et al." in both abbreviated and full entry notations, so that only the first author and et al. is used. Bzuk (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

At college we were instructed (not advised) that if our dissertations were to stand any chance of being passed, then et al. was only to be used for the second reference from a given source; the first one had to bear the names of every author - even when it looked like the entire faculty had written the paper. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That experience is probably linked to the field or faculty in which you were resident. Every disciple provides the structure demanded in research and publication. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

It sounds like there are some unrealistic expectations here. Would that college have forced your dissertation to list all 314 coauthors of Birney et al. 2007 (PMID 17571346)? or all 580 coauthors of Abazov et al. 2007 (PMID 18233063)? How about Grünewald et al. 2006 (doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.006)? That paper has has 2,512 coauthors: would your college really have made you list them all? If we're serious about this, shouldn't {{Citation/core}} be expanded to support 2512 coauthors and all the metadata that would go along with it? If so, shouldn't the template support at least 10,000 coauthors, to allow for future expansion? (The answer ought to be obvious: "No".) Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that such high numbers ever came up. Certainly there were several instances of 10+, occasionally 20+, but I personally never had to cite from a paper with more than about 15. The rule given to us was simple: credit every author unless you've already credited them. Maybe our prof. had never encountered papers such as your examples. I'm not saying that you're wrong: just trying to recount my own experiences. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Either you or the publisher have miscited "Grünewald" (2006). The publisher shows 7 corporate authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the publisher. Their (software / page layout / whatever) couldn't handle that many authors either. The actual author list of Grünewald et al. 2006 (doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.006) is in Appendix A of that paper. In contrast, the publisher for Abazov et al. 2007 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.191802) did manage to squeeze all 580 author names onto the front. (Pretty cool for an 8-page paper, huh? The list of author names and affiliations consumes 3 of those 8 pages.) Needless to say, there's no reason Wikipedia editors and readers should be forced to wade through that list of authors. Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines and info from Wikipedia re use of et al.

• Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) - Citing medical sources:

AMA citation guidelines suggest that if there are more than six authors, include only the first three, followed by et al.^[1] The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) citation guidelines list up to six authors, followed by et al if there are more than six.^[2]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• And here's an excerpt from et al.

APA style uses et al. if the work cited was written by more than six authors; MLA style uses et al. for more than three authors.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the point be this: standards vary. Wikipedia's templates have chosen a standard: a maximum of three authors in a parenthetical reference or shortened footnote, a maximum of nine authors in a full citation. The templates must use some standard and the standard is easily changed, however I can't imagine how this standard is worse than any other. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates?

This subject keeps coming up. There is an extensive discussion in the archive. --EnOreg (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article now says, for newspapers, "... and a comment with the date you retrieved it if it is online (invisible to the reader)". But it doesn't tell people how to do this. Anyway, the retrieval date serves no purpose. Either the link still works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, remove the url and leave the reference to the dead-tree newspaper. Alarics (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin deleted this without discussion or consensus. I have now restored it but with an explanation of how to comment out the date. - Alarics (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The advice to delete the dead link, is about the worst I have seen here. Then why do we have the {{Dead link}} template? Or go search for archived versions. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that searching for an archived version is the preferred cause of action on dead links. That's the point of having an access date in the absence of a publication date.--EnOreg (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[inserting direct reply to that specific point:] Yes, of course search for another web source to replace the dead link, that goes without saying. I was just making the point that a dead-tree news cite is still a valid cite, whether or not it can be found anywhere on the web. The citation is to the news article; the web link, if there is one, is for convenience. -- Alarics (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Commenting out the date makes no sense to me. If there is a consensus to not show it, then delete the field from the templates and be done with it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of commenting out the access date is that it is useless information to someone reading the page, whereas it might conceivably be of some use (at least, some people seem to think so) to someone editing the page. We should only show to the reader information that might be of some potential use or relevance to him or her. -- Alarics (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This has all been voluminously discussed before here. Do we really have to go over all this again? Here is a summary of that earlier discussion:

User:Wasted Time R starts off by pointing out several reasons why access dates are often at best superfluous and arguably a positive nuisance. There is then a bit of a diversion while one or two people misunderstand the point (a red herring about "archiving" dates), and another red herring about whether to call it "accessed" or "retrieved"). A total of two people try to supply some justification for access dates in certain circumstances, but even they agree that it is "optional". User:LouScheffer makes the point that much depends on how dependable is the online source, and that there is certainly no point in including an access date when the reference is to a major newspaper. It is at this point that User:EnOreg comes up with the compromise suggestion of commenting out the access date so that it is visible to editors but not to readers, thus avoiding confusion and clutter. There is then some rather technical discussion about how one might apply this to all existing articles (but that is not what I am proposing, I only suggest a sensible policy be adopted from now on. However, the fact that several different people entered into that technical discussion suggests they agree with the idea).

Noted administrator and tech guru Martin Smith (User:Smith609 then enters the fray with the following:

I do not see how an accessdate on sources which do not change - such as journal articles - is beneficial. However, on sources which may change, such as web content, it helps clarify which version of a page is being cited. Therefore I feel it ought to be displayed only in the cite web template. I don't think anyone has disagreed with this feeling here, so I suggest that someone bold goes ahead and proposes or enacts the change at all non-"cite-web" templates. People have had the chance to complain if they feel otherwise!

User:EnOreg sums up thus:

Consensus: It indeed seems we have consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. I have removed the RFC (style) tag and will modify the policy. Anybody who is competent to adapt the citation templates, please do so. Thanks everybody,

User:WhatamIdoing adds: "the access date is really about citing websites that were created as websites, not books that happen to be conveniently available online. I don't cite access dates for news articles that I read online, either. Reuters News or Associated Press stories will be verifiable for many years after the news.yahoo.com link goes dead." He or she later clarifies: "Since websites do change, it is reasonable to include the access date, just like you'd include a publication date if you were citing a newspaper. If the ref isn't web-only -- and I see no reason to think that this comment is intended to apply to anything else -- then an access date is unimportant." In some further discussion, even those who strongly defend the use of access dates for web-only sources all agree that it's not necessary where there is a real newspaper article with a date.

After seven months of discussion (note: the section furthest down the talk page is not the most recent), there is only one dissident, User:WLU, who wants to revert to all access dates being shown in all circumstances, and is told that he or she does not have a consensus for that, at least a dozen other contributors to the discussion having been either broadly in favour of, or at worst neutral about, what had by then (end 2008) become the status quo at WP:CITE.

Presumably as a result of all that (none of which was anything to do with me, by the way), WP:CITE now reads: "Citations for newspaper articles typically include: (....) the date you retrieved it if it is online, invisible to the reader: <!--accessed: date-->".

It cannot seriously now be claimed that this matter has not been adequately aired. -- Alarics (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, although I can't quite tell where this iteration of the discussion sprung from. Since my original remarks on this, I have become even more against using accessdate unless it's for an undated web source. I have successfully defended my "avoid accessdates as much as possible" position to several GA reviewers, so I think the realization that accessdates have been overused in the past is gradually gaining acceptance. I would be happy if some of the cite templates were changed to turn accessdates off or into comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but yes, we have to go over all of that again. Furthermore, if you don't put notifications on the talkpages of at least the mayor citation templates, there is no change any editors will implement what you "decide" here. A good case example is Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate where a recent discussion ananymously disagrees with all of you guys here.

My opinion is that we should have a single accessdate parameter (no "accessmonthday", or even "accessyear", just "accessdate"), and that it should be visible. Or I could live without an accessdate parameter as well. But having it and hiding it is ridiculous. Such is my opinion, and if asked I'll be happy to explain why I think so. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When Debresser says "a recent discussion ananymously disagrees with all of you guys here", he makes it sound as if there has been a long debate with several participants eventually reaching unanimity. What actually happened at Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate was that only yesterday he introduced the subject there, at the same time making a change to the text of the project page for which there was no consensus. A grand total of two other editors supported him, one of whom was evidently unaware of the earlier discussion here and the other of whom had actually taken part in that discussion but was in the minority there. That discussion, by the way, lasted six months, whereas the discussion from which Debresser now purports to draw unanimity only began yesterday! The final contributor so far atTemplate_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate, User:EnOreg, does not support Debresser's move (so the three-person unanimity has already disappeared) and points out that here, not there, is the place to be having this discussion. The real tally so far, as far as I can make out, is three editors on Debresser's side of the argument, and seven editors on mine. -- Alarics (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Commenting out accessdates is not a solution. There should be a formal proposal to eliminate them altogether and get this over with. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

|accessdate= can be quite useful even for archival journals, in some cases. For example:

• Spelke ES (2005). "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review" (PDF). Am Psychol 60 (9): 950–8. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950. PMID 16366817. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf. Retrieved 2009-04-06. 

This source was published in an archival journal, where you can buy it; it is also freely available, perhaps temporarily, from the author's personal website. The accessdate applies to the perhaps-temporary free copy, not to the expensive stable copy. This sort of thing is quite common in some high-quality articles; I count five instances of it in Autism. I don't see why this usage should be eliminated. Eubulides (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But what purpose does the accessdate actually serve in such a case? Either the online version of the journal article is still there when you go looking for it, or it isn't. If it's gone, how does it help to know on what date some editor found it in the past? -- Alarics (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is helpful. You can search for a mirror of the site made around that date in, e.g., the Internet Archive. If the accessdate is recent, there is also a greater chance that the article might be down only temporarily. --Karnesky (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree w Karnesky that accessdate helps in getting the right version from e.g., the Internet Archive, if what you originally cited goes offline. --Philcha (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are citing is the original article, not some copy of it. The validity of the reference doesn't depend on the availability of a web link. For the corner case you are describing it is sufficient for an editor trying to recover a dead link to see the commented-out access date in the article source code. --EnOreg (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, some sources are all-electronic, with not a dead tree in sight - but have editorial boards of reputable people, so comply with WP:RS. --Philcha (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: that is arguing to maintain the status quo (allow an accessdate, show it when there is not sufficient info to get any other copy & comment it out when a hard or paid copy is available). I am fine with this. User:Alarics wants the accessdate to be removed completely, and Philcha and I were replying to that. --Karnesky (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the status quo should be maintained. This is not a question of the validity of the citation, as the citation is valid even without URL (or DOI, for that matter). The point that it's sometimes quite helpful to the reader (and to future editors) if the citation displays a relatively-ephemeral URL and accessdate in addition to a permanent (but more-expensive) DOI or PMID. Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am rather unclear on how one could summarize all of the discussion above. If this later is consolidated into a consensus proposal, I would be happy to have someone invite me back (via comment on my Talk page) to weigh in on that summarized proposed consensus. However, I will leave my general thoughts on the matter as well: I believe that accessdate is a very useful field in WP citations, as it alone allows a WP subsequent editor to see when a previous editor accessed the material. If one then were to look at the editor who last accessed the material, and find that editor's WP reputation a good one, the subsequent editor could 'let it go' that, perhaps, the electronic source is no longer verifiable online. Thus, accessdate is not redundant on material that has official publication dates. I also agree with User:Debresser who pointed out that a consensus here would not end the issue; a broader consensus would need to be reached on the Talk Pages of the major citation templates if we hope to have any consensus widely implemented. N2e (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Karnesky notes that commenting out the accessdate in certain circumstances is the status quo. Indeed, that is what has WP:CITE has said for over a year, but it was when Debresser took exception to my actually implementing that policy that this argument started up all over again. I am not objecting to the use of accessdate as long as I can comment it out when it clearly isn't of any use to the casual reader. -- Alarics (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shocking as it may seem, even Major newspapers have been known to change articles on their web sites. Often to save themselves embarrassment over some egregious error. This is why retrieval dates are important where the reference comes from the web site instead of from an actual copy of the paper, book or magazine. filceolaire (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But if it's an "egregious error" that will usually be within hours rather than days. How is that any different from different editions of the printed paper -- which nobody has ever suggested should be indicated separately in citations? -- Alarics (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Web pages for verifiability

This was discussed first on FL Criteria Talk page, users suggested the move to this guideline page instead. The idea is to make archiving pages and avoiding link rot a guideline.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many pages on the web get deleted and become inaccessible. Web Citation provides a way to make sure that dead external links wouldn't occur. The {{Cite web}} template provides archiveurl parameter for the purpose of adding archived links of pages through webcite. Archive.org sometimes skips pages and the information becomes inaccessible. Shouldn't archiving web references for future verification be a criteria of a featured list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And what happens when the Webcite website goes down, as it has in the past? In fact, on one of those occasions it was because Wikipedia (or some bot) was using it too much and crashed it, no? If all the references in all our FLs were cited through Webcite's archives, every single FL would have been unverifiable. I'd rather one or two references in one or two FLs be bad links than every single reference on the project. It's just too risky to rely on Webcite all the time. The only time I use it is if I know the page is definitely going to expire, such as Yahoo news pages, or http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/ which changes on a weekly basis. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Good points, though I don't see any harm in creating archived versions and adding the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters between <!-- and -->. Goodraise 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The original link and the webcite link are kept in the reference, so the original links, even if they become dead, are kept in the reference. Webcite links were only broken for a while then returned active again; The site moved to new servers just for the demand of Wikipedia. The bot User:WebCiteBOT still runs, to this day, and archives various newly added links. (It has a backlog though...) --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I've suffered link rot on some of my lists and it took hours and several editors working together to repair. However, I think as a result we also improved the quality of the sources for the list, or removed items that were never well sourced to begin with. Our citation guidelines (WP:DEADREF) currently don't rise above "consider" wrt the use of WebCite. Looking through the archives, I see issues where the WebCite servers were broken for a period and also concerns that their servers couldn't handle the demand if Wikipedia started routing all external-link-citations through it. I don't think featured content could demand this until using WebCite (or similar) was actually a guideline requirement. Perhaps WT:CITE is the more appropriate venue to discuss making it a formal guideline. Colin°^Talk 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that we should encourage fixing dead links as necessary, disagree with making explicit mentions of it in the criteria; anyway, it is covered by the citation guidelines that Colin mentions above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am leery of citing any web source that is no longer on the web. If it's no longer available, there could well have been something wrong with it in the first place. I would not favor requiring the use of Webcite, not only for the performance reasons mentioned above, but also (as Colin mentions) because dead weblinks are a sign that the article needs to be improved rather than fossilized in the past. Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen archived weblinks or the use of the Wayback Machine in order to resurrect dead links, so all may not be lost. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

I wouldn't be leery about using archived sites; pages go down for reasons like lack of interest by the owner, by a site taking down expansive archives for server space or when a property is no longer current (as happens on TV-network sites all the time), or when archived material goes into pay archives. Doesn't mean the information is bad.

I see WebCite links as an addition to a particular extant link, not a substitution.

Alarmingly, however, I haven't been able to get to WebCite for awhile, and today got a total "Unable to connect to the server" message today. Is the site gone, or just down? Does anyone know?-- Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine right now. Must have been a transient problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCE or CITATION?

Meaning/Use of either of these terms seems rather ambiguous because:

1) Information that directs me (any author) to use and identify an information source as a "Reference" and when to idetify it as "Citation" does not appear to exist, although there is ample information about the former, and

2) Information about the term "Reference" refers to it using both "Cite" and "Reference" as the base of words used within the definition of "Reference", and

3) There is markup unique to each.

Am I somehow not seeing information that addresses this, or (perhaps) does someone know where I can find it?

Kernel.package (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These words are rather ambiguous, but this guideline attempts to use them in a consistent way, based on their most common or central meaning:

1. "Citation" --- a line of text in a Wikipedia article, that contains the title and other information about a source.
2. "Source" --- a website or book, etc. Something outside of Wikipedia that can be used to verify information in Wikipedia.
3. "Reference" --- can refer to either the line of text or the book, i.e. either the citation or the source, or both together. (Because this word is more ambiguous, this guideline avoids it if one of the other three words can be used.)
4. "Footnote" --- a line of text at the bottom of the article, associated with a superscripted number in the text of the article, which may contain a citation or an explanatory note.

On talk pages, these words are sometimes used interchangeably, but this guideline attempts to use them consistently with these definitions. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)]])

In answer to your question about "where are these defined": "citation" is defined in the first line of WP:CITE (this guideline). Perhaps we should define "source" in the first line of WP:Reliable sources and "footnote" in the first line of WP:FOOTNOTE. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Source is defined in a footnote at the Verifiability policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still the same issue, the term "reference" is not a recognizable term in publishing or librarianship. A "reference source" however, describes either a print or non-print resource. A citation is a citation but generally is "folded" into "notes"; a bibliographical record is expressed as a "bibliography", but not in wickywacky world. FWiW, LOL Bzuk (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Yup, you're right: Wikipedia has its own jargon. I think that's ultimately a good thing, but no editor is required to share my opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? FWiW, does anyone, considering your userid? Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Does anyone share my opinion on Wikipedia's jargon? Presumably all of the editors that use it adeptly to convey very specific meanings to other editors do. If they didn't, then presumably they'd quit using it. I'm not sure how my userid relates to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying not to be obtuse, but your userid connotes a certain lack of purpose? (LOL) FWiW, note the many editors that have "adeptly" adopted/purloined/"made-up" language that more clearly expresses the bibliographical terminology. See: citations, endnotes, footnotes, attributed resources, books used, the dreadful "for further reading" and ad nauseum... Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the userid comes from the polar opposite thought: I have several important projects, and I'm limited to the same 24 hours per day as anyone else. Is this what I really want to be doing with my time? There are certainly days when the answer is "no" -- oh, say, like when I'm dealing with judgmental editors that think they can divine my character and my life from my userid, and further think that such unfounded speculations constitute reasoned arguments in favor of their personal POV.

(No, I'm not the least bit angry... but if you actually have a reason for thinking that Wikipedia should confine itself to a vocabulary that was carefully refined for the dead-tree information age, and that furthermore differs by country and profession, then do feel free to comment on that, instead of on other editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification as to the reasoning behind your electronic nom-de-plume and believe me, I was merely jesting (perhaps you didn't see the tongue in cheek and LOL tag?). As to the formulation of terminology that is almost entirely made-up, that is my real concern. Many of the terms that I have given as examples have been used and it is puzzling why wiki editors chose to try to remake the wheel when there were perfectly good examples of bibliographic cataloging to use as models. There are already a well-established research and referencing guides that prevail in the "dead-tree" world but they have emerged through a long history of use and acceptance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Because the "perfectly good examples" vary by country and profession, and do not provide adequate precision for Wikipedia's purposes. For example, what Wikipedians most commonly title "Works", "References", and "Further reading" could all be given the same name ("Bibliography"). We need a specialized language so that I can say ==References==, instead of "==Bibliography== (oh, I'm using that in the 'what you put the list of works actually cited' under sense, not the other legitimate senses)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the formalized citation and bibliographic style guides do not vary, merely the exponents of them tend to misappropriate the elements of the formats and apply them inaccurately. All publishing houses apply rigorous standards to their works and proscribe the "house" guide that an author and editor must use. No author/editor creates a format or adapts a current standard, that just doesn't make sense, yet that is exactly what is happening daily in Wiki articles. Ç'est la vie, mais quel dommage... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

If the "correct" use of these terms were absolutely the same in every single country and profession, then publishers would not address this issue in their house style guides, because every single guide would say exactly the same thing, and every author and publisher would automatically do exactly the same thing without being told. House style guides already omit other universal standards (e.g., place a full stop at the end of declarative sentences, and a question mark at the end of interrogatives). Do you understand that? There is no absolute universal standard for which term to use. What you see in English lit is not what you see in history, which in turn is different from what is chosen in the field of physics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

<Hey, Bzuk. You've brought this up before, and I just want to be sure I understand your position. You only object to the way Wikipedians use the word "Reference" in their articles, right? You don't object to the way this guideline uses the words "Citation", "source" and "footnote", do you? You agree that this article should avoid the ambiguous word "reference", unless we're forced to, as when we discuss things like <references/> or ==References==, or the titles of other pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, or Parenthetical referencing? <---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me provide some perhaps enlightening information. Here's a list of four common styles heavily used in universities, and what each requires for the name above the list of sources that were used to support content in an academic paper:

• Chicago: "Center the title Bibliography about one inch from the top of the page"[3] (used by historians)
• APA: "In APA style, the alphabetical list of works cited, which appears at the end of the paper, is titled 'References.'"[4] (used by sociologists and psychologists)
• MLA: "Center the title Works Cited about one inch from the top of the page."[5] (used in humanities)
• CSE: "Center the title References (or Cited References) and then list the works you have cited in the paper; do not include other works you may have read."[6] (used by scientists)

Now, Bzuk, are you still convinced that nobody uses "References" as the title for this section? Are you still absolutely sure that everybody uses exactly the same format in "proper" publications? Do you think that the producers of widely used style guides that have been adopted by entire academic fields throughout most of the English-speaking world are somehow ignorant, undereducated people that have got it wrong, simply on the grounds that you personally don't approve of their choices? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles, it's not necessarily the use of the term "references" that is an issue since it is a term widely accepted as referring to the reference source, in either print or nonprint formats. It's when Wiki editors assume that references mean "notes (footnotes or endnotes)" or "citations", that it becomes confusing. I see the use of the title "references" to cover all forms of references, while citation/notes apply to the link to a source, either in full or in abbreviated form (ala Harvard citation) while the overall bibliographic record appears in a "works cited" or preferably, "bibliography." The use of the term "bibliography" becomes problematic in Wiki as it is used to identify an individual's body of work, rather than the listing of the particular use of reference sources in a bibliographic record form. The use of any of the "standards" for cataloguing and bibliographical records, such as the MLA, Chicago Style or others, is what I have been advocating. What is accepted in Wikipedia articles is often an amalgam of styles, made-up styles, or errors in using a proscribed style. Going back to an earlier example, when a work is written and researched for publication (regardless of where it is eventually published), the publishing house dictates a style guide to be used, authors and editors then strenuously observe the dictums of that style. One of the recurrent themes in publishing is that, in order for an academic work to be considered an authoritative work, a comprehensive list of references is provided, in note and bibliographic form. Wiki has made some allowances for the use of a variety of sources which has led to titles such as "external links" and "for further reading" which is much the same as grouping reference sources in the case of the former but becomes an conundrum in the latter's case as is it "works cited" that is actually provided or simply a list of valuable "other" sources? My main concern in referencing a wiki article is the lack of compatibility due to the "many cooks" syndrome (entirely understandable as the effort of creating an encyclopedia by committee inevitably leads to either a collaborative effort or sometimes a chaotic result). More to come, but this is mainly a "stream-of-consciousness" response at this point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't wikt:proscribe any method. It also does not wikt:prescribe any method. It explicitly permits the "amalgam of styles, made-up styles" and all styles that are formal styles that you (or any other reviewing editor) just don't happen to recognize as a correctly implemented formal style. This last is one of the reasons for permitting apparently made-up styles: We don't have the resources to determine what all of the True™ styles are. Wikipedia would rather spend its volunteer's time on something that readers can figure out -- even if that means using a "made-up style" or rejecting a "standard" style for any given article. The major impetus behind not requiring every article to use the same style is to avoid a holy war over which style is the One True™ Style. You will never convince a historian that CSE is the correct style for an article about history, or a physicist that he needs to learn and use MLA when writing about physics.

As for your confusion about which works are being cited: WP:LAYOUT and WP:EL prohibit listed reliable sources used to verify article content under either ==External links== or ==Further reading==. No featured article, and remarkably few partially developed articles, breaks that rule. There is even proposal at EL to include this advice in the very first sentence of the guideline.

I would be interested in hearing more about your "lack of compatibility". What exactly is Wikipedia's approach not compatible with? Is this a complaint that physics articles follow different conventions than history articles? Or that most articles don't precisely match the style used in your own professional field (noting that if they did, they'd consequently not match someone else's standard style)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia does not promote or mandate any individual citation or bibliographical style although the templates appear to only be written in an APA-style. Nonetheless, editors approaching any article from the outset, generally are given precedence as to use of a particular style unless, through consensus, a new rewrite is instituted. In reading WP:LAYOUT, it is apparent that a great deal of movement has occurred in recent times to clarify terminology. The instances where "for further reading" has been misconstrued as a "works cited" is likely to be less and less common in the future. There are numerous instances where an electronic reference source will appear in a citation or note as well as in a bibliography, and then be repeated as an external link. Where incompatibility can be an issue, is when "mixing" of styles, dates, and other information becomes confusing to the reader (as well as the wiki editor). Using ISO dates in a template, but written-out dates, sometimes in two different conventions in the body of the text is one such example. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

<There are several topics under discussion here. The original poster, as I understand them, asked a question about semantics. I'm hoping that we all agree on the basic ontology denoted by various uses of these words and the central meaning of "footnote", "citation" and "source" in this context. If you disagree with my first post above, please let me know right away.

The other (alleged) problems must be discussed directly and made more specific before we can take any action on them:

1. We call our footnote markup <ref> when it probably should have been <footnote> or <endnote>.
2. A list of citations to sources in an article is usually titled References.
3. A list of footnotes containing citations to sources in an article is usually titled References.
4. Some guidelines refer to "footnotes containing citations to sources" as "references".
5. People tend to refer to "footnotes containing citations to sources" as "references" on talk pages.
6. And finally, the deeper issue: Should Wikipedia have a consistent citation method? If so, what?

The fourth is fixed in this guideline (I think) and could be fixed elsewhere. The fifth can't be fixed, of course, but wouldn't be an issue without the first four. As for the first three, they can't be fixed at this point without a truly gigantic effort. Do you, Bzuk, propose that we begin the process of changing any of these? And finally, I think the last issue deserves an organized discussion because there are many arguments and counter arguments to consider. I would recommend starting an WP:Essay, allow other editors to add to it and thereby discuss the issue directly and completely. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles, back in Jurassic Times, I did try to involve editors in the forums and emails to look at references and basically was shown the door (trap door, I recall...). However, inexorably, changes have been gradually been incorporated in guidelines and more practically, in practice. The Wiki style that I eventually followed was to create a section titled "References" which refers to all reference sources that houses the following: "Notes" ("Citations", and clarifying Notes/Footnotes/Endnotes) as well as a "Bibliography" ("Works cited", "External links" and any other subdivision of media). Despite the rather fuzzy nature of choosing a particular citation/bibliographic "style", as long as a consistent format was adopted, the articles that I have authored, edited or collaborated with others that have received GA, FA and other categorizations based on peer review, were accepted, since Wiki allows a wide variance in formats. I am still not convinced of the value of having "For further research", "For further reading" as the terms convey the impression that "maybe" there is something worthwhile in these other resources. As for an essay that further elaborates these concepts, a good thought there... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Some of you may have views that you wish to share here, as to which way we should go.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Preventing dead links - idea

Maybe this was discussed before, if you know so, please point out where.

Regarding Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_dead_links, I think a pretty good way to do it would be to have:

1. a bot that would look over all the Template:Citation templates and add automatically the complete value on the "archiveurl=" by first checking at arhive.org and webcitation.org, maybe even google cache, and if not found to request automatically to archive the page then make a note of the archive URL.
2. a bot to add automatically an empty "quote=" attribute (if it does not already exist), to encourage editors to fill that out. Thus giving precise context on the source of the information, and making sure that if the content of the page is lost, it can be still easily searched for a new URL.
3. the same could be done with ref's, by first converting them to Citation

Since information is very dynamic on the internet, and loss of valuable information happens I think requesting automatically to arhive the weblink, would be a great solution. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this has often been brought up. See User:WebCiteBOT. -- œ^™ 05:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Say where you found the material

The old text was:

It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a book. Unless you look at the book yourself, your source is the Web page, which is what you must cite, in turn making clear that the Web page cited the book.

The new text was:

If the cite is a convenience link, make this clear in the contents of the article itself. In such a case, as is frequently found in developing articles, it is improper to neglect to make the content appear as if the citation could be direct, when in actuality, the source is indirect (through an intermediary). For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a book. Unless you look at the book yourself, your source is the webpage, and we are temporarily, and conveniently citing it. The clarification occurs in the article text, or in a footnote. As the cite source improves by being more direct, so will the content of the article improve in lucidity, (even if it only improves the lucidity of a footnote), for in place of the need to say "She says he says." type wordings, there will only appear in the article the fact itself (plus a small reference mark), as it should be.

I prefer the old text, as its clear, clean, short, and provides an unambiguous directive. I'm reverting to the older text. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm rather inclined to agree. In any case, I was under the impression that changes of any substance should be discussed here first, not made unilaterally out of the blue. -- Alarics (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording and don't believe there is any indication there that a "she says he says" type contruction would be necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There will be no contesting from me, of the revert. The revert will stay.

I will offer in another discussion (the way I might have proceeded initially), my assertions. Thank you. CpiralCpiral 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding of the main point here. The main problem to solve is not "I read the book at Gutenberg.org, and it's just barely possible that there's a critical typo here", but "Joe's blog said that the news story said... -- oh, but Joe's blog isn't a reliable source, so I'll just say I read the actual newspaper article. I'm sure Joe didn't misrepresent anything."

The newer version appears to be rather more oriented towards convenience links than to the "don't trust: verify" purpose here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. I will not edit any "conceptually unclear" policy page while reading it for the first time. I'm new, and I must apologize for editing a policy page before discussing. (Hereafter the "I'm new." excuse will not be used by me for any reason.) Signed CpiralCpiral 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia maligns former president obote

I am concerned that the first paragraph in wikipedia about obote carries falsehoods and mudsling material about former Ugandan president Dr. Apollo Milton Obote. As a father of my country and a man under whose leadership Uganda acquired instruments of independence he deserves better description than given here. The authors of this information should have done more research before unleashing political information that offers nothing more than propaganda value. It is common knowledge here that under Obote's leadership infrastructure was built in the country, social services offered to all without discrimination and the economy grew by leaps and bounds. His first government was put to an end by colonialists whose apartheid policy, mainly in southern Africa, the Mulungushi club to which obote was a member had vigorously opposed. He democratically regained power in 1980 despite the machinations by the neocolonialists and their comprado allies who aided selfish men like Museveni to overthrow his second government. These and many other basic facts on the political history of Uganda should have been fully captured by any balanced researcher offering to feed information to the world. Thank you

Moses Nuwagaba (nuwagabamoses@yahoo.co.uk) Tel:+256753462152 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.6 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is completely the wrong place to raise this matter. Nothing stops you from editing the article about Milton Obote provided you can cite reliable sources to support what you write. -- Alarics (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Several quotes from one source in one paragraph

If a paragraph summarizes a book review, say, and in doing so uses several literal quotes, duly placed between quotation marks, and it is clear that these are all quotes from the book review under discussion, is it really necessary to add the same citation again and again for each quote? For the purpose of verifiability, it would appear that one citation for the book review is sufficient.  --Lambiam 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, a single quotation at the end of a paragraph is sufficient indication of sourcing and thus verifiability if only one source is referred to. If two sources you can get away with Fred says, Jane disagrees type comparative style and cite both at the end of para. Any more and you want to use more detailed referencing. If the claims are dubious or large, individual page references would be required rather than large page ranges. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Which page number in pdf?

I did a search in the archives, but didn't see this addressed. I'm citing a pdf, specifically this one

The page numbers of the underlying thesis don't match the page numbers of the pdf. For example, page 76 of the thesis is page 83 of the pdf.

Which page should be included in the citation? I can think of arguments for both options; wondering if a convention has been established, or if there is some obviously preferred choice.--SPhilbrickT 15:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually, PDFs are also available in paper form, and the Wikipedia citation usually gives enough information for readers to obtain the paper form. The reader of the PDF can use either kind of page number (although the PDF page numbers are easier to navigate with). The reader of the paper document has no way to know how the pages would have been numbered in the PDF. So I favor using the underlying page numbers. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I used, and that's why I used it. (I agree pdf numbers are easier to navigate, especially for a paper using roman numbers or appendix numbering).Thanks--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Both. But the primary page numbering should be based on the paper pages, and the PDF numbered pages included as a convenience as in pp. 110-112 [pdf pages 2-4] or pp. iv-vii [pdf pages 4-7]. If you're only going to provide one, provide the paper page numbers. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar Addon/cite template section incomplete/inaccurate. And can't be editted.

Clicking on the Google Scholar add-on tools takes one to a Google Scholar page. (Not an addon page, as expected). Since I'd already found the paper I wanted to cite, & just wanted a quick and easy tool tool to do the formatting for me, I thought this would be prefect. The page even told me that all I'd have to do, was click on the wikify link, to create the citation. Just what I want!!

Except... it's too good to be true. I cut'n'pasted the title, & got a nice search result. But no wikify link. (I have a screen snapshot of it, but I can't upload the file.) I tried all the Scholar preferences, but none of the citation references even looked like a wiki citation template. (Yes, I'm running Firefox 2: it's not my machine to upgrade, and some addons the owner uses won't work with FF3 (even now!).)

Then I tried looking for the edit link, to edit the project page to indicate it might not work for all users (at very least indicate it's only in Beta), but... no edit link. (Strike 2.) Hence this post here.

Google'ing the Universal Reference Formatter, got me to a page I could fill in manually. (Like.... why bother with that over an editor?) And some user's page indicating that you need Greasemonkey installed and some additional userscript to get the wikify link from Google scholar. (But no indication why this isn't mentioned on the official cite tools page: for all I know, it's a virus lurking....).

Since I wouldn't be able update the main page with the correct instructions even if they do work, I'm giving up on these tools. (And, no, I'm not going to ask that the machine get upgraded.)

But... someone with edit privs should update the main page with the CORRECT information (whatever the heck that is, but it's sure not what's there now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.109.239 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just tested it myself and it didn't work for me either (and I have FF3). Looks like the tool just isn't working right now, but I'll not remove from the page without some additional comments on the matter. Anon, sorry this problem wasted your time, but sometimes these tools just stop working. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about proper citation format

Suppose you want start out by writing something like: Source challenges the assertion that John Doe travelled to Europe.[1]

After this sentence, suppose the editor continues with: According to Source, "John Doe traveled to South America, not Europe."[1] As proof, Source shows a picture of John Doe meeting his mother at the airport in Buenos Aires.[1]

My question is, assuming all of these citations point to the same page within a book, is the proper style to cite with the [1] after each of the three sentences, or only after the first sentence, or only at the end?

Also, I'd like to know if this is the proper place on Wikipedia to post such questions, and if not, where I should post it. Thanks. Printer999 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we were following Univ. of Chicago Press recommendations, a single citation at the end of the paragraph (I presume these sentences form a single paragraph) would be appropriate.

In the dynamic Wiki world, especially in controversial articles, there is an unfortunate (IMHO) tendency to cite each element separately.

I'd recommend a single citation, located at the end of the passage, unless the individual elements are likely to be challenged separately. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, subject to the point that there appears to be consensus that all quotations need to be separately referenced, even if the reference is to the same citation that appears at the end of the paragraph. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Change

{{editsemiprotected}}

You actually don't need the quotation marks (") in <ref name="name"/> and <ref name="name">.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That only works if the reference name is a single word. If it is a phrase such as "my name", then quotation marks will need to be used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

heh, I've been meaning to ask about this for ages. Thanks for clearing that up!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tlping request because it has already been handled(explained). BejinhanTalk 13:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Change this page's status

This page is not a style guideline. It basically says that editors can use any reasonable citation style, and gives no guidance at all. The whole purpose of a style guideline is to keep articles consistent, which this fails at, miserably. At best it keeps styles within each article consistent. If anything, this page should be a behavioral guideline as the only real guidance it gives is the sentence forbidding changes to the citation style of an article. Mr.Z-man 01:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, not so much because the page lacks style guidance but because I have always seen it as a subtopic of WP:V, not WP:MOS - especially the top half of this page about when to cite and what citations should include. I might put it under "editing guidelines" rather than "behavioral guidelines". Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If this page were not the citation style guideline, there would be no citation style guideline at all, and the situation would be the same regarding lack of uniformity. The reason there is no prescriptive guideline mandating a particular style of references is the same as the reason for WP:ENGVAR: people simply don't agree over which style is best. So, just like ENGVAR, we only try to keep articles internally consistent, rather than forcing everyone to adopt a single uniform style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)