BrowseAtWork.com:   [ UP ]   [Manage cookies]

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
WikiProject Help
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Help, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the help system on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Shortcut:
WT:CITE
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 14 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.


Contents

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

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

[edit] First Hand Source

This question has bugged me about Wikipedia, and I see someone has question a section of an article I added to using first-hand knowledge. How do you cite first hand knowledge? Let's say for example, you were at the fall of the Berlin Wall. I know many sources, photos and even videos exists of this event, but for the sake of the argument let's say everyone went home, wrote it down in their diaries or whatever and no published or photographic evidence exists of this event. Does this mean for all intent and purposes these things never happened because no one bothered to record them in a published source? How do you address when you KNOW something, but you can't find a source online to back it up? -Eaglescout1984 19:19 17 Feb 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.125.121 (talk)

Get it published by a reliable publisher. It's perfectly reasonable that each publication decide what it wants to publish. You don't send knitting patterns to an astronomy magazine. You don't send an article on hot-rodding a Studebaker to a home decorating magazine. You don't send unpublished stuff to Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
First hand knowledge isn't consistent with the core policy WP:V. First sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If no one has bothered to publish it, then it probably isn't important enough for Wikipedia to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess when people who aren't famous die building something famous, it isn't important to the elite rich who decide what's important enough to get published. -Eaglescout1984 13:04, 5 March 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Sources that aren't really sources...

I'm putting together an article on an event that has become subject of various conspiracy theories (from bona fide academic suggestions to outright crackpot). The facts are referenced to reliable sources. And then there's a review of the alternative suggestions. I suspect that putting them all in one basket under ==Sources== header is not appropriate: all those "alternatives" aren't really my sources. It will look like:

  • Good, Historian (1899). A respectable account of the ****. London: John Murray. - this is the source for facts and figures, cited at least twenty times.
  • Modern, Revisionist (2003). Another unconventional explanation of the events of ****. Journal of ***, vol. **, pp.***-***. - this is cited three times as an example of modern critical review of historic sources.
  • Danbrown, Wannabe (2009). Look no further it was ZOG. ISBN ****. - this is mentioned once as just another modern fantasy.

If I use ==Sources== section strictly for my sources I might end up with numerous calls to the same "non-source" book within ==Notes== section. Where should I place full detail on these "other" books and articles? Is there a guideline that will say "keep them all together" or "no, sheeps and goats separately" ? NVO (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If they're not sources, then they shouldn't be cited as sources. There's no need to give bibliographic detail for the Dan Brown wannabe, just as there's no need for the Holy Grail article to give bibliographic details for The Da Vinci Code even though it discusses that book. Instead, cite the review of the unconventional theories. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If there are any works that would be desirable to mention, but aren't used as sources, you can create a "Further reading" section for those. But I agree with Eubulides that fringe works typically needn't be listed at all. If a fringe work is so notable that it has its own article, you might link that in "See also". --RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You might like to look at the usual options, which are listed at WP:FOOTERS. WP:FURTHERREADING in particular sounds like a useful option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"Further reading" sounds like a recommendation to the reader. Advertizing fringe fiction is something that I would rather avoid. NVO (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Say where you got it

Editors are advised that there is an ongoing discussion involving WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT at the RS talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#.22Say_where_you_got_it.22_..._what_if_I_got_it_from_a_site_that_violates_copyright.3F. --JN466 13:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a citation (link to a source)

It would be helpful if a section would be added to this page about the Removing of Citations. Citations are often removed by editors, sometimes referencing a reason such as WP:RS, mostly without reason. After the removal, the content is left uncited. I think this is a detrimental practice. It immediately puts the content up for removal also. Proper procedure should be: never delete a citation if you can not add a better one instead of it. If you do not have a better one, leave the citation, and merely discuss it on the discussion page. Would anyone like to comment on this? --BalderV (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If a source is unreliable, it shouldn't be cited, and citations to it should be removed. The corresponding article text could also be removed as well, if it appears dubious; or it could be kept with a {{fact}} tag if it seems OK but challengeable; or it could be kept without citation if it's so obvious that it can't reasonably be challenged. So, the practice is not always detrimental; it depends on the circumstances. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Check the diff - the details of the source in the left column will often give a very indication of whether the source is from a good publisher or Anyone's blog. Then:
  • Eubulides's comments cover unreliable sources such as Anyone's blog.
  • If the source looks OK:
    • Revert so that the citations and associated text is restored. Make the edit summary e.g. "restored source as seems WP:RS - discuss first at Talk if you disagree".
    • If the other editor enters a dialogue, keep WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF:
      • The other editor may have found a source that formally is WP:RS but has content problems, e.g. discredited theory, or taken out of context.
      • OTOH there are less benign situations, e.g. a POV-pusher. If so, you'll have to adapt your approach to the details of the situations - but keep WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as some POV-pusher try to provoke their opponents. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] BOT that tidies up references

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask... I am looking for a bot that tidys up references; I would like to know if there is a bot that changes the appearance of references, example here instead of loking this this this.--intraining Jack In 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a 'bot that did that, it was User:DumZiBoT but that hasn't been active since June 2009. A typical action of that 'bot was like this. I don't know if other 'bots are doing anything similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to give that bot a try; the results are excellent, it took about 30 mins to run. This is the result. thanks alot for your help:).--intraining Jack In 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Citing images on Wikimedia Commons

I'm writing an article on a historical figure from here in Brisbane. The only reference that I've been able to find on this person's date of death is from his tombstone, and the only online image that I can find of that is on Commons, here:

The date is clear enough, and I don't think that this is a case of unacceptable circular citations, but I'm a bit perplexed about the best way to actually include this in the article. Any advice? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Make a footnote explaining where the information comes from. The cite looks solid, that we have no template for it shouldn't stop you. Paradoctor (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, here is an example of where this has been done before (if using Firefox or Google Chrome, it'll highlight in blue; but IE, it won't, so see ref 123). If you were to include the gravestone image in your article, then even better. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont think you will have a lot of problem in this case, as the fact that you want to support is unlikely to be challenged anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Please put a wikilink to the file in the footnote, though, like this: [[:File:NHS-JCrase1.jpg|Gravestone of So-and-So]]. Eubulides (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks all for the advice :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

[edit] Behind a paywall or free registration required?

Is there a standard, guideline, or convention for indicating that a citation is behind a paywall or free registration is required to access the page (typically a verified email address). patsw (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, generally this information is not regarded as critical for inclusion in citations at all. If you feel it's useful for the reader to be aware of this, putting "requires registration" or some such beside the link would seem fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is {{rr}}, also accessible via {{PAYWALL}}: (Registration and /or payment required.) Paradoctor (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I know of two templates available for these purposes: {{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}}. They should be placed inside the reference, but outside the citation template, for example:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=Example |accessdate=18 March 2010 }}{{Registration required}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=Example |accessdate=18 March 2010 }}{{Subscription required}}</ref>
which produce:
  1. "Example". http://www.example.com/. Retrieved 18 March 2010. [registration required]
  2. "Example". http://www.example.com/. Retrieved 18 March 2010. (subscription required)
There may be others that I'm not aware of. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}}; usually placed in the <ref></ref> or other tags and after the citation template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect to have to make the case for such templates, but I am happy to. Faced with an article for which there are dozens of citations, and little time to read then, I believe, readers would be aided with the foreknowledge of their encumbrance rather than wait for the cited page to load only to see that they have reached a paywall or "free registration required". patsw (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm less certain that {{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}} are so helpful:
  • They only appear after the reader has clicking at least the initial linking the main text. How readers (as opposed as editors) do that?
  • Do {{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}} c?
  • I also note that {{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}} have no docs. If their developers can't be bothered with production docs with examples of all the referring schemes, why should editors be bothered with the templates? ---Philcha (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We could write "registration required" without a template, perish the thought. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
With my typing, ... :-) And I suspect it may still won't work for all referring schemes, e.g. sfn. --Philcha (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea is that the user gets the warning when they're about to click the link for which registration or subscription is required. If the page uses two-stage referencing, then whether the first stage is achieved by means of <ref></ref> or {{sfn}} is immaterial, you still put the {{Registration required}} or {{Subscription required}} in such a place that the message will show at the end of the line which contains the clickable URL in question. That is, the primary consideration is to put it put it immediately after whichever of these is being used:
  • [http://www.example.com/ Example]{{registration required}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=Example |accessdate=19 March 2010 }}{{registration required}}
These templates do have docs. Small docs yes, but they do exist. I suspect that they're small because neither takes any parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded the documentation of Template:Registration required along the lines of the doc for {{dead link}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Style Error ?

Here's my point about the citation style. If I use

<ref name="Johnweal99">Weal, (1999) page 53</ref>

It shows in the Citation section, reference to the very first entry from that book. Say page 24. Evenif my citation content says otherwise.

[1]

Only if I use

<ref>Weal (1999), page 53.</ref>

That I get desired results. In many cases where the Citation section pointed to Page 185, my cite was actually pointing to somewhere else!. [2]

  1. ^ Weal, (1999) p. 51–53
  2. ^ Weal (1999), page 53.

Can someone shed some light on this ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing which article this is in it's hard to be sure, but at a guess I'd say that you've used the same value for the name= attribute on more than one <ref></ref> tag. That is to say, your article probably contains both of the following:
<ref name="Johnweal99">Weal, (1999) page 24</ref>
<ref name="Johnweal99">Weal, (1999) page 53</ref>
The two things to remember are (a) ref names must be unique; and (b) it is only necessary to name a <ref></ref> if exactly the same source was used for two or more different items in the article - if the source was only used once, the name is unnecessary.
Let's consider a hypothetical example. Assume that on page 24 of said book, there are two statements "Elephants are big" and "Giraffes are tall", and that on page 53 we have the statement "Elephants, giraffes and lions are all native to Africa". Now suppose that the article text reads:
There are many large animals in the world, among which are elephants. Elephants come from Africa, as do giraffes. Giraffes are noted for being tall.
We would reference this as follows:
There are many large animals in the world, among which are elephants.<ref name="Johnweal99">Weal, (1999) page 24</ref> Elephants come from Africa, as do giraffes.<ref>Weal, (1999) page 53</ref> Giraffes are noted for being tall.<ref name="Johnweal99" />
which produces:
There are many large animals in the world, among which are elephants.[1] Elephants come from Africa, as do giraffes.[2] Giraffes are noted for being tall.[1]
  1. ^ a b Weal, (1999) page 24
  2. ^ Weal, (1999) page 53
Note that the page 53 ref is unnamed, because it's only needed once. However, if the page 53 ref is needed twice, it does need to be named; but the name must be unique. One possibility is to include the page number in the name, as follows:
There are many large animals in the world, among which are elephants.<ref name="Johnweal99">Weal, (1999) page 24</ref> Elephants come from Africa, as do giraffes.<ref name="Johnweal99p53">Weal, (1999) page 53</ref> Giraffes are noted for being tall.<ref name="Johnweal99" /> Another African animal is the lion.<ref name="Johnweal99p53" />
which produces:
There are many large animals in the world, among which are elephants.[1] Elephants come from Africa, as do giraffes.[2] Giraffes are noted for being tall.[1] Another African animal is the lion.[2]
  1. ^ a b Weal, (1999) page 24
  2. ^ a b Weal, (1999) page 53
If you would like me to fix the article directly, please post the article name here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Presuming you are referring to Jagdgeschwader 11: multiple references have the names "Johnweal06" and "Dannyparker98". I used the error check feature of RefToolbar. I will let you fix these, as the page numbers differ. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources"