Talk:Parenthetical referencing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unknown Author

I have been compiling a series of reports and using various internet sources that I have been citing in my bibliography. However, many of these sources to not state the name of the author. I have found evidence from other sites that these should be referenced in the bibilography by Title and Company/Site name, but how do I reference it in the body of my report? I.e. (Unknown, 2008) or ([Title], 2008)? The Wikipedia article assumes that you have access to all the information and does not highlight the accepted format if some of this information is not available. NinjaKid (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i think it should be (Anon., 2008) in the text.

However, if there are multiple "Anon."s of the same year, then it might be like this in the text:

So to say, some say cats "meow" (Anon., 2008a), while others say cats "purr" (Anon., 2008b). As for the rest, Anon. (2008c) mentions that cats sing out of tune.

While in the Reference chapter, it might be like this:

Anon., 2008a, ...

Anon., 2008b, ...

Anon., 2008c, ...

i might be wrong. Kerina yin (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Website Referencing

This article contains no explaination of how to reference websites. I believe the correct format is Surname, Initial. (Year). Title. <Website Address> [Date Accessed] NinjaKid (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Re: Above) Dear Elders of the Internet, all your references cannot help me answer a fundamental question. How does one reference forum posts or BBoards? [please dont question the validity of the material- non peer reviewed or such, its directly in line with the research] Answers appreciated! sometimes the world falls apart, then it's time for you to turn into glue. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a reference

This article contains no explaination of how to reference another author's reference. I.e. (Jones quoted Smith, 2008) NinjaKid (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this to Parenthetical referencing

I originally changed this from Harvard referencing to Author-date referencing, but I'm thinking now that the broadest, most descriptive name would be parenthetical referencing. Author-date seems to directly refer to the practice of referencing in-text by the author and the date. In MLA, this is not done; it's author title. If anyone has an objection to the change, please let me know. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MLA is not an author-date system

Current article states that author-date is the preferred style of the MLA. But surely MLA is an author-title system, not an author-date system? An MLA in-text parenthetical citation looks like this: (Breton, Nadja 20). Or: (Foucault, Order 149). The date appears nowhere. The MLA Handbook doesn't specify author-date citation anywhere. Can someone clarify this, and amend the article as necessary? E1ijah (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See the section above. I'm just giving people more time to weigh in before I retitle this to "Parenthetical referencing". ImpIn | (t - c) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that renaming this article to "Parenthetical referencing" would help. There are author-title systems that are parenthetical, author-title systems that are non-parenthetical , and author-date systems that are parenthetical. In other words:

So APA would be a parenthetical author-date style, MLA would be a parenthetical author-title system, and Chicago allows for both parenthetical author-date citation and footnoted author-title citation. Surely the point of this present Wikipedia article is to describe the family of citation styles in the middle vertical column of the image above, which are sometimes called Author-date systems and sometimes called Harvard referencing, but which are distinguished from other referencing systems by the fact that they put dates in parentheses. In other words, the fact that they are author-date oriented is just as important as the fact that the citations are in parentheses, and to rename this article "Parenthetical referencing" would miss that point.E1ijah (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. Perhaps this is best kept as-is. Especially in the Cons section of this page, it references author-title system as a better alternative for humanities papers (CTRL-F for Spinoza to see what I'm talking about). If this was renamed to "parenthetical referencing", it would serve as a broader overview of that system, and then the MLA comment would not be incorrect. We could then comment on the fact that the CMOS allows for mixing them. By the way, what year is that image from? My Pocket Style Manual describes Chicago as just a footnote system; I know that's not right, having glanced at the CMOS itself. But I didn't dig real deep into it. I need to look through it again to understand how that works.

I recently renamed this to "Author-date referencing" from "Harvard referencing". However, it appears that there's been longstanding confusion over what these terms mean, as you point out with the inclusion of the MLA into. So someone working on this article meant it to broadly encompass parenthetical referencing, as is shown in the introduction: "Author-date -- also known as Harvard or parenthetical referencing". Here is another example.

There are two routes that can be taken. This article can become a broad article on parenthetical referencing, including the APA, MLA, and Chicago approach, or we can cut out the reference to MLA in this article (and the example I pointed to). I actually think that broadly addressing parenthetical referencing may be more beneficial for this article. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since E1ijah has not responded, and since this really is dealing with parenthetical referencing rather than author-date systems exclusively, I think this move should go through. I think the author-date / author-title differences can elaborated on in this article. II 04:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Author-date referencing → Parenthetical referencing — Factually more correct, since this page discusses MLA, which is author-title; more descriptive as well. — II 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Inline considered harmful

While this may be acceptable even desirable for some articles. "Quarks aren't ions"(Einstein 1933), it seems to me to be extremely distracting to the article in most cases and should be avoided. I imagine this has been discussed many times before in an archive but I wasn't around then! The people who like it most likely don't care as much about readability as much as most Wikipedia editors do. "Distracting? So what? It's a disseration. Who cares about readability?"

I don't expect to have to slog through someone's biog with this sort of detritus lying about. "For this critical meeting, Smith (Jones 2003) went with Brown (Hamilton 1995) to see Washington (Jefferson 1800)." Good Lord! Stack 'em at the end? Yeh, well, maybe but that can be wrong as well if the sources disagree on who attended the meeting! And still very messy.

I just changed someone's inline c**p with a ref-footnote-ref and got my knuckles rapped for it. One thing about Wikipedia, there is always a policy justifying somebody's bad decision someplace. I guess I will have to find one to justify mine! Student7 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an accepted method of citing. Do you read scientific articles much? It is very common. You have to get used to it. To make it less annoying, the author can be embedded in the text, like "Eistein (1933) says that quarks aren't ions." I'll admit that looks awkward in this case. II | (t - c) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it in science so much, but papers there are not written for readability by the public. The article I was referring to was an ordinary bio. It was distracting IMO which is why I changed it to ref-note-ref. The editor objected citing this policy. I'm agreeable to confining it to science articles! Can I put that in the policy? ("Be bold," right?  :) Student7 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely footnotes are preferable online due to the benefit of hyperlinking? Turkeyphan^t 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Block Quote Rules

I've read elsewhere that one should place a long quote in a separate paragraph (block quoting), every time the number of words of the quote exceeds certain threshold. Some sources say 30 words, other say less, other more. Is it worthwhile to mention this block quote rule in the article? If so, what would be the word limit that differentiates between short and long quotes? --Forich (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This point pertains not so specifically to parenthetical referencing as it does to the style of block quotations detailed in various style guides; see the template in that article and compare the sections on quotations regarding block quotation formatting in WP:MOS. (In MLA style format, parenthetical citations are placed after the punctuation of the block quotation. Parenthetical citations in quotations incorporated in the text of an article or book are placed before the punctuation of the block quotation, with special rules relating to different kinds of punctuation; e.g., colons, semi-colons, and so on. One needs to check punctuation guidelines in various style guides for such details. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I've seen citations both before and after the block quote punctuation... that's detailed, indeed!

Regarding MOS, I've checked APA's, but it doesn't coincide with some of the online guides' rules on the number-of-words needed for block quoting. If I follow you, NYScholar, are you suggesting that Parenthetical referencing be quiet on this issue and, instead, leave that rule for MOS?? In my opinion, it wouldn't hurt to have that kind of rule here, since it is directly related to the issue of getting in-text citations right. Let's hope we can reach some agreement on this, I got tons of more nitpicks of this kind (I'm afraid they may fall into MOS jurisdiction too!) --Forich (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a style guideline in Wikipedia. It is just an article about "parenthetical referencing" (the subject). It gives many sources for the various style guides published by various professional and scholarly organizations. One cannot deal with such details for each of these different style guides in this particular article. One simply is referred to the official publications of the organizations if one wants to know such details. MLA style is to use block quotations for prose quotations of 4 lines or more (as printed or word-processed in one's own text). APA, CSE, and other styles may differ. One needs to consult the actual publications for such possible differences (about where one places the parenthetical citations after block quotations incorporated in a text and where one places them after quotations separated from the text). Such punctuation of parenthetical citations is a different matter than the fact of using them in citing sources (the subject here).

(cont.) Yes, in formatting articles in Wikipedia, one goes by the style guidelines for block quotations in WP:MOS#Quotations. It is not the subject of this article, as I understand its subject. This article is not about "rules" (or, more properly speaking) "style guidelines" for writing in Wikipedia. That is the subject of WP:MOS. Please see the note at the top of Style guide. It makes that clear distinction. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) In this instance, "more than 4 lines", WP:MOS#Quotations parallels MLA style (just checked). But if one were writing a paper or article for a journal in psychology or in the physical sciences, etc., then one would follow one's own disciplinary organization style guide--e.g., APA, CSE, etc. Many Wikipedia articles in medicine fields, have specific documentation formats closer to CSE style in parenthetical citations in text and notes (endnotes), and bibliographical formatting. The question about such details appears to be a matter relating to flexibility of style guidelines for citations in Wikipedia, not in specific disciplinary fields, which are not so flexible in academic journals and trade and scholarly publications; see The Chicago Manual of Style, e.g., re: block quotations and parenthetical citation punctuation (where end period goes). Please consult the MOS links for articles in Wikipedia re: block quotations. (There are also many inconsistencies throughout Wikipedia, due to peer-editing method and multiple articles crossing on the same or similar or related subjects.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) See WP:CITE#Parenthetical referencing for Wikipedia citation formatting options re: punctuation of parenthetical citations, with examples there; that section is already cross-referenced in this article. (I'll check again later if something changed since I looked at it last. It should be there.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This was very informative. I agree that this article is not about style guidelines for writing in Wikipedia. I also understand that a writer should consult it's own career-specific manual of style for writing, and there she will find a comprehensive set of style guidelines for the correct use of parenthetical referencing. Let's try to make this more explicit in the article. --Forich (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputable use of the system

A reference to a reprint is cited with the original publication date in square brackets (Marx [1867] 1967, p. 90).

I've never seen this before in any work. Is it verifiable? If no one come and justify that rule, I'll erase it from the article.--Forich (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is one of those referencing conventions where the reason why you almost never see it in real-world use is that, although it is technically superior to typical use, most authors don't know or care enough about bibliographic subtlety (/accuracy) to bother with it. There are other examples of this principle—for example, Foo writes a monograph, which is published by a university press in hardcover in 2003. In 2006, a softcover "edition" is released, which is not truly a separate edition, being merely the same films printed on a different trim size, with an updated preface. Voilà, in 2008, you've got people citing the softcover as "Foo 2006" with no indication in the ref list entry that this is the same work as Foo 2003. From a citation analysis perspective, this is clearly flawed. Yet you will almost never see anyone cite "Foo [2003] 2006", because, basically, ignorance is the prevailing standard on this point. It's one of those (many, many) areas in life where either (a) the mainstream practice is ignorant of the best-practice recommendation, or (b) many people are vaguely aware of the best-practice recommendation, but it is easy to go with the mainstream flow of ignoring it, since there are no negative consequences that follow. I speak from professional experience when I report that most MDs do not know or follow the smaller, subtler details of bibliographic recommendations. I suggest that a better solution than removing this fact from the article is to write a phrase after it acknowledging that the practice is often not followed "in real life". </2¢> Regards, — ¾-10 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Such use of brackets (for year of original publication when citing reprints) is discussed in the linked online style guides; they are common usage. The brackets are used for such "editorial interpolations," and they function as such editorial interpolations. They are already used in the examples in the article. Please see the notes, references, further reading, and EL sections if one wants more information about this matter. --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Touché. Seem like a useful rule. I think the reason it is not common use its because of (i) scientific articles in economics (my field) do not tend to cite old books. Anything from the 70s or older is not frequently cited in most economic journals, hence, books that DO get cited don't need a reprint yet, and (ii) yep, economists are inaccurate when citing reprinted books: I just did a quick browse and found 1890's Principles of economics being cited (erroneously) as being of 1950 (the year of a reprint). --Forich (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can attest that elsewhere in STM publishing the exact same thing that you described occurs. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme, but it is annoying as an emblem of larger carelessness. For example, in manuscript, someone will write something like, "The publication of Foo's groundbreaking monograph in the 1950s transformed the field.⁵⁶" Then ref 56 says, "Fou [sic] B. Title with spelling errer [sic]. New York: McCraw-Hill [sic], 1994 [sic]." (Whether the bib style is Vancouver or parenthetical, the point about the information is the same either way.) I guess the reason it annoys me is just that you can tell that no one cares. Bang it out, whatever. But sometimes the same authors who passed the buck on effort and attention span in manuscript later complain about errors making it into print. — ¾-10 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions and updating

Some of the comments posted by users above have been accounted for in the recent revisions and updating of this article. Please see the editing summaries. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Link N° 3 does not work anymore ("Nottingham..."). Please update. --Joh 05:58 (MET), 19 Feb 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

About the online guides

I find annoying that the (currently) nine online guides linked here disagree on so many little details, BUT they all claim to be the authentic and ultimate author-date, Harvard system, parenthetical referencing guide. I may be able to pinpoint and list here all the inconsistencies between the online guides, but I'll undertake that one at a time. The first one was my Block quote rule rant. Comments welcome.--Forich (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Online guides frequently disagree, because they are frequently based on different editions of the primary guides. That is why the publishers of the official guides stress the importance of using the [most recently-published] official publications of the guides. Instructors in courses generally direct their students to follow specific formats published in official guides and textbooks based on those guides. Online guides published on websites of colleges and universities are compiled most often by staff and students of those institutions and they can make mistakes or create inconsistencies, just as can peer editors in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's founder makes it very clear that Wikipedia articles are no substitute for [professional and] scholarly organization sources. [Neither are the websites listed in the EL section.] (updated) --NYScholar (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) For talk page guidelines, please consult the link in the talk page header. Thanks very much. [This talk page is not the place for "rants" about block quotations or pet peeves about any other style guidelines; it is about editing this article in ways to improve it, not about its subject (parenthetical referencing). It is "not a forum" message board on the subject.] --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parenthetical referencing article. … This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." (talkpage header)

--NYScholar (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for words of advice on editing Wikipedia. Just let me make a few more comments:

* I think it is relevant to adress the issue of online guides being inconsistent, since they are the sources being cited to backup this article, and we need to comply with verifiability. If any article has sources that are not reliable, it is an important issue to discuss in it's talk page. With that being said, I regret my choice of words, since annoying and reach an agreement pertain more to forum than here, and should not be the language used in Wikipedia (I'm an active forum user too, so pardon my poor choice of words)

* Last time I checked, there was no proffesional and/or scholarly organization source in charge of having the last word on Parenthetical referencing. Please prove me wrong if that's the case. Hence, we are not substituting a proffesional source (I'll never support that!), but instead we are putting our time and efforts to make this Wikipedia article comprehensive (see Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria). However, if many editors continue to support the idea of letting this article as brief as it is, I will be the first one in stoping attempts to extend it. --Forich (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that you are confusing matters of focus (talk page focus). No one is talking about this article in Wikipedia providing any "last word" on "parenthetical referencing"; no style guide does that either; they are periodically being revised (go through subsequent editions). Such third-party published peer-reviewed (not peer-written like Wikis) style guides are directed to general readers, both advanced professionals and students in some cases, and there are variations among them (intentionally, as they have different purposes). Wikipedia is the "first word" not the "last word" on any subject, and readers of Wikipedia are advised not to assume that it is an authoritative source on any subject, due to the factor of peer-editing and vandalism. I really do not understand what your aim is in discussing anything here but how to improve the article in its editing. This is not a forum for discussing the subject at all (again, please read the talkpage header and its linked policies and guidelines). There are forums elsewhere for discussing the subject, but not here. --NYScholar (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Forich, he's discussing something that overlaps between forum appropriateness and WP-talk-page appropriateness. There are times when you can't fully develop a WP article without some shades of the former, because the very epistemology of the topic must be puzzled out among the editors in order to figure out what should be said in the article. In this case, Forich is pointing out that there is no such thing in reality as an epistemology of style guides that is a "handed-down-from-a-single-highest-authority" kind of model, although many people have the idea that that model matches reality. The reason that this is relevant to this WP talk page is that that epistemological fact can be addressed in the article. What each style guide is, epistemologically, is one group of people's thoroughly vetted convention. And another group of people has another one that is not necessarily less epistemologically valid—just variant. Each one should ideally be followed in any given manuscript, but it is not always followed with 100% fidelity because some writers don't have it, some have it but haven't read it carefully enough, some have read it but have forgotten some of the details, etc. An example: there are many style guides for newspaper writing and editing, including The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, the AP Stylebook, and The Times Style and Usage Guide. They differ from each other in details not because "they have different purposes" but because Tom likes periods in his e.g.s and Harry prefers to omit them. Similarly, AMA reference style differs in certain minor details from other Vancouver-type ref styles such as that of NLM's Citing Medicine not because "they have different purposes" but probably because AMA was, for example, already italicizing the journal title abbreviation before the 1978 Vancouver meeting ever took place and they've never felt the need to change to roman since then. Again, Tom likes X, Harry likes Y, and Dick has been doing Z since before Tom was born and he ain't changin now. And none of them is the one and only king of their field. — ¾-10 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Three-quarter-ten. I'm all up for improving this article. I've been studying the author-date referencing for a year, since my university has assigned me to lead the team that writes down our own styleguide. After doing some research, I found that there are thin lines that are not clear for every writer out there: for example, one can't just say that an article follows author-date referencing. But, if Joe's article follows

* APA's manual

* +the parenthetical referencing system

* +author-date subsystem

* + the interpretation of Anglia Rusking University online guide

THEN it should look pretty much consistent with Charles' article which follows

* APA's manual

* +the parenthetical referencing system

* +author-date subsystem

* +the interpretation of Anglia Rusking University online guide.

However, both Joe and Charlie's articles should look INCONSISTENT with Jane's article which follows:

* APA's manual

* +the parenthetical referencing system

* +author-date subsystem

* +the interpretation of Leeds University Library online guide.

What I'm trying to prove here is that we, as editors of Wikipedia, should be aware of this thin line, because it has confused many writers in the past. They could mistake that following an online guide (by itself) leads them to consistency, or that following APA'manual+the parenthetical referencing system + author-date subsystems broad set of guidelines should lead them to consistency, when it clearly is not the case. Do we agree on this? If not, I can search for verifiable sources that help me stand my point, I have no rush.--Forich (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. As for citing sources to back it up, that is a good idea; when any of us has time we should do it. Quite possibly the front matter of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage may have something apt (regarding the general concept of the epistemology of, and differences between, style guides). If I get time I'll investigate that hypothesis and add a relevant citation. In addition, I would like to present the following, which helps by giving an analogy. The 4-step chain that Forich described above is an example of the abstract concept of the cascading of styles. Think about css (Cascading Style Sheets). Software such as a browser follows rules about how to cascade one style instruction over another (eg, inline over css) to arrive at an instance of final display, which will differ in some details from another that followed a slightly different path. That is another concrete example of the same abstract concept. If a reader came to this article thinking that author-date referencing is analogous to one particular css file that was handed down by one supreme authority, what s/he learns from this article is that that analogy is flawed; what author-date referencing is properly analogous to is a family of css files based on a common template. — ¾-10 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll insert a new reference to the list of online guides, at the end of the article. Check it out:

Neugeboren, Robert and Mireille Jacobson. (2005). "Writing Economics". [Online]. Available in:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/WritingEconomics.pdf [cited may 7 2009]--Forich (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Internal consistency

Style guides (individual third-party published style guides) are internally consistent, as should be Wikipedia style guidelines (though Wikipedia guidelines are not internally consistent, due to peer editing keeping them in flux and introducing inconsistencies in them; many are optional). One expects variations among non-official condensations of official style guides (as I've already explained); they are not official. The official guides should have internal consistency in their style guidelines. If they were not internally consistent (even in their statements about "exceptions"), they would not be doing what they are supposed to be doing: striving for consistency of documentation format preparation--parallel to the purpose of rules of grammar and spelling; they are broken by writers who wish to be creative and innovative (e.g., e.e.cummings, or James Joyce) or many poets, novelists, playwrights, and even journalists (e.g., Suzan-Lori Parks, Hunter Thompson, et al.).

(cont.) Style guide users are told to follow their guidelines consistently so that the users' readers can understand the documents written in the specified formats. One chooses a set and follows it. One identifies one's choice by name of the style (APA, MLA, Chicago, ACS, CSE, and so on); then one follows it. Any student who learns how to follow any official style guide consistently should be able to shift to another discipline's style guide and follow it consistently. One teaches one's students how to follow the guidelines (consistency).

(cont.) The principle is consistency in application (not in comparison of guide to guide). So please focus on applying core principles in Wikipedia to editing its articles. I myself do not go for "Ignore all rules": e.g., I am bold but not via ignoring Wikipedia core policies; if guidelines in Wikipedia are optional, I look at the options I have to choose from, choose one that goes w/ a particular article, or (if already consistently applied in documentation formats in the article) continue with that prevailing format (that [in my view] accords with WP:MOS re: the major principle of internal consistency: WP:MOS#Internal consistency).

(cont.) I've made the changes that I made to this article due to its own inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and lack of support in some of its statements in actual third-party publications. --NYScholar (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, there's no doubt your contributions have been very useful for this talk page. I plan to make up my ideas in a more polite and constructive way, sometime next week. (hopefully) You'll see that there are not that many discrepancies between our standpoints on the editing of this article. For the moment, I am taking well all your suggestions and I' ll BE READING every documentation you have cited, so we don't have to recur anymore to condescendent explanations. Bye.--Forich (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The "discrepancies" actually do have to do with differences of the "purposes" among the authors of various style guides (official and unofficial); see F.'s own statement of purpose (and point of view or perspective) in comments on this talk page: " I've been studying the author-date referencing for a year, since my university has assigned me to lead the team that writes down our own styleguide." That is the "purpose" guiding the comments made by F. on this talk page [not initially improving this particular article in Wikipedia per se]. (cont. below)

• One can understand F.'s own perspective better now that one knows of that being F.'s purpose in consulting parenthetical referencing in Wikipedia. There may actually be a conflict of interest in that purpose, since we (other editors, users, readers of Wikipedia) would not want this article revised so that it conforms with the objectives of one university's "own" style guide.
• The statements about parenthetical referencing in this Wikipedia article need to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• As this article is written by whoever enters it, it is not (currently) a reliable source for the particular purpose that F. cites.
• As I understand F.'s statement of purpose, it would be much more effective for F. to look for information about "parenthetical referencing" in the official style guides published in the various academic disciplines (since it is a university style guide that F. is working on) and to use the various additional references accessible in the academic websites and EL section as potential models (positive and/or negative) for what F.'s university has charged F.'s team with compiling.
• That purpose is very different from the purpose of editing ("improving") this Wikipedia article on parenthetical referencing.
• After F. has done the research necessary for compiling the university's style guide ("later," as F. suggests), then it would be helpful if, based on that enlarged perspective, F. returned to this article and viewed it again.
• Changing it prior to doing that essential research is, in my view, premature.
• This article needs to be useful to many readers of English Wikipedia around the world who are simply reading it as an initial introduction to "parenthetical referencing", not as "the last word" on the subject (from any disciplinary standpoint or interest). It is a starting point, not an ending point. (These comments are my own perspective and are not in any way intended as condescension to anyone.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• N.B.: I have tried to make it clear in parenthetical referencing that there are two main methods:

1. author-date (used in APA style and CSE, and ACS style in the U.S.; called by some, mostly in the UK and Australia, it seems: "Harvard style" or "Harvard referencing" or "Harvard system", etc.; not called that by Harvard University)
2. author-title or author-page (used in MLA style in the U.S. and other countries; adopted in more countries than U.S.)

The Chicago Manual of Style discusses various methods; some University presses in the U.S. and elsewhere ask authors to submit articles in their disciplinary documentation systems (e.g., MLA, APA, etc.) and then to use whatever style sheet the press has adopted and/or adapted, which is, in my book publishing experience, based on Chicago Manual of Style. The only difference from MLA style that I noticed when I had to revise a submitted book ms. from MLA to (mostly) Chicago style involved slight punctuation differences (a comma between surname of author and page no. in parenthetical citations (and bibliog. entries), e.g. Even by the early to mid 1990s, no "p. or "pp." was being used before page nos. for a ms. submitted for final editing in the humanities. --NYScholar (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chicago Manual of Style again: it now has an e-mail subscription list, where it sends updates to subscribers about alterations and changes in its recommmendations and various related updates. --NYScholar (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've revised and updated portions of the article. --NYScholar (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I accept that I was in need for a forum where I could discuss some of the difficulties of my assignment at work. I may have misused this talk page for that purpose, and for that I apologize. Let's put an end to that. Second, I'm certain that the changes I made to the article are not biased toward my own univerisity style guide. The reason I know this is because I made zero changes to the article. NYScholar said: "we (other editors, users, readers of Wikipedia) would not want this article revised so that it conforms with the objectives of one university's "own" style guide.". Well, I don't want that to happen either, that's why I brought out in the first place the discussion about online guides inconsistencies which led us to the first word-final word discussion (But this is not a Forum so maybe we ahould not talk about it here). There were two other points in NYSholar post above:

* That I'm no expert in the subject. Well, I'm not, and I never said I was one. In fact, I may never become one. Still, I may be able to write some valid observations on a Wikipedia's talk page, that eventually lead to changes in the content of the article.

* That my purpose is very different from the purpose of editing ("improving") this Wikipedia article on parenthetical referencing. Well, it's his opinion, and he is entitled to it. If other editors feel the same way, that would be a different story.--Forich (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for F. to apologize to me or anyone else here. It is just useful for us to understand F.'s perspective. Thanks to F. for clarifying it. --NYScholar (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Words of caution

I will repeat comments made in Talk:The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, pertaining to WP:NOT. Wikipedia and its external links sections are not a substitute for official publications of style guides. (The official publications are listed as References and official websites are linked in many of the articles on the specific style guides: see their "Styles" template for convenient links to them.)

(cont.) This article on parenthetical referencing is not intended as a style guide or a substitute for official style guides published by professional or scholarly organizations.

(cont.) Here is the comment from the MLA Handbook talk page: "(Word of caution to all reading any of these articles on any published "style guides" in Wikipedia, as pertains to articles in Wikipedia on any subject. An encyclopedia, esp. an online peer-edited Wiki, does not take the place of primary and secondary peer-reviewed third party publications by trade and academic presses.)" (bold font added. The words are my own and quoted as such.)--NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[(cont.) For some related sources, please see my own user subpage sections: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues#Issues and concerns relating to usage of Wikipedia as a source & User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues#Academic Criticism of Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)] [added "/" and note. --NYScholar (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)]

For Wikipedia's own style guidelines, many of which are "optional" (see, e.g., How to present citations), one consults WP:MOS. --NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) [Added parenthetical point above. --NYScholar (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)]

The words of caution in the article seem fine: a useful point to make. But can anyone clarify as to why so much space and venom is spent on a deconstruction of one University of Leeds web page giving style advice? It seems disproportionate to me. 152.78.64.180 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And would it be possible for an expert to comment on the trend for in-line parenthetical references to be treated as complete noun phrases? I see more and more of "...as can be seen in (Smith 2001) and..." which surely should be "...as can be seen in Smith (2001) and...". When I first saw this I assumed the author had just made a mistake but it seems to be gaining currency as a convention now, and many editors let articles go out with references in this form. I don't know whether this is evidence for poor copy-editing and fundamental misunderstandings about grammar, or if it's perhaps a convention I'll have to get used to, inspired by the way engineering-style references get used: "... as can be seen in [12] and...". 152.78.64.180 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that style is wrong, you may discard it, is poor editing. Clearly, it is a misuse of the context, like: "... some authors argue that the pen is blue (Smith 2001)". Which is correct. On the other hand, to say "The pen is blue, as can be seen in (Smith 2001)" is wrong. --Forich (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)