Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

RFC:Should all claims have a citation?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should all claims, even claims of the type "Paris is the capital of France" have an inline citation to a reliable source? An edit by User:WhatamIdoing and another edit by User:HaeB add the new advice partially reverted a bold change to the long-standing statement, which has been present in this guideline since Kotniski re-wrote its lead back in August 2011: "However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am a little confused by the responses of 'oppose', when this appears to be a 'yes/no' question? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They are opposing the inclusion of this rather strong statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of all claims having a citation

• No. Citing well-known uncontroversial claims adds a clutter of footnote numbers or parenthetical citations for the reader, clutters the wikitext for editors, and makes it very difficult for editors to edit because they may not have a collection of elementary school textbooks to support claims that are too well known to be mentioned in reference works intended for adults. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The existing policy, which has been in force for as long as I can remember, is that all facts are "attributable", i.e. editors must provide sources to back them when requested to do so. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the edits for being ambiguous, incomplete, and even over-arching, and certainly undiscussed. A rollback might be appropriate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Did we not formerly have a clear summary statement that citation is required for direct quotations, close paraphrases, controversial claims, and material challenged or likely to be challenged? Have we not formerly distinguished verifiability (as potentiality) from actual attribution (citation)?
  There has been a long chain of edits, but especially in the last three weeks, which however well-intended, and however obviously good they seem to individual editors, have not been discussed, and are not reconciled with other viewpoints. All these divergent interpretations of material poorly conceived in the first place has led to a large increase of muddledness. It seems necessary to have yet another deep, intense discussion of interpretatons and concepts, and of structure and approporiate level of prose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Jc3s5h, you have inadvertently mis-reported the facts; I have corrected the RFC statement accordingly. I have no love for this sentence or for its distortion of the line between what is verified and what is verifiable. However, I didn't write it, and if you (all) didn't notice that it's been present in this guideline for the last four years, then that's certainly not my fault. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Requiring citaton after every sentence or every individual "fact" or piece of information no matter what context is imho the notion that we can have a foolproof formal verification approach, but that is in practice hardly workable and just creates a formalistic bureaucratic mess.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I support the notion that everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable at the point of reading (verifiable in place = citation in close proximity). However, the current citation system makes that difficult without detracting from the readability of the articles, as well as degrading their writability. There are two main problems with the citation system which, if solved, could go a long way toward satisfying everyone. The first I'll refer to as the "text block boundary problem". Citations typically follow assertions they support, and punctuation provides a visible boundary in English which helps to separate those assertions. However, in an electronic medium, we need not be limited by English punctuation as the delimiter. If we could arbitrarily designate text blocks which are supported by a citation, that would, for instance, allow us to cite at the paragraph or section level, which would go a LOOONG way toward decreasing citeclutter. This is sort of the opposite approach to deconvoluting text into discrete facts; it's rather saying "write it so it is good, then overlay citations to support what you've written ... we are not there with the current citation system. The second I'll refer to as the "citation reusability problem". Citations are only reuseable within a single article at present. Relieving ourselves of that so that one citation can be reused across multiple articles would reduce the amount of wikitext required in each article, thus reducing citeclutter further; though the impact of this would be much less than the first citation approach revision. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• No In an article I had been working on, I had referenced (as a footnote 3 key references. I then provided specific citations for critical details abd for material from other sources. This was deemed unacceptable. In consequence, the article citations increased from about 300 by about 2.5 times. There are other ways to skin a cat. Linked articles must be verifiable but are not considered verifiable? The current criteria (in their application) are somewhat arbitrary and arbitrarily applied to assess the quality of an article. An article with a citation at the end of each paragraph is nominally fully referenced - even if the reference only supports (or doesn't) the last sentence. But two paragraphs, where the second is a quote (complete with citation) that supports the first paragraph isn't properly referenced unless it too has the (same) citation added. I would add that, as well as quotations: dates, times and specific numbers are also critical pieces of information and need to have citations in line where the information is given. Articles should be able to withstand scrutiny wrt the 'accuracy' of information; however, it should not become an absurd, pedantic, dogmatic exercise. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is accepted both in Wikipedia and in scholarly writing in general that if a claim is repeated (for the readers convenience) in more than one location in an article, it is only necessary to provide a citation for one instance. That's assuming the claim even needs a citation; widely known facts don't need citations at all. But it's also accepted that each Wikipedia should be self-sufficient with citations. As for Cinerella157's question "Linked articles must be verifiable but are not considered verifiable?" indeed, Wikipedia is not a reliable source so a link to another Wikipedia article doesn't count as a citation, it's just a navigation aid. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This was not a question but an observation. I understand the argument that is made for not relying on links. As an example, I refer to the following sentence: " Colonel Leif Sverdrup was awarded the Silver Star[76] and the Distinguished Service Medal[77] for his efforts in reconnaissance and construction of air strips in New Guinea, including those at Fasari, Embessa and Pongani.[78]" I do not believe this to be particularly controversial. Initially, I presumed this was supported by the link, which covered the matter in detail and is fully referenced. The three references were subsequently added when it was pointed out that the link was insufficient.
    • On the presumption that something (claim, direct quote, paraphrase, etc.) needs to be cited, I think every instance should be cited. This is partly to avoid the problem of a shared citation being deleted, but also because citations should be close to the material cited, so that the reader does not have to search through the article for them. But perhaps you were thinking of full citations? Only one of those is needed per source, with specific citation [verb] using a short cite to the full citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I have referred to a section (and sub-sections) in an article which was a sequence of events compiled from three sources, which are themselves, sequences of events. These were cited once for the section with the note that the section had been compiled from these sources. In line citations were then added for 'critical' information or information drawn from other sources. Some paragraphs may not have had any in-line citation but were supported by this note. This was replaced with more 'conventional' (by WP standards) in-line (short) citations. In consequence, virtually every sentence and sometimes individual phrases had to be individually cited - frequently linking to multiple references. There was no increase in verifiability. It was more a matter of appearance and satisfying a particular interpretation of the WP policy which appears to be widely held. Furthermore, this 'standard' appears to be applied quite arbitrarily as a big stick, without reference to the actual verifiability or controversial nature of material. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• No. Inline cites for noncontroversial basic knowledge interfere with readability and exposition. When the same fact appears in nearly identical terms in 15 different basic references, it's kind of silly to pick one over the others. This is an especially acute problem in articles on mature areas of mathematics and science, which should use facts distilled from general references. For material closer to the state of the art, a greater density of inline cites may be useful. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • An inapplicable comment, as "noncontroversial basic knowledge" does not require citation in the first place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The current version of the guideline says otherwise. Well almost. The current version says "editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia" [emphasis added]. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - the following two essays explain it well: Wikipedia:When_to_cite and Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 00:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h::@Trovatore::@Kmhkmh: please see here - [1] or else just WP:POLCON - on disagreement in understanding guidelines and policy. Since it's possible the wikipedia pages are in conflict in any case, which means nobody is relying on a sound agreement to begin with, unless they understand that fact.

• No: Claims that are not challenged or likely to be challenged are probably common knowledge or obvious, and thus, an inline citation just is unnecessary. For the "Paris" example, very few reasonable people will ever challenge the fact that Paris is the capital of France, and the article on Paris can be wikilinked for the tiny minority that challenge it. Esquivalience ^t 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevant policy

The following information represents things which i thought important for the discussion - including the locations and some copies (with highlights) from within wikipedia which i found relevant to a discussion on whether claims should have citations, which i made in order that any discussion might proceed on the basis of evidence and actual facts of the subject under discussion, which all interested persons might together be able see easily, therefore obvious and known to everyone. Whalestate (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

key words

verifiable

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/verify - "Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/verify?q=verifiable#verify__10 - Middle English (as a legal term): from Old French verifier, from medieval Latin verificare, from verus 'true'.

synonymous meaning - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/verify - substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify, accredit, ratify, warrant, vouch for, bear out, bear witness to, give credence to, give force to, give/lend weight to, justify, vindicate; make sure, make certain, check

see also : http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=verify&allowed_in_frame=0

Five pillars

WP:5P

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia.....

pillar 3. An essential part of something that provides support.

Second pillar

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view ...

All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons.

Third pillar

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute ...

Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.

Fifth pillar

Wikipedia has no firm rules ...

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception

Copyright

Copyright

Wikipedia:Principles

[2]

The English Wikipedia does not have a single, definitive statement of the community's values and principles

Wikipedia:Core content policies

WP:CCPOL

2.Verifiability (WP:VER) – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.

3.No original research (WP:NOR) Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

WP:V

"This page in a nutshell:Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1 - This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source.

Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true. actually i just re-wrote this statement, since it is written incorrectly, i'm sure, in edit 18:35, 19 April 2015

the statement now reads:

Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified this firstly with a source

the 18:35, 19 April re-write is in no way a change of policy, it is just the correct wording of the policy, as it stands. Whalestate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – I think there are a few problems with the "Editors may not..." part. As a minor point, "Firstly" is kind of stilted. Also, the "unless" doesn't follow. If editors have verified the content beforehand, then they aren't adding or deleting solely because of what they believe. Finally, I don't care so much for "Editors may not..." as the nutshell of this policy. I contributed to Wikipedia for several years before I got around to reading the policies, and nobody complained. Instead of the policies, I read the MOS. That's because the MOS contains information that is actually useful for someone who wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, instead of being a list of things that are forbidden. I think it would be nice if we had more suggestions about how to write good content and less of the "Editors may not..." attitude. That is, if we want editors to actually read the policies. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)|

Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information (statement of Jimmy Wales 2006)

"...There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html (note 5 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalestate (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 April 2015

@Whalestate:, you have inserted a third-level heading, Relevant policy, under the second level heading RFC:Should all claims have a citation?, which makes your stuff part of that discussion. But your stuff seems to have nothing to do with the RFC; indeed, I can't figure out what it is about. Compose an appropriate introduction to your stuff and move it to an appropriate heading. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: I have added a comment at the place you linked Whalestate (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Future of WP:CITEVAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently the citation templates CS1 and CS2 have removed support for small caps in citations as used by several citation formats such as LSA. The argument was that the MOS does not allow smallcaps in citations. A discussion about including an exception was closed as having consensus to not allow Smallcaps in citations. This means that certain citation styles would not be allowed, which of course goes against both the letter and spirit of WP:CITEVAR. So this requires a discussion of the future of WP:CITEVAR. Therefore I propose an RfC to decide which of the following options to implement:

A - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be removed from WP:CITING SOURCES, we do not allow all citation styles only those that are supported by the MOS.

B - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be retained and enforced, the MOS should be amended to specifically allow for all citation styles, also those that use smallcaps.

C - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be reformulated to specifically exclude those citation styles that use small caps or any other features not supported by the MOS.

• The close has been modified, clarifying that MOS does not extend to references, meaning tha Smallcaps is allowed in references regardless of whether an explicit exception is included in the MOS. This makes this RfC Moot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

1. B. CITEVAR has had strong consensus in the past, and there is no pressing need to disallow certain citation styles. It is natural for editors to use the citation styles that are prevalent in their fields and it makes sense that linguistics articles should use LSA style and that citation templates, MOS and policy should provide support for this pluralism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

   Disagree with MOS providing for citation pluralism. The pluralism is provided by this guideline and the MOS should not apply to citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

2. B. What Maunus said. Why should I be prevented from using the Bluebook on legal articles? That style uses typeface and smallcaps to distinguish the types of reference being cited, whether a book or journal, newspaper, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

The question is badly formulated. CS1 and CS2 are styles. The people who write and use the templates decide, through consensus, how the templates should operate, just as the editors of the Chicago Manual of Style or the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association decide what those manuals should contain and which revisions should be made. If Wikipedia editors want to use small caps for author names, they can. If the crowd that supports the CS1 or CS2 templates don't want to support that, then the editors who like small caps can write citations without templates, or create a new family of templates that works the way they want. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You are misreading the question. We are not talking about CS1 and CS2, we are talking about MOS, and MOS is de facto being applied to citations and references. The close at SMALLCAPS says that the MOS prohibits smallcaps in citations, essentially voiding WP:CITEVAR. The CS1 was changed to remove the smallcaps options based on this reading of the MOS, which was upheld by the recent closure. So that means that either the MOS needs to be changed or WP:CITEVAR does - because under this reading we are not allowed to use any citation style that uses smallcaps, such as LSA. This is the problem: the current interpretation of MOS means that we are NOT allowed to make a new citation template that has smallcaps in authornames. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I added an exception here to the MoS page, as that seemed to be supported by the RfC. If it sticks, that should help you, though it doesn't solve the citation-template situation. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I made a minor change, to include Bluebook. If you disagree, let me know—I'm sure we can work something out. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that very much, but I wonder if it will stick, since the consensus was apparently unclear (I saw a very different consensus than what the closer apparently did).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus:—it looks like the closer clarified the closing statement to exempt citation styles from the MOS smallcaps rule. GregJackP Boomer! 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is good, now we just need a citation template that enables smallcaps then. And then when some day we have that I'll have to spend a couple of days of my life having to go through all the articles of WP:LInguistics and WP:Mesoamerica where the scaps parameter has now been removed by zealous template enforcers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: cs1|2 have for a long time been guided by MOS. Chapter and article, book and journal titles all comply with MOS:TITLE; date formats comply (with noted exceptions) to MOS:DATEFORMAT. It should not be surprising then that cs1|2 do not support small caps per MOS:SMALLCAPS.

When support for small caps was removed from cs1|2 the argument was not that the MOS does not allow smallcaps in citations. The argument was that MOS:SMALLCAPS discourages the use of small caps:

Avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps, when they have only a stylistic function.

For cs1|2 to comply with that portion of MOS, support of |author-format=scaps was discontinued.

That cs1|2 do not support small caps is not reason to think that WP:CITEVAR is endangered. As far as I am aware, cs1|2 have never directly supported LSA as a substyle. Sure, it is possible to achieve something akin to LSA style by including {{smallcaps}} templates in cs1|2 parameters but that corrupts the citation's metadata. Within the last month or so, {{cite LSA}} has been modified to render with small caps, an effort that may have been for naught. Because I wanted to know what LSA style looked like, I went hunting for an on-line LSA style guide. The first thing I found included this:

"1. Superfluous font-styles should be omitted. Do not use small caps for author/editor names, since they do not help to distinguish these from any other bits of information in the citation. In contrast, italics are worthwhile for distinguishing volume (book, journal, dissertation) titles [+ital] from article and chapter titles [-ital]."

— "Unified style sheet for linguistics" (PDF). Linguistic Society of America. 3 April 2007.

So here is the LSA style guide (or some part of it) explicitly saying that small caps should not be used in LSA citations. But, that may conflict with an apparently older document: "Language Style Sheet" (PDF). Linguistic Society of America. The former is available through a link from this page while the latter is not, suggesting that the latter may have been superseded. I can't speak to Bluebook, the other style that was linked with small cap styling in the recently closed RfC.

It seems that editors who wish to use LSA style should make an accurate determination of just what LSA style is and report their findings before this RfC goes much further.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:, I don't know about LSA, but I do know that it affects Bluebook, which is the citation style I use for the legal articles I create and edit. It uses typeface/caps as the method of distinguishing different types of works. As examples:

1. Cases. Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).
2. Constitutions. U.S. Const. art. III, § 3.
3. Statutes. Deptartment of Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 89-670, § 9, 80 Stat. 931, 944-47 (1966).
4. Books. Charles Dickens, Bleak House 49-55 (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853).
5. Consecutively paginated journals. David Rudovsky, Police Abuse: Can the Violence Be Contained?, 27 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 465, 500 (1992).
6. Nonconsecutively paginated. Thomas R. McCoy & Barry Friedman, Conditional Spending: Federalism's Trojan Horse, 1988 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 100.
7. Newspaper. Andrew Rosenthal, White House Tutors Kremlin in How a Presidency Works, N.Y. Times, June 15, 1990, at A1.

Exactly how am I supposed to use Bluebook if I can't use smallcaps? Also, please note that for Wikipedia, we use the Bluebook style for law reviews and academic writing, not the Bluebook style for court documents and legal memos. Typeface: Caps state: "The following are in Large and Small Caps: Authors and titles of books, including institutional authors. Titles of periodicals." I don't think that a citation style should be eliminated by inference, if it is to be eliminated then there needs to be a clear consensus on that issue, not by banning smallcaps (or italics, or underlining, or etc.). GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. As far as I know, cs1|2 has never supported either LSA or Bluebook. Small caps support was removed from cs1|2 because of MOS:SMALLCAPS. I don't think that I have ever made any statement for or against small caps except in reference to cs1|2. A quick scan of your contributions shows that you don't use cs1|2 so I don't understand why you are angry with me. Why do you assume that discontinued use of small caps in a citation template that you do not use means that you are forever prevented from using small caps for other purposes? My only purpose here is to refute the notion that cs1|2 is somehow at fault for the outcome of that other RfC. It is not, and should not be the whipping boy in this RfC.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first you say that smallcaps was not removed because MOSSMALLCAPS demands, it, and then you say that it was removed because of MOSÆSMALLCAPs - which is exactly why I wanted to have an explicit exception allowing smallcaps in references because if people think MOS:SMALLCAPS prohibits the use of smallcaps in references then they will keep removing them from my articles regardless of what citation template I use to make them with. LSA DOES use smallcaps in most of the publications they publish such as the journals "Language" and "Internaitonal Journal of American Linguistics" (here is the style sheet for Language[3], LSAs flagg ship journal, the "unified style sheet" you found is not actually being used in LSAs publications, but apparently was a recommendation that is not being followed). Also CS12 has NOTHING to do with this RfC, since it is about the MOS and the Citation policy. I think it is crappy that smallcaps was removed from CS1, but this rfc is about finding out whether the community wants to allow the use of smallcaps styles in articles or not. That is the basis for even beginning to make a citation template that supports smallcaps. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about cs1|2. You opened this RfC with an initial sentence that makes cs1|2 the subject. By doing so, you are, in effect, blaming cs1|2 for an apparent ban of all citation styles that use small caps. I suspect that the actual reason for this RfC is the outcome of that other RfC but that is nowhere mentioned in your RfC when it should have been the subject of the RfC's opening sentence.

I am not contradicting myself. You wrote: The argument was that the MOS does not allow smallcaps in citations. MOS:SMALLCAPS says nothing about citations per se, but it does say that writing with ... small caps, when they have only a stylistic function is to be avoided. Clearly, writing author and editor names in small caps in cs1|2 citations is styling so that functionality was removed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No it is not about CS1/2. The changes to CS1 and the arguments for making them motivated the discussion, but the discussion is about whether smallcaps are allowed or not which is the first requirement when finding out whether and how to implement that functionality in the future.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't angry, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. You are also correct, I did not understand that you were focused on the cs1/2 template issues and thought that you were commenting more broadly on smallcaps. My apologies, and I did not think that cs1/2 were responsible for the outcome. Indeed, I think the closing admin did not read consensus correctly and did not phrase the closing in a way that it could be implemented. GregJackP Boomer! 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Trappist the monk, could the small-caps option be restored to the template(s) from which it was removed? Per WP:CITEVAR, editors can choose to use small caps if they want to, and until recently were able to via the template(s). If that option could be restored for them, that would resolve the issue, rather than them having to do it manually or create a new template. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It could, but should it? cs1|2 have never officially supported LSA or Bluebook styles. Prior to the implementation of Module:Citation/CS1, editors used (improperly) {{smallcaps}} in author-name parameters to achieve the 'style'. With the introduction of Module:Citation/CS1 came |author-format=scap without discussion and without documentation. It is not clear to me that small caps functionality should be added to cs1|2 to support Bluebook style because the style looks nothing like cs1|2 and because Bluebook's primary proponent here doesn't use cs1|2. For LSA, there is {{cite LSA}} which presumably complies with the LSA style and does render portions of the citation in small caps.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never used CS1/2 with Bluebook, and really don't see how it would work. You would really need a completely new set of templates if you wanted to do it for Bluebook, and I don't know if it would be worth the time of the people who would have to create them. Not many people use Bluebook as their reference style. GregJackP Boomer! 15:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting titles of journal articles and book chapters in references

I've asked a question on the above over at WT:MOS. Aa77zz (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How should I avoid the "citation needed" item on inline links to web pages.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place

Paragraph "Language Support" shows a typical reference to a computing source that is entirely web based.

A typical example is:

The C language library math.h provides the function nextafter to calculate the next double.

and displays the "citation needed" at the end of the line.

However the link itself is the citation (and it known 'good'), so the comment is unhelpful clutter.

Adding a ref that would generate a superscript number means lots of duplication of information and doesn't help the reader at all.

(The other links are similar).

Please can someone advise how this should better/best be handled.

Thank you.

Paul A Bristow (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two problems.

The first problem was with the "Unit in the last place" article as it existed before your edit today. As an example, the "Language support" section has three claims, and some editor marked each of them with the {{fact|date=March 2015}} template. You say "However the link itself is the citation". What link? All the links in that section, except Math.ulp(double) and Math.ulp(float) are links to Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources; they don't count as citations.

The second problem is that your edit today caused the citation needed template to be associated with a different claim than before your edit, but you did not resolve the problem with the original claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK - I see now that you don't allow 'self-reference' to anything in Wikipedia.

So does the float_distance reference 5 now meet the Wikipedia desiderata?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place#Language_support

(The one below on ulp below does still need a citation, but this will only be possible when the next Boost version comes out and a full link can be provided).

(We still have a problem with providing an up-to-date link to the most recent version, but that's another issue that I am persuing elsewhere - now fixed). Paul A Bristow (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)