Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

I have once again found an edit made to an article where the sole purpose for using the ProveIt gadget was to alter the format of citations — which in doing so defied WP:CITEVAR, which states: "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.... editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style."
This edit was unnecessary and since this is not the first time I've seen how ProveIt has been used to change the established templates in an article, I believe that this gadget is being misused.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to those who are using ProveIt that Wikipedia's edit toolbar contains pre-formatted templates under "Cite". When you open Cite you open the "Templates" selection. When you open Templates you get 4 choices: cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal. ProveIt is being used to alter these templates.
A manual for how to properly use the ProveIt gadget is needed because some editors are shooting from the hip with it (frankly, they don't know what they're doing). I have also posted this comment in ProveIt. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Pyxis Solitary, did that edit make any visible change to the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just wondering how listing books as a source works here? Unlike a direct link to an online source, citations for physical texts cannot be easily, or readily, verified to actually support the claim being cited. How is this addressed on Wikipedia? Thanks EDIT: Sorry if this is the incorrect location to ask this question, If there is a more appropriate area to ask please link it and I'll go there. 2601:18F:4101:4830:851B:FE8:D8BF:D3C8 (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

See WP:PUBLISHED and WP:VERIFY. If it has been published and is still available then it can be verified and is acceptable. It does not have to be online, or easy to find. Meters (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Many out of copyright books and journals have been digitised and are available online. These can be linked to by using the |url= parameter in {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Two Questions:

1. How does that apply in the actual editing process though? Let's say John Doe adds a claim, then offers a seemingly legitimate, but non-digitized, reference as the source. If no one disputes it, does that claim stand as is, or do other editors have to find a copy of that text to confirm it actually supports the claim before it can be added? (If so, ± how many other editors are needed to establish the claim?)

2. Without being able to access the reference, few editors can scrutinize the claim. For esoteric subjects in which "encyclopedia X, Volume Y" is cited, the editors who support, or contest, a claim are likely already very involved in the subject, and very limited in number. Isn't this likely to produce echo chambers, personally/ideologically motived edits, and ultimately, a poorer quality article?

If I'm coming off as attacking the legitimacy of using textual sources, that is not my intent. I genuinely want to understand the specifics of how they are utilized on Wikipedia. 2601:18F:4101:4830:2CEA:F5C7:CEDB:BBB8 (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If no one is concerned about the claim, then why would anyone bother checking the source? Trusting other editors to do their best makes Wikipedia vulnerable to ghost references (when we find them, we tag them as {{failed verification}}), but usually, such claims turn out to be accurate representations of the source. Also, it's not usually that hard to find a source if you're willing to put the effort into it. Many editors are happy to provide quotations upon request, and many editors make use of Interlibrary loan options or ask a friend with university library access to have a look. Reference librarians are willing to check sources, and sometimes even (in countries with suitable copyright provisions) to scan a key page and e-mail it to you if you ask nicely. Experienced editors have access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library online.

You don't need to access a specific source to scrutinize every claim. If a difficult-to-access print-only source is the only one in the world that says something, then it's probably WP:UNDUE even if it's entirely accurate. If it's not the only source that says this, then you can often find a more conveniently located source that says the same thing. Remember, the point of verifiability isn't to prove that the already-cited source says something; the point is to prove that the Wikipedia editor didn't just make it up. If you claim that the material can be found in Out of Print Book, but I can find the same information at newspapers-r-us.com, then the material is still verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, remember that you can always ask someone else to check a source for you. So… if you live in rural Alaska, and need to verify something cited to a book that is only available in the New York Public Library, find a fellow Wikipedian who lives in NY and ask him to check it for you. The key is that someone can verify it, even if you cannot. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Recently, I've come across an editor who is removing reference names from articles where the reference is only used once in the article. Thus <ref name=ABC123> becomes <ref>. This is not the same as consolidating references where a full reference is later repeated in full and is cut back to use the shortened ref name. The removal of named references is something I'm not comfortable with. Even if a reference is only used once, it is handy to have it named. Another editor may come along later and insert material so that the reference now needs to be used more than once. If it is named, the is is a simple matter of re-using the existing name. Without a name, the editor then needs to give the reference a name, and maybe also check for other uses of that reference elsewhere in the article. I appreciate that any "harm" done by these actions is minimal, and I'm not looking to get editors who have done this in the past sanctioned. What I would like to happen is that the issue is fully discussed and a consensus formed as to whether or not the practice of removing reference names should be deprecated. My preference is that if an editor has named a reference, then it should stay named. Others may feel different, but lets discuss this please. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• No RfC is needed. This is the worst kind of worthless gnoming, typically done by people who think they're "saving disc space" or "reducing server load". Personally I don't add a refname until there are multiple uses of that ref, because it's handy to know which refs are used only once, the source is a bit less cluttered, and it's easy to add the refname when a second use arises. But when, for whatever reason, a rename is a "singleton", removing it is at best useless and at worst counterproductive because of the editor time wasted reviewing the watchlist churn. In addition, a singleton refname is most likely there because the ref was, at some earlier time, indeed invoked in multiple places, and there's a good chance that will be the case again.
  So whoever's doing this should cut it out. The project has very little tolerance for people stroking their own egos with this kind of worthless busywork. EEng 14:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  "Whoever's doing this"? Mjroots is doing this, as you can see above. Mjroots is a prolific WP editor and administrator of long standing. It seems most unreasonable to accuse him of "stroking his own ego" just for making a suggestion that you disagree with. You E seem to have forgotten to "assume good faith". See WP:AGF -- Alarics (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Wow, do you ever have the wrong end of the stick. EEng 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Wrong. Mjroots is not doing this. Mjroots came across an editor who is doing this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  It's not that important at the moment who the editor is. Let's stick to what the issue is and discuss it calmly please. No need for any witch hunting. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  OK, well in that case let's just assume it's indeed you doing it (and therefore you were reporting yourself). MJROOTS, STOP REMOVING REFNAMES! EEng 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

• @EEng: For the record. Mjroots (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Um, I got a video explaining "Why dating a young Slavic woman is a good idea". You trying to tell me something? EEng 04:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, this! Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Ref names are always better. It is OK to leave them out if they aren't there already, but they should never be removed. They make it harder to make errors, and easier to fix any errors you might find. Related: ref names should be something unlikely to be re-used when an editor adds a new citation. So ref name = "NYT", ref name = "Ref1", or ref name = ":0" are worse than ref name = "NYT Jones 2016" or ref name = "Yoyodyne annual report 2012". Also WP:NOTBROKEN applies. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I can’t imagine why anyone would think that this is productive. I may add names to refs as I write because I am not sure if I will cite it again. Sometimes I don’t. But another editor may add something and feel like that source bolsters the contribution. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 18:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• The Template:Refname rules page says : "You may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required. This makes later re-use of the sourced reference easier." I think that covers it. Carlstak (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Agree that this removal is mildly harmful, more than merely pointless, and should not be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I agree that removal of reference names is pointless, but occasionally replacing a ref name with one that is more mnemonic is useful (Assuming of course that it is carefully done.) as per Guy Macon's comment above. Carlstak stated the current consensus well, and I agree with David Eppstein's summary.  --Bejnar (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Concur with EEng (or his cool new nickname E). Vaticidalprophet 12:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Apologies for misunderstanding the point that was being made. -- Alarics (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Accepted. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Mjroots, Guy Macon, and David Eppstein:@Carlstak, Alarics, and E:

Contrary to an earlier parenthetical assertion above, WP:NOTBROKEN does NOT apply here. In long articles such as American Revolutionary War that have not been successfully reviewed by a knowledgeable editor, intelligible footnoting to author and date of publication must be accessible throughout.

- WERE that convention systematically applied over the ~130 sources (50% for estimating) that are used three or more times would result in a current reference to source "aaaaap", which any contributing editor would have to laboriously track down the last-made, OUT-of-alphabetical-order footnote to add a reference in this supposedly "key-stroke-saving method", to ensure he uses "aaaaaq" to conform to the unwieldy system that has been rejected at American Revolutionary War.

Part of the WP Foundation goals is to make functional contributions to every article easily accessible to all editors. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I don't understand the above. Notes only reach "bb", and there is not a single reference that even reaches "b". I've taken a look at the article and references are not named. This proposal does not seek to force the naming of references where they are not named. If an editor chooses not to name references where they are not repeated that is fine, and is respected. It is entirely about the removal of reference names where an editor has decided to name references. For articles where a reference is used lots of times, e.g. List of shipwrecks in August 1873 where one ref reaches "bv", the naming of references is appropriate, as there is one reference number instead of 74! Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

...To the above entirely correct comment I would add that, in the specific case of someone removing reference names, WP:NOTBROKEN most certainly does apply. It is OK to change an existing reference name if you like the new name better, but it is not OK to remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is also OK to change a ref name if the existing one is inappropriate. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Bucking the trend here, and probably a waste of time, but I disagree and think that removing names from single-use refs is a good thing. There are two issues with them, other than that they serve no purpose: (1) they clutter up the WikiText, and (2) they carry an implication that the source is used elsewhere, when in fact it isn't. It's a minor point, and like any gnomish edit that doesn't affect the rendered text is shouldn't be made in isolation. But I don't think we should ban editors from doing this as part of general copyediting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Guy Macon: NOT coming a conclusion in this RFC, would allow a continuing disruption of the ARW footnote style, as I have invited two footnote disrupters to join in on this RFC as a matter of WP:GOOD FAITH. At ARW, abstract and undecipherable masking of reference names has occurred 3+ times in the last 30 days, 2 times in the last two days. Reference names such as ref name = "NYT Jones 2016 have been arbitrarily changed by ‘drive-by’ editors to "reference = t" and so on.

- The conclusion to this RFC should be some combination of (1) "It is OK to change an existing reference name if you like a better [mnemonic], but it is not OK to remove it.", and, "It is also OK to change a ref name if the existing one is inappropriate."

On the strength of the eight (8) editor consensus here, please come to a formal conclusion for this RFC. TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN: For using mnemonic references names-dates - Carlstak, Bejnar, Guy Macon, Amakuru, TVH. Against removing mnemonic reference names-dates - Mjroots, E, David Eppstein, TVH. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I an for using mnemonic references names-dates and against removing (removing does not equal changing) mnemonic reference names-dates.

It never occurred to me that someone would change ref name="NYT Jones 2016" to ref name="t". Anyone doing that should be warned once and taken to ANI the next time they do it. We can't list every possible way that someone can be disruptive so we don't need a specific rule against an obviously harmful change like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm also in favour of using mnemonic ref names, such as "Times280621", and use this system when editing. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I use the "NYT Jones 2016" format, and I am also for using mnemonic ref names and against removing them. The behavior TheVirginiaHistorian describes is pretty egregious in my opinion as well. Carlstak (talk)

I would like to put this whole "saving space on the server" nonsense to bed once and for all.

First, editing a wikipedia page --even if all you do is to remove material -- means that space is used to hold another copy of the entire article in the page history, using up far more space than you "saved". Making it shorter for the reader may be a Good Thing. Trying to make it smaller for the server just makes it larger for the server.

Second, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance says, You, as a user, should not worry about site performance. The servers would "perform" best if there were no content on Wikipedia at all. If it isn't broken, don't "fix" it.

Third, making multiple edits that cause no change in what gets displayed to the reader is generally considers to be disruptive. Doing this clutters edit histories and editor's watchlists without in any way benefiting the reader.

Finally, as has been pointed out before, Template:Refname rules says "You may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required. This makes later re-use of the sourced reference easier." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all [y'all, youins, yousguys] for your encouragement and support. So, since my last post, I've noticed at ARW a 'bot' has been run on all the footnotes, and, at first look I was pleased (sigh). 493 footnotes had been reduced to 437. Multiple citations to the same page had 'abcde' by the sourcing, just like in GOOD ARTICLE Status articles I aspire to for the ARW. However, on closer inspection, I was disappointed.

A full mnemonic citation has averaged about 16 keystrokes inside the <ref…> brackets. The 'bot' generated a randomly generated five-character ref-name in a notation of 13 characters, such as []name=”OcHT1” --- so at the second footnote there is a savings of 3 characters across two footnotes.

- For the 427 one-note citations that remain, the ‘bot’ added a diagnostic 13 character ref-name; those are left in place, addressed below.

- For the 36 two-notes ref-name 'bot' saved (3x1x36) 108 characters.

- For the 8 three-notes ref-name 'bot' saved (3x2x8) 48 characters.

- For the 2 four-notes ref-name 'bot' saved (3x3x2) 18 characters.

- For the 2 five-notes ref-name 'bot' saved (3x4x2) 24 characters.

TOTAL ‘bot’ SAVINGS = 198 characters.

- The bot generated ref-names at every one of the 490 citations, numbering (16x490) 7,840.

- But there was no 'cleanup' of all the code laid down at each citation to diagnose multiple same-page citations.

TOTAL ‘bot’ COST = 7,840 characters.

NET ‘bot’ LOSS in server = 7,642 characters in a long article with wide ranging sourcing, going forward.

Therefore, to achieve the ‘bot’ aim of saving server space, there must be a ‘cleanup’ routine removing the singleton ref-name coding of 18 characters such as “<ref name=”OcHT1”>”, those without two or more citations to the same reference page.

HOWEVER, the editing and review process is unnecessarily encumbered by the ‘bot’ in a way that makes it unfeasible to recruit a reviewer, or team of reviewers, to achieve Good Article status. Perhaps, unless those who run the ‘bot’ will be so kind as to undertake the review for the longest Wikipedia articles.

Alternatively, perhaps a page contributor can remove the 493 ‘bot’ edits, without removing the GOOD edits by the same contributor in subsequent posting that I think I have publicly thanked them for since. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Avoid instruction creep, it is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Quite frequently, a ref is used only one time to cite a specific fact and there is no need to use a ref name, so there is no real harm being caused in removing a ref name if one is present. I don't see this as a real problem that needs solving. If editors are not comfortable with the removal of ref names when they are not needed, then write an essay, but we shouldn't be whacking good faith editors over the head with a rule book to enforce something that is not causing any real disruption or any real harm to the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment I mostly agree with what's been said here by EEng and Guy. It is a mild pain in the ass to have to name a bunch of references just to invoke them a second time in an article; maybe there's some benefit to removing clutter from the source, but it's nowhere near clear enough to justify doing an edit just for the sake of removing ref names. jp×g 08:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I Support EEng dating either a young Slavic woman or Shaggy, and Mjroots getting banned for some reason.
  Once those more critical issues have been dealt with, I also strongly support the liberal application of trouts to anyone making pointless changes like those described here no matter what their motivation is. Local editors working on an article can come to any local consensus they wish that is not in conflict with project-wide policy using BRD and DR, and there may absolutely be valid reasons in that context to remove ref names for single-use refs (as part of a broader ref cleanup for example). But cross-article gnoming (or bot'ing or AWB'ing or…) for this should always be cause for a severe trouting, even if combined with non-cosmetic / sensible changes. And even in the local article context, systematically removing ref names alone should have a strong established consensus because it is removing information; because the editor(s) that originally added those names may have planned to or planned for future reuse of those refs (there's no deadline; I have one project that's ongoing for a decade now); because having ref names and using mnemonic ref names inherently carries more utility and versatility than unnamed or non-mnemonically named refs, so removing such must carry the burden of proof; and because "making wikitext look tidier", while occasionally valid, is in the general case a nonsense rationale.
  I am however open to being less dogmatic on this issue in individual cases so I reserve the right to contradict myself outside the context of this generalised discussion. I have strong preferences about ref formatting at the wikitext layer, the same way programmers have about indentation and brace placement, so I absolutely sympathise with urges to make refs more "orderly"; I just disagree that this particular variant is anywhere near outweighing the downsides. --Xover (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• You're all wrong. Nobody should be defining refs in the body of the article, they should be defined elsewhere and then just the name invoked in the body of the article, using List Defined Variables (LDV). The normal (bad!) way is for the "References" section to just consist of a single call to {{reflist}}, everything else is in the body of the article mixed up in a horrid jumble. With LDV the "References" section starts with "reflist|refs=" and then all the named refs one after the other, and then close the template. I just did a whole rant about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 67#Honestly, is everyone else crazy, or is it me? The {{reflist}} documentation explains this. (For some reason it won't let me paste any of that here, go look if you like, but this is basic practice I think -- separate the code from the data, don't just mush it all together.) Herostratus (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Herostratus: It's you. LDR is one way to do things, but it's down to creator's choice, the same as which variety of English to use, which date format to use, whether or not to use {{sfn}} for books etc. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nope. It was a rhetorical question. LDR is objectively better.

Some people here a computer programs. Not using LDR is like doing your first BASIC program, and badly... using hard-coded value deep in an throughout the code, that is, writing if Value=7 [do such and so] rather than int CheckValue=7... ...if Value==CheckValue [do such and so]. The former is not a valid way to do it (generally, I'm sure there are exceptions), not "the creator's choice" (assuming, as here, that other people are going to have to work with the code).

It's the same deal here. If you know me you know that I'm in favor of giving the creator his head as much as possible. But it's not the "creator's choice" whether to write "The 5th Brigade remained in reserve" or "The 5th Brigade didn't do nuthing". Same deal here, it's not the "creator's choice" to write screwed up spaghetti code that makes it harder for the next person to work with. In the rant I linked to, the first (bad, non-LDR) example just makes me go "I want to improve this section, but you know what? I have to use a search function to find where the named refs are defined (probably not even in the section I opened), separate out the code (refs) from the data (text) before I can even begin, and so on. Just screw it.". That is not arguably an OK outcome. It's objectively a bad outcome, periodt.

(However, an editor vouchsafed that in the Visual Editor this isn't an issue, and if most everyone is using the Visual Editor or will be, then nevermind.) Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

But in fact people are free to use reference styles that you don't happen to like, just as you are free to use styles that others may dislike. If you want to change that, you're welcome to propose mandating your preferred style - but that is not this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Carlstak (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, no, no, that's not the deal here. To "propose mandating" that people do one thing or the other is a bad way to approach a lot of things, here or elsewhere, and anyway practically impossible here even if you wanted to. What I'm engaged in here is persuasion.

I had a lot to say in the rant at the link. Nobody's refuted it and I suppose that's because they can't. The only argument I've seen is that people can do what they like. But I mean people are free to use bare URLs and do, but that doesn't mean they should. Same deal here. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps no one's refuting it because it'd be arguing with a brick wall. A suggestion for the future is that "persuasion" might work better if you didn't start off with the assertion that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're both right and wrong. This reference shit in the middle of the article is a pain in the neck for readability in the source editor. It's also a pain in the ass when I want to remove something where a ref is used the first time, then have to check whether or not a ref was used a second time, then having to find the second time the reference point was used to cut and paste the reference code to that point. The "having to open a new section" thing isn't as annoying compared to this. I agree that LDRs would be a better option and transitioning onto them Wiki wide would be preferable. At the same time though, LDRs aren't supported by the Visual Editor. We can't transition over to LDRs when new users won't be able to use them. This makes it an automatic non-starter for me personally until said support is implemented. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 07:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep named refs and drop use of LDR ....causes mass cleanup problems and deters new additions.Moxy-  01:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wait, you mean use LDR to alleviate mass cleanup problems? Right? Altho I don't know of many articles needing mass cleanup of refs. But right, if one does, an LDR-based article would be at least somewhat easier to work with.

People put in bare URLs and partially filled in templates and external links in the body of the text refs all the time. Sometimes they just write the name of the source in plain text with no link, sometimes they write the source info directly in the text, and so forth. All that's fine (allowed but not encouraged, and hopefully fixed in the fullness of time), and I can't see that being much different between LDR and non-LDR articles. Herostratus (talk)

No they cause addition problems.....having to edit multiple sections just to add the source..or the fact cant be edited withVE.....and the problem of reversal of valid additions just because of reference style. Should keep it as simple as posible. That said it's a great way to ensure an article won't change much.....great OWN tool/format.Moxy-  13:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Moxy, I think there might be a way to compromise between your view and @Herostratus, if m:WikiCite ever happened. Imagine being able to have ref content out of the wikitext and not having to edit a different section every time you add or remove a new source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Keep the named refs – I won't duplicate the good reasons already explained above. But there's another one: ref names are by definition unique, which makes ref name an ideal way to identify what you are talking about, when you are in a Talk page discussion and need to mention a reference without ambiguity. There is no better way than using a refname (which presumably will be of the type "Feynman-1949", and not ":07"; insert <tear-my-hair-out> emoji here).

As for LDR, I'd go User:Herostratus one step further; references should be defined globally, perhaps in a new namespace, and referred to by unique name, possibly some combo like LastName-Year-OCLCid. But that's another hill for another day. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• See WikiCite for the latest ideas for a shared citation database. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Keep If someone has named a reference then removing the name for no good reason is disruptive. I like LDRs and so usually name my references. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Keep the named refs per all the good arguments above. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi all

A quick query re something that came up when I was reviewing the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abberton Reservoir/archive1 for Jimfbleak. Ref 5 of the article (Abberton Reservoir) is an 18-page journal article, which is used for numerous references in the article, including the whole of the "Birds" section. I had asked for the inline cites to have specific page numbers attached to them, for easier cross-checking of individual facts, but Jim replied that it is "normal practice here and universal elsewhere to give a range for a journal article. In this case, virtually everything in this 18 (not 20) page range is used in the article, and it makes more sense to read it from beginning to end rather than bit-and-bob about". I wasn't aware of this convention, so just thought I'd double check here that it's OK to omit the individual pages, before signing it off. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

When a source-citation is part of a bibliography list, identifying the article's page range makes some sense. But, that also means that for reader convenience (we are all about the reader, right?), when our editor is citing something in that page range, our editor must identify the specific page or pages where the source material can be found. We can accomplish this through a separate bibliography and one of several styles of short-form citations ({{sfn}}, {{harv}}, {{rp}}, plain text, etc.) or by writing full citations for each page of the source that supports our article – this latter of course, is woefully cumbersome and redundant.

Yes, it is common to see publisher's article landing pages that give the citation detail including the page range; for example doi:10.1093/oxartj/21.2.99. There are tools around that editors use to scrape details like that from various locations that make nicely formatted citations that look pretty but, as you note, aren't all that helpful to readers (we are all about the reader, right?).

So, our editors, when citing the material in a source that supports our article, should identify the location of the supporting word / sentence / paragraph / whatever as specifically as possible; that is usually to the specific page on which it lies. This is especially true for FA candidates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The citation templates provide no provision for specific locations within journal articles (their page parameters are required to identify the journal article itself, by specifying the pages in the journal where the article appears, a necessary part of the citation). As such, and following the typical practice in academia, the pages of specific content within journal articles is usually omitted. In cases where it is important to specify this information (particularly when the article is very long), it should be done outside of the citation templates, for instance by a following note like "See in particular page XX". It should not be done by usurping the page number parameters of the citation templates for a different meaning than their standard meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Help:Citation Style 1 (which includes the {{cite journal}} template) article says:

• "page: page in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text, for example |page=52 .
• pages: pages in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text. Separate page ranges with an en dash: – , for example |pages=236–239 . Separate non-sequential pages with a comma, for example |pages=157, 159 . The form |pages=461, 466–467 is used when you are citing both non-contiguous and sequential pages.

• Note: CS1 citations do not record the total number of pages in a cited source; do not use this parameter for that purpose." Carlstak (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

For clarity, that last bit means that the correct approach to this article is |pages=686–704 (i.e., if you look this up in a bound volume, you will find the article starting on page 686) and not |pages=18 (the number of pages in the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it says that, for cite journal, it is inaccurate. "page" and "pages" cannot both be used, so it is not possible to use one to say where in the journal the article is and the other to say where in the article the claim is. For journal articles, "page" should be used either for one-page articles, or for citations where only the starting page number of the article is known, and "pages" should be used only for more than one page. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The reason the documentation says "do not record the total number of pages in a cited source" is because sometimes an editor will cite a book in its entirety ("Alice Expert wrote a book about the Sun"), and use |pages= to say how long the book is. That detail probably interests printers and libraries, but not Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree. The rules for books and journal articles are different; for books you should definitely cite only the page range of interest, to help readers find the relevant material. Some sites (e.g. MathSciNet) use the page parameters of their metadata to give total page counts, and I always find it annoying to have to strip this out and/or replace it with something more specific. Probably we have a lot of Wikipedia citations that accidentally or out of ignorance do this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Another anomaly (though not a problematic one) is that open-access academic journals, which are online only, technically provide an "article number" rather than a page number. It's as if they declared that all of their articles, regardless of length, are exactly one page long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru, Jimfbleak is correct. It is normal practice both in the English Wikipedia and in academic writing to specify the full page range for a journal article. This is required in some external style guides, such as APA style and Vancouver system, both of which are permitted citation styles on wiki, including in FAs. We've been doing this for more than a decade, and it wasn't even questioned until about two years ago, when a couple of editors with little experience in science articles started telling everyone else that The Rules™ said that the maximum desirable page range was two (just 2) . The guidelines have never said this, and Template:Page numbers improve was corrected after discussions earlier this year.

Jim is probably also correct when he advises you to just read that source. The ideal for an FA reviewer is to read (or at least skim over) the key sources, since that will let you know if any key information was left out, rather than only verifying that the material added was in the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: hmm, well thanks for the response although I note that your advice that specific page numbers aren't needed does not match what Trappist the monk said above... Also, thanks for bringing my attention to the previous discussion on a similar topic. The general sense of opinion in that discussion seems to be that while the specific instruction to limit pages to two was not correct, the general principle that we shouldn't be linking to large page ranges still holds (except in specific domains such as medicine). And yes, while I should be skimming/reading the article as an FA reviewer, the purpose of these citations is to aid the reader in verifying what's said. Because unlike an academic publication, Wikipedia is for the most part written by non-professionals, meaning it's more important for readers to be able to identify precise sources than it would be in an academic paper. Surely precise pages is therefore preferable, and something a well-written article should strive for?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The whole point in a citation is that it allows the facts to be verifiable - providing massive 28 page ranges for a fact does not meet that requirement and doesn't meet the needs of a B-class article, never mind a FA.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Amakuru and Nigel Ish here. Cites with precise page numbers are essential to readers and reviewers who want to check the information. Carlstak (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Citing precise page numbers does not mean citing narrow page ranges. If you are citing an entire publication, or an entire chapter, to support a fact, you should not be picking and choosing one or two pages out of the entire thing. The correct citation for a sentence such as "Alice Expert wrote a book about the Sun" is the whole book, not the first page upon which the Sun is mentioned. The correct citation for a sentence such as "Research is focused on the cause" is the entire chapter titled "Research priorities: Focus on the cause", not one or two pages cherry-picked out of that chapter.
• Even before we introduced the WP:CITEVAR section to make this explicit, this guideline has always said that editors can use any citation style they choose. Demanding that editors reduce the page range down to one or two pages per individual factoid would mean effectively banning the citation styles prescribed by multiple style guides that are widely used in academic contexts. If you genuinely believe that it's not okay to follow academic styles for citing sources, then (a) this page needs to be changed, and (b) most of Category:Citation templates should be deleted.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

When I use the Ref Toolbar for journal citations, and hover over the question mark beside the Page parameter, it says "Page in the source that supports the content". If I hover over the question mark beside the Pages parameter, it says "Pages in the source that supports the content... do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source." I don't have to read the page range of an entire journal article to fact check, although I sometimes do, if I have the time. I do always read enough of the context to verify the fact, however. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nigel Ish, the source in question spans 18 pages, not 28. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If we are allowed to the entirety of large massive articles for single facts, which is what was done here, then WP:VERIFICATION is meaningless. Why not just cite a whole book? If they are so imprecise as to prevent verification, then why bother with references at all?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you think you can verify a fact by reading a single line of a source out of context then in many cases you are fooling yourself. And the page range of an entire article is a necessary part of the citation, in order to make it possible to find the cited article in its source. If the article is long and the cited material is a small part of it rather than the whole article, then say so, but do not use the page or pages parameters for that information. They mean something different. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Not everything is a factoid, and using the parameter that's supposed to say where an article starts to instead locate a factoid within it just makes that article harder to find. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Amakuru, Nigel Ish and Carlstak. There is literally no good reason not to refine citations to be explicit about the page(s) used for verification from a larger range. Just saying "that's not what we do" or "the citation template shouldn't be used that way" or variations on those themes is not good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason not to specify what part of a source you are using the information from, true. There is a very good reason not to specify it in the pages parameter of article citations: because the full page range of an article citation is a necessary part of a citation, omitting it makes it harder to find the article, if you can't find the article you can't verify more specific information from it, and because using parameters for the wrong metadata makes it harder both for people and for software to understand the citation. So if you want to lobby for another parameter that could hold more specific pointers to within an article (not necessarily limited to page numbers — I would often like to cite theorem numbers or section titles) then go ahead. It could even be a parameter we already have, like "at" (currently forbidden when page numbers are given). But it should not be the page number parameters. As we currently have no such parameter, such information should be specified as text, after the article citation; it should not be specified as the page number within the citation itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is always the quote and quote-page/quote-pages fields for pointing to a more specific part of a work if necessary. For most journal papers which are under 30 pages, this isn't necessary, as under WP:V standards, 30 pages is not too much of an onus for people to search through; we're drawing the line at having readers having to read through all of War & Peace to find a relevant quote when we can at least narrow down by chapter, for instance. But I can see cases of review journal articles that easily can get into 50-100 page ranges, and thus maybe here, using the quote= to identify the relevant section and quote-pages what pages that section scans will help to specifically narrow down. --Masem (t) 22:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion at the FAC was just to use short {{sfn}} referencing for the individual page numbers, since the same article is cited numerous times, with a long form reference in a separate bibliography (which could include the full page range if that's something people care about). I'm not especially bothered about how the information is conveyed, as long as it is conveyed somehow, and in a consistent fashion. That said, I'm a little unsure why someone would be able to locate a citation of told the whole article was on pages 101–123, but be unable to figure it out if told that the actual fact was on page 110.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Here's my annual pitch for the page= parameter of the {{r}} template, which gives you something like

  The sun is big.^[1]: 7

... meaning page 7 of the cited work. Check out the template documentation for how it's done -- clean and easy. For example, the wikitext for the above is The sun is big.{{r|SmithIntro|p=7}} EEng 17:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Beckwourth Complex Fire uses a source for which the access date is July 10. However, that source is used for information that was updated on July 12.

There is no change in the URL, but apparently information on that site is kept updated. Greshthegreat seems to be taking most of the responsibility for updating the article.

I don't know if any outdated information from that source is in the article for a good reason (but is no longer found in that source since it was updated), or if all information from that source can be found in the source now, meaning the access date can be updated.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

When content changes, you need to look at what changed, and try to evaluate why it changed. It could be that the old material has moved to an archive page… it could be that new, updated information has made the previous version obsolete. It could be that an error was discovered and corrected. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to what was on the site July 10 or know of any archive page. All I know is the article has had three different figures for acres burned and percent contained. I don't know whether it is proper to use each day's figures to indicate the progress on fighting the fire.

This is a problem with news articles on MarketWatch as well. I have learned never to rely on the early version but wait for the updated article that uses the same URL.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a relevant discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Current_version_of_page_no_longer_contains_cited_facts._url-status=?. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've made the necessary changes to the Beckwourth article. From the questionable source, it now has only information that is there currently.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have a book by John Smith. There is an article by Jane Doe in the appendix of that book. I cannot access the article elsewhere. How do I attribute information to Jane Doe when I only have page numbers for John Smith's book that contains her article? Which citation template do I use? Help would be much appreciated! Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It depends what citation style you're using, but the general principles are outlined at WP:SAYWHERE. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

{{cite book |contributor-last=Doe |contributor-first=Jane |contribution=Jane Doe's Article |last=Smith |first=John |title=John Smith's Book |location=Location |publisher=Publisher |date=2021}}

Doe, Jane (2021). "Jane Doe's Article". John Smith's Book. By Smith, John. Location: Publisher.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Should CITEVAR apply to changes to citation templates that do not alter the way the citation appears in the article? For example, an article already uses {{cite book|first= AAA |last = BBB |year= 2000 | etc.}} and a later editor adds a citation using {{Cite book|first=CCC|last=DDD|year=2001|etc.}}; the latter has slight differences in capitalization and spacing that do not affect the way the citations actually appear to readers.

Is this seen as a "change an article's established citation style" that should this be disallowed under CITEVAR? It's a minor point, but CITEVAR has been used to justify wholesale reverting of additions of reliably sourced material solely because the template spacing and/or capitalization don't match.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since the dispute you're involved in concerns more than what's been presented here, I would suggest you take the matter to the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)

Answering the question posed here:

There have been RFCs that appear to say that WP:CITEVAR does not apply to the form of a wikitext citation when differences of form or style cannot be detected by the reader.

• Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 43 § RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR (June–October 2017)
• Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 40 § RFC: Is a change in citation markup method a change in citation style? (March–June 2016) – this is the incorrectly-linked RFC mentioned in the vertical v horizontal RFC

Template name capitalization and inter-parameter spacing all seem to me to be irrelevant because the rendered citation format or style is identical so, for your example, the addition of the second form to an article that predominantly uses the first form does not constitute a violation of WP:CITEVAR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would agree that capitalization or decapitalization of parameters, non-newline spacing, reordering of parameters, or the renaming of parameter names to the more "correct" version (like "access-date" over "accessdate") are activities outside of what citevar is meant to cover. The conversion of a inline format between horizontal and vertical formats, conversion from inline to list-based references, and the change of template citation family would all fall within what should not be done per citevar. --Masem (t) 16:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks all. This has been an ongoing issue that precedes the current dispute, which has been taken up on the talk page. Your explanations and the RfC links are very helpful. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Still - just because capitalisation of cite templates isn't covered by CITEVAR isn't an excuse for either editor to edit war (even slowly) - and it is arguable that whether website or publisher is used for a website, and what you call the website/publisher does affect how the citation is presented to the reader (where CITEVAR may apply).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how often this comes up, but perhaps a simple statement to the effect of "minor variations in citation template spacing, capitalization, or hyphenation that do not affect the actual rendered appearance in the article are not contrary to CITEVAR" would be helpful in the guideline explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The link to the tool Reftag seems to be down. The code for those tools is up on GitHub here: https://github.com/Apoc2400/Reftag but it seems the site is no longer hosted. Jimpaz (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Should links to http://reftag.appspot.com/ be removed? Jimpaz (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply