Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Cite sources 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Citing sources page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Shortcut:
WT:CITE
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.


Contents

Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again

I know this has been discussed a couple of times in these Talk archives, but I want to bring it up again. What is the rationale for requiring access/retrieval dates for online versions of past printed materials?

For example, editors are beginning to link book cites to Google Books. Thus, editors are putting "Retrieved on" on their cites, in addition to the usual author, title, publisher, year, ISBN, and page information. It looks very strange to see a book being "retrieved" ... such a link is just a convenience link (problematic too, given the semi-random way Google Books' "limited view" works); the content of the book is unchanging. If the link goes bad, the rest of the cite remains: an unchanging reference to an unchanging book.

Another case are old newspaper and magazine articles. If a cite gives a 1983 New York Times story's publication date, title, and author, and also gives a convenience link to the NYT archive, what is the value of having the retrieval date for this? The content of the story is fixed and unchanging, and is defined by the print/microfilm version. Again, if the archive goes away, the rest of the cite remains, an unchanging reference to an unchanging story. If the archive gets moved, one would re-lookup the online version by the published date/title/author information; knowing the old retrieval date wouldn't tell you anything.

And there is a real cost to having retrieval dates in place everywhere: to us they take up article edit space, to browsers they increase output HTML space, and to readers they clutter up the cite and can be visually confused with publication date. I understand that retrieval dates are necessary for web pages without publication dates, and arguably necessary for dated news stories originally published online (CNN, current NYT, etc.), but I just don't see the rationale for them in the above cases. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's useful to be able to refer to that date in the WayBack Machine at archive.org. In the case of the NYT archive, we can be fairly certain that those will always remain, but other links won't. It's quite possible that some print sources could be basically impossible (or rather expensive/time-consuming) to track down. People will increasingly rid of print archives. However, if you're crunched for time, do what you can. If it's a podunk town newspaper, put the date; if it's the NYT, don't worry about it. That's my take at least. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The most common cause of newspaper links going bad is that articles get moved behind pay/subscriber walls. Is the WayBack machine able to show the article anyway, or are they enjoined from making free what is otherwise supposed to be charged for? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the issues with the citation template is that the nomenclature of "retrieved on" is tacked on automatically and now has become part of the architecture of the citationa as judged by the amount of citation templates in place. I agree that the term looks arcane but with its widespread use, it is hard now to incorporate a "found," "accessed" or "located" tag as an alternative. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
To clarify, my issue is not with what word is used here. I don't think books or old newspaper articles should be listed as "found", "accessed", or "located" either. Those printed sources are unchanging over time; it doesn't matter if you "find" a 1976 book in 1988 or 2008, it's the same book. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree on that point, sources that are "fixed" in time, do not require a location date. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

The "retrieved date" merely refers to the convenience link to the online version, and may be safely removed on any cite that is not an online link. That's all. (And if the link goes bad, the dead-tree portion of the cite remains valid.) -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But what's the purpose of a retrieval date for an online version that's just mirroring a print original? What usefulness does it have? What does it tell anyone? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On more than a few occasions I have used the retrieval date for munged references to rediscover the orginal edit that created it, and on more ephemeral sources, search for likely new location for the changing location of the convenience link. In some cases a retireval date indicates when the (changing) source was viewed and relied upon, occasionally important, when the source has changed. It's not superflous, but I would consider it optional.
    Who's to say that even a supposedly fixed archival convenience link will stay that way, and what harm comes from using the access date even there, such as in this example:
    "New Hampshire: Nomination of Bainbridge Wadleigh for United States Senator at the Republican Caucus.", New York Times (June 14, 1872), pp. 1. Retrieved on 2008-05-05.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The harm is that the "Retrieved on" takes up extra space (a real issue for our longer, heavily-cited BLP articles) and moreoever is visually confusing — the reader sees two dates, instead of the expected one, and has to figure out what each means, which a possible risk of mistaking the retrieval date for the publication date. In the example of this old NYT story, if the link stops working, it's because the NYT moved its archive or changed its for-free policy on this time period or something like that. If you need to find where they moved it to, you'll do a lookup within nytimes.com using the article's title and publication date; when someone last retrieved it won't matter one way or another. And would you really use a retrieval date for a book, that someone happened to look up in Google Books instead of at a physical library? That really seems offbase to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would, and have. Especially on heavily edited articles. For the reasons I stated further above: an indicator of when the convenience link worked. I do consider it optional. For example, if some link has an old retrieval date, and apparently not findable by search, then I tend toward deleting the convenience link. For more recent dead links, I'm less likely to remove the link--perhaps the publisher/source is in process of revising the link/location. Essential? No. Useful? Yes. The "retrieved on" is in english, and if using a template, the template does indicate through the parameters how to properly use it. Say more about the confusion you've encountered. (I have to remark, there's plenty of other confusion on articles surrounding refs, such as puctuation, quotations, where to place it and so on, and I've done a fair big of cleaning up other's typos and misplacments on that score. Is this that much different?) -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this largely depends on the 'dependability' of the on-line source. For the NYT above, the accessdate is not really needed. On the other end of the spectrum, here is where someone (it's not even clear who) added sections of a (very) small town newspaper from the first half of the 1900s. It's true that this is on-line copy of a print original, but I think it would be rather difficult for even a motivated researcher to find that original. So in practice, the web copy is all that exists, its maintenance is unknown, and an accessdate tag is appropriate. As to how this might be implemented in practice, I think there could be a list of sources that are considered stable enough that accessdate tags are not needed (major newspapers, academic journals (DOIs are an explicit attempt to address this here), arXiv and other pre-print servers, and so on). LouScheffer (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(off topic) You deserve a barnstar if you've been cleaning up refs. I'm surprised you haven't run off screaming. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hide the access date

In order to find the content of broken links in archives it would be sufficient to store the retrieval date in a comment that is not visible to a reader, only to editors. This is an approach I would support.
Otherwise, I second the notion that (visible) retrieval dates for off-line media are visually irritating, cluttering and superfluous. --EnOreg (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. How do you propose to obtain uniform use of the proposed standard? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A partial solution would be modify the citation templates to store info generated by the accessdate= parameters as a in an HTML comment that is not visible to a reader, only to editors. That would quickly handle a large percentage of retrieval dates. Many thousands of articles would need to be individually edited to bring the handcrafted cites into line. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bill suggests what I had in mind: Leave the parameters of the citation templates as they are, just modify their implementation to not display the access date (except cite web). And adjust the WP policy pages to reflect this change. --EnOreg (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just use a field that is visible to people editing the page but not to people viewing the page? But that function is available now in all templates: just use a field that the template does not itself already use. E.g. invisible-retrieval-date= ... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. By removing any mention of {{{accessdate}}} in the template implementation, the data would remain, but wouldn't be parsed by the server, so the casual reader's display wouldn't be cluttered. I'd support that for {{cite journal}}, at the very least, as with this template the accessdate is of no real utility when rendered. Smith609 Talk 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure sure I follow. Sounds to me like we violently agree. What's the difference between your proposal and Bill's? --EnOreg (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
To "hide" the access date, the templates only have to not parse accessdate= parameter. No HTML comment is necessary, nor is it necessary to rename the parameter. After all, its still in the source.
But "hiding" the access date only addresses the symptoms. It does not fix the underlying problem, which is the misconception that a source on the web is a web source.
As such, merely hiding the access date (however that hiding occurs) for all but {{cite web}} will not be much use -- {{cite web}} is being used for virtually everything that editors happen to find on the "web".
The source of this misconception is of course the {{cite xyz}} farrago. That a source on the web must be cited with {{cite web}} is merely a "logical" continuation of that nonsensical paradigm. That is the real problem (and living proof that caring about sources has zero priority).
But hiding accessdate is a start, even if its only a band-aid. Next step other insane linking (e.g. google books, amazon, jstor and so on). In the long run we must teach editors how to cite properly, how to quote properly, and why it is necessary to do both.
-- Fullstop (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The retrieved date allows a reader to understand the age of the online link. In the past, I have done a manual link check and have updated those retrieved dates to show that the links were still valid as of that date. The CheckLinks tool checks links, updates to archived links on dead links and now optionally updates the retrieved dates. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I invite someone to apprise those who watch the various "cite" templates to put a notice on each of the cite-template talk pages, that this conversation is occurring. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I put a notice there already some days ago. Anything else we can do to invite feedback? --EnOreg (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I do not see how an accessdate on sources which do not change - such as journal articles - is beneficial. However, on sources which may change, such as web content, it helps clarify which version of a page is being cited. Therefore I feel it ought to be displayed only in the cite web template. I don't think anyone has disagreed with this feeling here, so I suggest that someone bold goes ahead and proposes or enacts the change at all non-"cite-web" templates. People have had the chance to complain if they feel otherwise! Smith609 Talk 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what is being discussed here. In my opinion there are two issues popping up:

  1. Print sources of which you get a copy from the web (JSTOR etc) should be referred to as their print version. Access date is irrelevant as the content is not dependent on the web, nor will it ever change. For such sources the use of citeweb should discouraged, and access date not listed or removed
  2. True web sources, which are rarer than most editors seem to think is another issue altogether. Websources are not permanent, and even if they are long term the content may dramatically change. Therefore it is not only essential that access date is recorded and reported, but also that when updating text for such sources a critical reflection whether the text is still covered by the website has to be applied. In printed articles, this is not so much an issue as you refer to the website once, and your text will not change, even if the website content does. As both Wikipedia and referred to websites change this is very complicated indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus: It indeed seems we have consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. I have removed the RFC (style) tag and will modify the policy. Anybody who is competent to adapt the citation templates, please do so. Thanks everybody, --EnOreg (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

HTML comments are stripped out by the Mediawiki software, so these won't be visible except in the original template call. I've included one here, for instance: Would it be better to hide the date with CSS? — Omegatron (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We can also assign an ID to it in case people want to make it visible with user css. --Karnesky (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to all the editprotected requests that are up at the moment by wrapping the "retrieved on..." text in a CSS class (reference-accessdate), so it can be hidden in either personal or sitewide CSS while still being accessible for those that want to see it. You can personally hide the accessdates yourself by adding 
.reference-accessdate {display: none}
to your monobook.css. If there is a real and extensive consensus to hide these data, adding the same code to MediaWiki:Common.css would have the same effect for all users who didn't override it in their own monobook. Happy‑melon 17:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Options are better than hard coding here. Where do we document this? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No idea :D. From a technical end, I've added to the catalogue at WP:CLASS; where and how you note the new feature is the balliwack of people on this page. As an ultimate goal, we ought to be working towards encapsulating all the similar reference 'facts' in suitable css (reference-title, reference-volume, etc) and defining their appearance centrally in Mediawiki:Common.css. That greatly facilitates updating and standardisation between cite templates (I shouldn't have had to edit five templates to implement this change), and instantly circumvents the "data X should have formatting Y because it's the standard of source Z": we can just say: go on then, add foo to your monobook and the problem is solved. Ultimately, I have yet to see a good reason why a properly-built {{cite meta}} is not possible, to centralise and de-duplicate the considerable amount of code (the CoinS tags, for instance) that is almost identical across all the cite templates, and needs to be maintained in the same way in each. But that's another story. Happy‑melon 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is the better implementation. Many thanks, Happy-melon! I believe now the default CSS should hide the access date from unexperienced users. They are most unlikely to go and research a broken link and therefore wouldn't lose anything. But they would gain a less cluttered WP appearance. The same is probably true for the vast majority even of experienced users. Where do I campaign for this change? Cheers, --EnOreg (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Doesn't agree with best practice, no discernible benefit, doesn't agree with most common ciation methods on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Access date for newsgroups and mailing lists

I don't see any strong consensus to hide this parameter for templates where the availability of material might be ephemeral. I think it should stay visible on, at least, the generic citation template, the mailing list template, the newsgroup template. --Karnesky (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm afraid this hasn't been discussed properly, yet. To make this clear: I don't advocate removing the access date, only hiding it from the reader. Unlike most web pages, posts to mailing lists and newsgroups carry a "publication" date that doesn't change. Therefore, the additional access date doesn't add any value for the reader. It can, however, make it easier for editors to recover a link that has become unavailable. That's why we should keep it in the page source as a comment. Note that mailing lists and newsgroups are being replicated and archived in so many different places that it is much easier to find a post than a copy of an arbitrary web page. --EnOreg (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are advocating, but I think that it should stay visible for content that might not be locatable or might have changed at some future date.
As a reader, I've printed out articles & retrieved the references from them (both physical sources & online sources), and the accessdate is useful for sources that might change URLs, disappear completely (some usenet posts have requests not to archive, for example), etc. The parameter's utility is greater than any aesthetic objections. At bare minimum, the accessdate should be visible when the publication date parameter is not given. But I think it should always be visible for sources that don't have physical manifestations. --Karnesky (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like state that I'm strongly opposed to this idea for any template that may cite any kind of online material. For Cite book, Cite paper, etc, that are only used to cite physical or "permanent" publications (even if it may be found online and linked to in a particular template), then so be it, Accessdate isn't necessary. But to hide it in Cite news, Cite press release, Cite map, etc etc (which more and more may cite a document online that *cannot* be found in print) is doing a grave disservice to anyone who doesn't want or know how do delve into the edit page and figure things out, yet still may want information that will allow them to access a website that has been lost over time. That is precisely what Accessdate is useful for; not to mention, even for webpages that are still existent, it says precisely when data was originally pulled from the source. "Accessed on..." or some variant of it is an almost universal standard for citation formats outside of Wiki...I see no reason why we should be the oddballs and not use them in a citation display. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I only argue to hide the access date for sources that already have a publication date. These source typically don't change after initial publication, and even if they do the publication date is enough to find the original content in the Internet Archive. What additional value do you see that the access date provides that makes it too important to hide? --EnOreg (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiding the date for one template such as {{cite news}} without changing all of the templates is going to cause some inconsistency. There are already enough differences among the cite templates. There are opinions on both sides of the issue as to show or hide the accessdate— why not allow editors who don't want to see the accessdate to be able to hide it? We should be able to come up with a script to do this and get it approved as a gadget. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this has largely been taken care of by Happy-melons implementation (s)he explains above? --EnOreg (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Default setting: show or hide access date?

After Happy‑melon's CSS-ification of the access date it is up to the users whether they want to see the access date of stable references or not—that's great. (Note that this only applies to references that also have a publication date!)

Changing the default behavior, however, requires fiddling with the user's monobook.css which only expert users will be competent to do. Now after the discussion above it seems to me that the access date is relevant mostly to these expert users and editors. For casual WP users showing two different dates for one reference is confusing and clutters the reference sections—but they don't know how to hide it. Therefore, I would suggest to hide the access date of stable references per default, i.e., modify MediaWiki:Common.css accordingly. Comments? --EnOreg (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not hiding it by default for web references, since such a source can change with time. It's important to document when the page was visited, in case content changes or becomes unavailable. This remains true even if the page has a known publication date.--Srleffler (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, this question has been discussed in the previous sections. Three points:
  1. Most web references don't have a publication date, hence hiding the access date doesn't apply to them. This discussion is only about sources that don't change after publication.
  2. I would argue that chasing broken links can safely be left to slightly experienced editors in the interest of not confusing readers with two different dates.
  3. Could someone explain again why we wouldn't find the original content under the publication date?
Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the true source should always be given, even if that is a Web source that purports to be a true copy of a print publication. In that case, the access date should be specified and should not be hidden by default, because it is part of the correct reference. I suppose it occasionally happens that the editor has actually read the print version and is merely adding the URL for the convenience of the reader; in that case, I suppose a case could be made for omitting the access date. --Boson (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite often; many weblinks are for the reader's convenience. Commenting out the access date would be a reasonable compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favor of hiding the access date by default for stable references. The extra visual clutter and possible confusion of having two dates on cites affects many, while the need to track down and inspect cites by access dates affects only a few (and they'll still be able to do it by looking at the article source or changing the default setting). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Where can I find official guideline saying that we shouldn't cite other Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS, in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. A case could be made that a specific version of a well sourced article would pass verifiability, but in the vast majority of those cases you can just copy the relevant sources from the article you would be citing instead (and the blanket ban prevents questions over just how "well sourced" it must be before being citable). There is also an IAR exception for situations like this, which again are vanishingly rare. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of the reason behind the prohibition is that WP:V#Reliable sources says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP is not a third-party source, is not a reliable source, and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, third-party sources means not a source that's affiliated with the subject of the article, so Wikipedia's OK on that score except for articles about Wikipedia itself. However, from WP:SPS: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me try again, quoting the prohibition itself from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify with some history: this is mainly to prevent unsourced material from propagating from one article to another and appearing (in the latter article) to be well-cited. In uncontroversial areas it should be OK to just copy citations from the Wikipedia article you might otherwise cite if you were allowed to. However, it is a very good idea to check these sources when possible. Slavishly copying someone else's citation also has potential to propagate an error. It's usually worth indicating in the edit summary that you've done so, because it might raise a warning flag for someone. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have to ask, where is the term third-party source defined? User:Ashill is saying that it means "not a source that's affiliated with the subject of the article", however my understanding is that it means no original research, and no reporting of a second party's research (I cannot use what Stephen Hawking said to me, but I can use something that he said to reliable third party). Any comments on the meaning of this phrase are welcome. Also, the phrase "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- from whence do we divine this reputation? What are the criteria for deciding if a source is "accurate"? What source do we use to obtain the information as to the reputation for fact-checking? I feel like I'm asking for the definition of the word 'definition' or something, but the question is entirely sincere. User:Pedant (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand it's a fair question. I'm not sure if I can tell you exactly where it's defined, as it is pretty difficult to define overall. I agree it can get very subjective at times, and that is why we have talk pages to hash things out. Having a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy is not always easy to determine, as there are in fact many journal publications that consider themselves peer-reviewed scholarly journals but in fact are not at all reliable. (I won't get too controversial by naming any specific ones, though I have several in mind.) In the end, you have to use your judgment, and if you're uncertain as to whether a source is reliable, it's best not to use it. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "third party" is only useful for evaluating the reliability of a source in limited circumstances. It really is an metaphor based on contracts (which often have two parties) and law suits (which always(?) have two sides). So a third party is an outsider.

But the term becomes useless if the subject of an article is not a person or company. If the subject of the article is the solar system, then we're all insiders, are we not? It is also not helpful when an involved organization has the authority to decide a matter. For example, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are reliable because it has the authority to make final, binding decisions. But they may not be third party documents, because one of the litigants might be another branch of the U.S. government. Are we to say that we shouldn't quote the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller because D.C. is under the control of the federal government, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Page too long

This guide is 18-20 pages long (on my printer anyway), twice the recommended length. There has also been some discussion that the guide is too complicated. Here are my concrete suggestions on where to cut it down. The basic idea is: if this material can be covered by another guide or policy, it doesn't belong here. After making these cuts, my printer shows the article to be 14 pages long, still 4 pages too long, so additional cuts will have to be made. (I've separated them so that each can be discussed on it's own merits. Feel free to add more.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When to Cite

This material, in my opinion, belongs in WP:VER, Wikipedia:When to cite, WP:BIO, etc. I would merge this material into those articles and cut this entire section down to 1 or 2 paragraphs, describing the principle and a few examples. There isn't enough room in one guide to describe both "When to cite" and "How to cite". This guide should be about one or the other. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire section should exist on WP:RS. It does not, so why not move it there? Brimba (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree: This guide should not try to describe both "When to cite" and "How to cite". This guide should be about one or the other. Moving material related to "When to cite" to Wikipedia:When to cite would be my preference. --SallyScot (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, less is more, in this case. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
This discussion has moved down to #Let's get the relationship with WP:V right ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates and tools

Cut this down to one paragraph, basically getting the word out that citation templates are optional, and please see WP:Citation templates. Move the material from this section into WP:Citation templates and Template:Harv. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, as also mentioned in the Technical details talk post above, and have accordingly moved the details to WP:Citation templates. --SallyScot (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And I disagreed and you have no consensus to remove that. There is no question that this page has spun out of control over the last few months with some really unproductive and non-consensual changes and redundancy, and that trimming and consolidating is needed, but the text about mixing citation systles is frequently cited in many places, and belongs here, not buried in a how to use portion of multiple citation templates. It is a global issue. Please don't make changes without consensus; that's what ails this page to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said in my talk post earlier, for the issue of moving the Technical details section, it should be noted that the section above it, Citation templates and tools, remains in this project page. Thus, if it is felt that there is some key material in Technical details which should stay here then it can easily remain on this page. That which we agree is more esoteric technical detail should, practically by definition, then be moved to the Citation templates main page.
Personally, I think the point about mixing citation styles is a little esoteric, or at least a little unbalanced in its fussiness, because I'm not sure that the same issue of such minor differences in punctuation would be so strictly applied to an article written using freehand citations (i.e. not using citation templates).
But as I suggest, if consensus really is that part should should remain in the main article then so be it.
--SallyScot (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot (far too much) of this page is detail that is either covered elsewhere or pertains to one specific citation style or template. The text I reinstated applies across citation templates and styles, and is cited daily at WP:FAC. It is not esoteric. I agree the page is out of control and needs a complete revamping, but that is general text that is cited often, and every time it gets moved, section headings change, or removed, confusion is created at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely because it's been here forever, and moving it causes headaches for lots of people. I wouldn't mind slightly reducing it, and I see the merit of the arguments -- but the point with these guidelines is to help us write an encyclopedia, not to create model documents for the enlightenment of the world. If an otherwise reasonable makes writing the encyclopedia harder -- and this change IMO would do just that -- then we should not make it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, by SallyScot, a few days ago. (Although, if it were up to me, I cut a little deeper.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources in different languages

SandyGeorgia argues below in regards to this section "Links to a policy page should be used instead of repeating text here" and I agree. I suggest cutting this to a single sentence. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote system

Most of the detail here is or should be covered in WP:FOOT. See WP:SS. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the sections below are ready to be cut. I've checked that all this material is covered in WP:FOOT. I'd appreciate it if someone else would double check before I delete these. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference tag placement and punctuation

Merge this section into WP:Footnotes. Drop it from this article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the same citation again

Merge this section into WP:Footnotes. Drop it from this article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Making an article use the footnotes system

Merge this section into WP:Footnotes. Drop it from this article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Annotations via the footnote system

Merge this section into WP:Layout. Drop it from this article ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't move the mess that has been added here to WP:LAYOUT, which is an orderly page. Layout deals with overall page layout, not citation and footnote issues. It doesn't go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving this to LAYOUT. It does not belong there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was previously covered in the article but mixed in with the use of the footnote system for references, under the heading "What footnotes are used for" and saying: "A footnote is a note placed in the proper end section of a page to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference (a source) for it. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote. Footnotes are often used to add information that might be helpful to later fact-checkers, such as a quotation that supports your edit."

I think this topic is better covered in WP:FOOT#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes, and can safely be deleted from here. SInce the only opposition here had to do with WP:LAYOUT, I'm not seeing any opposition. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing

Just do a one paragraph summary, and direct the reader to the article Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Merge this material into that article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the detail here is or should be covered in WP:Parenthetical referencing. See WP:SS. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree Brimba (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have synched and merged the extra material into Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Most of this section can be safely cut. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going ahead with this. If there is any objection, just undo my edits on this date. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Parenthetical referencing is only summarized in this article. All detail is handled over in WP:Parenthetical referencing. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Embedded links

Since these are not particularly encouaraged, why not lose this section all together and just add Wikipedia:Embedded citations as a "See Also". No one will miss it -- I think most embedded links are created by editors who just copied an example somewhere. I doubt anyone learned to use embedded links from this guide. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose You can not tell someone that they need to cite a source, and then not tell them up front that they can use an embedded link. Most people cannot make heads or tail of this page when they get dumped here by a fact tag. Its far better to tell them up front that they can use an embedded link, and hope that someone will come along later and fill out the details in a better citation form. I see I am behind on the times and that fact tags no longer send editors here, sorry for the mix-up. Brimba (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Need to qualify sources

It seems to me this belongs in WP:When to cite. Merge it over there. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, When to cite is not even a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For points which are more controversial, where there are contradictory studies or different expert opinions, qualifying sources in the article text is essential. I think this is a key section which should remain on this project page.
It should also be moved up. It currently sits as a section on its own after all the technical detail of the different citation systems. As qualification involves the article wording around the citation I would argue that it's really a consideration of "putting the citation together" and should be higher up as a subsection of that.
As well as being an important consideration it's also quite a short section, so I wouldn't mind seeing it repeated in WP:Verify too.
--SallyScot (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Further reading/External links

Belongs in WP:Layout. Merge it over there. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but please don't muck up WP:LAYOUT as this page has been mucked up. KISS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A bit more WP:Good faith and WP:civility please. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal from this guideline. Don't really care where it ends up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Done This is gone. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling lists

Covered in WP:MOS#Scrolling lists. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't an issue particular to citing sources. It's inclusion here causes confusion. The section should be removed.
Disagree, this issue comes up almost exclusively in references and citations, and only recently did I press for it to be added to the main MoS page. It is much more of a citations issue than anywhere else, and it comes up often. It needs to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've never seen anyone confused by its inclusion here, and I don't think I've ever seen a scrolling list used in the article namespace that wasn't related to refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Archive_21#scrolling lists? - here's an example of someone else (apart from myself) confused by its inclusion --SallyScot (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That makes an argument that the text wasn't well written (not surprising, considering the state of this page), not that the text doesn't belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This section has been unchanged since at least 2007. Most of my these suggestions for simplifying this article involve text that has been here for years. The constant slagging of recent edits is unnecessary, off topic and boring. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sally, that link doesn't show the least bit of confusion over why this is mentioned here. It's just a note from a new (<200 edits) editor who didn't know what a scrolling list was. The question at hand is only whether, on balance, mentioning this prohibition here (as well as elsewhere), instead of just elsewhere, is useful for the main goal of writing the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The link doesn't simply suggest confusion over what scrolling lists are. The first sentence - "if you're going to say that something shouldn't be used, you should probably mention what this thing is" - would be quite reasonable coming from someone who does know what they are. The instructions should be intelligible new editors. There's no point in having a 'how to' guide which can only be understood by people who know it already. --SallyScot (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is getting off topic. This article is too long. This material is already covered in the MOS. The question isn't "does it bother you?" or "does it make sense?". The question is "Could we live without it?" I think the answer is yes. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new lead

In line with WP:LEAD, I think this guide could use a succinct description of the elementary ideas, something like this:

This page in a nutshell: This page describes how to write citations in articles.

Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia. An article, paragraph or statement is verifiable if it is connected by a citation to a reliable source, so that reader can use the citation to find the source and verify that it supports the material. A citation is a line of text that tells the reader exactly how to find a source. For example, this is a citation:

The source may be a book, website, scientific paper, newspaper article, et cetera. Material in the body of the article is usually connected to the citation in one of three ways:

  1. Footnotes. The citation may appear in a footnote. The footnote can appear directly after the statement, allowing the reader to click on the footnote, read the citation and find the source. For example, this sentence is followed by a citation in a footnote.[1] This is the most common way to connecting statements to citations.
  2. General references. The citation may appear in a References section at the end of the article. The reader may assume that these citations can be used to verify many different aspects of the article.
  3. Author-date references. An author-date reference looks like this: (Turing 1950, p. 451). It may appear directly after the statement or (more often) in a footnote, such as the one at the end of this sentence.[2] The full citation appears in an alphabetized References section at the end of article. The reader can use the name of the author and the date of publication to find the citation.

These are the most common methods of making articles verifiable. A Wikipedia editor is free to use any of these methods or to develop new methods; no method is preferred. Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has some citations, an editor should study the method already in use and seek consensus before changing it. If you do not know how to format a citation, provide enough information to identify the source and others will improve the citation.

I've cut a lot of corners here, but I don't think anything I'm saying is false and it manages to introduce most of the critical material in this guide. Any objections? Comments? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need more prose meta-explanation. We just need to give people the technical details, quick and dirty. I think the quick summary should be added, and all the information on "When to cite" should be moved down. II | (t - c) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do you think my suggestion above is the "prose meta-explanation" or is it the "quick summary" that "should be added"? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Yours is meta-explanation. Notice that there are no technical details in your text. Instead, you have a lot of "duh" statements -- no offense, but I hardly think many people need to be told what a citation is, or what it means for a statement to be "verifiable", or what a source is, or what a footnote is. I can't support adding more duh statements to this article, and certainly not near the top. A link to a definition, whether at Wiktionary or some other page, suffices. This is the "Quick summary" that I liked. It was quickly removed by Philip because it didn't mention Harvard (parenthetical) referencing. Personally, I don't mind if the quick summary doesn't mention Harvard referencing. Harvard referencing it a tricky method for academics who want to use it. For people looking to just put information down, the basic Cite.php method of footnotes should get them started. There seemed to be positive thoughts on that quick summary, and I'd like to add it again. If it is unsatisfactory because it excludes something, then the proper approach is to add that thing, not take it out. II | (t - c) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
My main concern is that this guide does not seem to have a lead, in the sense of WP:LEAD. A lead should define the topic of the article and summarize the contents. Anything else is confusing an amateurish. The current version reads like a random digression.---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
ImpIn, you've clearly not been involved in the same Wikipedia talk page discussions that I have. Editors have dreamed up all sorts of things based on their personal distinctions between "reference" and "citation" and "source". I was quoting "Use of terms" just this week. I really think that we need to have definitions (although not in a "Quick summary" section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. "Reference" is used ambiguously in Wikipedia guides, but "citation", "source" and "footnote" should not be. It's logical to define "citation" in the lead of this guide, "source" in the lead of WP:RS and "footnote" in the lead of WP:FOOT. (WP:RS' lead says "Reliable sources are credible published materials ..." and WP:FOOT begins "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of an article that ...", There is nothing wrong with this kind of elementary (or "duh" as ImpIn calls it) definitions in the first few lines of an article, in fact, I feel strongly that this is what most readers are (consciously or unconsciously) expecting to see. When they don't see it, the article reads poorly. Wikipedia articles, even guidelines, should clearly describe their topic. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Reference and source are essentially the same thing, whether we're talking about this guideline or not. Citation sort of refers specifically to the reference, when it is being cited. A footnote is just a small superscript note connected to a source or a comment at the bottom of a page. I'm intrigued by how these obvious definitions could be interpreted otherwise; could you show me a link, WhatamIdoing? Describing context is OK, such as noting the distinction between footnote, parenthetical, and hybrid systems would be great in the lead, but taking three or four sentence to define obvious terms is not good in my opinion. I guess we'll just have to disagree. If you do update the lead, you should try to do so in prose rather than bullets. II | (t - c) 22:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Here, for one example (referencing the "Use of Terms" section that was recently deleted (by you?) from this guideline, and which I'd like to see restored promptly [buried at the end of the page is perfectly adequate for my purposes]). Here, for an example at RSN. Here, for another very long discussion involving the use of these terms. I'm sure there are more, but these are representative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't delete that section that I know of. I have no problem with it up at the top. I also don't see the relevance of it to that discussion, although I agree with you that References, as a standard term, is preferable to Bibliography. :p II | (t - c) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Must have been an accident: [1]. It needs to be rewritten anyway. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Draft

After thinking about this over night, I feel very strongly that this page needs a lead along the lines I am suggesting. I would like to know if there are other editors who think that this lead would be useful, or at least, harmless.

Here is a better draft.

This page in a nutshell: This page describes how to write citations in articles.

A citation is used to connect material in Wikipedia with a reliable source. It makes the material verifiable, since a reader may use the citation to find the source and verify that it supports the material. Verifiability is among the core content policies of WIkipedia. Citations are required for quotes, most images, material about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged.

A citation is a line of text that identifies a source uniquely. For example, this is a citation:

An article, paragraph or sentence is usually connected to the citation in one of four ways:

  1. General reference: By placing the citation in a References section at the end of an article.
  2. Footnote: By placing it in a footnote following the sentence or paragraph it verifies (such as the following footnote).[3]
  3. Shortened note: By placing the citation in a References section and naming just author and year in a footnote.[4]
  4. Parenthetical referencing: By placing the citation in a References section and naming author and year in parenthesis. (Turing 1950, p. 451)

These are the most common methods of making articles verifiable. A Wikipedia editor is free to use any of these methods or to develop new methods; no method is preferred. Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has some citations, an editor should study the method already in use and seek consensus before changing it. If you do not know how to format a citation, provide enough information to identify the source and others will improve the citation.

This draft defines "citation", summarizes in three paragraphs the three main sections of the article and briefly explains (what I think are) the most important policies for a new editor to see. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where some ambiguity still exists is in the terms: References, Notes, List of sources (Bibliography) and still requires some discourse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, as I said above, "reference" is ambiguous, but "citation" is not. I think it's important that the reader have a fresh definition in the back of their mind as they read the article. The article should probably avoid the word "reference" whenever the words "source", "citation" or "footnote" would do. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That looks better. You should note that general references are discouraged. I would move them to the bottom. I think it should be listed Footnote, Parenthetical, Shortened footnotes, and then general reference. 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: general refs discouraged. Agreed. They can go on the bottom.---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
General references are not discouraged so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: General refs not discouraged. They can stay in the order they are. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem still remains what to call the entire section since almost all of the references are related. My suggestion is to start with "References" (which generally indicates sources of information) as a main heading (L2) followed by the "Notes" sub-section (which can be further refined if editors choose as Endnotes or Footnotes or even Parenthetical Notes,Shortened footnotes or Citations) and follow that up with "Bibliography" which is a comprehensive bibliographical notation giving full source information for print material, with "External links" if needed as a further sub-section of the bibliography, given that it represents non-print (electronic) resources. Only if required, should a "Further reading" section be provided as this terminology actually implies that the information sources were in addition to those provided as source material. FWiW, to allay fears of a widespread departure from the forms presently in use, this system/guide uses current terms and structures with minor changes; it was actually devised by a Swedish editor and has been in place for over a year in approximately 16,000 articles, which have withstood scrutiny by FA, GA reviewers and experts in cataloging and reference sources (i.e. librarians). Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Okay, but this is a different issue. I'm just trying talk folks into letting me define "citation" in the lead. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Still needs tweaking, somewhat unnecessary additional prose and also misleading (by the way, I corrected the MoS breach in the citation; when adding text to guideline pages, we should be careful to respect WP:MOS). I agree that we don't need more meta-prose, and there's also no need to appear to favor one citation method over another. This example uses {{citation}}, which will lead many readers to believe that's the preferred citation method on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A few more corrections to the example given. By linking to a Wiki article in the title, you invalidate the URL, for which no accessdate was given. It might be helpful to see wider participation here from some of the people who do extensive citation work at FAC and FAR, so we don't end up with incorrect examples and deviations from best practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And another; the URL in the example given doesn't link to the journal, so it's not a good example. If examples are to be given, please use a standard and more straightforward example, so readers aren't encouraged to link to external sites for possible copyvios of articles. That citation isn't technically correct, since it lists a journal as the publisher, but gives a courtesy link to another website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the page won't mention things like "general refs are discouraged"; that's often the only way novice editors know how to add references, and something is better than nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that no citation method is preferred. This draft, I hope, is very clear about this. (You'll note that the final paragraph devotes two sentences to this, and the middle part is structured as a menu of choices, inviting the reader to pick one. It even encourages editors to develop new methods, as you did in Tourette syndrome).
As far as the example goes, it was more or less randomly chosen. (It's a bit complicated for an introductory example anyway). Thank you for fixing its MOS issues.
A more serious issue is whether or not the draft is misleading. What, exactly, is misleading? Let's fix that.
You also mention that it's verbose. It's pretty tight, but I can see two sentence to that could be axed. That's about all, though, in my view. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the "shortened note" which corresponds to a "Harvard" citation style, nominally given as "author (last name only) date, and page." FWiW, that's the way the tempalate will format the example. Bzuk (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Maybe it should mention this, too. I left it out because I'm trying to avoid any details whatsoever. The main thing the reader should gather is that there are four common citation methods and what the essential differences between them are. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Draft

This page in a nutshell: This page describes how to write citations in articles.

A citation is used to connect material in Wikipedia with a reliable source. It makes the material verifiable, since a reader may use the citation to find the source and verify that it supports the material. Citations are required for quotes, most images, material about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged.

A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example, this is a citation:

  • Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1. 

An article, paragraph or sentence is usually connected to the citation in one of four ways:

  1. General reference: By placing the citation in a References section at the end of an article.
  2. Footnote: By placing it in a footnote following the sentence or paragraph it verifies (such as the following footnote).[5]
  3. Shortened note: By placing the citation in a References section and naming the author, year and page number in a footnote.[6]
  4. Parenthetical referencing: By placing the citation in a References section and naming the author, year and page number in parenthesis. (Ritter 2002, p. 45)

These are the most common methods of making articles verifiable. A Wikipedia editor is free to use any of these methods or to develop new methods; no method is preferred. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should study the method already in use and seek consensus before changing it. If you do not know how to format a citation, provide enough information to identify the source and others will improve the citation.

Well, I cut the the only sentences that I could sensibly cut and I used a less complicated example. Any remaining objections? As I said above, I feel strongly that this guide should have a real WP:LEAD. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the relationship with WP:V right

OMG, now I see the structural problems. My first thought is "why is this page not merged with WP:V?" Perhaps because V is policy and this one is not. But can't the information here be cast as policy and merged into V? I certainly don't want to see the "When to cite sources" section here as guideline and over there as policy. THis is a recipe for chaos.

On second thought, why not clearly define V as the "when", and CITE as the "how". This would involve:

  1. restricting CITE to just the mechanics and style of referencing (which is better separated from a policy page);
  2. ensuring that V avoids talking about the "how", and refers to CITE for that;
  3. removing all duplicated sections from CITE, such as "When to cite sources", rely on direct links to sections in V, and tweak V sections where information in CITE is better expressed, or absent from V, and would be useful and appropriate there.

Starting with "When to cite sources" here in CITE, it seems nicely set out and easy to follow, and not so in V. Should V be recast to include this text?

On the matter of rewriting the lead here at CITE: I'd wait until we decide on this relationship. Tony (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But the mechanics pages are WP:FN and WP:ADR. WP:V is the general policy on sourcing, while WP:CITE gives guidance on what information should be included when giving a source. Gimmetrow 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops it's HP:ADR, aka WP:HARV. Gimmetrow 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gimme, but (1) WP:ADR leads to no page at all; (2) CITE seems very much a "how to" page; (3) why don't these pages at least all refer to each other as a cluster at their openings?, and (4) why can't we merge all the "how to" (styleguide) pages into one, include CITE and FN (footnote), and have V separate as a "when" policy page? Tony