Wikipedia:Basic citation concepts

At Wikipedia, confused and conflicting understandings of the basic concepts of citation impedes both the practice of citation, and discussion of the practice and the attendant problems. This essay is an attempt to resolve that confusion by formulating clear, definite, consistent, and workable definitions of the basic citation concepts and the terms by which they are referred.

Some of the definitions here clash with various Help and Information pages at Wikipedia, and with certain strongly entrenched views of some editors. These definitions should not be disparaged on that basis, as the existing ambiguous concepts and misconceptions already clash, as seen in most every discussion of citation on Wikipedia involving four or more editors. The definitions here have been carefully formulated to resolve these clashes (or at least to minimize them) by clarifying what these terms and concepts mean, and what they do not mean, so that these terms can have the same meaning for all of us. If these definitions are accepted it is expected that the Help and Information pages will be brought into compliance. These definitions make no change to any policy, though some interpretations of policy may need adjustment.

The need for citation arises from Wikipedia's core principle of WP:Verifiability, which, for various kinds of content, requires an ability to verify that particular content conforms to what is found in a source. This in turn requires a means of identifying sources, and of linking content to the pertinent sources. The purpose of citation is to link content to identified sources for the purpose of verification.

Basic concepts
The key terms and concepts of citation are as follows:


 * Sources are where we get the information: books, journals, newspapers, websites, etc. There are various requirements regarding what sources are acceptable (e.g., see WP:RS), but aside from the requirement of publication these are outside the considerations of how sources are cited.
 * "Citation" has multiple meanings. It can refer to:
 * the general concept of identifying sources,
 * specific instances of identifying a source,
 * the information that identifies a source,
 * the process of making citations,
 * a particular template for making citations, and
 * all aspects of "citation" collectively.
 * A full citation – what some citation authorities call a full reference or complete form – consists of the bibliographic details that identify and describe a source, and aid in finding it. Full citations should not include in-source specifiers such as page number. These details are usually arranged in a standard format, and typically produced by templates like citation and the cite xxx family. At the very minimum a full citation should identify the author (or authors) responsible for the content, the title, and publication date. Within a given article there is generally only one full citation for each source.
 * A short-cite – similar to what some citation authorities call a shortened citation or shortened form — is an abbreviated way of identifying or linking to the full citation of a source. Many forms of short cites have been devised; the most common form on Wikipedia is "author-date", which uses the last name of one or more authors and the year of publication. E.g.: "Smith 2001". The purpose of short-cites (or any "shortened" citation) is to a) enable multiple references to a source (often with instance-specific information, such as page numbers) without repeating the full citation with all of its bibliographic details, and to b) allow customization of individual cites.
 * In-line citation refers to both the requirement that certain content be cited "in-line" (in the text of the article), or the "citation" itself that is in-line. Generally this is either a short-cite in the text (with or without parentheses), or a note that contains the citation (full or short).
 * Notes, footnotes, and endnotes are used synonymously on Wikipedia. They refer to various ways of linking from a particular point in the text to other text or material kept elsewhere, similar to the use of footnotes and endnotes in books. The most common method for creating notes on Wikipedia is with use of  tags.
 * A note-link – also note-reference – is the tag displayed in the text that identifies and links to a specific note. On Wikipedia these are usually numbers (sometimes letters) enclosed in superscripted brackets, such as . When using the &lt;ref> system these are automatically inserted when the content of each note is extracted.
 * In-source specifiers, such as page or section numbers, identify where particular material is found in the source. The absence of in-source specification, especially for large sources or paraphrased material, makes verifiability difficult, and sometimes is deemed a failure of WP:V.

Misconceptions and misuses
The foregoing concepts are sufficient to describe a consistent system of citation. However, there would still be confusion unless certain misconceptions, ill-defined terms, and bad use of terms that plague us are identified and rejected. The following points should be noted.


 * Avoid using "references" in any sense. This term has multiple and even conflicting meanings that are too deeply imbued to be redefined, and its introduction into a discussion generally indicates a divergence of understanding. Explicit qualification or definition of this term in a given discussion is generally inadequate to overcome every reader's established sense and associations of the term, and likely at variance with any qualification or definition used in any other discussion. The term "reference" should generally be avoided all discussions of citation.Many journals list the sources on which an article's authority is based in a reference list, titled "References", and distinguished from reference notes ("Notes") that contain secondary sources or comments. At Wikipedia this distinction is generally not made, and the common "References" section typically contains only the reflist template, which is replaced with a list of all the notes (of all types) that have been extracted from the text. Where full citations of the sources have been collected into their own section it is preferable to name that section "Sources", and rename the section with the reflist "Notes".
 * Notes are not "references"; do not call them "references". Notes are not "references" in any sense of that term. Notes (however created) are not limited to any specific usage; they are simply places magically linked to other places in the text. They can contain citations – or supplementary or explanatory text, or anything else except another note. None of that makes a note a "reference".  Calling a note a reference blinds us to what notes can be used for, and greatly restricts our understanding of how citation can be done.  This mis-conception is furthered by the use of "ref" – understood as short for "reference" – for the note-making tag used in HTML and in Wikipedia, and the similar use of "reflist" on Wikipedia for the template that assembles the list of so-called "references". Such usage is unfortunate as it cripples our understanding of how citation can be done, and so must be consciously rejected.
 * A citation does not include the &lt;ref> tags. Citations, whether full or short, do not need to be individually wrapped in  tags. Such usage is seen in some journals, where the full citations (in a very abbreviated form, and lacking all in-source specification) are packaged one to a note. However, this usage confounds the citation with the note containing it, and creates a trap that leads to certain problems (discussed below), and, again, cripples our understanding of how citation can be done. It is also unnecessary, as will be explained below.
 * The requirement for inline citation does not require full citations inline. Conventional citation recommendation and practice, and the general understanding and practice at Wikipedia, is that a full citation for a given source should be included only once in an article. Coupled with the implicit (but mistaken) belief that in-line citation must always be a full citation, this leads a logical conclusion that a source can be cited only once, and thus to the frequent question of how to cite a source more than once. A careful reading of WP:V shows that the requirement is for in-line citation, without qualification of what type. This need not be the full citation; it can be a short-cite (or similar forms, such as shortened citations) that links to a full citation.  The common practice of putting full citations inline is suboptimal, and probably reflects editors doing what they see "everyone else" doing. A better practice is to collect the full citations in a list in their own section, where they are more easily checked and maintained, and use short-cites in-line.  But even when a full citation is left in-line (typically at the first instance) short-cites can be used for subsequent citation.
 * Use of Harv templates is not, and does not require, Harvard referencing. Harvard referencing is a form of parenthetical referencing that (among other characteristics) uses short-cites in parentheses in the text. The Harv family of templates produce (by default) short-cites in "author-date" style – e,g, "Smith, 2002" – such as can be used for parenthetical referencing, and the Harv template itself includes the parentheses. However, this neither implies nor requires use of parenthetical referencing of any kind, as Harv templates can generate short-cites in styles other than author-date. (And Harvnb suppresses the parentheses.)  Harv templates are good for various kinds of short-cites, and are the most commonly used method of producing short-cites.

Escaping a conceptual trap
With the concepts formulated above, and the rejection of several misconceptions and misuses, citation can be viewed in a way that is simpler to understand (and teach), and easily resolves certain challenges editors frequently struggle with. These challenges include how to cite a source multiple times, how to add page numbers (in-source specifiers), and how to "bundle" citations to avoid long strings of note-links.

Much of the current difficulty with citation practice arises from the commonplace misconception that "inline citation" must be done with full citations packaged within &lt;ref> tags (that is, in a note). This failure to distinguish the citation from the note containing it creates a conceptual trap that causes these difficulties. By distinguishing short-cites (short citations) from full citations, and "citations" of either kind from notes, these difficulties are easily resolved, as demonstrated in the following cases.

Reusing a citation
Stuffing a full citation into a note – that is, between  tags – at the point needed is simple and straightforward; most editors figure that out right off. Doing this in more than one place, when a full citation should be given only once in an article, seems like a contradiction. The common solution is to make the note containing the citation appear in multiple places. This is done using named-refs: a modification of the &lt;ref> tag to include a name. E.g.: replacing the initial "&lt;ref>" tag of a note with " " creates a master named-ref with the name "xxxx". Slave named-refs, of the form, are then placed where it is desired to replicate the master named-ref.

Named-refs create a number of problems. Because the same note is being replicated in all instances, individual instances cannot be augmented with specific information (such as page numbers). Finding which name to use can be tedious when the master named-ref is located in a different section, and if that section is deleted the slave named-refs everywhere else will break. And citing multiple sources at a given point leads to a string of note-links which many editors consider unsightly and distracting.

Citing a source more than once – sometimes called "reusing a citation" – is done best using short citations (short-cites), which have no restriction on how often they can be used, and can be customized as appropriate for each use. Where (as usually done) the full citation is created using the Citation template, or with any of the CS1 family of templates, a Harv (or Harvnb) template will create a link to the full citation. While it is better to collect the full citations in their own section (such as "Sources"), this is not required: a short-cite implemented with Harv will automatically link to the full citation wherever it is.

Page numbers
The WP:Verifiability policy requires (see WP:PROVEIT) that sources be cited "clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." In many cases not providing page numbers (or other in-source specifiers) greatly hinders verifiability. It is thus a significant defect that the "one size fits all" nature of note-replication precludes all instance-specific information, leaving editors with no way of adding page numbers. (The rp template can be used to append a bare number after a note-link, but such an unusual and unexplained usage tends to baffle the readers, and is sharply rejected by many editors.) On the other hand, short-cites, of every type, readily incorporate page numbers, and any other information or explanation an editor deems useful. This alone is a sufficient reason for using short-cites instead of replicating full citations by means of named-refs.

Bundling
Where every source's citation is individually packaged in its own note, citation of multiple sources can result in a stream of note-links like this:. This is generally considered unsightly, and even intimidating (or at least annoying) for the general reader. Many editors prefer to reduce such strings to a single link by bundling multiple notes – or the full citations they typically contain – into a single note. However, for technical reasons the  tags used to generate notes cannot be nested within another pair of &lt;ref> tags. One way of resolving this is to remove the  tags from the individual citations, and put everything for a given point into a single note. (Which demonstrates that 1) citations do not require &lt;ref> tags, and 2) more than one citation can be put into a single note.) However, bundling a full citation in this way prevents it from being used in other notes, perhaps in a different combination of citations. (Bundling can also be done using the refn template. However, it introduces another level of complexity and various complications, which won't be discussed here.)

When multiple full citations are bundled into single note they can be difficult to distinguish. For this reason some editors prefer to put them in a bulleted list format. Other editors find that objectionable, as it creates sublists within the list of notes. Bundling also thwarts alphabetization (or other sorting) of the sources.

All of this can be resolved very simply: don't put full citations into notes. Put the full citations in a dedicated list in their own section, then use short-cites for in-line citation. Because short-cites are short and succinct (not containing all of the bibliographic data a full citation should have), multiple short-cites can be bundled in a single note with less confusion and crowding. Several problems attributed to "bundling" are more accurately attributed to "bundling of full citations". These problems simply do not arise when bundling short-cites.

Conclusion
The practice and discussion of citation at Wikipedia is greatly impaired by unclear, ambiguous, and conflicting concepts and terms. The definitions offered here carefully distinguish the terms and the concepts they refer to so (if used with a modicum of care) they will mean, to all parties, what is intended, and not what is not intended. It is demonstrated that certain commonly perceived difficulties are readily resolved by adoption of these concepts, and rejection of certain misconceptions.

Undoubtedly some editors will object to parts of these definitions, usually because they want to preserve their own cherished interpretations of these terms. To which can be answered: even at the cost of citation discussions being perpetually at cross-purposes? To make the words mean the same thing to all of us some current meanings (being inherently contradictory) will have to be adjusted. But that need not be traumatic, as these definitions do not require any change in citation practice or "style", or in any policy. The only mandate is to avoid using terms or concepts with which there are demonstrated problems.