Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 56
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
Talk:Donald Trump and using WP:LOCALCON to disallow citation archives
The fine folks over at Talk:Donald Trump currently have a "Current consensus" item on their talk page that disallows including archive URLs for citations that aren't dead (25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)
). This runs counter to this guideline, specifically WP:DEADREF, which seems to suggest that it's better to preventatively archive pages than to wait for them to be dead and hope that an archived copy is available (this guideline also notes that even if a link doesn't necessarily die, the content of the link can change and make the source unsuitable for statements it is used to support). My gut says to simply strike that item as a clear WP:LOCALCON and direct those editors here to make their case for an exception, but I wanted to see what the feeling was here before proceeding. Also relevant is this closed discussion: Special:Permalink/1197984238#Reversion_of_archives. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- You know that it is entirely possible to "preventatively archive pages" without pushing the archive link into Wikipedia, right? Just tell archive.org to archive the page. Then, if you ever need it, there it is on archive.org waiting for you. If you don't yet need it, what is the point of keeping a prematurely frozen archive link here, when archive.org will keep track of all the archived versions that it has and let you choose which one you want when you want it?
- I would suggest that, to the extent that WP:DEADREF suggests copying the archive link here rather than merely making an archived copy, that language should be changed. But I note that the actual language of DEADREF is merely to consider making an archived copy; the actual language suggesting copying it here is in WP:ARCHIVEEARLY which does not even have the status of a Wikipedia guideline. Therefore, there is nothing for LOCALCON to be violating.
- As for why it can be a bad idea to copy the links here: because sources may still be in flux and the editors may prefer readers to see the current version than an old frozen version. This may be especially true for topics in current politics. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I was about to suggest something similar, i.e. making sure archives exist without actually adding them (if that's possible). Primefac (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DEADREF links to a section titled
Preventing and repairing dead links
, which is kind of where I got the impression it was more than simply a suggestion (and as to WP:ARCHIVEEARLY, it is literally tagged as a how-to guide). I agree it's possible to create an archive and not link it, but this still places the burden on future editors/readers to find a revision of the page that supports the statement being cited which can be problematic if a source changes (as you note for political content, this can happen frequently). I've also always viewed citations as a point-in-time thing when it comes to people/events, so the idea that an archive link might point to an "old" version is a feature, not a bug. The reasons given at Talk:Donald Trump all seemed to revolve around bloating of the page size which seems like a technical concern that shouldn't be getting used as a means to stifle page development. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)- So your position is that this guideline forces editors to use frozen versions of sources rather than allowing sources to be dynamic? Instead, that seems to me to be the kind of content-based editorial decision that a local consensus is entirely appropriate for. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- *sigh* If the live source changes after a statement is written, the frozen archive can be used to verify the source as it was originally seen... Nothing is being "forced", I'm just stating plainly that it's better behavior for editors to preserve their sources as they write rather than have to go through archives for potentially years to find the source that originally said something if the source ended up being dynamic/changing. Regardless of that, I'm concerned that we're recommending preventing dead links here in this guideline and a page has taken it upon itself to wholly disallow this good and desirable behavior. I'll again point to Special:Permalink/1197984238#Reversion_of_archives, where an editor was basically hit with a hammer over this and their response was about as good as you'd expect (
I am never touching this article again
). Do we really want individual pages to unilaterally decide these guidelines are irrelevant and drive off productive editors doing what we're suggesting? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- *sigh* If the live source changes after a statement is written, the frozen archive can be used to verify the source as it was originally seen... Nothing is being "forced", I'm just stating plainly that it's better behavior for editors to preserve their sources as they write rather than have to go through archives for potentially years to find the source that originally said something if the source ended up being dynamic/changing. Regardless of that, I'm concerned that we're recommending preventing dead links here in this guideline and a page has taken it upon itself to wholly disallow this good and desirable behavior. I'll again point to Special:Permalink/1197984238#Reversion_of_archives, where an editor was basically hit with a hammer over this and their response was about as good as you'd expect (
- So your position is that this guideline forces editors to use frozen versions of sources rather than allowing sources to be dynamic? Instead, that seems to me to be the kind of content-based editorial decision that a local consensus is entirely appropriate for. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- "disallows including archive URLs for citations that aren't dead" – Good. It's not "good and desirable behavior". It's code bloat that we don't need, and additional cite-by-cite verbiage and link confusion that the reader doesn't need. Removing that cruft does nothing whatsoever to "stifle page development". It's entirely sufficient to have IA archive something while you cite it, and just not add to Wikipedia the archive-url that we do not presently need. If linkrot happens for a particular citation, the add it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the theory is that if the archive links are added now, then they will less likely to be archive links to 404 pages (thus requiring manual intervention to find the correct one, rather than just using the most recent). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you think that changing Wikipedia to point to an archive link now, rather than merely telling the archive to make a copy but then only using that copy later when it is needed, would have any effect on what one finds at the archive link. If the archive link works, it works, and linking to it will not change that. If the archive link 404s, it 404s, and linking to it will not change that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you make the archive link today, and you record the archive link today, then you know the content is good, and you know which archive link you need to use.
- If you make the archive link today, and sometime during the next several years, the page becomes a 404, then at some future, post-breakage date, you will have to go through multiple archived links, some of which have the desired content and some of which don't, to figure out which one actually verifies the contents (see "requiring manual intervention" in my comment above).
- This is due to the structure and goals of the Internet Archive. They don't archive a URL just once. They make multiple copies at different points in time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you think that changing Wikipedia to point to an archive link now, rather than merely telling the archive to make a copy but then only using that copy later when it is needed, would have any effect on what one finds at the archive link. If the archive link works, it works, and linking to it will not change that. If the archive link 404s, it 404s, and linking to it will not change that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Does WP:DEADREF not reflect the current consensus here? I honestly don't care if people here want to shoot themselves in the foot anymore, so if the thought process from @David Eppstein and @SMcCandlish is that early archiving is
code bloat that we don't need
orit is entirely possible to "preventatively archive pages" without pushing the archive link into Wikipedia
(sic, emphasis added) then perhaps it's time to strike DEADREF or shuffle it off to a different (non-guideline) page. Sources, especially online sources, can be brittle and subject to the whims of website designers and complete site overhauls where old links die completely (and current "archives" are just "not found" pages). I don't think "code bloat" should be a concern used to undermine preventative measures to preserve sources/citations. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)- DEADREF is not broken in any way, and is quite clear:
When permanent links [DOIs, etc.] aren't available, consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save) or archive.today (https://archive.today) are fairly easy to use (see pre-emptive archiving).
That does not say "and put the archived copy into the article before it is actually needed". All of the other material in that section, as in every single word of it, is about repairing citations with dead links.What is broken is WP:ARCHIVEEARLY (which is part of a supplementary how-to essay, not a guideline), which someone added as their opinion and which clearly does not represent an actual consensus. It says
To ensure link accessibility and stability, please consider pre-emptively adding an archive URL from an archive source such as the Internet Archive or WebCite.
This practice is actually and clearly disputed, and that material should be changed, unless/until there is a firm consensus that not only is it good advice but that we actually need it despite WP:CREEP. It should instead re-state in a how-to manner what is said about this at DEADREF: create the archive on-demand today, but do not put it into the article if it is not already needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)create the archive on-demand today, but do not put it into the article if it is not already needed
[citation needed] —Locke Cole • t • c 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- DEADREF is not broken in any way, and is quite clear:
- I really wish the consensus at Donald Trump were exported site-wide. I had a discussion about a month ago on the same topic at Talk:Augustus. Basically, people are still wasting their time WP:MEATBOT-ing and the results of it are extremely disruptive to editors seeking to actually improve articles rather than "maintaining" them. Ifly6 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to see how having an archive of a citation used in our article is somehow a negative thing. I still haven't come across a convincing reason other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Which.. cool. I like an encyclopedia I can verify the information it contains through it sources, today and in the future. It kind of stuns me that anyone can defend not having archive links ready that capture sources in the state they were when they were used for a statement. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain what these drive-by archivers are doing that isn't already done automatically? Ifly6 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
automatically
I'm assuming you mean bot that finds dead references and attempt to produce an archive after the link has died? That's easy, see WP:DEADREF, but basically it's better to create an archive before a page goes missing (or changes substantially) than to wait until the worst has happened. If an archiving system like archive.org hasn't produced a backup, then there's no getting that source back (because it's already gone). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- Bots create the archives automatically too... doing so around 24 hours after the site is added. And if you use
|access-date=the bot will also choose the version closest to or before the access date if the link 404s. What is being done that isn't just drive-by archivers duplicating bot work? Ifly6 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- What bot is doing this? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's all documented at Wikipedia:Link rot#Automatic archiving. There is a bot called No more 404 that archives added links. There is a bot, WP:IABOT, which monitors whether those links become dead and inserts
|archive-url=when that occurs. Ifly6 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- So... not a BOT in the WP:BOT sense but an opaque, off-wiki process that has no way of being verified? I'm still not entirely sure why people are so aggressively against pre-emptive archiving. Do you want your work to be unverifiable if a link goes stale, dead or changes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the information being cited at the link source changes, then our articles need to reflect that change. Linking to “archived” (ie out of date) version of the source isn’t what we want. Indeed, an out of date source may be considered “no longer reliable.” Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's wonderful. It sounds like something that should be addressed on an article talk page when a changed link occurs. It sounds secondary to wanting to preserve our sources so they can be verified even if they change or disappear. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is the opposite of how I see it. We cite a source to verify content in an article. If the information on a website changes, then it may no longer support that content. It is then necessary to either change what the article says to match the source, or find a new source to support what the article says. We need to be able to verify that the website in its previous state did indeed support the content in the article. If the original content of that website is no longer valid, then it doesn't matter whether the website is unchanged, has been updated, or is dead. We then need to assess available reliable sources to determine what the article should say. If we know that a website is likely to be updated, we should be citing an archived version of the website that supports the content of the article, rather than linking to something that is likely to stop supporting the contents. I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases, any changes to a website are likely to reduce its usefulness as a source for the contents of the article. Donald Albury 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Suppose we write that 25 people were killed in a deadly accident, based on a source that originally reports “25 people were killed”… ok, our content is verifiable. HOWEVER, let’s say that subsequently that source amends its reporting to say “25 people were seriously injured, and 3 died”… now our content is outdated, and is no-longer verified by the source. We need to update our content. If we prematurely archive the source, we might never catch that the source corrected its information and no longer supports the “25 dead” number. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are more kinds of articles than "current events"-type articles, you understand that right? There are other reasons to have archives prepared in advance as well, not least of which is being able to confirm if a statement was ever true (for behavioral issues where an editor makes a statement, provides a source, then claims it "changed"). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blueboar, in that unusual circumstance, both the article content and the archived link need to be updated.
- The far more common circumstance is: the article gets cited, the bot adds an archive link, the original site (or at least that article) dies, and we can still see what the original article said when it existed.
- On a side note, I wonder if people are really understanding each other. We're talking about the difference between these two versions:
- Regina Milanov. "Istorija ribarskog gazdinstva Ečka". Retrieved 2018-07-31.
- Regina Milanov. "Istorija ribarskog gazdinstva Ečka". Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2018-07-31.
- If you've got the first, and the website dies (this particular website now throws a HTTP 403 error), then you can't tell whether the website used to say something relevant without someone digging through the Internet Archive to see whether they happened to archive that page before it died. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are more kinds of articles than "current events"-type articles, you understand that right? There are other reasons to have archives prepared in advance as well, not least of which is being able to confirm if a statement was ever true (for behavioral issues where an editor makes a statement, provides a source, then claims it "changed"). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Suppose we write that 25 people were killed in a deadly accident, based on a source that originally reports “25 people were killed”… ok, our content is verifiable. HOWEVER, let’s say that subsequently that source amends its reporting to say “25 people were seriously injured, and 3 died”… now our content is outdated, and is no-longer verified by the source. We need to update our content. If we prematurely archive the source, we might never catch that the source corrected its information and no longer supports the “25 dead” number. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the information being cited at the link source changes, then our articles need to reflect that change. Linking to “archived” (ie out of date) version of the source isn’t what we want. Indeed, an out of date source may be considered “no longer reliable.” Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- So... not a BOT in the WP:BOT sense but an opaque, off-wiki process that has no way of being verified? I'm still not entirely sure why people are so aggressively against pre-emptive archiving. Do you want your work to be unverifiable if a link goes stale, dead or changes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's all documented at Wikipedia:Link rot#Automatic archiving. There is a bot called No more 404 that archives added links. There is a bot, WP:IABOT, which monitors whether those links become dead and inserts
- What bot is doing this? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bots create the archives automatically too... doing so around 24 hours after the site is added. And if you use
- That article will have a thousand citations by the election. Will 1000 extra parameters and links slow the page loading? Rjjiii (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Will 1000 extra parameters and links slow the page loading?
Even if it does, it shouldn't be the basis for how we edit the project. See WP:AUM for a time whenpage loading
was used as an excuse to try and prevent editors from creating a better encyclopedia. It's on the devs to look at things that are causing site problems and address them using technical means. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain what these drive-by archivers are doing that isn't already done automatically? Ifly6 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to see how having an archive of a citation used in our article is somehow a negative thing. I still haven't come across a convincing reason other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Which.. cool. I like an encyclopedia I can verify the information it contains through it sources, today and in the future. It kind of stuns me that anyone can defend not having archive links ready that capture sources in the state they were when they were used for a statement. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the theory is that if the archive links are added now, then they will less likely to be archive links to 404 pages (thus requiring manual intervention to find the correct one, rather than just using the most recent). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in policy that dictates the point either way, so editors seem to be allowed to make article by article decisions on the matter. Personally I would be pro-inclusion for the reason outlined by WhatamIdoing above, but I don't see anything that says it must be done one way or the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Why would we WANT to “preemptively” archive?
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t really understand why anyone would want to archive a citation “preemptively”. Could someone who supports doing so enlighten me? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there something at WP:DEADREF and WP:ARCHIVEEARLY you don't understand? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes… I understand using archives for dead links… but when we expect a webpage to change its content (say because it is out-of-date or incorrect) why would we want to cite an archived version? I would think we would want to cite the most up-to date version (and if necessary change OUR article content to match the up-to-date, corrected website). Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's one case I know of where it's worth doing: Galactic Central hosts bibliographic details such as this which are autogenerated from a database that is updated once a quarter. When the quarterly update happens, all the URLs change, so if you were citing that page to show that Keith Laumer's The Planet Wreckers appeared in the February 1967 issue of Worlds of Tomorrow, the page will no longer contain that information. When I cite this website I usually preemptively archive it so that I don't have to go hunting for the right archive page a year later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes… I understand using archives for dead links… but when we expect a webpage to change its content (say because it is out-of-date or incorrect) why would we want to cite an archived version? I would think we would want to cite the most up-to date version (and if necessary change OUR article content to match the up-to-date, corrected website). Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blueboar, I see on a very regular basis articles with dead references that were never archived. Would it be nice if those references had been archived shortly after they were originally added to the article? Yes. Do I think it must occur? Not really. So I guess I'm not really in either of the camps discussing the issue in the main thread, but I guess from a maintenance standpoint I am pro-archive. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is a good argument for triggering off-site archival of pages that you use as references. It is not an argument for using the archived copy to replace the source on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Who's talking about "replacing"? The idea, I gather, is to have both live URL and archive URL listed before it's too late. Which sounds reasonable enough. Frankly, I can understand if people say "I'm too lazy for that", but I don't have the slightest idea why anyone would want to prevent others from doing it. Gawaon (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein, @Gawaon Yeah, is this the reason for the attitude thus far? At no point has anyone suggested we replace functional URLs with their archive's. This is why {{cite web}} has both a
|url=and|archive-url=, and only when|url-status=dead(or if|url-status=is not set) does the|archive-url=get used if it is present. If|url=is still live, simply using|url-status=livewill keep|archive-url=from being shown. This is all explained in the docs at {{cite web}}. The only argument at Talk:Donald Trump appears to center around "bloat" of the page, which again, is not a reason to avoid good maintenance of one of our more popular articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein, @Gawaon Yeah, is this the reason for the attitude thus far? At no point has anyone suggested we replace functional URLs with their archive's. This is why {{cite web}} has both a
- Who's talking about "replacing"? The idea, I gather, is to have both live URL and archive URL listed before it's too late. Which sounds reasonable enough. Frankly, I can understand if people say "I'm too lazy for that", but I don't have the slightest idea why anyone would want to prevent others from doing it. Gawaon (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is a good argument for triggering off-site archival of pages that you use as references. It is not an argument for using the archived copy to replace the source on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok… I can see that there might be situations where prermptively archiving a source is helpful (thanks)… I hope people can understand why I had concerns. Perhaps we need to work up more guidance on when to do so and (perhaps more importantly) when not to do so. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- To be a little more precise, it's not pre-emptive archiving that is questioned; after all, you can't make a copy in the archive once the site/page is already gone. Archiving must be done in advance, or it can't be done at all. The complaint is that the Wikipedia article is storing a link to the archive copy. I believe there are two complaints about this:
- Depending on the parameters chosen, the existence of the archive might be shown in the (visible) references list. It won't be linked as the regular/main link, but readers will see that it exists, and some editors think that's ugly.
- Even when it's not visible to readers, the extra URL is visible to editors in the wikitext, and some editors think that this "unnecessary" (so far) information is very inconvenient for them to work around.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those seem very weak reasons. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure that all reasons held by any given individual seem strong to that particular individual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those seem very weak reasons. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Beyond the fact that you have to archive preemptively, as described, another element is that you don't necessarily know a page will get properly archived before its content completely changes to something like a redirect (as is the case with many long-running sites, at some point they change their structure and a bunch of old content essentially gets black-holed, and it's not going to be very visible to editors who added that link originally that the content is effectively gone; at least with the archive we're giving readers a fair shot of finding it without having to check for archives themselves.) I appreciate the people who hate the density of the wiki text, but there are ways around that (putting refs in the ref section at the end, for instance, rather than inline) and WP:V is a much more important principle than "it looks nicer to me without the extra text in references". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- To be a little more precise, it's not pre-emptive archiving that is questioned; after all, you can't make a copy in the archive once the site/page is already gone. Archiving must be done in advance, or it can't be done at all. The complaint is that the Wikipedia article is storing a link to the archive copy. I believe there are two complaints about this:
A modest proposal
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There appears to have been some misunderstandings above about what archiving a citation means (see WP:DEADREF for the current language and WP:ARCHIVEEARLY for the process, see WP:LINKROT for some reasons why archiving is a good idea). Just to reiterate, it does not mean replacing existing |url= with a link to Archive.org/Wayback Machine. It means filling the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters and setting |url-status=live for links that are not presently dead (see {{cite web}} for more details on the parameters and how they interact). While my reading was that creating such archive URLs was strongly encouraged, there appears to be a consensus that the current language does not even say that. However, what I would propose is not explicitly requiring archive links, but perhaps language here that effectively disallows individual pages from banning the practice altogether. I can't really see where having them causes any harm to our editors or our readers, and the benefits of having them far outweigh the arguments against including them.
All that being said, please indicate whether you Support including language that would forbid individual pages from creating a WP:LOCALCON to disallow archive links, or whether you would Oppose such language. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
A proposed version appears below with the addition highlighted.
- To help prevent dead links, persistent identifiers are available for some sources. Some journal articles have a digital object identifier (DOI); some online newspapers and blogs, and also Wikipedia, have permalinks that are stable. When permanent links aren't available, consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save) or archive.today (https://archive.today) are fairly easy to use (see pre-emptive archiving). No page covered by this guideline may forbid including archive links in citations as described here using a local consensus.
—Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
!Votes
- Support as proposer for reasons stated above. I am open to alternate wording or different placement within WP:DEADREF. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 27 March 2024 (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.
Comments
- The wording is strange and I think it should be improved before we discuss this proposal much longer. WP:CONLEVEL, as I understand it, already says that a local consensus, say on a talk page, cannot override guidelines such as this one. The problem with the mentioned section, however, seems to be that it mentions "making an archived copy of the cited document" but doesn't say anything about adding a link to the reference using the |archive-url= mechanism or so. Surely it was the intent that one should do that too – after all, what would be the point of an archived copy if nobody knows where to find it? So I think a simpler fix, and more in line with the usual wording of guidelines, would be to add something like "and adding it to the relevant reference, for example using an |archive-url= parameter" after "consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article". Once that's there, CONLEVEL should handle the rest and no new sentence is needed. Gawaon (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would support this and agree it's a cleaner approach. I would not object to closing this early and proposing your change instead. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You could just try adding it to the page first and see if anyone reverts it. Maybe it'll be fine even without requiring further discussions? Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done, with minor addition. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it was challenged, so I guess further discussion will be needed. Gawaon (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: You don't get to revert "per talk" and not actually comment on the talk page. Why are you reverting this? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple editors raised concerns with this practice above. While I agree that your proposed addition was poorly phrased, I don't agree with the advice to just implement your new change given the previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple editors were confused about what was being discussed apparently, believing working (non-dead) URLs would be replaced with links to Archive.org/WaybackMachine. Since that correction there has not seemingly been any push back on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see multiple editors conflating those situations, but do see specific objections to adding, eg the concerns about code bloat and additional parameters. I see that you disagree with those objections, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have an actual objection to this or are you simply objecting because of your interpretation of the conversation above? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I share the concerns expressed in the conversation above. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which one? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- That it is appropriate to simply ensure that an archive exists if it is needed, that pre-emptive additions result in a lot of bloat, that this is a matter for local editorial consensus, and that a dead link is indicative of the need for editorial reconsideration rather than simple technical substitution. Plus, peripherally, the meatbotting is annoying. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
it is appropriate to simply ensure that an archive exists if it is needed
This does nothing for future editors or readers in determining the validity of a statement if an existing source becomes dead (either temporarily or permanently).pre-emptive additions result in a lot of bloat
This is irrelevant, and can be mitigated by placing citations at the end of the article and referencing them earlier (see Ridgeline High School (Washington) for an example).that this is a matter for local editorial consensus
Our articles being verifiable with citations that are able to withstand sources changing or disappearing is not something up forlocal editorial consensus
.a dead link is indicative of the need for editorial reconsideration rather than simple technical substitution
And an archive can aid in finding a live version if it is a copy of a widely published paper, but without a copy of the original source to refer to for quotations, such a search becomes more problematic depending on the citation/source used and the statement needing to be cited.meatbotting is annoying
??? I assume you mean people doing the good work of providing archives for references or are you engaging in personal attacks?- Is there anything else? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are benefits to creating archives pre-emptively, which is why no one AFAIK is proposing banning the practice. But there are also drawbacks, and requiring rather than simply permitting adding archivelinks pre-emptively requires engaging with those drawbacks in good faith. Instead dismissing concerns as "irrelevant" and "personal attacks" (??) weakens rather than strengthens your case. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- It hasn't been suggested that they be required, only that people doing the work not have their efforts reverted or omitted simply because of a WP:LOCALCON. If an article starts without archives, and six months, a year, or years later, someone adds them, it should not be permissible for that to be a point of editorial discussion on just that page. It's disruptive to the maintenance of a project like Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you are arguing that editors cannot choose to exclude something, you are arguing that that something is required. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The two statements are not mutually exclusive. So, no, not required. Required would mean they needed to be added with any new or changed citation. Nobody here has proposed that. Simply acknowledging that a local consensus cannot unilaterally remove archives (or in this case, ban them outright) does not mean editors must add them. Only that they cannot remove them once added without a good reason (wrong archive, source changed, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The people who formed a local consensus to exclude archivelinks felt they had good reason to do so. If you somehow manage to ban local consensuses on this issue without making archivelinks required, they can just revert citing those reasons instead. How is that an improvement on the current situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The people who formed a local consensus to exclude archivelinks felt they had good reason to do so.
Well, you can certainly go see thegood reason
for yourself. I hesitate to call the reasons providedgood
however:- They appear to not understand how archive links work (some proponents of omitting them appear to believe simply having an archive at all is good, even though it may mean wading through hundreds of revisions to find the correct one (as discussed above))
- They appear to have concern over "bloat" of the page wikitext (which can be resolved completely by formatting it to have references all at the bottom, this also makes reference/citation maintenance easier)
- Belief that it will somehow make the page larger for downloading (hint, MediaWiki (the software that runs Wikipedia) uses gzip to compress page results on modern browsers, so while the HTML response for Donald Trump is 1.79MB, the compressed size is 317KB; Archive.org/WaybackMachine links are typically an archive.org link, followed by
weband a ISO formatted date/time, then the original URI, so the major part, the original URL of the source, will be duplicated, which should compress very well; example:https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-us-rounding-turn-covid-trump-claims-1542145vshttps://web.archive.org/web/20230510211847/https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-us-rounding-turn-covid-trump-claims-1542145)
- The consensus version of Wikipedia:Citing sources encourages pre-emptively archiving. Per WP:CONLEVELS,
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
I'm very sorry that the editors at Talk:Donald Trump don't understand why we pre-emptively archive, but editors here have already made it a site-wide recommendation. The edit we were making was attempting to clarify this already existing consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The people who formed a local consensus to exclude archivelinks felt they had good reason to do so. If you somehow manage to ban local consensuses on this issue without making archivelinks required, they can just revert citing those reasons instead. How is that an improvement on the current situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The two statements are not mutually exclusive. So, no, not required. Required would mean they needed to be added with any new or changed citation. Nobody here has proposed that. Simply acknowledging that a local consensus cannot unilaterally remove archives (or in this case, ban them outright) does not mean editors must add them. Only that they cannot remove them once added without a good reason (wrong archive, source changed, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you are arguing that editors cannot choose to exclude something, you are arguing that that something is required. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- It hasn't been suggested that they be required, only that people doing the work not have their efforts reverted or omitted simply because of a WP:LOCALCON. If an article starts without archives, and six months, a year, or years later, someone adds them, it should not be permissible for that to be a point of editorial discussion on just that page. It's disruptive to the maintenance of a project like Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are benefits to creating archives pre-emptively, which is why no one AFAIK is proposing banning the practice. But there are also drawbacks, and requiring rather than simply permitting adding archivelinks pre-emptively requires engaging with those drawbacks in good faith. Instead dismissing concerns as "irrelevant" and "personal attacks" (??) weakens rather than strengthens your case. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- That it is appropriate to simply ensure that an archive exists if it is needed, that pre-emptive additions result in a lot of bloat, that this is a matter for local editorial consensus, and that a dead link is indicative of the need for editorial reconsideration rather than simple technical substitution. Plus, peripherally, the meatbotting is annoying. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which one? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I share the concerns expressed in the conversation above. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have an actual objection to this or are you simply objecting because of your interpretation of the conversation above? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see multiple editors conflating those situations, but do see specific objections to adding, eg the concerns about code bloat and additional parameters. I see that you disagree with those objections, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple editors were confused about what was being discussed apparently, believing working (non-dead) URLs would be replaced with links to Archive.org/WaybackMachine. Since that correction there has not seemingly been any push back on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple editors raised concerns with this practice above. While I agree that your proposed addition was poorly phrased, I don't agree with the advice to just implement your new change given the previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: You don't get to revert "per talk" and not actually comment on the talk page. Why are you reverting this? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it was challenged, so I guess further discussion will be needed. Gawaon (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done, with minor addition. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You could just try adding it to the page first and see if anyone reverts it. Maybe it'll be fine even without requiring further discussions? Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would support this and agree it's a cleaner approach. I would not object to closing this early and proposing your change instead. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus version asks editors to consider creating an archived copy, nothing more. I'm very sorry that you'd like it to be much more than it is, but it's not, plus even the version I reverted wouldn't be enough to achieve what you seem to be desperate for. And given the above, I don't think further discussion is likely to shift the needle. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if you want to be obstinate, I can't stop you. Go with God. But if you think there's anything less than a consensus that pre-emptively archiving is a desired practice sitewide, then you're going to be sorely disappointed. Good day. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I also find it troubling that, even faced with the "reasons" for omitting archive links being refuted, you simply ignore that entire part of my response to focus on my reading of the text as it stands. It's almost like you don't really care if there's a reason for excluding archive links, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus version asks editors to consider creating an archived copy, nothing more. I'm very sorry that you'd like it to be much more than it is, but it's not, plus even the version I reverted wouldn't be enough to achieve what you seem to be desperate for. And given the above, I don't think further discussion is likely to shift the needle. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
They appear to have concern over "bloat" of the page wikitext (which can be resolved completely by formatting it to have references all at the bottom, this also makes reference/citation maintenance easier)
Re that last, a subject dear to my heart. See the case study at Killing of Michael Brown. Yes, it eliminated a lot of clutter in the prose, which is why I did it. I soon discovered its downsides, including the fact that nobody else wanted to change the way they had always done citations. I ended up spending tons of time converting their work to conform. Every day I would have a number of new citations to convert. Editors could see me doing that, and still they didn't help out. No thanks. Have a look at the wikitext to see how well the convention held up after I left (spoiler: it didn't). And there are other more obscure downsides that I could get into but won't.I'm very sorry that the editors at Talk:Donald Trump don't understand why we pre-emptively archive
- Do you mean "pre-emptively add the archive parameters"? Those aren't the same thing. Let me reassure you that the article's editors do understand the link rot issue. You'd be surprised how much we understand. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)- I was discussing it in the sense of how Wikipedia:Citing sources talks about it. They are the same thing, on this page, because that's literally what the page is recommending be done to avoid linkrot. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Quite remarkable that this discussion has been open for over two months and the subject article was not notified until now.[1] Heaven forbid one should facilitate opposing opinions and additional insights.It's quite simple. Donald Trump has historically had problems with exceeding the Post-expand include size limit, effectively breaking the article. We tried various solutions over the years, some of which helped for some period of time until the article grew more. Ultimately the article's editors decided to omit the archive parameters for sources that are not dead, and the problem has not recurred since then. The PEIS limit is 2,097,152 bytes and the most recent attempt to add the archive parameters (to 585 citations) increased the article's PEIS to 1,980,594 (94.4% of the limit). In other words, just a little more article growth, which is likely to happen soon given the current election situation, would break the article again. Things like this are precisely why guidelines are only guidelines.Persuade the powers-that-be to increase the PEIS limit substantially (if they have the power to do that), and I'm sure we would be happy to revisit our consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I looked over the "consensus" reasons provided and PEIS was never mentioned. Looking at that further, I think it's an issue, but not as significant as it's being made out to be by you. In a revision where archives were added (Special:Permalink/1186826799) the PEIS was 1980826/2097152 bytes (94.45%). Once it was reverted (very next revision) ((Special:Permalink/1186827656), it was 1869188/2097152 bytes (89.13%). As PEIS is a technical restriction, one which hasn't changed in decades, the correct solution is to get that setting changed, not to make our articles worse. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I looked over the "consensus" reasons provided and PEIS was never mentioned.
Exactly what I previously said below.the correct solution is to get that setting changed, not to make our articles worse.
Self-quote from above:Persuade the powers-that-be to increase the PEIS limit substantially (if they have the power to do that), and I'm sure we would be happy to revisit our consensus.
Key word "revisit": upping the PEIS limit wouldn't guarantee a consensus change, since editors may still prioritize other factors over the avoidance of limited link rot. You and others are welcome to participate in a revisitation of the consensus at the article's talk page ("the article's editors" don't "own" the article by any means), but the issue is still subject to local consensus. All this talk about CONLEVEL appears to assume that there is a community consensus to use the archive parameters regardless of any other factors or considerations, and I'm not aware of any such community consensus (feel free to correct me, but WP rarely imposes such bright lines for anything). As I've said, guidelines are only guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- WP:CONLEVELS is that way, you're welcome to take this up with the arbitration committee. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I looked over the "consensus" reasons provided and PEIS was never mentioned. Looking at that further, I think it's an issue, but not as significant as it's being made out to be by you. In a revision where archives were added (Special:Permalink/1186826799) the PEIS was 1980826/2097152 bytes (94.45%). Once it was reverted (very next revision) ((Special:Permalink/1186827656), it was 1869188/2097152 bytes (89.13%). As PEIS is a technical restriction, one which hasn't changed in decades, the correct solution is to get that setting changed, not to make our articles worse. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Belatedly reviewing the 2017 and 2018 discussions, I don't see any talk about PEIS. Editors were concerned about raw file size, download time, and code clutter. The article currently sports 837 citations, virtually all CS1. I'm apparently conflating the two issues, but the PEIS limit has in fact been a serious problem and PEIS is in fact impacted by the archive parameters. So my above argument stands. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Back to the beginning of this discussion:
The fine folks over at Talk:Donald Trump currently have a "Current consensus" item on their talk page that disallows including archive URLs for citations that aren't dead
. None of the current 837 cites at Donald Trump are dead, as proven by the last time someone "rescued 291 sources and tagged 0 as dead" on March 12, 2024, and added 57,600 bytes to the page’s 430,000 bytes. The page mostly relies on "news reporting from well-established news outlets" (WP:NEWSORG), i.e., news articles that are permanent links and routinely and repeatedly archived on the Wayback Archive. I’m fine with a bot tagging an allegedly dead link or three and adding archive-urls, although they usually turn out not to be dead and easily found under their new url. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)- Please read the above discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted the article's editors involved from the beginning, you should have notified us from the beginning, instead of relying on Nikkimaria to do that more than two months later.[2] Per community norms and basic ethics. Clearly, you didn't want the article's editors interfering with your agenda. Better yet, you could have raised this at the article's talk page (where the article's local consensuses are discussed) and posted a note here to bring in outside voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't want you involved, actually. My question was less about this specific article and more about "should articles be deciding on their own" when WP:CONLEVELS is a thing. Nothing you've said here changes that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't want you involved, actually.
Lol. Yeah, I got that.Nothing you've said here changes that.
Your opinion. I think plenty of what I've said here changes that. You are free to assert your opinions in a local consensus discussion and, if you can persuade the majority, So Be It. That's how it works around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)That's how it works around here.
Somebody better tell WP:ARBCOM that their thoughts at WP:CONLEVELS aren't relevant to the editors at Talk:Donald Trump. After all, their opinion (Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus
) is only eleven years old and been used repeatedly in ArbCom decisions... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- I think you misunderstand the function of guidelines. As I've indicated, they are only guidelines and do not represent community consensuses that things must be done a certain way. They are one of the things to be considered in consensus discussions, not the only thing. As I've indicated, there is no community consensus that the archive parameters must be used for all live sources; that would have to be separate from the guidelines, as an RfC or something. Feel free to show me where ArbCom meant "global consensus" to be interpreted in that way.Again, you're free to assert your opinions in a local consensus discussion. Even if you're correct as to CONLEVEL, ArbCom, PEIS, or anything else, you still need to persuade the majority of the merits of your arguments. There are very few trump cards in Wikipedia editing. If you think other editors are too ignorant to be trusted with these decisions, you need an attitude adjustment.Me, I've been on the losing side of many debates where I "knew" we were in the right and the opposing side was "patently" wrong. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it gets easier with practice. I had to learn to let go and not care so damn much (and that benefited me in real life, too, so WP editing has been therapeutic for me). Welcome to Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: - Thank you for raising the PEIS limit issue at VPT, at WP:Village pump (technical)#WP:PEIS. But reading it suggests that you expect that the archive parameters will be added if the limit is increased, no questions asked. As I said previously,
Key word "revisit": upping the PEIS limit wouldn't guarantee a consensus change, since editors may still prioritize other factors over the avoidance of limited link rot.
You would still need to get a new local consensus after the increase. I don't wish to be accused of moving goalposts. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- WP:CONLEVELS. As we're starting to deviate into behavioral issues, I'll just open an WP:AN/I and go from there. Thank you for making it clear it's not about WP:PEIS though. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Further up the page, multiple editors expressed disagreement with your interpretation of the guideline at WP:DEADREF. You commented, "
There appears to have been some misunderstandings above about what archiving a citation means [...]
". Are you discounting the lack of consensus for your interpretation based on the belief that dissenting editors don't understand your position? I don't think that opening a discussion at ANI about Mandruss will have any positive effect in this discussion, Rjjiii (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Thank you for making it clear it's not about WP:PEIS though.
That is not what I said. I said it's not only about PEIS. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- No, it's not about PEIS at all, as evidenced here. When presented with a solution to a problem, your reaction is to revert it because... you want to maintain the status quo (which runs counter to WP:CONLEVELS). Then there's the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior exhibited directly above with this quote:
Me, I've been on the losing side of many debates where I "knew" we were in the right and the opposing side was "patently" wrong. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it gets easier with practice. I had to learn to let go and not care so damn much (and that benefited me in real life, too, so WP editing has been therapeutic for me). Welcome to Wikipedia.
You're not here to improve the encyclopedia. You're here to win a battle and apparently welcome people to a project that have been here longer than you. I'm not seeing how that's civil at all. Like I said, there's a reason I didn't go out of my way to solicit comments from editors at Talk:Donald Trump here. You're proving my point in spades though. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- It seems strange to accuse someone of wanting to win battles when they actually just mentioned they're used to losing debates (not battles). This is not constructive nor fair, and I suggest you drop it. Gawaon (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- What precisely is constructive about welcoming an editor who has been here longer? Or bemoaning "lost battles" with the clear insinuation being that somehow I've lost? No, I won't be dropping it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems strange to accuse someone of wanting to win battles when they actually just mentioned they're used to losing debates (not battles). This is not constructive nor fair, and I suggest you drop it. Gawaon (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's not about PEIS at all, as evidenced here. When presented with a solution to a problem, your reaction is to revert it because... you want to maintain the status quo (which runs counter to WP:CONLEVELS). Then there's the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior exhibited directly above with this quote:
- @Locke Cole: Further up the page, multiple editors expressed disagreement with your interpretation of the guideline at WP:DEADREF. You commented, "
- WP:CONLEVELS. As we're starting to deviate into behavioral issues, I'll just open an WP:AN/I and go from there. Thank you for making it clear it's not about WP:PEIS though. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't want you involved, actually. My question was less about this specific article and more about "should articles be deciding on their own" when WP:CONLEVELS is a thing. Nothing you've said here changes that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted the article's editors involved from the beginning, you should have notified us from the beginning, instead of relying on Nikkimaria to do that more than two months later.[2] Per community norms and basic ethics. Clearly, you didn't want the article's editors interfering with your agenda. Better yet, you could have raised this at the article's talk page (where the article's local consensuses are discussed) and posted a note here to bring in outside voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the above discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Back to the beginning of this discussion:
In-line citations and spaces
Hi, I have a general question. Why is it required by the MOS to always put a citation immediately after the final character, instead of leaving a space in some cases? For the body of an article, I understand leaving no space. But for some areas, like an infobox, my humble opinion is that a space looks far better. Please see the infobox on this page. By the time you click the link, hopefully nobody has edited it, but currently some of the lines have spaces before citations and some don't. I may be in the minority, but I think when there is no space it looks dreadful, cluttered, and sometimes difficult to read if the word ends with a certain character, such as lowercase "i". If there's plenty of room for a space without messing up text or formatting, is there any flexibility for using spaces? Sorry, but this is just my pet peeve. I hate seeing those citations slammed up against the words when there is apparently no practical reason for it, other than adhering to a rigid policy. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's a note[3] in WP:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes that suggests using a hair space for this purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip! Very helpful to know. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
"There is a biennial international Genovese Pesto al Mortaio competition, in which 100 finalists use traditional mortars and pestles as well as the above ingredients, which 30 local and international judges then assess." This sentence is without reference; do I add the citation needed template or do I take the drastic solution of deleting it? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, which is part of the policy on verifiability, unsourced material can be removed. However, unless the unsourced content might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups (in which case you must delete it), or you are confident that no reliable source can be found to support the content, or you feel that the content is not relevant to the article, it is usually better to tag the content as unsourced and give other editors an opportunity to provide an appropriate citation. In the case you point to, I think the sentence is not relevant to the section it is in. Whether it is due anywhere in the article with an appropriate citation is something that could be discussed on the page of the article. Ordinarily, questions about the contents of an article are best discussed on the article's talk page before asking in other venues. Donald Albury 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue that it's best practice, but for whatever it's worth, my personal policy is that if unsourced material was recently added and I can identify the editor who added it then I usually remove it and drop a notice on their Talk page (my rationale is that the editor who added the material is probably best-situated to provide a source), but if it's longstanding material and/or I can't identify the editor who added the material then I'll tag it and eventually (I usually give it a couple of months) circle back to remove it. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The point is to improve the encyclopedia.
- People can often improve the encyclopedia by providing citations for uncited statements. They cannot do that if the statement is no longer there.
- On the other hand, sufficiently large or complicated passages without citations are often difficult to properly cite compared to just writing from sources to begin with. The passage may still be useful as a roadmap as to what editors should research.
- On the third hand, uncited passages are frequently original research and shouldn't be there.
- In my mind, what one should do largely depends on which of the three above scenarios best describes the situation. Remsense诉 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Remsense: it depends. Telling between the three, however, sometimes requires some familiarity with the topic. This can be difficult. In the absence of information allowing me to tell, I prefer to wrap the specific portion that needs citation with {{cn span}}. If, however, the addition is just not really important or relevant deletion is I think not unreasonable. Ifly6 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Best practice comes down to this: first, do a quick WP:BEFORE search to see if a source can easily be found. If so, add it yourself. If not, then ask: “Do I think a source supporting the uncited statement is likely to exist?” If the answer to that is yes, the best option is to tag. However, if you think a source unlikely, then you are absolutely allowed to remove the statement. You are trying to improve the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's also worth considering dueness after verifiability: a lot of time can be wasted tracking down citations for content that is likely to be cut during peer review or GAN. Remsense诉 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem sentence has been there since some time in 2018. In that time, it must have been read by plenty of people who do not see it as a problem – it still needs a citation but one can conclude that it is not obviously wrong. Tagging is appropriate to warn the encyclopaedia user that this is an unverified fact. (Many editors seem to forget this purpose of {{cn}}, but seem to think it is only to communicate with other editors.) Do not expect a speedy response, as the original editor may well have taken this article off their watchlist. In the meantime, try and find a source yourself. If neither step produces a reference, then delete it as unverified. It does not seem to be a crucial part of the article. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be difficult to find potential sources (e.g. [4] which google will translate into English). This issue is more whether such candidates are WP:RSs ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- [[5]] is more likely to be an RS. Over to you to work out the best RS, I think. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem sentence has been there since some time in 2018. In that time, it must have been read by plenty of people who do not see it as a problem – it still needs a citation but one can conclude that it is not obviously wrong. Tagging is appropriate to warn the encyclopaedia user that this is an unverified fact. (Many editors seem to forget this purpose of {{cn}}, but seem to think it is only to communicate with other editors.) Do not expect a speedy response, as the original editor may well have taken this article off their watchlist. In the meantime, try and find a source yourself. If neither step produces a reference, then delete it as unverified. It does not seem to be a crucial part of the article. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS until a consensus is reached. Daask (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
How do I cite maps?
One is a USGS quadrangle. The others are city maps.
It would be nice if some index gave me specific dates for events, but so far I haven't been able to find anything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{Cite map}} What are you looking for in the last comment? I don't understand. Donald Albury 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone thinks the maps aren't good enough or their dates are too far apart, I'm just stating this is all I have until more information is found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a huge discussion a year or two ago on whether it was permissible to infer timing of events from the non-appearance or later appearance of features on maps, with the general sense of the discussion being no, it violates WP:SYN? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources specifically proposal 3 was to add specific language to allow this, but it was closed as no consensus. The close left it down to editorial consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, I asked a library and I asked the people in charge of roads and never got a clear answer. Going to the library didn't even help that much.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You more you write the more you make it sound as if the details aren't clearly verifiable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we need something until we can find clear evidence. It makes no sense not to have anything. And someone should have been saving this information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. If reliable sources do not yet exist, then the information must wait for inclusion until it is covered in reliable sources. It is not our job to preserve information that has not been published in a reliable source. Donald Albury 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the sources exist but I don't know where they are. Yet. I'm going to ask someone who has edited a lot of related articles for advice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maps don't get updated very often. The town where I have lived for the last 25 years has grown significantly during that period - and had been doing so at intervals for around 200 years. The street where I live was built in stages from about 1935 to about 1965, but some portions are missing from maps published about ten years after they were actually built. Maps can't be used to cite when something was built, or even that it existed at the publication date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. If reliable sources do not yet exist, then the information must wait for inclusion until it is covered in reliable sources. It is not our job to preserve information that has not been published in a reliable source. Donald Albury 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we need something until we can find clear evidence. It makes no sense not to have anything. And someone should have been saving this information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You more you write the more you make it sound as if the details aren't clearly verifiable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, I asked a library and I asked the people in charge of roads and never got a clear answer. Going to the library didn't even help that much.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources specifically proposal 3 was to add specific language to allow this, but it was closed as no consensus. The close left it down to editorial consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a huge discussion a year or two ago on whether it was permissible to infer timing of events from the non-appearance or later appearance of features on maps, with the general sense of the discussion being no, it violates WP:SYN? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone thinks the maps aren't good enough or their dates are too far apart, I'm just stating this is all I have until more information is found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024
 | This edit request to Wikipedia:Citing sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the sub-heading Citation generation tools there is a statement: "Citer is an all-purpose tool that generates complete scientific citations." This is true, but restrictive. Citer is useful for many types of citations that are not necessarily scientific. General web pages and news articles are two examples. Please remove the word "scientific" from the description.
Thanks. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
What if a source in another language is quoted?
Enka, North Carolina Reference 4. Shouldn't there be a translation, and if so, how to put it there?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
|trans-quote=Ifly6 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes, per WP:RSUEQ a translation should be included… the policy section explains how to request one. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I did it wrong, but the translation has not been done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have to provide the translation. Just adding
|trans-quote=does nothing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have to provide the translation. Just adding
- References given as footnotes, such as this one, don't need to include quotes at all. A quotation in the main text should always be translated, but that's not the case here anyway. Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- True, we don’t require that citations include quotations - however, if a citation does quote a non-English source (as is the case here) we need to translate it … per WP:RSUEQ. Even a machine translation is preferable to no translation. The alternative is to remove the non-English text from the citation. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here – after reading the guideline – that WP:RSUEQ uses the language should. That is, non-English quotations in footnotes do not require translation, but they are encouraged and recommended.There are quite a few Classical Chinese quotations scattered about the project, where the quote primarily serves as a search string to locate the text in the source. Translating all of these would take a whole lot of work, and they're already summarised in English in the prose citing them. Removing them would nearly break verifiability. Folly Mox (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Folly Mox; if there's a reason to provide a non-English quotation, it should never be removed, and WP:RSUEQ doesn't recommend this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here – after reading the guideline – that WP:RSUEQ uses the language should. That is, non-English quotations in footnotes do not require translation, but they are encouraged and recommended.There are quite a few Classical Chinese quotations scattered about the project, where the quote primarily serves as a search string to locate the text in the source. Translating all of these would take a whole lot of work, and they're already summarised in English in the prose citing them. Removing them would nearly break verifiability. Folly Mox (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- True, we don’t require that citations include quotations - however, if a citation does quote a non-English source (as is the case here) we need to translate it … per WP:RSUEQ. Even a machine translation is preferable to no translation. The alternative is to remove the non-English text from the citation. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I did it wrong, but the translation has not been done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:RSUEQ a translation should be included… the policy section explains how to request one. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that there are two things that need translation into English for a non-English source: the title and any quotations (in text or in the citation). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the title. Gawaon (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- the title needs to be translated and presented in the trans-title parameter -- this is an essential thing, I believe. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- (sorry if trans-title is the wrong field - not checking the template at the moment so memory might not serve.) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a trans-title parameter, but its usage is optional. I've seen dozens or hundreds of references to French, Spanish, German etc. works, and the title is never translated – indeed to me it would feel a bit silly if it were. Now, if the original is in a different script (Cyrillic, Chinese etc.), a translation might be more useful – but I don't have found any rule suggesting that it must be translated. The only rule that seems to exist is WP:RSUEQ, which refers to translating quotations, not titles. Gawaon (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the only information required to be in English is body prose (including direct quotes). Citation information – title, quote, author, anything – does not require translation, although translation is recommended and often quite helpful for readers and editors both. Folly Mox (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’d encourage translation but not require it (status quo). Similar to WP:OFFLINE sources it's allowed, but if there’s doubt and inability to verify, that’s a good reason to request clarification, but solely on its own we shouldn’t be removing sources merely because we don't access it or understand its language. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the only information required to be in English is body prose (including direct quotes). Citation information – title, quote, author, anything – does not require translation, although translation is recommended and often quite helpful for readers and editors both. Folly Mox (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- the title needs to be translated and presented in the trans-title parameter -- this is an essential thing, I believe. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the title. Gawaon (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- People posting here might like to check out the template documentation, e.g. Template:Cite web#csdoc_title, Template:Cite web#csdoc_trans-title, Template:Cite web#csdoc_quote, Template:Cite web#csdoc_trans-quote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just keep in mind that not all citations are created using a template. We still allow editors to type them out the old fashioned way. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was specifically about Enka, North Carolina Reference 4, which uses
{{cite web}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was specifically about Enka, North Carolina Reference 4, which uses
- Just keep in mind that not all citations are created using a template. We still allow editors to type them out the old fashioned way. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Dating webpages
A notable example of a date of limited relevance is the date when an author accessed a document.
- Including the date of access inexplicably breaks with tradition. Would a reference to an ink-and-paper document show when the authors of the citing document accessed that document, say at a public library? No.
- Unlike other elements in a reference, an access date is not a property of the referenced content.
- An access date doesn't show whether the referenced content has changed between the time the citing document was written and the time the reader might view the referenced document. The way to learn that is to compare the date of the citing document to the update date of the referenced document.
- Using an access date in place of an update date is something of a con. If a referenced document's date were missing in the ink-and-paper world, the reference would say "n. d." or "no date."
Recommendation: Allow "date of last update" as well as the access date in references. Page Notes (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Page Notes 01:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that access date is not a useful datapoint, but then propose that another parameter be added to it rather than replace it. Could you explain the reasoning there? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Replacing access-date with last-update rather than including both is better.Page Notes (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Page Notes, "date of last update" would just go into the
|date=parameter. (Like using the date of whatever later edition of a book you're reading.) The|access-date=parameter is useful on a page that changes,(6) and when a link goes dead. Access dates are used in APA, Chicago, and Harvard Style citations. Rjjiii (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)- These style guides differ regarding last update. APA has this to say: "If a date of last update is available (such as for a webpage), use it in the reference." ... "Include a retrieval date only if the work is unarchived and designed to change over time. Most references do not include retrieval dates." -- https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/elements-list-entry#retrieval
- I agree that access dates are useful for webpages that go dead. Page Notes (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the Chicago view: “Chicago does not [...] require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date publication or revision can be determined from the source.” (CMOS 14.12) -- https://library.bowdoin.edu/research/chicago-author-date.pdf Page Notes (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- We don't require them either. Including them is nevertheless a good idea, especially if the page is more or less likely to change or go away. Gawaon (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Access dates are used by editors who are trying to match the correct versions at archive.org. They therefore have a practical purpose.
- Also, they put a limit on "no date" sources. We may not know when the webpage was published, but we know it was on or before the access date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- For a lengthy and recentish discussion on the uses of
|access-date=, we have Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Do we need |access-date ? Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- We don't require them either. Including them is nevertheless a good idea, especially if the page is more or less likely to change or go away. Gawaon (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the Chicago view: “Chicago does not [...] require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date publication or revision can be determined from the source.” (CMOS 14.12) -- https://library.bowdoin.edu/research/chicago-author-date.pdf Page Notes (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What if I cite something in parentheses?
I encountered a situation today where I needed to put an additional detail in parentheses that is covered by a separate source from the sources used for the rest of the sentence. It seems kind of strange to use all three sources for the sentence that was there before both at the end and before the parentheses, but the source I added does not cover what came before the parentheses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Would an explanatory foot note work? It will hide the content you are putting in parentheses until the reader clicks on the link, but it certainly makes the connection between the content and the reference clearer. If you want to keep the extra content always visible, you could also break up the sentence. Donald Albury 20:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Won't help if I don't know when I've done this previously. I found that one of the three sources for the entire sentence didn't verify anything, and got a 404 error for another source. So I concluded the third source would verify everything (it requires a subscription) and put it before what was in parentheses, and reworded so the information would match.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
| This edit request to Wikipedia:Citing sources has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Note: Not sure if my first attempt went through (please excuse if this is redundant).
Regarding "Slavery in colonial Spanish America" article:
4. Seijas, Tatiana.Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians. New York: Cambridge University Press 2014.[page needed]
Add: space after author's name and "pp. 73-98" after the year of publication. Mearnest1 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. {{edit semi-protected}} is placed on a talk page to request an edit of the corresponding article or project. The citation mentioned in the request is not present on Wikipedia:Citing sources, rather, it is in Slavery in colonial Spanish America. That article does not appear to be protected. I'd do it myself but I don't have that book. Since Mearnest1 has done the research to find the page number, it's Mearnest1 who should make the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- TWL has the book 🤫 Folly Mox (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Repeating publisher and location information for different articles from same website?
This is a relatively niche question. Let's say an article, such as AHS Krab, cites ten or more separate articles from the same news website. The citations cannot be combined using a single reference name, because each one links to a different URL. Must the publisher and location information be repeated for every single citation, or is it sufficient to include it in the first reference to that website? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will help in that case, but I did something like that in citing several sub-pages of a web site in Molasses Reef Wreck. Donald Albury 00:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Sneaking in here so this reply makes sense) A similar effect can be achieved using {{harvc}}. Folly Mox (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Huntthetroll, the editors at the article are welcome to set up whatever system they think is sensible. See WP:CITEVAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would make each cite stand totally by itself.
- In many articles references are removed or replaced with better ones. If that replace reference happened to be the one that contained the complete set of source details then they are lost for all the subsequent references from the same source. Of course, they are still in the article's history, so they could be recovered but at extra cost of editor effort - which often doesn't happen. Or sometimes the order of cites is changed, making a middle cite fuller then both preceding and following cites from the same source - weird looking!
- On the flip side, the cost of putting full the details in every reference from that source is just a copy/paste operation, so it is quite minimal effort. In fact, I often build up one in full by hand, then copy it many times and then alter the specific details - much quicker than typing it all by hand. Stepho talk 00:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, making each citation self-contained seems best, as it is probably easiest to follow for the reader and robust in view of future changes. Gawaon (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gawaon, I came to the same conclusion as you and |Stepho did when I was editing AHS Krab last night. Since I intend to continue adding content and citations to the article, I prioritize reader convenience and robustness in the face of a changing set of references. I will also investigate Folly Mox's suggestion about using {{harvc}}. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, making each citation self-contained seems best, as it is probably easiest to follow for the reader and robust in view of future changes. Gawaon (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Huntthetroll, this reply will assume you're referring to the citations to the websites Defence24 and Altair, repeatedly cited with the respective parameters
|website= Defence24|publisher= Defence24|location= Warsaw, Polandand|website= Altair|publisher= Altair Agencja Lotnicza|location= Warsaw, Poland. I'd argue that the publisher and location of these websites are unnecessary in every case, including the first references to these sources.It's almost never helpful to include both|website=and|publisher=where the values for those parameters match to a large degree, as they do in these cases. It's also rare to include the|location=of a website, unless it's the website of what used to be a physical news-paper. Folly Mox (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- I initially thought the same, but I eventually changed my mind.
- I tried to imagine the perspective of a reader that is completely unfamiliar with the article's topic, or with any of the sources cited. I would not expect the reader to know or assume that, for instance, the Polish-language website defence24.pl and the English-language website defence24.com are published by the same Polish limited-liability company, Defence24 Sp. z o.o. In fact, I was going to leave out the publisher for the similarly named site nowiny24.pl, because I assumed that the same company would be responsible, but decided to double-check the site's "O nas" ("about us") page, just to be sure. Suprisingly, nowiny24.pl is published by a completely different company, which should mean that it can be used to cross-check information from Defence24. I would not have known this, nor would any reader, if I had not looked up the publisher.
- In the case of a web citation, I treat
|location=as the location of the publisher's headquarters. I find that this provides important information about the publisher's "institutional perspective", for lack of a better phrase, by showing the publisher's proximity to centers of political and economic power.
- Huntthetroll (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! Whatever works best for your own editing flow and job satisfaction. I said above
I'd argue
, which appears to have been incorrect. Happy editing, Folly Mox (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! Whatever works best for your own editing flow and job satisfaction. I said above
- I initially thought the same, but I eventually changed my mind.
Note, not ref
I messed up on The Iron Lady (film) and I can't find any explanation of what I should have done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're looking for {{efn}}, <note> doesn't do anything. See my edit[6]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I looked at an article that used notes and it didn't make sense what was done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, learning is part of the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I looked at an article that used notes and it didn't make sense what was done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:CITESHORT question
WP:CITESHORT says, (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)
Is this saying that I should not add citation templates to an article that does not already use citation templates? Schierbecker (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- When in doubt, leave a note on the talk page. In practice, I don't remember ever being challenged when I have proposed changing citation style on an article. Also, many pages that have more than a couple of references already have a mixed style. Donald Albury 18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says
an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus
. If I'm rescuing a dead article with all the contributors long gone the first thing I'm doing is upgrading the refs with templates so that the short citations are followable to the long citations. I've never had a problem with this from other users. If we followed that rule, nearly every page created before ~2010 would still be using the legacy citation style (and we'd have a lot more dead links that the bots normally take care of when the refs are formatted as templates.) If I'm more comfortable adding citations by template then I should be able to do that. Schierbecker (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)- In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)). Sometimes, nobody cares: Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing. Donald Albury 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah you shouldn't change an existing style, if there isn't one then imposing one style is considered helpful per 'Generally considered helpful' point 3 in WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the fact that exceptions exist (e.g. for substantial rewrites, merges etc.) should be made more obvious. Overall, the admonishing against updating references is just spelled out too strongly. What about something along these lines:
- If untemplated references are preferred, take special care to maintain a consistent citation style throughout the article. Similarly, avoid changing templated citation styles without seeking consensus.
- Consistent citation styles are preferred. That being said, use whatever citation style you feel comfortable with. No one is required to know how to use your preferred citation style. If inconsistent citation styles bother you, fix it. Schierbecker (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page already says that style should be consistent, and already included under "Generally considered helpful" is "making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any). Do not revert someone else's contribution merely because the citation style doesn't match. If you know how to fix it, then fix it." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- From the lead: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.
- Maybe we should put it in bold.
- That said, I wonder if the community is ready to be done with the idea that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)). Sometimes, nobody cares: Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing. Donald Albury 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says
Source is not the newspaper, but it looks like source has a page number
This is the diff. Notice that when you look under references, the page number from the newspaper makes it look like it is a page number in the original source.
Also, I should point out that I can't create a clip, so access to the source is currently limited to Wikipedia library users.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not really clear what you are asking, if you are asking anything. Presumably, you have read the source linked by the url. You have actually consulted this source, right? The page number is in the bottom left margin. If you have not, then you shouldn't be using that source in an en.wiki article.
- Do not use https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ urls. To do so, does a disservice to readers who aren't editors because they will never get beyond the Wikipedia Library banner page. Use the correct newspapers.com url. There is some discussion about clipping at WP:Newspapers.com.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page number is the page number in the Concord Monitor. But if you look at the ref, it looks like it is a page number in TV Media, which provided the article to the Concord Monitor.
- I'm not sure how to convert the newspapers.com URL because of the problem that I linked to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I followed the bot directions and did get the URLs converted. So is the page number all right the way it is?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Use the page number as it is written in the source.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Look in the lower left margin. It gives both Concord Monitor and Sunday TV Magazine names along with the page number and issue date. You could write a
{{cite magazine}}with|magazine=Sunday TV Magazineand|via=[[Newspapers.com]] / ''[[Concord Monitor]]''or some such. - Apparently, others have solved the clipping issue. That is why I linked to WP:Newspapers.com. If you have questions about clipping, you should ask at the WP:Newspapers.com talk page. If the current url cannot be translated, remove it.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page number is not the page number of Sunday TV Magazine, but the TV Magazine of the Concord Monitor.
- For the clipping, I'm not doing whatever they did. If someone wants to create a clipping using my ref, they can, because I did fix the link. I'm waiting until I can create a clipping myself without doing something exceedingly complicated.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I followed the bot directions and did get the URLs converted. So is the page number all right the way it is?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this just a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to get into the issue of how to link to newspapers.com. The problem is not that, but how to make it clear what the page number refers to. It looks like it is the page number of "TV Media".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Order of the example in WP:SAYWHERE
Maybe this is really minor. Currently, WP:SAYWHERE has the order CITED by CITING. Should not it take the order CITING citing CITED? That is, in Smith (2009), p. 99, cited in Jones (2010), p. 29.
instead Jones (2010), p. 29, citing Smith (2009), p. 99.
That would place the actual location of the material first. Ifly6 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd put the source that you personally read yourself first, but either is probably okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm used to the "cited in" order given in the example. And like WhatamIdoing says, either should be fine, so I don't see a reason for a change. "Actual location" doesn't really apply, since the quoted text should be present in both locations. And the "CITED first" order had the advantage of crediting the original/actual author first. Gawaon (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm too lazy to check, but I think that both options used to be present. Personally I prefer the one that is given now, but both are acceptable. Zerotalk 07:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
sharing Zotero libraries with other wiki-editors
I have several Zotero and EndNote libraries with detailed bibliography and full-text pdfs of Open Access publications. The topics cover lithium-ion batteries, sodium-ion batteries, flow batteries, international order, nuclear warfare, nuclear submarines, persistent organic pollutants etc. The data came from Scopus, Web of Science, The Lens, CORE (research service) and other databases. I would like to share these libraries with interested wiki-editors, and I wonder if Wikipedia has a mechanism for such sharing. Walter Tau (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mvolz, are you around? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The only place we centrally share structured citation is as wikidata items and I don't think there's an easy way to import from those libraries to wikidata. Mvolz (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me about WikiData. I do not think I need to export anything from my libraries.
- I can just post a Zotero file (or its archived version) on to WikiData.
- Let me give it a try and see how it works.
- Have a good day. Walter Tau (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata is not meant for arbitrary files. Gawaon (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Gawaon: thank you for your comment. Is there is a description of what is suitable for wikidata and what is not? Also, am I the very first wikipedian, who wants to share a searchable database (with or without full texts) with others? I would think, that many wiki-articles (or topics) would have such databases by now (especially, if they are created using no-restrictions sources like The Lense. If no such option exists today, how can I post it for a discussion? OR would you be willing to do it, since you may know better how such thins work here? Walter Tau (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata has citation/bibliographic information for a large number of scientific papers. I think that Daniel Mietchen has done some of the work on that.
- (For myself, I keep wishing someone will do some mw:Citoid/Creating Zotero translators for the BBC's website. It always surprises me that the visual editor doesn't recognize it as a news site, and can't pull most of the information.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Gawaon: thank you for your comment. Is there is a description of what is suitable for wikidata and what is not? Also, am I the very first wikipedian, who wants to share a searchable database (with or without full texts) with others? I would think, that many wiki-articles (or topics) would have such databases by now (especially, if they are created using no-restrictions sources like The Lense. If no such option exists today, how can I post it for a discussion? OR would you be willing to do it, since you may know better how such thins work here? Walter Tau (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata is not meant for arbitrary files. Gawaon (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Videos
Can someone please make a series of YouTube videos going through and verbally explaining, with examples everything on the Wikipedia help pages?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
I look forward to hearing from you soon. Cole Massi1 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cole Massi1: Have you searched YouTube? There are a whole bunch of solid introduction videos there. Rjjiii (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if anyone can help me with citing sources!
Hey, I'm new, I recently joined today and I've been working on a particular article, I finished recently Bianca Giovanna Sforza, (Early Life). But I don't want to look like I'm spreading misinformation so, can anyone show me how I can improve and how I can cite my sources. Hectorvector7 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hectorvector7: Yeah, thanks for expanding that article. I see citations added to search results.[7] Do you already have sources that you are working from? Or is step one finding sources about Sforza? Rjjiii (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Bundles
Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, I saw that you reverted me. However:
- I just wanted to demonstrate one way to achieve the appearance of what the section meant. I didn't mean to advocate for a particular template, and I didn't use naked
<ref></ref>because that wouldn't work if the reftags were real. - The paragraph is about the case in which
each source applies to the entire sentence
. The case for using {{multiref}} is forif the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text
, which is in the next paragraph.
Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are many times that multiple references are for the same sentence and multiref could be used. You'll see it quite commonly used for contentious statements. The use of {{refn}} is really only needed if refnames are being used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear you could use any of the templates from Template:Multiple references to achieve the same end, not just multiref. All the options are valid regardless of paragraph. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some examples of refn and multiref usage from my sandbox[8] For some reason the multiref formatting is tiny (at least for me), this isn't the usual formatting. Whether the final reference looks like ref #5 or ref #6, they are both valid ways of bundling the references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: on Chrome and Firefox I see the same font size. There is less spacing between the lines in an {{unbulleted list}}:
| {{Multiref}} | {{Unbulleted list}} | {{Bulleted list}} | {{Multiref2}} |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
If that helps to see it side by side, Rjjiii (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The font size could be an issue with the page, my sandbox contains some odd things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I mean on your sandbox page I see exactly the same font size. Rjjiii (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
citation generator?
What's the easy way for a new user to generate citations from archive.org or google.books for the 25 books listed on Sydney_Moseley#Works? Enri999 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Enri999, there isn't an automatic way to do that correctly. You will have to look up each one of them manually. The convention is to use the first edition for such lists.
Auto-citing a source using the visual editor – look for the "Cite" button in the toolbar. - Once you have the URLs, here's an example of what you can expect as an autogenerated ref in the visual editor (though you'll have to switch to wikitext to remove the ref tags), using the first book:
- Moseley, Sydney A. (Sydney Alexander) (1916). The truth about the Dardanelles. Robarts - University of Toronto. London : Cassell.
- Moseley, Sydney Alexander (1916). The Truth about the Dardanelles. Cassell, Limited.
- The first is archive.org and the second is books.google.com. (You can also generate citations from an ISBN, but these are all too old for that.) After they're generated, you can edit it to change anything that you think it got wrong. If you've not tried the visual editor, then this link will probably work for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Moseley?veaction=edit It works like Google Docs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I didn't know about that button, that will help. Cheers. Enri999 (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Enri999; WhatamIdoing: And like so, so, many automatically created citations, those are both flawed.
|first=Sydney A. (Sydney Alexander)– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:|first=Sydney A.|publisher=London : Cassell– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:|location=London|publisher=Cassell and Company|others=Robarts - University of Toronto– don't do that; the name of the institute that contributed the source to Internet Archive is irrelevant and may mislead our readers|first=Sydney Alexander– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:|first=Sydney A.|publisher=Cassell, Limited– don't do that; omit corporate designations unless required for disambiguation:|publisher=Cassell and Company
- You cannot trust visual editor/citoid to auto-magically create correct citations; they are dependent on the quality of the metadata that can be scraped from whatever online source. Sure, use ve/citoid to fetch some of the source's metadata but you must check and correct each and every citation that the tool creates. Be responsible and don't create a mess that other editors will have to clean up.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The first one also has the title in librarian-preferred Sentence case, even though most citations use Title case. No autogenerating system is going to turn bad metadata into perfect citations, and I think this is the level of imperfection that you can realistically expect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably true without a lot of postprocessing, and the initial algorithmic citations are still pretty bad. I'm not sure what all can be done to make it clear that any citation generation script is a first-pass tool that will almost always produce output requiring manual adjustment. I'm hoping Edit Check might help eventually, as would surfacing CS1 maint messages within the VE interface, as would additing a translation layer on top of Citoid, adding lots and lots of special cases, etc. I personally find that automatically generated citations typically require so much tweaking that it's generally not a timesave even to begin with them unless there are more than eight or nine authors. Folly Mox (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess there is a reason why I just plod along building citations manually. Donald Albury 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox: What is "Edit Check"? Rjjiii (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- See mw:Edit check. The first "check" is encouraging new editors to add citations, if they are adding a new paragraph. (Of course there are other times when adding a citation would be appropriate, but it's an easy-ish thing for the software to detect, and it's almost never a bad idea to add a citation if you write, e.g., a whole new paragraph.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have high hopes for future extended functionality that can provide realtime feedback about mistakes and problematic edits. Something a bit more nuanced and informative than edit filters. Rjjiii, it's not currently implemented on English Wikipedia at all, and the stretch goals are yet but dreams. Folly Mox (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have my doubts about whether Clippy would be welcome, but there are a few things that could be handy (e.g., pre-warning about URLs that are on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Right, nobody wants Wikipe-tan intruding into their editing interface all Comic Sans "Looks like you're populating an infobox! Do you want to navigate away to a tangentially related Help: page instead?" I'm conceptualising the feature I've done exactly zero work on as more like a fully automated Twinkle, dropping boilerplate modals at rookie mistakes that established contributors tend over time towards becoming increasingly frustrated and bitey about.Our documentation is... not really presented in a way that minimises common errors for newer editors. Presenting applicable guidance on an as-needed basis feels like it should be mostly positive. Folly Mox (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- One of the lessons from the original Clippy was that newbies appreciated its assistance only for a very brief period of time. When you had just bought your first-ever computer, at a cost of almost a month's income, any friendly-looking help was appreciated, especially if you'd never used a computer before, and might not even know how to type.
- But after the first jitters wore off, most people learned how to use their new computers quickly, and they equally quickly wanted to get rid of anything that treated them like a newbie.
- With that in mind, it's possible that we should design for universal use (e.g., autogenerated refs, because even though they're imperfect, they are very popular with editors of all experience levels), or for bots that autofix the rookie mistakes (e.g., we don't have to revert newbies dropping Facebook links into articles, because XLinkBot does it faster than humans can). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree (I think you're advocating this; please correct me if not) that improving Citoid's output (in addition to that of scripts like reFill and Citation bot) is probably a more fruitful avenue for raising the quality of citations added across experience levels. I think this starts with some sort of community configured functionality that hooks into Citoid or VE somewhere, which there was a subthread about at the recent VPR thread on Edit Check.As stated above,
No autogenerating system is going to turn bad metadata into perfect citations
, so for a "full solution", one necessity seems to be some sort of acculturation into the practice of double checking code output rather than blindly trusting it.As to the other issue we appear to have differing perspectives on – the hypothetical future usefulness of / annoyance with potential Edit Check cases – I'm not sure if we actually disagree or if we're not understanding each other's prior assumptions.I feel like I would derive value as an editor from a script that warned me if I e.g. left a date or copypasted superscript numeral in an author name field, similar to the thing that prompts me if my edit summary is blank (which doesn't function in Minerva). And I would derive value as a patroller from a process that prompted people e.g. not to change a shortdesc manually set tononeinto a vacuous / pleonastic synonym of the article title because they think having no short description is erroneous and are unaware of WP:SDNONE, or altering variant English spellings to their preferred lect's because they're unaware of valid alternatives and MOS:ENGVAR, or altering era styles from BCE/CE to BC/AD or vice versa because they have feelings about it and are unaware of MOS:ERA, or altering ordinals from English words to numeric representations because they're unaware of MOS:ORDINAL, etc.All of these are pretty common, typically reverted, and not bot-addressible because they'd all fall under WP:CONTEXTBOT, and could be the valid result of a talkpage discussion, conformance with a "Use Regional English" template, or something similar, although the likelihood is low.Having thought on it a bit instead of getting ready for work, I suppose the initial Edit Check message about adding a reference to new uncited paragraphs might be encountered frequently enough to generate annoyance in users (and maybe the idea of warning for impending 3rr violation, although a warning for 1rr on affected articles would probably be more valuable), but most of the things I'm envisioning should probably display once, create a moment of education, and then not be triggered again for the same user unless they are disruptively editing against consensus practice, in which case we should want to annoy them, which might help them stop without technical restriction. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- I don't remember what the config plan was for Reference Check, beyond it only being shown to people with less than 100 edits. So that puts an absolute maximum of 100 encounters, though there was some talk about a maximum number of times it could be displayed, which could be set as low as once.
- A warning for WP:3RR could be valuable to people of any experience level. It would be easy to figure out cases where it obviously shouldn't trigger (e.g., 0–4 edits have been made to this page during the last 24 hours; your first edit to this page during the last 24 hours; the most recent edit was made by you; nobody except you has edited this page during the last 24 hours) but impossible to detect all the cases where it should trigger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've seen new editors describe the three-revert rule as a kind of a trap. Nearly all experienced editors are aware of it, and new editors who break it sometimes claim they've been tricked. Rjjiii (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Especially after we changed the rule (many years ago now) from primarily covering straight-up reverts to include trying again in a different/better/collaborative way, I can easily imagine people feeling like they've been tricked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've seen new editors describe the three-revert rule as a kind of a trap. Nearly all experienced editors are aware of it, and new editors who break it sometimes claim they've been tricked. Rjjiii (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree (I think you're advocating this; please correct me if not) that improving Citoid's output (in addition to that of scripts like reFill and Citation bot) is probably a more fruitful avenue for raising the quality of citations added across experience levels. I think this starts with some sort of community configured functionality that hooks into Citoid or VE somewhere, which there was a subthread about at the recent VPR thread on Edit Check.As stated above,
- Right, nobody wants Wikipe-tan intruding into their editing interface all Comic Sans "Looks like you're populating an infobox! Do you want to navigate away to a tangentially related Help: page instead?" I'm conceptualising the feature I've done exactly zero work on as more like a fully automated Twinkle, dropping boilerplate modals at rookie mistakes that established contributors tend over time towards becoming increasingly frustrated and bitey about.Our documentation is... not really presented in a way that minimises common errors for newer editors. Presenting applicable guidance on an as-needed basis feels like it should be mostly positive. Folly Mox (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have my doubts about whether Clippy would be welcome, but there are a few things that could be handy (e.g., pre-warning about URLs that are on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have high hopes for future extended functionality that can provide realtime feedback about mistakes and problematic edits. Something a bit more nuanced and informative than edit filters. Rjjiii, it's not currently implemented on English Wikipedia at all, and the stretch goals are yet but dreams. Folly Mox (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- See mw:Edit check. The first "check" is encouraging new editors to add citations, if they are adding a new paragraph. (Of course there are other times when adding a citation would be appropriate, but it's an easy-ish thing for the software to detect, and it's almost never a bad idea to add a citation if you write, e.g., a whole new paragraph.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably true without a lot of postprocessing, and the initial algorithmic citations are still pretty bad. I'm not sure what all can be done to make it clear that any citation generation script is a first-pass tool that will almost always produce output requiring manual adjustment. I'm hoping Edit Check might help eventually, as would surfacing CS1 maint messages within the VE interface, as would additing a translation layer on top of Citoid, adding lots and lots of special cases, etc. I personally find that automatically generated citations typically require so much tweaking that it's generally not a timesave even to begin with them unless there are more than eight or nine authors. Folly Mox (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The first one also has the title in librarian-preferred Sentence case, even though most citations use Title case. No autogenerating system is going to turn bad metadata into perfect citations, and I think this is the level of imperfection that you can realistically expect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Enri999: I'm late to the party, but have you tried Zotero? I know that you can easily capture citations into your Zotero library and then export them from the program as Wikipedia citations.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Archive date AND access date
Random question that I can't seem to find a good answer to: If I'm citing a source and I include an archive date, including the original access date seems unnecessary, no? The citation should at that point indicate a) when it was originally published and b) when a snapshot was 'captured'. This leads me to think that the addition of an access date is just extra information that doesn't really tell a reader anything. Any thoughts?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- We had a big discussion that touched on this topic last year at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Do we need |access-date ? (disclosure: I participated).There are differing opinions here. My opinion aligns somewhat with yours, Gen. Quon, in that I find
|access-date=to be entirely superfluous when an archive snapshot is provided and the original URL is dead.Other editors find|access-date=in these cases still to have value for other purposes, like prioritising verification of text–source integrity, on the basis that citations added a long time ago have had more opportunity to have the claims citing them altered by editing over time.Other editors find|access-date=to be unnecessary clutter in most cases.Probably the reason you aren't ableto find a good answer
is this disagreement. If you don't feel like adding|access-date=when adding an archive snapshot, you don't need to, but don't go around removing|access-date=from other citations with archive snapshots, and don't be surprised if bots later modify your citations to include an|access-date=(this happened to me; best to let bots do what they want, since they'll just do it again if you revert them). Folly Mox (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)- Folly Mox Thank you for the comprehensive answer! Those were exactly the sort of thing I was curious about, especially with regard to dead URLs that are archived.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have long regarded access-date as useless clutter in most cases. What I find particularly irritating is news citations that give an access date but not the publication date, which is much more important. -- Alarics (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- a) I find
|access-date=helpful when trying to find an archived snapshot if the original link has died. b) Not every web page provides a date of its publication;|access-date=gives at least some indication. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- a) I find
- I have long regarded access-date as useless clutter in most cases. What I find particularly irritating is news citations that give an access date but not the publication date, which is much more important. -- Alarics (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Folly Mox Thank you for the comprehensive answer! Those were exactly the sort of thing I was curious about, especially with regard to dead URLs that are archived.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Linking google drive
Here's a fun one for the crew: I'm working on rescuing someone else's draft, and I'm citing some publications in a theological periodical where the official archives (as accessed through the link just a few words back) are hosted on google drive.
For these sources, do I:
- ⓐ direct link the google drive pdf for the cited article like it's no big deal
- ⓑ link the issue containing each article, so it's possible to navigate back to the archive root and more clear I'm not just tossing a random Chinese pdf onto google drive myself (adding an
|article-number=or other navigation instructions since obviously the pdfs are not titled the same as the articles) - ⓒ no link
- ⓓ some better idea I haven't thought of
I'm leaning ⓑ, but it's a weird case I haven't encountered before. Folly Mox (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- ⓑ sounds plausible, as it may well be more robust than ⓐ, plus the link will look more "official". Gawaon (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't hurt to leave a hidden note so that anyone coming across it later knows why a google drive link is being used. If I came across this I would be concerned that someone had posted it to google drive without copyright permissions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've got an html comment in one of the four articles cited, but I might add additional clarity with something like
|via=Google drive (official archives). Folly Mox (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've got an html comment in one of the four articles cited, but I might add additional clarity with something like
Citations for individually authored chapters in edited books
Are citing individual chapter authors in edited books a requirement? Or is it optional? I have thought citing the entire edited book is acceptable [9], but that might not be the case [10]2.4.2? Bogazicili (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Edited books tend to have chapters/sections/contributions authored by someone other than the editor. If you are citing an author's chapter/section/contribution in an edited book, state that in your citation; don't make our readers hunt for whatever it is that you claim supports our article. Be specific down to page number: Title (name the editor(s)) → section (name the author(s)) → page(s) that support our article.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I always give page numbers in references for books. When not available, for example in dictionary-like sources with entries, I use the |loc parameter. Are individual authors still required for chapters? Bogazicili (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Provide the chapter contributor if you have that information. Folly Mox (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I have that information. I'm mainly asking this for Turkey. In the Turkey#Sources section, I have a lot of edited books with individually authored chapters, like [11].
- I was thinking if I should switch to a style such as Climate_change#Sources, where individual chapters are cited and are grouped by report/book. Bogazicili (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If these are for short form references you can use {{harvc}}. It creates a link between the short form and the full cite in which you can put the chapter details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- For example see the second cite in Bible#Works cited. The cite is for The Literary Guide to the Bible, while the two entries below it are chapters in that work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- {{harvc}} was exactly what I was thinking. But I was thinking about grouping everything in Turkey#Sources by Books, Collections, Reports and Others. Collections would be edited works with individually authored chapters. But your example actually looks much cleaner.
- Are all of these acceptable, or is any one of them preferred:
- Grouped by various criteria: Climate_change#Sources
- Chapters under source with {{harvc}}: Bible#Works_cited
- Chapters separate, might be multiple citations to same book. For example: "Smith, Kirk R.; Pillarisetti, Ajay (2017). "Chapter 7 Household Air Pollution from Solid Cookfuels and Its Effects on Health". In Kobusingye, O.; et al. (eds.) ..." Sustainable_energy#Sources? Bogazicili (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's a dictated way it has to be done, just options you can choose from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Saying that the situation at Climate change, and other articles using the IPCC reports, are like that because of how the IPCC reports get published. They are forever having to be fixed, as it's such an unusual way of linking cites. So personally I wouldn't use that method, if I was doing it I would use {{harvc}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I tried replicating it with harvc but I don't think you can get the desired output given all the authors are listed as IPCC. There doesn't seem to be a way to identify a custom chapter reference ID, similar to book reference ID with |ref={{harvid... Bogazicili (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes harvc is limited to the default author/year. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I tried replicating it with harvc but I don't think you can get the desired output given all the authors are listed as IPCC. There doesn't seem to be a way to identify a custom chapter reference ID, similar to book reference ID with |ref={{harvid... Bogazicili (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Saying that the situation at Climate change, and other articles using the IPCC reports, are like that because of how the IPCC reports get published. They are forever having to be fixed, as it's such an unusual way of linking cites. So personally I wouldn't use that method, if I was doing it I would use {{harvc}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no "official" preference for one of those three. If you're instead asking for personal preferences, I prefer that like under Bible (source with sublist chapters) (eg in Julius Caesar). Ifly6 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- An important point for the reader is if one of those individual chapter authors is also cited in another work. If you want to track the opinions of various authors and how they contribute to the article, then it is better to see the bibliography ordered by those authors. The grouping of authors in one edited volume destroys the ability to quickly assess where the article content comes from and may conceal a reliance on one author. (That reliance may be appropriate in some subjects, but that in itself may be useful to the reader.) ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answers everyone!
- Now, if multiple chapters within a single edited book need to be cited, what's the preference? Citing the entire book with a single reference, or using multiple separate references to each chapter? Bogazicili (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- An important point for the reader is if one of those individual chapter authors is also cited in another work. If you want to track the opinions of various authors and how they contribute to the article, then it is better to see the bibliography ordered by those authors. The grouping of authors in one edited volume destroys the ability to quickly assess where the article content comes from and may conceal a reliance on one author. (That reliance may be appropriate in some subjects, but that in itself may be useful to the reader.) ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's a dictated way it has to be done, just options you can choose from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Provide the chapter contributor if you have that information. Folly Mox (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I always give page numbers in references for books. When not available, for example in dictionary-like sources with entries, I use the |loc parameter. Are individual authors still required for chapters? Bogazicili (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was a rather rambling discussion (I did not reread it) at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 59 § Proposal for an "in-title" ("In" + title) parameter that I think was what caused me to create this sandbox page which may be of interest.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- In climate change, we follow the reference suggestion in reports (see part about
Referencing this report:
[12]) So they all have IPCC as the author. I think the way for harvc to work in this case would be a |ref-chapter, a unique custom ID for the chapter. But I doubt it's worth the trouble if no other page needs it. Bogazicili (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- I've had some edges cases before like citing works preserved fragmentarily in citations within a different work that has survived transmission to the present day. For these, {{harvc}} doesn't work because the publication dates for the fragmentary works strictly precede that of the work they're now found within. I'll just create regular citations with custom citeref values and format them similar to chapters, indented one level and underneath the full work they appear in. A similar approach might work for your IPCC chapters. The metadata probably ends up kinda garbagey, but it makes sense to someone actually reading the article. Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- In climate change, we follow the reference suggestion in reports (see part about
Thanks everyone for the answers. By the way, one suggestion I would make after the above discussion is adding something here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books
Currently: Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include:
Suggestion, something like: Citations for individually authored chapters in books are recommended. These typically include:
As I said, I previously thought this was optional, but there seems to be a strong preference for it Bogazicili (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Remove citation tools from this page
I propose that most of the § Citation templates and tools be removed from this page. First, I don't think a content guideline page is a good place for this content. Second, it duplicates an existing page, Help:Citation tools. To be precise, I propose that the following sections be removed from this page, and merged into Help:Citation tools insofar as they are useful there:
- § Citation generation tools
- § Duplicate reference finders
- § Programming tools
- § Reference management software
The text directly under the section § Citation templates and tools and the § Metadata section should stay. Daask (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea to me. Duplicated pages mean we have to update everything twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree Moxy🍁 01:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)