Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

When not to cite sources, round III

I'm not at all convinced that separate, inline references are needed (or even desirable):

• When a work is referenced that contains its own article on Wikipedia. Mention of that work, and a Wikilink, should be enough. E.g.

In his Pensées, (Blaise) Pascal writes:

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give reasons for their beliefs, since they profess belief in a religion which they cannot explain? . . .
     (Pensées, no, 201).

• In many cases, where an author is quoted who has his own article on Wikipedia, and the work referenced is discussed on the linked page.
• In short, if it's obvious that a particular author or a particular text are being referenced or quoted in text, no separate reference should be necessary.

In short, while I generally favour the addition of references to articles, I tend to think that wikilinks should be primary, and notes, external links, and similar references, secondary. Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly OK on facts, but how about on opinions? I seem to be in an argument (via edit summaries and user talk pages) about just this with HQCentral, who is clearly a fine writer, but seems to feel that he can insert opinions into an article willy nilly as long as he asserts that they are held by someone who is listed as a reference. This is taking place in an article of relatively specialist interest — Collier's Encyclopedia. I happen to have a weird connection to it (my dad was an executive at Crowell Collier Macmillan in the 1960s). I don't disagree with any of the opinions being expressed, but they are opinions, and, as far as I know, WP:NPOV + WP:NOR + WP:CITE + who knows what else add up to a need for each of these to be explicitly cited. If someone else would also weigh in on this, it would probably be a good thing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are many occasions (if not most) when citing of sources is just not necessary. I'm becoming increasingly irritated by people who introduce the "lacks citation" template into new, short articles about well-known people. Is a newspaper interview or even a biography necessarily a better source than a wikipedia article, especially when facts can be double-checked simply by googling? Deb 20:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding you, but - yes: A specific link to the best result of a googling for "well-known" facts is better, because it makes things more explicit, and faciliates discussing the validity of the souces. It should certainly not be required, but at the same time, it should certainly not be prohibited or removed when it is provided. A Wikipedia article itself can't be a source - it can only be a summarization and condensation of other sources. That's basic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that premise, though I understand why you say it. Wikipedia articles tend to be better-researched than the majority of newspaper articles, and in many cases better than published biographies. It depends what you mean by "source", but these days when I'm looking for hard facts about almost any subject, I come to wikipedia first and go to printed sources only if I need more detail. Deb 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify further, I could satisfy the "need for citation" requirement by citing a source that is less accurate than what is in the wikipedia article. Deb 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if the WP article is "better researched" than some source that is cited, then why aren't the sources used in that "better research" cited? If something is important enough to be written about in WP, someone has already written about it elsewhere, and that source can be cited. I see nothing wrong with citing multiple sources even for a short article, if necessary to support all of the facts stated in the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But, by that reasoning, it would be okay to introduce inaccuracies as long as you can cite a source for them. Deb 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sorry, but the best way to achieve accuracy in Wikipedia is to only include material that has been published in reliable sources. If you cannot cite a reliable source for something, then the information is not reliable. If you use a source that is not a published source that can be readily checked by other editors and readers, then you are engaged in original research. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In the particular matter of Collier's Encyclopedia: HQCentral has now three times removed my requests for citations, without satisfying any of them. While he has definitely made some good contributions to Wikipedia, I continue to think that in this matter he is totally in the wrong. I am walking away from this. He is obviously ready to fight about it more or less indefinitely, and it is simply not worth it to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

page numbers

see also arcive talk Wikipedia_talk:Cite sources/archive10#Citing page numbers

There has been some discussion as to whether citations must be accompanied by page numbers. As far as I can tell, our policies do not require page numbers. Moreover, I do not think they should because (1) in some cases page numbers are inappropriate and (2) this is not accepted practice (virtually all academic presses and peer-reviewed journals have citations lacking page numbers). On the other hand, sometimes page numbers are appropriate and required. I think we need to make this clear. The question is, when are page numbers appropriate or inappropriate? The answer is fairly obvious, and I propose addding something like this to the guidelines: when one has a direct quotation, paraphrases, or refers to a specific passage in a book or article, one should provide page numbers. When one refers to a book or article because the book or article as a whole treats a particular topic or expresses a particular point of view, page numbers are unnecessary and inappropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that page numbers are never inappropriate, and unnecessary only when a general statement about the POV of a particular book or article is being made (and perhaps not even then). Citing a 600 page book without providing page numbers is almost always useless, since it's practically impossible for anyone to actually verify whether a particular point is discussed within; only if the point is so general that it becomes obvious from a superficial examination of the work can the page numbers be safely omitted. Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"I would say that page numbers are never inappropriate ..." I am afraid you are simply wrong. Let me provide two examples. First, a real one: "Weber is also well-known for his study of the bureaucratisation of society, the rational ways in which formal social organisations apply the ideal type characteristics of a bureaucracy. Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him, and a classic, hierarchically organised civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service", although this is only one ideal type of public administration and government described in his magnum opus Economy and Society (1922)." It would be inappropriate to put (1922: 1-1469). Here is a hypothetical example where it would be inappropriate: "In the 1980s several feminists explored feminist readings of psychoanalytical thought (e.g. Gallop 1985, Hamilton 1982, Rose 1986). Again, it would be flat out inappropriate to put (Gallop 1985: 1-198, Hamilton 1982: 1-313, Rose 1986: 1-256). i must say, I sense that my position is being twisted and I do not appreciate that. My comment was made in good faith. I have never suggested that page numbers are a bad thing or should be discouraged and I don't like to think that people are twisting this into a choice of "always provide page numbers" versus "never provide page numbers." That is not fair to my position nor constructive. My point is that some times page numbers are appropriate and necessary, and sometimes inappropriate and unnecessary, and that our guiddelines should provide helpful explanations to guide editors. That page numbers are sometimes unnecessary and inappropriate is a common view in academic publishing. You say providing a citation without page number is "almost always useless." What do you really mean? that is is sometimes useful? In that case you are simply agreeing with me. let's explain to editors when it is useful, then. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; "never" was an overstatement on my part. I think a distinction can be drawn (as below) between citing a particular point from a work (which requires page numbers) and discussing the work itself, or its general argument, which may not (although for a longer work, it may be useful to give a range of pages where the issue is addressed, if only to aid future editors). Kirill Lokshin 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like the following (this is based on suggestions made by SLR here elsewhere):

Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to a specific passage of, a book or article. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general dsecription of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.

• An example of a general reference where page numbers would be inappropriate: "In the 1980s several feminists explored feminist readings of psychoanalytical thought" (Gallop 1985, Hamilton 1982, Rose 1986)."
• An example of a specific reference that requires a page number: "In 1989, Jane Doe wrote that: 'The patriarchal framework of psychoanalytical thinking poses problems for feminist readings of particular analysts' (Doe 1989:43)." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is fine. I wonder whether it makes sense to separate the examples from the principles - i.e. perhaps it would be better to say "Page numbers must be included ...e.g. ... Page numbers are not required ... e.g. ..." but this is a matter of style and I will defer to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. So long as page numbers aren't actively discouraged in either case—but merely noted as being optional—I have no objections. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear: I think page numbers should be required - just in very specific and non-inclusive situations. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1980s several feminists explored feminist readings of psychoanalytical thought" (Gallop 1985, Hamilton 1982, Rose 1986)." That should include page numbers if the sources are books. Otherwise one has to read several books to verify the claim. Otherwise some people will just pick random thick books in particular field when making claims and state that it is supported, somehere, somehow, in these books. If you cannot find it, read the books again. Ultramarine 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait. I quess these are the feminists themselves, not a "secondary" source. Then obviously no page numbers would be required.Ultramarine 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{outdenting for readability} Personally, I think page numbers should be used whenever possible. What I mean is that if you are quoting, synopsizing, paraphrasing, or summarizing a particular section of the source’s text, then the page number is appropriate, in either the in-line citation (John Doe 1997, pp. 45–47) or in the cite template, or both. If you are referring to an entire work in a more bibliographical sense, such as it being a six-page paper to whose thesis is the reference, then page numbers are not required. In my opinion, it boils down to the level of specificity being quoted. -- Avi 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I am not sure what your point is. To clarify, are you agreeing with me and SV, or disagreeing? What are you saying that we have not said? Are you making a proposal, to ammend SV's proposal? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that there needs to be some judgement on the part of the editor. But if you wish me to crystallize a proposal, I would say it depends on which of the accepted formats are being used:

In-line/Harvard/Author-date citation

In-line--Page numbers are the default in the parebthetical insertion, unless the reference is for comparitive or explanatory purposes, and not referring to a particular sentence/paragraph. Reference list-- unless the work in toto is being referenced once, and linked to by multiple entries (many {{note_label}}'s in front of one citation), the "pages" referring to the section from which the citation is drawn needs to be filled out in the appropriate entry of the cite tag.

php style (ref tags) with cite tag IN reference

Same as reference list above.

php style (ref tags) with cite tag in "bibliography"

then author and page MUST be in the ref tag.

Seems reasonable? My feeling is that although one should have page numbers as often as possible, there do exist times when it is neither appropriate nor necessary. -- Avi 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chapter numbers may substitute, I suggest, for some books (like novels that are often reprinted, so the page numbers are not helpful), or online sources that are unpaged (like Gutenberg books). Rjensen 14:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point which I have used myself (see Johnston reference in Actuary). Thank you for bringing that up, although I think if sections are available, they should substitute. In a nutshell, the most specific address that encompasses the reference or idea, and that does not exclude any of it, should be used. -- Avi 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy already makes this clear - that some sources (esp. online ones) do not have page numbers; that when providing a page number it is also important to provide a full citation of the bood (e.g. what edition it is, what publisher) because page numbers can differ from edition to edition - this stuff has been in the policy for a long time. All I think we are adding here is that when providing direct quotes or paraphrases from a particular passage, one must provide the page number if available. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like the idea of chapter numbers in some circumstances and general quotes in others. Page numbers are critical where direct quoting of paraphrasing but for general citing they can be cumbersome. An example ( imagine the harvard references are <ref></ref> style ) from an article I'm doing off-line:
The Burra mines supplied 5% of the world’s copper for 15 years (Auhl I. 1980:339), and the settlement, one of the largest in Australia at the time (Auhl I. 1980:12), has been credited with saving the economy of the new colony of South Australia (Auhl I. 1980:126).
Reads as cumbersome and messy even if the Harvard style are replaced with footnotes. Also on this current article I could end up with an absurdly long reference list for only 5 sources. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with three footnote numbers in the string of text. If you don't want to read them, you ignore them. If you're interested, you click on them and get to the NOTES section where you should find all the details you want.

I'm a bit confused about your concern with having an absurdly long reference list, since the recommended style is to have separate sections for NOTES and for an ordered list of REFERENCES. --SteveMcCluskey 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to Accepted Markup

Question from a new user. I have followed six or more links and I think more than once each, to find out how to make citations, references, Harvard references. Is there one page that I can follow safely for English Wikipedia? Thought I had it at last at Template_messages/Sources_of_articles but alas that page says Harvard markup is "IN BETA TESTING PHASE—TEMPLATE SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR BREAK PERIODICALLY". If that page is right, then at least I know there is no agreed upon markup yet. Thanks for any help. --Susanlesch 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Is there an example article that you follow, one that cites books, papers, news, Usenet, video and other kinds of sources, that uses both references and footnotes and illustrates how they should work together? --Susanlesch 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was, but AFAIK, it's still in a state of confusion and non-clarity. We have lots of standards... ;-) The basic guideline is, if you are working by yourself on an article - do whatever you feel like, and please document it if you don't just pick one of the many exsisting methods; if you are working on an article with pre-existing citations or active editors, ask them on the talk page what they do, and follow their suggestions. That's the best advice I can give you. Good luck, and thanks for contributing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a heckuvalotta work to do it and change it later so I wanted to ask. Thanks for your help, Jesse. --Susanlesch 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible solutions for notes, citations, and sources (and references)

I'd like to get some feedback from others who are thinking about the issues of citing sources on Wikipedia. Rather than burden this page with a lenghty analysis and proposal I've placed it in my own user space. I welcome comments at the associated talk page.

Let me briefly summarize the proposal here. Basically I'm trying to think through the disctintions between notations, citations, references and sources. From that analysis I propose two strategies. First to alter the manual of style to disentangle these issues. Second, to develop a list of feature requests for MediaWiki software developers to make the job of adding and editing content even easier down the line. I think this proposal addresses a lot of the concerns I've seen raised here on this page, which is why I metnioned it here. --Cplot 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

recent edit re WP articles as sources

An anonymous editor just changed "Note: Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources." to "Note: Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources for one another." This probably does clarify the intent of that particular sentence, but on the other hand, my understanding is that we do try to discourage using Wikipedia articles as sources, period. What do others think? --Allen 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, for our purposes, there isn't a useful distinction to be made between the two. It's certainly possible to imagine a scenario where an outside work would cite a Wikipedia article and would itself be cited, in turn, in another Wikipedia article (or, for the truly perverse, the same Wikipedia article); but I doubt the point will come up in practice, at least for the forseeable future. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See above #"Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources".

But on this specific issue, It did come up in the River Teme article where there is a POV battle which has been going on for months over whether the Teme was ever generally navigable. An old version of the same article on a Wikipeida mirror/clone was used as a source to update the Wikipedia page (Revision as of 11:44, 20 May 2006) with a particular POV from that old version. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it somehow needs to be made clearer that not using Wikipedia articles as sources applies to links, particularly in list entries. If you are building, say, a List of Faber College Alumni, it is not sufficient to slap down * [[John Doe]], even if the John Doe article happens to assert that Doe attended Faber. An astonishing number of list entries are of this kind. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

List are sort of an odd case. Some editors tried to set some sensible advice about this in Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for many cases it is virtually impossible to get specific evidence in place apart from discussion in the corresponding article. For example, take a look at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z. Against great resistence, a few editors managed to get a rough standard obeyed that the person's article must at least explicitly mention the sexual identity matter, but very few have independent citation within the list.

On the other hand, I'm not sure this is entirely bad as a standard. For some politicized criteria (like "is gay"), sources often conflict. If one source wrote "John Doe is gay", but the consensus of sources is that such is just a rumor, inclusion in the list seems inappropriate. Merely footnoting the one supporting source isn't good enough. But a list doesn't allow for footnoting many conflicting sources, and discussing the contrary status and evolution of claims: that's what a biographical article is able to do. So I don't think a longstanding and uncontested claim in a WP biography is inappropriate to rely on for list inclusion; it's only if the claim is a recent addition, or is subject to caveats or disagreements within the article that it is unusable. LotLE×talk 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, things that are "longstanding and uncontested" don't need to be sourced? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, of course they do. I think you're being a little disingenuous here. The point is that it's not necessarily unreasonable for the sourcing to be in the biographical article, especially when the cite is of something complex rather than narrow. So for example, in the GLB list mentioned above, the first name is Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. The first sentence describing him is: "Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs is seen today as a pioneer of modern lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movements." Following that is a variety of biographical information, including several footnotes and book cites. A list with hundred of names need not, and should not, repeat all of that: the fact purported seems to be fundamental to the biography entry.

The contrast here is with someone like, e.g. Tom Cruise. His alleged homosexuality or bisexuality is a stuff of rumors, and no doubt from time-to-time some passing editor sticks something about that in his article; and then it's reverted after a few minutes. Adding Cruise to such a list because the WP article said it for 2 minutes is definitely foolish, and impermissible. But adding Ulrichs because his article is, and always has been, largely about his sexuality is perfectly OK. I'm sure some cite from the Ulrichs article could be pulled out into a footnote on the list... but do you really think doing so makes the fact any better supported than the biography article itself does?! LotLE×talk 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I do. The reason is that recent checking in List of bisexual people and elsewhere suggests that a list may say at the top that it should only link to articles that cite sources, but that does not mean that editors will reliably adhere to this. If there are sources in the list article, well, you can quickly see which items are sourced. If not, after a few people have failed to follow the guideline, you cannot tell which items are sourced. The chances of a casual editor concocting a false reference are very small. On the other hand, the chances of someone saying "Hey, I've heard that so-and-so is [from Abilene] [called "the father of photography"] [whatever], and he's not on the list, I'll put him in," and just typing in the name in brackets without even reading the linked article, let alone checking for a citation, is quite high... and after a few of those are in the article it's a huge amount of work to figure out which entries are verifiable and which aren't.

On the other hand, if you have a source it's trivial to copy it into the article. And if you require that the sources be explicitly provided in the article, then it's very easy to see which entries are sourced and which aren't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Help on my citings.

I'm trying to begin citing for an article about a music act (Barenaked Ladies, if you care), which has been writen entirely without citation to this point (some by me, mainly by others). I'm trying to retroactively cite information. I have a large number of sources for this, but I feel that the most reliable source would be the band members themselves (for most things, like the origin of the band). The most reliable sources I have would be interviews. I have several lengthly interviews from TV shows, and audio interviews. My question is, if I have at least one (and actually more than one) interview in which a member of the band describes the entire story of their meeting and forming, and I'm basically using that as the source for 2 to 3 paragraphs of wiki content, what's the proper way of citing this? The citations that I usually use are footnote ref/cites but that's usually for shorter facts. I don't really want to transcribe the interviews into quotes (which are easier to cite, but would be too lengthly); so I'm not sure how to indicate in my citation that I'm basically basing the entire three paragraphs on the source (putting the footnote at the end of the story seems to convey that just the last sentance or two of fact came from the reference. Let me know what I should do! thanks! :) TheHYPO 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be simply a footnote (at the end of the paragraphs), which states, in pretty much the same words as you just used above, the source you are citing. ref citations can be as long as you need them to be. There may be a better way, but that's what I would do in the same situation. To make it clear it referrs to the whole paragraph, just add something like "The previous three paragraphs describing the formation of the band are sourced from an interview with the band members by SomeRadioProgram on SomeDate" and provide whatever links you can. (i.e. to the web archive of shows if possible) Hope this helps! JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been using a cite template for the actual citation so far... the problem is that the same article spawns citations for facts all over the article, and I'm using it in a good number of places. So I can't really put specifics on that one use into the citation... thanks for the ideas though TheHYPO 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the page and see you're using a {{cite episode}} template. I couldn't find any documentation for this particular template on the sources of articles template page. It may be someone just improvised and made it up. I did find a {{cite video}} template that may do the trick. The following entry

{{cite video

| people = Ed Robertson, Lorne Frohman

| title = Interview with Ed Robertson by Lorne Frohman

| medium = Television

| publisher = [http://www.chumlimited.com CHUM Limited ]

| location = [[BookTelevision]] on [[Category 1 channels (Canada)|category 1]]

| date = }} (you can add additional information about the airing or whatever here}

displays as:

Ed Robertson, Lorne Frohman. Interview with Ed Robertson by Lorne Frohman (Television). BookTelevision on category 1: CHUM Limited . {{cite AV media}}: External link in |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) (you can add additional information about the airing or whatever here)

which I think more clearly conveys the type of source (though I likely filled in the template incorrectly; you know better than I how the information should be entered).

I also think it's a good idea to place just on cite template in a reference list and use the <ref> tag simply for making notations about the cited source (such as a timestamp location in the program, if you want to get that specific). The ref element is nice for footnoting, but it doesn't quite meet the needs of reference lists. Also, the jumpback function to/from multiple locations is unclear when using named ref elements. So in my view, the ref element should not (and really has no reason to) be used for multiple references to the same note (IMHO).

Can you explain that last paragraph in more detail? I have no problem switching to the other cite template, but I'm not sure I follow your last point about what to use and what not to use. An example would be helpful (as it's the clearest way to see your point) Thanks for the help. TheHYPO 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been experiementing and reading up on what's availalbe technically with wikimedia and the like so i'm still figuring this out. One example you could look at is the artilcle on the labor theory of value which I converted over to the method I reccomend to you. There, I created two lists Notes and References. The 'Notes' list is automatically generated from the ref and references elements (as you're familiar with). The 'References' list is generated manually by scanning the 'Notes' list, creating an entry for each unique source cited, and then arranging alphabetically (though sorting won't concern you yet on the BNL page :-)).

I'm not sure how I'd handle your specific situation. It might be cumbersome to actually not use the named ref element since it will create separate footnotes with no unique information (unless you do have some unique information for each). I think I would just put a ref note next to the section heading for each of the two sections you composed that draw from this one source. Something like: "Unless otherwise noted, the facts in this section are drawn from an interview ....". Then perhaaps add a comment on the talk page warning others to be careful in editing those sections to immediately cite sources or include the {{uncited}} template or otherwise keep your section citations coherent.

Right now, on the lator theory of value article the manually created 'Reference' list uses primarily freeflow references. I plan to convert those over to the cite templates (or harvard Ref templates) in time for consistency's sake and for semantic structure's sake (I think that's 'best practice'). The one reference to Capital volume one, I just converted, so you can check that out on the source edit page. You can also check out the Harvard citation templates at this page, though I don't think those have anything to handle a video or TV episode very well]. There are inline templates for specific page citations, but they don't really add a lot of structure nor keep anything in syncrhonizaton so I don't see a reason to recommend them. I hope I'm not just confusing you and others. --Cplot 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion, and appreciate your example; I'm still not sure what the best way to do this is. Because it's not an article on a concept or item which has definitions and explainations, and the article is almost entirely history, almost every thought in the article technically needs to be cited. The problem with these sections is, I've only gone through one interview so far. I built the (for example) 'how the band formed' section based on the one interview right now. But I don't plan to stop there. I plan to check various other interviews for info, and will likely revise and clarify that section based on other interviews. This precludes me from citing the entire section unless I cite all of the sources generally for the section. Or else I have to cite every other sentence, and that would be silly. It's also the factor of, what counts as accepted free knowledge of the band's history, and what counts as needing to be cited; I am tending towards only citing specific facts that are about the band's opinions ('the band has said.... [cite]'), but there are so many lesser known facts in the section that might bear citing. Too many in fact. It's easy to cite in an essay when you are giving opinion and there are facts refrenced, but how do you cite in an encyclopedic history? That's really the main problem. The entire article is one big history; almost every line of which has to come from some source. The more I go through sources to add citings, the more it's going to be clocked with footnotes. TheHYPO 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your predicament (I think). I suggest citing/footnoting the section heading with "Unless otherwise noted, the historical details in this section are drawn from an interview ....". They're historical facts you're writing about which makes them similar to any other fact as far as citing references goes. If in viewing that interveiw, a reader can verify all the historical facts you write about in that section, you're done. If you find one sentence or another needs verification from elsewhere, you can cite that other source at the end of that sentence. Within traditional style rules (and html and wiki markup) there's not always a clear way to tell whether a citation reference is for the previous phrase, sentence, paragraph, or section. Though if you footnote the section heading accordingly, that helps clarify things. I think you may find that one source covers much of the details in any given section: at least that's whay you indicate so far in the two sections you provided citations for. --Cplot 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the band has told the story of their origin dozens of times. I have at least 4 reports of it handy, but there are two band members who tell the story, and each time one of them tells it, they add or emphasise different details. So for an accurate history, one must compile about 4 years of history (in about 5 paragraphs) from about 5 sources, where every two lines the main source of the text is from a different interview. I could put in the heading that the entire section comes from interviews [1][2][3], etc. but that doesn't then cite specifically what comes from where. Additionally, I could simply cite the references directly in the references section at the bottom and not specifically footnote-tie the article to those references, but again, this doesn't cite specifically. There's also facts like "They both went to the same school". This is a fact, but it also comes from an interview, but it's a public record fact. Do I cite that? Then I add the name of the school; that comes from another interview. I add that one was a grade ahead of the other. That's another interview. So that's 3 interviews cited in (basically) one or two facts. It's frustrating me, because I WANT to comply with the fact that the article lacks citation, but I also understand why people don't bother when it comes to history of something like a band that has no official written proof records that document history. It all has to come from recollected stories told in pieces in interviews. Most fans have heard 50 interviews, and have the story ingrained in their heads. They then accept the story as common knowledge, and put it in the wiki article from memory. They don't go back and refer to interviews when writing the wiki because within the group's fanbase, we all know this to be fact. So this is all contributing to why the articles for BNL (and probably other similar articles) lack citation. Argh! TheHYPO 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing television shows as sources

Would someone please provide a description of how to cite television shows as sources?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any particular standard, but the method that I tend to use is something like this. The goal is to include enough about the program such that another editor (who had access to that channel) could find the same program:

• "Behind the Da Vinci Code", 2006, History Channel documentary, produced and directed by Ian Bremner

Hope that helps, --Elonka 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe that whenever possible, references to movies, television shows, etc. should give the most specific possible indication of where in the reference occurs. For example, if the movie or show is available on a commercially published DVD, the ASIN number or other identification of the DVD and the number of minutes at which the cited item occurs. It is no more reasonable to expect someone to watch an hour of television to check a reference than to read an entire book. In fact, it's easier to riffle through a book than to scan through a television show. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a dicsussion of this in the thread immediately above. There a {{cite video}} template described there. --Cplot 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but unless the television show has been published—i.e. is available for purchase on DVD and available in about as many libraries as a comparably important book—then how can it meet the verifiability policy? There's no way I can travel in space to, say, Ottawa and in time, to, say, 2002 and tune to channel whatever and watch a one-hour show to see whether some detail referenced in an article is as described. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What refstyle is best for an article with lots of refs and lots of footnotes?

I'm used to dealing with articles that have lots of footnotes (used for things like expanded information, quotations, background info, etc.), and I'm used to dealing with an article with lots of inline citations and references, but I'm not sure of how best to handle an article that makes major use of both. In particular, how do editors recommend formatting an article that regularly uses notes (in <ref> tags) that both elaborate or comment on the text, and attribute it to a specific source? I have not been able to find a satisfactory way to utilize a ref for both purposes at the same time in the same place.

The only method I've been able to find is something similar to the footnote style in the Saffron article: use normal refs for the footnotes, and include Harvard referencing in the notes wherever a source is cited (which also has the advantage of making it easier to browse the references by alphabetizing them, a serious deficiency of <ref>-only references), thus having two separate sections for "Notes and citations" and "References/Bibliography". Unlike the Saffron article, this has the added advantage in the article in question of not mishmashing the ref citations with the dozens of notes, quotations, explanations, etc. which the footnotes are full of.

However, I'm hesitant to implement this style because I haven't seen it used in other articles; is it nonstandard, or is some other method preferred? I know that Wikipedia is open to a variety of styles for citing styles, and doesn't force articles to adhere to one form or another, but I'd like to have a better idea of what the best options available are for a situation like this. -Silence 07:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A few articles do use a mix of Notes and References, and I've begun to like the style myself. One additional advantage is that, if you have to cite a bunch of different page numbers of a single work, you don't have to repeat the full citation for each different set of page numbers. A featured article other that does something similar for this purpose is Donkey Kong (arcade game). — TKD::Talk 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly another excellent advantage, especially for articles that inline-cite different pages from the same source many times over the course of an article. Saffron is a featured article too, incidentally; I wouldn't have given it as my example otherwise. But it seems like a doubly valuable style for an article which, unlike DK and Saffron, has plentiful non-citation footnotes (like intelligent design), and it's the only consistent option I've seen for an inline reference that is both a footnote and a citation. Any more opinions on this style? -Silence 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, per se, but my personal preference is to use raw footnotes for everything (e.g. Italian War of 1521); I suppose it might depend on how extensive the discursive footnotes are, though. Kirill Lokshin 14:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They are extremely extensive. See Intelligent design#Notes and references. The amount of inline referencing and inline footnoting required by the article has led to an untenable situation where readers are confronted with dense blocks of mishmashed quotations, elaborations and reference information, completely inconsistent and arbitrary in its arrangement. Moreover, the sheer number of citations will render navigating the references of this article impossible in practicality. Unfortunately, my proposal following the above discussion with TKD to consider implementing this style has been dismissed by several other ID editors, primarily on the grounds that it is too difficult for a reader who follows a Harvard-ref link to the reference information to return to the footnote and/or article text which directed the reader there; although the ref tags provide valuable links both to and from an inline ref, the Harvard tags lack that feature.

(Of course, this deficiency does not overrule the fact that the proposed style vastly outweighs the current style in utility, and no other consistent method has been proposed for using inline refs that incorporate both reference text and quotations, elaborations, etc. The proposed style has been dismissed without any consideration for the fact that although Harvard referencing is imperfect, it's still a vast improvement over the current situation, which is simple chaos: the style and format changes without rhyme of reason from one line to the next in the refs section.)

But they are correct that this is a deficiency, whether it's a critical one or not. So, does anyone know of any solution to this problem? Any way to provide an easy, relatively inobtrusive link not only from the footnote to the Harvard ref, but also back from the Harvard ref to the footnote? Or, in lieu of that, does anyone know of an alternative method for consistently organizing a footnotes/refs section like the one in question? -Silence 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Using {{ref_harvard}} and {{note_label}} allow for links back and forth for in-line citations. See Actuary, which is a WP:FA. Originally, I used the ref/cite.php for footnoting and the in-line for citations (which allows multiple notelabels to link to the entry in the reference list), but as I only had one, I re-wrote the paragraph to dispense with the need for it. But that is how I would go; use the ref tags for footnotes in a Notes section and use the refharvard/notelabel combination for citiations. Good Luck! -- Avi 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Specifically look at the Bühlmann reference, which has three refharvards linking to three notelabels with different pages all in front of the same citation in reference. Is that what you are looking for? -- Avi 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After playing around with referencing in Para Hills, South Australia and Burra, South Australia I think that the latter ( similar to Saffron referencing ) works better. A notes section with short harvard style references that link to full references in a references section. Can easily go article->notes->article or article->notes->references but I can't find a way to go back to the correct notes section from the references list. The problem with the Italian War of 1521 style of referencing is that, if there are a lot of refererenced or simlar works, finding the whole reference becomes a bit cumbersome. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyday audience

I'd like to suggest a couple things to help nonacademics.

1. The first mention within the body of an article of a person used as a source should include the first name, the full name the person usually uses. Outside of academic texts, people normally encounter full names, it has much more meaning and clarity, and most readers seldom use footnotes in everyday life.
2. The "Citing sources" page should have a basic summary at or near the top. Maurreen 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also like to add John Doe, professor of X at University Y, so that people know why I'm referring to that person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's even better.

Long time, no see. Hope you're doing well. Maurreen 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. However, it does depend on the quote. Sometimes the quote is not all that notable, but just represents what is generally accepted in a given field of study. One gives a cite so that the general reader will know that the Wikipedia editor didn't just make it up. Consider the difference between the following two quotes taken from the article on culture:

Anthony P. Cohen (1985) writes of the "symbolic gloss" which allows social actors to use common symbols to communicate and understand each other while still imbuing these symbols with personal significance and meanings.<ref>Cohen, A. 1985. ''The Symbolic Construction of Community.''</ref>

Sociologists and anthropologists believe that a holistic approach to the study of cultures and their environments is needed to understand all of the various aspects of change. Human existence may best be looked at as a "multifaceted whole." Only from this vantage can one grasp the realities of culture change.<ref name = Overview />

In the second quote, the author is merely stating what is generally accepted in those fields of study; thus no need to name him, IMO. Sunray 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, too.

I was meaning when a specific person is indicated in the body. Here's an example of what needs clarification, from the Technology article: "Mechanistic world view: Viewing the universe as a collection of parts, (like a machine), that can be individually analyzed and understood (McGinn)."

The article would be more readable and clear if it at least said something like "according to Firstname McGinn." (forgot to sign earlier) Maurreen 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to help?

I would like to help find citations that are requested. What category do I go to to look for {{fact}} requests? Thanks Eagle talk 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From the template page, click "What links here" on the left side. Maurreen 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The size of the tag

I personally feel that the tag is slightly too large, and looks intrusive when it appear in large amounts. I've seen quite a few pages with a every couple sentences, and I really feel that the length of the tag can be shortened. I'm thinking something like , but the message it conveys apparently isn't too clear. For example, look at the Bad EGG article(it appears that the article is being listed for deletion), sorry for not being to find a better one. Valhallia 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We could eliminate the intrusiveness by moving the unsourced material to the talk page. If a section is filled with fact tags, we could eliminate the fact tags and put an {{unreferencedsect}} tag on the section. In other words, I feel that fact tags are less disruptive than moving material to the talk page, or simply deleting it, which policy allows. We have to be somewhat intrusive to get articles properly sourced. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is rather useful to specifically indicate which sentences are unreferenced, otherwise if there are one or two references in the section, people respond, "I see references; what exactly is the problem?" The labels are should be attention-getting, both to attract fixes and to alert readers that the claim they are reading might not be accurate, and might change when a source is finally located. -- Beland 14:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree both that the "citation needed" tag is too big and that {{unreferencedsect}} is often insufficient.

For for now, I'd support any reasonable way of replacing "citation needed" with a shorter phrase. Maybe a superscripted question mark in brackets, like this:^[?].

Moving unreferenced material to Talk is something I do, but gingerly. Right now, there are just too many editors who do not really understand or accept the verifiability policy... and in particular do not understand that it is not limited to material whose truth is questioned. They regard moving material to a talk page as a hostile act, and since they can point to vast quantities of unreferenced material in Wikipedia, they are apt to regard it as selective enforcement by someone with an animus against their topic area. The "tag and bag" approach works better. People are less likely to get angry at marking something as needing citation... and if something has been marked for a long time without a citation being provided, there is better community support for removing it.

Long-term, I'd like to see technical fixes that would make the citation status subtler and less intrusive to people who just want to read the article. I'd like to see

a) A pair of tags so for assocating a reference with the range of text it's supporting. (Right now, given a paragraph with one footnote at the end, it's hard to know whether the citation is supporting the whole paragraph or just the last sentence.

b) An optional page view in which inline citations and citation needed tags are not shown as intrusive superscripts (which affect line spacing), but instead

c) Displays referenced text in black, unreferenced text in a subtly lighter color such as a dark grey, and "citation needed" text in a subtle but more conspicuous color than unreferenced text... say, the same darkness as uncited text but with a perceptibly reddish tint. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Different types of problems in articles require different remedies. Derogatory material or revelation of private information about living persons that is not cited in relable references should be removed immediately per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, and, if private information has been revealed, reported to an admin to determine if the page history needs to be cleaned. Any material that strains credulity and is not referenced is best moved to the talk page. In fact, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence says that moving questioned material to the talk page is better than tagging it with {{citation needed}}. Note in particular Jimbo's comment on the subject. As for your last point about displaying pages, I suspect any such proposal will sit far down the 'wish list'. I must say I think I would find a page displayed that way too jarring. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Google books as citation

I seem to be in a disagreement with some people at Talk:Polish-Romanian Alliance#Google Books as citation. The references in Polish-Romanian Alliance are mostly blind links to Google Books. I think that's inadequate citation, but at least so far I'm a minority of one in saying so. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Google books is a wonderful free service, and surely the link to an online page is better than merely a reference to Book XYZ page 122. Rjensen 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not. A combination of both is certainly better than either alone, but mere URLs to Google Books (while certainly better than nothing) are actually harder to track down (if/when the link breaks) than a normal citation. We obviously need both, and should have typical citations in preference to google book's links. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)