Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 38

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 </ref>. 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 |page=1, 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 - (Masem 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. --MASEM (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)

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 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, Matty.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)

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)

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.— 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. --MASEM (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)

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). — 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 [[Wikipedia:Red link|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. — 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 at parameter at Template:Cite web#In-source locations. 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 at=Search on Lee, Robert. 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 |at=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)

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. — 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)

(edit conflict) @Jesant13: 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. — 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)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Should we change the ref layout during the above bot work?. 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)

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 <ref name="Foo">, 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. — Makyen (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

Please review the RFC at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and 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.)

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. | last1=Nelson |first1=G.K. |last2=Lombardi |first2=M.A. |last3=Okayama |first3=D.T. 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)

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

• Nielsen FÅ (May 11, 2007). "Scientific citations in Wikipedia".
• Nielsen FÅ. "Clustering of scientific citations in Wikipedia" (PDF). (see especially table 1)
• and User:Fnielsen#Scientific_citations_in_Wikipedia.

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)

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? — 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. — fnielsen (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Some editors in the thread Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#What's the point with highly compressed Vancouver system citations? 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 Wikipedia: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#Year_suffixes, 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#Abbreviations. 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#Initials...."

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. — 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

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. --Redrose64 (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: Wikipedia: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 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)

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 <ref>...</ref> 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)

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 |title= 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)

@Sphilbrick: It's because the wrong template is being used. {{cite book}} etc. are intended only for full refs, not short; but conversion to {{sfn}}, 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 {{harvnb}} which would still sit inside <ref></ref>. For example, instead of

<ref name="Ikard 105">{{cite book|last=Ikard|pages=105–106}}</ref>

you would use

<ref name="Ikard 105">{{harvnb|Ikard|2005|pp=105–106}}</ref>

- notice that the year is included. --Redrose64 (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 importScript. – 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. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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 (<ref>..</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 Ark25 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)

Arthur Rubin - WhatamIdoing: 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)

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 {{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 {{cite book}} and {{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#References. Of the eight full citations, five are books; two are magazine articles; one is a website. All of them are linked from Shortened footnotes in the Notes section above. --Redrose64 (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)

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

@Torspedia: Please see WP:NONENG. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: 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)

(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."^[1] Although he thought (something), Shmoe ultimately felt that, "yada yada yada."^[1] Shmoe concluded his piece stating, "yap yap yap."^[1]

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."^[1]

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)

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#Law, 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)

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.

Cummings, M.L.; Marquez, J.J.; Roy, N. (February 2012). "Human-automated path planning optimization and decision support" (pdf). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70 (2): 116–128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.10.001.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the only online copy is through a paywall, set |subscription=yes - more at WP:PAYWALL. --Redrose64 (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.).

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 |deadurl=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 |subscription=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 |format=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:

{{cite journal |title=Human-automated path planning optimization and decision support |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581911001376 |deadurl=no |subscription=yes |archiveurl= http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/86954 |archivedate=2014-05-14 |first=M.L. |last=Cummings |first2=J.J. |last2=Marquez |first3=N. |last3=Roy |journal=International Journal of Human-Computer Studies |volume=70 |issue=2 |date=February 2012 |pages=116–128 |doi=10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.10.001}}

rendering:

Cummings, M.L.; Marquez, J.J.; Roy, N. (February 2012). "Human-automated path planning optimization and decision support". International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70 (2): 116–128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.10.001. Archived from the original on 2014-05-14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

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)

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius has made a change to Wikipedia: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#Date format consistency between body and reference sections. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 <ref name="Anderson1998">, change it to <ref name="Anderson1998 p. 2">). 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: <ref name=deady2005p62>{{Harvnb|Deady|2005|p=62}}</ref> and <ref name=HackRettig2006p200>{{Harvnb|Hack|Rettig|2006|p=[http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=IFNrC0lVLvAC&pg=PA172 172]}}</ref>, paired with matching {{cite book}}s with |ref=harv specified. These are from the Philippine–American War article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Plain and simple. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Placement of ref-related tags, on placement of reference-related inline templates (e.g. {{verify credibility}} and {{clarifyref2}}) inside or outside the <ref>...</ref> element.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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#Notes 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 <ref>Smith 2011, p. 10</ref> 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 url= 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#Notes.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: 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 ({{citation}} {{cite book}} {{cite journal}} {{cite web}}). The only citation-related templates that I have seen it in are the {{harv}} group, including {{sfn}}. This brings me to your last comment, "|loc= ... is (currently) actually a synonym for |page=". It's not a true synonym: {{harv|Smith|2014|page=123}} → (Smith 2014, p. 123) harv error: no target: CITEREFSmith2014 (help) but {{harv|Smith|2014|loc=123}} → (Smith 2014, 123) harv error: no target: CITEREFSmith2014 (help). They can coexist: {{harv|Smith|2014|page=123|loc=456}} → (Smith 2014, p. 123, 456) harv error: no target: CITEREFSmith2014 (help).

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 {{cite journal}} (and {{citation}} 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. --Redrose64 (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)

I come to this topic from discussions at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles.

Citation Style 1 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)

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