Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

When copying material a passage from one Wikipedia article to another, the person making the copy must re-verify any citations contained in the passage. If the source is not available to the copying editor, the copying editor should find a different source that the editor does have access to. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's questionable. In cases where someone is making a straight merge or directly copying material verbatim then there is no reason to reject sources that the copier is unable to access. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is clear: "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." If there is some non-access related reason to exclude a source then that's fine, but the danger in excluding all hard-to-access sources is that we limit the encyclopedia to material that has entered the internet since the 1980s and we cut off the ~8500 years of recorded history that came before the internet. There are an enormous number of notable topics that have next to no trace on the internet. Limiting the sourcing to modern internet-age sources is really shortsighted and is directly responsible for the systemic bias known as recentism. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not advocate rejecting hard-to-access sources, I just expect that a person who adds a citation to any source to have read the source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so if article A says Guy Fawkes died in 1606 and cites a book by Alan Haynes to prove it, that article A is not a reliable source for the death date of Fawkes, or for the contents of Haynes' book. So if I want to state in article B that Fawkes died in 1606, I should either read Haynes' book, or if I can't find it, read something else that verifies the death date. But it would be wrong for me to delete the death date from article A on the grounds that the source is a book rather than a web page.
I could sympathize with a view that merging articles isn't really adding new facts to an article, it's a form of rearranging an existing article, so probably the rules shouldn't be as strict for merges. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page then. Independent verification is a must for someone adding a source or using it in a new way. It's not as black-and-white when we speak of article rearrangement where nothing new is added, and sources are not used in new ways. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 I think the "hard to access" concept refers to whether a source is generally accessible. E.g., we allow sources that very few people can access (perhaps pay-to-view, or a single archival copy in the files of some museum). The general rule is still: cite where you read it, not where someone else read it. And in that sense you should not recycle material you have not verified yourself.
 But the issue present here is not very clear. If a subsequent editor merely rearranges an article, that would not seem to require verification. And certainly lack of access is insufficient ground for removing a source. But if one is writing a new article, then that is a new use, and one is not allowed to stand on a second-hand presumed verification by the original editor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And please realize that "hard to access" needs to be considered from two viewpoints here
*for SOURCEACCESS (part of V), it is from the viewpoint of the overall community of editors.
*for an editor copying from one article to another, it is from the viewpoint of that individual editor.
Consider my situation -- I live on a small island in the Philippines (sometimes Boracay, sometimes Romblon). I have zero access to libraries. The only paper books I have access to are those on my own bookshelf. For practical purposes, the only sources which are not difficult (impossible without great expense and long delays) for me to access are sources available for access online. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
And how does WP:AGF figure into this? Are editors considering copying sourced assertions from one WP article to another to doubt the good faith of the WP editors who placed those assertions and supporting sources into the copied-from articles, and to doubt the effectiveness of vetting by the WP editorial community? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that if you are moving a block of text (even as little as a single sentence) to another part of Wikipedia for reasons related to community consensus or for purely stylistic reasons then AGF requires you to maintain the refs as they exist regardless of your personal capacity to verify them. So for example if the Guy Fawkes article had been written but the Gunpowder Plot article had not and in talk it was decided that the Gunpowder Plot subsection was too large and should be split off to become its own article, then it would simply be a matter of rearrangement. You could create a new "Gunpowder Plot" article purely from material copied verbatim from "Guy Fawkes#Gunpowder Plot" (including refs to sources that are unavailable to you) and then go back and summarize the original subsection with a {{Main}} template at top. However if instead you wished to use the line "His lifeless body was nevertheless quartered" (which is backed up by an offline book that you Wtmitchell, for example, probably wouldn't have access to) to back up your claim in the article on quartering that "Guy Fawkes was quartered after his death by hanging" then it would be necessary for you to have actually read a copy of the source making the claim since you are using it in a new way.
Ultimately it boils down to whether you are simply rearranging existing material (in which case AGF and SOURCEACCESS dictates that you should leave the refs as they are) or whether you are using existing sources in a novel or transformative manner (in which case you definitely need to re-verify the original source). -Thibbs (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Though I would emphasize that AGF does not apply here. Assumptions of good faith, interpretive competence (often overreached), and accuracy (even the best of us can slip) in no way provide a free pass on the use of sources that someone else has read. There are all kinds of reasons for re-verifying a source (including subsequent correction or retraction of the source), and this should not be taken as impugning an editor's good faith, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well sure. Re-verifying a source is the best possible way of checking that the article meets WP:V. Source checking is not an assumption of bad faith. It's a good practice even though it's not required. And if you are unable to re-verify due to lack of access it doesn't follow that the source should be removed. Where you'd be stepping outside of AGF is if you were to remove all offline (or otherwise unavailable) sources under the claim that you suspect they were falsified. -Thibbs (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break of lengthening section (COPYWITHIN)

I disagree with the asserted requirement. If you are copying material from one Wikipedia article to another, then you should properly attribute the material in your edit summary ("Moved this paragraph from Example"), so that everyone knows that you aren't responsible for any of it, including the citations. Copying material is not the same as creating new material. New material requires sources that you are confident in; moving around someone else's material does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not pursuaded by WhatamIdoing. Also, since it is so difficult to search through a decade of edit summaries, I believe edit summaries should not be given any weight when it comes to citing sources; if the citation isn't in the article, it doesn't exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Your argument appears to contradict WP:COPYWITHIN, which specifies that citation is proper within edit summaries when copying material from one article to another, and which does not require editors to recheck the veracity of the underlying sources cited within the copied material. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Two different issues. One issue is re-verifying sources when material is copied from one article to another, so that incorrect information based on a made-up source, or a misunderstood source, is not propagated all over the encyclopedia. The other issue is, when copying material composed by a Wikipedia editor from one article to another, providing enough attribution to the composing Wikipedia editor to satisfy the attribution requirement of whichever copyleft license was in effect at the time the original Wikipedia editor added the passage. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:COPYWITHIN is not applicable here, being about copyright rather than verification. It makes no requirements about citations or the re-use of sources because it does not address those issues. I agree with WhatamIdoing to the extent that when copying material from another article one should provide attribution of the original authorship of the Wiki text. But copying citations into a different article is a new use of those citations, requiring re-verification. Look at it this way: each article stands complete in its sources, without relying on the sources, citations, or verification of citations done for other articles. One strong reason for requiring this is to prevent errors or failures to properly verify from propagating into other articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd quibble that it is applicable since it is about all "Copying within Wikipedia", but it's largely silent on the specific issue. The guideline is obviously focused on copyright and has a large "Attribution is required for copyright" section, but this is immediately followed by a puny "Other reasons for attributing text" section which should (but really doesn't) cover this situation. Still, the sentiment behind the first paragraph of "Other reasons" is on point. Surely if the good faith copying over of copyvio text (an actual crime) is allowed with attribution then the good faith copying over of erroneous citations (a mistake or dishonesty at worst) would also be allowed with attribution. The requirement to verify is only the affirmative duty of the original editor adding the material and a passive duty for the rest of us. But it's important to recognize that a novel/transformative use of an unverified source rather than a mere copying for purposes of rearrangement would make the novel user the original editor adding the material and would raise the affirmative duty to verify. Ironically the more you reword and transform a non-copyvio-checked passage the less need there is to check for copyvio, but the more you reword and transform a claim associated with an unverified source the greater the need to reverify that the source actually covers it. Anyway this situation doubtless happens here in Wikipedia and perhaps the guidelines should be clear on the matter. Would anyone be interested in helping draft something to expand COPYWITHIN to cover this situation explicitly? I've started a discussion here. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not applicable. COPYWITHIN is entirely focused on the attribution of Wiki-text to Wiki-editors, as required by the licensing. And as it should be, as verification of sources is an entirely different matter.
I remind you of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." If you copy material — and its citation — from another article, without going back to the original source, it is essentially a quotation of the article: "Wikipedia article [or editor So-and-so] says this, citing this source." Which violates WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources." Moving text around within an article is one thing. Copying it to another article is a different matter. To use a source to support material you are adding you are expected to have read the source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
And perhaps that needs a rethink in light of the reverification dilemma of ssomee WP editors and in light of of AGF (see here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
How are those things different? If I move sourced material from one section of an article to another section without reading the source, am I not trusting the source just as ignorantly as if I copied the material into another article? How does moving it to another article, instead of another section of the same article, transform the act of copying-and-pasting-without-reading into a policy violation? The destination of the paste varies, but the process itself is wholly identical. If the problem in the process is the "without reading" part, then that should be addressed; distinguishing between intra- and interarticle copy-pastes appears arbitrary. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
J. Johnson, the proposal I made is to add coverage of this kind of Copying within Wikipedia to WP:Copying within Wikipedia where it would be expected. You are right that the bulk of COPYWITHIN is focused on copyright issues. I think you are wrong that this is helpful to limit this broad topic to copyright issues alone. You said that "to use a source to support material you are adding you are expected to have read the source." That's not something anybody is disputing. The question is what is meant by "material you are adding". Are you adding material and do you need to reverify when you move a paragraph from the middle of an article to the end of the same article? Are you adding material and do you need to reverify when you WP:SPLIT a section off into its own article? Are you adding material and do you need to reverify whenever you WP:MERGE a stub into a parent article? For all three of those cases I would say that you are just moving text around instead of adding anything, and copied refs in those cases do not violate WP:CIRCULAR because you weren't citing Wikipedia - you were simply moving text and attributing the source of the original citation. But are you adding material and do you need to reverify when you copy a claim from one article into five other related articles without verifying? That's more iffy. And are you adding material that you need to reverify when you reword a claim and emphasize different parts of it for another article? I would definitely say yes to that. It would be helpful to have the community's on copied sources spelled out somewhere (e.g. in COPYWITHIN). -Thibbs (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Prototime: articles are independent and severable (think in terms of downloadable units), and therefore must be fully self-contained in terms of sourcing, in a way that the sections within an article are not. (E.g., a single full citation of a source suffices for all cites of that source within an article, but not across multiple articles.) Strictly speaking, if you merely copy (without reading/verfiying) a source from another article you are plagiarizing it, unless you provide attribution to the editor who originally verified and inserted it. But that would be relying on Wikipedia as a source, which is prohibited. Whenever you add something to an article you have a responsibility that cannot be shuffled onto another editor that added it to a different article. Look at it like this: we can go from Source to Article A, and Source to Article B, but not Source > Article A > Article B. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the topic is quite simple. You should verify sources to avoid mistakes/wrong citation. Wether the failure to lookup and verify a source qualifies as a kind of plagiarism is very disputed. Usually people who work in humanities regard it as plagiarism, while engineers and natural scientists regard it as formal shortcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.147.28.196 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2014‎

Arbitrary break of lengthening section (5 QUESTIONS)

J. Johnson: Could you clarify what you mean by "Whenever you add something to an article"? Specifically helpful would be if you could answer the following questions:

1 - In your estimation does material split from Article A and introduced verbatim into a newly created Article B constitute the sort of addition that requires reverification?
2 - If reverification is impossible for the editor performing the split, is it better for the encyclopedia to (a) attempt to corral all former contributors who introduced offline sources and request that they split their individual additions separately, or (b) should the split take place by only copying the portions supported by modern accessible online sources, or (c) would it be best to simply give up on the split in a case like this?
3 - Is there any difference between a split and a merge where material from Article A is copied verbatim into Article B?
4 - What if it wasn't a whole-article merge, but only a section from Article A that the community has agreed should be moved verbatim and without remnant to Article B?
5 - What if it wasn't a remainderless move but instead a duplication. For example let's say the community comes to a consensus that an identical header paragraph as used in Article A should be copied to articles B, C, and D related to the topic. Would that constitute the addition of new information?

These are the kinds of cases where I believe it is disuptable to say that any new information is being added. Some of these situations I would say are closely comparable to shifting sentences within an article. Others are more questionable. Either way, this issue should be clarified in the guidelines (at COPYWITHIN if it were up to me). -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, JJ, but I find it unconvincing. Under your reasoning that copying sourced material is functionally equivalent to adding new material (which must be cited-checked), it should make no difference whether the material is copied to the same article or a different article. And I continue dispute the underlying presupposition that copying material should be treated as adding new material. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing is correct. Jc3s5h's assertion doesn't reflect policy. The policy should not change.--Elvey(t•c) 00:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, it doesn't reflect actual practice. If I find a misplaced and source sentence in Article A, then the community doesn't think that there's anything wrong with moving it all, lock, stock, and barrel, to another page. In fact, WP:PRESERVE explicitly names "Moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article" as a desirable way of resolving problems in articles, with nary a word about "but if you can't access the source yourself, then you'll have to delete that good, encyclopedic, sourced information instead of preserving it, because you'd be a morally corrupt plagiarizer if you just copy it over to the page where it belongs".
One does hope that people will use their best judgment, and not spam text with ghost citations and other verifiability errors around. However, there's no requirement that they re-check all sources, especially for material that they reasonably expect to be correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. J. Johnson makes a valuable point that unverified claims from a Wikipedia article should never serve as the basis for the creation of new claims in a Wikipedia article, but claims that are mechanically copied verbatim solely for the purpose of shifting them (e.g. in Moves, Merges, Splits, etc.) really shouldn't be confused with the creation of new claims. Imagine for example that a consensus had formed to split the section on Guy Fawkes' early life into a new article. According to the the very strictest reading suggested above, if an editor like Wtmitchell (who previously noted a personal lack of access to offline sources) were to effect the split and was barred from copying over references unless reverified, the article would be left with 1 in 10 sources. Such a result is absolutely not an improvement to the encyclopedia. This is in clear distinction to a scenario where I decide to write a new article on "Treasonous collusion" and use the Guy Fawkes article as the inspiration for a section about the conspirators involved in the Gunpowder Plot, recycling the same refs without re-verifying them. -Thibbs (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When copying material a passage from one Wikipedia article to another, the person making the copy must re-verify any citations contained in the passage."(Jc3s5h). I don't think this is correct. Let us suppose that a person cuts and pasts a paragraph within a document in one edit -- we do not insist that they check the citations. Let us suppose that the editor does it in two separate edits because the paragraphs are in two separate sections, again we would not insist that the editor checks the citations. Providing (as WhatamIdoing has stated) that proper attribution is done between articles there is no difference). For example let us suppose that there has been an RfD in with the strong consensus at the RfD is that two articles should be merged with one becoming a redirect. If this hypothetical paragraph I have talked about is merged into another article providing that the original Wikipedia article is properly attributed, the merge will be done. I have yet to see a merge reverted because the editor doing the merge has not checked all the citations. If an editor, who was in a clear minority in the RfD discussion, was to revert the merge after an RfD because the merging editor had not personally checked the sources used in citations, the reverter would almost certainly be seen as disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A thought on the comment above "More importantly, ..." by WhatamIdoing. I have started, but have not finished, a self inflicted project that involves some Roman Catholic articles because some editors have copied paragraphs from one article to another with short citations, without copying the long citation with it. So there are a number of articles that are not properly cited. see Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations. Those are a classic example of how not to copy text between articles. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a Roman Catholic example. The Anno Domini article, which currently cites several sources to indicate there is uncertainty about whether the epoch of Anno Domini commemorates the birth or conception of Jesus. Let's say the citations are left as they are, but the article is reworded to say Anno Domini commemorates the birth of Jesus, period. That's just the sort of imprecise information that is apt to be copied to other articles, and would misrepresent the sources.
At the same time, I think merges and forks should be viewed as rearrangements of existing articles; it would be impractical to check the sources for merges and forks, and forbidding merges and forks would be bad for Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You are postulating a situation where edits to a source-supported assertion in an article which caused the assertion there to be contrary to the sources cited in support went undetected and uncorrected by the community of editors to that article, and offering that postulated situation in support of an argument to require reverification of material against cited sources prior to copying. I observe that this requirement would not address the basic problem in this postulated situation -- the presumed failure to detect and correct the problem (an edit contrary to cited sources which went undetected and uncorrected) in the article from which the material at issue would have been copied. This strikes me as not particularly on point here.
Re your second point, impractical seems to me to be a too-strong characterization here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
My example reinforces why each Wikipedia article is an unreliable source and should not be used as a source for any other Wikipedia article. When writing Wikipedia article B, we cannot presume that the information in Wikipedia article A is correct, nor that the statements in article A correctly reflect the sources cited in article A; we cannot even presume that the sources cited in article A even exist. The purpose of not treating Wikipedia articles as reliable sources is to prevent the bad articles from infecting the good articles.
As for reverifying citations when merging or splitting articles, it is impractical because many of the sources are likely to be print sources. It is unlikely that the editor performing the merge or split is the same one(s) who wrote the articles to begin with, so it is unlikely the merging/splitting editor will have access to the same print sources as the original editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So Jc3s5h, I'm curious where you draw the line from the list of 5 questions that I posed to J. Johnson above. It looks to me like you would consider situations like those described in questions 1 and 3 to be mere rearrangements, but what is your opinion on the scenarios in questions 4 and 5? I consider those to be much closer to the line. -Thibbs (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Thibbs' question 4 is a rearrangement. But Tibbs' question 5 requires special caution: usually the lead of articles does not contain citations; the supporting citations are contained in the later sections of the article that have been summarized in the lead. When there are citations in the lead, that usually indicates the information is especially contentious, and the citations have been put in the lead because IP editors are constantly wandering by and "correcting" the lead. Since the information is contentious, it should be reverified before being copied. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Jc3s5h is not very far off from the rest of the group at this point. Straight, zero-changes copying is okay. If you make changes (especially changes to the content, rather than grammar), then you need to know what you're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I would still say that a straight copy of a passage from article A to article B, that isn't a merge, should have citations reverified. So, for example, copying an explanation of what AD means from Anno Domini to Julian day would require any sources cited in the explanation to be reverified. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This sort of line-drawing is murky, and I don't quite understand the rationale for it. What makes copying material a "merge" or "split", which wouldn't require reverification in your view, as opposed to something different, which would require reverification? Is it merely the quantity of material being copied, or how related the articles are to one another, or something else entirely? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's hard to draw a bright clear line about when re-verification is necessary, but there are two fundamental facts that must be accommodated. One is that it is unrealistic to re-verify all the sources each time an article is edited, and this has never been the practice at Wikipedia. The other is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and if we pretend it is, bad articles will infect good articles. So editors need to use good judgement when accommodating these two facts. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To give a concrete example, I created the page on Nicola Alexandrovich Benois, the famous set designer at La Scala, by moving a paragraph from the article on his father, Alexandre Benois. Most of the new article is information that I found myself. But I kept two footnotes from the old paragraph because I didn't have the book. I myself am perfectly fine with having created the new article, from another article in Wikipedia, and with keeping the footnotes, because even though I couldn't verify that information, the editor who originally added it did. I have to say I fail to see why moving information around is supposed to trigger this process of re-verfication. Would it have been better to delete the footnotes? Then we wouldn't have any source for those facts, which seems like going backwards. Ideally verification should go on continually. As a reader, I click links and if they are dead I fix them. I've probably fixed hundreds of dead links that way. But even if I can't fix a link I don't delete it. I leave it there as a record that someone verified it in the past. And as a reader/editor, I don't delete references to books that I can't access. I don't see why I need to treat information differently simply because I'm moving it to a new location. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 @Thibbs: I have examined your five questions (above), and what strikes me the most is their legalistic kind of hair-splitting. I think I was pretty clear when I said that "[w]henever you add something to an article ...." Do we need to define the meaning of "add"? Is "to introduce material not previously present" sufficiently clear? (Introduce: from the Latin intro-, within, + ducere, to lead.) The essential test of whether something has been added is very simple: the presence of something not previously present.

 Your disputation of whether "any new information is being added" is disingenuous because you're implying that only new added material should be re-verified). "New", of course, means "never existing before", which takes us periously close to "not previously present." Of course, any material that never existed before anywhere [← note this qualification that just snuck in!] would not have a source, right? And prohibited by WP:OR.

 What you probably intend is to distinguish material "new" to Wikipedia (in that it has never been introduced into any article) from "not-new" material that has been cited — and presumably verified — at least once in some Wikipedia article. What we have here is a scoping issue. Basically, my position is that material should be verified every time it is added to an article, while your position seems to be that material need be verified only once to be "in" for all of Wikipedia. Hopefully this clarifies the issue.

 For the moment I will note that one problem with the "once is good" position is that everyone who merely copies a citation without reading is in violation (as I said before) of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." And, sorry, that is all I have time for right now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry it was so confusing for you to parse and necessitated fanciful discursions into Latin roots and unrelated guidelines, but you got there in the end so that's all that matters. You are correct that the distinction is drawn here between material that is newly added by an editor to Wikipedia and material that is merely transferred (especially consequent to a consensus) by an editor into a new location within Wikipedia.
Your characterization of my position grossly oversimplifies it, but that's beside the point.
We're clear now about the subject matter of my questions. What I am asking is if you could address the five numbered questions that I posed five days ago. I am unable to guess your answers to these five questions based on your brief description of your position ("my position is that material should be verified every time it is added to an article"). Please be explicit. Unless I know your view on splits, merges, and other acts of "simple copying or rearrangement", I will be unable to determine whether we are in universal agreement on this issue or whether you sound a lone voice of dissent. Please answer the numbered questions so that I don't have to operate in the dark. Thanks in advance for your patience. -Thibbs (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs, would you mind dropping the snotty implications? Such confusion as there is here seems to be entirely on your side. Also, WP:OR and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT are not "unrelated guidelines", they are fundamental (foundational?) regarding any introduction of material.
You complain that my clarification "grossly oversimplifies" your position, but in fact the criterion of scoping is not an explanation of either of our positions; it is the key difference between our positions. (Though I confess I cannot be entirely certain what your position is, as you have yet to clearly and concisely state it.)
Regarding your characterization of material being "merely transferred" within Wikipedia: does "merely" imply that re-verification is not required? That, of course, is the key issue here: is copying of material between articles "merely transferring"? or introduction of material that is new within the scope of an article?
As your questions seem very important to you I will take another look at them tonight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We're on the sixth day since I asked the 5 questions and you've made light of them and restated their central point in your own terms several times now without providing an answer. Others like Jc3s5h have been able to work through the 5 questions less than 15 minutes after having the question posed to them. I'm sorry if my tone has offended you, but I am getting a little tired of waiting and waiting for you to give a straight answer. Your procedural challenge to my proposal at COPYWITHIN (which had been based on the assumption that we all agreed about splits and merges) followed by the languorous pace of this discussion where you are coyly dancing around the questions designed to ascertain your thoughts on simple mechanical copying as in splits and merges has begun to feel like a delaying tactic or evasion. Anyway I'm not making any implications here. You clearly have the capacity to answer these questions, it's just taking you a very long time to do so. I look forward to your explicit and direct answers later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs, don't get snotty. As I have told you more than once, I have been busy with other stuff. And I have presumed you might appreciate my giving more than three minutes to each question. Some considered responses follow shortly. And in a couple of minutes I will add a graphic explanation below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thibbs: per your repeated requests, I offer the following considered responses to your questions.

1- Nice trick question. If you copied (duplicated) an article, including its edit history, each would be unchanged, so presumably no re-verification would be required. If you then deleted disjoint portions of each, you could argue that no new material was introduced or copied, so re-verification would not be required. (Of course, deletion can change context and meaning, but I don't know at what point that should trigger re-verification. See also answer to question #3.) As a general rule I say that if you add (introduce) to an article material that was not previously there (i.e., "new") , it needs to be verified. Where it comes from, whether directly or indirectly, is immaterial; the sole test is whether the material is new to that article.

2- Fine example of forced-choice answers. [E.g.: are you (a) a dick? Or (b) a big dick?] Our most fundamental policy (WP:Verifiability) is that certain material must be attributed to a reliable source. I do not see any mention of exceptions, not even for impossibility. If verification is required in order to introduce material (subject to however "split" is to be construed), and you cannot verify, then it seems pretty straightforward: do not introduce that material. Introduction of material is contingent on verification, not on (a) your sincere desire to add such material, or (b) your complete incapability of verifying. If there really is some need to include some material, then perhaps some other editor can verify it. If no one can verify it, then such material fails verifiability, and should not be included.

3- Carrying on from the first question: what is the difference between (1) copying ("splitting", as above) Article A to Article A', deleting all but one passage, then "merging" that with Article B, and (2) just copying that passage directly from Article A to Article B? Once again, my general rule is: anything you add to an article you are responsible for verifying. That it comes "verbatim" from another WP article is no exception because (1) WP:CIRC precludes using WP as sources, and (2) we don't know that the original author got it right in the first place.

4- Only a sectional merge? See prior answer. As something to which "the community has agreed" — well, that is interesting. A "community" (perhaps of you and two friends?) might agree that something ought to be moved, but can you suspend WP:V? Perhaps you should also exempt yourselves from all those other pesky rules that keep you from doing anything.

5- I have no idea what you mean by a "remainderless move". If some community of editors agrees to some kind of standard boilerplate to be used across multiple articles, I would hope that someone verifies any sources. But I can't say whether use of such material should verified without knowing what kind of special case you are trying to build.

Hopefully you are no longer "in the dark". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working them into your busy schedule. I'm no longer "in the dark". -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary

A lot of this conversation appears to be people talking past one another. I see three viewpoints buried in this discussion, and as I best as I can tell, this is how everyone lands on them; please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

  1. Identically copying material (except for stylistic/grammatical changes) from one article to another does not require source reverification – WhatamIdoing, Elvey, PBS, Wtmitchell, Margin1522, Prototime
  2. Identically copying material (except for stylistic/grammatical changes) from one article to another does require source reverification if the copy is not a "split", "merge", or "rearrangement", however those terms are defined – Jc3s5h, Thibbs
  3. Copying material from one article to another requires source reverification in all circumstances – J. Johnson

I apologize if I have mischaracterized anyone's view; please correct me if I am wrong. I hope this summary can clarify what, exactly, the options are that we are discussing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoint #1 vs Viewpoint #2

Assuming those three views are accurate representations of what we have discussed, I am still no closer to understanding view #2. What makes an identical copy a "merge/split/rearrangement", as opposed to something that requires source reverification? Unless someone can articulate a reasoned distinction, I see no way it can be a manageable standard to use on Wikipedia. (It doesn't have to be a bright-line rule; even a balancing test might work.) And as for view #3, that's a wholly unrealistic standard any way you look at it; Wikipedia will not be served by shutting down its merging and splitting just because some obscure sources won't been reverified. Unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I'll be sticking with view #1, which I believe reflects current practice on Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a decent summary of my view in general. I grant that there may be exceptions to it from time to time. The distinction between position #1 and #2 rests on the elements of reliability and affirmation. If I read a Wikipedia article on widgets and I see a paragraph that would go well in another Wikipedia article on the Acme Corporation, then by copying the paragraph into the Acme article without checking the sources I am blindly affirming the interpretation of the Wikipedia editors who added this material to the widget article. The problem with this is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliance on fellow editors is acceptable to a point, but when it is the basis for your adoption of claims made in one article and your addition of these claims to another then it violates WP:RS. If, on the other hand, a purely mechanical copy based on a split, merge, or other consensus-based decision is performed, the splitting, merging, or otherwise copying editor takes no position on the material. Without affirmation or adoption of the claims, the editor performing a split/merge/similar action functions as a clerk for and tool of the community. -Thibbs (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How is one to determine the difference between a "a purely mechanical copy (of identical material)" and a "copy (of identical material) that requires reverification"? The only discernible difference I see between the two scenarios you mentioned is how topically "related" the copied-from and copied-to articles are to one another. Merges and splits, by definition, require that the two articles be closely related; copying a paragraph from the widgets article to the Acme article does not necessarily require that. Is that the distinction you mean to make? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference has to do with the rationale underlying the copying. The decision to split or merge is stylistic and presentational and needs no sources to justify it whereas the decision to add further explanatory text to an article is functional and interpretive and does require verified RSes. One sign that the rationale was purely stylistic/presentational becomes apparent in migrations of text when the original text is deleted subsequent to the copy. This occurs frequently in merges and in a good number of splits. Duplications of text (especially when not subsequent to a consensus-based discussion) begins to raise questions regarding the degree to which the rationale may be functional/interpretive, and paraphrasis of text based on unverified claims found in Wikipedia articles blatantly violates WP:RS. -Thibbs (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs are you talking about a copy from one article to another that involves attribution per the instructions in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia? -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. -Thibbs (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm dubious that taking the direct and intentional Action A is okay with Rationale #1, but taking the same direct and intentional Action A is bad with Rationale #2. This might make sense in matters of legal or religious guilt, where the difference between murder and manslaughter may be relevant, but it doesn't make sense for editing.
Furthermore, it's trivially gamed. According to the proponents of this position, this is very bad:
  1. Find a sourced paragraph in A that doesn't belong there.
  2. Remove said paragraph from A and paste it into B without reading the source.
Net result: paragraph that was originally placed in A is now present in B, and you didn't read the source.
whereas this is perfectly fine:
  1. Find a sourced paragraph in A that doesn't belong there.
  2. Remove said paragraph from A and paste it into Split without reading the source.
  3. Decide that Split is too narrow a subject, so merge it into B, again without reading the source.
Net result: paragraph that was originally placed in A is now present in B, and you didn't read the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added a diagram (below) that illustrates this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between the two direct and intentional Action A's and, as with murder vs. manslaughter, it revolves around intent. If your intent is to move a section of text for stylistic reasons (e.g. to keep all discussion of "The great and all-powerful Oz" confined to the same paragraph to avoid repeating the long expression over and over) or for presentational reasons (e.g. if it's more effective to discuss the actor who played the Scarecrow in the article on the character rather than shoehorning it into the article on the film), then you are just mechanically reshuffling material via copy&paste or cut&paste. But if your intent is to copy a section of text for functional and interpretive reasons (e.g. copying material from a section describing how his eccentric godmother served as the director's inspiration for Glinda the Good Witch into the article on the director in order to fill in the "early life and family" section of his biography) then you are not simply mechanically moving material. You are adopting a previous editor's interpretation of a source you have not verified, you are implicitly affirming its validity, and you are adapting it to new uses. There's a major difference between these two kinds of copying in my view. Just to clarify, I would say that both numbered sequences described above would probably be fine. -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The decision to split or merge is stylistic and presentational and needs no sources to justify it whereas the decision to add further explanatory text to an article is functional and interpretive and does require verified RSes. Here again, I see no articulated difference. What makes a copy "functional and interpretive" as opposed to "stylistic and presentational"? The only suggested differences mentioned are that the latter tends to occur if the material in the original article is deleted or if the copy follows a consensus-based discussion with more than one editor. But it's not clear why those are indications of a "stylistic and presentational" change. Moreover, given that all copies are merely moving sourced material that already exists, I'm not sure how a copy can ever be described as "interpretive"; all copies appear to be "stylistic and presentational". As WhatamIdoing states, copied text is copied text; the result is always the same. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
An examination of the results alone is not an appropriate way to analyze this. It's a matter of integrity. -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not an examination of the results alone; it's that the results of copying are the same and the "means" of copying (whether a "split/merge" or "something else") contain no relevant, articulatable differences, and thus are the same too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify a bit further re: "What makes a copy "functional and interpretive" as opposed to "stylistic and presentational"?" - A copy is merely stylistic and presentational in nature when the only goal of the editor performing the split/merge is to split/merge in the interest of tidiness, aesthetics, consistency with other articles or with the rules/guidelines, etc. and especially when done per consensus. A copy is "functional and interpretive" when it is made in order to expand another article by treating the article from which it was copied from as a reliable source. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The reader doesn't see your integrity, Thibbs. The reader only sees the article. You might decide that it's morally better to re-verify things in some circumstances but not in others. However, your morals aren't apparent to the reader. Certainly we should all feel free to re-verify anything at all, even if we're just reading. But I don't think that we should be writing rules that say "If you have this invisible intention, then you are required to re-verify the citations, but if you don't, then you're not". Wikipedia's rules need to be focused on the product (what the reader reads) and not on the process (what you have to do to be able to sleep at night). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Rules governing invisible intentions are common. There is a policy for example that bars editors from presenting material in a non-neutral manner. There is also a guideline that bars conflicted editing. It may be impossible to prove that you are biased, that you are conflicted, or that your verbatim copy made for a split or merge is done for aesthetic reasons instead of as an affirmation of the content of the text, but in all three cases there is often plenty of evidence to suggest propriety or impropriety. Anyway I can't claim that enforceability will always be easy for such a rule, but having such rules is important even if they're just matters of invisible morals and integrity. -Thibbs (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Thibbs: The problem is with how subjective this moral standard is. If I made a particular copy you viewed as "interpretive", you might insist that ethics require that I reverify the sources. But I could maintain otherwise because I legitimately intended the copy is "presentational". In fact, all copies, in my current view, are "presentational". Perhaps I am dense, but despite your many efforts to articulate the difference between "presentational" and "interpretive" copies, I continue to see no discernible difference; all copies appear to me to be "presentational". So as far as my intentions would be concerned, any copy I make is for "presentational" purposes and thus does not require reverification. Since my sincere intention and belief is that all copies are "presentational", wouldn't I satisfy the moral standard you would wish to create every time I make a copy, even if I don't ever reverify any sources at all? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
OK this is a pretty crappy analogy but I'll try it anyway. Imagine you are the editor of a weekly magazine that occasionally republishes stories when they are particularly important to give context to one of the current week's articles. The rule is that whenever a story is republished you must recheck the sources to ensure that the sources are specific enough to verify, that the information is still valid, that the contributor hadn't completely misread the sources. Now imagine that the board of directors has decided that the magazine subscribers should have the option of being weekly subscribers or bi-monthly subscribers. Weekly subscribers will continue receiving a new magazine each month, but bimonthly subscribers will receive small books binding 9 magazines into one digest. If the intention of the digest is to accurately fill in the bimonthly subscribers with the same exact material that the weekly subscribers had gotten then should you have to reverify each source in each article in each magazine in the digest? Under a strict interpretation of the "whenever a story is republished you must recheck the sources" rule you would indeed have to recheck them all because a digest is a republishing. It is intuitively obvious, however, that whereas normally republished articles that are intended to give context must be reverified, the bundling of 9 issues into one digest is simply a mechanical action. There is no consideration of context and datedness and inter-article impact involved in the generation of a digest. Bundling the 9 issues verbatim is a purely mechanical act. -Thibbs (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your valiant efforts to explain this Thibbs, but I don't think that analogy works here; on Wikipedia, there is nothing nearly as clear as the scenario you described above. Even in indisputable splits/merges, information will be presented in new ways to readers that could arguably be just as "interpretive" as other copies; heck, even moving information around inside of an article from section to section might have a "functional" effect. It's all blurred, and whether to characterize a copy as intentionally "mechanical" versus intentionally "interpretive" is not something that most editors will likely ever think to consider when they're copying material. And even if some copying editors did think to consider their own intentions, many will probably not be able to figure which of those types of copies they are intending to make (to the extent they even think there's a difference between types of copies). To me, drawing these types of lines are impractical and unrealistic. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree; but I have very much appreciated the discussion, and your thoughtfulness in explaining your position. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This conversation is now split over two pages here and "there". I hold the same view as WhatamIdoing and Prototime As I said "there": I disagree with [Thibbs]. For lots of reasons, but primarily because I think [Thibbs is] making a distinction between "mechanical transfer (split, merge ..." and other types of copying between articles that I do not see as relevant. All [copies between articles] should be attributed primarily for copyright reasons, but secondarily because there are editing advantages that can be obtained through having access to the edit history of the text and that is true for all types of inter Wikipedia copying whatever the reason. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The other discussion is intended to be about whether or not the result of this discussion should be codified at COPYWITHIN regardless of the details of the outcome of this discussion. And for the record I agree that attribution should take place primarily for copyright reasons and secondarily for other reasons. That doesn't preclude the use of this transferring-of-hard-to-access-sources situation as an example of an "other reason" akin to the verification-of-short-citations example currently used in the guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoint #3 and JJ's "Views I and II"

On the issue of when material must be verified I see two distinct views, distinguished on the criterion of their scope. (See WP:V for what kind of matter must be verified.) To make this clearer for others I have prepared the adjacent diagram. The general rule is that verification is required on the new introduction of material (subject to quibbling re "new") within some extent or scope. In the first view (I), the scope (red perimeter) is all of Wikipedia (WP), and material must be verified (compared to the original source, indicated as a red dashed-line) only on its first introduction within Wikipedia (red square). Subsequent copying and moving to and within other articles (black lines) does not require re-verification. In the second view (II; Prototime's viewpoint #3) the scope is each article, and material must be verified at its first introduction into each article (A, B, C, D), but not for moves or copying within an article. Note that each of the black arrows reflects an edit. I have previously made a partial argument for view II; I will try to get around to a fuller argument in a day or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy that places viewpoint #2 (in fact a pragmatic version of viewpoint #3) in the same category as viewpoint #1. The linear "A -> B -> C" thinking behind the diagram doesn't take into account the branched pathway involved in a split or merge. Merges and splits are special kinds of "A -> AB <- B" or "A' <- A -> A''" deserving an exception to the dogmatic application of viewpoint #3. And common practice suggests that this exception is intuitively obvious. Viewpoint #3 would effectively hobble splits and merges encyclopedia-wide, however in practice they are not hobbled. The rationale underlying a merge or a split has nothing to do with affirmation of the sources, affirmation of the spelling and grammar, affirmation of BLP content, or affirmation of copyright status. A merge or a split is a purely mechanical action taken in order to present the same exact material in a different form irrespective of what the content in fact is. As the word "mechanical" as I have used it seems to be unclear, perhaps a good analogy would be transcription (mechanical) versus translation (interpretive) of text from an article in Language A to an article in Language B. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs: you seem right confused. Prototime has summarized matters in three viewpoints, numbered 1, 2, and 3. To avoid confusion I used a different term — views — and labeled them with Roman numerals "I" and "II". (Prototime's "viewpoint #3" being essentially equivalent to my "view II".)
You start commenting on viewpoints #2, #3, and #1, which are clearly from Prototime's schema, then switch to "A -> B -> C", which is from my diagram, so it is quite ambiguous where you find a false dichotomy. You also object that the A > B > C dependency does not reflect ("take into account"??) the branching of a split or merge, so I have modified the diagram to show A > B and A > C to reflect a split. That makes no difference in the illustration of scope. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually JJ, I used both the term "viewpoint" and "view" to describe the positions in the Summary section, largely because I didn't think there much of a difference between those words. Labeling your positions as "views I and II" just after we started referring to "views/viewpoints 1, 2, and 3" can be understandably confusing. I've just attempted, through new and modified subheadings, to banish such confusion to the extent possible. I hope you don't mind that I replaced in the subheading the word "view" with the word "position" instead, to minimize any confusion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I thank you for the intent, but I do mind your changing the headers, and particularly changing "view" to "position" (a view does not necessarily imply a position). I don't believe that reduces any confusion, so I am changing them back. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It substantially reduces confusion for us to use clearly distinct terms, and using "position" as a synonym for "view" achieves much less confusion than calling yours "views" and mine "viewpoints", but fine. That said, I have restored the header that I created to the way it was before you changed it (other than substituting "view" for "position", to keep things consistent.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The false dichotomy comes from treating this as a matter of reverifying everything (your view II) or reverifying nothing (your view I). In reality there are intermediate views that Prototime has identified in his summary. In fact by associating Prototime's viewpoint #2 with Prototime's viewpoint #1 you are conflating two very different viewpoints. As I explained above, Prototime's viewpoint #2 is closer to Prototime's viewpoint #3. The image correction also appears to show a duplication rather than a true split. You've depicted "A <- A -> A". To show a true split you would have to depict "A' <- A -> A''" with A' and A'' showing entirely unique half-squares and the red square in the parent article representing the two together. Maybe a better way to think of it is like this: "ABCD <- ABCDEF -> EF. This is probably an issue where reducing the concept to 2-milimeter red squares oversimplifies matters. -Thibbs (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Your allegation of a false dichotomy is itself false because there is no dichotomy: I have never claimed that these two views were the only possibilities. Your supposed dichotomy derives entirely from your over-interpretation of what I have said. Similarly with your interpretation that my diagram shows a "duplication rather than a true split", because what is shown could accomodate either. But what you totally missed is the irrelevancy of that, as what all this is about is not how the articles have been derived, but the migration of specific material across articles. BTW, your sneer about my diagram is unuseful and uncivil. But if that is where you want to go, perhaps your mother can show you how to make your display bigger. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Incivility and other hysterics is clearly not where I want to go. I had hoped my last note to your talk page would have made that clear. Look, I'm sure your two-view image was intended as simply a window into the one area of this discussion you are most keen on discussing (i.e. your "everything must be reverified" idea in contrast with a "nothing must be reverified" view), but in practice, by limiting the image to only two views you give the impression that there are the only two views from which to select. That's a prototypical dichotomy. I'm not saying you are at fault here. The fault lies in the image. It's a poor way to depict a situation where there are at least 3 options. And again, the little colored boxes are simply inadequate to accurately show that the transfer of material out of a parent article (leaving no remainder) and into a child article in a split is different from the duplication of material from one article to another. Perhaps you think there is no difference between them. I disagree. It's as simple as that. There is no sneering here. -Thibbs (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems you still haven't grasped that my image is not attempting to show all the options of how articles can be manipulated to get material from one article to another. I don't say there are no differences, only that at a certain level they are irrelevant.
And I would like an apology for your "incivility and hysterics" comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added another image (below) showing how an extended split-merge process can reach a result exactly identical to "duplication" (copying) of material directly. That my previous image shows only one of these processes is immaterial, as they can be used equivalently. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Arguments for "View II" (per article) scoping

1- Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, editors are required to cite the source they read. If an editor reads a source ("A") that quotes another source ("B"), s/he cannot cite "B", only "A" as quoting "B". This also applies if "A" is a Wikipedia article. However, per WP:CIRCULAR it is not allowed to cite Wikipedia articles.

2- It has been argued that not only can an editor assume and rely on the original editor's verification, but that is a violation of WP:AGF to not so assume. This is nonsense. An editor can very easily err, even in good faith (don't we all?), and neither routine checking of one's work nor even an occasional error should impute lack of good faith. Sources are corrected, even retracted, or simply obsoleted by more recent work, and any verification is valid only at the time it is done. To re-use material at a later date implies that it is still valid; this must be checked. It would be unreasonable to hold the original WP editor responsible for the correctness or applicability of any subsequent use; this must be the responsibility the editor that changes or re-uses the material.

3- It has also been argued that editors should be exempted from verification if the source is hard to access, that a strict requirement would make it practically impossible for some editors to verify some sources. As I have said elsewhere, our most fundamental policy (WP:Verifiability) is that certain material must be attributed to a reliable source. I do not see any mention of exceptions, not even for impossibility. One should not introduce, change, update, or "correct" any material that one cannot verify against the source. If some change or new use is really necessary, it must be done by someone who can verify. If no one can verify the material, then it does not belong in the encyclopedia.

4- Although WP:Verifiability is fundamental to the integrity of the encyclopedia, it seems more honored than effected. (I am not aware of any significant effort to verify, and in the relatively few instances I have troubled to do so I have found some dubious cases.) We probably should strongly encourage verification. So even if none of the other arguments were valid, we should require verification more broadly just for the sake of integrity.

Additional arguments are possible, but these should be persuasive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not persuaded. Here's why:
  1. SAYWHEREYOUREADIT says "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself" (emphasis added). Moving an existing RS-sourced claim from one location to another as during a split or merge is not the same as citing a source. Attribution to the original article from which the existing RS-sourced claim is copy-and-pasted (as described in COPYWITHIN) is sufficient to provide others with links to the editor who originally sourced the claim.
  2. It's false to assume an implication of the validity of material that is split or merged. Splits and merges are conducted for reasons related to style and aesthetics (e.g. ease of readability per WP:SIZESPLIT or collocation of closely related stubs as subsections in a parent article). It is no more unreasonable to hold an editor who originally added a flasified source accountable following a split or merge than it would be to hold a vandal or pov-pusher accountable for their misdeeds subsequent to a thorough copyedit. Reasonable editors will be able to make reasonable judgments on the degree of fault of an editor who originally added a claim that was later used in an entirely incorrect manner by another editor.
  3. "If some change or new use is really necessary, it must be done by someone who can verify." To put it differently, any article with difficult-to-verify offline sources that has gone through a community-based discussion at WP:PM and that has been determined to be a good candidate for a split or merge must wait until either all former contributors who introduced offline sources have been corraled and asked to split or merge their individual additions separately, or until a single editor purchases or otherwise obtains copies of the hard-to-verify sources. The only other option would be to simply cut all material not supported by modern accessible online sources and complete the split/merge from what remains. I doubt that this is common practice and I disagree that this would help Wikipedia develop in the right direction if it were.
  4. I actually agree with the sentiment here, but bogging the day-to-day work down with mandatory re-verification is not a good solution. Rather I would encourage enthusiastic and energetic editors who are interested in re-verifying to do so voluntarily. Reverification already takes place whenever an article is elevated in status (It's already part of DYKs, GANs, and FACs, for example), but this is an area that could always be improved. Perhaps a reverification taskforce could be started. I envision reverification drives and barnstars for particularly thorough reverifiers.
-Thibbs (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to Thibbs.
1. If moving material ("a claim") across articles "is not the same as citing a source", then implication (to infer your missing premise) is because of what — that you are citing an article? That is what WP:CIRCULAR prohbits. Or is it simply not a citation? That would violate the requirement of WP:V that all claims be supported by in-line citations, not "in-pedia" citations in some other article. To create (even "mechanically") something that looks like a citation, but isn't, would be fraudulent.
2- You don't seem to have read my argument. Or possibly you are so fixated on "falsified sources" and fault that you did not notice the bit about sources being subsequently corrected, retracted, or obsoleted. A claim can be perfectly valid at the time it is originally introduced, and it is no fault of the original editor if matters change. To replicate material without verification assumes that material is never corrected, retracted, or obsoleted, which is simply not true.
3- Your response is a fanciful strawman argument where you raise up spectres of extreme and preposterous cases. You seem to think that anything "not supported by modern accessible online sources" is not readily accessible, and therefore would be a show-stopper. As I said before, if no one can verify material, then it is unverifiable, and does not belong in the encyclopedia. Per WP:Verifiability. If some article does rely on extremely difficult to find sources, which only a single editor claims to have seen, then we might even suspect falsified sources, such as was bothering you a week or so ago. And all the more reason to require re-verification.
4- As I said, verification seems more honored than effected. You do raise a good point: should the "day-to-day work" of Wikipedia be a race for more articles? Or should there be some consideration for the integrity of the material? But you exaggerate to say that mandatory re-verification would bog the day-to-day work. Re-verificaton happens only when material is copied across articles (including splits), which seems quite small compared to the volume of new articles. And if the original sources are on-line (which most editors seem to prefer) there should be no difficulty checking them. The time and effort to verify is certainly a small fraction of the time we hope editors spend on researching their articles to start with, and not at all "bogging".
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
On point 1, WP:V requires that certain types of information (see WP:MINREF) be followed by an inline citation—where an "inline citation" is frequently understood to be a "line of text" that tells the reader which source(s) have previously published this fact, as you will recall from another pointlessly endless discussion with you. WP:V does not require any particular person to have typed that inline citation: I may add citations to what you wrote, even if I'm certain that you did not use the source that I'm adding, and vice versa. WP:V does not require that the cited source (or any other) have been looked at by any particular person. WP:V does not care how the inline citation appears or which people do which steps in the process. It only cares about the end result, which is that the reader is provided with a clear connection between what's on the page and a published, reliable source that could (if the reader bothered to find and read the cited source) be used to verify that the material on the page was not made up by some passing editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. I missed the comment of 01:47, 23 November 2014. Better to stop this than to go on ad nauseam. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry J. Johnson, but I still think this option 3 is quite misguided.:
1-Moving material ("a claim") across articles in the context of a split is comparable to moving claims within a talk page during a discussion. For example it would be nonsense to say that I have made three responses in this edit where I made one response and moved two. Likewise if I had decided to get you really excited by copy-and-pasting this entire discussion into the WP:COPYWITHIN talk page it would be laughable to suggest that I now espoused your views by merit of the fact that I had copied them into a page where they hadn't previously existed. That's why moving material in a split or merge or some comparable situations is not the same as making a claim.
2- And that's also what I meant when I said "It's false to assume an implication of the validity of material that is split or merged." in response to your second point. You believe that the reuse of material at a later date implies that it is still valid. That's an overbroad assumption on your part. It is only true in some cases.
3-The difficulty of accessing sources falls along a spectrum from extremely easy to access to extremely difficult to access. Suspecting false sources simply because the handful of editors involved in a split or merge discussion are unable to locate the source is harmful to the encyclopedia because it either bars the split or merge or it can lead directly to the excision of good sources by a small handful of editors. This is indeed an extreme and preposterous result of the hardline position #3. It is easy to recognize as such and I believe it is the reason that nobody apart J. Johnson is championing this view.
4-No, they would in fact be "bogging". If you doubt this then you should ask for input from the editors who have watchlisted WP:PM whether they would perform the same number or fewer merge and splits of articles with hard-to-access sources if your preferred scheme were in fact codified as a rule.
I'm afraid I'm still far from convinced. You suggested you had "additional arguments" to make in support of this viewpoint. Perhaps now would be a good time to raise them. -Thibbs (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Equivalence of SPLIT and COPY

Thibbs says (07:00, 21 Nov) "transfer of material out of a parent article (leaving no remainder) and into a child article in a split is different from the duplication of material from one article to another". WhatamIdoing has previously (18:45, 17 Nov) explained how a "split" process can be used to attain results identical to direct copying. The adjacent image (though not exactly identical to the process she described) shows the same split/copy equivalence. Note that it is immaterial whether "A" (representing an existing article) is retained intact, or is replaced with the disjoint A'/A" pair, nor whether the original instance of the material ("e") is retained ("duplication"), or not (a "move"). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As WhatamIdoing aptly pointed out, the process you have depicted would be an example of WP:Gaming the system, an activity currently forbidden by the guidelines. There are many examples where gaming the system would undermine the rules. This doesn't eliminate the helpfulness of the rule. -Thibbs (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It could only be "gaming" if you did it intentionally, as a way of subverting rules (rules that, in this case, don't exist and therefore can't be gamed). Furthermore, whatever your intentions, the result from the readers' perspective is identical. IMO what the reader gets is what matters here, which is why your intentions with COI matter (because your intentions there affect what the reader sees) but your intentions with respet to re-verifying sources when copying chunks of apparently good material between pages do not (because your intentions there do not affect what the reader sees). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I still see value in a rule advising editors not to engage in behavior that lacks integrity even if it is possible for determined editors to sidestep the rules. We can't tell if an editor has a conflict of interest and surely such an editor if determined to dodge the rules would deny any COI, but we still have a rule that conflicted editors may not edit articles and I think there is value to it despite the difficulty of enforcing it in some cases. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
        • That might be a good analogy, except that we do not have any such "rule that conflicted editors may not edit articles". We have a rule that they are supposed to be very, very, very careful when they do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be simpler and more straight-forward to say that material (claims, quotes, etc.) should be verified every time it is introduced into an article, regardless of how it gets there (by straight-forward copying, or some complicated split-merge process). The gaming would be where an editor could claim material he introduces is exempt because it was not copied, but split-trim-merged. And I specify "into an article", because I believe we don't any (or much?) problem copying material within an article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise

I'm curious if there is any room for compromise here. This discussion is approaching the 1 month mark and I think it's time to decide whether it's possible to reach a consensus or whether we need an RfC.

I think that at present we all agree that (I) information newly added to the encyclopedia must be verified by the editor adding it. Although it hasn't been discussed yet I assume that there is broad agreement (with one possible exception) that (II) sourced material that is removed for improper reasons (e.g. through vandalism, due to incorrect reading of WP:RS, due to the false notion that offline sources should be removed from Wikipedia, etc.) may be restored as by mechanical/blind revert without reverifying. There also seems to be overwhelming support (all but one editor) for the idea that (III) sourced material that for stylistic reasons is moved to another location more or less verbatim (as in a split, merge, pagemove, transfer, etc.) and that is based on clear consensus does not require reverification. The majority of editors (perhaps all but three) seem to further believe simply that (IV) any sourced material that is moved (duplicated or shifted) to another article does not require mandatory reverification. A minority believes that (V) everything sourced must be reverified whenever it is included in an article in which it does not currently exist. That's where we stand. I hope I've stated the matter clearly.

Personally I might be willing to be more flexible over issues like whether consensus was always required, whether the copy needs to be truly verbatim, and possibly whether stylistic reasons must be the only basis for a non-reverified copy. Can anybody offer a compromise position? Or does an RfC sound like the best option? -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is not accurate, nor neutral, and your terms and concepts ambiguous. In such a confused state bringing in more opinions would be only fuel for the fire. It would be better to consider why consensus on anything here has been elusive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say V is majority rather than the minority. Aside from the diligence question whether an author actually reverifies every single source he uses, the sourcing of an article needs to be independent from the rest of WP. Simply because articles are used as individual units without Wikipedia as well but more importantly there is no source management system in place to do otherwise. Relying on other articles for your sourcing means you are prone to side effects (The editing of article B can result in material of article A becoming unsourced and without any notification to to watchers of A). Also it means that for verifying an article you possibly need run to through a search tree (left picture above) through several articles rather than simply looking up a footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
V is clearly not the majority position; see the "Summary" section above (where V is equivalent to viewpoint #3) and the rest of the discussion for the arguments advanced by the large number of editors who disagree with it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How do you determine the "majority" here?--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
By counting the number of editors in this discussion who disagree with it, as summarized under the "Summary" header above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point about using other articles for sourcing, Kmhkmh. Nobody has suggested such a thing as far as I can tell. I also think it's important to recognize that V is intended quite literally. So for example a community-based decisions to merge (as would happen pursuant to a discussion at WP:PM) would be barred unless the editor performing the merge had verified all sources. Under a view like III, we have a narrow exception that doesn't require reverification during splits, merges, and other similar technical copies where the copying editor is only enacting the community decision rather than using sources. If V really is the best option then we will have to propose rewriting WP:MERGETEXT, Wikipedia:SPLIT#How_to_properly_split_an_article, and all other effected guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It is true that merging in most cases would carried out without reverification. However merging seems to a rather soecific case, that is an exception from the normal editing/article generation process. However (and more importantly) merging does not exclude the article from the requirement of being sourced independently.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The point here is that V is a view that there may be no exceptions. My view is that there are some narrow exceptions. V is the view that whenever any sourced material is placed in any location where it does not currently exist, then all affected sources must always be reverified. The view I support, III, is that reverification should take place whenever an editor uses sourced material in a way that implies affirmation of the sources, but that there is no need to reverify sources for mechanical actions like merges, splits, consensus-based transfers, pagemoves, and reversions of edits like pageblanks that remove sourced material, etc. And yes, certainly a split, merge, etc is only proper of the sources associated with the material are properly copied over as well so that the article has independent footnotes. Does that sound reasonable to you, Kmhkmh? -Thibbs (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't read all of the lengthy duscussion above in deatil. My main point here was that as far as sourcing goes every article needs to be sourced independently. That however does not necessarily imply a reverification.
As far as the reverification is concerned, I agree that there are several specific situation where in practice the omission of reverification is largely accepted/tolerated (merging other other types of "mechanical" rearranging of content). The most common case might be actually copy editing within the same article. However ideally people who perform such tasks should have read the concerned sources as well, because this is not just an issue of reverification but also of a complete & correct understanding of the material they "mechanically" manipulate. Merging or copy editing without consulting the original sources can under unfortunate circumstances lead to incorrect content, which would not have ben the case if the concerned editor had consulted the sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs, there isn't any need for "compromise". You and one other editor have moderately high standards, which is noble of you but not practical. J. Johnson has, as usual, espoused remarkably unique and rather extreme opinions that diverge noticeably from the community's actual practice. Everyone else agrees with current, common practice, which is that nobody needs to re-verify anything (so long as you're not changing the meaning of the statements). The discussion has reached the point of no one being convinced that any change is needed on this page, which means that we can stop talking about it whenever we feel like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Kmhkmh seems to be closer in agreement with Jc3s5h and me than with the majority, and I feel that within the community at large there might not be the same degree of support for the position of the majority here. So an RfC might be helpful in determining the full community's view. But I will say that this discussion has begun to drift in an acrimonious direction and I am not really opposed to just dropping the whole thing either. So provisionally I'll say that if no side is interested or willing to compromise by the end of the weekend - which brings us to the 1 month mark since the original thread that concerned me and that spun off this tangent began then I'll give up. I'm big on following consensus so I'm glad to just go with the majority interpretation and only practice special care in my own edits. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
My views are "extreme" only relative to the regrettably slack standards of "the community", which is inclined to soften and slide around those pesky principles that would bog the day-to-day work of increasing edit-counts. But as this discussion is gotten to be a large bog I agree we can stop talking about it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • TLDR of this thread:
  1. If you are adding a source make sure it is verifiable and correct, any suspicion of falsification or ripping out of context nullifies its usefulness.
  2. If you are using an intermediate source for quotes or other passages, cite the original source instead. If you cannot cite the original and the intermediate is very reliable - be clear that the intermediate source says and cite it as such.
  3. Scans or copies provided in good faith that faithfully replicate the entire source or context are acceptable for use directly.
  4. If you are merging content and do not have a source, but believe it is legitimate and added in good faith - retain the source when you merge it and don't alter the text.
  5. If you are altering text and you do not have the source, verify it first! You do not know the context or details and may introduce inaccuracies by mistake.
  6. Editorial judgement and proper analysis applies to all cases, if anything is suspect, ask for help and indicate the problem, but don't be disruptive. Arguments should be based on the merits and facts of the situation at hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would qualify your point 2. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT can be useful for sites that are unreliable in themselves but are considered to be accurate and that cite their sources. For example Daryl Lundy's http://www.thepeerage.com. On that site he uses a mixture of reliable sources and unreliable ones. There is a list of his sources here which he uses for inline citations with the appropriate page number if applicable. For those facts where he cites a reliable source such as "[S2]" with page number, I see no reason not to include the fact in a Wikiepdia with a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT citation (in the expectation that one day it will be replaced either with his reliable source when read by an editor, or an alternative reliable source), but I would not include a fact back up with inline citations to [S102], [S125], or [S130] as they are unreliable.
Also regarding your point 3, as I wrote above on 18 November 2014 "Scans or copies" have to be judged on the reliability of the source that made and/or published that scan or copy. Ie a copy at Google Books is considered to be a faithful reproduction by most editors, while that published on a blog site may not be (it depends on the consensus between editors who review it).
-- PBS (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the second part of my point 2 is essentially WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Not an ideal, but it is good that such a procedure is already on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that in templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite AV media}} and {{cite web}}, the formatting of url and wikilinks in title are awfully similar:

  • "Example".
  • "Example". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

This problem can be seen in Vorlon; it is a problem because the deletion of an article may lead to the loss of sources and reference details, such as the original URL. Using Wikipedia articles as sources is against WP:WPNOTRS; wikilinks should be in the article body and navigation templates. I hope that I do not have to explain how important is to preserve sources.

Wikilinks in title should be deprecated. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are confused. The wikilink is to the article on the subject. The Wikipedia article is not the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Citeweb is seldom used with a wikilinked title= field, because that is commonly the title of the online article being cited (which doesn't have an associated Wikipedia article). What is, however, commonly wikilinked, is the publisher= field; for example, when citing an IGN article, the publisher field will be wikilinked to IGN, but the Wikipedia article about IGN is not actually the source being referenced; the content found at the url= is. Makes sense?
We have many articles on books, TV shows and episodes and other works that could be used as sources. Adding a link to the article is a convenience; if the link were removed, the citation should have the same validity. For example both of these are equally valid citations:
If the book, author or publisher articles were to be deleted, or if the article in question were ported to another wiki without the supporting article, the reference would still be valid, they would just show as redlinks. The same applies if the link were to a work hosted at Google Books, Scribd or Project Gutenberg. --  Gadget850 talk 18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

PDF page links

SourceOhWatch contributed a tip about linking to specific pages in PDFs. It worked for me in Chrome, so I edited it a bit and moved it to WP:Citing_sources#Linking_to_PDF_pages. I thought I should also mention it here, in case any issues with these links have been discussed before. You can test it with the following PDF. It should display page 8, which has some information about hash URIs.

I think the citation templates should add this anchor to the URL automatically whenever possible; see Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#PDF page links. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This comment is more about style than about techniques, using the example cite above as an example. My preferred style would be as follows, with the title link going to the document and the numbered link for the page going to that page:
I'm wondering about reactions from other editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Add the link if desired. If it fails, then it will default to the first page. I don't see how a template can add the link automatically since the PDF page will rarely match the document page. --  Gadget850 talk 02:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
+1 in agreement with Gadget. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
And such a link may not work or may not work properly with a web application framework that serves PDFs. For example, Scribd is off by one page. --  Gadget850 talk 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a separate issue, I think. I have not discussed this, but what I've been doing lately is something like the following:
Actually, I haven't started using the #page=NN pdf page links yet, but I have been putting both paper and PDF page numberings in my cites of specific pages of PDF documents for quite a while -- as I said, it's a separate issue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Doing it that way corrupts the COinS metadata:
&rft.pages=16-19+%28pp.+21-25+of+the+PDF%29
Module:Citation/CS1 can strip the url from external links in |pages= but isn't smart enough to be able to read and remove the extraneous text.
I think too, that doing such introduces an extra possibility for error. The citation above, with Chrome, drops me at the top of a table labeled: "Countries and HDI ranks in 2013 and change in rank from 2012 to 2013". Chrome thinks that is page 21 (document page 15); |page=16-19 doesn't match that, nor does the number of pages 16-19 (4 pages) vs 21-25 (5 pages). Best I think to keep pagination simple and use the page numbers as printed on the page if they are available.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Connecticut, motto

please note that in reviewing your UConn page in Wikipedia, I failed to note the existence of the University of Connecticut's latin motto, which is and has always been: "qui transulit sustinet".

I see mottos listed for other universities and colleges but not couldn't locate it in UConn's Wikipedia page.

pls confirm motto with other UConn grads or contact UConn, Storrs, Ct for corroboration, then please list it under the circular UConn icon on the right hand portion of the UConn, Wikipedia page. this is apparently your preferred location for mottos of other universities/colleges., e.g., see Wiki page for NYU,etc.

thank you for your involvement in keeping info free, complete, and truthful to your best effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.15.150 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

BRD: Chapter numbers

I made an admittedly bold edit to citing sources, specifically to WP:Citing sources#Books. I changed the line:

the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional to read

the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter

This seemed to be a common sense change, and in line with our current method of citing, well, pretty much anything. For example, If I want to cite Time magazine, it's not good enough to simply have a cite with a link to Time magazine, I need to point to the article in question. While I don't need to point to the page in the article that the item I'm citing comes from, articles are usually pretty short and can be read in one quick read. Books , however, are longer, and as such, just like I can't just have a link to Time magazine as a source, I shouldn 't be able to have a link to a book title. It would seem to me that it would be common sense to list the book and the page number ( or chapter number, for books with different editions) that I found the information on so that if the information is contentious, or disagreed with, anyone can pull the book, open to the page number (or chapter number) and find exactly what was being cited. Seems common sense to me, however, this change was reverted, so now, it's time to discuss. What do you think ? Yea or Nay ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, I reverted you and then reverted myself. I reverted myself before you posted this discussion. The reason I gave for reverting you is: "The chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional; this [additionally citing the chapter information] is not standard practice on Wikipedia." That's true; when we cite books on Wikipedia, we need to make sure that we cite the page number the text is on, but we usually don't need to cite things in relation to the specific chapter. The reason I gave for reverting myself is: "I see that this listing is under 'Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include.'"
On a side note: I changed the name of the heading of this discussion section by adding ": Chapter numbers" so that it is clear what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I can think of a few situations, and the current text does not seem to clearly set out these possibilities:
  • A chapter written by an author different from the editor of the book is cited by chapter title, or chapter number if there is no chapter title. If only part of the chapter is relevant, the relevant page numbers are given.
  • An entire book is written by one set of authors, and one chapter is relevant. The chapter number is cited.
Jc3s5h (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest development: I've reverted it, because the chapter number is unimportant, as are the page numbers for the whole chapter (which I hereby explicitly contrast with the page number(s) that you are actually citing), and the chapter title had already been specified earlier in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is an important distinction (often overlooked), between 1) the page numbers of an entire chapter when the chapter is the source (usually when the chapters have different authors, but also when chapters are unrelated in subject), and 2) the specific page number(s) of the material being cited. The |page= parameter in {{cite}} and {{citation}} is for the first case, the {{Harv}} {{p}}/{{pp}} parameters are for the second case, a point which I think we should explain.
In the first case I think the page numbers should be given as a general rule. However, there are many works where each chapters (contribution) is individually paginated. In that case it might be useful to detail the number of pages (as is often done for books), but something like "pp. 1-1−1-12" is not only confusing, it does little to show where the chapter is within the book, and is properly left off. In this case chapter number and title are important, but would be specified as details of the source, in cite/citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think J. Johnson's post at 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) crams together two many concepts, so can be confusing. Here are some uses of |p= and |pp= of the {{tl|harv} template and the corresponding |page= and |pages= of the {{cite book}} template. (Of course the same concept may be implemented without templates.) Given a book that has different authors for each chapter, and one or more editors for the book as a whole,
  1. An article only contains footnotes, and each footnote contains full bibliographic information. The |page= and |pages= of the {{cite book}} template denote the pages that specifically support the material. The chapter title, chapter authors are given, in addition to the book title and the editor(s). The entire range of pages comprising the chapter is not given.
  2. An article contains short footnotes or parenthetical citations, implemented with {{sfn}} or {{harv}} respectively. In the short footnote or parenthetical citation, the chapter authors and, using |p= or |pp=, the pages that specifically support the material are given. A bibliography entry contains the full bibliographic information, including everything in no. 1, except the page range is optional. If the page range is given, it is the page range of the entire chapter, and is specified with |pages=.
  3. An entire chapter is cited to support a statement in a wikipedia article, because supporting material is to be found on most of the pages in the chapter, or the overall message of the chapter is the same as the overall message of the wikipedia statement that is to be supported. In this case, the pages of the supporting material and the page range of the chapter are the same thing.
Jc3s5h (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Date/year, edition and location - clarification required

In consequence of to a recent discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Passchendaele, it is apparent that Wiki is unclear on details when referencing a second or subsequent edition and the year that should be given in the reference - It lacks clear guidance. This page appears the most appropriate place to address this.

I believe that the following points need to be made:

  • An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. It is acknowledged that there are (at least potentially) variations between editions as distinct from reprints that occur between editions. In effect, different editions of the same work can be considered different sources. A reprint in this context is distinctly different from a contemporary reprint of an historical publication (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications).
  • The details should include the edition (if not the first edition) and the date/year published is the year that the particular edition became available (see On the Origin of Species#References
  • Where publishers list multiple locations/offices on the title page, the location used is the first of these.

I propose a change to the section Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books as follows, with the addition of the three points at the start, so that the section would now appear as follows:

Books

An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. It is acknowledged that there are (at least potentially) variations between editions as distinct from reprints that occur between editions. In effect, different editions of the same work can be considered different sources. A reprint in this context is distinctly different from a contemporary reprint of an historical publication (see Reprints of older publications). Reference details should include the edition (if not the first edition) and the date/year published reported is the year that the particular edition became available (see On the Origin of Species for an example that references multiple editions of the same work). Where publishers list multiple locations/offices on the title page, the location used is the first of these.

Citations for books typically include:

  • name of the author(s)
  • title of the book in italics
  • volume when appropriate
  • city of publication is optional
  • name of the publisher
  • edition number if not the first edition
  • year of publication of the particular edition being referenced
  • chapter or page number(s) if appropriate
  • ISBN is optional
Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include:
  • name of author
  • the title of the chapter
  • name of the book's editor
  • name of book and other details as above
  • the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter (optional)

In some instances, the verso of a book may record, "Reprinted with corrections XXXX" or similar, where 'XXXX' is a year. This is a different version of a book in the same way that different editions are different version. In such a case, record: the year of the particular reprint, the edition immediately prior to this particular reprint (if not the first edition) and an a note to say "Reprint with corrections". If {{cite}} (or similar) is being used, the notation, "Reprint with corrections", can be added immediately following the template. Reprints of older publications gives an example of appending a similar textural note.

Invitation for comments

Comments

Occasionally there are corrected reprintings. It would probably be best to treat these like editions, except some unusual wording would be needed to show one is using a corrected reprint. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not disagree with that. Occassionally, the verso records, "Reprinted with corrections XXXX". This variation is discussed I think somewhere. I believe the year of the particular reprint should be recorded, the edition immediately prior to this particular reprint (if not the first edition) and an a note to say "Reprint with corrections". Is there a field for this? This sentence could be added more or less at the end of the amended section? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Alphabetical order for parenthetical referencing

I disagree with optional alphabetization that WP:GENREF offers Wikipedians, as MLA, APA, Chicago NB, and Chicago author-date style all require alphabetical sorting of references. As currently written, the guideline states (emphasis mine):

A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor.

I would thus like to make the alphabetization of general references mandatory, in line with the above-listed guidelines, so that our guideline would read:

A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are sorted by the last name of the author or the editor.

This change further aligns Wikipedia with scholastic, widely-used style guidelines. Seattle (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposed edit in general terms; however, I would observe that this section specifically refers to General references - references that were consulted but not specifically cited. I believe this section relates to a specific context - the use of long footnote references, such as would be created with ref tags. I believe your intent would be that the list of references cited should be in alphabetical order. This amendment would not mandate the change you intend. Perhaps your intention requires a separate heading or amendment to this heading.
For functional reasons, this cannot apply to a list of citations created by {{reflist}}. I know you are not referring to footnote referencing. You have specifically referred to parenthetic referencing but this could be applied more generally (eg shortened footnote ref lists), so perhaps the distinction should be made. It can apply to any to any other bibliographic style list of references, be these cited references, general references, a list of references that combine the two or Further reading. Consideration should be given to the option that references may be grouped by type of source (ie web, book etc). Are there any limitations to achieving this imposed by functionality (such as template limitations)? Perhaps word it as should be instead of are - it is a strong wording but but with some flexibility that might avoid pedantic arguments. What about sources without an acknowledged author (say a government publication)? Parenthetically, would you refer to these by the publisher? The basis for the list order is the anchor and not strictly the authors name. For multiple works by the same author or group of authors, date is a secondary criteria.
In simple terms, I think that the intent is sound but the solution is not quite so simple. Any thoughts on how to deal with some of the things I have identified. Frankly, I think that the whole issue of references needs a review. I guess that it has evolved a bit like a shanty town as functionalities have been added. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposed change would "further align[] Wikipedia with scholastic, widely-used style guidelines" in some academic disciplines, and would further distance it from other academic disciplines (not yours, apparently). In particular, in some cases, it's better to sort by date, and in a few cases, by title. Imagine, for example, a book series written by multiple authors: listing them alphabetically by author would be silly. You should list those by date or by the order that they were intended to be read in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Bibliographic lists of references, especially longer lists, should be in some kind of order, and I think we should say that. The most usual form of ordering (and I believe this is generally true across all fields) is by the author's surname ("last name") alphabetically, and I think we should say that. But should we require this in all cases? No! As WhatamIdoing notes, there are valid exceptions. An example: Hockey stick controversy is about a controversy that developed over a period of time, and it made sense to list the sources in the order they appeared. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I kinda disagree at first glance. This strikes me as WP:CREEP, yet another mandatory rule in our overboarding "bureaucratic mess". I think we can trust our authors to handle their general references properly without micromanaging them. Alphabetical ordering is often an appropriate thing to do, but it not the only one. An ordering my publication date can be appropriate as well. A rather small number of general references might not need any sorting at all, after all the reason for sorting is to provide a fast access to a larger data set, hence if the data set is rather small there is no need for sorting in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(break - next comment) There's a difference between a requirement and a default behavior. The input above supports the notion that having alphabetical-by-surname should not be required. However, what do people think about revising the default recommended behavior so that the default would be alphabetical-by-surname and that exceptions should be supported by explanation, kind of like article titling policy or the citation format policy. In this case, the cited passage above would indicate that the preferred method is alphabetical-by-surname but that alternative orders are supported given reasoning supporting the alternative order. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see how "like to make the alphabetization of general references mandatory" implies merely a suggested default behaviour. Or did you mean explain the existing guideline rather than the suggested one?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
See my previous but "alternative orders are supported given reasoning supporting the alternative order" seems reasonable. This would be an explanatory comment before the list? Making the expectations explicit avoids arguements. Cinderella157 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the value in requiring that someone "give[] reasoning supporting the alternative order". I think it's sufficient just to document reality (it's "usually" alphabetical) and say nothing else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The essence of the proposal is to "make the alphabetization of general references mandatory" [emphasis added]. That is a definite fail. Whether we should tighten up on the current language is a different question. I think should go beyond the "usually" wording with slightly stronger language that alphabetical-by-surname orderng is "preferred", but other forms of ordering can be acceptable. I think we should not say anything about justification. If there are any questions just ask on the Talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggest,"explanatory comment before the list or otherwise make it clear (for both readers an editors) that an alternative ordering to author/date has been applied." If an alternative order is used for the benefit of the reader, it stands to reason that this should be made clear to the reader. Making it clear will make it less likely that other editors will inadvertently 'upset the apple-cart' and so, avoid unnecessary arguements. Looking at Hockey stick controversy, it was apparent that references had been grouped by year because year headings had been used. It was not immediately apparent that they were also chronologically ordered within each year (even forewarned this might be the case). As a reader, a brief note such as, "References a listed in strict chronological order", at the start of the reference list would have made this immediately apparent. An amendment, replacing usually with should is a stronger wording but it does not make author/date order mandatory - acknowledging other orders may be appropriate. The section might then continue that, "where an alternative ordering is used, this should be made clear for the benefit of the reader (and other editors)." It is not so much about 'justification' as making the 'rationale' of the alternative ordering explicit. I would suggest that an edit along these lines would tend to be satisfactory to most positions expressed herein. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like WP:Instruction creep to me. Can you show me an example of an article that would be improved by adding this written "rule" to this guideline? Are you aware of any disputes it would resolve? We don't usually add rules when editors are already doing what's best for the reader. (One of the reasons that we avoid that is because too many editors believe that should means the same thing as must.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In the article, Hockey stick controversy, the strict chronological ordering used was not immediately apparent. Making an explicit statement of this would be a real improvement. If I were actually contributing to the Hockey stick controversy, I might well edit the list because there appears to be no order within each year. Wikipedia:Writing better articles advises to State the obvious. Hockey stick controversy assumes the obvious when it isn't. So yes, I can provide you with a very real example of when this would lead to a definite improvement in the article. If a significant number of editors consistently believe should means the same thing as must, then perhaps there should be a preface to the MOS that makes explicit this distinction and other phrases, such as, "as a guide". Cinderella157 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no dispute there, right? And you claim no benefit to the reader for this change, right? In which case, your example does not meet either of my conditions. (An possible improvement to the editing process, i.e., warning unwary editors away from re-ordering the list—is not an improvement to the article itself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hockey stick controversy#References in chronological sequence seems precise enough. Do you not understand what "chronological sequence" means? While it might be good distinguish "should" and "must", that's a matter for the MOS. In regard of any mandatory language regarding ordering I seem to be in full agreement with WhatamIdoing: No. Are we done here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Hockey stick controversy does do this - make the intended alternative order explicit. I was in error for saying that this had not been made explicit. There is a benefit to readers by making this explicit - to the extent that the intention is made clear. To this extent, it is an example of what 'should' happen. It is unfortunate that the intention is not fulfilled.

2011

It is perhaps just plain dumb luck that, while reading the lead, I clicked on a citation and then the reference which happened to be in 2011. Go figure? If there was some sarcasm intended in the previous comments ... Cinderella157 (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? That the chronological ordering at Hockey stick controversy is not perfect? That is an issue to discuss there. That the "intention" (what?) is not "made clear", or perhaps less than fully and perfectly? Again, not an issue for here. It does not look like the request initially raised here is going any where. If you have other questions they should be raised in a more appropriate venue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am saying that there is a benefit to readers in making an alternative ordering explicit. I am saying that the Hockey stick controversy article is an example of what should happen (save that it is not a perfect example because of 2011). I am saying that an expectation of what should happen should be made clear in the MOS - ie that there should be an explicit statement of what alternative ordering has been used. I am also saying that I do know what chronological ordering is - but, apparently, not everyone does. I am saying that the miss-ordering of references in 2011 led to a miss-perception of what was happening in the Hockey stick controversy article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the saying "a single swallow does not a summer make"? Same thing here. That Hockey stick controversy might not be perfect is something to discuss there; it alone does not warrant across-the-board mandatory alphabetization, which is what was originally requested (User:Seattle: "I would thus like to make the alphabetization of general references mandatory...."), or even what you seem to be requesting (mandatory explicit explanations of ordering in every instance??). Sorry, but this discussion has run out of flavor. I think I can safely say there is no chance of mandatory alphabetization, and that you have not shown there is any widespread problem requiring any attention here. If you think you can show some such problem, please open a new section for discussing that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I did actually say that Hockey stick controversy was an example of what 'should' happen - although an unfortunate miss-ordering did not make this immediately apparent. In each case, I am advocating making it explicit that these thing 'should' happen - not making them mandatory. You have, after all, said the same:

Bibliographic lists of references, especially longer lists, should be in some kind of order, and I think we should say that. The most usual form of ordering (and I believe this is generally true across all fields) is by the author's surname ("last name") alphabetically, and I think we should say that. But should we require this in all cases? No! As WhatamIdoing notes, there are valid exceptions. An example: Hockey stick controversy is about a controversy that developed over a period of time, and it made sense to list the sources in the order they appeared. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

- Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing valid citations without providing source for another editors claim

If I have provided a sourced book reference with authors, date, page number and publisher to add additional information for this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scythia&diff=622094016&oldid=620826103, then it was removed by this editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scythia&diff=646128890&oldid=646128700 who in his edit summary put ridiculous claim and provided no supporting evidence either. I originally put this information in without sourcing and was advised on my talk page here: User_talk:Navops47/Archive_4 by two other editors I don't understand why you can just remove a valid source based on your on personal opinions without providing alternative sources countering the claim can some please advise.--Navops47 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Should citations for print sources lacking an external link be tagged as requiring verification? This tagging, for instance, of a music review by The Times, whose issue date and page number is included in the citation. Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Access to sources: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access."
Considering only on-line sources as verifiable is a form of recentism (Wikipedia:Recentism). Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The short answer to your specific question is "no": print sources should not be tagged for verfication simply because they lack an on-line reference. Of course, if there is something odd about the material cited — like if it seems out of line with other sources — then that could be a basis for tagging. However, in the instance you cite it seems that you have a dispute concerning content, with a suggestion that there has been cherry-picking of what is being quoted. That is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, not here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Small caps in author names in bibliographies: Allowed or not?

I have initiated a discussion regarding the use of small caps which some editors consider to be deprecated by the MOS in general but which I contend are necessary for some purposes, such as writing interlinear gloss in language and linguistics articles, and which in my view should fall within the editor discretion when used in reference lists. The discussion is also taking place here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps which will likely develop into an RfC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the RfC about the issue: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RfC:_Proposed_exceptions_to_general_deprecation_of_Allcaps You input will be valued. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So how to handle "updated" dates?

A lot of sources have two dates, a "published" date and an "updated" date. The citation templates have a place only for the publication date, and the rules given here mention only the publication date. I suppose that "update" covers everything from a small correction to a major rewrite. In the case of the latter (and the former too, in some cases maybe) isn't this misleading? A person searching for the article as of that date is going to find something different from the source I used. Isn't this a problem? Has this been addressed? Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To some extent it may depend on the nature of the source. E.g., for some web pages there may be no definite "original" publication date, and the date of the latest revision ("revised publication"?) of the specific material is effectively the date of publication. In other cases, such as the IPCC reports, there is definite (and well known) date of original publication, which needs to be retained. If that is done as "orig-date" then any subsequent updates/corrections could be done as the "date" of (latest) publication. But don't forget that additional information can always be appended to the template, so you do have the option to craft whatever works best. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Supported and unsupported facts in one sentence

Recently (in this diff) there was a major addition about some common errors relating to supported and unsupported facts in one sentence. I see the point – if you add a cite to support one fact, you don't want to imply that other facts are also supported. But I am wondering if we should demand that editors insert {{citation needed}} for the other facts.

The new text is also really hard to understand: "Inserting new text with an inline citation into text that is not supported with an inline citation, requires that the cited text is clearly defined with a {{citation needed}} template placed before the new text (unless the new text is placed at the start of a paragraph)." IMO this is almost incomprehensible until you look at the example.

The new text could probably be rewritten to be easier to understand. But I'm wondering, are editors actually going to do that? Adding a source improves the verifiability of the sentence by supporting a fact. But we are demanding that editors add one or more {{citation needed}} templates, which makes it look less verifiable. That strikes me as a bit obsessive, and I doubt that anyone is going to it.

Would it not be possible to make the same point without demanding that editors add new {{citation needed}} templates? For example, suggest that they do something (e.g. rewrite the sentence) to clarify which fact they are supporting. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The addition is wrong. It says that if a supported claim is added to the end of a pre-existing sentence that is not supported with a citation, a {{citation needed}} template must be added before the supported additon. But it is not required that all statements be supported by an inline cite; "the sun is bigger than the earth" is a well-known fact that does not require a citation. This whole new passage strives for a level of specificity in citations that is just not feasible in English and is not expected in quality writing. Some of the burden falls on the reader: if the reader cares which cite supports which fact, it is up to the reader to obtain the sources, read the specified pages, and figure out for herself which part of the sentence is supported by the source. I favor reverting [[User:PBS]]'s edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You write "But it is not required that all statements be supported by an inline cite" yes that is true. Blue sky citations are not needed. The Sun and the moon examples are used throughout this text so please put to one side the idea that it is obvious, otherwise we have to change all the example. Here is a problem expressed using facts that would not be obvious:

"The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark hair.source a"

Let us suppose a new phrase is added

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a"

Let us suppose that source b is a book about Liverpool not one about the girls. We have now lost text–source integrity. This can be fixed so:

"The girls came from Liverpool,source a in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a"

Of course the other solution is as the sentence are now a summary of two sources to place the sources in other positions. Like this

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source a;source b They both had dark hair.source a"

or

"The girls came from Liverpool, north-west England. They both had dark hair.source a;source b"

It depends on exactly what is being inserted where, and what the editor considers the best solution, but which ever solution is chosen it can not be

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a

as that looses text–source integrity. In a similar way if the same paragraph exists in a paragraph without a source:

"The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark hair."

If source b is added then there also needs to be a citation needed so that it is clear that source be does not cover the girls:

"The girls came from Liverpool,[citation needed] in north-west England source b They both had dark hair."

Jc3s5h, now that the example does not use a well know blue sky facts it is probably clearer to you. The inclusion of "source b", implies that it supports all the facts in the sentence. Without a {{citation needed}} one has lost Text—source integrity, but equally no {{citation needed}} needs to be place at the end of the second sentence due the inclusion of "source b" because its inclusion does not affect the Text—source integrity of that second sentence.

@user:Margin1522 you write "The new text could probably be rewritten to be easier to understand." My explanation is a first cut and no doubt it can be improved in the usual way (and I look forward to seeing your improvements). As to your second point "For example, suggest that they do something (e.g. rewrite the sentence) to clarify which fact they are supporting." In reality that is not what happens. If we followed your suggestion we could also remove the older:

  • "Do not add other facts or assertions into a fully cited paragraph or sentence ...without including a source to support the new information."

These are really common errors that degrade Text–source integrity in lots of articles, and while rewriting might be desirable as often as not that is not what editors do. Instead the incrementally adjust a paragraph by making incremental changes. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PBS's post does nothing to change my opposition. Text-source integrity is impossible and this addition is trying to hold the ocean back. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree in opposition with Jc3s5h. The project page addition is confusingly inadequate in this regard, as detailed somewhat in the examples above. It articulates requirements which do not solve all problems and which, if strictly complied with, create new problems by isolating previously supported content from their supporting sources by inserting intervening cite(s) not providing support to the newly isolated assertion. I think that the insertion does not provide a comprehensive solution to the problem it attempts to address, that the addition is both overly specific and overly complicated as it stands, and that making it more comprehensive would only worsen the overcomplication problem. Perhaps an essay or a help page addressing this issue more completely which could be mentioned in and wikilinked from this project page would be a better approach. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me Jc3s5h that your logic favours of deleting of the whole section. If that is not what you think, and I have misunderstood you then please explain further what it is that ought to be in the section Text-source integrity. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think deleting the entire section would be better than leaving it as it was just before PBS's change. I think text-source integrity is good, but only if it can be achieved without turning a passage into a tangled confusing mess. It's just one factor to consider in good writing. My cardinal principle is that placing a citation does not verify a claim; readers verify claims by obtaining the cited source and comparing it to the Wikipedia passage; at that time, the reader will know which parts of the claim are supported and which parts are not. Citations are merely citation aids. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
text-source integrity was introduced into this guideline by SlimVirgin with Revision as of 22:11, 29 September 2010. She introduced a section describing the conecpt later the same year (8 November 2010). As the concept has been present in this guideline for four and half years. It helps new editors, who are not familiar with the concept of inline citations, and the particular problems that a collective work such as this has, meet the policy requirements of WP:CHALLENGE in a way that most more experienced editors consider acceptable. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell you write "create new problems by isolating previously supported content from their supporting sources by inserting intervening cite(s) not providing support to the newly isolated assertion." I am not advocating anything I am trying to highlight some of the problems that already exist in editing and maintaining Text-source integrity. What I am describing is what happens at the moment. Typically there will be a paragraph supported by a citation at the end of the paragraph. A new fact in a new sentence will be inserted into the paragraph with a citation. If a copy of the paragraph's citation is not added before the new sentence Text-source integrity is lost. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed that recent extension of text-source integrity, which made it hard to understand. Also, that section needs to be higher in the guideline, near footnotes. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
SV moving the secion up has been discussed before and rejected (simply because "Text–source integrity", "Bundling citations" and "In-text attribution" do not fit into the how to create a citation which is what most of this guideline is about. If you wanted to move it up where would you want to place it? The two examples that I added any you have removed document problems that frequently occur when inexperienced editors add text into a fully cited article, you said in the history "too long and confusing" (aside from deleting them completely!) how would you suggest shorting them and making them less confusing? -- PBS (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall it being rejected; I recall that you moved it without discussion, but I may not be remembering the discussion. I don't know how I would write it, but that long addition was too much. Even as written it's not great, but I'd need to think about it. The only point of the section is to remind people that cites need to be near the cited material or in some way flagged as belonging to it, so we don't need a lot of detail. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Basically I agree with that, and I agree with PBS's point. Editors should be aware that simply placing a cite at the end of the sentence can be unclear. Another idea might be to take a hint from the next section (Bundling citations) and say that the supported fact(s) could be mentioned explicitly in the footnote, like <ref>For the Moon's size, see {{cite book|.... – Margin1522 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Margin1522, the section used to do that. It said:

When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text-source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. The following inline citation, for example, is not helpful, because the reader does not know whether each source supports the material, or each source supports part of it, or whether just one source supports it with the others added as further reading:

Delia Smith is the UK's best-selling cookery writer.[1][2][3][4]

The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without placing its source clearly can lead to allegations of original research, violations of the sourcing policy, and even plagiarism. Where you are using multiple sources for one sentence, or where you prefer not to add each source directly after the phrase or sentence it supports, consider bundling citations at the end of the paragraph with an explanation in the footnote regarding which source supports which point; see below for how to do that. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging material to ensure that the text-source relationship is maintained.

I can't remember when or why it was changed, but I think I prefer (something like) the above. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding ping to PBS. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Smith, Jane. Popular Cooks. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 1.
  2. ^ Jones, Paul. More popular Cooks. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.
  3. ^ Doe, John. Cooks Ahoy!. Harvard University Press, 2010, p. 3.
  4. ^ Doe, Jane. Surely Not More Cooks. Yale University Press, 2010, p. 4.

Proposal: Encourage reference information in the Reference section

As the Avoiding clutter subsection notes, "inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing." When trying to edit an article with a significant number of references, such as the Boston Marathon bombings article, it is very difficult to read and work in the edit space when all the reference information is in the midst of the text. Contrast that with the Knights of Columbus article. There are over 130 references, but all the data is at the very end, in the References section. I propose that we encourage the use of WP:NAMEDREFS in the body of the article, and place the full references in the References section. --Briancua (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I was with you all the way to "namedrefs" — whoa, all stop! You have identified a problem, but your specified solution (which implies list-defined references) is not the only one, and is not entirely acceptable because of certain problems. A better way (IMHO) is to use short cites in the text, but this is opposed by many editors who choke on the implied use of {{Harv}} templates. So where do you want to go with this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Named refs suck because it is hard for the editor to know the name of a given reference or to find it if it is invoked several times and you don't know in which one the reference is defined. Harv shortrefs with the {{sfn|author|year|page}} template are much easier to work with and so are inline parenthetical refs. Also we do not have a house citation style and we dont need one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Julius Caesar defeating Pompey really the same as "the sky is blue" (and thus requires no citation)?

I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the following statement in The Exaltation of the Flower:

In antiquity, the area was named Pharsalos, and became known for the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BCE, where Julius Caesar defeated Pompey during the Great Roman Civil War.

That seemed an awful lot of information crammed into one short sentence to go uncited, especially as it's a GAN. To my surprise, Viriditas removed it and objected on my talk page that it was a "sky is blue" sort of statement that didn't require citation.

Is it really acceptable to leave such a statement uncited? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. As you already know, "the policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Are you challenging the common knowledge that Farsala was known as Pharsalos, that it was known for the Battle of Pharsalus, and that Julius Caesar defeated Pompey? The appropriate links were provided inline to common historical matters of fact, and frankly, that's all that is required. I've added an additional inline source at your request, but it's not necessary. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say that the statement Farsala was known as Pharsalos does not need a citation.
However that it was known for the battle of Pharsalus is less obvious. How well know was it? Only to the Romans, or also after the fall of the Roman empire in Medieval, Renaissance, or Modern European cultures? (I guess it was probably not know to the Chinese for that battle). It is also not very clear what the reference to the battle adds to this specific article whose topic is about 500 years before the battle. Arnoutf (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is very clear why the battle is referenced because the next sourced sentence explains that's why the archaeologist was in the town looking for artifacts. If you missed that, then you probably missed the internal links pointing to unchallenged statements of common knowledge about the name of the town and the battle, neither of which require sources. Viriditas (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"Are you challenging the common knowledge that Farsala was known as Pharsalos, that it was known for the Battle of Pharsalus, and that Julius Caesar defeated Pompey?" Maybe this level of detail is common knowledge to historians, but it's not common knowledge to laypersons. I don't see how this can be defended on "unlikely to be challenged because it's common knowledge" grounds; it is in no way comparable to "the sky is blue" or, for a more subject-specific example of common knowledge, "The Roman Empire conquered much of Europe." Of course, seeing as you added a source for the claim, this particular example is now mute. But I would be wary of too liberally relying of the "unlikely to be challenged because it's subject-specific common knowledge" concept when delving into the fine details of a subject. And certainly, if someone has doubts and does challenge something, Wikipedia dictates that we must err on the side of providing a source. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The finer details, as you call them, are easy to verify in the parent articles. The editor did not have doubts, they simply asked why there wasn't a source. If I said, by way of passing reference that New York was named after the Duke of York or was once known as New Amsterdam, or that the French Revolution occurred on such and such date, while at the same time providing a wiki link to the parent article, that would not require a source either. Viriditas (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
In a GA, I think the sentence might need to be reworded. The exact location of the battle in 48 BCE is apparently controversial. According to Battle of Pharsalus#Date and location, most historians now think it was some distance from modern Farsala. So I think it might be best to reword the sentence to say "thought to be" and "near" Farsala and wikilink to the complete description. Or if a couple of cites are enough to cover it, and it's important enough to cover, cite it in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The dispute about the location of the battle occurs within the area of modern Farsala. The source that I added (which has now been removed by the disruptive and childish OP) says that "Pharsalus is generally agreed to be the modern Farsala", while dispute occurs over the location of the battle within this area.[1] Since there's consensus that the battle took place somewhere within this area, there's no no need to hedge the statement. Other sources I've reviewed say the same thing. Looking at the wiki article you refer to, it appears an editor has given undue weight to a minority POV that is at odds with the historical consensus, giving this so-called controversy more emphasis than the current sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
To give context to the personal attack above: I reverted the article to its state before I started copyediting after repeated[2][3] accusations of having ulterior motives for having moved an image. It appears nothing will untagle me from Viriditas' unquenchable desire to do battle. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: I will look at your proposal again a bit later when I have free time. There are a few more sources that lend additional weight to this matter. While your recommendation for precision is useful, the point isn't the exact location where the battle occurred, but the fact that the town's name is famous for this campaign, which is why the archaeologist in question was looking for artifacts. Does it really matter in this context how close or how far the battle occurred to the town? To me, it does not, but I'll look into this again to see if the wording can be improved. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is true. And maybe you could take the opportunity to mention that Pharsalus is the Latin name, as opposed to the Greek one. Some readers might wonder why the battle and town are spelled differently. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing republished pieces; What source do we cite?

Following from a recent debate, a few quick questions;

Regarding republished sources (e.g. an AP news piece republished by CNN), several questions.

  1. When citing republished pieces, is there any requirement to cite the original source? In other words, should one cite AP if AP is the original source?
  2. Is there a policy anywhere which specifically calls out how to deal with citing republished sources?
  3. If there is no existing policy, should we have one? Is this topic worth an RfC?

Thanks in advance for weighing in! NickCT (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is already addressed by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (which is followed by the also-somewhat-relevant section titled "Reprints of older publications"), which is a part of this guideline?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2015; 16:04 (UTC)
@Ezhiki: - Good reference cite. But I'm having trouble interpreting it for this situation. If I read an AP news article on CNN, then I feel as though I've got the news from CNN, not AP. So would I cite CNN? NickCT (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The cite, whatever form it takes, should mention both AP (since that's the source) and CNN (since that's where you got the news from). The actual implementation doesn't matter that much; as long as the formatting matches that of other cites in the article, it would be acceptable. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2015; 16:42 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In terms of the mechanics of our citation template slots, how do we document both? in this example |publisher=CNN |?=AP? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|work=CNN |agency=AP
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Trappist the monk. Can you look at this article. Would that be |work=NBC |agency=The Center for Public Integrity, or something else? NickCT (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG: "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." Hugh (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ezhiki, I don't think SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT quite applies. That guideline is just for when one source is cited by another source, and you've read the citING source but not the citED source. Here we have a different situation. The two sources are identical to each other, like a syndication, and we've read both of them. SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT would suggest (second para) that the original source may be cited directly without credit. But Nick's question is, which source is preferable? I submit the original source is preferable, as it allows readers to more easily assess reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ezhiki and DrFleischman: - Not sure about that Fleis. If for nothing else than the practical concern that the original source might not be available. If I get an AP piece off of Fox News, and the original AP material isn't readily available, what am I meant to do? Cite something I can't see? If we follow SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, at least we guarantee that an editor is citing material they have in front of them. NickCT (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You certainly aren't supposed to cite what you can't see. If you did read the news directly from AP, then of course there is no need to include CNN/Fox/ABC/etc. (although you might still choose to do so for convenience, if the AP link is not easily accessible but CNN or some other news outlet is). But if something is coming from AP but you can only read it on CNN/etc., then SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT definitely applies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2015; 21:11 (UTC)
@Ezhiki: - Hmmmm.... Anticipating the follow up question; What if you can read it on AP, even though you originally read it on CNN? Is there obligation to go to the original source? NickCT (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, we're talking about cases when both sources are available online, no paywalls, and you've confirmed they have exactly the same content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, why don't we go ahead and add another wrinkle to our scenario, say a wide differential in noteworthiness, say one version was on the front page of the NYT and another was on a news agency website. Hugh (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"the original source is preferable, as it allows readers to more easily assess reliability" Long term, which is the hat we are expected to wear, easier access is afforded by the most noteworthy version, which would be most likely to be indexed and archived in an EBSCO or a ProQuest. The biggest agencies such as McClatrey may be indexed and archived, regardless of whether or not a paper picks them up, but in general a smaller news agency is not. Hugh (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The original source is the best; "most noteworthy" is an inherently non-objective standard that is likely to bring on endless disputes. "The WaPo is more important than NYT!" or "ABC news is more noteworthy than Brookings." Endless and unneccesary. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I think you are losing the big picture here. As long as both the original and the republisher are reliable sources and with all other things being equal, the choice of one over the other is guided primarily by practical concerns. Wikipedia does not employ citations to collect the "best" (or the "most noteworthy") versions out there; citations are used first and foremost to enable readers to verify the statements being made in the article. And if republished content is more easily accessible and comes from a reliable source, there is no reason why it can't be used over the original, but perhaps no longer easily accessible source (and that's one possible scenario where SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT comes into play). The needs of the readers normally outweigh more esoteric concerns (such as which of the two equally acceptable reliable sources is "better", and especially why it is better).
To return to Dr. Fleischman's scenario (when both sources are available online, no paywalls, and you've confirmed they have exactly the same content), in that case it would be just a personal preference. As long as a statement made in the article can be verified with one or another reliable source, your job is done. If both sources are equally accessible, editors shouldn't be changing one to another simply because they like the other one better. If circumstances change, then it's a different story, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2015; 13:22 (UTC)
@Capitalismojo: Circulation is on our RS checklist WP:RSVETTING. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not about identifying RS, if it is we are all at the wrong noticeboard. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"As long as a statement made in the article can be verified with one or another reliable source, your job is done." Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying, but in practice in WP, once you get passed the reliability of sources, and the verifiability of proposed content, might you run into issues of noteworthiness, at which point there may well be a difference in noteworthiness between two similar/identical sources? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"Noteworthiness" of a source is not a criterion Wikipedians should consider; only reliability and suitability in a given context. If two otherwise reliable sources are similar/identical, one may still be somewhat superior for practical reasons (e.g., one is the original and the other one is a re-publication; one can be linked to and the other can't; etc.), but barring that, it makes no difference which one you end up using.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2015; 16:40 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I understand that in terms of reliability and verifiability, the topics of this talk page, other practical things being equal, it makes no difference, but respectfully beyond that, might "no difference" be just a little too strong, in that beyond reliability and verifiability, proposed content may have to jump through a hoop of noteworthiness AKA due weight, off-topic here perhaps, but would you acknowledge that in the context of a weight discussion, the front page of the NYT is different from a local/regional newspaper or wire service website? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I kind of bundled (un)due weight and other similar concerns under "given context". It's not uncommon for a source to be reliable but not acceptable in some contexts (for example, a specific writer's biography is not a good source to use in articles about geography or history, even if it does mention some geographic/historical details in passing). In a similar fashion, I can very well imagine a situation when a local paper would be a better choice than the front page of the NYT. But these are the situations when other things are not being equal, and that always warrants some discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2015; 18:38 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your reply. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
For scientific papers, more and more are first put up on a preprint server like arXiv, and then peer-reviewed republished in a journal. Or they are first published at a workshop, and then published in a journal special edition. In those cases, I would nearly always cite the final version, as it has had additional quality control. I think that is a general situation - the same article may not meet WP:RS if self-published, but will meet WP:RS when picked up by a reliable publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If we are talking material that is just republished, not re-edited or changed in any way? First version or re-published? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It depends. Most often the journal version will have minor or even major changes, but not necessarily so. Even if identical, the later version will have more layers of quality control. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Ezhiki; Wikipedia does not have a "best evidence rule", nor should it. Editors should feel free to cite to whichever reliable version of the source they wish. (I qualify that with "reliable" version because I also agree with Stephan Schulz that self-published drafts generally fail WP:RS, even if they are identical to a final version published by third parties.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And if a dispute arises over which of two identical reliable sources is better, what then? It's a wash? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as its reliable... One thing with wire-service stories is that newspapers typically edit them. So the versions of AP stories that you see in different papers will often be slightly different. So if you get it from a paper you should cite the paper. And set the agency= parameter to indicate that it was a wire-service story. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Margin1522, I'm no journalism expert but that's news to me. I always thought syndicated stories were identical in every newspaper, but I have no evidence to back that up; it was just an assumption. Can you point me to something suggesting otherwise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Mainly experience. The headlines of course are different, and often part of the story gets left out due to space constraints. I used to read a copy editors' mailing list (Copyediting-L) and they would talk about how sometimes they would change this or that. Bill Walsh's site (The Slot) is great for the things that a good copy editor will do with a story. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Prototime & Margin1522 & Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky). And strongly agree with the comment "As long as both .. are reliable sources .. the choice .. is guided primarily by practical concerns." Frankly, I don't think this concept is explicitly called out in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_read_it. Can we add it? Something like;
When referencing republished materials or materials duplicated at two or more different sources (e.g. a news article from an agency duplicated by various news outlets, exerts from books reprinted in other media, etc), as long as both the sources are reliable, editors should cite the source they originally got the material from, unless there is good reason to believe that one source is significantly easier to access than another. There is no need to cite the most original source.
Anyone think this would be worthwhile? NickCT (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Something like that might be worthwhile. We are exhorted not to make too many rules. The advice about the agency parameter is already in identifying RS, many of us missed that. Hugh (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic of this proposal. Why is "the source they originally got the material from" preferable? WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is ultimately about verifiability; when both sources have been verified there's no longer a verifiability issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DrFleischman: I'm not sure why there would be a dispute over which of "two identical reliable sources is better" (except, perhaps, that one source is more accessible than another). So long as a reliable source is cited, the material it supports is verifiable, satisfying WP:V. Whether the reliable source cited is an original version or a republished version doesn't affect the verifiability of the claim. If there ever were such a dispute (and it wasn't about accessibility), the original citation should be maintained because there would be no reason to disturb it.
That's a decent proposal, NickCT. In response to HughD's concern, NickCT's proposal states what is already the rule; since there's nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that establishes a best evidence rule, NickCT's proposal is not making a new rule. But I do think there's valuing in stating the rule outright so that editors have clarity when this situation arises. I'd support adding something like NickCT's proposal to this guideline. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
In response to Dr. Fleischman's newest comment (didn't see due to the edit conflict): I agree with you that NickCT's proposal isn't necessarily justified by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, since multiple editors could read and cite different versions of the same source; it's more of a WP:IFITAINTBROKE issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why there would be a dispute over which of "two identical reliable sources is better" (except, perhaps, that one source is more accessible than another)" Even after reliability and verifiability and accessibility issues are settled, proposed content also has to pass muster in terms of due weight. The context of a weight discussion is an example of when two similar sources may be different in noteworthiness. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hugh: Due weight requires claims be presented "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources"; it does not speak the nature of the reliable sources themselves. If due weight is a concern, it would make more sense to cite to both versions of the source than to cite to any one particular version (and more sense still to cite to multiple sources that are completely different). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is a dispute, and I do believe there's a small but real benefit to citing the original source, other issues (such as access) being equal. By citing the original source we make it clearer who was responsible for producing the content (i.e. who the author and editor worked for). Although there is consensus the outlet for the original source is reliable, there are sometimes questions raised about its bias, including possible COI (see WP:QS). Making it clear who produced the content helps readers to evaluate this for themselves. As I see it, following WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT just because it's related and already in the guideline would be a triumph of rote bureaucracy to the (slight) detriment of the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: - re "sometimes questions raised about its bias" - If the original source is biased, and republisher isn't biased, why is the republisher publishing something that they feel is biased and/or inaccurate material? If you said something that I felt was biased, I wouldn't present that thing to some third party as my own idea. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what the republisher's thought process is; maybe they think the original source is unbiased or maybe they don't. I'm not saying the original source is biased. I'm saying questions have been raised about the content producer's bias, and readers are less able to evaluate those questions for themselves when the identity of the content producer is obscured. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"the identity of the content producer" That's what the agency parameter of the citation template is for WP:NEWSORG. Hugh (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Well that's interesting - I hadn't noticed that tidbit in WP:RS. So that's what Srich was referring to. In our case the content producer isn't exactly a news agency, and I still think if the original source is available it should be used instead of the republished version to avoid confusion. But that definitely mitigates the problem, not perfectly, but it's an improvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Fleischman: If there is a COI that destroys a source's reliability, then per WP:QS the source is unreliable (except as a source about itself) regardless of which version is cited to, and thus the citation should be removed completely, not replaced with a citation to the original version. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying there's a COI. Concerns were raised about COI but they haven't been fully investigated. But that shouldn't matter, as it's a mere illustration of why this matters. My point is that original source should always be cited in these otherwise-equal situations so that readers know who the content producer is and can evaluate its bias for themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We've been discussing this assuming that the source, regardless of the version cited to, is reliable. But you seem to suggest that reliability cannot be adequately determined without reviewing the original version; is that right? That would create a very high threshold for determining reliability. And I'm not sure how that principle, if adopted, could be applied only in "otherwise-equal" situations given that reliability concerns trump access concerns. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Prototime, I guess I'm not being very clear. The reliability of both sources is established in this scenario. But that doesn't mean they're free of bias, per WP:BIASED. Readers should be informed who the content producer is so they can evaluate their bias. Let's take a hypothetical but concrete example. There is consensus here that Fox News sources are often reliable. But Fox News is a bit of a lightning rod; some readers don't trust Fox News and discount content sourced to it, and they have every right to do so. If Fox News produces a story that's then republished by another outlet, say, I don't know, WSJ, should we be citing Fox News or WSJ? We should cite Fox News, so that readers can make informed decisions. The same thing works vice versa: if Fox News republishes a WSJ story, we should cite the WSJ version. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about citing or republishing? Hugh (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Your question is essentially about a different topic, the question of neutrality and bias is distinct from the question of which source to cite when a piece is republished. We simply cannot require editors to find the original source, that would be too much of an obstacle for many editors. What we can do is encourage using the original source, because that is simply the best scholarly practice. But the question of bias in either the primary por secondary publisher is not relevant in terms of what source to cite - that is a discussion to be had at the talkpage of the article, and decided in the given context. The function of the citation on the page is to show where the information comes from, we have no obligation to assist the reader in evaluating the source - rather that is an editorial question.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what we're talking about, except we're talking about when the original sources has been found and confirmed to be identical to the republished version. A decision must be made, whether you call it an "editorial" decision or otherwise, about which source to cite. I submit that source bias is very relevant to the analysis. Regardless, NickCT came here seeking guidance as well as possible clarification of the guideline. I don't think that was a bad choice of forum, as it appears to be the most relevant guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Forgive me if I am mistaken again, but it sounds like you're concerned that readers might think that a news story (or other type of source), regardless of its reliability, is still untrustworthy because it is biased--and that an indication of bias is who originally published it. I'm not sure it's wise to add another layer of trustworthiness on top of reliability, but assuming it is, let's discuss your proposal for a best evidence rule in light of the three definitions of source per WP:V--type, creator/author, and publisher. The creator/author of a news story might be biased, but that bias will exist regardless of who publishes it, so citing to the original publication won't help readers there. A publisher of the news story may also be biased, but not all publishers of that news story are necessarily biased, and each publication and republication of the news story is its own separate source because the publisher is different. For example, if a publisher that has a poor reputation for factchecking and a COI publishes a news story, then that publisher is biased and unreliable; but if that story is then republished by a publisher with a stellar reputation for factchecking and is neutral, then the second publisher is neither biased nor unreliable. It would be unfair to the second publisher, the author, and the editor to say that the story must forever be tainted because of its original publisher. Of course, the opposite scenario might also occur: an unbiased publisher's story will be republished by a biased publisher. Either way, the second publisher is an entirely new source, and readers can judge whether they think that publisher is biased just as they can with any other source. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We cite the source we use. Good scholarship tries to find the original source and use that, but good scholarship is not a requirement here unfortunately, except for sometimes in the context of reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I think we got the answers we needed about a thousand words ago: say where you got it, use the agency parameter, context matters. At some point before this thread devolves into pure venue shopping we should probably point out to the fine folks hanging at WT:Citing sources an earlier WP:RSN request WP:RSN#Column_on_Donors_Trust_on_.28but_not_by.29_NBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs)

Once again you're misrepresenting the consensus. Grr. Having re-read the entire discussion, I'm getting the sense there's a growing consensus that there should not be a one-size-fits-all rule for these types of situations. I.e.: when one source is a republication of the other, and the two sources are confirmed to be identical to each other in content and and accessibility, the decision as to which one should be used should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
DrFleischman - I take your point that there could potentially be situations where the application of this rule could raise POV concerns. That said there is no such thing as a perfect rule. No rule applies perfectly 100% of the time. That's why we have WP:IAR. You should ask yourself whether the guidance above is going to work 95% of the time to see if you're willing to support it as policy.
It sounds like you're not so opposed to just using the agency tag in our current situation. If that's the case, haven't we come to some resolution on this debate? Can't you support (or at least be neutral towards), the policy change? NickCT (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You are both misunderstanding me. I don't agree with the consensus. I am simply summarizing it and abiding by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary: When a major media source is found to be a news agency report, add the agency parameter to the citation template. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary of what? Seems like still more disruption to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you know - have confirmed - that two sources are indeed identical because you personally read and compared both sources, then you are free to use which ever you deem best. (Usually the original.) If you have not read both sources, then you can use only the one you read. That someone else claims such sources are identical is their knowledge, not yours, and unless it is published as a reliable source you cannot rely on it. This is especially important with news and other popular media, as the "news" outlets (print and visual) frequently carry stories from other sources, but rewrite them. DrF keeps going on about when "two sources are confirmed to be identical to each other in content", but I suspect that seldom happens (examples?), and he fails consider just how that would be known. There is no showing here of any problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That is a reasonable position that I believe reflects the consensus. However I do ask that you do your homework before taking an unnecessary dig at me. Here (this vs this) are the two specific sources that were being discussed. You can confirm for yourself that they're identical. I do agree that this issue comes up so rarely that a change in the guideline is probably overkill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A "dig"? It seems a fair statement of fact that you do keep going on about sources "confirmed to be identical" without considering just how that would be known. That you or I or anyone else compares two sources and finds them identical is a matter of personal belief. But such a finding does not arise to the level of reliable source such as can be cited in an article. And as you "agree that this issue comes up so rarely that a change in the guideline is probably overkill", why are we even discussing this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

An example for video games

A section under examples for video games should be added. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Titled bundles vs. naked bundles

Another editor and I have differed (cordially, but differed) on whether it is better to add a title to bundled footnotes. I think the title helps readers know what exactly the sources support, especially if the cites themselves are nondescript. It also helps editors keep track of which bundles belong with which text, when shifting text and paragraphs. My colleague is concerned that bundle titles might reflect a pov. But that to me seems a makeweight argument: text is more likely to suffer the affliction of pov than a bundled footnote. In the field, I have seen both types of footnotes. Examples of naked bundles on the Sweet Briar College page; examples of titled bundles on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. It seems to me the latter are more more helpful and informative. Adding a descriptive title is also standard practice in many book endnote source lists. Any views on whether I should add here a clarifying "Titles on bundled footnotes are optional, but helpful if neutrally phrased", with the following example?ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. Comparison of sun and moon ^
    • For the sun's size, see Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1.
    • For the moon's size, see Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
    • For the sun's heat, see Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2.

I think the tags used by ElijahBosley are too obscure; few editors will know how to use them. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jc3s5h. I will switch from "Title" to "Footnote Descriptions" and see if that works better. I'll try a revision to the main page accordingly.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor (Softlavender) has now reverted that change, within minutes of its being offered. Strange, as the editor has not favored us with comments here on the talk page. I will invite her to do so. Meantime, further to the point: the Chicago Manual of Style (mine is the 13th ed. of 1982) encourages reducing clutter by grouping footnotes or endnotes (15.62). With any note whether grouped or not, footnote or endnote—clarity for the reader is the objective. They say "avoid exasperating readers” with (for instance) simple unadorned ibid.’s or page numbers. Always explain; always describe; always say what the note supports. Likewise in bibliographies authors annotate entries, group books by topic, or provide bibliographic essays, so the reader can identify which books are useful for what purpose. Wikipedia often combines the traditional footnote, endnote, and bibliography. Whatever the Wikipedia citation function, the relation of the note to the text should be clear. Unexasperating. On grouped notes, descriptive titles serve this purpose. A large heap of citations without a descriptive title confuses the reader. And it disserves subsequent editors, when that note gets orphaned in the course of text revisions. Descriptive titles would certainly seem to be the best practice.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bundled citations do not need an added heading any more than a single citation needs a heading. Adding a heading is POV. There is no need to editorialize groups of citations which substantiate the body text they are placed directly after, especially when the editorial comment can so easily be wrong or misleading or non-neutral. Citations speak for themselves and have their own titles and authors, and substantiate the text they are placed after in the body text of the article; they do not need headings added by editors. Elijah, you are an editor with less than 4,000 edits and should not be changing guidelines and policies without very extensive discussion and agreement from a wide number of editors, none of which you got here. Even if after extensive discussion and possible consensus, you should not make any changes yourself, but ask others to do so. Even the example for your case that you presented in your OP is of headings you yourself added to Wikipedia. Furthermore, this discussion is complicated by the fact that two different things are being discussed: footnotes and citations. Footnotes are actual notes (and may include citations, as they do in the examples in this guideline article); citations (such as those in the example you presented in your OP) are simply title, author, publication/publisher, date, and page number. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Responding to the objection "bundled citations do not need an added heading any more than a single citation does--" Single citations: in the case of newspaper articles the relevance usually is reflected in the headline. When citing books, if not self-evident from the title, best practice is to offer a short explanatory note or a quote explaining why that page of the book is relevant. Bundled citations in contrast group several seemingly unrelated sources. They may speak to one or more points within a sentence, or the entire preceeding paragraph. They need a description explaining their relevance. As to the POV issue--might this editor offer an example of a bundled footnote with impermissable POV from the field? All the descriptive titles this editor deleted from footnotes on the Sweet Briar College page had no POV, as two editors agreed on that talk page. The example given above: "Comparison of sun and moon" hardly seems POV. For fear of POV one might forbid all editing on Wikipedia, but if one is to allow editing, then POV seems hardly a legitimate objection to a title describing the purpose of a bundled footnote. The opposition to a useful practice for improving footnotes seems unwarranted, and as to the personal remark inaccurate, and uncharacteristic of this editor. This is about footnotes.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all Softlavender is right when he points out that shouldn't change guidelines without assuring consent on the talk page first,
Second offering a short explanatory note in case of book pages is not wrong per se, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a "best practice" and it is certainly not true that they would need to explain their relevance. The relevance (and meaning) of a citation tied to portion of a text by footnote is usually self explanatory, it sources that text either completely or a part of it. I. e. it doesn't really what the book title is, you know with or without and explanatory remark and completely independent of the title, that those pages source the text tied to the footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but claiming that adding a head as such is necessarily a NPOV/POV issue is plain nonsense. You can of course create editorialized headings that are problematic but i see no issues with headings as long as you avoid that.
As far as the guideline is concerned it should be restricted to minimal required set of standards and avoid unnecessary micromanagement of editors. So if an editor wants to provide a heading for his bundled citations, he should be free to do so as long as stays away from inappropriate editorializing. But the same goes for an editor who doesn't want to have headings for his bundled citations, he should be free to do so as well. If two different approaches clash in one article, there is already a principle to handle potential disputes and that states that the already established style of on article is maintained (in case of dispute).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your view Kmhkmh. Following up on your point "if an editor wants. . . "--would you object to adding the sentence in this guideline: "Titles on bundled footnotes are optional, but helpful if neutrally phrased"  ?ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 15:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Non neutral titles are not simply optional, instead they are strongly discouraged as they create the POV/NPOV issues Softlavender has mentioned above. So your literal formulation is no-go from my perspective. Generally speaking I don't really see the need for adding something to the guideline at all. As long as the guideline doesn't discourages titles for bundled citations in general, you should be be free to use them (provided you don't abuse them for inappropriate editorializing).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but I am not free to use them, because Softlavender deletes them as she did here (erroneously in my view). Her remarks above indicate so far as she is concerned they are not optional at all. That is why I felt it had to be stated that they are optional, rather than that being merely assumed. What do you think?ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 15:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well this looks like a disagreement between editors at first glance and it is not a good idea to change a guideline simply to settle an individual dispute (in fact that is sort of a no-go almost). As far as that dispute over the citation format is concerned there are imho 2 rationales that should be considered.
  • a) In a dispute the established format of that article is kept.
  • b) Leave the decision to the main content providers/most active editors of that article.
My superficial impression is that b) might work in your favour while a) might not (you seemed to have introduced titles only recently). If the the two of you cannot agree on solution and neither one is willing to drop it, you should enlist third opinions or ask for some dispute resolution/mediation process.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice template for discussion

I've nominated {{Article style}} for discussion. Since this template has parameters for things that would be present in nearly every article, such as citations, dates, and words that are spelled differently in the US and UK, the logical inference is that it should be added as an edit notice to almost every article. Followers of this page may have an opinion about whether any edit notice intended for use on nearly all articles is appropriate. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was some merit to the concept of that template. The deletion (discussion) appears to have followed Jc3s5h's view that "[i]t's contrary to WP:MOS to require administrator action to change article style ....". Which seems rather odd, as 1) being a rather petty aspect, 2) not in accord with his statement here, and 3) the MOS not being a policy, but only a guideline. Imzadi 1979 commented at WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 29#Template:Article_style that this was "an improper use of WP:CSD#T2. The template did not misrepresent any policy that I know about." (Likewise for me.) I document all this for the sake of any future consideration of such a template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Multi-page web sites

I am working through an article where one of the primary sources is the project home page. The site, like all (IMHO) good web sites, breaks its material down into separate web pages. This leads me to wonder how to best cite it.

If this web site were published as a book, it would have multiple pages. I would not cite each page as a separate document, I would have a single "ubercite" for the book as a whole, and then refer to pages in it using sfn (a godsend).

But to be more accurate, each web page more closely conceptually matches a chapter in the book. In that case I would still use a single ubercite and use the loc= to refer to sub-pages.

But it appears neither such system can be handled by sfn unless I'm missing something here. Can an sfn have a loc or page ref that is an url to another document?

More generally, can anyone offer advice on how to cite such works, without having to have individual cites/refs in the body or refs section.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe sfn accepts |loc=. At any rate, it is just {{harv}}} (which has 'loc') automatically wrapped in <ref>...</ref> tags. Either way you can populate your text (notes) with stuff like "Smith, 2005, §25", all of which automatically link to your full citation for the source (e.g.: "Smith, John, 2005, Mucho flapdoodle"). It's not that the short cites (from sfn/harv) link to another document; they all link to a single full citation for that source.
Web pages often have sections, but I don't recall ever seeing anything that would amount to a chapter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about citations for quotations

Can editors please clarify whether it is acceptable for a direct quotation to only have a mention of the author and book title without a linked citation with page numbers etc. A disagreement has just arisen on this issue between me and another editor on the Thomas More article. My understanding of the MoS is that all quotations should always have a linked citation with full details of the source. Am I correct in thinking this or not? Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be about a quote from a popular historian, that St Thomas More was "a particularly nasty sado-masochistic pervert." That seems like a rather controversial statement, to say the least. So it's likely to be challenged. The policy here is

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). (WP:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations)

So I edited that passage to add a {{page needed}} tag. Sources like newspaper articles don't require a page number, but cites to books usually do. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. Afterwriting (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The author's last name and a shortened form of the title is sometimes used for the short cite (instead of the more common name and year). But that should always point to a full citation, with the full bibliographic details of the source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, especially since this book has two titles. The English edition (OCLC 560325149 has the title The statesman and the fanatic: Thomas Wolsey and Thomas More, while the American edition (OCLC 644950439) has the title Statesman and saint: Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, and the politics of Henry VIII. I looked for the quote in snippet view of the American edition and couldn't find it. We really do need a page number and edition to verify if the author actually wrote this. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro work

Just saw note about no changes without "extensive discussion", after I had "edited boldly!"

My goal was not to change any policy. I am an academic, and have done freelance editing, and my goal was/is to make some minor changes to make help pages a bit more accessible to non-programmer, and/or non-academic types, and faster/easier for everyone else. With that in mind, my specific goals were to:

1. Preserve existing information 2. Add brief overview of citations 3. Optimize clarity via order of explanation, consistency of terms, etc.

Please review to ensure I didn't alter any meanings, and see if I achieved my goal! - Then we can have an "extensive discussion" if necessary! Peacedance (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peacedance: you didn't include the name of the article which any editor concerned should go to to review Whalestate (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Whalestate: I'm not doing anything fancy here. I edited the article Wikipedia:Citing sources. Then, I wrote on that article's talk page (the one we are on) to invite anyone to review the medium-sized change I made on the article intro. The article is Wikipedia:Citing sources, the place to discuss concerns is this page, Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources. Every WP article has its own talk page. The only other relevant page may be the article's History page, where someone left a pretty unenforceable and not very noticeable, but heartfelt plea to discuss changes berfore making them. But that is not a really great place for discussion. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your question. Peacedance (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Biographical material in citation footnote.

The article Socrates is suffering from an editor who insists on including quite large pieces of biographical material in citation footnotes. For example

"A Grafton, GW Most, S Settis (Director of the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, where he is also Professor of the History of Classical Art and Archaeology c.2010) The Classical Tradition Harvard University Press, 25 Oct 2010 ISBN 0674035720[Retrieved 2015-04-17]" and
"SS Monoson (P Meineck Associate Professor of Classics at New York University c.2014, D Konstan - Professor of Classics at New York University and Professor Emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature at Brown University, USA c.2014) - Combat Trauma and the Ancient Greeks (p.136) Palgrave Macmillan, 11 Sep 2014 ISBN 1137398868 [Retrieved 2015-04-17]".

Perhaps something could be included in the guideline to inhibit this. Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any instances of this in the current version, so presumably the problem has been straightened out. I do see a lot of instances of sloppy editing by an inexperienced editor, but that is a different problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for changes in - Balija caste page

Hello Winner 42,

Kindly check below for the citation that you asked for changes in Balija page and request to do approve the changes.


While seeking a Kshatriya varna position in the Census of 1901, a reference was made to the Srimad Bhagavatham, Vishnu Puranam and Brahmanda Puranam to seek classification as Somavanshi Kshatriyas.[1][35][36] The Balijas claimed to be descendents of Mahabali.[1]

The position of the Banas in Iron Age Vedic India Bana was also called Balijata.[37] The clan of Mahabali was called Bali-Kula and Bana was called a descendent of Balikula. It is also seen from several inscriptions that the Bana chieftains are said to have belonged to the Balikula clan only.[38][39] The interest of Bali Vamsa in general, and the branch ruling in Kisukad in particular, is provided in Epigraphia Indica, Volume 15, By Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar. It mentions an inscription edited by Dr. Fleet, Vol XIII, p.185, in which Turagavedanga (Thiruvenkata ?) is mentioned as the "scion of Bali race" as Kishkinda-puravar-sevara and Bali-vamsa-odbhava.[40] Another incomplete inscription was also found mentioning "Turagavedanga, the illustrious lord of the world-renowned Kiskinda, a best town, born in Bali vamsa race".[41] While referring to the origin of the Chalukyan feudatories in the 12th century, namely the Bappura family of the Bali Vamsa that ruled over Kisukad, an inscription speaks of its origins from the caverns ('Vala' or 'Bala') of Mount Kishkinda in connection to Parashurama's visit to the place. The inscription apparently indicates that after Parashurama's extirpation of the Kshatriyas, a new branch arose deriving their name from 'Bala'.[42] A grant dated 1142 AD mentions that Janmajeya gave a village to the Brahmans of Kodanganur. However, King Vishnuvardhana gave them a better village and settled them at Kellangere. They were of the Bali-vamsa, and are said to be 200 ornaments of Soma-drinkers.[43][44][45] Nagamangala is referred as Kellangere in inscriptions. An undated record of a Vijayanagar king Devaraya in the Mallikarjuna temple states that Kellangere was famous because of Bhattarakadeva (a Jain thirthankara) and a certain Varadayyanayaka of Kellangere caused the construction of this temple in the eastern part of the village with garbhagriha, sukhanasi, and rangamantapa, converting the village, a Shudravada into an Agrahara, and named it Varadarajapura. He restored the tank, named it Varadaraja Samudra and gave grants to the services of the god.[46] One of the earliest mention of the Banas in authentic historical records is from the middle of the 4th century when their king Brihad-Bana has been referred to as the contemporary of the first Kadamba king [47] The Balikula or Banakula chieftains ruled in various parts of India and Ceylon at various points in time. The Banas were a prominent feudatory family figuring in inscriptions of almost all the great powers of Southern India from the 4th century to the 16th century;[48] and were connected with most of them through matrimony.[49] The earliest mention of Banas in authentic history were as the feudatories of the Satavahana and early Pallavas.[50] The kingdom of Banas, Perumbanappadi, lay to the west of Andhrapatha. Andhrapatha developed into Andhramandala borne by a Bana grant of Vadhuvallaba Malladeva Nandivarman in AD 338.[51] The Bhagavatha Purana mentions one Andhra, who was one of the six sons begotten by the Rishi Dirghatamas on Sudesana, the wife of Bali, king of the lower gangetic valley. His patrimony lay down south and he gave his name to his people and kingdom. Presumably that was the Andhrapatha of Pallava Shivaskandavarman.[52] The Mayidavolu plates of Shivaskandavarman prove that Andhrapatha or the region of Andhra was made up of the Krishna district with Bezwada as the capital.[53] Various inscriptions describe the region ruled by Banas as a country to the west of Andhrapatha. They are also called rulers of Ganga, lords of Nandagiri (Nandi hills) and of Paruvipura.[54] However, the country ruled by Banas is also called Andhrapatha itself.[55] The Banas ruled in the regions of Kolar district in the 9th century.[56] The Banas had frequent matrimonial ties with the Pallavas.[57][58] However, the Pallava king Mahendradhiraja's conquest of the Banas, in the 9th century, in Puli-Nadu earned him the title "destroyer of the Mahabali-race".[59] Supposedly, their ties with the Pallavas soured after a Bana chief (persumably Vijayabahu Vikramaditya II), married Arinjigap-Pirattiyar, the daughter of Pillaiar (Junior Prince) Arikulakesari Deva of the Chola dynasty; and the sister of Sundara Chola Parantak II (AD 957-973).[60][61][62] After their defeat, they sought refuge in the Rashtrakuta court of Krishna III.[63] Subsequently, we find that Srivijaya, the dandanayaka or commander general of the Räshtraküta king Indra III (AD 915—917) (aka King Narendra, the grandson of Krishna III) is mentioned as belonging to "family of Bali-Kula" [64][65] {see Dânavulapâdu inscription }. The Banas were also feudatories of the Chalukyas.[66] A stone inscription from Kondupalli, Ananthapur district mentions gift of land when Vikramaditya Bali Indra Banaraja of Balikula was governing Turumara vishaya in the 23rd regnal year of the Chalukya overlord.[67] The Vijnapti of the Chirrur plates issued in the sixth year of Nrpatunga was Muttaraiyan, who also had the title Paranjaya. He was a Bana and is called a descendent of Balikula. He is also called Agatrayesa and Saila trayendra (names of the Trikuta mountain of the Himalayas). Rulers of eminence assumed the title Trikutachalapati to mark their valour. The Cholas, a little later, assumed the little Mummudi which in all probability refers to Trikuta.[68] The Punganur record mentions that Kadupatti Muttaraiya raided Koyattur in the reign of Bana Vijayaditta Virachulamani Prabhumeru.[68] Between 224 to 614 AD, Balikula nadu, the land of Banas, lay to the west of Andhrapatha. It initially comprised the modern Kadapa (Cuddapah) and Chittoor districts and was later made up of the Cuddapah and Nellore districts with Pottapi as its capital, a city that figured in many later Telugu Chola inscriptions. This dynasty was affiliated with the Tamil Chola dynasty [69]. An inscription in the Thirunageshwaram temple of Kumbakonam mentions "the heroic achievements in Simhala (Ceylon) of a Bana chief (name lost) ‘the ornament of Bali-kula’"[70][71][72]. The Bana chief, killed in a battle in Ceylon, was mentioned as the brother-in-law of a Chola monarch [73]. However, another Bana king Malladeva Nandivarman, is said to have been disloyal to the Chola authority and helped Sundara Pandya in his wars against the Cholas [74] [edit]Puranas and mythologies

The Padma Purana and the Shrimad Bhagavatham narrate the story of Jaya-Vijaya, the Gandharva doorkeepers of Vishnu who fell from Vaikuntha, due to a curse by four sages, and entered the womb of Diti, the wife of Kashyapa.[75] Jaya and Vijaya were given the option of being born on Earth seven times as devotees of Vishnu or three times as the enemies of Vishnu to be killed (given moksham) by the Lord Himself. Jaya and Vijaya chose the latter. Thus they were born first as Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, next as Ravana and Kumbhakarna, and finally as Sishupala and Dantavaktra.[76] As Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, they were killed by the Varaha and Narasimha avataras of Maha Vishnu respectively. In their second birth as Ravana and Kumbhakarna, they were killed by Rama and in their third birth as Sishupala and Dantavaktra, they were killed by Krishna. In the Shrimad Bhagavatham 11.12.3-6, Krishna mentions the following as having attained His supreme abode: Vṛtrāsura (Vritra), Prahlada, Vṛṣaparvā (Vrishparva), Bali, Banasura, Maya, Vibhishana, Sugriva, Hanuman, Jāmbavān, Gajendra, Jaṭāyu, Tulādhāra, Dharma-vyādha, Kubjā [77] The daitya Vrishparva's daughter Sharmishtha Daiteyi married Yayati. Vrsaparva, the asura, is thus the ancestor of the Kurus and the Pandus through Asurendra suta.[78] Asurendra is an epithet for Bali, the grandson of Prahalada [79] [edit]Controversies The publication "Genealogies of the Hindus, extracted from their sacred writings, pg. 48-49" mentions: Bali is supposed to have been the great-grandson of Kasyapa; but it is probable that Hiranya was a son of Kasyapa who married the daughter of Biswanara. Even on this supposition, it is impossible that Bali could be the great-great grandson of Kasyapa and many generations must have been omitted from the Tables; for Banasura the son of Bali was contemporary with Sri Krishna and his son Virat was engaged in the great war on the side of the five sons of Pandu. The Epigraphia Indica, by Bhandarakar, Volume 42, p. 37, informs us that Vishnuvardhana IV, the father of Vijayaditya II, is credited with a victory over certain Bali and is compared, on that account, with god Vishnu, in His fifth or Vamana incarnation.[80] [edit]Historical notes Historically, the Banas were devotees of Vishnu and minted coins bearing the Garuda, Shanka and Chakra insignia.[81] Their flag displayed a Blackbuck and their crest was a Bull.[82] Yashoda Devi mentions in her book The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.: Administration, literature and society that "The Banas humbly state that they were appointed as the door-keepers by God Paramesvara".[83] An inscription from the Bilvanatheswara Temple of Thiruvallam that records the gift of land by a goldsmith to the temple with the approval of the king Mahavalivanaraya mentions: "Om. Obeisance to Siva! Hail! Prosperity! In the sixty-second year (of the reign) of king Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman, while the glorious Mavalivanaraya, - born from the family of Mahabali, who had been made door-keeper by the lord of gods and demons, Paramesvara (Siva), who is worshipped in all the three worlds,- was ruling the Vadu[gava]li twelve-thousand..".[84] A Bana queen is said to have built the Shiva temple at Nandi (Nandidurg) before 806 AD, and the Kalamukhas, adherents of the Pashupatha system were at that time established on the hill and places around it.[85] Hastings notes in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" that the defeat of Bana by Krishna points to the supersession of the Shiva-cult by that of Vishnu, and refers to an early period. He brings out the tendency for cults to harmonise after such events, through assimilation of their devotion identities, which was reflected in the bearing of their crests.[86] Presently, amongst the Balijas, there are both Saivites and Vaishnavites, the latter being more numerous than the former.[87] [edit]Dynasties — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandruRoyal (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing a Flash document

Hi. I'm trying to work out how to cite this document. It is a Flash rendering of a booklet produced by a race organiser and I need to cite various pages within it. (Some of them are available separately as PDF files, but the links will go stale and robots.txt prevents using the Wayback Machine.) I can't work out the correct way to use the {{cite *}} templates in this case. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The original source is of an actual booklet, with numbered pages, so cite it cite as a book, using either {{cite book}} or {{citation}}. As you are referencing a web ("electronic") version you should also include an access date in case any questions arise regarding version. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's great. Many thanks for your advice. Relentlessly (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pleased to be of assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Future of WP:CITEVAR

The RfC has been withdrawn. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

A - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be removed from WP:CITING SOURCES, we do not allow all citation styles only those that are supported by the MOS.
B - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be retained and enforced, the MOS should be amended to specifically allow for all citation styles, also those that use smallcaps.
C - CITEVAR "you may choose whichever style you think best for the article" should be reformulated to specifically exclude those citation styles that use small caps or any other features not supported by the MOS.

Survey

  1. B. CITEVAR has had strong consensus in the past, and there is no pressing need to disallow certain citation styles. It is natural for editors to use the citation styles that are prevalent in their fields and it makes sense that linguistics articles should use LSA style and that citation templates, MOS and policy should provide support for this pluralism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    Disagree with MOS providing for citation pluralism. The pluralism is provided by this guideline and the MOS should not apply to citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. B. What Maunus said. Why should I be prevented from using the Bluebook on legal articles? That style uses typeface and smallcaps to distinguish the types of reference being cited, whether a book or journal, newspaper, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

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

You are misreading the question. We are not talking about CS1 and CS2, we are talking about MOS, and MOS is de facto being applied to citations and references. The close at SMALLCAPS says that the MOS prohibits smallcaps in citations, essentially voiding WP:CITEVAR. The CS1 was changed to remove the smallcaps options based on this reading of the MOS, which was upheld by the recent closure. So that means that either the MOS needs to be changed or WP:CITEVAR does - because under this reading we are not allowed to use any citation style that uses smallcaps, such as LSA. This is the problem: the current interpretation of MOS means that we are NOT allowed to make a new citation template that has smallcaps in authornames. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, I added an exception here to the MoS page, as that seemed to be supported by the RfC. If it sticks, that should help you, though it doesn't solve the citation-template situation. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, I made a minor change, to include Bluebook. If you disagree, let me know—I'm sure we can work something out. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that very much, but I wonder if it will stick, since the consensus was apparently unclear (I saw a very different consensus than what the closer apparently did).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus:—it looks like the closer clarified the closing statement to exempt citation styles from the MOS smallcaps rule. GregJackP Boomer! 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That is good, now we just need a citation template that enables smallcaps then. And then when some day we have that I'll have to spend a couple of days of my life having to go through all the articles of WP:LInguistics and WP:Mesoamerica where the scaps parameter has now been removed by zealous template enforcers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"1. Superfluous font-styles should be omitted. Do not use small caps for author/editor names, since they do not help to distinguish these from any other bits of information in the citation. In contrast, italics are worthwhile for distinguishing volume (book, journal, dissertation) titles [+ital] from article and chapter titles [-ital]."
— "Unified style sheet for linguistics" (PDF). Linguistic Society of America. 3 April 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. As far as I know, cs1|2 has never supported either LSA or Bluebook. Small caps support was removed from cs1|2 because of MOS:SMALLCAPS. I don't think that I have ever made any statement for or against small caps except in reference to cs1|2. A quick scan of your contributions shows that you don't use cs1|2 so I don't understand why you are angry with me. Why do you assume that discontinued use of small caps in a citation template that you do not use means that you are forever prevented from using small caps for other purposes? My only purpose here is to refute the notion that cs1|2 is somehow at fault for the outcome of that other RfC. It is not, and should not be the whipping boy in this RfC.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself, first you say that smallcaps was not removed because MOSSMALLCAPS demands, it, and then you say that it was removed because of MOSÆSMALLCAPs - which is exactly why I wanted to have an explicit exception allowing smallcaps in references because if people think MOS:SMALLCAPS prohibits the use of smallcaps in references then they will keep removing them from my articles regardless of what citation template I use to make them with. LSA DOES use smallcaps in most of the publications they publish such as the journals "Language" and "Internaitonal Journal of American Linguistics" (here is the style sheet for Language[4], LSAs flagg ship journal, the "unified style sheet" you found is not actually being used in LSAs publications, but apparently was a recommendation that is not being followed). Also CS12 has NOTHING to do with this RfC, since it is about the MOS and the Citation policy. I think it is crappy that smallcaps was removed from CS1, but this rfc is about finding out whether the community wants to allow the use of smallcaps styles in articles or not. That is the basis for even beginning to make a citation template that supports smallcaps. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This is about cs1|2. You opened this RfC with an initial sentence that makes cs1|2 the subject. By doing so, you are, in effect, blaming cs1|2 for an apparent ban of all citation styles that use small caps. I suspect that the actual reason for this RfC is the outcome of that other RfC but that is nowhere mentioned in your RfC when it should have been the subject of the RfC's opening sentence.
I am not contradicting myself. You wrote: The argument was that the MOS does not allow smallcaps in citations. MOS:SMALLCAPS says nothing about citations per se, but it does say that writing with ... small caps, when they have only a stylistic function is to be avoided. Clearly, writing author and editor names in small caps in cs1|2 citations is styling so that functionality was removed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No it is not about CS1/2. The changes to CS1 and the arguments for making them motivated the discussion, but the discussion is about whether smallcaps are allowed or not which is the first requirement when finding out whether and how to implement that functionality in the future.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't angry, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. You are also correct, I did not understand that you were focused on the cs1/2 template issues and thought that you were commenting more broadly on smallcaps. My apologies, and I did not think that cs1/2 were responsible for the outcome. Indeed, I think the closing admin did not read consensus correctly and did not phrase the closing in a way that it could be implemented. GregJackP Boomer! 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Trappist the monk, could the small-caps option be restored to the template(s) from which it was removed? Per WP:CITEVAR, editors can choose to use small caps if they want to, and until recently were able to via the template(s). If that option could be restored for them, that would resolve the issue, rather than them having to do it manually or create a new template. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It could, but should it? cs1|2 have never officially supported LSA or Bluebook styles. Prior to the implementation of Module:Citation/CS1, editors used (improperly) {{smallcaps}} in author-name parameters to achieve the 'style'. With the introduction of Module:Citation/CS1 came |author-format=scap without discussion and without documentation. It is not clear to me that small caps functionality should be added to cs1|2 to support Bluebook style because the style looks nothing like cs1|2 and because Bluebook's primary proponent here doesn't use cs1|2. For LSA, there is {{cite LSA}} which presumably complies with the LSA style and does render portions of the citation in small caps.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never used CS1/2 with Bluebook, and really don't see how it would work. You would really need a completely new set of templates if you wanted to do it for Bluebook, and I don't know if it would be worth the time of the people who would have to create them. Not many people use Bluebook as their reference style. GregJackP Boomer! 15:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting titles of journal articles and book chapters in references

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

RFC:Should all claims have a citation?

RESOLVED
There appears to be no support at all for requiring a citation for non-conentious claims, such as the example mentioned by RfC initiator, "Paris is the capital of France". Strong support exists for keeping long-standing consensus and Verifiability policy: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Frequently referenced essay Wikipedia:When to cite is also mentioned as giving good advice for this issue. (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉   17:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comment I am a little confused by the responses of 'oppose', when this appears to be a 'yes/no' question? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
They are opposing the inclusion of this rather strong statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of all claims having a citation

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


@Jc3s5h::@Trovatore::@Kmhkmh: please see here - [5] or else just WP:POLCON - on disagreement in understanding guidelines and policy. Since it's possible the wikipedia pages are in conflict in any case, which means nobody is relying on a sound agreement to begin with, unless they understand that fact.
  • No: Claims that are not challenged or likely to be challenged are probably common knowledge or obvious, and thus, an inline citation just is unnecessary. For the "Paris" example, very few reasonable people will ever challenge the fact that Paris is the capital of France, and the article on Paris can be wikilinked for the tiny minority that challenge it. Esquivalience t 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevant policy

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

key words

verifiable

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

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

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

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

Five pillars

WP:5P

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia.....

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

Second pillar

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

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

Third pillar

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

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

Fifth pillar

Wikipedia has no firm rules ...

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

Copyright

Wikipedia:Principles

[6]

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

Wikipedia:Core content policies

WP:CCPOL

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

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

WP:V

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

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

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

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

the statement now reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A typical example is:

The C language library math.h provides the function nextafter to calculate the next double.[citation needed]

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

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

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

(The other links are similar).

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

Thank you.

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

There are two problems.
The first problem was with the "Unit in the last place" article as it existed before your edit today. As an example, the "Language support" section has three claims, and some editor marked each of them with the {{fact|date=March 2015}} template. You say "However the link itself is the citation". What link? All the links in that section, except Math.ulp(double) and Math.ulp(float) are links to Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources; they don't count as citations.
The second problem is that your edit today caused the citation needed template to be associated with a different claim than before your edit, but you did not resolve the problem with the original claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Some people here might be interested in these lists:

These are the websites that are most commonly cited in each of the named Wikipedias. These were created to support testing of mw:Citoid automagic ref filling (currently available in VisualEditor; opt in here if you haven't already), but they may be interesting to people for other reasons, too. Also, if you're active in any of these communities, you might want to share the relevant links with editors at those wikis. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite useful - and somewhat surprising that Google Books tops all others. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR and "changing reference style"

Any comments on this and this as edits?

We have a policy that says we "should not attempt to change an article's established citation style ". As I read this, it's about the presented format of a citation for the reader. There are good reasons for this.

So is a revert, like the series noted above, a good or bad thing? If a new ref is added, and (for reasons of easy source code editing) it's laid out as a {{Cite book}} template within the {{Reflist}}, with line breaks between parameters, should that be reverted as "don't mix WP:LDR with normal named refs; and the article wasn't using LDR before, so please don't introduce it without discussion"? Is that preserving "an article's established citation style ", or is it just nitpicking too enforce the reverter's personal whim upon other editors? See also User talk:Andy Dingley#The Bristolian (train)

Thanks for any comment Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't read CITEVAR as only referring to the style as visible to readers. Like most editors, there are some styles/templates I can use and others I can't. If a driveby editor changes the style (normally without changing any actual text) I would be prevented from making future edits consistent with the "new" style. This has happened in the past when I did not spot a template bandit until after many intervening changes. Equally CITEVAR doesn't imo support reverting a useful text addition using a different citation style (I have to admit I sometimes do these). I'm not wholly clear what's going on here, & can't be bothered to excavate, but I think I agree with the reverter, as you seem to be templating up an existing ref, no? This is a bit clearer, & I agree with him. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
As stated already, this was the addition of a new reference. I have a narrow interest and a large personal library. So I make a lot of edits that are to add new references. I find that a couple of other editors (not many, but these few are persistent) keep changing the format of my added references.
The point in this particular case was about list-defined refs (WP:LDR), where the bulk of a citation is placed at the foot of the article, making it easier to find for future editors. In both cases, it used the same {{cite}} template. As LDR is invisible to the reader, and irrelevant to anyone editing the other refs (it affects each ref separately, not "the article" overall), there is no reason at all it should fall under CITEVAR, other than an admin pulling the "my way or the highway" attitude.
As to your other point, then editing should be accessible, so technical arcana are a problem. However I don't see this as a problem for editing existing template calls. It's quite easy for someone who has little idea about templates to take an existing example and change its parameters - changing a page number, title casing a pasted-in uppercase title, turning a newspaper name into a wikilink, that sort of thing is obvious. Easier even than remembering the Harvard ordering for citation parts, or hand-editing MARC. I agree that the vast pile of {{efn-lr}} / {{refn}} / {{sfnp}} / {{harvid}} / {{harvnb}} / {{harvp}} can be confusing as to which to choose, but even there: once added it's quite easy to work with them or change the parameters.
As to whitespace in ref template calls, then this has clear readability benefits for future editors having to do manual editing. A linebreak between parameters is clear and size-efficient. One byte for a linefeed character consumes less space than the space padding that many editors place around the param bar |. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afrwid that I don't regard WP:CITEVAR as applying just to the visible citation as presented to readers, but to the citation markup as well. Converting a manual citation to a Cite XX template that produces the same output (until the template changes, at least) is a change in citation style. I happen to like LDRs and on several occasions when I have drafted an article using LDRs throughout I placed a note on the talk pagr not to change this without discussion leading to a changed consensus. Moreover, LDRs are not an unmixed benefit -- they are not friendly to section editing. There is no way to add a new ref using LDRs without either editing the entire article (usually a bad idea for large articles) or else having a cite error present briefly. As for line feeds in a cite template, i would like them in an LDR, bit not inline. They separate the parameters nicely, but they take up far too much vertical room in the edit box for my taste. Diferent editors have different prefernces, but local consensus should govern on any given article. DES (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe consensus is required to use LDR in an article that does not yet use that technique. Help:List-defined references says "After gaining consensus, reference styles may be converted from or to List-defined references". It also states "List-defined references and references defined in the body of the article may be mixed on a page - this is not a technical limitation of the template. However, this may be confusing to ongoing editors."
In the "Avoiding clutter" section of this guideline, it mentions LDR as a method to avoid clutter, and goes on to say "As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so." Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Help-namespace pages are not guidelines, and few watch list them or pay much attention to their content. A statement like "After gaining consensus," in of them is just someone pushing their "don't touch my pet citation style" stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, since I wrote CITEVAR originally, I'll tell you two facts:

  • I did not intend for it to cover relatively minor issues of wikitext formatting. I don't recall thinking specifically about LDR formatting at the time, but issues such as whether citation templates are given in one long line or with each parameter on a separate line were, in my mind, too trivial for anyone to care about.
  • A majority (sometimes slim) of editors have always interpreted it as covering absolutely anything and everything, down to unimportant details like whether there are spaces next to the equals signs in citation templates.

I therefore conclude that your cause is hopeless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're probably right. It seems in practice to depend far more on adminship, projects or our other various cabals. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That I would consider to clearly fall under by WP:citevar. Changing to named references is easily the most annoying thing that someone can do if they are not the main author because it makes it really difficult for the main editor to subsequently change the citation since there is no way of knowing which of the times it is called it is defined and one has to comb through the entire article to find the definition of the named ref when one needs to change it.

·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Named refs in the ref list are easy to work with though. It's when the definitions are "somewhere" in the article body that I would agree it's a pain. The main reason I favour them in a list now is to avoid the problem of searching whole articles for the matching name (which makes editing by section impractical too). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No because it stillr equires the author to memorize the arbitrary names of the references. That is why using the sfn template is much better, you only have to memorize the author name and year.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the article before conversion to LDR already had several named references, so there was no "changing to named references". I always find it amusing that everyone is perfectly amenable to adding named references (allowing a definition to take place almost anywhere in the text), because it's the obviously most sensible way of using the same source more than once; yet almost everyone is scandalised by the logical step of collecting those reference definitions into the References section, where they should belong if designers of mediawiki software had had any common sense in the first place. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a clear misreading of the intent which is that it is the style used by the original author. The purpose is to make sure that the citation style is one that is manageable for its main contributers so article writing isnt stifled by making style choices that the main authors are not familiar or comfortable with using.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
What is "style" though? Presentation or source code? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Both.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, since I wrote CITEVAR, I feel like I am unusually qualified to comment on what its intent was. I hereby declare that "make sure that the citation style is one that is manageable for its main contributers" was not one of my considerations, much less a primary intention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever your initial considerations may have been, I agree with Maunus that this is an important one for this guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
As with all such documents, it is what it says, not what it intended to say, that matters. It achieved concensus, and who can say what all the intentions of those supporting it were? I daresay things were much simpler in those distant days, & unmanageable citation styles mostly just a gleam in the eye of some editors. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for clarifying that. I've been saying this couldn't really be the intent for a long time, but some handful of editors just will not listent. I'm not swayed by the above argument by Nikkamaria, which amounts to "I don't care my interpretation is wrong". It simply can't be true that CITEVAR's point to is to make things comfy for one particular editor. The entire rationale of ENGVAR and CITEVAR both are reduction in page churn that dirupts articles for readers and editors alike, and an arbitrary decision that when consensus cannot be reached what the best option is, default to first major contributor. It's not because first major contributors have more rights or because their opinions are being valued more, it's just something that is easy to determine. The goal line one a football field is not marked where it is for some objective reason, it's just arbitrary so there can be a rule at all that people can agree on. In our case, this rule is turning out to be more problematic than anticipated (especially with ENGVAR), and the entire notion probably needs to be revisited. Very often there is a rationale, namely the nature of the subject itself, that indicates what the proper ENGVAR and CITEVAR should be, and consensus on that should normally not be difficult to achieve. But no one even tries any more, because too many over-controlling editors scream "first major contributor! hands off!" until they get their way. It's a bad choice because it falsely empowers a single editor to lord it over an article (or at least they think it does, and too often it does in practice because others get tired of arguing against the screamer).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
My argument is rather that the interpretation of the guideline is determined by the community and may well have evolved from what the original author intended. Indeed, this seems to mesh nicely with your subsequent arguments regarding first major editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Changing from LDR to inline refs and vice versa is a change in citation style, or so the current consensus is. I faintly lean toward supporting that consensus, but not for stubs. None of this applies to stubs. Another definite change of citation style is changing from Harvard to Vancouver, or whatever. Changing from copy-pasted text references to citation templates that mimic the same output is emphatically not a change of citation style, it's routine cleanup. Using the templates has benefits, including metadata generation, parseability by bots and other tools, etc. Converting to them is part or normal wikification. Changing citations that are not consistently in a WP-recognized style is expressly permitted: It's "imposition" of a style where there was none before. This is also true of imposing a WP-recognized style on citations that, although consistent, are not in a recognized style. Other minor cleanup such as making the name of a <ref> more sensible, making the entire citation more readable by normalizing the spacing to what the rest of the article is doing in citations (or imposing one spacing where there is no consistency in this regard), imposing a consistent parameter order, putting quotation marks around name values, adding name values to citations that don't have them but which are likely or planned to be reused for additional material, correcting misused parameters, etc. are not changes of citation style, but routine cleanup. We need to clearly state this in the guideline, to forestall an never-ending river to WP:LAME revert wars over this kind of trivia by inveterate page WP:OWNers. Being super-extra inclusive with regard to what CITEVAR encompasses is absolutely not worth this level of constant strife.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the fact that you start talking about the "benefits" of your preferred styles give the game away. What are "WP-recognized style"s? There's no list. If you keep encountering "constant strife" etc, it'll be because you keep breaching the guideline and failing to accept this. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see your reasoning, but the funny thing is, whenever people try to change CITEVAR, there's firm consensus against boldly switching between plain-text and template-based citations (so that's explicitly in the guideline as an undesirable action). But the stuff that you think is probably no big deal, like normalizing the spacing or changing the parameter order, is too contentious to add (either way), because editors don't agree on whether that's okay or a CITEVAR problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Trove citations

The digitized newspaper service Trove of the National Library of Australia has an inbuilt facility to supply a Wikipedia-formatted citation for any article they have in their collection. However, there are a lot of problems with it. For example, here's the generated citation for an article in the 25 July 1932 edition of the The News (Adelaide):

{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article129820832 |title=WINDFALL FOR NURSE. |newspaper=[[News |News (Adelaide, SA : 1923 - 1954)]] |location=Adelaide, SA |date=25 July 1923 |accessdate=14 June 2015 |page=1 Edition: HOME EDITION |publisher=National Library of Australia}}

The principal problem of course is that the wikilink is completely wrong; also the formatting of the newspaper name unnecessarily includes the date range the paper was published, it fails to use the 'edition' parameter of the template (and there a couple of other minor issues). And also, is it really helpful to have the 'publisher' parameter as National Library of Australia? Wouldn't 'via' be a more appropriate parameter? Did anyone officially consult with Trove on the formatting of these citations? This isn't an isolated case - another example would be the Adelaide Chronicle, where a Trove-supplied citation looks like this:

{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article87168526 |title=Advertising. |newspaper=[[Chronicle |Chronicle (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954)]] |location=Adelaide, SA |date=21 December 1895 |accessdate=14 June 2015 |page=1 |publisher=National Library of Australia}}

(This is from http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/87168526 - just click on Cite to generate it).

And there are many other examples, from different newspapers. I've been fixing a lot of these; I had been assuming that they were down to the quirks of one or two editors, but in fact they are being generated by Trove as Wikipedia citations. Action need to be taken to sort this out ASAP, but I'd like to check first whether there is some official channel of communication between WP and Trove before I take it up with them myself. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Trove has a forum apparently monitored by staff. That it might actually be a good method to get this message in front of the relevant personnel is indicated by the fact that a member posted a bug report there about the Wikipedia cite generator (though a different specific issue than we're discussing here), and a "staff moderator" responded to the member within two days that the issue would be passed along. See here. I just signed up for an account there to see if it was problematic but it was no problem at all. I suggest something along these lines:
Dear Trove staff:

I am a member of the English Wikipedia. We noticed your website's feature allowing generation of pre-formatted citations to newspaper articles that are available from your database. Experienced Wikipedians spend a great deal of time trying to make sure citations are provided and are cited in a manner that provides proper attribution. Anything that helps that goal is a great boon to us. Thank you! I wish I could say my only motivation in posting here was to express appreciation but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. In short, there are some issues with the way the citations are being generated. I was hoping this could be discussed here or passed along to the persons in charge of this feature. I'm going to set out below each issue, whether large or small, and of course we'll understand if only some of these can be acted on because of technical issues of feasibility. The issue that more than any other prompted this post is the way newspaper names are being generated:

The name of the newspaper (next to newspaper=) either should display as the name of the actual newspaper, or should not be linked at all, but in either case, should not be "piped" to the name in your collection that provides the year range. The manner it is being done sometimes results in a broken wikilink to a nonexistent title, sometimes to the wrong title, and always present the newspaper title as if the extraneous date range data was actually part of the newspaper's name. It would be easiest to simply not provide a link – to just provide the name of the newspaper without the year range. To expand a bit on the problem under the current formatting:

Say the newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald, which is presented by your generator as |newspaper=[[Sydney_morning_herald|The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954)]] That links actually works but that's not the name of the newspaper. The way to make a proper link to it in the newspaper field would be: |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] (Please note the lack of underscores and capitalized name).

The more complicated and problematic case is when when the newspaper does not have an article at Wikipedia at the plain title but at some form of "disambiguated" name. For example, your cite generator for The Advocate provides "|newspaper=[[Advocate |Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 - 1954)]]" This does not link to Wikipedia article on the newspaper because the Wikipedia article at the title "Advocate" is about the use of that phrase in the professional world ("a legal advocate"). "The Advocate" would also not work as it links to an article on the U.S. LGBT magazine. The Wikipedia article on this newspaper is actually at [[The Advocate (Australia)]]. Now I suppose you could fix the linking by pre-mapping every newspaper in your database with Wikipedia's corresponding article names for each newspaper and code the program to get it right, but the name would still not properly display with an internal reference to a year range, and I am guessing such coding would be a difficult task. Anyway, we often don't link the name of newspapers in citations, and we normally only link it upon its first occurrence.

A second issue is the publisher field (next to |publisher=), which should not be provided as "National Library of Australia". The publisher of a newspaper is often the newspaper (e.g., The New York Times is published by The New York Times) and in such cases is not included as redundant. The field exists because this is not always the case, e.g., the publisher of The Sydney Morning Herald is technically Fairfax Media. But the organization archiving a scan is not its publisher.

Third, the accessdate field's function is to provide data on what a source contained as of a particular date, where that source is subject to change at the flick of a few electrons, such as web-based news stories that may be modified at any time. It has no utility for paper sources. Since it appears all your content to be cited is digitized newspaper scans – paper sources – that field should not be included.

Finally, on a more minor note, it would be great if the title of the article (next to title=) could be provided in title case or even lower case. We try to avoid all caps.

Thank you,
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this detailed response. I've discovered that some of the same points were raised with Trove as recently as March this year, without any success (see User_talk:Doug_butler#Citation_formatting). I'll try submitting these points again, using the model you've suggested. If Trove are unwilling to do anything about it, we'll need to offer some clear guidelines to editors that those generated citations are not to be used - I've fixed many hundreds of them over the last few weeks, before discovering that I wasn't simply fixing a historic issue but in fact trying to keep up with an ever-expanding problem. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Maybe the posting to the forum, rather than to the email submission as was done in March, will result in more eyes on it as well as the higher scrutiny a public conversation versus a private one often result in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Kerry Raymond might have some ideas about how to contact Trove, or maybe User:The Interior could look into it. They probably didn't know about options like |via= when they set these up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I do know how to contact them. This issue of improving the format of these citation has been raised with them a number of times, but the response is usually "good idea, but we are pretty stretched for resources right now" (which is their response to most feedback). But maybe this is not an ideal time to approach them. The new Visual Editor has no way to add these pre-formatted Trove citations. For anyone not familiar with the VE, it is inconsistent in regard to the use of markup. There are parts of the VE where markup is forbidden (such as in citations) and parts of it where markup is necessary (e.g. in fields of templates). From my perspective, it makes it a bit hard to approach Trove to say "please please fix your Wikipedia citations" when WMF engineering efforts are (intentionally or not) deprecating the use of these Trove citations. I am a believer that the VE is the right direction to go in order to make contributing easier for more folk, but it has to have a way for these folk to incorporate markup supplied to them by tools (like Trove, uploaded files in Commons, spreadsheet-to-table tools etc) or mentioned in many instructions around Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to add that I added a comment on the Trove forums in support Colonies Chris's request. One thing I do note in the response is that Chris's request is obviously a bit different to some of the others they have received. Perhaps we should have one of the unconference sessions at Wikiconference Australia 2015 in October to get everyone interested in this topic to sit down and agree on what we'd like to see from these citations. Obviously if we are all asking for slight variations, it will make it harder to get a result than if we can have a more unified position on what the ideal Trove citation would look like. Kerry (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

ProQuest citations

Newspaper citations generated from ProQuest have a curious format: here's an example, from Something of Value:

<ref>Grace Kelly's Future Blooming; Lana Turner Film Found by Thorpe
Schallert, Edwin. Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File) [Los Angeles, Calif] 01 Apr 1955: B11</ref>

There's often (but not always) an embedded <newline> after the article title (I've simulated it here with a <br>), and of course the formatting doesn't conform to WP-recommended style at all, and it has this mysterious "(1923-Current File) " whose significance is far from obvious - it's not specific to the LA Times - citations from other papers have it too. See, for example, in Sexton Foods <ref>Sherry Building Is Sold In Queens :Plant in Long Island City Bought by Investors. (1962, January 30). New York Times (1923-Current file),p. 44. Retrieved November 1, 2010.</ref> And in that example, the date format is not WP-standard either. I don't have a ProQuest account, so I can't follow this up - does anyone else know anything about it? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the 1923-Current File is attempting to indicate copyright status; the 1923 at least makes that obvious. I'm unsure about Current file. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I thank that was meant to indicate that the cite is in their file of works from 1923 to the current day, the 1923-Current file, as opposed to, say, the 1870-1922 file. DES (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's plausible and not mutually-exclusive to my supposition. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Formatting citation found cited in other source

I am trying my best to stay faithful to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but I cannot find any proper format for a source I am citing which was found in another source. If someone can help me, that would be much appreciated, as the sources I am using to include into Wikipedia articles are largely non-fiction books on history and United Nations reports which pull their facts from external cited sources very often. Skywalker Kush (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you relate some details on what you are trying to cite? I looked at your contributions and could see attempts to edit related to this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Skywalker Kush, In general if you read a source "Marks" that quotes another source "Spencer" you cite Spencer as "Spencer quoted in Marks" (with full bibliographic detail for both Marks and Spencer). However if Marks is a secondary source that is itself sourced to Spencer, but you don't want to quote Spencer, merely support a fact stated AS a fact in Marks, you can simply cite Marks, you don't need to cite the various sources that Marks used. If Marks is a WP:RS, s/he is trusted to evaluate sources, and Marks's sources need not be cited to confirm Marks's statements. Only if you want to quote Spencer, or to use Spencer because Spencer is a source of higher reputation, need you sues the "quoted in" form. Or if you wish to indicate that the ultimate source of a fact is Spencer, but not to quote Spencer, you can use "Spencer, cited in Marks" instead. That latter form might also be used when Spencer is in fact a weak source, and you want to point out that the staement rests only on Spencer's authprity, not really on that of Marks. DES (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In this situation, I'm citing a fact from a journal article which was cited in a book I am reading. I've had to spend some time on search for examples where other people did something similar, and I think I have the basic idea. I believe this is basically what I would have to do:

<ref>{{cite journal| Journal}} cited in {{cite book| Book}}</ref> If I did something wrong, please let me know. Skywalker Kush (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Skywalker Kush, for supporting anything except a direct quotation, then it's much simpler. Did you (personally) read the journal article?
If yes, then your citation can look like this: <ref>{{cite journal| Journal}}</ref>.
If not, then your citation must look like this: <ref>{{cite book| Book}}</ref> – and that's it. You don't even need to mention the journal article in that situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, really? I don't need to cite where a fact came from that I found in a book, just the book itself? Skywalker Kush (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unlike a scholarly article, we're not trying to trace the origin of an idea. We're only trying to keep track of where the editor found the claim. If you've only read the book, then you should cite only the book. Also, if you're writing about health-related claims (a common source of "journal article cited in a book" issues), then please squawk, because I think you'll find that it's (unfortunately) a bit more complicated than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you are not citing "where a fact came from", but "who asserted such-and-such is a fact". More particularly, where you saw someone assert something as a fact. And the primary rule here is say where you read it. If Smith discovers something, which you read about in Jones, you cite Jones. But you can also do a citation like "Smith ... cited in Jones ...." This credits the original discoverer, but also shows you are relying on Jones' interpretation (and who knows, he may have gotten it wrong). Whether you use {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} depends only on the type of the source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How important is WP:CITEVAR?

As seen here, I got into a discussion with Synthwave.94 about consistent citation styles for WP:Featured articles and adhering to WP:CITEVAR. When I told Synthwave.94 that it is generally best to adhere to WP:CITEVAR, Synthwave.94 pointed to WP:Article size for reasons to change a citation style, and stated that editors don't seem to care about WP:CITEVAR and that "clever editing" can prevent editors from citing WP:CITEVAR when the reference style is changed. Since no one else weighed in on that discussion (well, except for this latest comment I tweaked; actual tweak here), and Synthwave.94 seemingly will continue to ignore the WP:CITEVAR guideline, and thinks that I am making a big deal about it, I have brought the matter here for further input. Looking at this discussion that Synthwave.94 had with IndianBio and De728631, I see that Synthwave.94 has been challenged on a reference style matter before. There might be other examples. Maybe Synthwave.94 has been reverted on reference matters more than Synthwave.94 thinks. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Failures to follow CITEVAR only make editing and reading articles harder for all involved. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, the issue you're mentionning is not really relevent here. I only wanted to change the template used for the German singles chart because the website used to support German peak positions doesn't work any longer and I wanted to solve the problem. However, as you can see on my talk page, I was thanked for this because other editors are now aware of the problem generated by this sudden change. On the other hand, as I mentionned here, WP:CITEVAR doesn't seem to be respected by many editors (I often edit articles watched by several other editors to change/complete newly added references without being reverted at all, for example) and this guideline seems to lead to an obvious ownership behaviour and all the negative sides linked to this disruptive behaviour. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No it's cite bandits who are disruptive, though they will sometimes get away with it. Don't kid yourself: asserting CITEVAR is not ownership behaviour. You protest far too much! If you think it is such a great idea, ask first, as you are supposed to do. Sometimes people won't mind, but often they do. The most important thing about changing citation styles is that those who actually add to the article remain able to do so. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the other issue is unrelated.
In the Michael Jackson edit, it appears that Synthwave.94 is replacing some (not all) citation templates with manually formatted citations, and replacing manually formatted short citations with {{sfn}}. Both of those actions are prohibited by CITEVAR without explicit consensus, especially because those are both actions that have long and hostile histories behind them.
However, other changes, such as turning bare URLs into fully formatted citations (using citation templates), are obviously helpful and should be encouraged.
WP:SIZE is about what the reader reads. But even if it were about the database size for the markup, it'd be silly to remove {{cite web}} from one citation on the grounds that it makes the file size slightly larger, while adding the same citation template to another—and in terms of the overall database, making any change to an article makes the database larger, even if the change is to make the current revision be shorter than the previous revision. And mixing the styles means that the page no longer meets FA standards. If you use {{cite news}} for one news article, then you need to use it for everything. These just aren't the same style:
One adds quotation marks, which the other omits; one italicizes the wire service, while the other doesn't. This does not meet the basic rule of using the same style throughout the article.
Furthermore, the URL changed from the Associated Press to (an archive of) news.yahoo.com, and news.yahoo.com is one of the least stable URLs for news sources, and not all editions of wire services' stories are identical. That kind of change, while it seems entirely helpful, really should not be made without carefully checking the newly linked source.
We need people who improve citation formatting. I'm glad that Synth is helping out with that work. This example really just shows how difficult it is to do perfectly in some cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94, from what I know, Alansohn, Johnbod and WhatamIdoing have it right when it comes to WP:CITEVAR. While the discussion you had with IndianBio and De728631 is unrelated to this matter, I pointed to it to as an additional example of how you go about reference matters. At Talk:Michael Jackson#Reference style, you stated, "[WP:CITEVAR] seems to be respected by a small number of editors, doesn't seem to be useful to improve the quality/readibility/accessibility of an article, and seems to be heavily linked with the ownership behaviour anyway (a sensitive case that you should be aware of and which is not welcomed over Wikipedia articles because of the problems it generates)." And like I mentioned there, that misguided notion is exactly why I brought this matter to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: : The Wayback machine template unfortunately requires some manual additions (authors, date, publisher, agency,...) but archiving urls is essential to avoid dead links and unverifiable sources. It's also a way to reduce the weight of an article. Also:

  • There's no reason to italicize "Associated Press" (see corresponding article) while magazines,... should be italicized (and you can see I did it manually).
  • I imagine the fact this template doesn't used quotation marks can be modified on the corresponding template.
  • Regarding the source itself, the original link was dead so I searched the Internet to see if another website posted the AP release and I decided using an archived reference from Yahoo! because it is not considered an unreliable source.
  • Some sources, including recent AllMusic urls and The New York Times, often redirect to other links when they're archived or are simply "badly" archived (eg. The New York Times logo appears over the written text and it's impossible to read it), so I didn't archive these specific references but I provided more recent links, especially for the AllMusic references. And as archive.is is blocked by Wikipedia I can't use any other form of archives for these specific websites.

I agree with you that it's a hard task but, as you can see, I archived as much references as possible to keep the most uniform citation style thoughout the article. And I'm perfectly competent to use the template correctly. @Flyer22: : But would you make me believe that the both of them can't be linked together ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Synthwave.94, what do you mean by your "both of them can't be linked together" question?
Also, your WP:Ping didn't work, but there is no need to WP:Ping me to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And either way, as noted, one of the reasons that I brought this discussion here is because you essentially stated that WP:CITEVAR is not important, have indicated that you don't follow it and that you commonly change the citation style of articles because of WP:Article size issues and because editors don't seem to care about WP:CITEVAR. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave, are you aware that you can archive links without using the badly inadequate Wayback template? Because then you can both have the archive link (which is good) and also keep a consistent citation format. This isn't an either-or thing. You can have both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CITEVAR is extremely important. I use the citation style that has been implemented by the first major contributor, even if I think it is an inferior style. When I find someone has changed it, I'll revert and have them gain consensus, per policy. One editor cannot just arbitrarily change citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Flyer22: : I mean that WP:CITEVAR may be linked to a ownership behaviour anyway. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94, I didn't state that WP:CITEVAR is never linked to ownership behavior; it can be linked to it in some cases, but I don't think WP:CITEVAR concerns ownership behavior as much as you think it does. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @GregJackP: : So according to you, it means that if there's no major contributor to a page, the style can be changed without any problem ? And how is it "important" if the main contributor of the page doesn't care about the citation style ? You're not proving anything at all about the importance of this "guideline". Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That is not what GregJackP said. If you want to change the citation style from an existing style you need consensus first. Its as simple as that.It is not ownership that when two people disagree about something that is a question of personal preference and one of them wrote the article and the other didn't then we defer to the person who did, untill there is a consensus that another choice is preferable. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And if the main contributor of an article doesn't revert you, doesn't disagree with you and accept your changes (something which happens to me a huge number of times) ? It proves WP:CITEVAR is not important at all. Again it seems to me that this guideline is heavily linked to a ownership behaviour. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No it doesnt. It just proves that the main contributor either didnt see the change or is a more reasonable person than you apparently are. Just as most other policies WP:CITEVAR specifically deals with the cases in which conflict arises - the fact that sometimes conflict doesnt arise in spite of someone not following the guidelines to avoid conflict does not show that the guidelines are superfluous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been edited a huge number of articles and I've never had much problems with the main contributor(s) of the articles I've been edited on so far, including other featured articles and numerous good articles as well. It seems to me that it should be followed in very specific cases only, such as when the main contributor of the page actually disagrees your changes. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The point of the policy is that it provides a guideline for how to avoid and solve conflicts about choice of citation style. If your experience is that others do not object to your changes to citation style then that is fine, but it has no relevance for the policy or how it should be applied. We have the policy IAR for this kind of reason exactly - as long as ignoring a rule does not cause problems or conflicts and improves the encyclopedia then the rule can be ignored. The rules are applied in the cases where behavior does cause problems and conflict. If an editor does revert your citation changes however, they will probably tell you that you didnt follow the guideline for how to establish consensus for citation changes and that would be correct.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I've understood this specific point. But if I there's no objection/disagreement regarding citation style changes then this guideline doesn't look very relevent in any way. Also I'm experienced enough regarding how improving the citation style throughout an article and I know what I'm doing when I change all of this. This is probably the reason why other editors accept my changes and thank me for this reason. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There is plenty of disagreeement and conflicting personal preferences. I dont know what kind of changes you make, but if there are no objections that is a good sign. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I perfectly know it and this is the reason why I usually take care about looking if there is a consensus regarding genres (because I often change genres providing reliable references to support my changes, even if it's sometimes a very sensitive case...) or any other However, regarding citation styles, I've never seen any form of specific consensus so far. To give you a slight idea of what I do, I often archive dead links, as well as other urls which are still working. I also complete incomplete references providing, for example adding the author, the publisher, the newspaper,... of the source and I make sure to use a consistent dmy (or mdy) format throughout. I also use a "sfn" template because it automatically links the in-text template to the book/journal/magazine at the bottom of the page, which is very useful for both the reader and other editors, etc. So I'm quite "specialized" in cleaning up an article using an appropriate citation style. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Cleaning up or enforcing consistency is not a type of change that is associated with WP:CITEVAR. But for example a blanket change of consistent use of named citations with the <ref name=> to the us of {{sfn|}} template would be covered by CITEVAR, and an editor might reasonably object if they are more familiar or accustomed to using the ref=name style, and have used that in building the article. Here you would then have to convince the editor why your style is better and easier (I prefer sfn myself) or otherwise generate a consensus for your change.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm aware that if someone else disagree with my changes then I would discuss them in order to seek a consensus and to explain why I think my changes regarding citation styles are better. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, explaining it is not enough though it requires getting consensus, as long as it is just two people with different preferences the preference of the original/main contributor takes precedence. That is all WP:CITEVAR is about in terms of behavior - the other main function of WP:CITEVAR is to make it clear that wikipedia allows any consistently used citation style and does not have a house style that must be followed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That Synthwave.94 has done some good work in making citations better and more consistent, and that other editors have tacitly accepted his work, in no way disproves the importance of CITEVAR. At most it shows that formal consensus is not always needed. What I find disturbing here is the claim that asserting CITEVAR (presumably in defense of the status quo) amounts to "ownership behaviour". There has been no question here of ownership; this claim is just blowing smoke in lieu of a valid argument. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Synthwave.94, you can edit on articles all you want, you can improve them by removing dead links, using archived links, etc. What you cannot do is change the citation style without consent. OK, so maybe other editors didn't complain. Here, you've had numerous editors tell you that it is not OK to make the changes to the citation style of a featured article. That mean's if you want to make those changes to the refs, you have to either use the current citation style, or obtain consensus to change the style. GregJackP Boomer! 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I edited few featured articles so far and I think the main editors didn't seem to care about it anyway. This is probably the reason why I didn't have much problems about it before. I would be more careful the newt time I edit a featured article in this case. Regarding the "ownership" argument, this is the main idea this guideline makes me think of : you prevent other editors to improve a citation style for example Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with ownership. For example, I have exactly one edit to the Jackson article. I was drawn there by this discussion. As J. Johnson said, it is disturbing that you would equate asserting CITEVAR to article ownership. It has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with you changing things without consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 04:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not just a featured article matter, though. For example, before going to the WP:Good article Lady Gaga and changing its citation style (and I don't mean minor tweaks), you should attempt to gain consensus for the matter on the article's talk page. It's the same for non-WP:Good and non-WP:Featured articles as well. If, after a reasonable amount of time, no one replies or objects if they do reply, then you should feel free to be WP:Bold and change the citation style. GregJackP and/or others might feel differently about that matter, but if the first major contributor has abandoned the article and it isn't clear that others care about the current citation style of the article, I don't think that the article should have to forever use the citation style of that first major contributor. You can see in this case where I was queried about the first major contributor regarding WP:CITEVAR at the Clitoris article, and pointed out the following: The Clitoris article was very poor eight years ago, before I brought the article to WP:Good article status, that WP:CITEVAR speaks of WP:Consensus, that a WP:Good article review is a WP:Consensus process, and I would not call the editor in question "the first major contributor." I essentially asked in that discussion: "Was I supposed to use the citation style of an editor who made small changes to the article, had sparingly edited it, and had long since abandoned it, when I had become the article's main contributor?" My thought process on that matter was "no," but I remained open to the notion of changing the citation style that I am currently using for the Clitoris article. And since that article uses a complicated citation style, which I've commented on, it might be best to change it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

CITEVAR is one of the most abused guidelines in Wikipedia. It is basically used to freeze an article in a poor state of referencing and thwart efforts at improving referencing because of the ownership displayed at so many articles. Let's be clear about this: CITEVAR was intended to be a tie-breaker in the event of dispute between two competing, equivalent styles of referencing. Its value is in preventing an editor changing everything to Vancouver style because they prefer that style over Chicago style, etc. What it was never intended to do was stop an editor from regularising the citations where multiple styles are present, nor to prevent an editor from improving bare urls to proper citations that are much less affected by linkrot. One only has to take a look at the mish-mash of styles in the Michael Jackson article as it stands today to see CS1-style, hand-written text, pseudo-harvard style book cites, bare urls, a file on Commons and other inventions, many of which are inconsistent even within each type. It beggars belief that anyone seriously thinks there is any value in preserving this spectrum of confused referencing. I defy anybody to justify using the words "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. to admonish Synthwave.94 for attempting to regularise the citations. Half-a-dozen mutually incompatible variations of referencing do not qualify as "an article's established citation style" and common sense dictates that the key tenet of Wikipedia:Citing sources - "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout" takes precedence over anything else. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, it's not clear to me, and apparently not clear to others above, that Synthwave.94 was attempting to regularize the citation style in the article. I didn't think about the inconsistency of the citation style in the article until Synthwave.94 made the changes; I then noted to Synthwave.94 the existence of WP:CITEVAR and that WP:Featured articles in particular should have consistent citation style; it was not meant to admonish Synthwave.94, and I made it clear to Synthwave.94 in my second post addressing him or her at that article's talk page that "I didn't start this section to contest [Synthwave.94's] changes." This link, when one clicks on the "Edit" feature, shows what the article's citation style looked like in 2008 when it was promoted to WP:Featured article status. While I know that WP:Featured article standards have gotten stricter over the years, the way the article formatted citations at that time was good enough to pass as WP:Featured. This link shows what it was like after passing WP:Peer review in 2009. Instead of being more consistent with a previous/existing style of the article, Synthwave.94 chose to add a new style to the article; that didn't strike me as ideal, but I was more concerned with the article going with some type of consistent style. It was not until Synthwave.94 and I were actually into a debate about WP:CITEVAR that Synthwave.94 indicated that he or she intends to make the citation style more consistent. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
RexxS: You are talking nonesense. You seem to have missed that CITEVAR expressly encourages
* Improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations ....
* Imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles ....
It seems you have also missed that no one is chiding Synthwave for any improving or regularizing. (Though he seems to have contributed to some of the "mish-mash" you complain of.) The issue here is about his view that CITEVAR is unimportant, and "seems to lead to an obvious ownership behaviour and all the negative sides linked to this disruptive behaviour." (03:22, 2 June). Your statement that CITEVAR "is basically used to freeze an article in a poor state of referencing and thwart efforts at improving referencing" (besides being unsupported) quite overlooks its intended purpose of thwarting degradation (whether wholesale or piecemeal) of articles in a good state of referencing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: I'm not talking "nonesense" (sic), but thank you for for personalising the discussion. So much for civil debate here. The question here is at the top of the section: "How important is WP:CITEVAR?" and you have my response to that question: it's much less important than WP:CITE; and it has the disadvantage that it's sometimes used to attack editors when article owners don't like those editors' changes to their article. I have not said that is the case here, but your defensiveness about the issue is telling. Most editors would attempt to AGF that an editor was genuinely trying to improve an article, whether or not they were doing a good job of it. Now it's a pity that you can't spend the effort you've put into arguing here into improving the poor state of referencing on Michael Jackson. The very least you could do is take a good look at the state of the citations in that article and comment in the light of that at the RfC on its talk page. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The facts remain that CITEVAR does NOT prevent, but expressly encourages, improving or regularizing citations (as I have shown), and that no one is being chided here for any such improving or regularizing. Allegations that this policy is "sometimes used to attack editors when article owners don't like those editors' changes", lacking any examples, amount to mere arm-waving. But even if we grant that such cases exist, there is no showing that they amount to anything more than misuse of a good policy. And most certainly no one "thinks there is any value in preserving this spectrum of confused referencing"; that is a strawman argument of no relevance here.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact is that a tool is only as good as the worker who wields it. The same goes for Wikipedia policies and CITEVAR is one of the most abused guidelines that we have. You're living in a dream world if you really think that it doesn't get used regularly to justify knee-jerk reverts of referencing improvements. And if you maintain that nobody wants to hang on to a collection of confused referencing, I suggest you mosey over to Michael Jackson; have a look at the sheer number of different reference styles there; and then take a gander at the RfC on the talk page. Now tell me again that "most certainly no one thinks there is any value in preserving this spectrum of confused referencing. You think the referencing at that article is fine, do you? --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
RexxS, the problem was that Synthwave ended up making this happen in real life. The article started with half a dozen citation "styles" in use, and rather than convert everything to a single style, he added yet another non-matching style. The established style was 100% consistent at the time of its FAC. Synthwave screwed up the formatting of some by turning perfectly formatted citations into a mishmash of {{wayback}} templates and manual formatting, and also introduced the use of {{sfn}}—but only for some citations, not for all of them. At least most of us are in favor of a consistent format. Unfortunately, "one consistent style throughout the article" is the opposite of what Synthwave did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly.
RexxS: civil debate is not advanced when you keep pulling in this strawman argument that anyone thinks the referencing at Michael Jackson "is fine". And your repeated attempts to attribute that to me amounts to misrepresentation (see WP:TALKNO). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
So you haven't looked at Michael Jackson, have you? You tell me that no one is in favour of keeping a mish-mash of reference styles, and as soon as I show you an obvious counter-example, you call it "strawman". You really need to stop talking bollocks and admit when you've been clearly shown to be wrong. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you have not shown us any "obvious counter-example" of someone who "thinks there is any value in preserving this spectrum of confused referencing". Perhaps that is how you interpret some comments or edits, but lacking direct quotes or diffs that is only your view. And your attempts to attribute such views to me amounts to misrepresentation. You really ought to not bother with the mis-leading questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have shown an obvious counter-example. Editors answering the RfC question: "Should the citation style on this article be changed from the complex, mixed style?" with "No change", "change isn't needed", "Fine as it is". I'm guessing you're interpreting those comments as "Yes, let's change from the complex, mixed style". Is English your first language? --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you stupid? Are you always a jerk? Are you done with the snippy leading questions? More seriously, do you know how to use dfffs? More particularly, you have failed to note that at Talk:Michael_Jackson#Request_for_comment_on_citation_style three editors expressly confirmed (at "Administrivia") that "no change" meant [emphasis added] "No change to long-established style", not the then current "mish-mash" exacerbated by Synthwave. Your "obvious counter-example" is flat-out contradicted. (So who needs to "stop talking bollocks"?) Of course it "beggars belief that anyone seriously thinks there is any value in preserving this spectrum of confused referencing" – for the extremely simple reason that no one thinks that. Again: that is a strawman argument. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a horrible mish-mash these days. The problem is that Synthwave's effort to improve it made the mish-mash even worse. Did you look at the diffs? He removed correctly formatted {{cite web}} citations, and substituted in this half-manual, half-templated thing so he could use {{wayback}} (I don't think he knew that |archive-url= existed and would save him a lot of time). But then he went to the next citation, which was a bare URL, and added {{cite web}} for it. If he'd turned them all into CS1, nobody would be complaining; in fact, people would probably be handing out barnstars. But that's not what he did.
No, let me make this easier for you. Here's the massive diff. Search for "Novack". Look in both columns. See how he changed that perfectly good CS1 citation into something weird with the {{Wayback}} template? That's bad. Now search for "ldyRUqGN3XA". See how he turned that bare URL into a perfectly good CS1 citation? That's good. But it also creates a mis-match when the first one that he changed. If he'd done the second and left the first alone, nobody would be complaining. We just want him to stop screwing up the few citations that were already in good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with what you want, but I was hoping that encouraging him to do the job right would be more productive than beating him about the head over mistakes. Having tried to offer him advice, I can appreciate the problem you're facing. Nevertheless, he spotted that the Michael Jackson references were in dire straights and his intention was to fix them, so we can't doubt his good faith. Why not see if we can't get consensus to regularise the references to something standard? I'd prefer CS1/sfn, but I could live with CS1/manual-harv (even though it's inferior from a maintenance perspective). --RexxS (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there already is consensus for CS1/manual-harv, since everyone except you has supported that option in the RFC. Synthwave hasn't expressed a preference for any of the options proposed. Of course, it's always possible that if the RFC continues longer, that a different approach would be favored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The question at Talk:Michael Jackson asks the question "Should the citation style on this article be changed from the complex, mixed style, to: ...?" with four options, including "No change". Four out of the five commentators supported "No Change" (i.e. keep the complex, mixed style) before you altered "No Change" to mean something else. You can't change an RfC question after editors have !voted, so I'll be restoring the question to its state when the comments were made. I can't see any consensus there for anything other than keeping the current mess, unless the weight of the argument for settling on a particular style persuades the commentators to change their minds. --RexxS (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've pinged the other three !voters at that page to ask them to explicitly agree or disagree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
And there is a winner! (See Talk:Michael_Jackson#Administrivia.) It's a unanimous "No change to long-established style." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
CITEVAR's sole purpose is to avoid pointless quarrels over which citation style an article uses. If someone uses a few cites of the "wrong" variety, then that is easily fixed. If someone changes the style of an article completely, and someone else prefers the former style, then it can be reverted. If no-one cares, it is bad form to use a policy intended to avoid disputes to create them-though I have seen that done a number of times.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC).
I agree with you. It's not very relevant, though, because he did not change the style "completely". He only changed some of the citations, so that the style confusion was worse when he finished than it was before he started. Some of his changes (especially writing complete citations for bare URLs) are very praiseworthy, but the overall effect was negative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question

If everyone is settled with the irrelevant side issues, perhaps we can back to the question of "How important is WP:CITEVAR?". This arose from a dispute at Talk:Michael_Jackson#Reference style, and specifically from Synthwave.94's comment there (00:31, 1 June) that "editors don't seem to care about WP:CITEVAR", and amplified above ("not important at all"). I think most of us are agreed CITEVAR is important, even very important. Does anyone disagree? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I see it (as expressed here) as having become ludicrously restrictive, thus harmful. It should go, or at least be re-written.
There are two improved versions that I can see for citevar:
  • "Variation" is still bad but "variation" is defined as being based on the presentation version of the page, not the source. Just as for the note on WP:AWB § Rules of use #4 "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit."
  • Editing of citations is permitted, and even encouraged, where this is an improvement. The obvious drawback is of course the cat-herding problem of getting agreement on what "improvement" means.
As it is, we are in a bad situation with CITEVAR. Last night a 'bot ran repeatedly across Balloon flange girder (an article to which I'm the only significant editor) to remove whitespace. See User_talk:Magioladitis#Ref with space is not a markup error. After reversion, the same edits were made repeatedly. Magioladitis made several incorrect statements of fact to defend this, and even edited my talk: page comment (see [7]) against WP:TPO to remove the very specific and relevant format of my comment to highlight exactly what the problem was.
In the situation that caused me to post here initially, [8] my addition of a new reference was changed (and not for the first time) "because of" CITEVAR (!) on the fallacious reason that references within an article "don't mix WP:LDR with normal named refs;". This is doubly wrong: there is no reason whatsoever not to mix the formatting between references, because that's a matter affecting the individual reference, not the article. Secondly what is a "normal" reference? That is a prejudicial term indicating that one editor's favoured style is somehow objectively favoured over all others. There is no technical nor policy justification for that.
This afternoon I fixed a broken footnote on Branlebas-class destroyer and also improved the formatting of citations so as to link them to their references. All this in an article tagged as "Needs improved references". This was summarily and speedily reverted. A reversion so fast that it caught out my next edit with a conflict, to add a large section on the engineering of these ships. A section both needed in this skimpy article, and rarely available - it so happens I have a couple of large bound volumes of the Journal of Naval Architecture from this period and one covers the Branlebas class in technical detail. This is now lost to WP, probably forever, because if another editor wants to assert WP:OWNership like this, then they can go and play with themselves and leave me out of it. As it is now, the article has sprouted a thin section on engineering that can't even quote its own sources correctly, with mis-spelling and simple inaccuracies in it already (which is going some, given how short the section is).
The common factor here seems to be the regular wikicrap of Admins. If you're an admin you get to ignore whatever rules you like and piss all over the editing of the plebs, because they're just a lower form of life. We have policies like CITEVAR and ENGVAR to guard against that, instead they're being used as an excuse for it – so long as you're one of the privileged class of content arbiters. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I, for one, think WP:CITEVAR is important, but somewhat unfortunately written. What is important is that a stable, consistant system or style of citation/rfeferencing should not be disrupted without consensus merely because someone thinks that a different style is preferable. When there is no consistant style, changing some cites to try to move towards a consistant style is desirable, not discouraged. When the "curent style" is to use bare urls, changing to a style that supplies proper bibliographic information is a gain, not a loss. I would favor a version of citevar that placed more emphasis on stability and consistancy, not on the "original contributor". But having said all that, I think that it is generally better to discuss changes in citation style, and obtain consensus for them, before making multiple changes. And when a change disrupts an existing style, or does not move toward a consistant style, and no consensus for a change has been obtained, I would call that disruptive editing. DES (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree with some but not all of what Andy Dingley says above. I do think that the form of the wiki-code is relevant and changes to it are changes of "citation style" because this can significantly affect the editing experience. For example, while I favor LDRs, I don't think them equivalent to non-LDR citations, and a change from or to an LDR-based set of citations is IMO a change of style that should have consensus. As an admin myself, I have always tried to respect policies and guidelines, and have never felt myself "above the rules". Admins are human and I have disagreed with several, and even chided several for WP:IAR admin actions (mostly not in the area of citation style, because that isn't my major focus). It may well be that some admins, or some experienced non-admins, misuse CITEVAR to get things "their way", but then any policy or guideline can be misused. That is not an argument for discarding or deprecating CITEVAR, IMO. I can't speak to the issues of the specific articles and edits that Andy Dingley discusses above, of course. DES (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) @Andy Dingley: (I messed up the notification in my previous edit.) DES (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"Admins are human" That's not seemingly a courtesy they extend to editors.
As I recall, one of the key principles of adminship is that they are granted some additional powers, but that they have no privilege above other editors in the editing that all editors are otherwise capable of. i.e. an admin never gets to say "I am right" simply because they're an admin. I see that as a really important principle here, yet it's so widely ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that admins are not supposed to have or claim special editing privilages. I don't think I have personally ever done so, and I am sure that I don't do so routinely. I can't speak for all admins on this, but most that I have observed in action don't do that, as I recall. I have more often seen experienced but non-admin editors acting like that towards less exprienced editors, which is also wrong. Now can we return to the specific isuse of WP:CITEVAR, and perhaps achieve something positive? DES (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer OP's question, "How important is WP:CITEVAR?", my take is multi-part, divided by stakeholder:

  1. It's of very low importance to readers. It's important in one negative sense, in that some styles are extremely unsightly (use of Small Caps Titles), or downright confusing (using neither italics nor quotation marks for titles of major works). In my view we should either not accept them, or accept them only in modified form that conforms to the user-friendly treatment of at least those two problems, but there are others. Then there's the "importance for subject-matter experts" claim, the mythical case of the [insert any academic example, e.g. ...] herpetology professor who comes and looks at a lizard article on WP, sees that the references are not formatted the way most herpetology journals do it, freaks out, and never comes back. This is farcical scenario for which there's no evidence, and it's an insulting idea, assuming that academics are petty to psychotic levels, and incapable of understanding that different publications have different citation styles. Anyone who has ever even had one semester of college/university knows there are multiple citation styles. And all academics are used to multiple citation styles, since when they submit a paper to a general journal, like Science or Nature the citation style is liable to differ from the one they are used to, and even in their own filed it probably varies, depending on the geographic location of the journal publisher. The "not doing citations in the style expected by experts in the field in question makes Wikipedia look unprofessional" argument is pure, unadulterated bollocks. If this were true then every single publication in the world that did not use the crazy academic's exact citation quirks would be "unprofessional". I submit that there are zero people in the world in whose mind such a belief could be true. It means that the most prestigious science journals in the world are "unprofessional" unless they just coincidentally match the cite style of Nutty Professor's favorite journal.
  2. It's of low importance to Wikipedia as a whole; the actual harm caused by changing citation styles (competently) is very low, and variable, as we'll see. Mostly just a factor of squabbling. The argument is advanced often that it helps reduce citation=related strife. The opposite argument is also advanced, and I'm leaning toward that camp after over a year of problems caused by CITEVAR, while recognizing that some uses of CITEVAR do reduce strife. The overall effect may turn out to be a net loss in the long run, unless CITEVAR is fixed to prevent its abuse for micromanaging and stonewalling against template formatting of citations, as I detailed further up the page.
  3. It's of middling but questionable importance to some wikiprojects, who want to exert a consistent style (usually that preferred by the majority of journals in their field) on articles within their scope. There are various problems with this, the most obvious being WP:OWN. There are hardly any topics that have only one conceivable wikiproject scope (even the herpetologist's lizard has a geographic scope, at bare minimum). So, what to do when two projects claim scope? Or 7? Why, fight to the death about it, of course. CITEVAR helps end these fights – sometimes –, so it might be a net productivity gain for the encyclopedia and for the projects. But the results are not necessarily good in other ways. The "first major contributor" (FMC hereafter) is very often a hobbyist/amateur, who picked a citation style at random, and the resultant style might not make sense in the views of any of the scope-asserting projects. Or the OWN problem: project A got there first, but project B insists their scope claim is more valid, and so consensus (which can always topple the FMC's preferences) should go their way. Now we have another fight, and CITEVAR helped complicate it. A third problem with this is that some styles (e.g. Vancouver) are unfamiliar to anyone else but a small group of specialists, and it's a terrible imposition on all others on the system to figure out and comply with their peculiar citation demands, but wikiprojects will just editwar them until they comply or quit in disgust. There are other issues, but I'll move on.
  4. It's of high but questionable importance to some individual editors. Most of them are are the same as for wikiprojects, but there's also the "I edit this whole set of article a lot and have them laid out in a way that's efficient and familiar for me to deal with" argument. This has some validity. But it raises the same OWN and forcing-everyone-else-to-figure-out-your-way problems. The second big citation style myth is that subject-matter experts will quit or not join Wikipedia if they cannot use some particular citation style. Prove it. I dare you. Show me even one single person who has quit WP or said they will ever edit here, because they can't use a particular citation style. Show me one who vows to quit if they can't. Unless they're using a particularly oddball style, they should already be able to use Citation Style 1 and just tell it to output the format they "need". And as already noted, these people are plenty used to having to switch citation styles for different publications.
  5. It's of absolutely paramount but invalid "importance" to a small number of editors, who abuse CITEVAR to micromanage articles they act OWNish towards, and even seize control of others. They will fight to the end of time to get their way on every tiny citation formatting nitpick that has nothing to do with CITEVAR's actual scope and intent. In this respect these people are a curse. It wish it were true that they were simply WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia but to engage in weird power trips, so we could just block them and get back to work. Unfortunately for this problem but fortunately otherwise, they're often quite productive content writers and sourcers, and often also subject-matter experts would produced high-quality content. They just happen to also be on a disruptive power trip, and CITVAR is "enabling" (in the negative psychological sense) this.
  6. It's of indeterminate importance to reusers of WP content. What they really need is template-formatted references. Then they can use processing on their side to reformat citations any way they need. The templating, then, is of high importance to this audience, while the specific styles and ability (mostly inability) to switch between them is largely meaningless. One minor exception is "dump-and-reuse" types who grab the content and some basic style in it and repurpose without much processing. It's marginally beneficial for them to get citation styles that match the main subject of the article if there is one. But this is probably the very bottom-rung concern in our stakeholder considerations.
  7. Most importantly, it's of high but mostly negative importance to all other editors, who are not ingrained boosters of any particular citation style, but are being browbeaten on a daily basis to conform to a proliferating number of mutually contradictory citation styles. About the only thing most of us get out of CITEVAR at all, that's consistent, is that if we start an article (past stub stage) then citation style "activists" can't come editwar us into submission over citation formatting nitpicks. They just have to sod off, unless they can present a reasoned case and gain consensus for a change. We usually won't care as long as it's not something weird. But if it is, we're right back to the problem first mentioned in this line-item. The amount of editorial pain that CITEVAR causes for everyday editors is not insignificant, and this has led to readily observable increased in WP:DGAFism, just pasting in plain-text cites and walking away, because no one wants to deal with citation style vipers heading over to bite their ankles.

The obvious solution to most of this conflict is to have a citation template system that has the same parameters for all styles, and generates the output each citation style expects by using a parameter to tell the template which to use. And we're well on the way to that. This is also why it logically cannot be the case that CITEVAR prevents conversion of plain-text citations to templated versions, or allows the reverse. It does not affect the actual citation style, but it does make the citation style penetrable to all editors. If there's a citation style that cannot be templated yet, then it should be deprecated here until it can be. If someone wants to editwar you to prevent you template-converting citations, with the same output, take them to WP:ANI and help put a stop to this nonsense.

An even more obvious solution, but one which is unlikely to gain consensus any time soon, is to have a single WP citation style, like all other publications do. We should have done that years ago and stuck to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is going to take a while to fully digest your comments. But there is an obvious response regarding "hav[ing] a single WP citation style": there has never been, nor is even now, consensus as to what that single, mandatory style should be. That is something I think we have to evolve into, as editors generally become more familiar with styles beyond what they learned in their particular college, and we get more experience in how a universal style would deal with diverse and occasionally really weird situations. In this regard CITEVAR is actually an aid: each article is potentially an experiment in the consistent use of some "style". If any problems are found in the use of that style that is something to be considered before mandating some style. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A single WP citation style is a no-go, and the entire wall of text just serves to feed the centralist, rules driven admins. Andy Dingley is correct on the problem, that it is used by admins and others to create wikicrap instead of letting people create good content. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Just how is CITEVAR "used by admins and others to create wikicrap instead of letting people create good content"? So that we might examine just how this supposedly happens, could you show us a specific instance of where CITEVAR was used to turn "good content" into "wikicrap"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP? Or anyone else: can we have a specific case to examine? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the state of the cites on Michael Jackson come to mind, they had to be in good shape to get past the review, and now look at them. GregJackP Boomer! 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Good grief, surely you can find a better example. Did we not settle the issue of Synthwave.94's edits at Michael Jackson in the previous sub-section? His edits there made the situation worse (see WhatamIdoing's comments of 06:38, 7 June, 06:49, 7 June, and 03:59, 8 June), for which it was specious of him to blame CITEVAR. There is no demonstration that any of the post-review degradation of the Michael Jackson citations is in anyway the result of applying CITEVAR. On the contrary, that mess results from editors that either ignored or deprecated CITEVAR, and is thus an example of why we should have CITEVAR. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP, Andy Dingley, or anyone else: can we have a specific example showing how CITEVAR is "used by admins and others to create wikicrap"? Andy claimed as much for this reversion of his edit that mixed LDR style with normal refs, but that reversion seem quite reasonable. So where is some real CITEVAR-based "wikicrap"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Some venting about admins that veered off-topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My point was not that this is used by admins to "create wikicrap" (i.e. poor quality content) because I just don't consider citation format (presentation / use of templates or not / whitespace in source) to be a deal-breaker for article quality. What I wrote was "the regular wikicrap of Admins", meaning the action itself. There are admins who see themselves as privileged arbiters of content, against all policy. When one of such reverts a GF editor making improvements to an article, that is a non-irrelevant irritation to such an editor (but who gives a damn about the plebitors).
I edit increasingly less and less. I certainly have a great reluctance to improve existing articles, especially the more important a topic they are and the initially worse they are, knowing how more likely such reversions become (I'd much rather write an obscure article that no-one else will ever even read). I avoid the aircraft project in particular because of a cabal of editors there taking the "Our way or the highway" line, even on simple factual issues, and backed up by a project admin.
I mentioned Redrose64 above. Just on Friday they reverted a bunch of another editor's correct changes (unsourced, but easily sourceable). I restored one of them (not the others) because I'm familiar with that particular subject. I was even quick enough to get some of the obvious three sources in place just to stop being re-reverted myself. Not to be thwarted though, Redrose64 then pops up on my talk: page User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Chepstow_listing (why my talk: page? Is this a warning?) to cast doubt on the truth of this (by citing an infamously unsearchable website as a not-found) and explaining WP:CAT to me as if I've been editing for a week. This is wikicrap. This is admins refusing to believe that just occasionally one of the plebs might be right, but reminding them that they're watching out for them anyway. This is broader than CITEVAR, but sometimes anything in ALLCAPS will do, the point is to preserve the hierarchy, not to achieve a better article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy, in both this and your initial comment in this subsection it looks like you are just venting about your recent conflicts with certain editors (who just happen to be admins). In all this CITEVAR is only incidentally touched on, and no where shown to the cause of any problems. In otherwords, you are off-topic. Would you mind if I collapsed your comments in order to prevent them from being a distraction in this discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have collapsed some venting about certain conflicts with other editors where CITEVAR was only incidentally touched on. There has been no showing that CITEVAR is in itself the cause of any problems, nor that it has been "used by admins and others to create wikicrap instead of letting people create good content".

In support of CITEVAR's importance I assert that:

1) Our fundamental principle of WP:VERIFIABILITY requires proper citation.
2) Proper citation frequently involves large amounts of bibliographic information.
3) To be useful this bibliographic information must be presented fully, accurately, and succinctly.
4) This requires consistency of style and format in any particular context.

Additionally I will hazard an observation that objections about CITEVAR may reflect a deeper feeling that citation itself is too onerous. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is WP:CITEVAR used to create "wikicrap"?

Improper, non-actionable RfC. Statement non-neutral, result could not be used to edit the relevant guideline page. An RfC on whether the guideline should be changed or whether it is prone to misuse, might be useful. DES (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

In an previous discussion (#How_important_is_WP:CITEVAR.3F) it was claimed that WP:CITEVAR "is used by admins and others to create wikicrap instead of letting people create good content" (here, 04:58, 18 June, by GregJackP, following comment here, 00:31, 14 June, by Andy Dingley). To date this claim has not been supported by an specific instances. To determine if there may be any basis of concern here I invite comment from the community at large:

Are there any instances of "wikicrap" (however defined) resulting from the proper and intended application of WP:CITEVAR?

Note that allegations of misuse of CITEVAR (e.g., by an admin) are excluded, and this is not a request for argumentation. This request is solely to identify possible instances of an alleged problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You've been told this once already so shove it. That is a misquote. Read what I said, it's on this same page. Do not misquote people in an audit-trailed medium, it makes you look like a lying prat. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Also you were given a response to this before and your only reaction to that was to hide it with a hatnote. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am going to slide under the close to respond to Andy: I was not quoting you, I was quoting GregJackP, and, to the best of my knowledge, that quote is accurate. And I don't know how DES calls this non-neutral, as I my intent was to collect any evidence in support of your (and GJP's) position. But I'll explore that elsewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dash in citation title

Do we have to comply with MOS:DASH in citations' titles ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc)? For example, "TeamA 1-0 TeamB", should it be displayed "TeamA 1–0 TeamB" regardless of its original title? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Some discussions I have found: Featured article criteria/Archive 7#Another question about dashes, Archive 93#Things that shouldn't be changed. SLBedit (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Guideline for not using a Wikipedia article as a cite

I thought there was a guideline for not using a Wikipedia article as a cite, but I can't locate it. Can anyone point out to me where it's located? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: WP:CIRC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would note that I expected to see some reference to WP:CIRC on this page. I find it odd that on a page that discusses sources to cite, that it doesn't say anything about this. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Guidance re: need for citations in a brief mention that links to a main article

I am having a hard time finding the answer to this -- I've received opposite opinions from two experienced editors.

When an article includes a brief and non-controversial mention of the subject of another article which is very well-sourced, and includes a 'See main article:' pointer to that article, do we need to cite those sources again for this brief mention?

Here's the recent example: Cincinnati#Local_specialties mentions Cincinnati chili and Goetta.

Here's the diff: [9]

I'm just trying to get this straight for myself -- I was assuming that in an ideal world, everything would be sourced everywhere it appears, but that in this type of case (brief/noncontroversial/points to well-sourced main article) that a {{cn}} isn't necessary and may not even be helpful given that there may be other more important things to fix. I usually drop a {{cn}} if I see something that clearly needs it and I don't have time to fix it myself, but should I actually be placing them in these kinds of situations too? Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style#References notes that anything warranting a citation should be cited everywhere it appears, whether in the main article or the summary. Looking at the diff you provide, I would tend to agree a citation is warranted for at least some of that material. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, NikkiMaria! That was exactly what I was trying to find! valereee (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I'd like to make this specific and clear within the guidelines (that anything needing a citation can't depend on the citations in the main article but must be brought to mentions in other articles.) This seems like a common situation that isn't dealt with directly (or at least needs to be clarified) in the guidelines. Since discretionary sanctions apply, I wanted to mention it here before I did it. valereee (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good - any particular place you were thinking of adding this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: well, I think somewhere within 'When and why to cite sources' maybe? Perhaps as part of 'when not to cite' -- a specific instruction that while a mention in another article might very well contain the exact info that the lead does in the subject's main article, unlike the lead section, such mentions require citation to allow each article to stand alone? valereee (talk)
It is helpful to distinguish citing from linking. In general you should not cite Wikipedia in support of any fact, etc. (That is, for purposes of verifiability.) Linking - specifically, wikilinking - is for purposes of connecting the reader to other material, and has its own considerations. (E.g., see WP:OVERLINK.) Also, if you were to rely on wikilinks to support material there would be problems if the original cites are deleted. Basically, citations need to be complete within the article, independently of use in any other article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: oh, definitely -- sorry if I wasn't clear; I wasn't talking about citing Wikipedia at all. valereee (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In effect you were: you want to use a wikilink - the "[[...]]" construct - to point to another place where a citation can be found. Such links are not citations (they say nothing about the source), they only connect elsewhere within Wikipedia. To rely on a wikilink where there should be citation is, effectively, citing Wikipedia, and improper. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

However, non-controversial facts, particularly in non-BLB articles, need not be cited unless challenged or likely to be challenged. When a fact is cited in the primary article on a topic, and is a straightforward factual statement, a brief mention of that same fact in a summary article might not be cited unless some editor challenges it. At that point, the relevant citation could be copied from the more specific article. But it would do not harm to preemptively cite such a fact by copying the citation. Of course, no editor should copy a cite blindly, without verifying it. DES (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Ah, I see your point! Thanks, very true! valereee (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@DES: Which I guess is what I thought I was doing -- the mention to me seemed very uncontroversial, but then apparently to the other editor, it seemed like something that needed sourcing. So in any event, if the general policy is to source if anyone else thinks it's controversial, then clearly source. valereee (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Damn. @DESiegel: valereee (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This use of "a mention" might be a bit confusing, as it may carry a sense that a casual or slight use of some material somehow relaxes the need for citation. That is not correct. Whether something must be cited is a different issue. (I note in passing that the exemption for summaries and leads is allowed only if there is a citation elsewhere in that same article.) But where citation is required, a wikilink does not serve. I would also underline what DES said: copying a citation implies that you are citing the source, and that you are affirming the reliability and accuracy of the source. So definitely look before you cite. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with unsourced material

This section currently states:

  • If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the {{citation needed}} template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

Isn't this particular case exactly what the {{dubious}} template is for? The {{citation needed}} typically has the much milder use of tagging as statement for which a source is required to satisfy WP:V, even though that the statement is well-known to be true by anybody with some knowledge of the subject. Example, the statement: "the fine structure constant is approximately 0.007" is true, as most people with a graduate degree in high energy physics will know, yet it certainly needs a citation.

I suggest the text be changed to (inline with current best practices):

  • If a claim is doubtful, use the {{dubious}} template, which will add an inline tag.

  • If a claim is probably true but needs verification, use the {{citation needed}} template, which will add an inline tag. Or better yet, go and find a source for verification.

TR 07:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is precise consensus about when a citation is needed. Is the exception only for claims that nearly all readers know are true, or is it broad enough for claims that people in the field know are true? So I don't think TimothyRias's distinction between the "citation needed" and "dubious" templates has a consensus.
Also, the "dubious" template could be applied when there is a citation, but the reliability of the source is in doubt, or the person applying the template doubts that the source has been correctly interpreted. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Wherever you would draw the line, there will always be statements that need citations, despite nobody having a reason to doubt the statement. (other than healthy skepticism of unsourced statements). If somebody would write: "The currently accepted value of α is 0.0072973525698(24)". Than that certainly would be true, and there is no reason to doubt it. Yet, there is every reason to request a source for such a precise statement. The current statement in this guideline restricting the use of the {{citation needed}} to "doubtful" claims certainly does not have consensus, and runs against years of Wikipedia "best practices". A more neutral version would be:

  • If a claim is in need of a citation but not harmful, use the {{citation needed}} template, which will add an inline tag.

The main point here is that placing a {{citation needed}} template makes no judgement whether the editor placing the tag thinks the statement is true or not.TR 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Amazon for editorial reviews? Midwest Book Journal, Library Journal, etc.

I know we don't usually use Amazon as refs (because of NONCOM), but I cannot figure out how to get old Library Journal or Midwest Book Reviews information any other way. If they've made Amazon, they've got to be considered "major enough", so I want to use them. Is there a problem with this in that circumstance? It seems like there's a 50/50 chance of it being removed depending on who sees it, so at the moment I've just used an "NB" note to state that the stated reviews are available on Amazon without actually giving the URL. Conversely, does anyone know how to get old reviews from either of those publications? MSJapan (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarify for me, please : what do you mean when some potential source has "made Amazon"? My understanding is that Amazon lists the bibliographic information of the books it sells (and thus is a sometimes useful source for finding other editions), but does not publish any content from such items. So I am rather curious as to how you could use Amazon as a source. Also, by "major enough", were you thinking in terms of notability? Have you looked at WP:Notability (books)? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If one goes to an Amazon listing and actually scrolls down, there are outside reviews (or at least excerpts) when available. My assumption was that if the book reviews are on Amazon in the first place, they are book reviews from major review publications (and thus reviews suitable for establishing notability of a book). It has nothing to do with content of the actual book. MSJapan (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
So your interest is in citing the book reviews at Amazon for determining the notability of a book. Again, please look at WP:NBOOK, where it is pointed out (see the footnotes) that for purposes of notability such book reviews must be from reliable sources, non-trivial, and independent of the author and publisher. I think that largely rules out the consumer-generated "reviews" (so-called) at Amazon and similar sites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No, Amazon also has Kirkus, Library journal, etc., and that;s what I'm interested in finding the originals of, but barring that, is it OK to use the Amazon link to cite the review? MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If you (say) use a review from Library Journal you should cite it directly. If you haven't been able see the review, and are relying on an excerpt from it that was quoted at Amazon then you still cite Library Journal (because that is where is from), but note that it was "quoted in" Amazon (because that is where you read it, and what you are relying on). This would be easier to explain if you could provide specific details of what you are trying to do. And I still wonder if you have a potential NBOOK issue. ~ 21:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, because I'm not trying to do a standalone book article. I'm sourcing reviews on books for individual works by John J. Robinson, who definitely meets the AUTHOR reqs. He's an oft-cited historian in his subject area. MSJapan (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: RE:old reviews from either of those publications. Some academic libraries keep back runs of Library Journal. try here for Library Journal holdings near you. Also you might visit a library that has access to EBSCO or Gale on-line materials. Their databases have Library Journal and School Libraries, and it is possible they might have Midwest Book Reviews. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I need to go the EBSCO route - I don't recall that Amazon gave me the actual publication dates on the reviews, so I would need to find that first. MSJapan (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding it that the excerpts from reviews on Amazon are chosen and uploaded by the publisher and/or author, through the Author Central portal, so my cautionary comment on using them would be: a) they will have (understandably) have been cherry picked to help to sell the book concerned, and b) the particular excerpt used may not necessarily represent the overall tone or thrust of the original review. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, then tracing the original is still the better idea. Now that I've got the resource direction, I can do that. Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Aamon/Kyle Vaughan

Projects, Earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonDutchess (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Brief note

A brief note: I made this edit to make clear that use of the "citation needed" template is optional, not mandatory (i.e., editors can remove any unsourced content, even if it is not "harmful"). This conforms to the direct language of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations, which makes clear that:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

(Emphasis added). Thanks. Neutralitytalk 01:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

On essays

"championed" - I have personally done no such thing myself, only included the link which seems to have had consensus for inclusion for a while. I still agree with what I wrote in my edit summary regarding the reversion of the removal. The link to the "example" page has been present in that exact location since at least April 2013. (Only checked the most recent 500 revisions.) --Izno (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The link which restored the essay stated "rv--take the page to mfd if you think its invalid; or rewrite it to more correctly state the case for examples". I don't agree that the only thing to do with essays is either delete them or link to them from guidelines. I don't think the essay is particularly good, and apparently neither does Markworthen, who removed it with the edit summary "The linked article [sic] does *not* provide examples of the various styles. It provides a newly-created 'style', which is an amalgamation of two or three different existing styles, and which no publishers actually use." I also think the text in this guideline around the link makes it seem the linked essay is something it is not: it is not a collection of examples of widely-accepted styles. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jc3s5h for articulating the concerns better than I did, and for correcting my reference to the essay as an "article". Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And thank you to Izno for suggesting {{mfd}}, which I did not know about. I agree with you that proposing deletion is the appropriate step to take. Thus my proposal to delete: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style. (Although I would still prefer that we do not link to the essay from the Citing sources page.) Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A new tool would be useful for IUCN Red List citations

I just want to point out for anyone who might be interested that a new tool would be useful to create cite journal citations for the IUCN Red List conservation assessment of a species. Many IUCN templates already exist, but they are based on id numbers which are not intended to be permanent, and at any rate these templates no longer produce the type of citation the IUCN requests, which is a citation for an electronic journal article. The cite journal template can easily be used, as follows for the example of Myotis ater:

{{cite journal | authors = Wiles, G. | title = ''Myotis ater'' | journal = [[IUCN Red List of Threatened Species]] | volume= 2008 | page = e.T14144A4408913 | publisher = [[IUCN]] | year = 2008 | url = http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T14144A4408913.en | accessdate = 17 September 2015}}

This will be displayed as:

1. "Myotis ater". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2008. IUCN: e.T14144A4408913. 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2015. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

This citation style is preferable to the use of older IUCN templates, because a url based on a doi should be permanent, whereas a url based on an id number may not be, and it is in the now recommended style. The year does appear twice, as both a date and volume number, as currently recommended by the IUCN.

However, given the very large number of species whose IUCN Red List assessment citations should be updated, a tool to streamline the process would be useful. The DOI Wikipedia reference generator, Citation bot and reFill don't work. What I have in mind is a tool where one could enter the assessment url, or perhaps paste in the suggested citation at the bottom of the assessment page (possibly along with the year of the assessment), and have the tool spit out the appropriate cite journal citation. Any takers?

Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

CITEVAR

WP:CITEVAR says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." I realize it's primarily talking about changing from MLA to Chicago or similar, but does this include changing the way citations are laid out in the code? I ask because I leave citation templates expanded (for ease of editing) and intersperse them in the article prose (as habit). If someone were to collapse all the citation templates and move them to the bottom of the article without discussion, would that be in contravention of CITEVAR? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It has a substantial effect on editors who edit the article, just as changing from MLA to Chicago would.Jc3s5h (talk)
Even if that is not strictly a style issue it would be a substantial change in the organization of the article, for which it is always best to ask before proceeding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Such as going to all list-defined references, or contrariwise away from them? I would call that a change in style, subject to the CITEVAR restrictions. However, if an article is already mixed, or is filled with bare URL cites, then i would say it has no style at present, and an editor is free to impose any consistent and reasonable style that s/he chooses. Also if an Editor posts on the talk change proposing a change in style and no one objects or comments, after a reasonable time (several days, perhaps) then i think the editor is free to change any existing style, and changing it back later would require consensus. Note that Citation style can be a highly contentious issue for some editors. DES (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we all most certainly agree with the last part. However, there is some difference of opinion on whether "style" covers just the formatting and appearance of the results, or includes the tools, techniques, and general arrangement of these by which the results are generated. Even if the latter are not exactly within the scope of what some editors take to be "style", I think CITEVAR should cover both aspects.
I also agree that if an editor asks, and no one objects, then changing the "style" should be permissible. But just because an article is not entirely consistent should not be grounds for any mass changes. There have been instances of someone adding a few inconsistent citations, and then someone else takes that as a free license to change everything else to another style. Even where style is entirely chaotic the mass imposition of any style should be considered a change for which an editor should ask before proceeding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
J. Johnson, WP:CITEVAR says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference..." (emphasis mine) and later under the heading "Generally considered helpful" lists: "Imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles...". I will agree that if the inconsistent citations are recently added, they should simply be changed to the previous prevailing style. But if inconsistancy has persisted for a significant time, especially while other edits failed to change inconsistent citations, then I think it is high time to impose a single consistent style. DES (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Should "high time to impose a single consistent style" ever relieve an editor from asking on the talk page if anyone has any objections? Or even the minimal courtesy of warning others that one intends to make non-significant changes? If an article has 20 citations in one format, and someone adds two in a different format, does "persistence" give those two more weight than the other 20? Do we really want to add "recent" and "persistence" as qualifying terms which editors can freely interpret and then endlessly quibble about? I think the answer to all of these should be a definite and unqualified "no". It is so little trouble to ask – and potentially avoids so much trouble and wasted effort if there is an objection – that I don't see why we would not want a definite and unambiguous requirement to always ask before making any mass changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the input! — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have modified WP:REF#To be avoided accordingly. Epic Genius (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015

115.248.160.3 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) sdsddfwedsxaxxzcxczxczxczxc

Nonsense request. Relentlessly (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking through the archives and have found quite a bit of discussion about embedded links/embedded citations, but I haven't found anything yet about the use of embedded links in templates/tables. WP:CS#Avoid embedded links says that "embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of the article", so embedding an external link in a sentence like "The company's website Example.com was officially launched in May 2015" is considered incorrect, right? My question is whether the same applies to external links embedded into templates/tables, particularly when it comes to game results in sports related articles.

Personally, I think a properly formatted inline citation is almost always an improvement since it provides information about the source being cited which may help fix any future link rot related issues, but embedding links seems to be pretty much the de facto practice for such articles. The embedded links I've come across are nothing more than a bare url with a generic label such as "Result", "Summary", "Report, "Statistics", etc. with nothing at all about the source added to "References". The arguments I've encountered from those in favor of embedding always seem to boil down to "that's how it's done in other similar articles", "that's the way it's always been done", "our WikiProject does it this way", "having too many citations is not good", etc. with no consideration being given at all to the possibility of link rot even though many sports websites tend to recycle their content regularly and re-use their urls for other content.

Has the community ever come to a consensus on this kind of thing? Are such links considered acceptable exceptions like the "official website" links in infoboxes? Are there any guidelines regarding such links and link rot? Do you simple re-embed an archived version of the dead link or do you need to convert it to an inline citations since |archiveurl= and |archivedate= are typically used in such cases? Is this simply a case of it being better to leave well enough alone instead of tying to tilt at windmills? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about generalizing |editor= to support other roles

See Help talk:Citation Style 1#Contribution rather than Others (I can't make the section link work properly here!)

The idea is to deprecate the |editor= set of parameters and deprecate using |others= for other types of contributor, such as prefacers, translators, illustrators etc. The |author= family of parameters plus a new |role= parameter would be used instead. All input welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#contribution= rather than others=. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Typos in web titles

Are we meant to correct typos in the titles of web-based sources, or leave them exactly as they are? (besides changing ` to '). I've always thought it's the latter, for absolute accuracy; likewise not changing hyphens to dashes and vice versa. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It is normal to adjust titles to follow the conventions followed by the publication (Wikipedia) that is mentioning some other publication. So if a book-length source writes its title as ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE we would write it One for All and All for One in the body of an article. If we were putting it in a citation, we would follow whatever citation style was being used in the article. For example, if the article used APA style we would write One for all and all for one. The citation templates don't have any rule about how to write titles, so do whatever the previous editors of the article have done. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
How about this ref, which has a typo in the title: "W.A.S.P. Announces 'The Crimson Idol' 15th-Anniverary Tour". I've been under the impression that such mistakes are to be left as is, since they are not being used in prose. Granted, it's a glaring typo, but that is how the article authors decided to leave it—for the sake of accuracy, surely we should reproduce it as such? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The idea underlying the metadata included in citations is to make it possible for readers to verify the information in them. It becomes especially important that the data be exactly as given in the source in the event that the link goes dead due to the source page being moved or deleted, since otherwise Google searches may not find the correct result. So yes, when it comes to article titles (chapter titles, other short work titles, etc.) leave non-punctuation errors as found in the source. If there's an error in a source's title that really bothers you, you can always add a [sic]. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_39&oldid=1079908974"