Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 38

Proposed clarification
During a previous discussion on this page it emerged that book publishers quite often use the same ISBN, and possibly the same year and edition, for significantly different versions of a book. Thus ISBN 185326024X is used for several versions of David Copperfield, with different introductions and different page numbering. Two versions of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition were issued in 2009. The second had many corrections but the same ISBN, year and edition, distinguished in the front matter only by the words "second printing". Publishers should not do that, but they often do. A second issue is that the metadata (author, title, date, publisher etc.) given by a website that provides scanned pages from a book is often incorrect. A 2012 study found that 36% of a sample of Google Books had metadata errors. Finally, the information returned from a given url may change from time to time – perhaps when the website corrects their error.

If you have found a book page online, you should of course include the metadata in the citation. It may be inaccurate but is probably not wildly inaccurate. But all you really know for sure is that you saw the page at that url on that date.

This is to propose adding the following warning to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT:

Wikisource goes further and recommends adding UTC access time, as in:


 * Artikel „Auliczek, Dominicus“ von Wilhelm Adolf Schmidt in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, herausgegeben von der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 1 (1875), S. 687–688, Digitale Volltext-Ausgabe in Wikisource, URL: http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=ADB:Auliczek,_Dominikus_Jakob_von&oldid=1685662 (Version vom 23. Dezember 2013, 15:06 Uhr UTC)

In my view this is excessive. url+date is sufficient. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Support / Oppose)

 * Support adding boxed text to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If the "cite" templates make this easy, consider adding an example.  If they do not, consider improving them.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That previous discussion was your "ISBN oddity", where it did not "emerge" that "book publishers quite often use the same ISBN [...] for significantly different versions of a book." My recollection is that, in fact, your demonstration of an alleged problem involved your misattributon of one publisher's ISBN to the edition of a different publisher.


 * For sure, materials accessed on-line most definitely should have the url, and generally the access date. But you are not persausive that there is a problem, and your proposal's prologue (the arguments why url and access date should included) is excessive.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * During the "ISBN oddity" discussion various examples were given of an ISBN being reused for different versions of a book, but that is only part of the problem. The inaccuracy of the metadata provided by the website is probably more important, as is the instability of urls. Would this proposal be acceptable if the second sentence were dropped, as in ALT1 below? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You seem confused as to what you want (comments? or a straw-poll?). But to the extent that we are commenting/voting on a particular proposal, you need to not alter that in the course of discussion. If you wanted to determine what form of a proposal might fly, that should have been discussed prior to askng for "support/oppose".  But whether any change here is useful is doubtful: Your statement of a problem is sketchy at best, relying mainly on a dubious interpretation of a previous discussion that was unpersuasive in large part due to your own errors. This undermines any proposal you make. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not needed, and not all citation styles use ISBN.  I never cite to ISBN, and don't intend to start.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "ISBN" is a red herring. To me an ISBN has value in a cite as a useful link to the special "Book sources" page - but that is a different discussion. Would this proposal be acceptable if the term "ISBN" were dropped as in ALT1 below? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in doing that either. On a book, I cite the author, volume no., the book title, the page(s), and year of publication.  That's all that the style I use requires (with limited exceptions), so that is all I cite.  It provides enough information for someone to identify and locate the reference material, which is all it is supposed to do.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose I see the link to e.g. Google Books as a convenience for some readers and editors: it often doesn't work for all readers. I.e. if its missing or out of date it's not that important. It's not like the URL in a cite web, which can be checked by anyone and should be updated if a page moves, tagged if it's dead, changed to an archive link if that's all that's available. As with all sources errors can be fixed as they are detected, perhaps by editors with access to a physical copy. Changes between e.g. editions, printings can be indicated in the metadata. Again this might only happen when another editor notices a discrepancy later/people using the source become familiar with its revisions.


 * But it should be needed rarely: errors in metadata and changes between printings that significantly change a source should be rare, much rarer than e.g. changes to web sites and news articles which are quickly assembled and much more ephemeral. So an access date is overkill.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A URL is less likely to work in countries that impose strict web censorship. This is not really related to whether the URL leads to a scanned book page. The 2012 study says there are metadata errors in 36% of the sample of Google Books. I assume the error rate with other book scan websites is similar. That is significant. Some books are relatively volatile, such as guides and directories, so the version cited is relevant. It seems to be within the spirit of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to provide the url and accessdate - and very easy to comply. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is not required, and not all citation styles require it, or allow it for that matter.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The same study says, "Chapman and Massey (2002) find an overall error rate of 34.4% in their study of errors in MARC records" (about two-thirds minor errors and one-third major errors). It sounds like Google's metadata is somewhat worse, but it's not like the "gold standard" is very good, either.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about ALT2 below, not requiring anything but just pointing out the issue and making a suggestion? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that, since we don't require editors to do anything with their citation styles, we can't really require this one thing, either. Also, we'll get objections from some people about "advertising" or "promoting" Google Books.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because there will be some idiot (none of those present, of course) who will take an optional or recommended practice and decide that it really means "required." Then we'll have to deal with that disruption, in addition to those that don't like GBooks to begin with.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This guideline already covers the possibility of linking to Google Books Previews; I think this is good practice, but I'd oppose making it mandatory. The tamed-down ALT2 isn't proposing anything new, except that an accessdate should be provided along with the url. The problem is you can't archive a GBooks Preview (can you?), so there's no way of knowing what the page looked like at any given point in time. So what's the point of the accessdate? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books is just one site that holds scanned book pages. I would not assume it can never be archived, and would not single it out for special treatment. The German Wikisource is an example of a scanned book website that specifically recommends giving accessdate in citations. That is common with other websites. We know the metadata is often wrong - 36% is a lot of errors. ALT2 points that out and suggests giving url+date to identify where the information came from, as well as where the website says it came from. I can't see why that would be controversial. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not needed.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @GregJackP: have you ever cited a page you found in a scanned book site, giving incorrect metadata provided by the site? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I primarily use the Bluebook style, so I don't use ISBN or other unnecessary data.  For example, I regularly cite to various volumes of Kappler's Indian Affairs, digitized at Oklahoma State University.  The citation would look like this:  "2  138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904)."  It shows I got the material from vol. 2, p. 138, gives the title, editor, and date of publication.  That's all that is needed to identify the work, whether it is from the OSU library or a hardcopy in my hands.  No other data is required.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are trusting that the Oklahoma State University site is giving correct metadata: the correct title, author and edition. No doubt it is. But have you ever used the metadata provided by a high-volume commercial scanned book website like Google or Amazon? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't all that inforrmation on the scanned flyleaf page (except for the page number)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Information like author, title, publisher, year etc. can be checked when the scanned book website displays the front matter page that holds it, but it often does not. For example, I do not see the flyleaf in http://books.google.ca/books?id=5RqDAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover (likely to go through frequent editions), or http://books.google.ca/books?id=CAyDCKdiZ2UC&printsec=frontcover. The reader has to trust the website-provided metadata, which may be inaccurate - 36% of the time with Google. I often use copyright-expired books as sources. Particularly with those that are not in English, the volunteers who scanned them sometimes made ludicrous mistakes in the metadata. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Google gives the title of the second book above as رحلة في الخليج, which translates to "Trip in the Gulf". Amazon shows the front cover, but not the flyleaf, and says ISBN 389930070X is Unterwegs am Golf. Along the Gulf, which seems much more likely. I did not pick that one to make a point. Honest. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

All of that is interesting, but not relevant to citing the source. ISBN is not required. If you can not determine the title, author, year of publication, and page number, don't use the reference. If you can, you have everything that you need to cite it. All the rest is just fluff, unnecessary additions. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the requirement for WP:VERIFY is to describe where you got it well enough for someone else to get it. If there are two books by the same title, author, and year of publication, one of which has the referenced material and the other one of which (say, due to being another edition or a reprint) does not, then you have not provided a useful reference, as someone with the "other" copy of the book may look it up and tag the material with verification failed.  ISBN numbers are generally helpful because most of the time they distinguish different editions of the same book.  The unfortunate reality is that we rarely know if we have in fact given a complete-enough-to-be-useful reference, so we err on the side of caution by providing as much information as possible without getting silly.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, but that still does not require ISBNs (or a lot of other metadata, for that matter). See WP:CITEHOW.  For example, citing Dickens in Bluebook style would look like this:,  49-55 (Norman Page Ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853).  You may err on the side of caution, I'll continue to cite with what I need to cite, and no more.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With Google, the initial scan of out-of-copyright works from university libraries was done by an army of volunteers who often made mistakes recording metadata, particularly when the book used archaic fonts in an unfamiliar language. I have seen the dedicatee given as title and the location given as author. Even with recent books, scanned book websites have a lot of errors in metadata. Saying "If you can not determine the title, author, year of publication, and page number, don't use the reference" seems reasonable, but what about the book that Google says is رحلة في الخليج by Annegret Nippa, Peter Herbstreuth 2006? Most editors would wrongly assume they do know the title, author and year of publication.


 * ALT2 therefore suggests adding a caution to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, pointing out that a scanned book's metadata as provided by the website may be incorrect and you may therefore want to identify the url+date where you read the book. This is not an attack on traditional citation styles. They do not require url+date, but they allow addition of such information, which may be helpful. Given the extent of the problem (36%), adding the caution seems reasonable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. At the very least, any such caution should clearly state that this is optional, and not a requirement.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Break
From the above discussion, it is clear that there will be no consensus on any new information requirement for citations. Even a suggested addition must be very clearly identified as purely optional. However, there remains a concern about the 36% inaccuracy of metadata supplied by the various scanned book websites. This is to withdraw the original proposal and ask for comment on ALT3, which simply identifies the issue and makes a suggestion. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that your nominal withdrawal of the original proposal should not be confounded with presentation of a what is essentially a close variant of the nominally withdrawn proposal. Withdrawing a proposal normally ends the discussion of it, and you could so signify by use of the archive top template. If you have a new and different proposal to make you should start a new discussion. However, what you have just presented ("ALT3") is barely different from what you have already proposed. And you still have failed to demonstrate a significant problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW (and partly for my own amusement) I offer the following example of how to demonstrate an alternative text. Note how the use of strike-out and underlined text enables us to see immediatley the exact changes (here, between your original proposal and your ALT3, above). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems appropriate to continue the thread, since the revised proposal is a tweaked version of the original that takes into account the feedback. The significant problem is that a 2012 study found that 36% of a sample of Google Books had metadata errors. Various examples are shown above. There is a high probability that editors who cite metadata from scanned book websites will provide an incorrect attribution, violating the moral rights of the authors. We are aware of this risk. If we deliberately choose not to warn editors of the risk and fail to provide advice, we are complicit. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the significant problem is that this is not needed, nor required. I have better things to do with my time working on article creation than worry about bureaucratic BS, such as which ISBN or URL is needed.  Nor do I want to have to deal with those that don't understand either our policies or citation systems in general, like I had to recently on an article I created.  It hasn't been a problem and we don't need to create a problem.   is correct, this is not new nor different, and it should be closed.

I think we can get support for my proposal (which is BS and unneeded) over the one you are suggesting. Do we really want to keep discussing this? GregJackP  Boomer!   03:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally we give at least a week for discussion of a proposal so that editors who can only access the Internet occasionally, e.g. on weekends, get a chance to contribute. A discussion is generally closed when no new points have been raised for some time, There is no urgency. The ALT3 proposal is less than one day old. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight—it is OK for you to modify proposals about a day apart or so, but the rest of us have to wait a week? Bullshit.  The "Alt3" proposal is the same as the "Alt2" which was the same as the "Alt1" proposal.  All of them are unneeded.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this seem self-contradictory to anyone else?
 * Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time.
 * give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw.

If the website changes what is displayed at the URL you give in the citation, then the URL you added will not "precisely identify what you saw", and if no independent archive is available, then it's worse than useless by providing false precision.

The only thing of potential value that I see here is a plain statement that the semi-automated metadata may not match the (more accurate) information on the copyright page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The url+date precisely identify. The url alone is imprecise, since what it points to may change from time to time. Archiving services appear and disappear. It would be simple and useful for an archive service to periodically back up all urls newly added to Wikipedia articles. For all I know that is going on today, and the archivers are waiting for the legal green light before going live. I don't see a book page scan as significantly different from other material on the web, which also may or may not be subject to copyright. Maybe only the out-of-copyright pages get archived: a lot better than nothing.


 * The url alone has some value, not just as a convenience link, assuming what it points to rarely changes. If the copyright page is not visible and the website-provided metadata is wrong, there may be clues in the visible page or snippet that can help locate the true identity of the source. A page heading may give a clue. Or take a sentence from the page and search for that exact sentence on the web. It may work. The proposal is to point out that website-supplied metadata is not very reliable, and to gently suggest that the editor may provide a bit more information to make verification easier. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The convention of at least a week for comments starts with the initial proposal; it does not restart everytime you tweak your proposal. Indeed, that you keep tweaking it is a definite demonstration that your proposal was not ready for presentation. These tweaks also confuse the discussion (as it potentially alters the relevancy of prior comments). Additionally, ALL of your alterations lack a foundation: you have not adequately demonstrated a significant problem. Except as a courtesy to others that may want to comment, I think this discussion could be closed now on the basis of the WP:snowball clause.


 * While these points that concern you might warrant some discussion, your proposal has little chance of success. I think you will be much less frustrated letting this one go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * After just four days discussion of this complex issue I see good progress towards a better understanding of the problem with inaccurate scanned page metadata and towards developing a generally acceptable version of the warning message. I encourage further comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is no different from any other source: there are errors. There are quite a number of erroneous ISBNs and other metadata in every possible place, not just Google Books. (Open Library, for example, is notorious to the point that most librarians will not participate.)  There are errors in all library catalogs, all publisher listings,  on the title pages of published books, in references to them in even the most authoritative sources, and in all other sources for publication data. (Indeed, the actual publisher, place and date of a work can be ambiguous or fictional--intentionally or accidentally. Many works are redistributed by various publishers, sometimes changing the title page, sometimes adding a stamp or label, sometimes with no visible identification. These problems have been with us since the invention of publishing, and the ease of reprinting electronically will only add to them. The entire fields of enumerative and descriptive bibliography has arisen from the difficulties in  straightening these out.
 * The standard cataloging rules therefore prescribe that all ISBNs found are included in the cataloging record, even ones that are obviously erroneous), and that all other identification numbers the item carries are included also, so the redundancy will help to distinguish   the correct entry.
 * There seems to be some antipathy here to ISBNs. I do not understand it. They are, to be sure numbers originally invented by the publishing business, not libraries, but so are many other things, including the entire concepts of printing and publishing books, five centuries ago, and distributing them electronically, much more recently. I'd as soon omit them as I would a url--url's, after all, have a very high frequency of error much greater  than any conventionally published material.   ISBNs are so useful that all librarians began using them from the moment they became available, and it is not merely incomplete but altogether erroneous cataloging to not include them. Other numbers such as OCLC are no better--in some ways, they are worse, because they are derived from the uncoordinated and inconsistent practice of different libraries. Their primary useful is for older titles that do not have isbns, and of course as a secondary check. OCLC and other library numbers only cover the material that gets into libraries. ISBNSs apply to essentially anything anyone wants to put them on, and identify a large amount of material that never gets conventional cataloging, especially non-Western material. I do not regard their omission as a permissible practice. It hampers the use of our books sources system and makes international coordination more difficult.  I always add an isbn if I see a reference without them if I have the time.  The only real question is whether we should include all isbns, or just a single one, because the publishers apply separate isbns to paperback/hardcopy/electronic/special binding/ vols. in a set, and other things they need to keep track of. A cataloging librarian automatically adds every one they can find. I do not do this here, because it is not usually necessary--any one of them will lead to the correct record, and the exact physical format is not generally relevant here.
 * In short, I do not think there is a need to alter our guidelines, except perhaps to require a ISBN for all items that carry them. The possibility of error is present in every reference, and I think everyone involved realises this. People should be as accurate as they can; it's better to give whatever reference one finds, soit can be straightened out more precisely if necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * except perhaps to require a ISBN for all items that carry them—absolutely not. Some reference styles do not support ISBNs.  The purpose of citations is to document what material was referenced, not to enact a bureaucratic nightmare for article and content creators.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, 36% error rate in metadata is highly alarming and I don't have the time to check out the data of every single book source. Google have really disappointed here, it was vital that they get the book data right..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Google Books is just advertising inventory. Google does not charge for use. We can't blame them for errors, but we should recognize the errors exist. As DGG points out, there are errors everywhere. Maybe 2/3 are fairly minor. That still leaves perhaps 10% of citations based on Google-provided metadata holding major errors. I think that is a lot higher than most editors would expect - it certainly surprised me. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are not making "good progress". Much of the discussion is about the alleged problem, which should have been established prior to any proposal. The defects to your proposal that I and others have pointed out still stand. Even if you were to remedy them (unlikely), it would be necessary re-state on a clean slate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @J. Johnson. I though the concerns had been addressed. The problem is clear: based on DGG's thoughtful comments it is larger than first stated. The proposed wording has been tweaked to address issues identified, or the reasons explained. While other editors are digesting DGG's comments, perhaps you could point out any additional changes or clarifications needed so they can be addressed in the next phase. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the concerns of J. Johnson or my concerns. There is not a problem that needs this solution, and the solution goes against what the project has always done.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with having to rely on scanned book websites for book metadata, since they are often wrong. This is a citation problem. The citation guideline should explain how to deal with citation problems. This proposal suggests a change to the guideline to deal with the citation problem. The question is, what improvements are needed to the proposed change. Let's give J. Johnson a chance to express his views. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * GregJackP's views are in accord with my own: you have not addressed our concerns, and particularly you have not shown that there is substantial problem that needs addressing. For sure, all bibliographic records (your "metadata"), of all sources (WorldCat, Ottobib, Amazon, the publisher's own webpage, etc.) are subject to error, and editors should always be alert to such problems. However, your concern is narrowly "scanned book websites" (i.e., Google Books), and your proposal (in all of its variants) is not only awkwardly articulated, it is disproportionate in disregarding other possible problems.
 * I point out that the authoritative statement of any book's particulars is the title and copyright pages. And a scanned image of the actual page (provided there has been no alteration of the image) trumps any reported "metadata". It seems you do not understand this difference. E.g., accuracy of "metadata" is a general problem, but your proposal addresses only "[w]ebsites that display scanned copies of book pages...." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is specific to scanned book pages. It does not exist when the editor can see the printed book. Editors should be warned that the metadata provided by the scanned book website may well be inaccurate, so they should check for a scan of the copyright page. If they can see the copyright page, they should use the data there. Perhaps that should be made clearer. If they cannot see the copyright page, they should provide the metadata given by the website, but should be aware that it may well be inaccurate. By providing a link to the page they saw, they make it at least possible to verify what that page contained, and give the starting point for confirming the author etc. I personally rely heavily on scanned book pages, as do many other editors. Dr. Blofeld expresses the same concern. This is a serious problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is specific to scanned book pages. This means that it is not a widespread problem.  We do not provide step-by-step instructions for other areas of citing sources, why do it here?  We certainly do not want to require editors to use a "house" style, and many styles do not support what you are requesting.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:cite book is used on over 500,000 pages. Most pages that cite books cite several books, and mostly they refer to Google Books. That is why this guideline has the WP:PAGELINK section, which discusses linking to Google Books pages in some detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are definitely confused. The only reason seeing the printed book should give a different result than seeing a scanned image of the printed book is if the image is corrupted or cannot be made out. And you have not alleged that.
 * The problem you keep adverting to is not about the scanned image, but the metadata that someone attributes to a given source. This (in general) has nothing to do with the scanned image — these are entirely different. Indeed, viewing the scanned image is one way of verifying the metadata; the scanned image is a solution for certain metadata problems.
 * If the problem is that you cannot see the title and copyright pages: you are most likely accessing a "limited view" item, and probably can't see much of the rest of the text. In that case you do not the full context of the material you have found (probably via Google Search?), and cannot evaluate it. In such cases you really should not be relying on that material. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @J. Johnson: What are your criteria for considering that an issue is serious enough to deserve a couple of sentences in the guideline? Assuming this can be demonstrated, what changes to the wording would you recommend? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not, but my changes to the wording would be to delete the entire proposal as being unneeded. Until a need is shown, we shouldn't delve into this.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. Use of Template:Cite book on 500,000 pages is not evidence of any problem whatsoever, let alone with any "scanned book image". This is not only very specious argumentation, it approaches preposterous.
 * It has been a week now since the initial proposal was made, and Aymatth2 has yet to demonstrate that there is any special problem with "[w]ebsites that display scanned copies of book pages", let alone "specific to scanned book pages.". There has been only one vote in favor — certainly not a consensus to proceed — and plenty of time for anyone else to chime in. The sole point in continuing is explain the matter to Aymatth2, but this is getting tiring.  I propose this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 Proposal for "Say where you read it"
The ALT3 proposal reflecting feedback on the Proposed clarification for an addition to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT was submitted on 26 December 2013. The proposal is to add:

Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rationale
Template:cite book is used on over 500,000 pages, and many other pages cite books without using the template. Most pages that cite books cite several books, often found in Google Books. Google Books may display a selection of pages in "full view" or "snippet view" but not the front matter page holding "metadata" like author, title, year and publisher. Google Books provides digital metadata, but according to a 2012 study the metadata is 36% inaccurate. An example is http://books.google.com/books?id=CAyDCKdiZ2UC&printsec=frontcover, where the front matter is not visible and the title is given incorrectly. There are 2 million+ citations in Wikipedia based on Google Books pages. Many have used the readily available but unreliable metadata provided by Google books. The popular http://reftag.appspot.com/ tool does just that.

A warning and advice is warranted. The Google-provided metadata alone, if inaccurate, may make the citation impossible to verify. With a link to the page viewed, a reviewer can verify what the page said, and can start to confirm or determine the source. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of previous discussion
The initial ALT3 discussion was quickly confused by rival proposals. No "votes" were made. One editor is against any requirement or even suggestion that cannot be explicitly handled by the Bluebook style for legal citations. Another considers that no problem has been demonstrated. It has been noted that many indexes contain errors, not just the Google Books index, and ISBN may be more important than URL in tracking down the source. Perhaps the scope is too narrow. However, informal comments suggest a leaning towards some version of the proposal. The key point is that errors in Google Books metadata are damaging to editors who rely upon them. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 comments (Support / Oppose)
Oppose and Close per above proposal. There is no evidence of a problem, and this is clearly a case of WP:IDHT. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support While there haven't been any "scandals" and examples of repeated gross inaccuracies over google book info in articles, if a reliable report has indicated that 36% of google book entries have inaccuracies in listings of some kind then surely it's common sense to at least exercise caution when drawing up google book references.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close, strongly, for the reasons previously explained. This proposal is confused in concept, and a huge waste of time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close. There's no issue here that I can see, and the solution is to keep things simple. ISBNs are not always correct, so the best thing is not to use them (in my view), and CITE doesn't require them. Google Books links are allowed but not required either, and if they're misleading for a particular book just leave them out. This – John Smith, Book Title, Name of publisher, year of publication, page number – will get the reader to the right place 99.999 percent of the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that 36% of the time Google Books metadata is wrong. A scenario is that an editor searches for Muscat+Portuguese and finds a useful scanned page from what clearly is a serious book. They extract the information they need and put it into their article, then make a citation using the metadata supplied by Google Books: رحلة في الخليج by Annegret Nippa, Peter Herbstreuth, page 173. But there is no such book. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So? It's not a problem.  Please drop the stick.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Aymatth, I think that different people are using the word "problem" in different ways. You seem to be thinking "It's a problem:  this is objectively, factually, technically wrong."  But everyone else wants to hear, "Show me exactly how many references you personally have been forced to correct because some other editor copied the metadata, and that metadata contained a serious error (not just a simple typo or capitalization error)".   How much of your time has been eaten up by fixing these errors?  WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway, but if we pretended that they did, then how much of your time would we free up for other editing?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. Instruction creep is an issue. I can think of two scenarios:
 * I check citations when reviewing DYK articles. If a book citation has a URL, I check it. If not, I tend to assume good faith if the information is plausible. I may look for an online version of the book, and if I can't find that look for other sources that support the information. If I can't find any online sources I may point that out in the DYK review. I would only go that far if I were uncomfortable with the information provided.
 * I often find information in other articles I can use in one I am starting. In that case if there is no URL I hunt for the book online. If I cannot find it, I do not use the citation but hunt for another source that supports the information. I do not want to propagate errors. If I find a source that contradicts the other article, and am confident about the facts, I correct the other article, removing the dud citation.
 * In either case, if the other editor had provided the URL for what they were viewing they would have saved me time. Since I am a fairly active editor and obsessive about accuracy, lack of URLs in scanned book citations wastes an hour or so of my time each week. Inaccuracy of metadata would not be a major issue in the DYK scenario, because a search on the (incorrect) title would find that title in Google Books. In the scenario of copying from other articles, the search may not find the title because Google may have corrected it. I have no way of telling, because the editor has not said where they read the book. I quite often fail to find a cited title. I cannot say how often that is due to the Google metadata problem, but usually you would expect to find a title in Amazon or eBay or somewhere like that if the book exists.
 * This seems a case where some instruction creep is warranted. Google Books is presumably by far the most widely used source of book citations, and a significant source of total citations, which is why the guideline includes WP:PAGELINK. If we know that relying on the metadata will give a high level of incorrect citations, surely we should point out the problem and suggest a way to mitigate it. "Nobody checks citations" is not really true. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So where's the problem? No diffs, no examples from real articles?  And your comment that if the other editor had provided the URL for what they were viewing they would have saved me time shows the real reason for this suggestion.  It is not the content creator's responsibility to make your life easier.  You use the example of رحلة في الخليج (which translates as "Trip in the Gulf" per GTranslate), with an ISBN of 9783899300703 and then you stated But there is no such book.  That's funny, because I had no problem identifying the book by ISBN via www.lookupbyisbn.com/, www.isbnsearch.org, and www.worldcat.org.  I also did not have a problem identifying the book by authors as the first page in a Google search by the authors last names led me to the book at a number of different sites.  All of this took no more than 10 minutes, easily within a reasonable time frame for finding a source.  I'm not at all interested in making my article creation more difficult to make your job of "checking" citations easier.  Show us an actual problem and I would be willing to talk about it.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth2: As already suggested, please drop the stick!. You asked for a vote, but arguing with folks when you don't like the result is not going to get you anywhere. And, frankly, your argument is ridiculous. That you seem unable to see that makes you look ridiculous, and is embarrassing the rest of us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor It appears to me that the consensus is that the proposed change would be an unnecessary complication and is rejected. The discussion has reached the WP:DEADHORSE stage. Sorry, Aymatth2, it looks like you put a lot of thought into your proposal, but it's not flying. It happens. Give it six months, see if inaccuracies in metadata become a more serious problem, see if other editors' attitudes change, see if your own understanding of the problem changes or you get other ideas about how to approach it. Your efforts and dedication to making Wikipedia reliable are appreciated. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I obviously think a warning about the inaccuracy of the metadata would be useful. But I have to agree that instruction creep can be counter-productive, and that consensus in favor of the warning is not going to happen. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Aymatth2: then we are agreed, that "consensus in favor" is not going to happen. So I am going to close the discussion. But please note: the consensus here is not against warnings as such, but that you have not demonstrated a need for this warning. I am concerned that you do not understand the basic problem here, but this has been taking too much time. If you'll come see me this summer I might have some spare time to help you with your concern. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of 'consistency'
Re: Citing sources

Our Template:Sfn aka the shortened footnote was created on 4 June 2009 by by CharlesGillingham. It didn't exist earlier but the Wikipedia:Citing sources already featured a relevant section called Citation styles with guidelines listing following examples of differing methods: Citation APA style MLA style The Chicago Manual of Style Author-date referencing Vancouver system Bluebook Citing sources/example style. – The formatting compatibility guideline stated: ''Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one.''

Until that time there was no conflict between markup. The introduction of the braces made the tags incompatible with them, and for the first time in history also 'inconsistent' stylistically with the norm. As of today, some editors who follow the rules to the letter, insist on trying to get rid of them in order to win the little green star. However, the change in scope was a result of an 'accident', because the tags have always been the backbone of Wikipedia, featured in millions of articles, and I don't think they should ever be dubbed 'inconsistent' to the point of being wrong. They are the sanctus dictum of our basic policy/guidelines.

Please express you opinion. I'm aware that template inside a span can be used to create a sense of consistency in formatting, but some ideas are sacred in my view, like the HTML mark-up for   inside an , not 'inconsistent' when used together, by any means. For the heated discussion that led me here please see Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1. The nomination was failed because of that. Poeticbent talk 02:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that inline citations be hyperlinked to the short footnote or bibliography entry that supports them. It has always been acceptable to use a parenthetical citation such as (Wikipedia contributors, "Citing sources") or [2] or 17 combined with suitable endnotes or bibliography. Thus, the date when sfn was created is not relevant. In addition, there are ways to link inline citations to bibliographies without using templates; see WP:Anchor.
 * Bibliography for foregoing paragraph:
 * Wikipedia contributors. "Citing sources." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 August 2003. Web.
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reopened the GA nom, evaluated it and passed it. Your comments on the talk page were correct, the reviewer may not impose his standards on citation style to the article in order for it to pass GA.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Rereading Poeticbent's post and reading Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1 for the first time, I find it all rather incoherent. I think "until that time was no conflict between tags and 'braces' because didn't exist" asserts that before the sfn template was created, no one ever used braces, that is, information in parentheses after a claim, to perform an inline citation. The assertion is that everyone used. If that's what it means, then I don't believe it. If it means something else, please explain what. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Section 1b of the GACR states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Citing sources" Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:


 * To be avoided
 * Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another


 * Generally considered helpful
 * Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent


 * By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of &lt;ref>s and sfn. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here. GregJackP's reassessment is arbitrary and did not consider the lead, OR, sourcing, images, grammar and use of MOS correctly, and I don't consider his "pass" as a good faith act, more a favour to the nominee. Either way, my own review was far more detailed than his, as he made no evidenced attempt to review the prose. This is NOT a GA, it barely scrapes C-class, and needs reassessing by someone without WP:COI issues which Greg appears to represent as he didn't make a practical attempt to review the content from top to bottom, unlike my good self.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * GAs don't have to follow WP:CITE, and therefore don't have to be internally consistent. What the Good article criteria are not says under "mistakes to avoid" by reviewers: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" Any discussions of what this guideline should say, and what the GA criteria require, should ideally be kept separate. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. WP:WGN, quoted by SlimVirgin, is an essay mostly written by two editors, WP:CITEVAR is a standing MOS-guideline within WP:REF based in consensus. I refuse to accept that any essay trumps a MOS page, and all those citing WP:WGN are cherry-picking non-consensus words not community results. 1b of the GACR states to follow WP:LAYOUT or which WP:REF is its format guideline, and contains WP:CITEVAR. This isn't a matter of what the criteria says, by interpretation is not inaccurate, but those who pick an essay to challenge a policy are WP:STONEWALLing consensus-based standards because they don't want to apply them and want to pick and choose, manipulatively, what standards apply to them. This article was passed as a GA under false reasoning. I propose a reassessment by an uninvolved GA reviewer with experience and sense.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This guideline and talk page have nothing to do with the GA criteria, which are very specific and do not mention compliance with CITE, or with most of the MoS. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking over all the wikilinked guidelines within GACR none lead directly to WP:CITE that I can see. However, there is a lead to WP:FNNR which is a parent of WP:CITE in that one states the requirement whilst the other states the format. Therefore I consider WP:CITE as an implied requirement of any GA article. Nothing in the GACR suggests to the contrary.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't make up, or imply requirements.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, that being the case why did you use an essay to pass a GA with instead of heeding the advice of [[WP:CITEVAR]] which states to make references consistent based on consensus? You seem to make up your own rules as you do along as you made up that GA pass without a genuine review.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Marcus, Manual of Style/Layout is not the parent of WP:CITE. WP:CITE is not part of the MoS, and compliance with it is not part of the GA criteria, not even implied. Consistency is better than inconsistency, yes, and if you want to make suggestions to that effect, fine. But they are just suggestions. If the writer says she is happy with the way she's written the citations, and if enough information is offered to allow the citations to be understood, that's good enough for GA. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. And a number of editors at MilHist, three in fact, have stated that they too would have raised consistency as an issue had they reviewed the article. That makes four editors who disagree with you. I disagree with your interpretation, as is my right. You're the one who quotes essays as fact, yet they are not apart of policy whatsoever. I find that ironic.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent because there is a mixture of full citations that do not use templates and full citations that use cite xxx templates, and the format of some of the non-template citations do not resemble the rendered cite xxx templates. Whether this inconsistency disqualifies an article from being a good article should be discussed somewhere else, and I'm not interested in that discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you have some evidence of a COI, you need to retract that. If you fail to, I will, as a personal attack.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence is in your lack or review notes and the "insta-pass" response without comment. Consider it a personal attack, I don't care.. your revert of my fail was editwarring and considering your "experience" if you were a driver I'd revoke your licence for crashing under the influence of bias in this case. You failed to consider all the GACR, it too me 5 fucking hours to initially review the article from top to bottom. That stands as fact that you didn't even take 5 minutes to read it all. If you had, you'd know it fails in othe areas of the GACR, as it is biased in tone, language and sourcing. That's why it is unstable and the talk page full of concerns which you did not address. That represents a WP:COI in favour of the nomination. I stand by my words, if that bothers you.. as you say: "too bad".  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That represents a WP:COI in favour of the nomination. No, it just shows that you don't understand that policy either. Maybe we should get you a mentor, since competence is required. GregJackP   Boomer!  05:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll get a mentor when you get a shrink. Stop editing people's comments, per WP:TALKO this is not allowed. A bit like WP:NLT, see your block log for examples of how not to behave like a self-righteous fool again.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight—it's not OK to remove any of your comments, but you are allowed to remove my comments, like you did here? Seems hypocritical to me.    GregJackP   Boomer!   06:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be easier if you dropped your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude full stop and accept that your "pass" was wrong, and that you did not perform a proper GAR, you only "rubber stamped" it for no other reason other than you think yourself above everyone else, as evident in your comments on my talk page which aren't worth the bandwidth that stores them. You'd think a man who claims to have been in the USAF would show some self-discipline in these matters, but instead you're better at warmongering and self-righteous cynicalism. I readded my comment via an undo without noticing your comment, consider that your own fault for violating TALKO twice now. Man up and stop using policy in your favour like a WP:WIKILAWYER. You screwed up the GA and now you're causing wide-spread damage as a result of your WP:LASTWORD attitude. It is very juvenile of you, to say the least. Quit pissing me about and let others reassess the mess you left behind. I ended this debate yesterday by failing the GA, it's you and you alone who is relishing in this wiki-drama by maintaining the debate to no end. And don't ever presume to talk down to me again American, if you know what's good for you.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus, talk down to you? If I know what's good for me?  ROTFL.  Yeah, OK.  As to the rest of your rant, it's laughable.  Two well-respected MilHist editors told you that you were wrong, and you basically told them to piss off.  And then you have unmitigated gall to tell me how to talk to you?  God, that's funny.  LOL.  I needed that laugh.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Three well-respected MilHist editors believe I was right to challenge the inconsistent referencing. Who are you to determine which views I should listen too? I wouldn't take your advice to save my life. You'll address me as an equal on this website or not at all, capiche? As a "Native American" you'll understand what happens when you treat others as lesser, how it leads to long-term bitterness and resentment, so it's not a behaviour you'll want to continue to emulate if you know what's good for you. Now, do us all a favour and walk away.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you presume to know what Indians feel? It's not that the Indians were treated as a "lesser", it is the fact that the Brits started the genocide of the Indians. BTW, I'll address you how I choose, when and how I choose. Got that or do I need to have someone explain it to you? GregJackP  Boomer!   07:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You do that, and I'll have you at ANI for WP:CIVIL violations so fast your head will spin, seeing as how "GA criteria" is so important to you best not pick and choose what policy applies solely to you. What's an Indian? Indians live in India. American natives are not Indian. I knew a wife beater who often told his missus "I'll address you how I choose, when and how I choose" when he wanted to abuse her, he's in jail now having his rear-end abused by the inmates, having taken his threats too far. Sounds like you have more problems than I imagined. As for "do I need to have someone explain it to you?" is that a threat? I perceive it as such, but you go right ahead, send ten little Indians round to scalp me if you must, I couldn't be lest scared if I tried. The Natives were thrown into reservations by the American Federal gov't after the civil war, millions of Natives died in what could technically be defined as the first "concentration camps". There was no British presence after independence to cause that loss of life. And so you fail at history too and I perceive you as a racist as well. Hard to address someone badly who knows more about your history than you do.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 07:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How to cite webpages with page numbers?
If the first page of the article is at http://example.com/foo, and the second page at http://example.com/foo.2, how do I reference the second page? Do I use the first address for the url of the citation, and then add "page=2" or whatever? PurplePieman (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give a real example? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the Dominion article, an article from The Escapist is referenced. Some of the citations are on page 1, and some are on page 2. Page 1 and page 2 have different URIs. Right now, I have the page 2 references as a separate item in the reference list, but that looked wrong, which is why I'm asking. PurplePieman (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. For books, pages within a PDF, etc. it's easy, just use the same basic reference but append the rp template after the .  For cases when the URL changes, I'm not sure what the best approach is.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to cite the pages separately. Some editors would not, but I like the extra specificity when available. Using two full citations showing different page numbers is fine. But you can also use full citation including , and an  abbreviated  short citation for page 2 as follows:
 * 7. Varley, p. 2
 * (Note: no template used, since title isn't used. No date needed, since only one Varley publication is used.)
 * Other options certainly exist, but you're on the right track, anyways. I boldly implemented my suggestion at Dominion ; revert at will. --Lexein (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (Heh - ( reverted with "Page numbers aren't needed with online sources" then kindly unreverted. IMHO page numbers are occasionally useful for long paginated online sources for which no "show all" option is available.  Legal citations frequently carry on-page (paragraph or line number) locators. It's all about simplifying and speeding verification for the reader. Carry on.) --00:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) ( Struck misused word) --16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't see this discussion but reverted after I did. I agree that when there's no "print all" option, or that the web site doesn't take advntage of media-type css to provide single page layouts for certain media, that the page number can be helpful. If you can provide, though, a print-all link to an article, then that's better to use as the URL so that there's no issue with pagination, which can be something the website changes at a whim. --M ASEM (t) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks, and good point about changeable page numbering - good to watch out for. --Lexein (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! please don't use rp. It was a heroic effort to solve a problem, but went the wrong way; it's just too grotesque. And using the page or pages parameters (in the citation or cite xxx templates) is the wrong use — those are for locating the source within a larger work (such as journal articles), not the specific location of material within the source. Putting these two together will work if you have only one citation, but as you noticed: how do you reference a second page?
 * For all that, it is not only fine, but recommended, to cite specific pages. The general solution is to have a single full citation for the source as a whole (which both describes the source, and where to find it), then short cites (that link to the full citation) every time you cite the source. Each of these short cites can then have the specific page number (or section number, pargagraph, etc.); these need only enough information to find the full citation, plus the specification.
 * But please note that your example is quite skimpy. E.g., the page=1 url isn't just a web page: it points to something published on 4 August 2009 by Allen Varney titled "Dominion Over All" (apparently a regular column called "Editor's Choice") in The Escapist magazine. That is all good information to put into a citation. Or rather, into the full citation. But you don't have to repeat this every time.
 * The first time you reference a source use a full citation (suffixing the specific page number referred to). Subsequently, just use a short cite, something like "Varney, 2009", that contains enough information to identify the full citation. Plus, of course, a page number or such, perhaps linked in the manner you have done.
 * Alternately, you can also put all the full citations together in a separate reference section, but that is just a wee bit more complicated; the foregoing will do you fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Almost posted in the middle of your comment. So I removed the blank lines, to make the comment a block). I agree about rp: IMHO it forces looking in two places to mentally construct the full ref, instead of just one. And I agree about the use of full, then short cite (I incorrectly called it abbreviated, above). But IMHO if there's only one work used by an author, or the date is long (periodical publication date) the whole date can be omitted. No? --Lexein (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're thinking of "Varney" versus "Varney, 2009" as a short cite? Of course. All we really need is enough information to locate the full citation. But! as use of "lastname+year" is so standard, and some indication of date is often so important, and (especially where the author appears to be a regular contributor) there is a good chance of adding another piece by the same author (which would then require revising existing short-short "Varney" cites), it is prudent to just go with "author+year".
 * Regarding terminology: "short citation" — or as I prefer, to emphasize the characteristic, "short cite" — is a standard term and concept in several style guides. I believe "abbreviated citation" is generally applied to a form of full citation (often used in journals) where titles (etc.) are severely abbreviated to save space. But I see some instances where the examples verge on being short cites, which shows inconsistency of usage.  I think we should avoid using "abbreviated citation", as it just invites too much confusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I did mean "short cite" after all, and struck and replaced, for posterity. --Lexein (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (One little pebble of possible confusion pushed to the side!) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Information on HOW to cite, and the format/syntax of citation/reference tags
This article mentions what information to include, but I cannot seem to locate any page on Wikipedia, that actually gives any good, clear, proper and thorough explanations on how this is to be done, nor any pages that give such explanations, concerning the format(s)/syntax of reference/citation tags.

I'd not mind learning how to cite, more properly, but how exactly am I supposed to learn how to do so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See the hatnote at the top of the page, "For information on referencing citations in Wikipedia articles, see footnotes, inline citation and referencing for beginners." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which fail to give a good, clear, coherent explanation. This failure of guidance can be derived from a failure of concept, for which there is insufficient desire to resolve.  The standard experience here (and implicit expectation) is that you have to figure out a citation "style" on your own. A major benefit of this approach is that such an experience may build character. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that it is a concious attempt to build character. Nor do I think that building character is a valid or sensible reason, in any way. If that were true, why are there explanations and clarifications on other issues?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ZarlanTheGreen, do you mean "exactly what should I type on the page? Should I type 'double-curly-brackets cite web pipe url equals http://example.com blah blah', or should I type 'square bracket http://example.com Page Title close square bracket blah blah'?"
 * If that's your question, the answer is "it depends". If we gave you the answer that was correct for Irish phonology (a featured article), it would be wrong when you tried to use it at Mayan languages(also a featured article).  You need to do your best to copy the style already used in the article.  There are a handful of common styles, and dozens of less common ones, in well-constructed Wikipedia articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That utterly fails to answer my question, as well as the question you pose (as your guess of what I might be asking ...and it is part of what I am asking) and then try to answer.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What WhatamIdoing said, BUT if you are writing a new article or adding references to a page that only has 1 or 2 references and you don't mind re-doing them for consistency, I recommend the templates like cite web, cite book, etc. over other ways of doing citations.  In most cases, I like "plain old inline citations" like but for some situations, such as where many references come from the same "body of work" and you can't or don't want to use rp ("reference page"), you can use a "references" section that lists the broad bodies of work (e.g. , "President Kennedy's speeches...", etc.) and use footnotes with much shorter entries for your in-line citations (e.g. ).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

None of what any of you have said has explained anything, any better than the pages I've already read. As J. Johnson (JJ) confirms, there is no proper explanation of how to cite, on Wikipedia ...and your comments have not clarified anything, in any way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think you are right that the lack of instructions is a problem. I suspect the reason for it is that many citation styles are allowed in Wikipedia and they each have their own advocates. Putting one standard way of making citations here would bring out the fights between each of those groups and that has been avoided. I would suggest looking at the output of cite book, cite news, cite web, etc. and following that standard. I think that's as close to an accepted standard in Wikipedia as there is. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Zarlan, what we're trying to tell is is that figuring out "how to cite", in the sense of "what to type on the page, so other people will know which source I used" is far, far more complicated than can actually be covered in one page. It's complicated in the real world, which is why the professionally written books on how to do this literally have hundreds of pages.  It's complicated in the real world, which is why your schoolteachers spent six to ten years trying to teach this to you.  And it's even more complicated at Wikipedia, where we accept every single "style", from British to American to Chinese, from legal to scientific to arts, and add technical features on top of them.
 * If you want to ask a very specific question, like "I used and I want to list it in in support of ", then we can tell you exactly what to type. But if you just want to know "how do I learn how to cite any kind of stuff in any article", then we can't really help you.  It is not easy to teach someone how to cite fifty different types of sources in dozens of contradictory styles because it is very difficult to learn hundreds of different formats.  It might actually be easier to turn you into a rocket scientist.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we accept every single style how do you explain the wording in the MOS (MOS:PUNCTFOOT) and the RFC that removed the compromise styling guidance (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 117, April 2010) -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:PUNCTFOOT is part of the "Manual of Style". No consensus can be found about whether citations are controlled by the "Manual of Style" or this guideline; see the inconclusive discussion. But there is general agreement that the MOS controls article text other than citations. Clearly these two guidelines interface at the point where the inline citation is present in the running text of the article; the RFC mentioned by PBS apparently decided how that interface would turn out if endnotes were the method chosen for inline citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems you all still don't understand what I am asking. I am aware that there are different styles, but I never asked about what style I should follow. You could present me with a specific style, and I still wouldn't have a clue about how to implement it.

I asked for the format(s) and syntax(es)!

For including Japanese words, for example, there is the. Template:Nihongo has is a nice and simple text on the syntax for it (there are a few alternative templates, but they all have similar pages). No similar pages for, or can be found, if you look for information or manuals on how to make citations.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The first thing to do, if editing an existing article, is figure out what style of citations are being used in the article. Then, do the same thing. If you need to cite a different kind of source from what has already been cited, and you know what style is being followed, consult the appropriate information source, such as Help:Citation Style 1, the Chicago Manual of Style, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Assocition, etc. If you are writing a new article, you can use whichever style you like. Perhaps you could describe a situation outside Wikipedia where you had to do something like, and what information you found to solve your problem, so we could get a better idea of what you are looking for. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are purely talking about style. I have pointed out that I am not talking about style. It is pointless to instruct someone on different styles of painting, if the person doesn't know how to get paint, a pen, a brush, a crayon or anything else to paint with. To speak of style, is like instructing someone who wants to create a homepage, on different designs that a homepage can have, while ignoring how to use HTML (please assume no homepage creating programs, and he/she must create it purely using a text editor).
 * It makes no sense.
 * They may learn how things should look, but they have no clue, whatsoever, about how to make anything.
 * Being expected to make proper citations on Wikipedia is like being expected to build a house, when you don't really know where all the materials are or even which materials that are needed and not knowing where the tools are, how they are used or which need to be used nor the techniques/skills needed to put it all together ...and then being instructed on styles of architecture. If I don't have the slightest clue about the basics of how to build stuff, talk of architectural styles is pointless and irrelevant!
 * syntax is what I asked for!
 * ...and that is something that cannot be found.
 * "Perhaps you could describe a situation outside Wikipedia where you had to do something like, and what information you found to solve your problem, so we could get a better idea of what you are looking for."
 * Back in the DOS days, I made a few simple .bat files. Whenever I wanted to know how a certain command worked, I'd type " /? " after the command, or use the HELP command (where I'd look it up) and I'd get a nice and clear explanation of what it does and what attributes can be used with it, and what they do (especially with HELP). In Unix, there is man, though it's not always as clear (at least not in Linux, as, due to its open source nature, the information must be created by the people making the programs ...who may lack competence and/or motivation/care)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me give you an example of an acceptable method for a new article. This example follows the The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 7th ed.; see especially page 128.

After a statement that needs a citation, place the surname of the author and the page number(s) in parentheses. After the "See also" section, create a "Works cited" section by writing on a line, beginning in column 1,

In the "Works cited" section, create an entry for the work you have cited. Example:

The wiki markup to create the preceding entry is:

Many other approaches exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * None of that answer my question. I am like a person with a blank paper/canvas, asking how to get paint onto it, and you talk about comparisons of surrealism and cubism. You keep insisting on talking of style, when I have been as clear as possible about what I am actually asking for.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And if one of those "other approaches" is being used in the article in question, or if the source isn't a book, then everything Jc2s5h kindly told you is either wrong or irrelevant. Another style says to cite this book this way:
 * and another says to cite it like this:
 * and another says to cite it like this:
 * —and there are many more. Every single one of these has a different "format and syntax".
 * Zarlan, you're not getting it. We must know what the "style" is before we can tell you what the "format(s) and syntax(es)" are.  To use your analogy, we need to know whether your plan is to build a house out of stone, brick, mud, wood, or straw before we try give you the tools you will need.  The only other alternative is to teach you literally hundreds of "format(s) and syntax(es)" to cover two dozen kinds of sources and many dozens of variations on styles, along with when to use them, and that isn't practical for anyone.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —and there are many more. Every single one of these has a different "format and syntax".
 * Zarlan, you're not getting it. We must know what the "style" is before we can tell you what the "format(s) and syntax(es)" are.  To use your analogy, we need to know whether your plan is to build a house out of stone, brick, mud, wood, or straw before we try give you the tools you will need.  The only other alternative is to teach you literally hundreds of "format(s) and syntax(es)" to cover two dozen kinds of sources and many dozens of variations on styles, along with when to use them, and that isn't practical for anyone.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Zarlan, you're not getting it. We must know what the "style" is before we can tell you what the "format(s) and syntax(es)" are.  To use your analogy, we need to know whether your plan is to build a house out of stone, brick, mud, wood, or straw before we try give you the tools you will need.  The only other alternative is to teach you literally hundreds of "format(s) and syntax(es)" to cover two dozen kinds of sources and many dozens of variations on styles, along with when to use them, and that isn't practical for anyone.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If I want to know how to build a house, there are places that can instruct me on how to do so. Including the different manners/techniques/tools needed to build it, depending on whether I build a wooden hut, or a stone cathedral. Not to mention the painting analogy, where the information is far, far, easier to get. Somehow, that is not a problem in those areas, yet it is here? ...with issues that are nowhere near as complex (even compared to the painting analogy), and in an environment that is all about information and easy access to it? Are you kidding me?
 * As to there being hundreds of formats/syntaxes... No, there isn't. I can clearly see that there isn't.
 * With the help of Wiktionary to get a translation, and then a quick google image search, I've found this. Now I don't I understand any Cyrillic, nor any language that uses that such an alphabet, and I suspect that most of you are the same ...yet none of you have any difficult understanding what type of document that is, now do you? You know what it is, even if you don't fully understand it.
 * In much the same way:
 * I've seen many citations, here and there. While I cannot understand their structure, as of yet, it is very clear that there are only a few formats.
 * , (with a couple of sub-types) and.
 * They have are several parameters, sure, but hundreds? No. Clearly not.
 * Even if they did total up to "hundreds"... how is that a problem? Sure it'd be too much to explain in this talk page, but... Why should the explanation have to be here? Why should everything be explained in one single page?
 * Even if you do succeed to explain it here, that doesn't solve the problem of there being no explanations in the "Wikipedia:" pages, on how to do these things. What I am asking for is, ultimately, for these things to be easily accessible. E.i. I am asking for the "Wikipedia:" pages (probably including the one that this talk page is attached to) to be fixed ...and that doesn't mean that all the information has to be in one single page. Issues concerning, for example, reliable sources isn't covered in one single page, now is it? In much the same was as the fact that there isn't a single page explaining every single policy.
 * There is no clear explanation of the formats nor instructions on the syntaxes and parameters or how they work and that is my complaint. Even if I succeed to understand these, this would not solve the larger problem of the lack of instructions and explanations and links to them. I would have learned, but others would be caught in the same problem, repeatedly, with many never actually getting any understanding.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You wrote:


 * I've seen many citations, here and there. While I cannot understand their structure, as of yet, it is very clear that there are only a few formats.
 * , (with a couple of sub-types) and.
 * They have are several parameters, sure, but hundreds? No. Clearly not.


 * No, that's not true. For example, citation and {{{tl|core}} {{{tl|cite xxx}} each can be placed inside &ltref> tags or not, so that's 4 styles right there. Also, printed style guides can be used without any of that. So we've got the Chicago Manual of Style, APA style, MLA Style Manual]], the style manuals of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the International Astronomical Union, and so forth. Plus styles that have been invented by Wikipedia editors for an individual article. So I would guess there are hundreds of styles. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (Error fixed 16:54 UT.)


 * "No, that's not true. For example, citation and {{{tl|core}} each can be placed inside &ltref> tags or not, so that's 4 styles right there."
 * I have a couple of issues with that statement:
 * {{{tl|core}}? What the heck is that?
 * If citation is placed inside a &ltref> tag, that doesn't really complicate things, in term of formats, syntax or parameters. It may make for more styles, but... Would it be against Wikipedia rules, for me to simply remove comments that talk about "style", based on the fact that they are irrelevant and not conducive to the discussion? Because feels very tempting to do so.
 * 4 formats would still not be that many.
 * "Also, printed style guides can be used without any of that."
 * In what way are they relevant?
 * "Plus styles that have been invented by Wikipedia editors for an individual article."
 * Yet again, that word: "Style".
 * How many times must I repeat myself: I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT STYLES, FFS!!!
 * This discussion is really frustrating. If I don't answer here for a while, it might be due to a need to calm down, as I suspect I might get quite pissed off, soon.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is really frustrating. If I don't answer here for a while, it might be due to a need to calm down, as I suspect I might get quite pissed off, soon.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is really frustrating. If I don't answer here for a while, it might be due to a need to calm down, as I suspect I might get quite pissed off, soon.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me explain what citation style is. When you go to what the US calls a high school, and you are in a course of study intended gain admission to a good university, your teachers will require you to produce research papers which cite sources using a format specified in a book or pamphlet which you will be provided with. That book or pamphlet is called a style guide and the commands in it are called style. You must make a reasonable effort to follow the commands or you will receive poor grades in your classes and fail to qualify for a decent university.


 * If you get into university and lean toward the academic fields of study (say, English or history) you will be required to buy one or more large style guides, such as those already named in this thread. You will be required to be proficient in obeying the commands within those guides; if you are not, you will not qualify for graduate school and your academic career will end.


 * If you have never read such a guide, go to the library and read one. Otherwise, I don't think this discussion can go any further. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you speak of style. For someone to paint a painting in a cubist style, they must first have a brush and paint and they need to know how to use those. What style you use, is something that comes afterwards.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Zarlan, are you asking how to produce citations (rather than what to write)? If so there are two ways: (a) you can type them manually (John Smith, Book title, Name of publisher, 2014, p. 1); or (b) you can use citation templates. For a book you would use. Depending on your preferences (I think), you can find these at the top of your edit window under "cite," which when clicked produces a drop-down menu of templates (cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal).

You fill in the parameters on the templates (not all of them, though; quite a few aren't really needed), then place the citations between two ref tags, e.g. If you use templates the ref tags appear automatically. At the end of the article you add a Notes or References header – ==Notes== – and under that, and that makes the citations visible. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * None of that answers any of what I've said.
 * Also: I am perfectly familiar with using a simple type reference ...but that is hardly the full extent of the tag, nor does it explain how the other methods work. Furthermore it only produces a bare-URL reference. The lowest and simplest form of reference.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There are also tools like MakeRef which will produce a cite template after you fill in the blanks. SchreiberBike talk 06:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but...
 * To take the analogy of creating web pages: If someone asks how to use HTML to make web pages, you could tell someone to just use, say, Dreamweaver to make a page ...but that doesn't teach them how to use HTML, which is what they asked.
 * Sure a website creating program can be used, but if you really want to be able to make websites (even if you're making them with such a program), you really should learn HTML (and CSS, and a bit of javascript).
 * In the same way: I asked about the formats/syntaxes/parameters. Your answer is irrelevant. Even if I use a tool like that, and there is no reason why I should be forced to, I still need to know the formats/syntaxes/parameters.
 * As with everyone else, you completely fail to answer me.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found Template:Citation, after I mentioned Template:Nihongo and thought I might get a result if I replaced "nihongo" with "citation" and with "cite" (cite redirected to citation) ...but this still doesn't explain: 1. Why there is no link or mention of it, from any articles about how to cite. (I did manage to get to the page, in the end, but...) 2. The tag. 3. Which parameters are required, and more full explanations of how the parameters interact (which require which, and which don't don't work with others. There are some mentions, but...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Zarlan: please consider taking a break from this. You started with a question ("how exactly am I supposed to learn how to [cite]?"), which was answered. But you keep going off onto other questions, and then complain that you don't like the answers. So not only are you getting exasperated, you are exasperating the rest of us. So take a break, please. Or find someone to mentor you. This discussion is not doing anything for you. More to the point, it seems unlikely to result in improvement to the project page, which is the purpose of this page.
 * P.S.: you do not need to use &lt;br /> tags to format your comments. Indeed, you should not. I have "refactored" your comments for proper sequential indentation; please note how that is done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "You started with a question ("how exactly am I supposed to learn how to [cite]?"), which was answered."
 * Nowhere has anyone answered the question ...or, indeed, understood what the question is. You cannot answer a question, when you do not understand it. An answer to a straw man, is not an answer to the question.
 * Also your "quote" is completely wrong. I note that the first post contains "Information on HOW to cite, and the format/syntax of citation/reference tags" and "/.../concerning the format(s)/syntax of reference/citation tags." ...but then you clearly don't understand what I mean by that, as no one seems to understand it.
 * "So take a break, please."
 * That may be a good idea.
 * "This discussion is not doing anything for you."
 * So it seems.
 * "P.S.: you do not need to use &lt;br /> tags to format your comments. Indeed, you should not. I have "refactored" your comments for proper sequential indentation; please note how that is done."
 * I've reverted that, as you misplaced my comment, in terms of indentation level. Where you put it, it was presented as an answer to SchreiberBike's comment. It wasn't.
 * It was a basic answer to everything that came before, without being a reply to any comment in particular. Thus I put it in with no indentation. As to your further indentation of the list... I don't do things that way. One of the reasons I prefer "1." instead of "#", is that it doesn't put itself to the right in the way that "#" does. (I also don't like how "*" does that)
 * You like to further indent lists, but I don't. That is a matter of style.
 * I know perfectly well how " : " works. Where, when and in what manner you use it, however, is a matter of style. How it works, is not.
 * Mine is a valid style, as is yours ...but neither of us would be able to use either style, without knowing how " : " works.
 * Learning when, where and in what manner to indent, would be pointless if you don't even know how you indent (i.e. using one " : " at the start of the line, for every level of indentation). If you don't know that, it doesn't matter what style you know or don't know about. You won't be able to indent, anyway. You won't be able to apply any of the styles.
 * The same is true of citation.
 * Oh, and if  is not okay for formatting, so that there is a new line, what way is okay to use?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A slight correction to what I said: Jc3s5h did mention Help:Footnotes, in my talk page (it's rather annoying to have this discussion split in two places, and having to go between them, to see the whole discussion, BTW), which kinda does give some small instruction of how the ref tag works. So there has been a little, partial, bit of an answer.
 * I give my, belated, thanks for that.
 * Aside from that, which just barely counts, there has been no answer to anything I have talked about. None of the rest of you have contributed anything (anything positive or constructive, that is) to the discussion, in any way, despite what you might think.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone that has commented here has answered you in some manner. Part of the problem is that you don't recognize the answers, perhaps because you have some pre-conceived notion of what an "answer" should look like. Another part of the problem here is that the several editors have responded according to their differing perceptions of what your question is. Which is why I asked you to specify exactly what your question is. But it seems you don't hear well.


 * Since our collective contributions here have been so valueless for you it seems pointless to continue this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Part of the problem is that you don't recognize the answers, perhaps because you have some pre-conceived notion of what an "answer" should look like."
 * No.
 * I don't have any more of a pre-conceived notion of what an "answer" should look like, than anyone else. It should, for example, be related to the question, for it to be an answer. That is a pre-conceived notion, certainly, but it it, frankly part of the definition of what an answer is, as any dictionary or encyclopaedia will confirm. (well, that is unless one takes the broadest sense of "answer", which is anything said/done in reaction to something else ...but "banana" could accurately be called an answer to "what is the square root of 754?", using that sense of the word, so that sense of the word is clearly not relevant here)
 * "Another part of the problem here is that the several editors have responded according to their differing perceptions of what your question is."
 * My point exactly. I have said exactly that, repeatedly.
 * If I ask what an apple is, and you answer blue, thinking I was asking the colour of the sky (to take a bizarre, and frankly unrealistic, extreme example), then that is not an answer to my question. It's an answer to a strawman of my question and thus useless.
 * "Which is why I asked you to specify exactly what your question is. But it seems you don't hear well."
 * I have given tons of explanations and clarifications. I have done my utter best, in trying to clarify what I ask for. When you, or anyone else, has asked for explanations/clarifications I have given them. They were clearly not sufficient, but they were given. I don't know how I could possibly be more clear then I have been.
 * "Since our collective contributions here have been so valueless for you it seems pointless to continue this discussion."
 * Well you have made attempts to answer, but they are indeed all (aside from Jc3s5h's mention of Help:Footnotes, as I've said) completely useless, despite of your good intentions.
 * That is the one and only point, on which we agree.
 * Heck, I wouldn't have bothered with this reply, if not to correct your false accusations.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Talk page guidelines in a nutshell: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Since this discussion has not come within even hailing distance of suggesting any improvement, and as the initial poster agrees that it has been completely useless, and now makes a personal attack ("your false accustations"), it is time to close this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

All caps in titles
Shouldn't there be a mention of the first bullet in MOS:ALLCAPS in this guideline? I often see all caps copied to citations and looked for it here but had to search for another guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But then I have also seen "|author=" set to an unedited cut-and-paste that included superscripted numbers and other garbage straight from the original. Should we tell editors to do a little more editing? Also "perhaps". The overriding question is just how much information can be stuffed into an editor's head all at once without making it explode. The fire-hose of information is, I think, one of the reasons new editors find this topic difficult. Where "doing" a citation properly overlaps other topics, such as MOS, it is a non-trivial question of how and where information should be presented. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that editors are technically allowed to make up a citation style that uses all caps. They shouldn't, but it's not entirely "illegal".  Are you seeing people do this purposefully (not just mindless copying and pasting or accepting whatever the autofill spits out)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks ugly when some references are all caps and others aren't. I'm not sure what you mean by "technically allowed" but I certainly don't think we should indicate anywhere that it's allowed. I only see it when the source uses all caps so I assume it's copied either manually or with a tool, but that doesn't imply it's done mindlessly. Many editors probably think they should reproduce the source title including capitalization. The occurrence which prompted my post today is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Baines_%28bobsledder%29&diff=595726691&oldid=595726572] by Matty.007 who might say whether it was intentional (ProveIt was used). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I copy the title, as I thought that was what we do, as with foreign language refs, we don't put up a translation, we put the original, so my logic went that it was the same here. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus about whether the "Manual of Style" and its subsidiary guidelines control citations, or this guideline controls. I suppose you would have to put whatever advice you want to put forward in both guidelines, after obtaining consensus in a discussion that is pointed to from WP:CITE, WP:MOS, and WP:ALLCAPS.

The advice could be of the form "Wikipedia has no established house citation style, but several printed style manuals [1][2][3] suggest titles in citations be capitalized as follows:..." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

McDonald's Chicken McNuggets
Hi! Wikipedia reports that Tyson helped McDonald's create/invent Chicken McNuggets. That is not correct. Keystone Foods is the correct company. I know because I worked for Keystone from 1978 through 2011. McDonald's invited Tyson to become a second supplier to help meet sales demands about 18 months after Chicken McNuggets were already being expanded accross the US. This is correctly documented in the 1986 edition of the book McDonald's Behind The Arches by John F. Love. In chapter 14, "McDonaldizing" The Suppliers, on pages 323 through 356, information about product developments is described. The details relating to Chicken McNuggets are specifically provided on pages 342 to 345. Finally, the Tyson connection is accurately summarized in the middle of page 344. I hope this helps! I am happy to provide any additional assistance or verification needed. I look forward to this correction being made & thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrygotro (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, but this should be discussed on the talk page of the article that contains the facts in question. This page is about how to cite sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Referencing video games as sources to themselves
It's ridiculous if only a video games instruction manual is considered a valid source and not the game it's self. Citing would be difficult because unlike comic books video games don't have page numbers, and unlike films they don't even rely on standard increments of time due to their interactivity. I would like to know how citations of video games in academia are supposed to work. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A video game is an experience, and someone else's experience of a game will differ from yours. At best you can only report on your experience, which might be significant, notable, important, etc., but all that amounts only to journalism, like with a newspaper; it's a primary source. Now if someone else publishes comments on their experience, then there is a definite, fixed, public record to refer to, and you can cite it (subject to any other restrictions).


 * As to how "citations of video games in academia are supposed to work", well, I wasn't aware that "academia" cites video games. But if you can find an example, please show us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * An experience that cannot be reliably reproduced is original research, and not subject to inclusion in an article. An experience with a video game that is reliably reproducible, for example, a description of how to display a list of the authors, may be cited. Giving directions on how to reproduce the experience is equivalent to giving a page number for a book. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable reproduction is the sine qua non of original research, and attaining it does not make the research non-original. Pointing someone to an existing description by use of a page number (etc.) is not the same as giving the description itself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, forget about the word "experience", that was your word, not the original poster's word. Video games contain information. That information can be cited, so long as the citation describes how to make the information appear. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting question. Does having to provide detailed instructions as to how to obtain the information from a readily available published source move the information from being a citeable source to one that is considered WP:OR? After all, citing a book, or any reference, is merely providing directions on how to view the information. The level of detail is different because there are shared assumptions as to the process of obtaining the information from the book. Would it not be reasonable to state that it is not WP:OR if the information is available to anyone if appropriate directions, which could be followed by an average person without specific skills, are given.  WP:OR states that "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source".  Video games, if publicly available, are certainly published. A video game would, of course, be considered a primary source. Primary sources are acceptable, but not preferred, for specific facts. Obviously, a key issue is verifiability. The average person needs to be able to be able obtain the information from the source themselves in order for it to be considered verifiable.&mdash; Makyen (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We let people cite databases, which sometimes involves providing detailed information (e.g., you need to search for the following keyword, with these boxes ticked), and I don't see why telling someone, e.g., to control-click on the opening logo, would be any worse. You can also do the same purely descriptive kind of stuff you'd do for a painting:  players choose one of six characters to play, it's set in a haunted house, there are 39 levels, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we agree on this much: If the information in the game can be reliably reproduced, it can be cited, providing the particular use meets existing Wikipedia rules regarding using forms of media as a self-citation (e.g. citing a film in an article about that film)?  As an example, in most video games, the "opening screen" is obviously reproducible.  As a non-trivial example, if there is a reliably-reproducible Easter Egg in the game which gives the full credits of the game, and there is something of encyclopedic value in these credits not found elsewhere (e.g. Famous person was credited with insert role here), that could be used as a source.  The key points being:  1) the "referenced" game screen is reliably reproducible, 2) the use of the reference is within Wikipedia's use for self-referencing, and 3) the material being cited belongs in the article in the first place (i.e. it's not trivia, etc.).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will note that based on what the OP is asking about, this is more an issue with the third point, avoiding trivia that can be otherwise reliably verified. (In this case, to include a game that mentions algae fuel in a list of cultural references to algae fuel). The point can be verified, probably just saying to the game itself (though perhaps a cite video game quote to show its presence) but just being mentioned in the game usually is not good enough to including on such lists to avoid them from spiraling out of control. Hence the need for a third-party source to show that the fact, indeed, is worthwhile to include, which is an issue that goes beyond the sourcing issue itself. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Accessing a book, even a database, is pretty straight-forward, and is reliably reproduced everytime. (Which is an essential characteristic for verification.) But a game would be boring if it responded the same way every time for every user; we rather expect them to vary ("YMMV"). So how do we know that "right-ctrl" works exactly the same as "left-ctrl"? That there isn't an extra level on Sundays? Or on having some number of hours? Or just randomly? The problem in documenting (citing) some aspect of game behavior is the lack of a complete specification.
 * The part of a game which is published is the code. (And ancillary material like the instruction manual.) Conceivably you could quote a URL embedded at a certain offset into the code. Or report that "most users find ..." (which might be considered WP:BLUE). However, a user's interaction with the code brings in specific elements of that user/interaction (as well as unknown elements as mentioned above), which makes verifiability doubtful.
 * All this does depend on specific examples, such as Davidwr and Masem touch on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The part of the game that is published is the part that is made available to the public. For commercial games, that does not normally include the code.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are thinking of the source code? That is compiled and linked to create the executable code, which is all those files with the (under Windows) ".exe", ".com", or ".dll" filename extensions. If you don't have any of those all you have is, what, an instruction manual and some exciting pictures? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably don't have an instruction manual; those pretty much disappeared a decade ago.
 * The pictures are every bit as much "published" as the rest, and they are often very important. And saying that the executable is published, but its contents aren't is as silly as saying that the magnetic pattern on a VCR tape is published, but the contents of the TV show it transcribes are not.  We assume transformation:  from splotches of ink into words in your mind, from magnetic patterns into sounds and lights on a television, and from the contents of a mask ROM chips into a Nintendo game.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You assume too much, and over-interpret. As to understanding, yup, way under. But answer me this: if all the executable code is removed from "the part that is made available to the public", what would you have? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Offhand, images, sounds, video, text files—there's a lot in a video game that is called by the software, but isn't actually part of the software. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking all of that is software (well, I suppose a game could come with a windup music box, or something), but allowing you mean the executable code, then the same question: if you remove it, what would you have? Some pretty images, some text (instruction manual?), and what? Certainly nothing passable as a video game. It would be like a book with a fancy cover and dust jacket, perhaps even some glossy photos, but no text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when there's no URL?
I have run into this several times. I click on a link but the URL at the top of the screen does not change. So I'm not giving information which is that useful when I put the URL at the top of the page in the citation. And in a case I ran into today, I don't think the title of the page changed either. When I typed in a search term, the information on one part of the screen changed. I clicked on the link and only that part of the screen changed.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I, and I'm sure other people, would be happy to help. It would help us quite a bit in trying to figure out what is going on if you could provide an example.  Information which would be helpful would, for example, includes:  the page name and reference name/number/some other identification, what you, specifically, clicked on, anything else you can tell us (browser, OS). &mdash; Makyen (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've misplaced the information I needed to continue this, but I'll come back when I've found it. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at reference 1 in Yell County Courthouse. This is on almost every NRHP article. I think this is what the question is about. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem is with reference 1 in Yell County Courthouse. For me, the text "National Register Information System" is linked to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html.  When I click on the link, I am taken to that page. I admit the data in the registry appears less convenient to access than would be desirable, but that is a problem for the National Park Service.  The reference is generated by the NRISref template, which appears to be doing what it is documented to do.
 * But that link has nothing about the topic. And there is not direct way to navigate to it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, all of the references on the Yell County Courthouse page have primary links that link to either a webpage, or a PDF document. Reference 2 does have a red-link] to [[Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, but I don't think that is what you are trying to indicate.
 * If you are not seeing the link, then definitely need more information about your configuration. However, the existence of those links should not depend on your config. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, this is the link. Where it says "Name", I type in a search term. Let's say "Lee". On the right, a list of names comes up and I click on one of them. Let's say "Robert Lee". Information about what I searched for comes up. The URL has not changed, so I can't use it as the URL because the information would not be on the screen.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I use the  parameter at Template:Cite web. Make it specific enough to easily find the result, without adding obvious details like "Click on the name". When you know the wanted result, go back and test for a clearer way to get there. In your example it could be  . This only gives the wanted search result. Quotation marks don't work in the search so I used italics to not confuse the reader. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope that works.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Select name: Lee, Robert is better. 'Select' and 'name' are terms used on the NAIA Honors website so by using those terms in the citation you are preparing the reader to see the terms used there.  Also colon instead of italics to keep the Wikimarkup out of the citation's COinS metadata.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting permission to change sentence: first major contributor
I came across the sentence As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I am requesting permission to change it to As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style most in use. The reason I am requesting permission is because I feel some editors wouldn't want to check the edit history every time to find out what style they should use, especially if it is a page with thousands of edits. If nobody has any issues with this I plan on making this change on March 28 (UTC-4). Jesant13 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This topic (first major contributor) has been extensively discussed before, I think recently as well. I oppose your suggested change; unless someone is a WP:Newbie or otherwise inexperienced with editing Wikipedia (such as some sporadic editors), it's not difficult to check in the edit history and see who the first major contributor is. And "the style most in use" is vague. "Most in use" with regard to what, the reference styles in the article? Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "first major contributor" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Also, despite what I just stated above, it actually can be difficult to determine who the "first major contributor" is, depending on how that aspect is defined. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with Flyer22. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style most in use is not true, because that is not the basis for choosing the national variety of English.Jc3s5h (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because "most in use" is ill-defined, and would amount to a change of policy. And also because, if there is some possibility of a problem, that should be established prior to slamming in a change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Most in use" is vague, debatable, and subject to change. Also, even if a new editor isn't savvy enough to find the earliest edits link, this is something than can be easily explained on the article's talk page. As spelling variations are ultimately trivial to the broader purpose of this encyclopedia, we should endeavor to allow consensus to be established quickly rather than muddying the waters. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  22:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (ec)Lazy editors are not a reason to change, especially when this would gut the intention of the current wording. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Flyer22 and J. Johnson. Even if it is not intended this way, "style most in use" is easily interpreted to mean "American English only," on grounds that the US population is larger than any other English-speaking region.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about CITEVAR, not about ENGVAR, so American vs non-American English spelling is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR is being addressed because of the "As with spelling differences" aspect of the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly so, and the same principle is involved. Citation style preferences also vary by nationality, and the proposed wording can easily be interpreted as "mob rule", according to whatever is regarded as the "most predominant" usage, in the opinion of any editor, using any criteria.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Most WP policies of this type go back to maintaining the style used by the first major contributor. There are good reasons for us to maintain similar wording to WP:DATERET.  Dates can be something over which there are edit skirmishes of various intensity.  Having a policy at variance with the policies at MOS would only fuel issues. I also agree with the reasons supplied by others above who have voiced opposition. I would support a change which changes much of the text describing date styles, and which to choose, to just referencing MOS:DATEFORMAT. Making the change to primarily referencing MOS would alleviate the need to go into unnecessary, repetitive detail on this page. Unless I am mistaken, there is no intent, or desire, to differ from what is acceptable in MOS.  If there is, then we should have the description concentrate on the differences or limitations and be explicit that they are intentional difference from MOS:DATEFORMAT. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By "style most in use" I was referring to the style most in use in an article, not all of English Wikipedia. Does anyone have any suggestions as to a different way to determine how to determine what spelling style to use in a given article? Jesant13 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, the wording needs to specify it so that there is no confusion, something along the lines of "style most prevalent within the article." However, I still recommend against this change. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  01:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most/all here probably understood your intent that "most in use" was intended to mean "most in use on the page to which you are adding the citation". What people have pointed out is the wording can be interpreted differently than you intended, and that some editors will interpret it that way either intentionally, or unintentionally.
 * Unless the situation is crystal-clear, the process of determining the varient to use on a particular page can result in burning a bunch of time if there are differing opinions. I don't see a reason we should open either of these cans of worms (WP:ENGVAR and/or MOS:DATEFORMAT) on this project page. The various sections/pages within MOS are as comprehensive as has been reached by consensus. Unless there is a consensus here to explicitly differ from WP:ENGVAR and/or MOS:DATEFORMAT, then we should just state that the guidelines described in those pages/sections should be used in citations.
 * If you are asking "how to determine which" because you want to know as opposed to something for the project page, then that is a potentially long discussion. I started to write something quick, but it just kept getting more complex as I was writing it. I deleted it because I realized I do not have the time to write something up and such a discussion is much more appropriate to have at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where more editors can comment than will see it here. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesant13, why are you asking here at WT:Citing sources about how to determine what spelling style to use? I realize that CITEVAR and ENGVAR use the same model.  (I should know; I wrote CITEVAR.)  If you want to know how to determine what citation style to use, I can help you with that.  But if you want to know what spelling style to use, then the rules are quite a bit more complicated, and you really need to stop asking that question here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asking here because of the sentence As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. That sentence is on the project page. What I had been doing and plan on continuing doing is using the spelling style and citation style for a given citation type (like the web) used most in a given article, instead of checking the edit by the first major contributor on every single page I decide to edit. I've yet to have someone revert any of my edits over this. I'm thinking about not making the change I suggested because on another project page I came across the same thing, which is to use the style put in place by the first major contributor. Jesant13 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For everyday editing, just take a look at what you see, and copy that citation style to the best of your ability. These rules about which style to follow are aimed at resolving serious disputes.  If you're not in a dispute, and you're not trying to start one (e.g., by radically changing the style currently in use without talking it over first), then you don't need to worry about any of this at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm glad to hear that the rules are aimed at resolving serious disputes. I didn't know that before. Jesant13 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The above conversation is very confused. Can those who are talking about ENGVAR please strike those comments. In the case of CITEVAR the current wording is inadequate for several reasons. "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" has several problems for CITEVAR that ENGVAR does not have, as national spelling and grammar constructs have not altered during the lifetime of this project, but the method of citing text has altered a lot.

First of all the paragraph says "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it;" There may not be a style or the style may vary from that used by the "first major contributor". In practice what tends to happen is that style evolves over time. For example if a book is cited one then a full inline citation may be appropriate, but if someone then comes along and cites different pages from that book, it is verbose to copy the whole citations for each page change, so editors tend to start to use short citations. To argue that all those short citations should then be changed to long citations just because someone does not like short citations and justify it on "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" when the first editor used a long citation for one instance is not a help to the project. This also has to do with the complexity of the article. In short articles then whether half a dozen citations are listed as footnotes or split into short citations and alphabetically listed long citations does not really matter, but once an article gets into the 100 of citations some cited multiple times with different pages to support different passages it is often not practical to use anything other short inline citations and a sorted list in a references section, no matter what style was used when the article was only a paragraph long with just one reference.

There are other problems:
 * 1) The first major contributor may have used a style that was acceptable when the article was written but is now considered inadequate for example this guideline now suggest avoiding embedded links, but if no style can be agreed upon then if that is what the original editor used that is what the article would end up with if one was to "defer to the style used by the first major contributor".
 * 2) The technology has changes is anyone seriously suggesting that because the first person used footnote3 or something earlier that article should revert to using that method if not agreement can be reached on current style?
 * 3) This has ownership issues. For example I wrote my first article Royal Scots Dragoon Guards back in November 2003 does that mean I can choose the style of citations that can be used in that article forever more? What if I think that the style I used initially is now inadequate. Can I unilaterally change because I was the "first major contributor"?
 * 4) This whole idea is skewed to not using templates because unless the article was copied from a PD source such as EB1911 (where templates were included for many years), then if the article is older than seven years then there is a very good chance that templates were not used initially. Even with more recent articles newish editors tend not to use citation template, not because they are opposed to them, but because they are not sure how to do so and they are more interested in creating their new article quickly. But later those who dislike templates can quote this line "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" to support their preference.

The "first major contributor" argument should only be used if on balance if there is nothing to choose between two options and the original contributor introduced a specific overall style that is still in use: EG harvard style or footnote style and not for anything else. -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Phil has some good general comments, but on the broader issue. On the specific request made here there is solid block of opposition (largely because the proposed language was unclear). I suggest that the request be closed as "denied", with an option for continuing this discussion on the broader issue. (Although another venue might be better.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Should we change the ref layout during the above bot work?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. This is about changing the formatting of citation templates on these popular articles, based on the preferences of the majority of editors at the WikiProject. (There are 1500 articles on that list, but I believe that most of them already used the preferred formatting style, so this would likely affect far fewer articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Excessive Cite.php backlinks
I noticed this earlier, but here this problem can't be overlooked. I submitted this bug. Comments are welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor,
 * Why don't you use a citation style that is more appropriate for that article's specific needs? Instead of , why don't you use something like the old-fashioned system of asterisks and daggers (†), or code letters, like Line of succession to the British throne has successfully used for years?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Popups, for one. The "old-fashioned" approach evolved for tree-corpse publications. Responsive design is not possible without properly marked-up sources. Also, as I said, this is not the only page with this problem, by a long shot. And this is a low impact solution. It's not that hard to add a simple kill switch to a short script. Lastly, I don't know what you mean by "successfully". The article uses markup as well as hardcoded references, possibly for the very reason I submitted the bug. Paradoctor (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The template Listref was created to alleviate this problem. While I have not used it, it appears to be able to solve the problem nicely. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Format for citing books, journals etc.
Apologies if I am asking this in the wrong place, or if it has been answered before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Examples produces a citation in the format "Cordell, Bruce R.; Grubb, Jeff; Noonan, David (September 2001). Manual of the Planes. Berlin: Wizards of the Coast. pp. 198–203. ISBN 0-786918-50-0." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books otoh, says

"name of the author(s)

title of the book in italics

volume when appropriate

city of publication is optional

name of the publisher

year of publication

chapter or page number(s) where appropriate

ISBN is optional".

So the date comes immediately after the author in the first format, but after the name of the publisher in the second. I realize that Wikipedia does not have a 'house style', but I feel that this can look untidy if both systems are used in one article e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_ship. Is this a case where either format is equally correct? Alekksandr (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please take this up with the people who maintain the citation templates. Many of them are discussed at Help talk:Citation style 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, you should not use two different styles in the same article. However, there's no requirement that you place the material in this order (or in the other order); either is fine.  The goal is only for things within one article to match the other things within that same article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation
Please review the RFC at Template talk:Citation about whether the rules for valid parameters in Citation Style 1 should also apply to the Citation template. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC) (Word added 17:40 UT.)

When citation style guides are updated
In view of this user talk page discussion I think we should clarify what to do when the citation guide that an article follows is updated. I suggest adding the following point under "Generally considered helpful"


 * Copy editing citations to conform to changes in citation template function or documentation, or new editions of external style guides (e.g. ''Chicago Manual of Style).

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the above, but I would like to note that the use of a single author parameter to store multiple authors in cite journal templates has long been accepted and has not been deprecated. Boghog (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's true that, while using cite journal, using a single author parameter to store multiple authors is acceptable. However, when a template allows several equivalent ways to store information, it is a reasonable inference that when a more constrained parameter choice yield a particular rendering (e.g.  is rendered as "Nelson, G.K.; Lombardi, M.A.; Okayama, D.T.") then less constrained parameters (e.g. {{para}|author}}) should be written to produce the same rendering.


 * I don't know if this is a general enough point to be documented here, or should be documented in the documentation of the various citation template families. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Re: templates. I wonder if it's necessary to add that here, as opposed to wherever the templates are described. If we do add it here, we should make clear that it's "copy editing citation templates in articles that already use them ..."


 * Re: manual citations. If someone has chosen a consistent citation style that works, there's no reason to encourage others to change it. That principle applies to template usage too, because there are different ways to fill in the parameters.


 * Jc, can you give an example of the kind of change you have in mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If an article appears to have adopted a printed style guide (or even contains a statement in an html comment stating what style guide is being followed, which is rare), and a subsequent editor sees what looks like an error, the editor should be allowed to use the latest edition of the guide to correct the apparent error. The editor shouldn't be required to search the edit history to see when the "error" was added, and go to a used book shop to obtain an edition that was in effect when the "error" was added. Also, systematic updating will make it easier for editors to add new citations without having to obtain an outdated version of the guide; the new sources might be of a different kind that the existing sources, so the existing citations might not help figure out how to format the new citation.


 * An example is that with the 16th edition, the Chicago Manual of Style made changes to their documentation one style and their documentation two style to make them more similar (see page xii of the preface). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I wouldn't support that change. Very few articles follow a style guide completely consistently. Most editors mix and match, because all that matters is internal consistency and clarity. To encourage updating to follow the closest style guide would go against the spirit (and letter) of CITEVAR. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support that for SlimVirgin's reason, but what you actually wrote is going to be (mis)interpreted as meaning "I can always change any citation system to conform with my favorite external style guide, so long as my favorite is the newest version". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Most referenced newspapers on Wikipedia
Did anyone care to make a statistic of the publications that are used the most in Wikipedia references? Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably "no"? In part because the basis for collecting such a statistic is so shakey as to make it nearly meaningless. A great many references don't use templates, making extraction of data quite daunting. Even where templates are used there are variations in the naming of the publications. And in the end, what would be value or use of such a statistic — an impact index? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Within the scientific field, this has been done. See

In particular, the statistics were restricted to to cite journal templates and a "list was setup to match the different variations of journal titles". Boghog (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (see especially table 1)
 * and User:Fnielsen.
 * and User:Fnielsen.
 * Thanks for the mentioning. I did a similar analysis on news media available as a blog post: Top news cites referenced from Wikipedia. Ed Summers made a more general statistical analysis also reported in a blog post: top hosts referenced in wikipedia (part 2). You also find a brief description of another Ed Summers analysis in the section "sources and links" in my review: Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments. Yet another work of interest is the WikiSym article Getting to the source: where does Wikipedia get its information from? &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not recall seeing any study on citations to individual publications, e.g., books, news articles or research articles. The citation studies I can recall focus on entities such as journals, news sites or web sites. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS rules apply to citations?
Some editors in the thread Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5 assert that the rules in the WT:Manual of Style apply to citations, and any citation style that might have been adopted for a particular article, such as APA style must yield. If that view is true, then the following passage in this guideline needs to be deleted or revised: "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook. Examples can be found at Citing sources/Example style."

Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Link corrected 9 May 2014 22:36 UT.


 * Jc, this is a non-starter. First of all, the discussion you reference is not about MOS. Perhaps you meant WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, where you question the applicability of MOS:DATEFORMAT? Second, you have misstated the situation at the latter. No one (at the either discussion) has claimed that "any citation style that might have been adopted for a particular article, such as APA style must yield", therefore your starting premise is false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck, following clarification that this is not about MOS:DATEFORMAT, but abbreviations. (Perhaps MOS:ABBR?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is about everything in citations: dates, abbreviations, typographical treatment of titles (capitalization, surrounding with double quotes, italics), bolding volume numbers, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had to fix the link. In the discussion at the corrected link User:Makyen asserts "Using abbreviated names for journal names is preclude by WP:MOS. The absolute minimum would be that you must define the abbreviation upon first use. However, Do not use unwarranted abbreviations would generally apply to almost all journal name abbreviations." and "Use of abbreviations such as "AB" for first and middle name are precluded by MOS:ABBR...."


 * User:LeadSongDog chimes in with "If a journal attributes an article to JOLSON AL it takes some additional information to know if that is short for Arthur Lewis Jolson or just all caps for Al Jolson. Such additional information is often not readily available. We have to be able to cite the name in the form we find it."


 * But the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 6th ed. p. 184 states "Invert all authors' names; give surnames and initals...."


 * The Vancouver system requirement: "Journal titles are abbreviated; book titles are not."


 * Clearly these external style guides take positions directly contradictory to WP:MOS. If WP:MOS were to be applied to citations, at least two external styles would be incompatible with Wikipedia, which is a contradiction to the paragraph I quoted in the first post to this thread. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with the above line of reasoning. Currently it is not at all clear that WP:MOS applies to citations. Even if it did, WP:MOS is a guideline and not a policy and therefore WP:IAR applies. Furthermore it should first be explicitly stated that WP:MOS does apply to citations but only after consensus is reached including consensus specifically on whether MOS guidelines concerning abbreviations also apply to author names and journal titles in citations. There are already exceptions to the abbreviation guidelines and these exceptions could very well be extended to citations. Boghog (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Boghog wrote "Currently it is not at all clear that WP:MOS applies to citations....Furthermore it should first be explicitly stated that WP:MOS does apply to citations but only after consensus is reached including consensus specifically on whether MOS guidelines concerning abbreviations also apply to author names and journal titles in citations." Are you saying that at the moment, there is no explicit statement that MOS applies to citations, but you think such a statement should be created? And further, that not all of MOS should apply, but only selected parts, for which consensus can be found?


 * I'll point out that this guideline, WP:CITE, already contains one exception to allowing any citation style: all-numeric dates other than the format YYYY-MM-DD are not allowed because they're just too ambiguous. Would your statement be equivalent to saying additional MOS-inspired exceptions could be added to WP:CITE? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boghog that MOS:ABBR does not apply to citations. It is intended to cover running text, not footnotes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There appears to be disagreement as to the applicability, or extent of applicability, of WP:MOS to citations. If it is desired that there is a clarification of the current consensus, or that a new consensus is formed – one way or the other – then this page is not the right venue for the discussion. The venue needs to be WT:MOS, not here. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? This seems as good a place as there, to me.  This is the guideline on citing sources; it's the natural place to discuss rules on citing sources. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS does not apply to citations. If you want to extend to WP:MOS to cover citations, then the only place to have that discussion is WT:MOS, not here. Furthermore this guideline, by listing the Vancouver system as one style that is used in Wikipedia articles, implicitly allows abbreviations in both author and journal names. Finally what is the point of all this?  To confirm the long standing practice of using author and journal abbreviations in citations by explicitly listing these as exceptions to the WP:MOS abbreviation guidelines?  Boghog (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editors at MOS about this discussion. Considering that MOS and printed style manuals both contain many detailed rules, which are bound to conflict to some degree, it would be more practical to start with the position that MOS does not apply to citations, with certain exceptions. Put a notice to that effect in MOS, then put a list of exceptions in this guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable enough to me. If someone wants to know about citations, they're going to look here, not at an enormous (170kb!) page that covers grammar and vocabulary.  Everything about citation formatting should be here.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to say that some parts of MOS do not apply as strictly to citations as to prose, but we must keep in mind the reason for citations – helping readers locate cited sources – and the reason for a MOS – in the case of WP:MOS, "to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive. Consistent language, style, and formatting promote clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."


 * Regarding the former reason, it makes it harder, not easier, for readers to locate sources when we intentionally present them with abbreviated journal names like J. Cell Biol. when there is plenty of space for much more accessible title formatting, like Journal of Biological Chemistry. It does not seem reasonable to hide useful information from readers.


 * Regarding the latter reason, ambiguity and jargon are reduced in some citation styles compared to others. That is why we recommend against date formats like 3/6/12.


 * We should be able to come up with citation style guidelines that help readers locate sources with a minimum of ambiguity and jargon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering that MOS is fairly large, and printed style guides are much larger, there are bound to be a long list of conflicts between MOS and any given printed style guide (and a different list for each printed guide). Most of these conflicts will be on minor points that don't fundamentally affect the ability of a reader to find a source. Thus I think it would be more expedient to take the position that MOS does not apply to citations, and any exceptions necessary to make it easier for our readership to find sources should be contained in this guideline.


 * As for "come up with citation style guidelines that help readers locate sources with a minimum of ambiguity and jargon", bear in mind that creating a complete citation style guideline is a huge project; the citation portion of printed style guides are usually over 50 pages. And many attempts to adopt a house style have failed. Even a list of a few exceptions can have significant effects. There are many automated packages that generate citations in a wide choice of styles. Also, some sources offer pre-written citations in a choice of styles. But none of these will be usable if we outlaw a practice that is commonplace in printed style guides. (Of course, some of them are not usable anyway, since we can't cut & paste typographic effects like boldface and italics into wiki source code.) Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jonesey, if a reader wants to find the journal, then using the standard abbreviation may be more helpful. Some databases don't give helpful results if you search for "Journal of Cell Biology", but still find all the records that contain "J Cell Biol".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards of abbreviations: I don't know that citations should be exempted from MOS. But if they are, then definitely there should be "a notice to that effect in MOS." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dropping in after seeing the note at WT:MOS... I would suggest the following as a working compromise... if an article consistently follows a specific citation style (be it Chicago, APA, MLA, etc.) any abbreviations within a citation should be kept in conformity with that style. If the article does not consistently follow a specific citation style, then follow WP:MOS guidance on abbreviations, as that is the default. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of "abbreviations" in this context? Tony   (talk)  13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Boghog says "WP:MOS does not apply to citations". But citations are pretty nearly the entire locale where author and journal names are used, and where any question of abbreviation arises. So I would refine Tony's question: can any one show that there is any issue regarding abbreviation of author and journal names outside of citation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For major journals, we occasionally see people writing about "A 2012 study published in NEJM found..."
 * Blueboar, since the community very strongly takes the view that all citation styles are equal, regardless of whether they're published by proper experts or made up by Wikipedians. I don't think people will accept, "Editors on Wikipedia may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves, except that you're not allowed to abbreviate the names of authors or academic journals unless you're strictly following an outside style guide".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WAID... I'm not sure how you got that from my comment...Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You said, "if an article consistently follows a specific citation style (be it Chicago, APA, MLA, etc.) any abbreviations within a citation should be kept in conformity with that style. If the article does not consistently follow a specific citation style, then follow WP:MOS guidance on abbreviations, as that is the default." It seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that you have just "compromised" on prohibiting the use of abbreviations in all citation styles except those mandated by an outside style guide.  Consequently, the rule would become that you "may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves, except that you're not allowed to abbreviate the names of authors or academic journals unless you're strictly following an outside style guide".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor comment on above: The MOS most definitely does apply to footnotes. Footnotes are not the same thing as citations. In practice, AFAIK we've never followed the MOS for citations, except for minor things not otherwise covered such as hyphen vs dash, use of anglophone quotation marks, etc. If the MOS doesn't currently refer people here, I agree it should. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean that the primary use of Help:Footnotes is not footnotes? ;-)
 * The MOS should apply to "explantory footnotes"; it shouldn't apply to "bibliograhic footnotes" of the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A related minor comment: the interface between a guideline that applies to running text (MOS) and a guideline that applies to citations (CITE) is the point where the inline citation is placed in the running text. MOS:PUNCTFOOT is a rule that addresses this interface. Constant vigilance will be required to prevent contradictions being introduced between MOS and CITE for the interface. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:PUNCT addresses only how footnotes are closed-up on punctuation, not the punctuation within a note. As to distinguishing footnotes as explanatory or bibliographic: that's only the content. The MOS can be applied (or not) to footnotes as a class, or to certain contents. But to say that there are two kinds footnotes, some being treated one way if they contain explanation, but another way if they contain bibliography, will lead to all kinds of confusion. (E.g.: what if a note contains both kinds of content? Does "bibliographic" mean containing a list of books? Or only a pointer to such a list? Does it include short cites?) Subject or exempt footnotes as a whole, or citations as a whole, but let's stay away from indefinite, bastardized categories like "bibliographic footnotes". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course MOS rules apply to citations; despite being a bit "meta" compared to the main prose of the article, they're a visible and integral part of article content (certainly far more so than, infoboxes, which are also subject to MOS, but are apt to be removed entirely from various re-uses of WP content, while the reference citations would not be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course??? While I would agree with you, some of the others don't. We don't appear to have resolution on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Falling Rain Genomics
There used to be an article about this company/website (http://www.fallingrain.com) but it was deleted several years ago (Discussion here). I can see why it was deleted; information about it is hard to come by and it's considered not reliable. However, it's used as a reference by more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles, so we probably should have an article on it if only so we can say it's not a reliable source, and perhaps there should be a project to replace all our references to it and prevent any new ones being added? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious. Currently a search on article space reveals only 3,777 hits, but same problem: why so many for an unreliable source? But then, how is this pertinent to "Citing sources"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If not here, then where should I raise this issue? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the question. I don't know the answer. Perhaps this is a matter of link spamming? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:WikiProject Spam. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3,777? I'm only seeing 200-something.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Search for "Falling Rain Genomics" - you'll find around 3500–4000 hits (not 5000 as I originally thought, but still enough to be a problem). Colonies Chris (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My hunch is one or more editors were creating place-stubs and using that as a source, not knowing it was not exactly reliable. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Searching for «"Falling Rain Genomics"» (including the double quotes) in the WP search box in Article namespace returns 3,777 results. Close enough. The proper question here is not is what to do about it, but where to discuss it. I suggest WP:WikiProject Spam. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The blacklist folks won't list a site on the blacklist until the bulk of the URLs have been removed from wikipedia (whether by bot, human or some hybrid). Perhaps WP:Falling Rain Genomics could discuss the site as it relates to the wiki: what makes it non-RS, the spamming/use of the site in references, how to (not) use it - alternatives, how to swap in better sources...  I can think of a few common sources that could use WP: space articles.  E.g. examiner dot com, which is blacklisted, and EBSCOHOST.com, which is not.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also raised this at WT:WikiProject_Spam now, but I initially brought the subject up here because I hoped that the experts in referencing would be able to suggest alternative sources for the data. (The same question also arises for findarticles.com (FindArticles), which around 2400 articles reference, but has been effectively dead since 2012). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternative sources, link-spamming, even questions of reliable sources, are all outside of the scope of this venue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the procedure by which a discussion is closed? Is it closed by the person who initiated the discussion, or can anyone close a discussion in this way? 64.134.230.170 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's covered at WP:CLOSE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Spam took no interest in this issue at all. My inquiry ended up archived without any response. Any other suggestions? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note the statement at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page." The discussion here of the use of Falling Rain Genomics as a source has yet to show any relevance to possible improvements to this page, therefore this discussion is off-topic. If no one at WP Spam wants to discuss it, well, perhaps no one there considers it a problem worth talking about (or perhaps there's no one there?). Perhaps you might find more interest elsewhere (reliable sources?). Or perhaps it really is of no significance, either as problem, or one that anyone cares about. In the latter case you might try deleting some of those citations. But then you would also have to delete the cited material (images), and that might raise some objections. (Try it and find out??) But please note: this page is not the right place for this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The conversation doesn't seem that far off the mark to me. 64.134.232.217 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at the first sentence at Citing sources (the project page for which this page is the Talk page). It says: "This page is specifically about how to craft references for Wikipedia articles." The discussion here has been entirely about the use of a particular source (Falling Rain Genomics), with a suggestion that it is overly relied upon, or unreliable. No mention at all about "how to craft references". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here with a problem that I'd noticed, unsure of where would be the best forum to raise it. Instead of being given help, or useful suggestions, I've just been brushed off, treated like some sort of pest for asking for help. I'm so sorry to have interrupted your deliberations here, I won't disturb you again. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well your concern is valid and there was no need to brush you off. Nevertheless it is also correct that your concern is somewhat off topic on this discussion page. Sometimes it isn't to find the appropriate place or project page for a problem in WP. However your concern might be better served here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Though the lack of reliability is probably not in question either, but rather how the issue can fixed or should be addressed. In any case the guys at the notice board might be able to help out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand, Chris. Some editors interpret things very literally. I'm okay with this, but only insofar as it does not shut-down needed dialog and constructive communication. 64.134.232.217 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anybody notice? Information best left to the references.
Anybody have any objections to the change I tried to make? Did anybody notice? Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Abductive means this and this change. As that second diff-link shows, I'd already reverted myself before Abductive brought this matter to the talk page. And, Abductive, since this is a guideline page, a lot of people have it on their WP:Watchlist and notice changes to it.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Information best left to the references." so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just feel that it is a disservice to the reader to interrupt the flow of the text with redundant and (for the vast, vast majority) useless information. One might argue that it is useful to know who said what, and perhaps when (Smith, 2014), but really, the name of the journal? That's what refs are for. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point. Also, with regard to your addition to the guideline, it is similar to what Template:Whom states: "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." And WP:MEDMOS advises similarly to what you added, except it uses stronger wording by stating "Do not." Perhaps, like I advised you on softening the wording for your addition, that guideline should soften its wording on the matter. Either way, I support your addition, especially since I have suggested similarly to editors. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And, yes, it is often useful and better to know who said what, as indicated by the section you added your text to -- the WP:INTEXT section. Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular problem this proposal presumes to address? "Best left" is rather a matter of editorial discretion, and if we make a definite statement then (just like with WP:OVERLINK) there will be editors who use it as the basis for a hard and fast rule, and routinely remove any mention in the text of a datum in the reference. If there is some problem to consider, fine, but let's not be adding unnecessary nattering to the guideline. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We sometimes have a problem with bad writing, puffery and POV pushing that manifests as "Dr I.M. Big published a peer-reviewed journal article in the Impressive Academic Journal for Scholars that said..."  I don't think we want an absolute prohibition, but it should be discouraged.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request experts' opinion
Hi, I just came across this article, which starts with two kilometre-long rafts of reftags. Can they be reduced to one for each point, and conflated into a single ref? Tony  (talk)  12:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally yes.
 * These kinds of reftags are usually the result of editorial disputes (in this case whether the subject is Ukranian or Russian). For some obscure reason many editors think that adding more references strengthens their claim to inclusion. In general a single, neutral, high quality and non-contested source suffices.
 * However, this only works if everything is well defined. In nationality claims this is often problematic, especially in cases where the current idea of nation states did not yet exist during the lifetime of the article subject (as is the case here). Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing to do is to pull out all the intervening ref tags, so that refs #1 through #12 appear under a single ref tag as [1]. (None of them are re-used elsewhere in that article.)  The best thing to do is to pick out the one or two highest-quality sources and remove the rest, but if there are nationalistic edit wars going on, that may not be possible in practice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I'll return to that article when I have time. Tony   (talk)  13:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I disagree somewhat. More than one reference can be appropriated in cases of disputed content or disputed relevance and that is exactly when normal scenario doesn't really apply. However more than one should not be as is excessive as in the given case, but more importantly all those references could be put in a single footnote to avoid such an awkward display. In such a case I'd probably reduce the amount of references somewhat by reducing them to a few high quality ones and in addition put them in a single footnote, in particular when other editors insist on a larger number of references. Though not the case here it is also useful to keep in mind that some authors use reference on a paragraph rather than on a sentence basis. In such cases several footnotes may source different information in that paragraph and not redundant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When you're talking about supporting a single fact, I've not yet seen a circumstance that requires more than three citations, and I'm not fully convinced that any of facts require more than two high-quality sources. I certainly agree with you that including two is sometimes important.  (I also agree with you that cite bundling is a completely different kettle of fish; one paragraph might require a dozen sources.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how many citations are appropriate for a given fact, I think the main point is that multiple notes (between  tags) can be merged into a single note ("ref"), avoiding a train of superscripted, bracketed numbers. Of course, if one is (as typically done) putting full references into the notes, then it gets sticky trying to reuse them, but that's a different problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken short citations
I am using short citations in many places, e.g. Wayland Baptist University with the full reference in the Reference section and the short citation in the notes section.

That worked fine when I created it. I noticed today the multiple Missing or empty entries. Per the help page Help:CS1 errors it appears a title is required, even though it is not needed for a short citation.

Am I not permitted to do it this way? Do I need to convert them all to sfn?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Title is required for template:cite book; you could just format the short citations as text instead of using the cite template. DrKiernan (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's because the wrong template is being used. etc. are intended only for full refs, not short; but conversion to, whilst possible, isn't very practical because of the use of WP:LDRs. You also don't need to convert to plain text, instead you can use  which would still sit inside . For example, instead of   you would use   - notice that the year is included. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Phil: you seem to have overlooked that short citations are short because they contain only enough information (usually author and year) to find the full citation (reference). And you always need a full citation, with as much bibliographic detail as possible to aid in finding and identifying the source. Which, at Wayland Baptist University, you have. So I suggest that you use Harvnb (as suggested), and then add a "|ref=harv" parameter to your cite templates in the References section so that your short cites are automagically linked. Then you could dump the LDR list.
 * Would you like help with that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found it useful, when using short citations, to have the following text in my vector.js file: // Show sfn and harv reference errors importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); It shows a red error message when a short citation does not link to a full citation. It also shows a red error when a full citation is not used by a short citation. Use of citation, which creates harvard links automatically, causes some false positives, so you might not want to leave this script turned on all the time. You can turn it off by inserting  before. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not specific to Vector - it works on MonoBook too - so it may be put into Special:MyPage/common.js instead. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How easy or hard is to format references?
Hi, I noticed that many times articles about people, music bands, and other things who are referenced mainly by newspaper articles don't have many (enough) references (&lt;ref>..&lt;/ref>).

I don't have a very good example at hand at this moment but I have seen a lot of such articles.

From my experience I would say that formatting references consumes quite a lot of time.

My question is: don't you think that sometimes the references are missing because maybe the editors don't have the time and energy to properly format them? My feeling is that this might be the case many times.

If the editors would be able to create the references in one click, do you think that Wikipedia articles would have more and better references?

I created a script (bookmarklet) that can help editors to make references in one click - User:Ark25/RefScript but it only works for a few newspapers.

If there would be some common standards for newspaper webpages, such a script would be much shorter and it would work for any newspaper using that standard.

I have the feeling that such a tool would make editor's life easier and will help developing WP articles a lot.

What do you think? —  Ark25  (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the script is fine (others exist), but the backstory is interesting: Here, some editors are upset that Ark25 likes posting interesting and potentially useful sources to article talk pages, so that other editors can decide whether to use them.  One of the disputants has taken the script to MFD, apparently thinking that without the script, Ark25 won't post interesting links to talk pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to see the ro.Wikipedia backstory, which alluded to in his early posts at WT:TPG.   The way I see it is, Ark25 has said he wants add raw references to talk pages.  At first, he didn't even imply that they would be relevant.  (I might put that down to English language problems, at first.)  However, now he's said that he wants to add references that might be relevant.  With that much of a question of whether the additions would be helpful, it would be better to attempt to ensure that someone actually read the article.  With his script, one can generate a detailed reference without reading the article.  The tool would make editors' work easier, but it also makes spammers' work easier, and make it more difficult to tell the difference.  Since he said he would be what we consider a spammer, that is a problem.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - : Please check my answer on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ark25/RefScript. It would be nice to find a good place to put my actions and intentions to the test. I want to add well formatted references (including title, publication date, authors names and publication name), not just raw references. That can make a very big difference when you try to find a dead link into the printed issue of a newspaper. The links I am adding at RO.WP in talk pages are useful links. Of course I am not just posting random links, that was implied (in my view) by the kind of examples given in the messages before the one talking about RO.WP. Sorry, I'm not sure where I suggested that they might be relevant. When I said might I meant: If you don't find some particular overlooked information in books, then check the talk page, the overlooked info might be in the links I gathered. And I have also said: Of course, sometimes I fail, adding links that have outdated information or simply not usable information. But I'm not perfect. However, it was not my point to suggest that the links are semi-random, just thrown there with the excuse that it might have something good in it. I would not waste my time to post something without value. Example the ro:Polisano is a company. In the talk page, ro:Discuție:Polisano, I posted 3 links containing information about the company and the owner of the company and about his wife. His wife is investigated for fraud, and he committed suicide.
 * Those who don't read the article can post the reference without even formatting it. And if they are spammers, there is very low chance they care to properly format the references. Or would they? A spammer trying to disguise himself so careful as an editor? Hmm.. I really don't know now. But most likely they just want raw references to increase their rankings (now we are talking only about articles, not about article's talk pages).
 * Yes, the script can help someone to add a quick reference to a lower quality article (e.g. Daily Mail?) but It can also help someone else to quickly replace that reference with a better one, say for example from New York Times.
 * Still, the question remains: how much time WP editors are wasting for manually formatting references?
 * Sorry for being a bit ironic in my first message for you but I think there you rushed a bit to jump to conclusions. —  Ark25  (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:REFLINKS is one of the standard methods of formatting references; see its "see also". Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see if Reflinks survives the announced shutdown of the toolserver. If it does not, a new Reflinks-like tool will probably be in demand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is a dispute where the author wants a gigantic amount of disk storage for caching, see VPT Feb 2014. We might hope that something will arise if it dies completely—there would certainly be a fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about journal citations
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, so please point me at a better page if one exists. I am working on an article with several journal citations, which I don't often run into. Typically what I do is have a references section, listing books, and then the citations are in short form: "Smith, Book Title, p. 123". Are journals typically listed in the references section? If so, is there an accepted shorter form for the citation itself (e.g. "Grootes (1992), p. 123"), instead of the full citation to the journal in the footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen some articles where only books are listed in the "References" section, and the "Notes" section contains short citations for the books, and full citations for the other stuff, including journals. I have also seen articles where everything is listed in "References" and all the footnotes are short citations.
 * If you were using Citation Style 1 or the {{tl|Citation]] template you would not need to ask 'If so, is there an accepted shorter form for the citation itself (e.g. "Grootes (1992), p. 123")' because the {{tl|sfn}} template would dictate the format. Since you apparently are not using either of these, what style guide are you using? Are you just making it up yourself? If you are making it up yourself, you will only be able to use it on articles you create; for existing articles you will have to follow the existing style.
 * Although making up your own style is allowed for new articles, I don't recommend it, because if another editor wants to add a source of a different type from what already is present in the article, the editor won't know what to do. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the past I've tended to just replicate whatever citations I see already in the article. I haven't paid much attention to the templates themselves, and when in doubt I've just replicated the text I needed without using templates, so I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant about the finer points of citations.  I'm now finding the citation templates a lot easier to use because of the visual editor, and would like to become more knowledgeable about them.  I am using {{tl|cite book}} and {{tl|cite journal}} in radiocarbon dating, but I don't follow your comment that the template would dictate the format -- can you explain?  Do you mean it would dictate the format for the long citation, and doesn't generate any form of short citation?  If so, I agree, but I wouldn't be using the template for the short form, I assume -- only for the form that appears in the references.
 * I've certainly seen the first style you mention, where journals are not included in the references list. Are there any arguments pro and con this approach?  It's always seemed to me that it would be a kindness to the reader to list the journal articles cited along with the books, but then the long form citations in the notes seem unreasonably cumbersome. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See King's Cross railway accident. Of the eight full citations, five are books; two are magazine articles; one is a website. All of them are linked from {{sfnote}} in the Notes section above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's exactly the sort of example I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-English language citations
Where I live, in Germany, most of the articles are stubs. I have tried to find English language links, to help expand these stubs, but have only found German ones thus far. Is it okay to use German language citations, if no English language links are available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torspedia (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 July 2014
 * Please see WP:NONENG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ta for that. I do hope the sources that I have won't cause too many problems, for I really have not found anything in English. I can now start expanding those stubs, especially for the place where I live and surrounding settlements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torspedia (talk • contribs)
 * Good luck, and happy editing! WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference required after direct quotations spanning multiple sentences?
(Copied from WT:MOS): I've seen some users say that if direct quotations span multiple sentences, they are to be followed by a reference for every sentence. As in:
 * Commenting on (something), Joe Shmoe of The Times said, "blah blah blah." Although he thought (something), Shmoe ultimately felt that, "yada yada yada." Shmoe concluded his piece stating, "yap yap yap."

Instead of:
 * Commenting on (something), Joe Shmoe of The Times said, "blah blah blah." Although he thought (something), Shmoe ultimately felt that, "yada yada yada." Shmoe concluded his piece stating, "yap yap yap."

Is this a requirement? I don't see it at MOS:QUOTE. 23W 03:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this fairly rare situation has been explicitly covered in any guidance. Putting on your "best editorial judgment" hat, what do you think is clearest?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one other person at WT:MOS thinks the second example is clear enough, given that it's "competently written". Some people would still assert that it needs references after every sentence per WP:MINREF, even though neither WP:V nor MINREF itself makes note of consecutive sentences. I just wish it were more clear, as it's a fairly common construct for things like critical reception sections. 23W 21:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather know your opinion, though. Do you think it's clear enough?  Do you think that typical readers will find it clear enough?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To the original poster: In the hypothetical example you provide, as a reader I would: a) appreciate the reduction in unnecessarily duplicated citations; b) see the coherence in the several sentences (clearly indicating one source); and thus, c) expect only one citation at the end of the sequence.  As an editor, I would: 1) anticipate citation needed flags on individual sentences, especially if one was particularly controversial or quote worthy, or if a currently newsworthy article is likely to be substantially abridged as events unfold; 2) act defensively by making sure my transitional clauses are strong and stylistically unified to make it clear that, however reformatted or edited by other editors long after this edit drops off recent article history, the single citation applies to the whole sequence; and 3) consider posting first as a separate paragraph to make that fact transparent to diligent article history checkers, and only then editing to incorporate into existing paragraph, if desired for continuity. Don't forget: a good edit summary or two goes a long way in preventing or reverting undesired changes or challenges!  Just my personal opinion, of course.  Hope that helps.  Paulscrawl (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple uses for citations re: topic sentence: "Citations are used to ..."
The lead sentence is incomplete (and/or ambiguous) and inaccurate as stated. It is not completely the case that: "Citations are used to identify the reliable sources on which an article is based."


 * 1) Citations have multiple uses, not just one.
 * 2) Citations are identified with specific factual claims, not entire articles.

Suggestion:

"Citations are used to identify, locate, assess, and access the reliable source(s) on which a factual claim in an article is based."

I could cite some reliable sources on the multiple uses of citations, if that is not deemed obvious.

That a specific citation is not applicable to an article as a whole seems self evident, but I stand to be corrected.

Opinions? Paulscrawl (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if it were strictly speaking true, I don't think that it would be helpful. The purpose on the English Wikipedia is to tell the reader (who may also be an editor) where that piece of information comes from, i.e., "identify".  Source assessment is something that editors do, not citations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is the lead sentence does not make it clear who is using the citation. The editor who inserts a citation does indeed use the citation to identify the reliable sources on which an article is based. The reader may use the citation to do the things described by Paulscrawl. The reader can do whatever he/she wants to with the citations. If the reader has printed the article, the reader can even use the citations to line a birdcage. Perhaps there is a way to clarify this point.


 * Citations can be inline, in which case they are likely to support a specific claim in the article, or they can be general, in which case the citation supports, to some degree, the entire article. Perhaps the most common general citation occurs in articles about books, plays, or movies. The book, play, or movie is cited by implication (if not explicitly), and it supports all factual claims about the content of the book, play, or movie. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with W. Citations identify and help locate a source, but they are not used (nor should be) to assess a source, nor even to note an editor's assessment of the source. If such an assessment is useful it can be added as a comment following the citation, but the citation itself does not do that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor would not put the editor's assessment of the quality of the source within the citation. However, the reader, upon seeing a statement in Wikipedia with a footnote number next to it, might wonder if the source is a good source. The reader then clicks on the number and discovers the source is published by Yale University Press. The reader might conclude it is a good source. So in that sense the reader uses the citation to assess the quality of the source, although you could say the assessment in the reader's mind is a by-product of identifying the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that. I'd also say that if I click the ISBN and end up at a website that sells the book or find a library that holds it, and I get it, then my locating, buying, and accessing it, too, is a byproduct of identifying the source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Still digesting some reliable sources on multiple uses for making citations and multiple uses readers make of citations, which I'll apply to Citation. (I apologize for posting this here, rather than on that main article's talk page.) WP:WHYCITE needs work in any case to tighten coherence with WP:VERIFY.

One quick point, to clear up ambiguity about agency of assessment: to be made clear in Citation, Legal_citation Bluebook, and ALWD Citation Manual: in law, citations are used not merely to identify (a prerequisite for all other uses, granted), but also to explicitly access authority, and are, in fact, arranged in order of legal authority (constitution, statute, cases, ranked by authority of court, and within hierarchy level, by date, regulations, books, articles) both to make and enable assessment. Rather like arranging citations by levels of evidence (meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, controlled trial, cohort study, etc) in some published systematic reviews of evidence based medicine. Different fields use citations in different ways. Identification is not the only reason these varied citation manuals give as their purpose for writer and reader. More later, after doing some more work. Thanks again for your time and input - you helped me clarify my thoughts for revision. Paulscrawl (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I could wish you had mentioned Bluebook at the start, as perhaps it is the model you have in mind. It is also the prime example of a "citation" system that (as you mention) explicitly ranks different sources by their putative authority. There are editors who claim to be using a Bluebook style here, but I have never checked if they have incorporated the ranking aspects. It would be rather cumbersome to use here: most readers would not understand such a system, and I doubt if there are any four editors who would agree as to how it might be adapted for Wikipedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Free open access versions of journal articles behind a paywall
I believe the article should address access to journal articles that exist behind a paywall. The cite journal template currently states "url:URL of an online location where the text of the publication can be found". You can "find" journal articles at sites like Sage and Sciencedirect, but can you read them? Oftentimes, authors will deposit a copy of their article at their institutional repository like DSpace@MIT So for example, the article "Human-automated path planning optimization and decision support" is available behind a paywall at Science Direct, but the MIT authors have also deposited an open access copy that is free to read at Dspace@MIT. When citing a journal article, should wikipedia editors try to locate a free open access copy of an article and use that in the URL field? If the publisher URL should still be preferred, should the free open access URL be included in another field?Lugevas (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Include open access version in url; the paywall version is still available through doi or other such parameter.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the only online copy is through a paywall, set yes - more at WP:PAYWALL. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the paywall page. I've been editing Wikipedia on occasion for a decade but sometimes I find it so difficult to find Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages.Lugevas (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Example above, with authors' self-archived version in url, links article title to pre-publication version, unsuitable for WP:verification when citing specific page number(s) of journal article, as is common in many fields (and articles up for GA status review, as I understand). In the example case, and many others, the archived version simply does not match publication version in some important aspect (esp. pagination, as here; but also often including: absence of copyright photos, figures, illustrations, maps, or data; absence of cited references; etc.).
 * Example above, with authors' self-archived version in url, links article title to pre-publication version, unsuitable for WP:verification when citing specific page number(s) of journal article, as is common in many fields (and articles up for GA status review, as I understand). In the example case, and many others, the archived version simply does not match publication version in some important aspect (esp. pagination, as here; but also often including: absence of copyright photos, figures, illustrations, maps, or data; absence of cited references; etc.).


 * I prefer explicit reference to a page, or page range, of a specifically-cited version, as pagination is big in history, law, and related humanities and social sciences, including those citing natural, computer, and mathematical science journals. But my point applies even to citations within those disciplines, which generally cite entire papers, not page(s). You just can't assume the versions are identical without running any one of a number of open source diffpdf programs.


 * I would put canonical, paginated as published, version in url followed by no to force title to hyperlink to that published version when including both archiveurl and archivedate to helpfully add open access version. Details on usage at template:Cite journal, but in a nutshell, all 4 parameters required for desired behavior.


 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, indicates you may cite any "true and accurate copy" without specification "(except to the extent that this affects page numbering)" [parenthetically amending perhaps only "ebooks", but generally applicable]. Citing the specific version consulted when using page numbers is also supported by WP:Page numbers. Including yes and doi, together with non-identically paginated archived version url in archiveurl (with it's co-requisite archivedate) would be very helpful to both casually curious readers, happy for any accessible version, as well as scholarly verifiers with access to canonical version.


 * Finally, I prefer to link to PDF container pages rather than direct link to PDF (thus I omit PDF), for both "officially-maintained" archives (university, institutional, WebCite, archive.org, etc.) and paywall repositories, as these container pages are very likely more stable URL targets and usually contain valuable bibliographic metadata (CoiNS) easily read by humans and parsed by automated tools such as Zotero. MIT's DSpace calls this the "citable URI" - the metadalink on that page rendered the human- and machine-readable archive date. I see no need to duplicate professionally-maintained archive copies, such as dSpace, on WebCite or archive.org. (On the other hand, for most authors' "amateur-maintained" self-archive pages - academic or personal home page/blog, etc.- no such standard CoiNS metadata generally exists and there is very little guarantee of a long-lived author &/or URL; I first try archiving such via archive.org or WebCite, which will work if container page's robots.txt does not disallow.)


 * Thus:
 * rendering:
 * rendering:


 * The "Archived from the original" tag is an unfortunate hard-coded output of the archiveurl &/or archivedate parameter(s), perhaps dating to days it assumed use only with archive.org copies. It needs to be fixed, especially now that we are in the age of wide-spread and very professionally-maintained institutional repositories for academic archived papers, often pre-publication, not identical to original. But for today, this is what the journal template parameters allow - full transparency of precise cited source; full provision of open access version.  Trying to locate a free open access copy of an article is a best practice, in any case. How I stretch the existing parameters to fit my other competing requirements is a personal preference, but I think it has merit.
 * Paulscrawl (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I see this "mess", I'd rather recommend don't use the template at all or use the template just for the official citation and add a convenience link to a free online copy outside the template.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This "mess"? Paulscrawl (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting Sources
Are there guidelines regarding what to do in the event of conflicting sources? For example, if there is a source in an article that states one thing and significantly more reliable sources can be found that contradict that source? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" contradicts this guideline
User:Ohconfucius has made a change to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers which contradicts the freedom stated at the "Citation style" section of "Citing sources" to choose any citation style for an article (including but not limited to external citation styles such as Chicago Manual of Style or APA style). Not only is the contradiction itself troubling, the fact that the contradiction was made in a subsidiary manual of style rather than in the main Manual of Style is also concerning. Please discuss this change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Open Library
The leaflet handed out by Open Library at Wikimania says "Books that are readable on Open Library can be cited directly by page" and refers to WP:BOOKLINKS. That section only describes Google books, AFAICS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Very interested. Please expand/explain. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How to use Google Books tool to cite multiple pages in the same book
I used this tool when I was looking for a way to cite multiple pages. Then I realized I couldn't simply use the ref name with a different page number.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to change the reference's name (for example if the reference tag starts with, change it to  ). You can also use Rp (see the documentation) Dalba 16:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's kind of hard to read but it works. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples of what I often do:  and , paired with matching cite books with   specified. These are from the Philippine–American War article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

hi i want to write new article of organization
i want to write one article of motivated youth organization my aim to introduce this organization kindly allow me to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slubna pakistani (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 August 2014‎ UTC


 * There is an introduction to editing in Wikipedia at Plain and simple. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations in tables and boxes
The section "How to place an inline citation using ref tags" says this:
 * If an infobox or table contains text that needs citing, but the box or table cannot incorporate an inline citation, the citation should appear in a caption or other text that discusses the material.

What exactly does that mean? Is it saying that some table items don't have room for a footnote number? That seems kind of rare. Items in tables and infoboxes have ref tags all the time. And the advice to move the cite to a caption seems kind of dubious, since we're not supposed to put ref tags in headers. If you want to indicate the source for a table, you can do that in a normal "Source:" line after the table.

This sentence used to be in its own subsection entitled "Citations in tables and boxes". That was deleted in this edit back in 2011, when it was moved to its current location.

In its current location, I think it makes a very basic item needlessly complicated. So I'm just going to delete this sentence. Any suggestions about what it means or where else we could put it are welcome. --Margin1522 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, although for any substantive changes to long-standing widely-used rules I'd prefer people ask first. But no harm no foul here. For stuff like this (in general; not necessarily this particular thing) I kind of like the deal where you have a [Note 1] and that goes to a Notes section in small print where particular details and examples of marginal cases and so on can be expounded on. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on placement of ref-related tags
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates, on placement of reference-related inline templates (e.g. verify credibility and clarifyref2) inside or outside the  element. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing a web page that's multiple pages?
Hi, for a while now, I've been wondering how you would best cite sources that are multiple web pages. The issue is that unlike books, webpages are not permanent so one may have to occasionally retrieve an archive in which they would need to know the exact address.

What I've been doing is linking to the page of the information and adding what page number it is in the title. (IE: the title "The Rain in London" would become "The Rain in London, Page 2") Is this too confusing? I don't think it is, but I don't see anyone else using this, so I thought I'd ask. --Deathawk (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Confusing, yes, but also incorrect, as "Page 2" is not part of the title. If you are using any of the citation templates (it would be helpful if you provided examples of what you are trying to do) and the web site has page numbers you can use the page parameter to specify the page. If there are named or numbered sections you can use the loc parameter the same way. See Global warming Effects of global warming for examples of how IPCC reports are cited. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So if I put in the template page 2 do I also link to page 2?--Deathawk (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just a little bit complicated here. Generally speaking, there is a difference between pointing to a source itself, and to a location within a source. If the source is, say, an article in a journal, or a paper in a collection of papers, you might add page numbers to show where the source is located within the larger work. When you refer to specific material within the source you should provide specific page number (or section, etc.). This would go not into the cite template, but after the short cite (possibly implemented using a Harv template). E.g.: "Smith 1977, p.2". If you are not using short cites (perhaps because you cite the source only once), just tack it on following the citation.
 * As to linking to a specific page (section, paragraph, etc.): if you can do that, sure. But I would do that following the template, not within it. If you want to link to the source itself, use the url parameter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You could preemptively archive it and set deadulr=no. Then readers could always go the right page. In that case, I don't there is any need to indicate the page in the citation template. Even otherwise. I think the page= argument in cite web is for sources like PDFs, that do have page numbers. I really can't recall anybody indicating page numbers for webpages. But if do you want to do it, I agree that it could tacked on at the end. Maybe using the Rp template. --Margin1522 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Rp is wretched, let's not encourage that.
 * Web pages are not usually numbered, but it is possible. More often you see sections named or numbered, and that is what loc is good for. Which is (currently) actually a synonym for page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Rp is not very pretty on the page. It is the first option listed in Help:References and page numbers. I for one prefer it to 10 cites in the form   where the only difference is the page number. It can also do sections, as in DHCP_request. That may be an abuse of the syntax, I don't know. In any case, I still don't think the page number is needed here. Just put the URL for that page into   and the URL will have a  page number parameter. That's enough. If the editor feels that the page is likely to move, then I think the best solution is still to check whether the page has been archived at the Wayback Machine. --Margin1522 (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is not one of a web page moving, but of changing content. Regardless of whether you cite the original or an archived version, having an exact address (url) that points to a specific section or "page" within the source where the relevant material should be found makes that material easier to find, and quicker to determine when it is missing or altered. This is distinct from using the url parameter for pointing to the source as a whole.
 * I forgot how screwed up the Global warming citations are. For examples of linking to specific sections within a web page see Effects of global warming.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused here. Earlier, you wrote "you can use the loc parameter the same way. See Global warming for examples", but I can't find a single instance of loc in Global warming. In your comments above, you don't say which template that the loc parameter is part of. It's certainly not in the major cite templates . The only citation-related templates that I have seen it in are the group, including . This brings me to your last comment, "loc ... is (currently) actually a synonym for page". It's not a true synonym:  →  but  → . They can coexist:  →.
 * I suspect that you meant the at parameter, which is recognised by the major cite templates, but again, it's not a true synonym. Except in the case of (and  when it thinks that a journal is being described), the contents of page are prepended with "p. " before output, something that does not happen with at. They are mutually exclusive though, and page has precedence. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, I was thinking of at, which is used in the cite/citation templates. Well, I was also thinking of the harv templates (the short cite), which is where I nearly always put specifiers like page number, but the question was on how to use a specific page number with the full citation (like where the full citation/reference is cited only once, and an extra short cite would be redundant). For such cases my suggestion is to put it after the citation template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I am not sure there is a best way, but I have just spent several hours on a problem like this, which is one possible solution that you could probably use. I put the main web site information into the references section using Citation and linked the individual web pages into the short citations using harvnb with the loc= parameter for the link to the individual web pages. To complicate the matter further all the pages are archived. See the entries for the "RAF staff" at Bombing of Hamburg in World War II. There is just about a separate web page for every month of the war (and Hamburg was bombed most months for about three years and every other month at the start of the war). The Bombing of Hamburg article also contains inline citations to "Brunswig 1978" which is to a website laid out in a similar fashion for the USAAF bombing missions. -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Italics and non-Latin languages in titles
I come to this topic from discussions at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11.

templates automatically put book titles in italic font. WP:NOCHINESEITALICS says that Chinese characters should not be italicized. WP:CITEHOW says that book titles are italicized. I suspect that it may be desirable to render Japanese, Korean, perhaps Cyrillic script, Hebrew, Arabic, the languages of southeast Asia in upright font. If this is so, should the guidance at WP:CITEHOW be changed to somehow qualify the use of italics in titles and other places where it specifies italic font?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Village pump (policy)/Archive 116. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lazy citations
I have been coming across many instances of citations that use the ref name format for a text, several times in an article. Editors use this as a lazy way of citing without page numbers. In this format, there seems no place to put page numbers, so these articles end up with lots of cn or page needed tags. I have been replacing these inline citations with a shortened form (eg. Smith (1999), p. 12.). However, this seemed to require a bibliography entry with the text name in full. The WP article Help:References and page numbers seems to suggest that the full text reference would be put in the references section and the shortened citation in notes. I don't see this very often, and it would surely be very confusing. A solution would be to allow the ref name format to specify a page number, but I can't find a way of doing that. Myrvin (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am now trying rp|12 to indicate page number, but I'm not sure readers will understand it. Myrvin (talk)
 * rp|page=12 seems better. Myrvin (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The template is disliked by a number of editors, partly because it means putting the page number some distance from the rest of the ref. One way, as you noticed, is  - you can see this in use at NBR 224 and 420 Classes; another is to use a full citation for the first use of a given source, and a shorter form for subsequent uses where only the page number differs - this is what I did at Boar's Head railway station, refs 2 & 6. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "use ref name format for a text"? Are you referring to the inclusion of explanatory text or comments in a note? Could you provide some examples?
 * Your surmise that that a shortened form, or "short cite", requires "a bibliography entry with the text name in full" is correct. That is the "full citation" Redrose just mentioned. The beauty of short cites linking to full citations is that only one full citation is needed for each source, with as many short cites as needed, each customized with specific page numbers or comments as needed. Putting these into separate sections — typically "Notes" and "References" — is quite common. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The problem with "the first use of a given source" is that often we are changing an existing article. The new edit, or the page-less cite, may well precede the first naming of a given source. It can also be difficult to find it. I have edited many articles where the full name of the ref can be anywhere. By ref name format I mean e.g. ref name="Barber, Spanos 1974"/ for a citation. In most of the articles I have edited, there are no Notes sections; cited sources all go in References. Suddenly introducing Notes, or even Bibliography, seems a big change to a settled article. See my recent edits to Hypnosis.Myrvin (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are referring to as a "ref name format" is what we call a "named ref", referring a construction in the form of "&lt;ref name=xxx />", which will link to another "ref" in the form "&lt;ref name=xxx ... &lt;/ref>". (This is the "named" variant of the "&lt;ref>" entity.) Note: "ref" tags (named or not) are not references (despite the name), nor citations. They only make a place — specifically, a note — where citations can be put. The "named ref" is just a way of linking to a "ref" elsewhere. And you are correct, it can be difficult to find the master "ref", as they can be anywhere. For that reason I find them obnoxious.
 * A better solution is put all of the full citations that provide the full description of a source (typically using the Citation or Cite xxx templates) into a dedicated section as described above, and then linking to them using short cites in the notes.
 * Yes, doing this can be a big change, so always ask on the article's Talk page before proceeding, in case someone else is vehemently opposed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right about the name, although I don't think my usage was confusing. I'll try to do better and "use correct term" next time. However, I note that in WP:REFNAME they seem to be called "named footnotes" - perhaps the correct term will be hard to find. I disagree with you about the use of Notes - a note is not a citation reference, it's an explanatory note. WP:Citations says "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists, using the grouping feature described in the Grouping footnotes section of the footnotes help page. The explanatory footnotes and the citations are then placed in separate sections, called (for example) 'Notes' and 'References' respectively."WP:REFNEST gives an example of where this is particularly useful. However, WP:SFN seems to agree with you. And what about Bibliography? All very confusing. See discussion below on all this. Myrvin (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It would take a braver man than I to change, say, Intelligent design the way you suggest. Myrvin (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that Myrvin (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is confusing, and the confusion of terms and concepts is perpetuated for having taken root in various places. Yet I would have you disabused of notion that "a note is not a citation reference, it's an explanatory note." Which is an ambiguous statement: do you mean "reference" in the same sense whereby it is often taken to be synonymous with "citation", meaning the bibilographic details of a source? Or are you implicitly referring to the tags used for creating notes (aka "footnotes" or "endnotes")? Either way, you are trying to make a distinction that simply is not useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with J. Johnson's assertion that the English Wikipedia is using the wrong terminology. But he and the regulars all know that already, because we've had this discussion many times.  In my opinion, and I believe it's one that's generally shared, any words that average, non-style-expert editors can make sense of is good enough for discussions like this.  Don't worry too much about getting the terms "right".  If people can't figure out what you're saying, they'll ask.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Wrong" is somewhat relative, but the confusion of terms is self-evident. The problem of confused terminology is that it leads to confused thinking, such as the notion that "footnote" and "citation" are synonymous, and therefore should be processed by the same code. We can't even properly talk about these things (witness the prior discussions alluded to) because we keep running into differences of meaning. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we improve ref tags?
I've been talking off and on to James F on the mw:Editing team about this problem. He says that (in theory, at least) it should be easy to build in page numbers to the citation system. You'd type something like – or, for the second use of the same book, just. The cite.php system would handle the rest.

The most important question is how the page numbers should then be displayed. The simplest system is to repeat the entire bibliographic citation each time, appending the page numbers at the end. Would that be an improvement over the current system? Do people have ideas about how they'd like it work? (Realistically, we are only able to have one "built-in" system across all wikis, so people will still want to have the ability to use manual options. The goal is to find the one that will work for the most cases.)

This isn't likely to happen this year, so we've got plenty of time to think about what we actually want. If you're interested, feel free to leave a note for me or ping me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think something like what User:Whatamidoing (WMF) says would be preferable. However, if the article is to look like an academic article, the first mention of a source should be in full, and the rest, with page numbers, in short form (or even ibid). I suspect this is too much to ask of an automated system. See my comments above on where the full name is often found - anywhere. The system would have to find the full name, move that to the new first position and redo the subsequent mentions of the source. Would there need to be a Bibliography, and would the system produce that or some editor? Perhaps the best idea pro tem is to repeat the full name with added page numbers in the References. Even that might be difficult. Myrvin (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see .Myrvin (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A full listing only on the first appearance and short forms are ok when footnotes appear on each page of a printed book, and the short form is only used if the full listing appears on the same page, but when lists become long it becomes hard to find the full listing. That is why, if sources are used many times each, it is better to have all the citations be short forms and have an alphabetical list with the full citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In general it sounds like a good extension. As far as the concrete display is concerned I suppose tastes will differ. However may it would be possible to offer 2 versions? One for duplicating the full reference each time and one for proving a shorthand like author or title + page numer only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious about the ability to create a good design and use more than one system. I wouldn't want to type  or  for each citation, and I expect that other people would feel the same way.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it a bit more, are used with many styles of referencing, not just citation templates. The code for these things does not examine or parse the citation; it can't, since there are no Wikipedia standards for the format of the citation. So the thingamabobs parser tag hooks can't possibly shorten a citation, because the citation is not parsed. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC) modified 2:15, 16 September 2014 (UT)
 * I find it odd that should be used for notes and not references. I see it in many articles, but academic books will often have a Notes section and then a References section for sources that have been cited. Mixing the two seems confusing. Given that it is and not and and not, the original idea was surely for citation references. It seems to have been extended to other things. I note that there is a  for notes, as well as  & . Not that I use that, but maybe I should. Myrvin (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia had specified and developed a single comprehensive referencing system right from the start, it would probably have been different, and the names of the various page sections and elements would almost certainly have been chosen more carefully and enforced more rigidly. But over something like fourteen years, the several systems that we do have were built up piece by piece; and each new piece has been given a name that is not necessarily the best, but the most suitable of what's left over after everybody else has picked something.
 * and are quite new; they date back to December 2011; the / system is older by something like seven years, and needs more care in its use so that the right ref links to the right note.  isn't really a system as such, just an alternate form of  without some of the latter's limitations, much like  is  with extra features, or like  is really <ref >harvnb</ref> wearing a shorter coat with more pockets. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles on Template:Reflist, WP:SFN and WP:Citations seem to advise different ways of doing all this. Myrvin (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; as I say, it was built up piecemeal over many years. There is a lot of flexibility, and thus a lot of variation. Where there is a contradiction between those three pages, a careful examination shows that these are merely alternative approaches, none has precedence over the others.
 * Without being too formal, the rules for references go something like this. 1: WP:V is policy (those other pages that you named are not). 2: if adding sections for notes, references, etc., try to abide by MOS:APPENDIX. 3: if you're editing an existing article, stick with the ref styles and conventions already established in the article (this is WP:CITEVAR), unless there are very good reasons to change it. 4: if you're writing an article from scratch, use any referencing system that you're comfortable with, but be consistent within the article. Consistency isn't required by any policy, but it looks good and does become a requirement if you intend getting an article to FA-Class. 5: don't be afraid to ask for assistance.
 * I primarily use, mainly because I draw information from a variety of pages on a small number of books (as with NBR 224 and 420 Classes that I mentioned earlier). -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In articles with few citations then long citations with ref tags are not a problem, but as the size of the article increases with a corresponding increase in citations then I think short citations are a help. This is for several reasons: One problem I have seen with short citations is when an editor assumes that because only one book is cited there is no need to include year in the short citation. This can cause problems down the line when another edition of the book (or another book by the same author is cited) working out to which long version a short citation refers can be very time consuming involving a trawl through the edit history trying to find it. -- PBS (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) When I convert an article that has a mixture of long and short citations to a reference list with short citations it frequently happens that mixed into the ref tags are citations that are missing enough information to meet WP:V, typically missing either the page number or enough extra information to identify the edition. This gets hidden when the the ref tags create a mixed list at the bottom of the article of slightly differently formatted long citations all mixed up together, particularly if the list also includes cite webs that do not include page numbers (spotting chaff in the wheat)
 * 2) The second one is that there can be a large saving of space on an article with around 100 to 150 citations typically about 10K in my experience, something that ought not to be ignored.
 * 3) A "Notes" section with multiple columns of short citations I think looks visually cleaner than a mix list of long and short citations.
 * 4) An alphabetic list of long citations is I think of more use as a bibliography than a mix list of long and short citations not in alphabetic ordering (which is what one gets with just a reflist).
 * 5) When the first citation is a long one and short citations depend on it. A deletion of that first citation means that the later short citations are no longer supported with a long citation. This is less likely to happen if the long citation is in a separate references section. However if the References section ends up with a few long citations that no longer support short citations, then while undesirable and needs cleaning up it is a fail-safe situation.
 * Yes! I concur in full. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you feel ought to be done with explanatory notes? If they are included in Notes along with short citations, doesn't that look less clean? Myrvin (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, see here - the sole explanatory note is in a separate list with letter identifier instead of numeral. Similarly with this article - here the explanatory notes (lettered again) go first, because one of them is referenced (and the other one ought to be but isn't). -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the various element names would have been chosen more carefully, but they should have been, because confused terminology and sloppy conceptualizing has wreaked all kinds of confusion and grief here. A prime example is this widespread notion that the "ref" in <ref ></ref> tags is short for "reference", as in "the full bibliographical details of a work referenced". Sorry, no, "ref" is just a poorly chosen name for tags that mark a kind of bucket (otherwise called a note) that the software automagically processes in a certain way. Bibliographic details don't mean shit to <ref ></ref> tags. Or perhaps I should say: they are not distinguished from anything else that can be put into these buckets. Nor should they. While there is good reason to keep full citations separate, there is no benefit in segregating short cites from any other comments or explanatory material.
 * WhatamIdoing has overlooked that facilities for handling page numbers are already built into "the citation system". E.g., her second example could be done as: . (Although it would be better to follow the standard convention of providing a year.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * writes "... facilities for handling page numbers are already built into 'the citation system'." Not exactly. The &lt;ref> mark up is part of mw:Extension:Cite and, while optional, is widely used in articles that do not use citation templates, while is only useful in articles that use citation templates. Another factor that the two facilities are, I surmise, maintained by different groups of editors or developers. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say Harv templates are "only useful in articles that use citation templates", are you referring only to the specific template named citation? In that case your statement is wrong, as Harv works just fine with the cite xxx family of templates. If you mean "citation templates" generally, and are referring to articles where the editors prefer to manually format their citations without "citation" templates of any kind, then sure, Harv templates would be rather pointless.(But then the example is even easier: " ") But why should we care? Where editors use the "citation" templates (citation/cite/vcite) page number handling is already available. Where they choose to not use "the citation system" they should not expect citation functionality to be added to the &lt;ref> function. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The template is just one way of making a Harvard ref, but it's not obligatory. It's possible for an article to use Harvard references without using any templates. See Harvard referencing, where the first half of the page (down to the Linking inline and full citations heading) uses no templates for the ref examples. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I was referring to any of the templates compatible with the Harv template, including citation and CS1. Citations that don't use any templates can still use mw:Extension:Cite, which is part of a citation system. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of local templates is irrelevant. My goal is a system that works as a "built-in" product on 800+ WMF wikis.  Only about 1% of WMF wikis have a copy of harv.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Redrose, sorry I didn't check out your examples before. They look very neat and tidy. However, I note that you did distinguish between the explanatory note and the short citations. I too think that is a distinction worth making, although others here do not. I still would prefer that the explanatory notes went into a separate section. Perhaps in Notes while short citations go in Citations. Myrvin (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you work with a wide range of article types, you will see all sorts of variants of the way WP is used to cite references. There is something quite small like Hypnosis with all citations and explanatory notes put in References, and for which I have recently added a Bibliography so that I could use short citations to give page numbers. On the other hand, something larger like Intelligent design, which has a Notes section with explanatory notes often associated with citations and a References which has all other citations. Editors in ID see a reason to separate explanatory notes from general citations and have done so. It also has a Further Reading section, which is often used for the full reference for a short citation in References. There is also William Shakespeare with Footnotes (explanatory), Citations (mostly short with some explanatory notes} and References (Full references in alphabetical order}. Myrvin (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because the citation tools here are flexible enough that editors can split their notes and citations into separate sections does not mean they must be so split. Reference lists can also be split into popular and scholarly works, or by language, or any arbitrary scheme. Notes added by an editor could (conceivably) be segregated from the original notes. None of these require special versions of &lt;ref> to do what is not its job to do. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are discussing what must be done, but what could be done to make perhaps large and complex articles, clearer and better articles. I happen to think that separating explanatory notes from citations (particularly short citations) would do that. So any change to how referencing and page numbers etc. are handled should allow that. Myrvin (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to hear more about the ideal–and the ideal for a wide variety of needs. For example, PBS's preference for separating short citations and full citations is one that I share for articles whose sources are entirely books, but it's not one I share for articles whose sources could accurately be listed as a long string of PMID numbers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you feel that an article is improved by separating "notes" into explanatory, citation, and mixed, fine, you can do it: the "citation system" already allows that. (Just as it already handles page numbers.) What is a really bad idea is to modify a general function to do a wholly different kind of function in certain specific cases. Indeed, it seems to me that what WhatamIdoing may be proposing (the details are unclear) is just the kind of "a lazy way of citing" with which you started this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since nothing's been decided, there are no details to share. However, since the point of the discussion is to see how we might provide built-in support for supplying (and varying) page numbers, it is very unlikely to to result in citations with no page numbers.
 * I think it might be possible to create a system that separates short and full citations, possibly using the ref name as the key. But it's probably not possible to create a system in which separating short and full citations is an option.    is plausible.    is not so plausible.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think mandatory short citations created by the mw:Extension:Cite is not acceptable. I'm imagining if an existing article had a first instance of a given source such as and a second instance such as the second instance would be rendered "CMOS". Since "CMOS" is not a universally understood abbreviation for Chicago Manual of Style, this would not be acceptable. I expect the encyclopedia is chock full of peculiar reference names that must not be used as the rendered text of short citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Fixed example markup 13:18, 19 September 2014 (UT)
 * Yes, you're right. One of the downsides to that approach is that it simplifies the wikitext, but requires anyone using it to use a refname that they want displayed to the reader.  Things like Diberri's citation script produce refnames based on database numbers like "pmid12345678" or "isbn9781234567890", and short citations in the form of "isbn9781234567890 page 10" should not be inflicted on readers.  The ones that default to first author's last name would require less work in renaming refs.  Of course, a short citation shouldn't be displayed for any ref unless you were actually using the page-number feature, so there would be an element of choice about whether those names were exposed.
 * How would you provide page numbers, if not with short citations? Something like what rp does is also possible, but I'm not entirely thrilled about the way it looks (not that my personal preference actually matters, when it comes down to that).  Can we come up with any other ideas for displaying page numbers without using short citations?  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we not use short citations? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some editors don't like short citations. If the overall (multi-project) preference is to not use short citations, then we would need to find a method that (a) still supplies page numbers but (b) does not use short citations as the method for supplying page numbers.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The peculiar ref names result from editors thinking only of what is sufficient to distinguish the ref, and perhaps an implicit view that being internal (non-public) the actual name doesn't matter. It might be a big improvement to get editors to form a "name" as they would for a short cite. (E.g.: &lt;ref name= "Smith 1978">.) But that reinforces the erroneous notion that the ref is the citation.
 * WhatamIdoing: the notion that there would not be details to share until something has been decided reeks of the attitude WMF has shown in the VisualEditor project. But in fact you have been discussing something — i.e., "handling" of page numbers — and you have some ideas of what is, isn't, or should be. It would undoubtedly aid discussion if you would provide definite and specific statements or examples, starting with the problem you that you percieve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not, as your edit summary says, "decision first, then share the details". It's ideas first, find out what real people want first, and both details and decisions come much later in the process.  When (if) we (=the people who are interested in this subject, both on this page and other pages and on the English Wikipedia and on other wikis) agree on some broad goals, then we can identify details.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment some people use list within reflist where they store all the long citations using the parameter "refs=", but such lists are not directly visible. If there was a way to link named ref...tags pairs to an entry in a sorted list in the References section (as happens at the moment with the harvnb templates), then I think the proposal could well be worth investigating further. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * W: my edit summary was a query. My concern remains, that some of these ideas start with the pre-decided position that "the citation system" is broke, and therefore the "ref" system must be fixed. I have yet to see that there is any real problem with the tools we have, aside from editors with a deathgrip on having to do (or not do) things in a certain manner.
 * PBS: what do you mean by "some people use list within reflist where they store all the long citations using the parameter "refs=""? By "long citations" I presume you mean the full citations. By "parameter refs=" I hope you mean (yes?) the <ref ></ref> tags by which we mark the text that reflist extracts to assemble as notes. Proceeding on that basis, note that {reflist} assembles these notes in the order they occur in the text — which is exactly as they should be. So when you refer to "a sorted list in the References section" probably you mean the typical list of full citations of the sources referred to — right? [Yes, W., I can always ask for clarification, but if we could agree on standardized terminology I wouldn't have to ask every time a term is used.] These lists are typically assembled manually by prefixing each entry with a "*".
 * With all that clarified (hopefully), please tell me: why should a note — that bit between the <ref ></ref> tags — be linked to a full citation in a list of "references"? Why not have a short cite inside the note link to the full citation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By 'list within reflist where they store all the long citations using the parameter "refs="', I understand PBS to be referring to WP:LDR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @J. Johnson: Yes, as Redrose64 wrote, I meant that which is described in the section WP:LDR. A full citation consists of a long and short citation. The long hold most of the information the short hold page number. One of the problems we have had in the last 8 years or so is too many ways to be able to produced citations. It is daunting for new editors and means that even experienced editors may not know all the options which makes maintenance harder than it needs to be. -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @J. Johnson: Yes, as Redrose64 wrote, I meant that which is described in the section WP:LDR. A full citation consists of a long and short citation. The long hold most of the information the short hold page number. One of the problems we have had in the last 8 years or so is too many ways to be able to produced citations. It is daunting for new editors and means that even experienced editors may not know all the options which makes maintenance harder than it needs to be. -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly agree with your latter statement. For all that policy and the tools permit citation to done in any style imaginable, we have suffered from lack of: 1) a recommended good practice (newbies want to know a way of citing, not every possible variant), 2) clear and definite terms and concepts (that we can talk about these things without having to constantly define our terms!), and 3) an overall conceptual framework that integrates all the variant conceptions.

E.g., you said that "[a] full citation consists of a long and short citation.". This is differs from my use of "full citation", and as that causes confusion we should sort this out. In referring to the non-short element I grant that there is use of "long". But much less than "full". Using Google as a rough guide, the balance is about 16,000 instances to over 2 million. More authoritatively, the Chicago Manual of Style uses "full citation" in my sense (that is where I picked it up); I don't recall any major style guide that uses "long citation". Therefore I suggest we should use "full citation" for the record with the complete bibilographic details, but not including any short cites that point to this record.

If all that is sorted out, perhaps we can return to my previous question: why should a note be linked to a full citation in a list of references (full citations)? Why not link a short cite inside the note to the full citation? I wonder if what you had in mind was using "list-defined references" (WP:LDR, using ) to display what appears to be a list of references (full citations). I say appears, because what you really have there is a list of notes. Such a list appears to be a list of references only because that is what the notes contain. This is yet another "lazy" technique which ends up being harder because the references are still scattered through out the article. It really is easier to collect all of the bibliographical information in one area and link to it with short cites, rather then trying to force the notes (&lt;ref>s) into making those linkages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not been following this (very long) discussion. Having twice spent time and effort implementing enhancements to WP:Cite.php and proposing their incorporation via WP:Bugzilla, only to have that work overtaken by the event of the incorporation without discussion of changes which had not gone through Bugzilla, I feel as if I've been through the wars on changes to the way Refs work. Generally, my opinion about that is, "That way lies madness" (hence my not having followed this discussion).
 * I do think, though, that tightening up this content guideline by better defining different citation styles and, possibly, by describing some particular citation styles as "preferred" would be a good thing.
 * Also, I think that confusion re citations, especially for newbies, grows out of WP:GTL as much as or more than it grows out of this content guideline. WP:GTL says: "Editors may use any section title that they choose.[10] The most frequent choice is 'References'; other articles use 'Notes', 'Footnotes', or 'Works cited' (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material. ... Several alternate titles ('Sources', 'Citations', 'Bibliography') may also be used, although each is problematic in some contexts: ...". I think that work ought to be done on that before addressing questions here such as "Why not link a short cite inside the note to the full citation?". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While MOS:LAYOUT (aka WP:GTL) is certainly part of the problem, I think it is rather peripheral to the core issue of how editors think citation should be done. And that can't be sorted out until folks take a closer look at what they are doing. Which is the point of my question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your speaking of a thing called a "note" prompted me to mention GTL. Definition of terms is important, especially in explanations intended for newbies. The terms note and reference in particular have a confusing number of meanings in the world of WP -- or so it seems to me. My digression there was uncalled for (but not, methinks, irrelevant).
 * More on the topic of this discussion section, one lesson I learned in my past life writing software (going back to before the coining of the term "software engineering", I think) was the importance of controlling scope (of awareness and of action in this case). That lesson learned has been very useful to me outside of the world of a code geek. As I see it, the job of cite.php (Refs & friends, that is) is to put "stuff" into footnotes, to render the footnotes and their forward and back links, and to do some housekeeping in aid of footnote reuse. to make cite.php aware of such things as page numbers (or any other details about the internals of the "stuff" in the footnote) would, in my mind, violate sensible scoping restrictions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In support of Wtmitchell's comment, the more the capability of separate but related bits of software overlap, the more difficult it becomes to make improvements in the future, because one find that a proposed change that works with one bit of software will break a different bit that is addressing the same capability. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Like the Unix philosophy of "one tool, one job", meaning a tool does one job, right, rather than all sorts of things half-assed.
 * A slight quibble with Wtmitchell: the various cite.php templates citation templates (citation, cite xxx, harv, etc.), such as handle page numbers, do not put stuff into footnotes: they format stuff and make links, etc., but only where an editor has put them. That could be in a footnote — or in the text, or in an image caption, infobox, etc. Cite.php (&lt;ref> tags) puts this and other kinds of stuff into endnotes, but does not process any of it. Scoping is indeed a very relevant concept here, as processing footnotes and processing citation stuff have quite different scopes. Combining those functions makes about as much sense as having my laptop brew coffee. That anyone should consider combining &lt;ref> (cite.php) and citation functionality I attribute to very poorly understood notions of those functions. (And non-programming backgrounds. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Clarified. 21:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here. What are "the various cite.php templates"? Who is suggesting "combining &lt;ref> and cite.php functionality"? -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See the first comment in this subsection "I've been talking off and on to James F. ...". -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Was that a reply to me, or to J. Johnson? If it was to me, I know what cite.php is: it's <ref ></ref> and - it has no templates ( was created by en.wp as a wrapper for  but is not itself a part of cite.php). Indeed, if you make a link like Cite.php or Cite.php and follow it, you are directed to mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php, which is a redirect to mw:Extension:Cite (as is Cite.php), where <ref ></ref> and  are described extensively. Reading that, I see four templates mentioned: these are, , , ; of these, the last two are only mentioned in the section Comparing ref/note style and Cite.php style where it is clear that the two templates are not part of cite.php. It's also clear that  is already an inseperable part of cite.php, and so the phrase "combining &lt;ref> and cite.php functionality" has no meaning because the one is already a subset of the other, and as far as I can tell, has been right from the start. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed that J. Johnson's line about "the various cite.php templates" actually meant "the various WP:Citation templates", which are technically unrelated to cite.php. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was speaking broadly, even loosely. Sorry. Yet another example of why terms should be used carefully and precisely? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see the page rendering system take on more of this responsibility. The renderer could easily decide, e.g., to include a full citation for the first short cite of a separate reference. Whether the editor used rp with a named ref or sfn should not affect the appearance of the result. Such presentation decisions should be made consistently across an article, or better as part of each reader's preference (with an appropriate default). I would personally be thrilled to have a preference setting that put notes and refs on a separate tab, so that when I'm just reading I don't have to see them (wait for them to be rendered) unless I want to go there.

For that reason, I just want a very shorthand way to set things up. I strongly prefer cite/sfn, as it keeps things concise and doesn't bloat an article with repetitive long cites. I just finished cleaning up a long article that cited the same few works many times. The notes section is now much shorter and the references section is only slightly longer...

Here is a proposal I recently made:

Editors could save much tricky syntax with templates like:

and

In my dreams the former would work like, producing a global, editable reference, and the latter would link both to the cite and separately (using the page number) to the appropriate page number in Google books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 September 2014‎
 * To which I replied "please can we avoid creating yet more citation templates? See small-font comment by PBS dated 19:06, 20 September 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources" The same still applies: even more strongly, because that comment by is in this very thread. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The feature request for page numbers is - Page number attribute for  tags. The discussion there has no description of how this should look in practice. When used with  templates, I don't see how the  page number would be injected into the COinS metadata.
 * If there is a real push to improve cite.php, then page numbers would not be my first priority. We have a long list of bugs and feature requests. We have older bugs that keep getting rediscovered by new editors (and sometimes I forget and have to relearn why something is broken). There are several issues with error checking, the new Automatically generated reference lists is messy, but the most egregious would be  - Nested refs fail inside references block.
 * If we really want to improve cite.php, then my recommendation would be to get together a task force of editors who technically understand how it works. Then clean up the bug list (I've been working on this for a while), start fixing the broken issues, then work on feature requests. --  Gadget850talk 09:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the reflist at the bottom of the page could be integrated into the current layout quite easily by changing the layout of WP:APPENDIX to recommend that the notes/footnote section is placed as the last section on the page. I used to place a Footnotes section at the bottom of the page, but a discussion (if memory serves) among less than a handful of editors decided to place it above the References section simply because the majority of those editors liked the notes adjacent to references but also wanted further reading adjacent too. A big advantage of placing footnotes [lets call them endnotes] last is that all those footer templates can then also contain reference tags, which at the moment tend to be treated as an exception to WP:V for the convenience of the WP:FNNR layout. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you browse through Automatically generated reference lists you will find that there are five related bug reports. And I was just using it as an example of broken tings we should fix before moving to improvements. --  Gadget850talk 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem with doing citation at WP is not that cite.php needs fixes, improvements, or (yikes) new features, but that we don't have a clear concept of what we are trying to do. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My later comments were in the spirit of thinking about the bigger picture. I understand that the real picture is bigger still (how indeed should we link content to sources...endnotes seem a bit dead tree- suitable for printing only, don't they? E.g., why not have the source appear when you hover over/touch the text to which it applies? That way it wouldn't matter where in the text a cite appeared. The hover/touch would produce the cite material, not the sfn smidgeon.) Thinking out loud. Lfstevens (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They can already do exactly that. At, enable "". -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is - Footnotes content should appear in a tooltip (add ReferenceTooltips to Cite as default/option). Code was added to cite.php for this but never enabled and recently removed. We now have the ReferenceTooltips gadget or the newer . --   Gadget850talk 11:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The tooltip shows the sfn content, not the related cite content. Wrong! While we're at it, even though the cite has no page and the sfn does, if I click on the cite it should take me to the correct page. And if you have the option, there is no reason to add the cites to the bottom of the page. Lfstevens (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had thought that Lfstevens was talking about a way to find out which part of the Wikipedia article was supported by the citation. I believe that  had arranged for such a system, but I don't remember whether he is testing it in an article at the moment.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * --  Gadget850talk 20:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your block}} is the note (or footnote) containing comments, citations, etc.  This is understood to support the "text/statement" it is placed next to (usually but not always following).


 * The idea of the specificiation (such as a page number) of a short cite connecting to the specific passage in the source is interesting. And has been done in some cases. E.g., some of the IPCC cites in Global Warming link chapter, section, and even page numbers to the specific online text. But this is entirely dependent on such text being available, and can get sticky real fast if (say) you're trying to go to specific page in a pdf which first has to be downloaded. Note that this can be done readily enough using a standard external links following the short cite. There is absolutely no need to "improve" ref (or anything else) to do this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Indicating exactly which bits of the text are supported by a citation
(Thanks for pinging me, above, WhatamIdoing.) User:Makyen has made this template ("Ref supports2") for article segments supported by more than one source, where each source supports different parts of the segment.

Example (hover your mouse pointer under the footnote marker):

References

Graham87 has pointed out that users of screen readers like JAWS will not benefit from this feature because it relies on tool tips, and JAWS doesn't read tool tips. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Separating reference format from content
I advocate moving the job of presenting references/notes from the editor to the page renderer. The editor should provide the source, and let the renderer decide how to present it. Logic: Note, the details of these display choices are not the point, which is that separating the content from the format makes such details much easier to address. Feedback welcomed! Lfstevens (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea of tasking the editor with formatting makes little sense in this era of multiple display platforms. E.g., what sense does
 * Articles would look/behave more consistent/ly.
 * Editor work would be reduced. E.g., the renderer could automatically create an alphabetized list of sources, with endnotes displayed separately.
 * Endnotes could appear instead as page footnotes when an article is printed.
 * Refs/notes could be placed on a separate tab instead of appearing with the article text (as could other "standard" sections, such as See also and External links.
 * At some point, the display style could be made subject to a reader preference. E.g., a reader could decide to have notes adopt the ibid/opcit convention instead of name, year, page.
 * Performance could also possibly be improved if "special" sections were fetched only when the appropriate tab was accessed.


 * You are proposing a whole program of stuff, much of which is controversial. And rather beyond the current topic. I suggest that you propose these individually, in new sections. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Separated into a new section. The basic concept is what I'd love to see discussed. Once that is sorted, more detailed discussions can follow. Lfstevens (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lfstevens, I believe that the English Wiktionary is placing citations (quotations showing the word being used) with some kinds of references (such as sources to support etymology) on a separate tab. It doesn't seem to be a very popular method, though.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Didn't quite understand "quotations showing the word being used". Lfstevens (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at wikt:Citations:abiding-place to see an example. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * --  Gadget850talk 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Does references accept parameters?
I wonder if accepts any parameters like for example the font size. I don't know a better place to ask this question, so I asked it here. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the  parameter. It is a parser tag not a HTML element. --   Gadget850talk 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Use reflist, it has far more flexibility than which I regard as obsolete. BTW I can't think of any legitimate reason to change the default font size of a reflist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're not using any of the template's features, then all reflist does is slightly slow down the page (and make sure that you get an error should you copy it to another wiki, but few people do that). In fact, it would probably be better to replace all of the plain and/or empty reflist templates with the faster, native references tag.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , with no parameters, is exactly the same as The empty element <references ></references> is exactly equivalent to  and since that empty   attribute does nothing, it further reduces to . The enclosing  is served up virtually unchanged (one or two superfluous spaces are removed, but that's it); it is valid HTML 4.0, and browsers post IE3 just breeze through it. Any difference in speed between  and  is minimal, because almost all of the processing is the construction of the ordered list that is served to your browser instead of . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is indeed very minimal, after you've processed the transcluded template to determine that all you needed is the plain tags. For cached pages, it's probably so minimal as to be non-existent.  For uncached pages (including every page sent to a logged-in user), and for all pages if anyone changes anything at all in the template since the last time the page was cached, it's probably measurable, but still small.  That's why I said it's effect was only to "slightly" slow down the page.  On a project with millions of pages, it is noticeable in aggregate, but I wouldn't expect editors with high-speed internet connections to notice any significant difference.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't prove it, but I expect that if people were to "replace all of the plain and/or empty reflist templates with the faster, native references tag" that itself would be counterproductive because of the way MediaWiki works: the whole page needs to be reparsed just for that small edit. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And the change would cause an increase in the database size (I have no idea how much) due to the extra revision being stored. Comparatively, reflist has extremly low overhead. --  Gadget850talk 22:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you both know, if the change is made when editing anyway, then it has zero such effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that advocating the replacement of with  is at all constructive or even useful. Any performance gains are negligible, and  does nothing that  cannot also do. At one time, they had different font sizes ( was 90%,  was 100%) but for a couple of years now, both have yielded 90%. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Until the OP replies, I'm not sure we answered the question. --  Gadget850talk 12:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines for citing foreign language sources
When translating a foreign-language Wikipedia page to create or expand a corresponding page in the English-language Wikipedia, how to style the citations? List the original (romanized if from a non-latin alphabet) and provide a parenthetical translation of the title only, or what? -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is an example. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Deborahjay, your plan sounds good. The rule is to do something that you think is sensible for that article, and then not to worry too much about it.  If you want, you may use the optional templates in Category:Language icon templates like ru icon that let you tag the language of the original source, but it's neither encouraged nor discouraged.  Do what you think is best.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In, a foreign language citation title can have up to three components.


 * For languages that use Latin-based writing systems, title is the title of the resource as it appears in the original resource. trans-title holds an English language translation of the value in title.
 * Jacques Lapin Jack Rabbit
 * For languages with writing systems that are not based on the Latin alphabet, Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Thai, etc), CS1 has an additional parameter. script-title holds the resource's title in its native writing system.  Unique to this parameter is the language prefix, an ISO639-1 two-character language identifier followed by a colon.  The identifier is used to help browsers correctly display the non-Latin text.  When script-title is used, title holds a transliteration of the title in script-title.  There are often strict rules that govern transliteration of a non-Latin script.  As with the previous example, trans-title holds an English-language translation of the title in script-title.
 * Tōkyō tawā ja:東京タワー Tokyo Tower
 * It is helpful to readers if you include the language of the resource in the CS1 template. For that, use language where the value assigned to the parameter should be either the language name or the two-character code from the List of ISO 639-1 codes.
 * cy or Welsh
 * Do not use icon templates within CS1 templates.
 * language


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations that reference self-published sources (eg Amazon CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform)
Is there is any ruling on the acceptability of self-published books as citations? I know we have a general rule on wp:reliable sources but we more or less assume that if a book gets published then it has some standing - ref WP:verifiability not truth. If self-published books are acceptable, it could be a new type of spam link. And what makes them different from blogs, which we don't accept?

But I'm also wriggling here because what makes the traditional publishing industry so special. Wikipedia itself is an archetypal self-published book. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Great question. Current Verifiability Policy (WP:SELFPUBLISH) is overly broad, dated, purely academic in its prejudices (see WP:Verifiability) and in need of clearer qualification. A mention of use your good judgment would be a good start at enfranchising a great many well-received self-published books by unknown authors that could be cited on Wikipedia, to the benefit of readers. One use of good judgment is looking at reviews of self-published books before citing. That helps one apply other relevant Policies like Neutral POV & Due Weight. That done to your satisfaction, cite and be done with it. Judgment is not perfect; nor are commercial publishers particularly noted for publishing oversight.
 * A great many self-published books by first-time authors, especially in technical fields such as computer programming, are very highly regarded. It is quite common for timely technical books to be written incrementally in public view, receiving far more detailed scrutiny in the form of early readers' comments (frequently incorporated in revised or "final" versions), than comparable technical books published by commercial presses. Commercial publishers' editorial contributions are increasingly of little comparative significance, except negatively, as a talisman of poor quality; many savvy computer programmers of my acquaintance won't waste time with a book solely on the basis of the poor reputation for technical editing of its publisher. I'm not alone in willingly investing a few minutes to evaluate the product of an unknown, self-published author who followed the lean publishing model in preference to wasting any time at all on a "professionally edited" book by several commercial publishers with well-deserved reputations for poor quality control. The distinction between commercial and self published is increasingly irrelevant and disappearing fast.
 * Different fields have different standards for assessing quality. Ask around, read reviews, use your good judgment. Let's get these policies in line with contemporary realities. Everyone is a publisher; publishers mean nothing; not all published reviews of other published works are equal. Welcome to the hermeneutic circle: life is too complex for a hard and fast distinction between products based on source.
 * I trust the editorial process of Wikipedia more than the imprimatur of any commercial press. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * John Maynard, you are forgetting: Wikipedia is by our own admission and declaration, not a reliable source. Paul, you have been drinking the koolaid of the vanity press industry. Most self-published stuff is still crap, and stuff done through packaging services like Amazon are worst of all because they are people too clueless to self-publish themeselves. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to question WP:SELFPUBLISH, nor to suggest ignoring it because you see flaws in it. The place to do that is WT:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Had I been able to find WP:SELFPUBLISH in the first place then I wouldn't have asked the question, so there is no need to snap. I started by looking at WP:RELIABLE where I found Identifying reliable sources (which I have just now edited to change the MAIN to link clearly to WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:BLOG - the original main|WP:SPS was rather too opaque and I missed its relevance). The text there (i.e., WP:Reliable) is, if I may say so, rather too much vague hand-waving.  The text at WP:SELFPUBLISH is far clearer and unambiguous.  Thank you and good night. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation question
The University of Florida Alumni Association maintains an online alumni directory, which includes the full names, current mailing addresses, degrees and graduation dates for virtually all Florida alumni. The online directory is only available to other Florida alumni and is password protected with a high degree of security. The question is this: how should a non-public, member-only, security protected online source be cited -- in this case for the university degree and graduation date for a notable person? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It should not be cited because it is not published, and thus it not meet the minimum requirements of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the person is notable, you may be able to find the person's graduation year and degree listed in an alumni magazine or other university publication that mentions the person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I found the work-around: the university has a third-party printer publish hard-copy editions of the alumni directory every five years. I was able to get the citation information for the 2000 edition of the hard-copy directory on Amazon.com, and I have cited to that.  Thanks for your comments.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer1, did you actually use that hard-copy edition? Are you certain that this information appears in it?  You can normlly opt-out of print copies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the hard-copy 1990 edition, and the subject's degree information does appear. And, yes, we are given the option to suppress our alumni information in the directory, but it's not specific to the hard-copy editions.  I have occasionally found a big-time athlete who has suppressed their information (e.g., Emmitt Smith), presumably because they are concerned about leaking their contact information to unwelcome solicitations.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to have a work-around, but I see the online source as fine too; see the section of our of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy that's at WP:SOURCEACCESS. In a nutshell:  Is it verifiable?  Yes.   (And, we allow lexis/nexis as a source...)--Elvey(t•c) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The online source in this case is not published, and therefore any information based on it is not verifiable, because only alumni can gain access to the online source. A published source is available to the public, so long as any access fee is paid. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear that you think the fact that a source is not published makes it not verifiable. Repeating your opinion isn't going to change mine.  Alumni can gain access to the online source is good enough to do so, IMO.  We are each entitled to our opinions. --Elvey(t•c) 21:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:Published, then, because Jc3s5h is correct. The online database is not "published" (made available to the public).  However, the print copy is "published" (you might be able to find it in a used bookstore) and that's what's being cited now, so the status of the online database is irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation formatting RfC
Please see Talk:Aspromonte goat for an RfC about the scope of WP:CITEVAR and whether it can be used to prevent changes to underlying technical coding of reference citations, including correct XML, and changing problematic ref IDs. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate use of fake sources
There has been a in WikiProject Video games regarding the use of fake sources. It looks like this practice is acceptable in some situations and, according to some members, it has happened many times during nine years.

I would like to know if this is common practice in other WikiProjects. Indeed, this is a powerful tool that could improve the whole Wikipedia. This methodology should be explained in this content guideline for the benefit of future editors. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No way. If a "source" is fake, it isn't a source, and WP:V is violated, probably WP:NOR also. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The procedure seems to be to figure what probably appeared in a magazine article by reading quotes from talk groups, and creating a citation that makes it appear the editor who adds the "source" actually read the source. This is dishonest and I would have no qualms about supporting a community ban for the editor who does this. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate anyone pointing out concrete evidence of any user (including JimmyBlackwing) actually doing this. The subsequent blocks will be immediate and indefinite.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OK this is silly. I'm mystified by 's claim subsequent to the above-linked discussion that "It looks like this practice is acceptable in some situations. He's been directed multiple times to the guidelines which sit at WP:VG/RS. If there is anything in the guidelines that even hints that this practice is acceptable please point it out and it will be changed immediately. That goes for any of you. Likewise it has been explained to 84.127.82.127 that WP:VG/RS is controlled by WP:RS and WP:V. 84.127.82.127 is complaining about a user essay. And if we look at the words of the user essay we see this: "This underhanded method thoroughly violates some Wikipedia policy or other" (emphasis added for the easily confused). Why anybody would imagine that this practice is acceptable especially after he's been told that it isn't goes beyond my understanding. JimmyBlackwing might want to shift the "Fake It" section below the "Google it" section and into the "terrible, horrible" section, but that's entirely up to him. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The IP seems to be having a hard time distinguishing a user's personal essay subpage (which doesn't even advocate it, but rather says he suspects people do it) from the Wikiprojects actual stance. None of the WikiProjects literature, or editors, are actually advocating it. Judging by the IPs edit history, I believe it just enjoys stirring up trouble. Sergecross73   msg me  18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify: This is not about using actually fake sources. That's a misleading descriptor I wish hadn't been affixed to this issue. This is about using sources when you don't actually have access to them, but you can figure out what's said based on other sources - for example, if there's a video game review you don't have access to, but Metacritic summarizes it, you can extract the appropriate details from Metacritic and cite it as though you have the actual source. This may sound underhanded, and it's definitely not ideal, but consider the case of citing one scientific paper referenced by another scientific paper when all you've got is the second one - that's gotta be done constantly and without issue. The sources are perfectly legitimate; it's more that the access to them isn't. That's all. Tezero (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Tezero, when you cite something, it means that you, the author of the text, have personally examined the material and can assure the reader that it supports the material in the article. Anything short of that is fraud.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's dumb. There's nothing preventing people from seeing the real McCoy, deciding they don't like it, and lying about it (or just embellishing the facts) because no one'll ever know, but we're focusing on those who just don't want to shell out a hundred dollars for an old French magazine through a sketchy Russian website, so they place their trust in a review aggregator or a helpful forum community? Calling that a respectable sourcing policy is the real fraud. Tezero (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Occasionally the author of an article in a respectable journal will not have access to an obscure reliable source, but will have access to a summary of it in some more accessible reliable source. In this case, the author would cite the accessible reliable source, and explain that the accessible reliable source summarized the obscure reliable source. Your user profile states you are a college student. I suggest you look up in the style manual required by your professors how to do this, otherwise you are in danger of getting low grades on your papers, or perhaps more serious penalties. (If you college lets you get away with this, perhaps you should find a better college.) Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your user profile states that you are under no obligation to obey Wikipedia's verifiability policies that include a distinction between first- and third-party information. Are you really in a position to be didactic about Wikipedia policies? Tezero (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This IP user has a history of troublemaking, and he appears to be continuing it here. The essay section discusses an undesirable sourcing practice that some editors, in WP:IAR fashion, have used in an attempt to improve articles. There is no malicious motive behind it, and it is used, from what I've seen, only for information that would otherwise be inaccessible. Should they be blocked for thinking they'd made a necessary, justifiable exception to the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT guideline? Depends on whether the administrators here want most of Wikipedia to be blocked. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they would be blocked for falsifying sources. That they would consider falsifying sources justifiable is simply a sign that they are incapable of making honest and competent contributions to the project.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider the alternatives, though: either you don't include the information at all, you leave it unsourced, or you attribute it to an unreliable source. Not only could it be of benefit to include the information by falsifying your access to a source (as opposed to one of these options); it could be the honest thing to do, if leaving the information out would contribute to WP:UNDUE or otherwise be misleading. Tezero (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Tezero, it is simply fraud. "Don't include the information at all" is a quite viable option.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No sources are "falsified", whatever that means. The contents of an unavailable source are reconstructed indirectly, and that reconstructed document is then itself treated as a source—a standard technique in off-Wikipedia research. Hardly "fraud". The only guideline violated is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, because the many steps involved in reconstructing the source are not included in the citation template. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, JimmyBlackwing, editors that do that are falsifying sources. No doubt about it: the editor is using a forum as a source, but pretending that the information has been taken from a reliable source. That the forum may have correctly reported on the contents of the source does not make the forum reliable, and representing the original as the source when the editor is actually relying on the forum is lying.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The debate isn't over whether this practice is technically untruthful, but over whether that's a good enough reason to forbid it given the advantages. And for what it's worth, the intermediary source is often more than just a forum, but an actual reliable source - e.g. Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes - that just doesn't happen to link to the full version of the desired source. In this case, trust is being placed in the reliable source - which we're already doing by definition when we cite a source classed as reliable for anything. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Kww, I'm not defending their rationales on this matter, but I think that they mean something similar to a WP:SOURCEACCESS case; in a WP:SOURCEACCESS case, a Wikipedia editor might not have the source and might get assistance from another Wikipedia editor who relays to them the contents of the source. That has happened to me more than once on Wikipedia, where I trusted a fellow Wikipedia editor's word on the matter. And it happens in WP:Good article and WP:Featured article cases all over Wikipedia, where, for example, a reviewer might not have access to the source and is trusting the nominator to report on the sources accurately if asked about them. I know that the forum instance is not exactly the same as either of those WP:SOURCEACCESS examples, but it's similar. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to know Kww's view on the magazine scans obtained from non-editors, such as those found on enthusiast sites like SonicRetro and Amiga Magazine Rack. Such scans are used regularly in VG FAs. It seems that his interpretation of SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT invalidates them as sources. In any case, to suggest that editors are lying when they reconstruct sources is ridiculous. I suppose scholars who cite Socrates or the Q source are lying as well. Indeed, all historians work inductively to rebuild events and artifacts—it's absurd to say that the conclusions of their induction are lies just because they're uncertain. An editor who reconstructs a source may potentially be accused of original research, of using less-than-reliable informants and of violating SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. However, accusing them of fraud is laughable. They believe that they've rebuilt an unavailable document such that it has become usable and citable again, like Q. The question is whether the practice fits through Wikipedia's narrow verifiability and reliability guidelines, not whether the editors are being honest or engaging in valid research. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the basis for the series of complaints 84.127.80.114/84.127.82.127 has made against JimmyBlackwing's essay appears to be related to the counterproductive efforts of 84.127.80.114 to remove all offline sources the editor has been unable to locate at Ghost in the Shell (video game) (where he has taken over the GA/FA-directed work of topic banned editor Lucia Black) as well as this editor's misguided efforts to link to copyright violating digital scans of the few hardcopy magazines he has located online. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jimmy, you need to examine actual sources, and accusing people that participate in such behaviour as participating in fraud is not laughable, simply accurate. Your analogies are strained, as no legitimate that "reconstructed" something would pretend that his conclusions came from anything but the reconstruction. It's not that our verifiability and reliability guidelines are narrow: they track reputable academia. As for an FA that uses a copyright violation as a source? It should be immediately delisted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not being rational. If a source violates copyright, that source can be removed, just like if there's any other problem with it. FAs aren't immediately delisted even for extensive sourcing problems; one source containing a copyright violation - even several - wouldn't be cause for immediate delisting. But with the Ghost in the Shell article, the scans are the only copyvio element; removing the scans allows the sources to conform to Wikipedia policy for both verifiability and respect of copyright instead of only verifiability. This is all rather off-topic, though; using sources you don't have access to - regardless of how ethical it is - isn't a copyright issue, but a verifiability one. Tezero (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delist Flight Unlimited III, Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage, Flight Unlimited II, Mischief Makers, Drakengard, Anachronox, Sega CD, Sega Genesis and most of WPVG's other FAs. All of them use "copyright violations" as sources. A good chunk of my essay directs editors to "copyright violations": AMR, SMS Power, Digital Press Library, CGW Museum, DLH's Commodore Archive, Retromags and Replacementdocs. It explains how to obtain "copyright violation" scans even beyond those "copyright violation" websites. Go ahead, Kww—let the purge begin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Sonic Retro, which was mentioned earlier, I've used in probably half of my GAs and FAs for the scans it provides. In fact, earlier today I used it to look up a scan of the manual of Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity to source a fact in the Knuckles the Echidna article, because I don't own that game, only the original Riders. Should I have ponied up $20 or whatever on Amazon and waited a few days just to confirm with my own eyes that the scan was legitimate? (Of course, I'd have the game, too, but that's beside the point.) Of course not; it's ridiculously unlikely that the scan was fabricated. Not only would creating a convincing fake be difficult; there'd be no reason to. Really, this is no different from going to the library and looking at their microfilm, or watching a YouTube upload of a TV documentary. Tezero (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about a concrete case here and this isn't something worth getting riled up about in the abstract. Yes sometimes there are serious abuses such as when users fabricate sources out of thin air to bolster a personal opinion. There are also times when it is clear that an unavailable source is actually saying something despite one's lack of access to it: There are varying degrees of "faking it" and most reasonable editors know where the limits are. As much as I like the reliable if dogmatic "The rules are the rules, end of story - you bend them and you're banned" approach, I don't think this is a case where immediate indef blocking would usually be a more appropriate way to start than say a warning. Again the most we should be saying in the abstract is that this is an underhanded method that violates Wikipedia's policies. We don't need to add such a warning to the guidelines as suggested by 84.127.80.114 at WT:VG, we don't need to suggest that this is a powerful tool to improve Wikipedia or explain the methodology in the guidelines as suggested by 84.127.82.127 just above, and we don't need to change any userspace essays unless there is evidence that their currently included warnings are insufficient to prevent actual problems. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * e.g. when a Google Books preview only shows the table of contents and you see chapter 4 is entitled "Criticism from Japan" and chapter 5 is entitled "Criticism from Europe" then it's no huge crime to claim that "the topic saw criticism in both Japan and Europe" and then to cite Chapters 4 and 5 of the book instead of the table of contents despite not having read the chapters.
 * e.g. when a now-inactive wikipedia editor added a set of claims cited with a malformed ref to an offline source a while ago then you should be banned when in trying to repair it today you carefully determine the date and issue number yourself from workable non-RS sources despite not having access to the original.
 * e.g. when a fellow editor sends you a transcript of an article you need then it's not worth anyone's time dragging you to ANI if you take the transcript as accurate and cite the article despite not holding the magazine in your own fingers.
 * Yes, this is something that requires using judgement after considering all the facts and circumstances. We've had discussions about this issue before, most memorably with silly claims like, "If you read it at Google Books, then you have to say that, because Google Books might fake the contents!"  The general rule is that accurate copies—defined as any copy that a typical editor would believe is unadulterated—are acceptable, regardless of provenance.
 * Also, the goal is to write the encyclopedia, not to punish people for their sins. If someone is making a mistake, then we need to educate them and clean it up, not punish them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, surely you don't endorse forging citations based on input from forums. There's an enormous difference between Google Books and a fan-forum for video games.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see zero (non-hysterical) claims that anyone is forging anything. I see a claim that some people have looked at apparently accurate and authentic copies of articles—copies whose only fault is that the poster had no right to post a copy of the article—and cited the reliable source that they actually read, which is the newspaper article.  We should not accept a link to the copyvio, but the editor can (honestly, ethically, legitimately) claim to have read the source—because he did read the source!
 * Perhaps an example would be clearer:
 * On Monday, you buy a copy of The Times, and you read an article in it. You cite the article that you read.  Everything's good, right?
 * On Tuesday, you hear that The Times had another related story. You are unable to buy a copy of Tuesday's paper.  However, you look online, and their website gives some information and the start of the story.  What you're interested in is not shown.  You go to your favorite web search engine and look around.  You find what purports to be and appears to be multiple exact copy-and-paste copies of that story.  You read one of them.  You find the information you're looking for in it.  A few minutes later, you look in your e-mail inbox, and you find that a friend who has a subscription has just e-mailed yet another copy of this article to you.  You want to update the article.  Do you:
 * cite the newspaper article in The Times that you actually did read?
 * cite "email from my friend", because even though what you read was read the newspaper article from The Times, you didn't read a legal copy of the newspaper article?
 * I'm thinking that option #2 is silly. If you read the newspaper article, even if the copy you read was not an original, licensed copy, then you should cite the newspaper article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you think being honest about the source of your material is silly, WhatamIdoing. I will also point out that the material in the essay under discussion includes "basically, you cite a source that you don't have by cobbling together a citation from quasi-reliable snippets of information on the Internet" as a citation technique.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kww, if you have actually read the reliable source yourself, then I see nothing "dishonest" about citing the source that you actually read yourself. I do not think that it is "dishonest" to fail to say "Oh, and by the way, the accurate and true copy of this source that I read was sent to me in e-mail" (or borrowed from a library, or read in a bookstore, or read on a web forum, or however else you might have received a copy).  I'm not responding to some essay; I'm responding to what I wrote:  accurate copies are acceptable.  If you have read an accurate copy, then you have read the source and you should cite the source.  Nothing that I wrote about "accurate copies" says or even implies that the editor has cobbled together bits and pieces or guesses from hearsay.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. So long as an editor reads the source and cites to it appropriately when authoring material, verifiability has been satisfied; how the editor obtains the source should have no bearing on whether the source can be cited. Obviously, editors who violate copyright by illegally duplicating sources can be prosecuted for doing so, but that's a separate issue from reading such a copy and then citing to the source. In such a scenario, the citation to the source is honest, even if the means of obtaining the source aren't. Of course, Wikipedia shouldn't provide a link to any illegal copy, but that's another separate issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again there is a spectrum of examples of this technique. Some uses really shouldn't be a problem. Others are probably good places for a warning. And yes some examples would be block/ban-worthy offenses. I appreciate your call for honesty in sourcing, Kww, but this is a tempest in a teapot. Most established editors know how to stay on the right side of the line and - let's be completely frank - those who do step over the line are often quite capable of disguising their transgressions. That's not to say that they are excused, or that such transgressions should be promoted, but that is the reality. Ultimately the only things we can control are the official guidelines (none of which currently support or link to this technique), and enforcement of specific incidents falling within the spectrum of "faking it" that cross the line. Should the essay be reworded? Honestly I would have worded it differently myself, but I doubt there will be any problem because it seems to give clear disclaimers regarding the utility of "faking it" (i.e. "This underhanded method thoroughly violates some Wikipedia policy").
 * The concerns shared by 84.127.82.127 appear to be based on serious confusion over the relations between policy, guideline, and userspace essay, and not over any specific violations he is seeing. They also coincide immediately with this editor's misguided efforts to strip out all sources he cannot personally verify from an article he is working on. From some of his statements there (i.e. "I have something to say and I will in due time"), it appears he is waiting for the outcome of this discussion to provide justification for his removal of a source that he can personally only locate in the form of a scan hosted at a situationally reliable website. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to be partly about what is sometimes called "citation plagiarism", which was an issue in the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. --Boson (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but citation plagiarism occurs when an original source cites a second source, and then a third person puts that citation into their own work without checking the second source. That's altogether different from citing to a source after reading an illegally-duplicated copy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but some of the discussion above seemed (to me) to be suggesting that only directly reading the original source justifies citing (only) the original source (which I tend to agree with, at least in principle). An even more venial "sin" would be failing to cite the intermediate source when you have read the original source (but are possibly using it in a way that fails to credit the intermediate source with some insight that caused you to cite the original source in the first place). --Boson (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Citation plagiarism is not a generally accepted definition at all. For example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.1526.pdf (page 2). And in the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair the University denied the occurrence of plagiarism. Failing to check a source is no good practice, but not plagiarism at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.151.177 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 09:57, 17 November 2014

I think that just as Verifiability explicitly mentions that

one can extrapolate from that that the location of a copy of a source has to be considered for its reliability. It is generally regarded among Wikipedia editors that the facsimiles generated by reliable sources are reliable copies. Ie that one does not have to say that one read a copy of a book generated by Google books because it is widely accepted that the copy has been reliably copied. If however the source of the copy can not be assumed to be reliable, then usually a link to that site will allow the the reader to decide for themselves if it is a reliable copy. If the site is not available or has suffered link rot, then replacement with a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT message should suffice until the original source can be found and checked. If the site for the source is an unreliable source, and the content is a copyright violation then, I am not sure and will have to think further on this -- perhaps a simple message along the lines "From a a copy of xyz found on an unreliable website" without mentioning the specific site would do. If in this last case it is then challenged then the text probably ought not be restored without verifying it with a more reliable source location. -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree and this is kind of the reason why I had earlier (many months ago) proposed a "best evidence rule" where, if both are available, then rather than citing a website containing a copy of a reliable offline source you should just cite the reliable offline source directly. A source shouldn't be improperly tainted by association with a webcite that happens to host it. So if I am attempting to reverify the claims cited to the 1973 Kenneth Allen hardcopy book source from the Guy Fawkes article but the only place where I can find a copy of it is at 4chan then it's unacceptable for me to excise the claims bolstered by this source on the theory that because 4chan is unreliable, and because it is the only place where I have been able to locate a copy of the book, the book is thus also unreliable. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Concrete evidence of specific case
asked for concrete evidence. I have located that are damaging the article. Regarding the first one,, I have found what may be a fake page without a page number. I cannot ask, the editor who the source, because she is topic banned. The editor that the issue 35,, has  to take a long wikibreak. that page numbers are not required and that I should be the one providing the page number. Thibbs has this part of the discussion.

I would appreciate Kww's guidance; for instance, I would like to talk with Lucia Black about these sources. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The concrete evidence Kww spoke of was in regard to editors who had faked sources. Are you accusing Lucia Black of faking this source? What leads you to the idea that the source has been faked? The scan of the article that you located seems to corroborate the claims in the Wikipedia article. Why do you believe it "may be a fake page"? Is the missing page number the only reason you wish to exclude the reference? Perhaps you could make a request for the missing page number at WT:VG or WP:REREQ. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. This is not an article for me, but for everyone. If the community wants articles with fake sources, I will respect that, but I need to make sure this is what the community wants. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you've make any requests at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request for what you need. Check Worldcat.org, even old videogame magazines can easily be found at most large public libraries (or via ILLs). The issue is assuming good faith from other users. In theory, we could analyze every single offline source (and even most online sources) and remove all sources lost due to linkrot but we don't always because we presume that a user who added a source is being accurate in their sourcing. Now, if users wants to act like the ones above and guess that their forums or whatever is accurate about the underlying source (even though there's no evidence that the forum itself is reliable), they better be very confident they are correct. If they aren't, I sure as hell think they deserved to be blocked the same as someone who intentionally inserted fraudulent sources because I'm presuming they actually read the original source. It's bad enough when people misrepresent sources they have read, people who are negligently about what the source actually says are no better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out why this is so difficult for to grasp. If the community wants articles with fake sources, I will respect that - Will you? It's absolutely not what the community wants. How could you respect an encyclopedia that uses fake sources? But have you actually uncovered any fake sources? Which ones are they and why do you think they are fake? I'm concerned by edits like  where you flagged an offline source due to "concern that this page does not contain a review of the subject". Even after I verified from my personal copy of the referenced offline source that it definitely did contain a review of the subject  was to argue for its relegation to "further reading" as a compromise as if a compromise was warranted. Where did your initial concern come from? Was there anything behind it or were you just attempting to reject the source just because it is hard or costly to access? Regarding the source you now believe to be faked, are you sure that you honestly think it is fake or are you using this as a way to reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access? Please provide evidence that any sources are fake so that we can discuss their removal. It's not complicated. -Thibbs (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I stated the reason I am not requesting these resources in another discussion; I will not be the one responsible for a useless library acquisition, specially when the editor is and the source is.
 * I would like to request to acknowledge whether the administrator is seeing my edits. As an IP editor, I do not know what facilities have registered users to ignore anonymous edits. I would appreciate any documentation links.
 * One last note: I do not care who gets blocked, banned or unbanned. I only expect this encyclopedia to try to remain reliable (until the community or the foundation tells me otherwise). 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of ensuring that Wikipedia remains reliable is not removing sources for Wikipedia's claims simply because you personally cannot verify them. If, as you've intimated, you have reason to suspect a claim or claims are bolstered by falsified sources then you need to explain why you think so. Because at the present time the evidence seems to be stacked against the claim of falsification. To recap: . The located scan corroborates Wikipedia's claims. There is no reason to suspect that Lucia Black introduced a faked source. I mean did she tell you that she did? Are there other signs that suggest such a thing to you? Or is this really a display of persistent bad faith efforts to remove hard-to-access sources? Your track record of accurately identifying faked sources is poor. have been completely baseless. And strangely when this was pointed out to you your reaction was not to drop the challenge but to seek an unneeded compromise. There's no problem with removing an actual false source but it's incumbent on you to explain why you think it's false. -Thibbs (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no method for ignoring edits by logged-out editors. (People who edit without logging in are less anonymous than registered editors; there is information like this readily available about them.)  In general, most systems on wiki are set up to prioritize checking the edits of logged-out editors.  However, there is also no method for forcing anyone to read a page.  Kww will read your comments if and when he wants to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Has checked the WMF servers to make such a statement? We have an administrator,, that has defended to not falsify sources, but remains silent when evidence is presented. We have an editor, , that has acted like she has not seen any my edits regarding these sources.
 * Has Lucia Black ignored my questions on purpose? I would appreciate if we could get an answer here or at another page. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the WMF servers for what? To see that there is no way to force someone to read a page?  To see that there is no "ignore this user" button anywhere on the screen?  There's no need to "check":  I already know that these are true.  Bug 69404 is open for the future discussion system, and no such option exists for the current one.  The option has been requested off and on for years.  See WP:SHUN for the "manual" alternative, and notice that if your questions are being "ignored on purpose", then you're not going to get a response at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that I am saying nothing new: assuming good faith may be a good behavioral guideline, but it is bad security policy. Ironically, assuming good faith and trying to recover a productive editor lead to the thesis that has suffered some kind of attack; this vector is one possibility. Unfortunately, I cannot do the necessary checks.
 * So, according to, Lucia Black has ignored my questions on purpose, is this correct? This is the answer I was speaking of. Do we have consensus? Has she ignored on purpose? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucia is not permitted to even mention Japanese anime on wiki any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the collapsed for the tip of the iceberg.  has suggested me to ask ; I have asked. So, according to, what has happened? Has the community decided through Ricky81682's closure that Lucia Black must not speak about these sources? Has she ignored on purpose? Or is she scared? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus for what? Please be aware that there is no consensus to remove the offline sources you claim are falsified until some kind of evidence supporting this theory is produced. -Thibbs (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * will listen to ; why does not Thibbs allow her to answer my questions? Was the use of fake sources the ? Lucia Black is ; does Thibbs believe that a banned user deserves an answer about the ban reasons? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucia Black is her own person. She doesn't owe me anything and I can't allow or disallow her to do anything. She very certainly doesn't owe you anything either, . The details of the tban can be reviewed here. Regarding the questions Lucia has been asking, I have answered them repeatedly. I believe she was banned because she was excessively and disruptively argumentative. Her further expansions of the argument appear not to have assuaged the concerns of the community regarding this problematic behavior. If Lucia has specific questions aimed at solving her problems then she can write to my talk page. I have invited her to do so. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "I would avoid ... resuming work on the GitS articles which were the basis of the original tban", which is actually . This ban does not seem related to the use of fake sources; may confirm this?  has  me to ask  about these sources; I have. Why does not  advise Lucia Black to answer my questions instead? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not interested, bother someone else, and stop baiting Lucia to violate her restrictions. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also not interested. Provide evidence that sources are falsified or give it a rest. -Thibbs (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What does mean? He is the one that banned ; he is the "individual administrator" that "thinks that she is causing disruption" in Ghost in the Shell (video game). The administrator warns me to stop baiting her to violate restrictions, but  suggested me to ask; was her disruption the use of fake sources? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just stop. Stop mentioning Lucia and/or her restriction. She can speak for herself. You are doing her, and yourself, no favors, and be repeatedly beating hammering the same circular points, you are practically begging for a block for disruption. Nothing that are doing right now can be said to fall under reasonable definition of "improving Wikipedia", and if you're not improving Wikipedia, then you're wasting your (and our) time and efforts. You're welcome to discuss general citing issues on this talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * she cannot speak; is she right? does not answer to this . My question to  is simple: was Lucia Black banned because of the use of fake sources? Will the administrator block me because I am trying to remove fake sources from an article? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for you to ask about or discuss Lucia's editing restrictions. To the best of my knowledge, Lucia was never accused of "using fake sources". I cannot predict the actions of every admin, but rest assured any of your edits will be judged on their own merits, not compared to those of another editor. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that does not answer the question. To the best of the administrator's knowledge, did ban  from Ghost in the Shell (video game) because she was using fake sources? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How does Salvidrim explicitly saying to you "To the best of my knowledge, Lucia was never accused of 'using fake sources' " not answer your question? That means "NO". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Only four tildes ( ~ ) required: did ban  from Ghost in the Shell (video game) because she was using fake sources? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, and stop asking. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Absolutely not" to the question "may Salvidrim! sign?" may mean that is refusing to issue a simple "no" to my question about 's ban; he remains ambiguous. Neither the banning administrator nor another one is giving the reason as to why Lucia Black was banned from Ghost in the Shell (video game). Regardless of whether a banned user should know the ban reason in order to properly appeal, I need to know if Lucia Black's input is an available option to improve the article. Thus, I will have to formally ask the community. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I can spell this out for you in direct sentences: Are you able to understand this? If not, then we can proceed to ANI and get your ability to edit blocked (again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Lucia Black is banned from talking about anything related to Japanese anime on wiki.
 * 2) This video game is related to Japanese anime.
 * 3) Therefore, Lucia Black's input is not "an available option to improve the article".
 * 4) Lucia Black was not topic-banned for faking sources.
 * 5) Your repeated, baseless, accusatory questions on this subject might get you blocked on grounds of disruption, tenditiousness, inability to hear what you're directly told and/or a severe lack of basic social and linguistic competence (e.g., pretending that when you ask a question of a specific person, that his direct reply to your question might be an answer to some other, unknown question).
 * 6) The reasons for Lucia Black's topic ban are explained in great detail in multiple places.  You have already been given links to these explanations.  Again:  you may read these explanations by clicking here and scrolling down until you find the editor's name.  On the lines with that user's name, you will find multiple links to the explanations for the topic ban.
 * A simple "no" or a signature would have been enough; a page number would be enough. Is justifying 's ban from Ghost in the Shell (video game) because of a later ban? That is interesting. May WhatamIdoing point me to the reasons of the ban by ? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reasons she was banned are talked about in this old discussion: CLICK HERE TO SEE THE REASONS. Now, stop talking about this; this page is for talking about CITING SOURCES, not for talking about Lucia Black's ban. Enough. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * is pointing to the latest ban, not the original one; so, the reason is banned is because she was already banned. I agree that this is not the place to talk about Lucia Black's ban; we have arrived to this because   for concrete evidence.
 * I only the discussion because I think that whatever practice WikiProject Video games is using to fake sources should be documented in this content guideline, and explain in which cases is acceptable. Hope you agree. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review the conversation. Kww . This has already been explained to you . Who are you accusing of inserting falsified sources? Which sources do you imagine are falsified? Unless you can identify these targets and unless you can provide a single iota of evidence that they are falsified your continued insinuations are totally and completely without redeeming merit. You are wasting everyone's time and you have been asked repeatedly (,, , , etc.) to provide evidence or stop. The next step is to bring you back to the administrator's noticeboard where you can explain to the community why you have such a difficult time listening to your peers. Please put an end to this obviously unmerited witch-hunt against the offline sources at GitS. Your efforts to remove them are clearly personal and have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. If you want to propose changes to the content guideline of WP:VG then the place to propose such changes is at WT:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For instance, I a reference in a good article, I did not have access to the original source, and I have no evidence to believe that it is fake. Was my edit correct? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As yet you have produced zero evidence that any source is faked. Unless you are willing to reveal the bases of your suspicions nobody is likely to pay them any heed. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * General concurrence with coments of Salvidrim and Thibbs. 84.127.115.190's behavior has become disruptive, and can longer be condoned as a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Cessation is advised. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)