User:J. Johnson/sandbox

"This page is not an encyclopedia article. It is a "sandbox", used for testing, etc."


 * But as long as you are here, check out Where citations come from.

Links
The following are just for my convenience. ---
 * WP:WFEM — Wikimedia Foundation Error. Not really the servers! #REDIRECT
 * /Sandbox, /Sandbox2, /Sandbox3, /Sandbox4 /Canonical IPCC citations
 * Wiki Commons, Resource Request, Usability Study, WP:Randy in Boise, Wikimedia-meta
 * WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, ANI
 * WT:V, WP:SPOV, WP:Scientific consensus, WP:MAINSTREAM
 * Search tips: 'insource: ".. .."', '/x .../', 'prefer-recent', 'hastemplate'
 * Help:Conditional expressions, Help:Magic words, Parser Functions
 * Category:String manipulation templates
 * WP:ORCID; Josiah Carberry; Template:Authorid; Template:Dotbelow; ReliefWeb-link
 * M, Cite anss/short, Cite isc/short, EQ-isc-link, Infobox earthquake
 * Seismic magnitude scales; ISC/index, ANSS Sig. EQ; EMSC EventID; ProjEQ;
 * Lists of earthquakes, Category:Lists of earthquakes, Cat:EQ clusters.., Cat:2018 quakes, Cat:for, Cat:aft, Tracking.
 * Nepal aftershocks, Tohoku aftershocks, Sichuan aftershocks.
 * 1995 Neftegorsk earthquake, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, 1812 San Juan Capistrano earthquake, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, 1952_Kern_County_earthquake, 1964 Alaska earthquake 2017 Chiapas earthquake, Great flood (China),
 * URM, UCERF2, UCERF3, Earthquake prediction (24 July 2014 version), VAN method
 * OSM Location map, test: User:J._Johnson/Sandbox3

--- ---
 * Puget Sound faults, Seattle Fault, Tacoma Fault, Siletzia, Blue Hills (Washington)
 * Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, Leech River Fault, Straight Creek Fault, Brothers Fault Zone
 * Chuckanut Formation, Talk:Columbia River Basalt Group, Yakima Fold Belt
 * Geology of British Columbia, Garibaldi Volcanic Belt
 * 1700 Cascadia earthquake, USArray, fault (geology)
 * Continental drift, Toba catastrophe theory, Black Sea deluge theory, Great Unconformity
 * Talk:Geology_of_the_Death_Valley_area
 * 2014 Oso mudslide
 * The Evolution of Cooperation, Science of morality, Evolution of morality, Altruism
 * Evolutionary theory and the political left
 * Mercantilism
 * No Heaven for Gunga Din
 * Talk:Flag signals, International Code of Signals, Maritime flag signalling, Flaghoist signalling

---
 * IPCC citation: SAR, TAR, AR4, AR5; AR . WP:IPCC_citation
 * Parenthetical referencing, WT:Parenthetical referencing ("WP:HARVARD", etc.)
 * Harv, Harvard citation documentation
 * citation, cite book cite web
 * WP:Scientific citation guidelines, Help talk:Citation Style 1, note example, wikicite example
 * WP:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion, Template talk:Citation, Template talk:Harvard citation
 * WP:Citing sources, WT:Citing sources, WP:Citing_sources/example_style, WP:DUPCITES (not WP:DUPCITE in AWB)
 * Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 2009 October
 * Help_talk:Footnotes, WP:Manual of Style (footnotes)
 * 404, incomplete citation/full, nonspecific, author?, as of?, when, date?, Category:Inline_citation_cleanup_templates ++
 * Help:Wiki markup, web color, font color, red, hilite, Check mark/chk/aye/nay/n&, smiley
 * Character encodings, List of XML and HTML character entity references
 * tl, tlx, tlc, tlf, tlp, param, (&#124;1=), diff2, diff3,
 * tq, talkquote, quotation, quote frame, quote box
 * Collapse templates: hat/hab, cot/cob, discussion top, archive top/bottom (for closing),
 * Template:Userspace linking templates,WP:List of Discussion Templates
 * More templates: discuss, irrelevant citation,fcn, Bare URL inline
 * WP:Template messages, WP:Template messages/Cleanup,
 * update after, SCIRS, SCICN, WP:SPEEDY (db-self, etc.)
 * Space_(punctuation), MOS:DATE
 * WP:Picture tutorial, WP:Image use policy, Category:Image_insertion_templates,
 * WP:Image copyright tags, WP:Media copyright questions, WP:Requesting copyright permission
 * , (e.g., from history).

---


 * Talk:Climate change alarmism, DRV, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Hockey stick controversy, Effects_of_global_warming
 * Talk:Global warming, GW,GW-Notes, GW-CS
 * Talk:Climate change denial, Talk:Global warming controversy, Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
 * Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
 * Satellite temperature measurements
 * WP:CCTF, User_talk:William_M._Connolley. Dave's GW refs. NAEG's GW/CC origin notes


 * WP:IAR, WP:VP(T)

Link to some items of possible interest: /Introduction to citation (essay), /Citation primer, /Citation tools, /Sortrefs.

GW Articles revised
The following articles have either had their IPCC references revised to the canonical form, need to be revised (=), determined not to need revision (❌), or not yet checked (?). Feel free to suggest other candidates.

(2011) =Global warming, =Scientific opinion on climate change, Planetary boundaries, =Global_climate_model, =IPCC (terrible), IPCC Second Assessment Report, IPCC Third Assessment Report, =IPCC Fourth Assessment Report(SRES), Special Report on Emissions Scenarios,

=Attribution of recent climate change, Climate_change, ❌Climate change denial, =Current sea level rise, Global_warming_controversy (but still ugly), =Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years, Effects_of_global_warming, =Climate_sensitivity,

Bundling
Modifications of User:dcljr's original at WT:Citing_sources.


 * Illustration of "bundling" in the context of references.
 * Bundling references is taking something like this:

#1: In this first example, the references (notes) are not bundled.


 * and turning it into something like this:

#2: In this second example, the references are bundled.


 * (Yes, I know these references are ridiculous.)


 * Some other ways of bundling.
 * The last example used a bulleted list and "labels". Variations include not using a list:

#3: In this third example, the bundled references take the form of a paragraph.


 * or not using labels, which results in a so-called "naked bundle":

#4: In this fourth example, the references are listed in a naked bundle.


 * Whether to use a bullet point for the first citation in a naked bundle is a matter of taste, but omitting it might offend some editors (and it may — or may not — be confusing to people using screen readers).

#5: In this fifth example, the references are listed in a naked bundle but the first citation lacks a bullet point.


 * Of course, the list format can be retained without using bullet points:

#6: In this sixth example, the references are listed in a naked bundle without any bullet points.


 * but that can get confusing when the individual citations are long enough to be "wrapped" into multiple lines.

(Split the indubitable illustration of bundling (above) from the argument presented by dcljr. -JJ)


 * What is the purpose of bundling?
 * As far as I can tell, the two "legitimate" purposes of bundling are:
 * To avoid having a series of (bracketed) footnote numbers all in a row in the article text.
 * To clarify which source supports which piece of information.


 * Is bundling necessary?
 * It depends on how important you think it is to accomplish these goals. Note that purpose #2 can usually be accomplished by simply placing the references in the right places in the text:

#7: In this seventh example, the references are not bundled.


 * Granted, some people dislike having multiple footnotes spread across a sentence just as much as having several in row at the end — and to be fair, it is sometimes difficult to choose the "right places" for the various references, given that each source can support multiple facts.
 * Personally, I don't place much value on purpose #1, so merely doing that for it's own sake seems useless to me. Purpose #2 is much more important, but like I said, it can often be accomplished without bundling. In my opinion, bundling should only be used if it is not clear which of multiple sources support which fact and it is not possible to clarify this by proper placement of footnotes. (Obviously, such a case would not be fixed by a naked bundle, so only a "labeled" bundle would be appropriate.)
 * Note that the second and third examples fulfill both purposes, the fourth through sixth only #1.

}}
 * How should bundling not be done?
 * One should not simply wrap a refn template around the existing series of references without removing the


 * Why do I have a problem with this way of doing it?
 * While it avoids having a series of footnote numbers in a row in the article text (purpose #1), it merely pushes this problem to another place on the page; now there's a series of footnote numbers in a row in the list of references. And while it is not impossible to figure out that this means the information at footnote 4 is supported by the sources listed in footnotes 1 through 3, I believe this places an "unnecessary cognitive burden" on readers (it doesn't match what references typically look like in Wikipedia nor in any printed source I know of).
 * Obviously it doesn't clarify which source supports which piece of information (purpose #2).
 * The footnote numbers (1 through 3) for the three bundled references do not appear anywhere in the article text, which again is unexpected and might confuse some readers.
 * The "mouseover" mechanism (which is not enabled in these examples because I'm using reflist-talk), whereby a reader can "hover" over a footnote number in the article text and see a "tooltip" containing the citation, merely shows "[1][2][3] " in the tooltip, which is very odd and definitely unexpected (and hovering over the 1, 2, or 3 in the tooltip doesn't bring up any additional information). You can see an example of this "in the wild" by hovering over footnote 9 in.
 * The "return-link" mechanism (which is likely to not work too well here because everything is so close together in the example), whereby a reader can follow a link back to the article text from a note in the references, does not work for footnotes 1 through 3: clicking on the "^ " in front of footnote 2 in the reference list, for example, would bring the reader to footnote 4 in the references section, not to the place in the article text that the source in footnote 2 is related to. Again, you can see this effect "in the wild" in : the "return links" on references 5, 6, 7a and 8 all lead the reader to reference 9 instead of to the article's lead section.


 * Conclusion
 * References should not be bundled by merely wrapping an existing series of references in a refn template, as done in (for example).

sandbox
Alternative form, replacing {refn} with &lt;ref> tags: #2: In this second example, the references are bundled.

Compare with original, using {refn}}: #2: In this second example, the references are bundled.

I don't see any difference in what is displayed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)