Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (citing references)

Bibliographic Citations
This is on History:

'''The following is a formatted reference link for external links and references.

Appearance:

Doe, John, "Main page". Wikimedia Foundation, Florida, USA. January 1, 2000. Source:


 * Last name, First name, "Linked article name". Source publisher, Location. Month Day, Year.'''

Surely this is only the guideline for online resources? According to established Chicago Manual of Style practices, this is incorrect for most published print resources, which generally go something like this:

or and so forth... Jengod
 * LastName, FirstName, "Article Title," Periodical Title, Date.
 * LastName, FirstName, Book Title, London: Arnold A. Knopf, 1963.


 * I generally go with "Firstname Lastname, Book Title (Publisher, Location, Date)" or "Firstname Lastname, "Article Title", in Periodical Title, Date", but it's a matter of taste, really. Anything sensible should be OK, I don't think there's a great need to standardise on one form. If you're adding something to an already-existing list, it would make sense to follow the format already established in that list for the sake of consistency (unless said format is ridiculous, of course), but otherwise I wouldn't worry about it too much. Incidentally, you may want to take a look at Cite your sources. --Camembert


 * Could someone with experience therefore take a look at List of important publications in computer science which I just spent some time cleaning up (it had nassssty tables all over it) and reassure me that all my work making it possible for an ordinary mortal to read it without significant eye-strain has not all been in vain? --Phil 18:13, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

scientific references
style ain't really my thing - but just checked this page for the "correct" style for adding a scientific reference... eg Lancet 2004;363:1747,1757-1763. is there such a style recomendation? if so it should really be on this page shouldn't it? (i could link to the online version but you need to pay - so seems a bit pointless) Erich 03:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like that hsould be here. I think we should make the references as complete as possible (including article names) and link to public-access databases such as PubMed when possible. AdamRetchless 20:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recommended style for book references
I looked high and low for a recommendation on referring to printed matter. I wound up finding some articles with a style that looked plausible and went with that for the article in question. Here's a first attempt at a recommendation (I thought it better to put it up for discussion here rather than just drop it in):
 * To refer to a book or magazines in your article, start a new level-2 heading at the bottom of the article titled "Further Reading", followed by a list of publications. Books in the list should have the following format:
 * Author/Editor Name, Book Title (Publisher, City) ISBN 1-2345-6789-0
 * Magazines in the list should have the following format:
 * Author Name, "Article Title" Periodical Title edition # (Date): pages X-Y; ISSN 12345678

Points to resolve: adamrice 18:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Is "Further Reading" the best title for this section?
 * Should there be a preferred order of appearance of outside-reading sections (external links, related articles in wikipedia, etc)

Its at Cite sources. Thanks. Hyacinth 19:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That covers similar (though not the same) ground I'm trying to get at. Perhaps the '"See also" and "Related topics"' section of the style manual could be expanded a bit...? adamrice 20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)