Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
== Citing Wikipedia == moved to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skiptotoc}}
Supporters of the "cite your sources" rule include: [[user:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],
{{Talk header|shortcut=WT:CITE|shortcut2=WT:CS}}
[[user:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], [[user:drj|drj]] (strongly), [[user:sjc|sjc]],
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
[[user:Mike Dill|Mike Dill]], [[user:Taw|Taw]], [[user:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],
{{notice|To find archives of this talk page, see [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Citing sources|this list]]. For talk archives from the previous Manual of Style (footnotes) page see [[Help talk:Footnotes]].}}
[[user:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (strongly!), [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],
{{WPBS|1=
[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]] (mostly just concerned that controversial statements be attributed & not presented as "Wikipedia-opinion"), [[user:JHK|JHK]] (strongly), [[user:DanKeshet|Dan Keshet]] (strongly), [[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]](weakly),[[user:tony Vignaux|Vignaux]] (strongly), [[User:Stevenj|Steven G. Johnson]]
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{WikiProject Help|class=NA|importance=High}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
Opponents include: 24
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 56
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(75d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive Index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__{{clear}}


== How to cite something in newspapers.com? ==
Supporters of the "Use proper references" rule include: [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]];
[[user:JHK|JHK]];
[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], because citing sources makes it easy for scholars to double-check information (especially important in growing or disputed fields of study, such as [[global warming]]); [[User:Stevenj|Steven G. Johnson]];


What's the right way to generate a URL for a publicly-viewable clipping in newspapers.com? [[Cannonball (Milwaukee Road train)]] had a reference that linked to https://www.newspapers.com/image/1066814482 but that gets you to "You need a subscription to view this page" if you're not logged in. So I logged into my account and generated a clipping, which has a URL of https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-waukesha-county-freeman-cannonball-c/159032901/ which is only marginally better; if you're not logged in, it gets you to an image of the page that's too small to read the type, and if you click on it, you're back to "Create a free account, or sign in". I thought the idea of a clipping was that it was publicly viewable. Am I just doing it wrong? [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]], so far as I can tell, a clipping image is always the same width for logged-out viewers. So, if you're clipping one column, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/elmira-advertiser-pro-gridders-in-syracu/157349998/ even if it's a long one], then the legibility is good. Clipping a whole page across will come out fuzzy. [[Wikipedia:Newspapers.com]] says that we're meant to use clippings rather than "/image/" links, so I've been doing it that way. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Opponents include: 24 (Hypertext has different rules. Don't provide data easily discoverable on Google or Bookfinder--but yes do make the references visible in a printout--names of authors should ALL have their own wiki entries, even if totally obscure--that helps us differentiate--also use the longest form of the name to allow for future Albert Einsteins, etc.)


:Per Rjjiii, clipping image can be seen by non-logged or logged-out viewers and you should take a news block for clipping instead of the whole page and use the "/article/" link. Here is an example (taken from a citation in [[WXYZ-TV]])
== Discussion ==
:<code><nowiki><ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=L.A. |date=February 3, 1995 |title=Channel 4 newscasts take the ratings lead in Detroit |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012091020/https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |access-date=March 3, 2023 |work=[[Detroit Free Press]] |pages=3F, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-news-wins-r/156927271/ 6F] |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref></nowiki></code> <span style="background:#202122;font-family:monospace;padding:4px 3px 3px">[[User:VulcanSphere|<span style="color:#8DFF1A">Vulcan</span>]]<span style="color:#8DFF1A">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:VulcanSphere|<span style="color:#FF8F1A">Sphere!</span>]]</span> 09:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
"intellectually honest"? What does that mean? It sounds suspiciously like an attempt to frame a debate. Suppose I call this rule "intellectually paranoid." Wouldn't that strike you as curious? (I ''am'' being serious, btw--what does it mean?) --KQ
::In my case, the original article was laid out so as to span the full width of the page. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
----
It's typically considered intellectually dishonest to pass off another person's work as your own. "Intellectually honest" in this case means "honest about representing what one's sources are." Wikipedia is an interesting case, however, in that we don't ''claim'' most of the articles as our own, nor do we claim that the articles are original work. If, therefore, the ''only'' reason for citing sources is to make sure that no mistakenly believes that an article is the author's own work, we might as well not cite sources, because no one can labor under that misconception on Wikipedia--because there are no authors per se!


== doi for a conference paper ==
But there is value in ''acknowledging'' other creative individuals as the source of Nupedia's information. We just looked stuff up, in some cases anyway, and we did it without citing what we looked up. We aren't taking credit for this, but someone ''might'' mistakenly think that we are just really smart and we did all this research ourselves.


This edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Clinker_(boat_building)&diff=prev&oldid=1259364023] introduced the new source given the name "Bill 2006". The source is a conference paper, but has a doi, so I used the cite journal template to generate the reference. That all seemed to work fine, but it produces an error message "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)". The template seems to provide the best result for someone who wants to check the reference, but, of course, there is no journal. Is there a solution to this problem?
Maybe the better argument for citing sources is just to give people good links to further reading. :-) --[[LMS]]
----
I hadn't considered the fact that we aren't claiming individual ownership of what we write. It just felt icky to me to use others' work and not acknowledge it. I also found myself consulting outside sources when I doubted some articles (and usually found the articles were, in fact, correct); providing reputable references may add strength to what we write when none of us can claim to be an expert.


Incidentally, there is some reason to use caution in citing conference papers. However, this example has been cited by others in a way that supports it as an RS, and it is written by a leading authority in the field. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 20:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the term "intellectual honesty" doesn't need to be there, and maybe I should integrate some of what I've said here. I'll get back to it soon. -- [[Janet Davis]]
----
Ok. That phrase just raises hackles, sorry. :-)


:If it's not published in a journal you shouldn't be using cite journal, you're looking for cite conference. There's generally no editorial control over conference papers, as you would have with a journal article. So it's reliability is mostly on the author. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not being intentionally dense (though I suspect I am being dense about it somehow, since other people seem to understand it)... but: what is the difference between looking it up in a book where someone else has already looked it up and verified it, and verifying it ourselves? At what point do we quit citing other people? (at what point is something considered well-enough known that it doesn't need to be cited?) Also, suppose I take information from the Unnameable Source, which is now in the public domain, and update it and put it here. That source lists references; am I obligated to list them as well? What about if we read something several years past but remembered it; suppose the original source of knowledge was not deduction of the facts but some long-forgotten source: are we "intellectually dishonest" if we do not cite that source? (This is not a rhetorical question, as I did read voraciously about Dave Brubeck 5 or 6 years ago, and did the same thing about Stephen King over 10 years ago: biographies, interviews, essays, prefaces, etc.)
::Re "There's generally no editorial control over conference papers": [citation needed]. Maybe this is true for some fields but it is far from universal. The computer science conferences I'm familiar with are highly selective and have a strict editorial process involving multiple independent peer reviews. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This also applies to the military history ones I am familiar with. They have strict editorial processes. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's why I said generally, as it's in no way a universal situation. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}}
:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{cite conference |last1=Bill |first1=Jan |date=2006 |section=From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600 |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Bockius |title=Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006 |doi=10.13140/2.1.5120.3204}}</syntaxhighlight>
::{{cite conference |last1=Bill |first1=Jan |date=2006 |section=From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600 |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Bockius |title=Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006 |doi=10.13140/2.1.5120.3204}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the above. The point about conference papers and their reliability is dealt with in this case by tracking the classification used in the paper to later peer-reviewed articles that reference the conference paper. The classification is clearly adopted as a useful way of thinking. It is not presented in the Wikipedia article as a definitive classification as the supporting peer-reviewed material does not make it clear whether or not that is the case. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]], @[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]], @[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]], @[[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]], @[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]]: You may be interested in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Conference proceedings]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have the page watchlisted and have been following the discussion, but I don't have anything to add at this point. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Citing a source that's split across multiple URLs / sites? ==
I'm coming to believe increasingly that Thomas Jefferson should have won out in the copyright debate, as he is quite correct that once you have been given a notion, you can not rid yourself of it.... But that is not the point, as my rantings will have no effect on copyright law or the codified behavior of Intellectually Honest people. Please don't think I'm being glib; I honestly do not understand, and I don't intend the questions rhetorically. --KQ


How does one cite a source that is available online but only in fragmentary form? e.g. a single 10-chapter work with chapters 1-5 at SomeSite.org and chapters 6-10 at AnotherSite.com?
----


The specific example this is in reference to is the book ''Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines.'' It's online at [https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102652895] except for chapter/section 23 which is missing on that site but is online on a different site at [https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist//AM2-23.pdf]. [[User:AlexHajnal|Alex Hajnal]] ([[User talk:AlexHajnal|talk]]) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
KQ: Some of us forget stuff. Lots of stuff. All the time. For this reason, I write
everything I consider professionally important into a notebook
(math gets a LaTeX summary), complete
with references to external material and cross-referenced internally. I try to find
several different references for anything I don't understand well, because in my
experience, any individual reference may be incorrect in some key point.


:You can do something like what I did at [[Molasses Reef Wreck]], with in-line citations pointing to different entries in a References section. You should create a citation for the main book, with a sub-citation for the bulk of the book, and a second sub-citation for chapter/section 23. Then have the in-line citations point to the appropriate entry in the References section. Let me know if you need help on the details. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
For wikipedia, references probably aren't very important, because encyclopedias
::I took a look at what you suggested however it doesn't seem like a good fit for the [[List_of_IBM_products|existing article]] (which uses a single unified '''References''' section).
are not viable references for scholarly work, outside of work explicitly concerning
::I'm thinking something like the following as existing references (of which there are many) won't need to be changed; new or updated references can all use the same <code>ref</code> but append the page or section number e.g. <ref name=MMA />{{rp|18-3}} (<code><nowiki><ref name=MMA />{{rp|18-3}}</nowiki></code>) or <ref name=MMA />{{rp|§18}} (<code><nowiki><ref name=MMA />{{rp|§18}}</nowiki></code>).
encyclopedias. (I have read at minimum several hundred papers in fields spanning
::{{Pre|<nowiki>* [[IBM 034]]: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933<ref name=MMA>{{cite book |title=Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines |publisher=IBM |year=1936}}<br />
geology to mathemetical mechanics and never once seen an encyclopedia reference.)
Single book divided into separate pamphlets:
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-00.pdf |title=AM-0 Introduction (revised)}}
* (other sections skipped for this example)
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-24.pdf |title=AM-24 International Automatic Carriage}}
</ref></nowiki>
}}
::This renders as:
::* [[IBM 034]]: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933<ref name=MMA>{{cite book |title=Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines |publisher=IBM |year=1936}}<br>
Single book divided into separate pamphlets:
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-00.pdf |title=AM-0 Introduction (revised)}}
* (other sections skipped for this example)
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-24.pdf |title=AM-24 International Automatic Carriage}}
</ref>
::Thoughts? [[User:AlexHajnal|Alex Hajnal]] ([[User talk:AlexHajnal|talk]]) 01:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


{{talkrefs}}
Janet: Use without attribution is definitely icky. I think its ok if
one limits oneself to ''facts'' in the public domain. Example: this months
Natl Geographic has an article on some island off the coast of Chile with
big caves. The "public domain" part of the article could be the name of the
island, the location of the island, and 1 or 2 sentences on physiography:
"Has limestone, lots of rains, big caves." Anything more than that, in
my opinion, better have a link back to Natl Geog.


== Citing an mp4 video? ==
Larry: Maybe a disclaimer on the front page, and a tiny disclaimer link on each
topic page served up. At some point, some knucklehead is going to serve
wikipedia with a copyright violation notice. A disclaimer might make it easier
to remove offending pages without any further consequences. (Let's not
talk about possible patent violations... )


I cited a A/V presentation packaged as an mp4 video in [[Special:Diff/1263609252]]. The mp4 is the meat of the source, but all the metadata is on an HTML page that's frankly, kind of sketch. I wanted to make sure I got links to both parts, if for no other reason than to make sure IA picked up the mp4. My first thought was to just add the 2nd URL to some field in the {{t|cite web}}, but that generated CS1 errors. I ended up cramming a {{t|cite AV media}} next to the {{t|cite web}}, which is itself pretty yucky. Any suggestions on how to do this better? [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
One further note about encouraging outside links: it will probably
encourage spam. I would just love to write up a bunch of the stuff
I do professionally, then link it back to my web site!


:(Doy, failed to understand in my last suggestion.) Would a sub-list help? e.g.
:* {{Cite web |title=Crowdsourcing |url=https://globaltcn.utk.edu/crowdsourcing/ |website=GLOBAL Bryophyte & Lichen TCN Project}}
:** {{Cite AV media |url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P4T_wsCZ6Sysr7eI-kiCsWvdhVDcy8oS/view |title=Collector Profile: Margaret Sibella Brown |date=August 25, 2023 |last=Zwingelberg |first=Miranda |type=Video |publisher= |via=}}
:<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== What if I use newspapers.com and the newspaper got its information from USA Today? ==
Hope this helps. [[DMD]]
----


Please look at the citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ridesharing_company&diff=1264345477&oldid=1263935680 here] and tell me if I did it right. The ''[[Asheville Citizen-Times]]'' is where I read it but the reporter does not work for that paper.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
First, plagarism and copyright violation are covered elsewhere, so for the sake of discussion,
let's assume those issues aren't involved.


:Looks good to me. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia articles need a lot of formal citation. An encyclopedia article,
in general, presents common knowledge within a field that could lead to dozens of citations.
I don't particularly feel the need to mention that I perused several books or web sites to verify
that sort of thing. Perhaps the urge for formal citation comes from the academic backgrounds
of many of the contributors, where the [[meritocracy]] of intellectual credit is more strongly
felt than in most other areas, and is highly formalized?


::Okay, thanks. I just think it looks weird. It looks as if you're on page A6 of USA Today.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
If a topic within an article is obscure, controversial, or just wants emphasizing, the wiki
:::It's correct as written, but if you don't like it, you could swap in the original: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/11/15/blackwolf-armed-driver-rideshare-service-texas/76331189007/ [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
format encourages an informal citation style ("[[Professor Smith]], in his definitive [[Opus 497]],
::::That works here, but I have encountered cases where only the newspapers.com link works if one wants to see the article.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 19:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
indicated that blah blah ...").
:::I might also suggest use a more appealing layout; please try uploading it in a single line to improve its appearance. That would look great Thank you! [[User:DerryGer120|DerryGer120]] ([[User talk:DerryGer120|talk]]) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't understand what you're asking.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Titles with line breaks ==
An encyclopedia article usually cannot have the breadth or depth of a book or focused research
effort, (although Wikipedia and similar projects may change that view), so a "Suggested Reading"
or "For Additional Information" reference section may be very appropriate.


If the title of a ref source haa a line break, should we mark that explicitly with a {{tag|br|o}} tag, or leave a plain space? This relates to edits such ss {{diff|British Rail Class 350|prev|1265048743|my edit here}} and other similar. Notifying {{u|Maurice Oly}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1F98C; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
To summarize, my feeling is that citations are only appropriate where the sense of the content
can be clearly attributed to a particular work, but otherwise should not be a big deal -- with
many editors reviewing articles, needed citations will likely appear later if not in the
original article.


:I usually substitute a colon, full stop, or ndash. I don't remember where the guidance is, but punctuation in source titles can be conformed to our own style (and often is: I see Citation bot modifying curly quotes to straight quotes all the time, even though they render the same in citation templates). [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 21:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Just my rambling opinion.... <small>--[[hornlo|loh]] (2001-07-05)</small>

----
Sources are good for traking serious scholarship, research, history, etc. But a large number of articles here aren't that; they are simple explanations of things the reader might be unfamiliar with, but about which we know something. I think "usefulness" is the most important criterion here, rather than rigorous scholarship. What is a useful "source" to cite for a article containing one paragraph explaining that [[Robert Heinlein]] is a [[science fiction]] author and listing his stories? An article about any subject should certainly point out important works on that subject, whether or not those were the sources of the information in the article. Typically any expert's knowledge of a subject will come from dozens of sources, many of which are very good in general and many of which are too specific to be of any use to newcomers, and much of it even the expert may not remember where it came from. If I'm writing about [[poker]] strategy, it would be unthinkable not to include some mention of David Sklanky's ''Theory of Poker'' and Mike Caro's ''Book of Tells''; but if I happen to use an example from a game I played last week, will I even remember that something obscure like that Ray Zee's ''Seven Card Stud High-Low for Advanced Players'' had a chapter on the theory behind that particular play with a similar example? If I did remember, is it useful for ordinary readers to know that if that book is otherwise not that useful to them? --[[Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]]

----
Just a question about formatting. What is the proper (in Wikipedia) way to acknowledge a source in the body of the article? Do we have a way to make footnotes? Should we use the HTML href and name tags to refer to items in the bibliography at the end of the article? An example of something I've done that I'm not happy with is at the beginning of [[fractal]].
More simply: does Wikipedia need a standard for quotations and references?


----
Some of the more serious articles have had numbered references in footnotes, and I don't see a problem with that. Unfortunately, the software does not yet allow page-internal links, so we can't link to them, but numbers should be fine. I don't tink we should rigidly follow CMS, though. This is a new medium, and we should explore new methods. For example, standard bibliographies don't include ISBNs. In paper books, that makes sense, because library catalogs are organized by author, topic, etc. On the web, that's monumentally stupid, because ISBNs are the key to every online database like Amazon. Let me clean up the fractal article and see if you like the style. --[[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]]

-----
Yes, ISBNs must be included, they are far more important than the standard bibliographic entries which are obsolete - easily looked up given the ISBN. Same for ISSN. There are reference standards used for other online systems, check out [http://www.bookfinder.com bookfinder] if you really want to find everything there is. We should be assuming that such obscure sources would need to be found somewhere like that, and it deals nicely with both current and out of print books - you could do worse than add bookfinder and google searches to every page. -24

:ISBN's must be included and are the only thing needed, along with the page number, for a citation. Giving more than that just increases the chance of erroroneous citattions. Somewhere in the editing guides is a note that ISBNs don't count after a book goes out of print as if the Library of Congress didn't exist. It would be great if someone wrote a method to look up ISBNs on the LOC, making citations simple and (more) foolproof. (I know this doesn't cover 1865 Sunday School teachers' texts but it will do for modern books.) -- [[User:Richj|Rich J]] 22:59 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::Author and title should be given, as ISBN's are not "the only thing needed" because they may not be unique. I have encountered at least 3 books which had the same ISBN as a different book, or at least Amazon and Half.Com thought so (perhaps they bought ISBN data from the same source). Whatever the reason for apparent ISBN duplication, we can't depend upon reality or other sites being able to uniquely identify a book based on ISBN. -- [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 12:11, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:::I guess you are right. I thought the LOC was the arbiter for ISBNs. But now that it has been privatized to Amazon we will be limited to whatever ISBNs the operator types in. Who knew that <I>Gone With the Wind</I> was the same book as <I>Cauliflower Your Mouth to Health and Happiness</I>. I suggest we use Amazon lot numbers as our single reference. -- [[User:Richj|Rich J]]

-----
Write your draft, find your controversy, pick the extremes as sources, and find the foundation. -24

There are a few people here who think they are entitled to source on demand, or that their suspicion makes them experts on a topic, e.g. they can't tell that "fiat" and "military fiat" are the same thing, they can't tell that "bioregional" and "ecoregional" are the same thing, and various other failures of cognition may apply. Dictionaries may be interested in these distinctions, but if we are, it's a sign that incompetents are getting into editing. It's fair to fix and add synonyms, but there are people out there deleting whole articles because it doesn't fit their pet terminology.

:24, never assume what people do or do not think or understand. Thank you. [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]
::I will do so every minute of every day for the rest of my life, because it's unavoidable. We can't live examining each others' motives in infinite depth. I can cite specific examples of the behavior noted, but let's not get into it, as I didn't name names - for a reason. I think this behavior has settled down somewhat. 24

As to frequency of source quoting, there are lots of people who simply don't understand what they read and object to a line here and a fact there. Fine. Forget them. Over time, factual errors will be corrected by pedants and unless they're absolutely central to the argument (as they shouldn't be, an encyclopedia article should never be describing anything so narrowly causal as to hinge on a single fact or example) they don't affect the rest of the article.

:You are assuming two things here: 1: that you do understand, and 2: that since someone disagrees with you, they must not understand. See the above. [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]
::I don't see how anyone could 1. get by every day without believing that they understood the things that their lives depended on or where they had very outstanding success in the past, nor 2. mistake, as you have, a problem with a narrow range of "lots of people" (a clique), for a problem with all humanity.

Various extremely controversial topics, notably politics and religion, but in matters of the state and its use of power also economics and psychiatry, are going to necessarily require an extremely careful choice of terms. Even just to choose the terms from one side of a debate, e.g. using a word like say "sociopath" which hsa many meanings, is taking a side. Same issue as "vandal" or "miscreant" or whatever. A good example is the way a Marxist says "means of production" and a classical economics says "factors of production" - to the classical, labor is just another factor, a commodity. to most people in the world, they don't want to be treated as such with no regard to their creativity, family, social ties, etc.. That's a simple example. A more complex one arises every time you get into debates about God, e.g. many atheists will vehemently deny it's a faith even though it clearly is, the neutral position is called "agnostic" (not caring and considering both theist and atheist positions to be based on a foundation axiom that they made up).

So when making that kind of claim, on that kind of topic, attribute where you can - the debates are controversial enough you should be able to do that. But don't become afraid to write the text itself, to lay out relations between the positions of various experts, etc., there is always glue, and always trust in writing and reading. Anyone who claims otherwise and thinks they deserve to have a citation on demand is just incapable of trust and ought to be ignored.

:yes, attribution is important. This, 24, is where your own writing on controversial subjects is at its weakest. And your opinion on whom I ought to trust is completely irrelevant. [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]
::if you insist on citation on demand, well, there are many many long and weird articles without citations, including most of Larry's. There are some profound issues with his POV on some questions, but I don't believe that I can just bug him to tell me why he believes what he believes about the topic, whenever I want. Attribution only becomes "important" when you don't trust. Thus, people may expect more of it from me than Larry. Fine. That helps to improve the articles. They may resent this requirement of improving articles. Fine. They can do something else with their time, and others will step in. You don't seem to realize that my "own writing on controversial subjects" is *deliberately* weak on attribution. It's a *policy*. Note that there are many articles I've written that are quite over-attributed. But if the topic is controversial, why sully MY credibility with that of the sources? Fewer the better, until I know *why* the topic is controversial. Then the article can improve drastically as I focus on neutralizing places where a POV was unintentionally taken.

On controversial topics, once you know what the controversy actually is at the moment, you should be able to join forces with someone with an opposing point of view and nail down two or three sharply opposed references, and a foundation you all believe in. That obviously won't happen on the first pass, but you will identify who is actually concerned to represent the topic fairly, and who is simply insisting on their own view or whta they learned in high school as "neutral", and who is hopelessly stuck in some systemic bias. You will also find out that certain people hate you, your politics, your attitude, or your viewpoint based on things written in talk files. Fine. Let them howl.

This project cannot solve its social problems without a means of [[m:governance]] and there is seemingly zero interest in avoiding a devolution to anarchy or expanding discussion of governance beyond a clique, so forget those concerns. Push to the limit of neutrality as you understand the field in the real world, and ignore the people here who think they know what neutral means.

The correct way to find what is neutral is not by prescription but by successive refinement. In that view, sources go on at the end, not at the beginning, although if you don't have two or three trusted names in an article, you don't give your opponent anything to hinge on. So try to do that.

24

:Your comment encouraging people not to give sources so that opponents have nothing to hinge on indicates that you are not interested in dialogue, or compromise;
::ROTFL - the comment says the opposite, but in a way designed to trap people like you into revealing your biased way of reading. Obviously anyone who reads that sentence with all those negatives can interpret it as "give those trusted names" or "do not give those trusted names". you chose the latter, but I read it the former way. 24

and so indicates to me that you are here not to reach consensus, as you pretend interest in (after all, what is anarchy based on) but to push your own agenda. Mull on that if you need to. [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]
:I don't, although I appreciate your answer which illustrates your assumptions. I am extremely interested in [[consensus process]] but note that it is poorly understood here. I am interested also in [[m:governance]] but I am told that [[m:Systemic Bias in Wikipedia]] does not exist or is irrelevant, and comes with a [[monarchy]] appointed long before I got here. This is all very funny, but it has nothing to do with consensus or preventing anarchy. What I need to mull on, is whether I am wasting my time educating people in consensus, why it is not unanimity, and why it is not monarchy either. I have yet to see anyone here outline what the[http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Governing_Ontological_distinction Governing Ontological distinction] actually is, that makes them believe that a source needs to be cited, versus not. 24
----
24 - not on the first pass - too often, impressive-looking citations and references make people accept nonsense or heavily discredited views that were popular 200 years ago. So, find out what the controversial statements are, and only then attribute where required, simultaneously indicating who said what on the controversial matters - KQ's concern can be best dealt with by realizing we are not a community but a market... and have no "opinion"...

== Citing yourself as a source? ==

What's the story on the external links in [[PUCCAMP]], please? The images and info are great, although I don't like having pictures before any text, and it needs to be put into complete sentences, but I'm a little dubious of having a foreign-language link without mentioning that it is on the article page, and I'm a lot dubious about the link to the contributor's résumé -- since when are our articles signed? -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 01:30 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

:I've removed the signature to the talk page, and mentioned that the site is in Portugeuse. --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]

Why keep it on the talk page? It's already on that user's user page, and we can get there from the history. Do we all get to put our links on the talk pages of articles now? Is that only for the new ones we start, or is that for ones we edit, too? Only major edits, or minor ones, too, like the ones I only put an image in? And am I restricted to linking it to my résumé, or can I link it to my entry in ''Who's Who in America'', too? -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 07:15 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

:Well look, if you want to remove it from the talk page, then do so, it won't bother me. And if you want to try adding links to the talk page of everything you edit, then try it and see what happens (my guess is they'll be removed if it's done en masse rather than just on one ocassion by a newcomer who doesn't know better). --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]

I wasn't going by the newbie's putting it there: I was going by [[User:Chris mahan]]'s ratifying it and your keeping it on the 'talk' page, and now we have [[User:Maveric149|mav]] saying it's okay to have attributions on the 'talk' page. I am surprised at that (as you must be, given your prediction such postings would be removed), because I thought the 'talk' page was for discussions about the subject of the article and 'user' pages were for claiming credit for articles, but the only way I'm going to learn is by asking. -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 15:01 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

:No, you can also "observe a lot by watching&quot; as [[Yogi Berra]] might say (see [[Yogiisms]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]

:Normally, I would just remove the credit altogether rather than put it on talk (in fact I have done this a couple of times just now) - what can I say, I'm fickle. Personally, I probably wouldn't move article credits from the talk page (there are better things to be doing), but others might. I think there are some cases where we have copyright clearance to use something, and that goes on the talk page - such credits shouldn't be removed, of course. Otherwise, I don't think it's a very big deal - I can't speak for others. --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]

----

So, what's the home page for genocide? -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 16:17 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

----
Inserted into the article by Lee Daniel Crocker and removed by Stephen Gilbert:

:''(The Open Directory Project database would be excellent for this if it were actually open, and not under AOL's control. A wiki/FDL/public domain web directory would be an excellent complement to Wikipedia.)''

Point of order: Bomis does, in fact, sponsor a free Web index known as the [http://www.3apes.com/ 3apes directory]. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 04:42 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== Paid references ==
I need the help of somebody who connects through a commercial ISP or through work, ''not'' from a library or school. Can you access the URL http://www.brenda.uni-koeln.de/php/result_flat.php3?ecno=1.1.1.1
and do you get loads of data about alcohol dehydrogenase? [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 20:51 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

:I'm at home - I get a login page with that URL. I tried to register but it gave me the choice of academic or commercial, I'm neither - so chose commercial and was blocked (not available to commercial users without licensing) -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 21:02 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

::Thanks, I guess we can't use that site as external reference then. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 21:11 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

:::There is an interface, but material is not available unless you register and pay up. -- [[User:Egil|Egil]]

: We use books as references, and last I heard you had to pay for them. Reference away.
: Plus, working on wikipedia counts as "academic" - if you twist the definitions enough... :) [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]

:::Ever heard of libraries?

:::But by all means, a reference for money is 1000 times better than no reference. -- [[User:Egil|Egil]] 22:05 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:33, 25 December 2024

How to cite something in newspapers.com?

[edit]

What's the right way to generate a URL for a publicly-viewable clipping in newspapers.com? Cannonball (Milwaukee Road train) had a reference that linked to https://www.newspapers.com/image/1066814482 but that gets you to "You need a subscription to view this page" if you're not logged in. So I logged into my account and generated a clipping, which has a URL of https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-waukesha-county-freeman-cannonball-c/159032901/ which is only marginally better; if you're not logged in, it gets you to an image of the page that's too small to read the type, and if you click on it, you're back to "Create a free account, or sign in". I thought the idea of a clipping was that it was publicly viewable. Am I just doing it wrong? RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, so far as I can tell, a clipping image is always the same width for logged-out viewers. So, if you're clipping one column, even if it's a long one, then the legibility is good. Clipping a whole page across will come out fuzzy. Wikipedia:Newspapers.com says that we're meant to use clippings rather than "/image/" links, so I've been doing it that way. Rjjiii (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rjjiii, clipping image can be seen by non-logged or logged-out viewers and you should take a news block for clipping instead of the whole page and use the "/article/" link. Here is an example (taken from a citation in WXYZ-TV)
<ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=L.A. |date=February 3, 1995 |title=Channel 4 newscasts take the ratings lead in Detroit |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012091020/https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |access-date=March 3, 2023 |work=[[Detroit Free Press]] |pages=3F, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-news-wins-r/156927271/ 6F] |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref> Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 09:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, the original article was laid out so as to span the full width of the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

doi for a conference paper

[edit]

This edit[1] introduced the new source given the name "Bill 2006". The source is a conference paper, but has a doi, so I used the cite journal template to generate the reference. That all seemed to work fine, but it produces an error message "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)". The template seems to provide the best result for someone who wants to check the reference, but, of course, there is no journal. Is there a solution to this problem?

Incidentally, there is some reason to use caution in citing conference papers. However, this example has been cited by others in a way that supports it as an RS, and it is written by a leading authority in the field. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not published in a journal you shouldn't be using cite journal, you're looking for cite conference. There's generally no editorial control over conference papers, as you would have with a journal article. So it's reliability is mostly on the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "There's generally no editorial control over conference papers": [citation needed]. Maybe this is true for some fields but it is far from universal. The computer science conferences I'm familiar with are highly selective and have a strict editorial process involving multiple independent peer reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This also applies to the military history ones I am familiar with. They have strict editorial processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said generally, as it's in no way a universal situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
{{cite conference |last1=Bill |first1=Jan |date=2006 |section=From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600 |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Bockius |title=Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006 |doi=10.13140/2.1.5120.3204}}
Bill, Jan (2006). "From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600". In Bockius, Ronald (ed.). Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006. doi:10.13140/2.1.5120.3204.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. The point about conference papers and their reliability is dealt with in this case by tracking the classification used in the paper to later peer-reviewed articles that reference the conference paper. The classification is clearly adopted as a useful way of thinking. It is not presented in the Wikipedia article as a definitive classification as the supporting peer-reviewed material does not make it clear whether or not that is the case. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested, @David Eppstein, @Hawkeye7, @ThoughtIdRetired, @Trappist the monk: You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Conference proceedings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the page watchlisted and have been following the discussion, but I don't have anything to add at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source that's split across multiple URLs / sites?

[edit]

How does one cite a source that is available online but only in fragmentary form? e.g. a single 10-chapter work with chapters 1-5 at SomeSite.org and chapters 6-10 at AnotherSite.com?

The specific example this is in reference to is the book Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines. It's online at [2] except for chapter/section 23 which is missing on that site but is online on a different site at [3]. Alex Hajnal (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do something like what I did at Molasses Reef Wreck, with in-line citations pointing to different entries in a References section. You should create a citation for the main book, with a sub-citation for the bulk of the book, and a second sub-citation for chapter/section 23. Then have the in-line citations point to the appropriate entry in the References section. Let me know if you need help on the details. Donald Albury 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at what you suggested however it doesn't seem like a good fit for the existing article (which uses a single unified References section).
I'm thinking something like the following as existing references (of which there are many) won't need to be changed; new or updated references can all use the same ref but append the page or section number e.g. [1]: 18–3  (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|18-3}}) or [1]: §18  (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|§18}}).
* [[IBM 034]]: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933<ref name=MMA>{{cite book |title=Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines |publisher=IBM |year=1936}}<br />
Single book divided into separate pamphlets:
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-00.pdf |title=AM-0 Introduction (revised)}}
* (other sections skipped for this example)
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-24.pdf |title=AM-24 International Automatic Carriage}}
</ref>
This renders as:
  • IBM 034: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933[1]
Thoughts? Alex Hajnal (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines. IBM. 1936.
    Single book divided into separate pamphlets:

Citing an mp4 video?

[edit]

I cited a A/V presentation packaged as an mp4 video in Special:Diff/1263609252. The mp4 is the meat of the source, but all the metadata is on an HTML page that's frankly, kind of sketch. I wanted to make sure I got links to both parts, if for no other reason than to make sure IA picked up the mp4. My first thought was to just add the 2nd URL to some field in the {{cite web}}, but that generated CS1 errors. I ended up cramming a {{cite AV media}} next to the {{cite web}}, which is itself pretty yucky. Any suggestions on how to do this better? RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Doy, failed to understand in my last suggestion.) Would a sub-list help? e.g.
Remsense ‥  23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if I use newspapers.com and the newspaper got its information from USA Today?

[edit]

Please look at the citation here and tell me if I did it right. The Asheville Citizen-Times is where I read it but the reporter does not work for that paper.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Remsense ‥  17:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I just think it looks weird. It looks as if you're on page A6 of USA Today.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's correct as written, but if you don't like it, you could swap in the original: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/11/15/blackwolf-armed-driver-rideshare-service-texas/76331189007/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works here, but I have encountered cases where only the newspapers.com link works if one wants to see the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might also suggest use a more appealing layout; please try uploading it in a single line to improve its appearance. That would look great Thank you! DerryGer120 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're asking.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles with line breaks

[edit]

If the title of a ref source haa a line break, should we mark that explicitly with a <br> tag, or leave a plain space? This relates to edits such ss my edit here and other similar. Notifying Maurice Oly. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually substitute a colon, full stop, or ndash. I don't remember where the guidance is, but punctuation in source titles can be conformed to our own style (and often is: I see Citation bot modifying curly quotes to straight quotes all the time, even though they render the same in citation templates). Folly Mox (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]