No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) |
→Snippet Views - Using the Result Line of the search , instead of the Snippet View itself: Rpl - NMMNG's accusations |
||
(22 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::Have any one tried one of the suggestions I made to see if you actually like it? ---'''''— [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue"> '''''</span><sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 12:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::Have any one tried one of the suggestions I made to see if you actually like it? ---'''''— [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue"> '''''</span><sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 12:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I know I like the non-bracketed appearance. I've seen it in thousands of books :-) I presume that WP's use of brackets dates back to some informal decision a decade ago where some editors felt it was easier to click on a larger target (a single digit being too small). I doubt that there was much pro/con discussion of various alternatives. And, of course, once the aircraft carrier gets pointed in a certain direction, it is nigh impossible to change. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
::::I know I like the non-bracketed appearance. I've seen it in thousands of books :-) I presume that WP's use of brackets dates back to some informal decision a decade ago where some editors felt it was easier to click on a larger target (a single digit being too small). I doubt that there was much pro/con discussion of various alternatives. And, of course, once the aircraft carrier gets pointed in a certain direction, it is nigh impossible to change. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== A very nice example of why one must choose sources carefully. == |
|||
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/citogenesis.png |
|||
I think it sums up the continuing effort of editors to ensure reliability, especially as WP matures. |
|||
Unfortunately it's licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.5 |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Yes, it would be nice to be able to include something like that in the guideline somewhere. (Of course, Wikipedia isn't the ''only'' route for new "facts" to come into circulation.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:xkcd is likely not freely licensed, otherwise I'd suggest including this somewhere here :) I'd expect we have at least an essay on this somewhere. I have often thought that many sources, including academic ones, have lower referencing standards than Wikipedia, often due to the fact that (drum...) they do not reference every sentence (ducks the flames). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</font>]]</sub> 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License." The NC part sorta hurts it. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::That said - the artist has [[:File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png|blessed]] his works before through ORTS. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::His WP A/C is [[User:Xkcd]]. I have seconded a request there. ([[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]) 12:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)) |
|||
== Proper citation of public domain material incorporated in copywritten work == |
== Proper citation of public domain material incorporated in copywritten work == |
||
Line 341: | Line 324: | ||
:::::@WhatamIdoing - the underlying issue is that talknic fishes google books for sentences that support his preconceived POV and tries to use the result in articles (in the very contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, no less). It's not even a matter of a reader not being able to verify the source, talknic himself has not even read the book, a single chapter, a single page, or even a whole paragraph from the book. I tried explaining to him at length why this is unacceptable, but as you can probably see from the above discussion, that's not an easy thing to do. I'm happy to see that a group of uninvolved editors agree with what I told him. |
:::::@WhatamIdoing - the underlying issue is that talknic fishes google books for sentences that support his preconceived POV and tries to use the result in articles (in the very contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, no less). It's not even a matter of a reader not being able to verify the source, talknic himself has not even read the book, a single chapter, a single page, or even a whole paragraph from the book. I tried explaining to him at length why this is unacceptable, but as you can probably see from the above discussion, that's not an easy thing to do. I'm happy to see that a group of uninvolved editors agree with what I told him. |
||
:::::FYI, this discussion will continue indefinitely as long as someone responds to talknic's posts, so I shall now bid you all farewell and remove this page from my watchlist. Good luck. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::::FYI, this discussion will continue indefinitely as long as someone responds to talknic's posts, so I shall now bid you all farewell and remove this page from my watchlist. Good luck. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::NMMNG - The issue is in fact: informing readers with a means available online. Rather than them having to source hard copies of every book only showing a Snippet View or books with a Preview but not all pages, by using the Result Line Text accompanying a Snippet View or limited Preview. I've demonstrated, the Result Line Text can show more than the Snippet View itself. Anyone with a hard copy of a source or with knowledge of a text can use it, not as research, but to prove existence where there is only a Snippet View OR in books with a limited Preview. It can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject. False accusations are not the stuff of good faith, you're really stretching it to the max |
|||
::::::'''False:''' ''"the underlying issue is that talknic fishes google books for sentences that support his preconceived POV "'' The notion of using the Result Line Text can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject. Never the less, it is odd the record shows your main complaint has been the use of Primary Sources. None of which are my preconceived POV. In fact you've even accused me of using Primary Sources when I haven't, which seems to indicate you've [[WP:HOUND|not even bothered to look]] on those occassions. |
|||
::::::'''False:''' ''"..and tries to use the result in articles (in the very contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, no less)."'' The examples are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, however, the notion of using the Result Line Text can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject. |
|||
::::::'''False:''' ''"It's not even a matter of a reader not being able to verify the source,"'' The topic is verifying a source by using the Result Line Text accompanying a Snippet View. The example I gave verifies the source. It can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject, to prove existence. |
|||
::::::'''False:''' ''"talknic himself has not even read the book, a single chapter, a single page, or even a whole paragraph from the book"'' Odd I was able to cite far more than the Snippet View in the example and despite what you're trying to infer, one is not required by WP:Policy to have read ''"the book, a single chapter, a single page"'' in order to make a valid edit, as long as the edit is within Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. |
|||
::::::Gloating about uninvolved editors agreeing with you is hilarious. You've actually given no rationale here as to why you object. How can they agree with you? Nor could they, unless they knew where your 'explaining to him at length' took place and followed that discussion. In which case they're very likely to be involved? |
|||
::::::The editors you agree with, (without you having given any rationale here what so ever), have focused on 'finding/research' rather than 'proof of existence' after having already 'found/researched', which misses the point entirely |
|||
::::::This is tops the bizarre list ''"I tried explaining to him at length why this is unacceptable"'' This is Talk '''Citing sources'''. It's where one takes the first steps towards possible changes in policy in respect to citing sources. In this instance to better service readers through an already existing and overlooked mechanism. |
|||
::::::A personal attack based on false accusations doesn't qualify anyone to put their hand up in respect to consensus against at a later date |
|||
::::::Wikipedia is not the place for personal vendettas. It would behoove you to stop. Thx ... [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit request == |
== Edit request == |
||
Line 431: | Line 425: | ||
:Not quite the same situation. I really doubt people usually built a full size pike, then removed the metal from one end, cut the handle in half, and put the metal back on. But we do start with a full citation, remove the parts we don't want for the shortened citation, and add the page number or equivalent information. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
:Not quite the same situation. I really doubt people usually built a full size pike, then removed the metal from one end, cut the handle in half, and put the metal back on. But we do start with a full citation, remove the parts we don't want for the shortened citation, and add the page number or equivalent information. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
::FYI, no removing or cutting of metal is required, as the cheeks of the head only run a relatively short distance from the head. All that is needed was a cross cut saw to saw off of the bottom 8+ foot. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not getting how "short citations" is grammatically wrong. There may be something else (what?) wrong with it, but grammatically it's surely impeccable: "adjective + noun = noun phrase" or however Chomsky would have notated it.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 13:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Both "short" and "shortened" sound fine to my ears, which is the real test in English grammar. "Shortened" is certainly valid, since it emphasizes that the cites ''could'' be longer. But "short" is also appropriate, since it indicates that there are two possible formats for the same data: a "long cite" and a "short cite". I don't have a preference for one or the other (although I do note that WP community tends to favor concise wordings) ... we just need to pick one and stick with it. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
====Time for poll?==== |
====Time for poll?==== |
||
Should we take a poll? I think I'm seeing some consensus for something like 1-4, below: |
Should we take a poll? I think I'm seeing some consensus for something like 1-4, below: |
||
Line 443: | Line 442: | ||
{{quotation|When referring to a shortened citation or shortened footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding.}} |
{{quotation|When referring to a shortened citation or shortened footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding.}} |
||
:Does that look like a good yes/no poll question? --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
:Does that look like a good yes/no poll question? --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Do you want include (what we used to call) "parenthetical references" or not? You include it when you write "in parenthesis". Did you intend to include it in "shortened citation or shortened footnote"? ---- [[User:CharlesGillingham|CharlesGillingham]] ([[User talk:CharlesGillingham|talk]]) 11:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::@Charles: This RfC is addressing all uses of the various terms "short[ened] cites/footnotes" in the guidelines. For example, [[WP:CITESHORT]] says ''"Short citations are used in articles which apply parenthetical referencing (see below), but they can also be used as footnote citations, as described here..."'', so, yes, this RfC is including parenthetical references '''when that term is used in conjunction with the word "short".''' However, I don't propose that ''every'' usage of "parenthetical reference" be changed at this point in time, because that would be objectionable to many editors, I'm sure. Maybe we could go in two phases: Phase 1: convert all "short[ened] cite/footnote" to "short citation [in foot/parenthesis]"; Phase 2: convert "parenthetical refs" (when not used in conjunction with the word "short") to "short parenthetical cites" (or whatever the community agrees to). --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 12:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Lets not have a poll, as they are divisive. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yeah, you're right about that. How about this: is there consensus for the following proposal?: |
|||
::::{{quotation|'''Proposal:''' ''When referring to a short[ened] citation or short[ened] footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding.''<br/><br/>'''Rationale:''' Today, WP guidelines use a variety of terms for "short cite". For example, the shortcut [[WP:CITESHORT]] takes the user to a section named "Short citations", which uses terminology like "shortened notes", and has a {{t|main}} link to [[Help:Shortened footnotes]]. Even more terms are used elsewhere. The goal of this proposal is to establish a uniform term to be used throughout the guidelines. }} |
|||
⚫ | |||
:::::I don't care for the term short footnote, because it might be an explanatory footnote that happens to be short. How about this: |
|||
::::::{{quotation|'''Proposal:''' ''When referring to a parenthetical citation or short[ened] citation footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding. "Parenthetical citation" may be used when it is important that only that type of citation is being discussed, and short citation footnotes are being excluded from the discussion.''}} |
|||
:::::The rationale would be the same. I consider the phrase "short citation in parenthesis" to be redundant because parenthetical citations are always shortened, but the redundant phrase could be used where the concept of parenthetical citations is being introduced. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Looks good. Some minor tweaks: |
|||
:::::::{{quotation|'''Proposal:''' ''When referring to a parenthetical citation or short[ened] citation footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (e.g. "short footnote citation", "short parenthetical citation", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding. "Parenthetical citation" may be used (in lieu of "short citation" or "short parenthetical citation") if its usage is unambiguous based on the context.''}} |
|||
:::::::The purpose of the tweaks is: "Parenthetical citation" is used quite a bit, and we need to give clear guidance on when/where that ''must'' be changed to "short parenthetical citation". Also, "short footnote citation" seems better than "short citation in a footnote" --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Another piece of wiki-jargon that seems to confuse the uninitiated is "inline citation", which in the real world seems to mean (if it means anything) a citation written out in the text, ''not'' a footnote. I know this is part of the "verifiability not truth" wiki-religion and so might be hard to change, but does anyone have any suggestions as to a more comprehensible name? (If not, then we should at least make it clear that it's our own term of art.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
Another piece of wiki-jargon that seems to confuse the uninitiated is "inline citation", which in the real world seems to mean (if it means anything) a citation written out in the text, ''not'' a footnote. I know this is part of the "verifiability not truth" wiki-religion and so might be hard to change, but does anyone have any suggestions as to a more comprehensible name? (If not, then we should at least make it clear that it's our own term of art.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:* Chicago (14.14) calls it a 'note reference'. This WP page calls it a 'citation marker'; [[WP:REFPUNC]] and [[Help:Footnotes]] calls it a 'footnote marker'. |
:* Chicago (14.14) calls it a 'note reference'. This WP page calls it a 'citation marker'; [[WP:REFPUNC]] and [[Help:Footnotes]] calls it a 'footnote marker'. |
||
Line 453: | Line 465: | ||
:I've seen no instances of this terminology confusing people. Can you give a specific example of someone not grasping the concept (as opposed to not knowing how to format it)? |
:I've seen no instances of this terminology confusing people. Can you give a specific example of someone not grasping the concept (as opposed to not knowing how to format it)? |
||
:::Can't link to an example, but I'm sure I've seen queries from people who are surprised by our definition of "inline" (that's the reason I brought the subject up).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:INTEXT]] is already being used as wikijargon for something unrelated to citations, so adopting anything along those lines will create even more confusion. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
:[[WP:INTEXT]] is already being used as wikijargon for something unrelated to citations, so adopting anything along those lines will create even more confusion. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 465: | Line 478: | ||
-- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
-- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Exactly. In might be also worthwhile noting that WP simply has requirements and problems they don't exist "in the real world" to begin with.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 11:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maybe it does, but not in relation to citations/references, I don't think. Everything we have, real-world journal articles et al. also have. Presumably they have names for these things, and we should aim as much as possible to use such real-world names in Wikipedia's instructions, to avoid confusion and looking silly. If general references are not considered to be citations in the real world, then we should not call them so either. The sooner we change our inaccurate terminology, the less ingrained it will become, so the less painful the change will be.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Inline citations also may consist of a description of the source in running text, such as "In 1989 Jones reported that..." with the full details in the reference list. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
:Inline citations also may consist of a description of the source in running text, such as "In 1989 Jones reported that..." with the full details in the reference list. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
In my experience "inline citation" is used to distinguish it from general citation/general reference. Contrary to the latter which ist just added at the bottom of the article the former is directly attached to particular place and content in the article (hence "inline").--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 11:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think Kmhkmh is partly right; "inline citation" emphasizes a particular passage in the article is linked to a particular source, rather than the whole article being supported by some general references. Unfortunately the term "general reference" has two meanings within the Wikipedia guidelines: |
|||
:#A source that supports the article as a whole, or which supports unspecified passages. |
|||
:#In articles that use short citations, any entry in a reference list that provides full bibliographic information, whether it is referred to by short citations or not. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:57, 3 December 2011
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Help Project‑class | |||||||
|
On citing every sentence
I am well aware, as reminded recently, that the a significant part of our community does not share "my hobbyhorse", which is the idea that every sentence should be cited. Yet I do not believe that the horse is dead, and I will return here, periodically, to comment on the issue in question. But don't worry, I don't intend simply to copy paste my old arguments, without seeing a good reason to resurrect the issue. Which means that I see such a reason now, one that leads me to question a claim by some that the idea of referencing every sentence (WP:BLUE exempted, of course) is truly beyond redemption.
I was quite positively surprised recently, when the "Text-source integrity" section was expanded with an important clarification, namely "Do not add facts into a fully cited paragraph or sentence without including a source to cover the new information." This is very important, and I am glad to see this stated clearly here. For similar reasons, I can only applaud the "Identifying which inline citation supports which fact can be more difficult unless additional information is added to the inline citations to explicitly identify what portion of the sentence they cover." and "Maintenance becomes more difficult. When adding more information to the sentence from yet another source it may be difficult to work out precisely were to place the new citation. If the text is rearranged during a copy edited greater care needs to be taken with rearranging the citations, particularly as the inline citations will be renumbered during their repositioning."
I would like to pose two questions:
- why is it that we now support multiple references inside a section, and suggest they have their place, when we do not support multiple references inside a paragraph?
- I have a feeling this is because some people think that if only one source is used, multiple references in the following scenario: "sentence 1.[ref 1] sentence 2.[ref 1] sentence 3.[ref 1]" are redundant, and the following structure is preferable due to less code or being more aesthetically pleasing: "sentence 1. sentence 2. sentence 3.[ref 1]". Is that it, or am I missing something?
- in other words, could somebody try to enlighten me why, outside of WP:BLUE, we do not like referencing multiple sentences in a paragraph?
For those so inclined, I've just finished a preeliminary essay on why I believe citing every sentence is essential to the text-source integrity. It is here. I hope that a discussion here will allow me to refine it. Essay specific comments are welcome on the essay's discussion page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that what you are proposing is the standard practice, almost, in top-quality articles. If you look at the articles that are Featured Article quality, they have citations on the vast majority of sentences. The WP:Verifiability requirement requires citations for statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged", but it also permits editors to skip footnotes on trivial or obvious statements. Also, for a series of related sentences, it is acceptable to use a single, shared, footnote at the final sentence. If an entire paragraph contains closely-related material, a single footnote at the end, to me at least, means that the entire parag is supported by that one source. Articles related to Science actually have a guideline that recommends one citation at the end of the paragraph vs per sentence(!). In summary, if you are seeing articles with few per-sentence cites, they are probably older articles, or articles that have not been scrutinized closely. WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGE are always available to help get cites added. --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that logic, but it fails when we are dealing with an environment where people can split such paragraphs, or insert/move content, and they do not bother to fix referencing. See my essay for specific examples. IF we had a way to always ensure that editors adding/moving text will preserve text-source integrity, we would, indeed, not need cites for every sentence. As this is not the case, I feel that citing every sentence is a necessity that limits future text-source integrity damage significantly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- A quick comment: it is not the sentences that are supposed to be cited, but the material (quotes, facts, ideas, images, etc.) on which the sentence is based. If multiple points (etc.) are used within a paragraph, or even within a sentence, then there should be multiple cites, and preferably close to the points.
- To the extent that anyone has complained of redundant citations, I believe they have invariably been general citations to a source as a whole, and lacking the specific citation of the location within the source (such as page numbers). Don't forget that citation is need to support WP:Verifiability, and incomplete or misplaced citation hinders verification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JJ that it's not a matter of grammar. You might want to read WP:MINREF on citation density, not only that one citation per sentence might be overkill in some instances, but also that it might be completely inadequate for other sentences.
- Also, your proposed solution doesn't actually solve the biggest problem (IMO), which is that I write "ABC" and properly cite it, and someone else adds "DEF" in between my text and their addition, which makes it look like "ABC" is unsourced and "DEF" is well-sourced, or, if "DEF" is added as part of the same sentence, that "ABCDEF" is all supported by my original source. There really is nothing that I can do to prevent the next editor from screwing up with his additions. Even providing one citation per sentence does not protect the text from sloppy future work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but that's assuming that one trusts the end of para (chain) reference to apply to the multiple preceding sentences. In a situation where we assume that any non-BLUE unreferenced sentence is just that - unreferenced - this is not a problem. That's for the DEFABC example. I am not sure I fully understood the first one. Do you mean the example of somebody inserting text just in front of a reference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and it does happen, especially among inexperienced people. They see
ABC.<ref>(long messy citation)</ref>
in the text editing window and have no clue what the ref part does. But they know that they want their new sentence to go right after the sentence "ABC.", so they find "ABC." and add their new sentence immediately after it. (Others delete the citation under the impression that it must be meaningless garbage.) - There is no method of citing sources that will solve this problem, just like no method of citing sources will prevent editors from misrepresenting sources or changing the meaning in the course of copyediting. Editors must always double-check changes to articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- But it can be minimized, by putting the complex details of the citation (whether in template form or not) elsewhere (such as a "References" section), and linking to it with a much smaller, less intrusive Harv link. By reducing the clutter within the text editors – old hands as well as newbies – are a little bit less likely mess things up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. The less code in the text, the less confusion, fear and accidental damage the newbs will experience. That said, I prefer moving the refs like this rather than harv refs, but its just a personal preference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- But it can be minimized, by putting the complex details of the citation (whether in template form or not) elsewhere (such as a "References" section), and linking to it with a much smaller, less intrusive Harv link. By reducing the clutter within the text editors – old hands as well as newbies – are a little bit less likely mess things up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and it does happen, especially among inexperienced people. They see
- Indeed, but that's assuming that one trusts the end of para (chain) reference to apply to the multiple preceding sentences. In a situation where we assume that any non-BLUE unreferenced sentence is just that - unreferenced - this is not a problem. That's for the DEFABC example. I am not sure I fully understood the first one. Do you mean the example of somebody inserting text just in front of a reference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an idea that probably wouldn't get anywhere (maybe in the next generation): some kind of meta element that brackets the text to which a citation applies. Not visible in display mode, though perhaps there could be some way of turning on highlighting. This would be nestable, so if additional material/citation is inserted the original relationship is preserved.
- I do wonder if there might be some way to have the wikisoftware highlight citation templates in the edit box. Some technical issues, but perhaps only takes what we used to call "a small matter of programming". Though I think I'll let someone else take that on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll note that something slightly similar is available through wikiED (syntax highlighting). While it does not tell us what has been referenced, it at least makes it much more easy to separate code from text. Try it out. I have my issues with wikiED, but the sh is great. Now, if only I could junk all the other parts of wikiED and keep sh only... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably you meant WikED, right? One of these days I should check that out (but the end of my "to-do" list is somewhere on the floor). But expecting most every editor to use such a tool is unrealistic. As a small measure of mitigation I think we should encourage clearer format. E.g., vertical seperation of parameters, putting the closing "}}" at the start of a line, etc. Of course, we still have a lot of editors that don't believe in using templates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Would eliminating brackets[3] from footnotes, like this3 look cleaner?
Footnotes in books do not use bracket symbols, so they look like this,3 but in WP they include brackets like this.[3] Back in the early days of WP it was probably no big deal, because there were few footnotes, and they tended to be at the end of paragraphs. But the WP:Verifiability policy requires a footnote in nearly every sentence, so the footnotes can be ugly and distracting. Larger articles, especially Featured Article status, routinely have 200 footnotes or more. I understand that a footnote without brackets might get confused with a mathematical operation like squaring2 or cubing,3 but it is a trade-off. My question is: has the elimination of brackets been discussed before? or tried as a pilot program? --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have you searched the archives? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did search the archives of this Talk page, but found nothing. I was thinking that perhaps a discussion had been held elsewhere, like Village pump, or WP:V, or MOS, or HELP:FOOTNOTES. I also looked in the FAQ at the top of this page, and saw nothing. In any case, even if a consensus had been reached earlier, I'd be curious to see if, now that footnotes are so common, consensus had changed. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- If footnotes are set without brackets they need to be set with a thin or hair or punct space where there's no punctuation immediately prior to the footnote. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me the problem with losing the brackets would be distinguishing multiple footnotes, i.e. making sure that [1][2] and [12] don't both become 12. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did search the archives of this Talk page, but found nothing. I was thinking that perhaps a discussion had been held elsewhere, like Village pump, or WP:V, or MOS, or HELP:FOOTNOTES. I also looked in the FAQ at the top of this page, and saw nothing. In any case, even if a consensus had been reached earlier, I'd be curious to see if, now that footnotes are so common, consensus had changed. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- There have been discussions on this, but I have no idea where they might be now. The brackets help visually focus when clicking on a link and separates consecutive in-text citations. The brackets are defined in MediaWiki:Cite reference link and spanned so you can change them. See Help:Reference display customization#In-text cites for some CSS you can try. Let us know how it works out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.— You can use {{dummy ref}} to create a dummy in-text cite.[1]
- My preference would be to retain the brackets, but let readers choose, via user preferences, whether the footnotes should be displayed in the body of the article. I would choose to turn them off, because I think they are visually distracting, but if I were reading something that surprised or interested me, I would click a button to turn on he footnotes, so I could see the source. I realize this isn't exactly your question, but in a sense it is. You are trying to address the concern hat a lot of footnotes can be visually distracting. I agree. I'd go further than making them a little less distracting, I'd eliminate them, and let readers display them when desired.--SPhilbrickT 03:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can use CSS per Help:Reference display customization to not display in-text cites and/or the reference list. To enable/disable them with a button, you need to develop a script. I just don't see the fuss. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- My preference would be to retain the brackets, but let readers choose, via user preferences, whether the footnotes should be displayed in the body of the article. I would choose to turn them off, because I think they are visually distracting, but if I were reading something that surprised or interested me, I would click a button to turn on he footnotes, so I could see the source. I realize this isn't exactly your question, but in a sense it is. You are trying to address the concern hat a lot of footnotes can be visually distracting. I agree. I'd go further than making them a little less distracting, I'd eliminate them, and let readers display them when desired.--SPhilbrickT 03:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The main difference between footnotes in books and footnotes in Wikipedia is that all paper books are static by design and you can't click on a book page using a pointer to get to the source of info. The bracket symbols make placing the pointer on your screen a lot faster, more accurate and convenient, especially considering that the text displayed on a monitor has a layout much wider than a standard printed page. — A. Kupicki (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that in WP it is important that the reader be able to easily click on the footnote number. A tiny number by itself might be too small. A good solution would be to replace the brackets with spaces. So the footnote looks like _3_ instead of [3] (where "_" is a space). The spaces on either side of the "3" would be clickable, just like the brackets. That way, it looks cleaner, but is still has the same click-ability. If there were multiple footnotes, they'd be separated with commas, so [3][4] becomes _3_,_4_ (where "_" is a space). --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a special pair of characters could be developed that normally show as square brackets, but hit a switch and the appear as spaces, or some such. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is a widespread demand for a change, I see no reason for altering the present system of identifying a reference source in the body of the text. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
- Agreed. But that doesn't prevent us from examining present practices and searching for potential improvements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Bzuk: Personally, I think the brackets are rather ugly, and I think WP and its readers would be better served with a cleaner alternative (as long as it were equally functional). It is not a life-and-death decision, but WP will never improve if we just take a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude. The only two objections raised above are easily dealt with (use commas as separators; use spaces instead of brackets). An RfC is needed to attract more input from a wider variety of editors. I don't have time for an RfC right now, so I won't be proposing one. I may come back to it at some point in the future. --Noleander (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have any one tried one of the suggestions I made to see if you actually like it? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know I like the non-bracketed appearance. I've seen it in thousands of books :-) I presume that WP's use of brackets dates back to some informal decision a decade ago where some editors felt it was easier to click on a larger target (a single digit being too small). I doubt that there was much pro/con discussion of various alternatives. And, of course, once the aircraft carrier gets pointed in a certain direction, it is nigh impossible to change. --Noleander (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have any one tried one of the suggestions I made to see if you actually like it? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Bzuk: Personally, I think the brackets are rather ugly, and I think WP and its readers would be better served with a cleaner alternative (as long as it were equally functional). It is not a life-and-death decision, but WP will never improve if we just take a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude. The only two objections raised above are easily dealt with (use commas as separators; use spaces instead of brackets). An RfC is needed to attract more input from a wider variety of editors. I don't have time for an RfC right now, so I won't be proposing one. I may come back to it at some point in the future. --Noleander (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Proper citation of public domain material incorporated in copywritten work
WP clearly states that material in the public domain must be properly cited. ( WP:PD "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.")
My question: What constitutes a proper citation when public domain material is incorporated in another work?
I'd like to discuss this in the abstract, but I'm well aware that it is helpful to see the situation motivating the question. In Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier an excerpt in the public domain is included in an article in the New York Times, written in 2009.
Does a citation to the NYT constitute proper attribution?
My opinion is that this is not sufficient. A reader of the article does not know that the quoted material is from the The Philadelphia Inquirer, at least not without going to the source and reading it. I think this information should be in the reference.
I see a number of possibilities, including:
- A reference to the NYT, which omits any reference to the author, publisher, or date of the material, is sufficient.
- A proper attribution requires a citation containing the publication, date, author and title of the PD material
- An acceptable attribution includes the information about the NYT, and adds the date and publication information as supplied by the NYT.
I think the third option is sufficient, and think that the second is unreasonably onerous. However, some feel that the first option is adequate.
I did a search of the archives, and found nothing specifically addressing this point, although that may be because it is not obvious to me what search terms to use.
this and this emphasize the need for proper references, but the discussions are more about whether quotes are needed, so they don't specifically address my question.
What do people think?--SPhilbrickT 03:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it is an excerpt, it is a quote and it doesn't matter whether it is public domain or not (apart from length of quoted material). If you can independently verify the source, you can cite directly to that (while still stating what organisation, such as an archive of online scanned issues, is hosting the copy etc) - this would be your option 2. If you can't independently verify the quote, then you have to cite to the publication where you got it from, and give the attribution information they give (even if that is incomplete; this is also important because what you are quoting may include errors of both attribution and transcription). This situation of reporting secondhand from source A what someone said in source B is fairly common. There should be something about it in the guidelines somewhere. You would say something like "'QUOTE' by Smith (1883) as given in Jones (1993)" - this would be your option 3. Option 1 is not sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be a little confused about what "public domain" means -- that refers to material that can be copied freely, in the context of copyright. It has no bearing on attribution. As to attribution -- which is the purpose of citation -- you should always identify the originator (author) of the material (quote, or whatever). As Carcharoth says, if you can't quote someone directly, then you are quoting someone else quoting your source. Who may have gotten it wrong. And why you should always try to check with an original source, as sometimes misquotations take on a life of their own. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Two issues within the present string, one is that proper citing of the source should be important, and it is The New York Times not the "NYT" or "New York Times" and that with the current restrictions on the access of their data base, it has become an essentially subscription service, which sorely limit the "ready" verifiability of material from this source. FWiW, sorry to put on the pedantic hat, Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
- This is just the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT question. Option #1 is acceptable, option #3 might be "best" when feasible, and option #2 is wrong (unless you personally found that original source and re-read the material there).
- "Attribution", for Wikipedia's purposes, does not always require a citation. You can provide attribution in an edit summary. Whenever you use an edit summary like "WP:MERGEd from Example, which now redirects here", you are providing "attribution" for licensing purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- About option 1 being acceptable, that may technically be correct, but the point really is that this can be very misleading if poorly phrased. Just saying "I found this in the NYT" is not enough for accurate representation of the material. Wikipedia editors need to read the material and understand the layers of narrative being presented, just as there is a need to understand when author A is giving not their own opinion, but quoting someone else's opinion (though again, if author A phrases this poorly, it can be easily missed). It is the difference between saying (a) "The Philadelphia Enquirer said this" (while looking at the NYT piece) and saying (b) "The NYT says the Philadelphia Enquirer said this" and saying (c) "The NYT reported this, but I'm not sure who originally said it". Option 2, is only wrong if you only look at the NYT (what I've called [a] here). If you get hold of a copy of the Philadelphia Enquirer, you can do option 2, as you say. Though on looking at the article in question, I think the original material was from the guy who found the photo, and it was published in lots of newspapers, not just one. It's all a bit pointless, though, because the article in question (Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier - about a book) should be redirected/merged to the article on the soldier (Amos Humiston), but I just haven't got round to doing that yet (hopefully so obvious it doesn't need a lengthy proposal and discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- What? WhatamIdoing's comment that attribution doesn't always require a citaTion strikes me so discordantly that I wonder if we might be looking at entirely different subjects. Particularly in regard of "licensing purposes". Licensing is where someone who owns the copyrights to something allows someone else to use that thing in someway (the license), often subject to various requirements such as attribution. But on Wikipedia attribution is not a matter of copyright or licensing, because we are (in essence, see WP:COPYVIO) not allowed to use copyrighted material. Here attribution is about showing sources (per WP:Verification and WP:OR), which is the purpose of citation. Edit summaries (which pertain to the edit, not the sources of the material which may have been added) are not the place to cite sources, and, indeed, the example given above does not do so.
- I suspect WhatamIdoing has in mind the attribution required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses regarding Wikipedia articles (see WP:Merge and delete). I don't believe this is relevant to the initial question raised. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the work in question is actually in the public domain or licensed by suitable terms, and being incorporated into the text (providing "sentences" rather than "information") then yes, the attribution requirements of the licensing rules are very much relevant. If those sentences amount to common knowledge, they will not require citations, but they will always require attribution for the license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I think you have confused two very different kinds of attribution. If the "license" you are refering to (above) is the CC-BY-SA or GFDL that applies to Wikipedia pages (i.e., the article itself), then the attribution of who wrote what (in the article) is handled by the page history. (Note that WP:Merge and delete is about retaining page history when articles are merged, etc.) This is different from the attribution of sources for the external material used in an article, for which we use citations. This is what the original poster was referring to. Clear? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is confusion. WhatamIdoing is likely fully aware of the difference. As far as I can tell, WhatamIdoing was bringing that other form of attribution in as another example in order to help explain the whole concept more fully. Though as the above conversation has shown, it is best to discuss these things separately, as talking about them in the same discussion can cause confusion. It's sort of like "here is the answer, and as a bonus here is an explanation of something similar that you might come across at some point, which I'll explain now to avoid confusion". Followed by confusion. Obviously. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes.
- We use the same word to refer to two completely separate processes. We need attribution-for-the-license when you incorporate material you aren't creating yourself. Whether we must have attribution-for-verification depends on the content (see the list at WP:MINREF). Attribution-for-the-license can be accomplished in an edit summary. Attribution-for-verification needs an WP:Inline citation. This particular guideline only deals with attribution-for-verification, but both types of attribution need to be considered when incorporating public domain material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Link to Google books: specific page vs. entire books
This guideline contains talks about external links to Google books at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books. That guideline focuses on linking to a particular page in the book. Some WP articles contain links to the entire book, that is, without specifying a page. This is most commonly seen in the "References" section at the bottom of articles as in:
- Rampersad, Arnold, (1976), The Art and Imagination of W. E. B. Du Bois, Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674047112.
Question: Should existing Google Books guidance in this guideline be enhanced to mention the possibility (but not mandate, of course) of linking to Google Books without specifying a particular page? Something like: "It may be useful to include an external link to the book, such as to Google Books. If the book is available in preview mode, the specific page ...". --Noleander (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also: Note that a key issue here is Google's preview mode vs. snippet mode. That choice is already addressed in this guideline, and preview mode is more or less required for specific page external links. Snippet mode becomes, perhaps, more acceptable if the link is to the entire book, because the purpose of the link may be to just get more detail about the book as a whole, rather than to read a particular page. --Noleander (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion:
- Linking to a specific page is acceptable; the citation may be reused only if the same page is referenced again
- Linking to the entire book is acceptable, and more appropriate when different pages are referenced at different points or when Help:Shortened footnotes or WP:Parenthetical referencing is used
- Linking to snippet mode is never acceptable, as there is not enough context to verify the intent of the reference
- ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion:
Imho a link to the whole book makes only sense if you Google provides access to the whole book rather than a (restricted) preview or maybe in rare case where the preview allows you access to very large portion of the books (in particular those being relevant for the article). In that context linking to the whole book when only a snippet is available makes no sense to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- See also Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{cite book}} format.Moxy (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding snippet vs full preview: What if the book is listed in the "Further Reading" section, and it is not used to support any citation. Could there be an external link to Google Books if there is only a snippet view? (The idea being that the reader could go there to get more info on the book)? Or should that be discouraged (why favor Google Books? Why not Amazon.com?) and just use the ISBN links instead? --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- ISBNs are preferable because they include links to many potential sources for the book without privileging one in particular; even in a further reading section, snippet views aren't really helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, this only works where a book has an ISBN. My preference is to provide both an ISBN and a courtesy direct link (going via the ISBN takes several clicks) to a location (whether that be Google Books, or some library catalogue) that helps others to verify the bibliographic information about the book and the edition in question. And just a link where there is no ISBN. Some of the standard book catalogue identifier tags work as well (though I can't remember the names of these right now). The point being that links to books are not provided just so people can buy the books, but also so readers and editors can verify the information provided (arguably the primary function of such links), and help check to make sure no errors have crept in. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you're referring to OCLCs? Where no preview is provided, GBooks links give little to no verification potential; my comment was specifically on that basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, this only works where a book has an ISBN. My preference is to provide both an ISBN and a courtesy direct link (going via the ISBN takes several clicks) to a location (whether that be Google Books, or some library catalogue) that helps others to verify the bibliographic information about the book and the edition in question. And just a link where there is no ISBN. Some of the standard book catalogue identifier tags work as well (though I can't remember the names of these right now). The point being that links to books are not provided just so people can buy the books, but also so readers and editors can verify the information provided (arguably the primary function of such links), and help check to make sure no errors have crept in. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm avoiding linking to Google Books previews now because authors and publishers are claiming that Google is infringing their copyright. See Restrictions on linking. Warden (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, is there some recent discussion in WP about that? Have the Wiki foundation lawyers published an opinion on that? There must not be a prohibition, yet, because there are tons of links to Google Books (with previews) in WP articles. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I found this reporting legal action by "Groups representing photographers and artists". I also found this from the Authors Guild saying, "The Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers has settled their class-action suit on behalf of authors and publishers against Google for its Book Search Library Project." Also, see the WP article titled Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. I also found this from Google which says, "Whenever you can see more than a few snippets of an in-copyright book in Google Books, it's because the author or publisher has joined our Partner Program and granted us permission to show you the Sample Pages View, which helps you learn enough about a book to know whether you want to buy it. This is something we do with a publisher's explicit permission.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, so it looks like there has not been a proclamation by WP management that linking to Google Books (preview mode) is prohibited. In fact, it looks like preview mode may mean the author explicitly assented to their text being displayed. So, links to preview mode are okay. --Noleander (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I found this reporting legal action by "Groups representing photographers and artists". I also found this from the Authors Guild saying, "The Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers has settled their class-action suit on behalf of authors and publishers against Google for its Book Search Library Project." Also, see the WP article titled Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. I also found this from Google which says, "Whenever you can see more than a few snippets of an in-copyright book in Google Books, it's because the author or publisher has joined our Partner Program and granted us permission to show you the Sample Pages View, which helps you learn enough about a book to know whether you want to buy it. This is something we do with a publisher's explicit permission.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, is there some recent discussion in WP about that? Have the Wiki foundation lawyers published an opinion on that? There must not be a prohibition, yet, because there are tons of links to Google Books (with previews) in WP articles. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any objection to external links to the (entire) book - where no individual page number is included in the link. A good example is when the book is listed in the References section and WP:CITESHORT are used (so the external link is in the Ref section, not in the citation itself). Therefore I propose to update the text in this guideline to include that possibility (as the guideline is written now, a reader may get the impression that external links are permitted only if a specific page in utilize). I'll go ahead and make the change. If anyone objects, just revert, and we can continue discussing. --Noleander (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I made the change. Here are the diffs. Feel free to tweak the wording if it doesn't look right --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a former reference librarian, I would like to caution that there is a "standard" in the outside world for how to cite reference works that does make sense. The use of multiple publication dates is resolved by citing the most recent publication date and publisher data ("tracings" in the library world) and if necessary, any additional significant editions (First edition, revised edition and so forth) and being cognizant that ISBN 10 and 13 are merely an adjunct tracing that is a pointer to a bookseller/publisher. Since 2007, ISBN 13 has largely supplanted and replaced the earlier International Standard Book Number, so, whenever the publisher indicates both, ISBN 13 should suffice. FWiW, bearing in mind, that Wikipedia does not advocate any particular method, Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
Prohibit external links to Google Books?
Col Warden: you just added text here to the guideline suggesting that nearly all links to Google Books are prohibited. I'm not sure there is consensus on that ... could you discuss it first and then make the change? According to user wtmitchell above, they refer to: this from Google which says, "Whenever you can see more than a few snippets of an in-copyright book in Google Books, it's because the author or publisher has joined our Partner Program and granted us permission to show you the Sample Pages View, which helps you learn enough about a book to know whether you want to buy it. This is something we do with a publisher's explicit permission.". --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Col Warden: I reverted that change. Could you get a few other editors to agree on it before re-inserting it? My sense, from reading the Talk page archives, is that most editors think that linking to Google Books (preview mode) is acceptable, and I have not yet found a prohibition from WP legal eagles. Of course, if the WP foundation did prohibit links to Google Books, by all means the guideline should reflect that. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- It should not certainly be reinserted without a full Rfc, as such links are indeed very widely used, and are accepted at FAC for example. Whether google provides previews depends on their agreement with the publisher - for example (from the UK anyway) Routledge books typically have previews but OUP or British Museum Press ones don't. Much of the dispute is between publishers and their authors, either those under old contracts which didn't specifically cover this, or under new ones which enforce it. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as Google Books is concerned the is no real consensus, there are some who are strictly against Google Books for various reasons, but a lot of people (including me) who use it, since from their even if they share some of the concerns in practice the benefits simply outweigh the concerns. If I have a preview or full view link to Google Books, that in practice works at least for large number of reader/editors, it simply provides a big plus for content verification, maintenance and extension. In fact it is probably one of the most important quality assurance tools we have. As far as the legality issue is concerned, Google is "legal" mainstream company as long as they are not legally forced to change their practice I see no good not to use it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I meant reinsertion of his now-reverted edit prohibiting them. Wasn't that clear? Yes, I think it was, but I have added to make more so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- You answered faster than i could fix my posting. When I was speed brwosing through the comments I misread the context, thinking it was about removing a concrete Google Books from an article rather than an actual policy change. Hence I changed my posting above and I of course I agree with comment regarding a rfc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I meant reinsertion of his now-reverted edit prohibiting them. Wasn't that clear? Yes, I think it was, but I have added to make more so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference between linking to the Google Books summary about the book (that is little different to linking to a library catalogue listing of a book), and linking deeper to the preview (if available). The former should always be OK. The latter may not always be suitable. When using such links in external links or further reading, it is better to leave readers to click the preview button themselves, rather than depositing them on the title or cover page within the preview. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't follow this logic. If google has gotten permission to display the text from the publisher, why should we not link to the specific page? This seems no different to me than linking to pdfs of academic pages hosted on a uni web site. The reference is fine without the link, but we should make verification as easy as possible, no? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I was making a separate point that not all links are preview links. Some people who argue against linking to Google Books fail to make that distinction. There are at least four ways to link to Google Books: (1) Link to their 'catalogue' listing of the book with its publication details; (2) Link to a page within a book that has 'full view'; (3) Link to a page from a 'preview' view; (4) Link to a 'snippet' view. The first and second options as far as I know always work no matter what. The other options vary, so it is sometimes necessary to think about them a bit more, and consider making things clearer when using such links. I would find it helpful as a reader if such links were marked as 'preview' or 'full view', for example, similar to the 'subscription needed' tags you sometimes get on some sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think the publication details (as given by google) are basically already covered by the ISBN number/link, i.e. there's no reason to use Google for that. Most editors probably agree on 2.) and 3.) in particular for inline citation (at least that it should be allowed), but there might be less agreement regarding 4.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I was making a separate point that not all links are preview links. Some people who argue against linking to Google Books fail to make that distinction. There are at least four ways to link to Google Books: (1) Link to their 'catalogue' listing of the book with its publication details; (2) Link to a page within a book that has 'full view'; (3) Link to a page from a 'preview' view; (4) Link to a 'snippet' view. The first and second options as far as I know always work no matter what. The other options vary, so it is sometimes necessary to think about them a bit more, and consider making things clearer when using such links. I would find it helpful as a reader if such links were marked as 'preview' or 'full view', for example, similar to the 'subscription needed' tags you sometimes get on some sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with both of you. I for one am very uncomfortable with use of snippet view--we should have more context for our sources. Previews I'm ok with using so long as we have an extended section of text sufficient to provide context. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1) is no real use imo, & an unnecessary link to a commercial site. 2 & 3 are fine, & 4 should only be used for very specific factual details (I sometime find it useful for catalogue entries for works of art, for the date, size, owner, provenance etc). Remember that google links are geographically variable, and may suddenly disappear, although in fact they usually seem stable. The utility of ISBNs and library catalogue links is greatly over-rated on WP, as they are often different for hardback/paperback and North American/ROW/Australian etc editions that have the same pagination. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I rarely click on ISBN links to verify publication details. I use library catalogues for that. Maybe they are all using the same data, but sometimes there are differences. Where older books lack ISBNs, I find Google Books (and other online repositories) useful. I'm not sure how widely Template:OCLC is used. I often find the Australian National Library popping up in my search results as well, and I also look books up in the British Library catalogue as well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I *always* click on ISBN links. Surely the ISBN is a key part of the bibliographical information about a book. Also, I always include Template:OCLC when there is no ISBN, and I think that ought to be standard. The OCLC number can be obtained from the relevant WorldCat page. -- Alarics (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I rarely click on ISBN links to verify publication details. I use library catalogues for that. Maybe they are all using the same data, but sometimes there are differences. Where older books lack ISBNs, I find Google Books (and other online repositories) useful. I'm not sure how widely Template:OCLC is used. I often find the Australian National Library popping up in my search results as well, and I also look books up in the British Library catalogue as well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I most strongly object to prohibiting Google Books links. In fact, they are very useful (with various limitations, but still), and their use should be encouraged. Frankly, I think the use of links (page links in particular) should be required, but I don't think that suggestion is going to fly well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think it would be most bizarre to prohibit Google Books links. -- Alarics (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Snippet Views - Using the Result Line of the search , instead of the Snippet View itself
- Example: [2] gives a Snippet View which only shows partial information... however, the Result Line gives 1 page matching "Under US pressure, Israel withdrew its own forces from Lebanon by October 1978. But because it turned the border zone over to right-wing Lebanese Christian auxiliary force (later named the South Lebanon Army or SLA), Israel was seem as remaining in effective control. As a result, UNIFlL's mandate under UNSC Resolution 425 was repeatedly renewed and extended. Israel's area of occupation greatly expanded following its second invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, which pushed all the way to Beirut." in this book. .. The Result Line above the Snippet View verifies the existence of the information, which is far more informative than sources which, even though they might exist in hard copy, show readers nothing at all without laying their hands on a hard copy. e.g.,
- [3] gives - Sommerville, Donald (2008). The Complete Illustrated History of World War Two: An Authoritative Account of the Deadliest Conflict in Human History with Analysis of Decisive Encounters and Landmark Engagements. Lorenz Books. p. 5. ISBN 0754818985 ... they must source a hard copy
- OR
- [4] gives - Biger, 2005, p. 173 - and in the bibliography we get - Biger, Gideon (1989), Geographical and other arguments in delimitation in the boundaries of British Palestine, in "International Boundaries and Boundary Conflict Resolution", IBRU Conference, ISBN 1855600005, pp. 41–61. ... Biger, Gideon (1995), The encyclopedia of international boundaries, New York: Facts on File. ... Biger, Gideon (2005), The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947. London: Routledge. ISBN 0714656542 .. Again they must source a hard copy ... talknic (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Snippet view usually only provides a subset of the text as searchable anyway, differing by area, so this'll be broken for non US users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - A) I'm not referring to the Snippet View. I'm referring to the line for the Snippet View search, giving the text of the search result, i.e., 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book.
- B)In the instance I gave, readers clicking on the link are taken to books.google.com.au
- I'm in Australia at the moment and I get the same result using books.google.com .. [5]. Readers clicking on that link will get the result from books.google.com
- Can you show me an example of what you mean ....thx ... talknic (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Snippet view is really only useful to provide hints to find the information somewhere else, or to corroborate for yourself personally (not Wikipedia readers) what is said elsewhere. More than that and you risk errors due to not being able to see the surrounding text that provides context. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth - In the example, (and it is only an example) I ended up with the surrounding text that provided the context, exceeding the Snippet View. How I arrived at the end result is irrelevant to the fact that the whole citation is verified as being in this book ... talknic (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realise that. But the wider context is still missing. You really need to be able to see the whole page and leaf around in the book to make sure the context is being interpreted right. Not to mention that you are not really doing proper citation or verification. Search results are a starting point, not the end point. And linking to search results is not guaranteed to be stable. If you can't cite to another source, and absolute verification is needed, then you have no real option but to find someone with a copy of the source, or get a copy yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth - "the wider context is still missing" depends on what one is citing. For example in the example[6], I might be referencing the date of the 'second invasion of Lebanon' or whether Israel reached Beirut or was the border zone turned over to over to the SLA. In which case, any of those three are there, in context, within the text saying 1 page matching "yadda yadda" in this book.
- "You really need to be able to see the whole page and leaf around in the book" Care to point that out in WP:VERIFY thx
- "Search results are a starting point, not the end point. " Care to point that out in WP:VERIFY thx .. A verifiable citation is the end point, regardless of how one finds it.
- "absolute verification is needed" If the search facility, showing only one book, says 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book, what do you think it means? I've given other references above that tell the reader NOTHING unless they get a hard copy. Are they verified? In fact they aren't, until someone gets a hard copy. Wikipedia is littered with such sources, none of which show any evidence of actually existing at all until someone gets a hard copy. The search text (accompanying the Snippet View) confirms it is in the book, despite how much the Snippet View itself shows ... talknic (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody should be writing based on deep text searching at all. The minimum structural unit of context, often a chapter or extended subsection, should be the minimal unit to consult when forming an opinion to write. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is easy to forget that when fact-checking (something I do a lot of on and off Wikipedia). Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - 1) "Nobody should be writing based on deep text searching at all" Cite WP:policy thx ... and 2); why not deep text search, especially if B) "The minimum structural unit of context, often a chapter or extended subsection, should be the minimal unit to consult when forming an opinion to write" Cite WP:policy thx ... and 3); without looking at the Snippet View itself, the 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book is proof of the existence of a citation. It is not what one writes in an Article ... talknic (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - "Snippet view usually only provides a subset of the text as searchable anyway, differing by area, so this'll be broken for non US users" Again, pls show an example of what you mean .. thx ... talknic (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - Here's a few examples of 'unbroken' links referencing different countries Google Search(.in/) ... (.fr/) ... (.ae/) ... (.jo/) ... (.tw/) ... they all do the same thing ... talknic (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Talknic, it isn't the domain that makes a difference, it's your geolocation. Google determines what material is available to you based on the copyright laws of your country (among other things), so a book that is available in snippet view to you might not be available at all to me, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria - Google only does this in snippet view or on all books? If on all books, it would seem rather useless citing any book as it might only be available to readers in the country of the editor who cites the book.
- Furthermore what evidence can you present to show "Google determines what material is available to you based on the copyright laws of your country" ... Thx ... talknic (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- All books for non-US readers. Evidence: [7] [8] [9] [10]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria - Thx. It applies to ALL books, so please read my preceding post "If on all books, it would seem rather useless citing any book as it might only be available to readers in the country of the editor who cites the book." ... talknic (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree; I was simply providing the evidence you requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria - Thx. It applies to ALL books, so please read my preceding post "If on all books, it would seem rather useless citing any book as it might only be available to readers in the country of the editor who cites the book." ... talknic (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- All books for non-US readers. Evidence: [7] [8] [9] [10]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Talknic, it isn't the domain that makes a difference, it's your geolocation. Google determines what material is available to you based on the copyright laws of your country (among other things), so a book that is available in snippet view to you might not be available at all to me, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - 1) "Nobody should be writing based on deep text searching at all" Cite WP:policy thx ... and 2); why not deep text search, especially if B) "The minimum structural unit of context, often a chapter or extended subsection, should be the minimal unit to consult when forming an opinion to write" Cite WP:policy thx ... and 3); without looking at the Snippet View itself, the 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book is proof of the existence of a citation. It is not what one writes in an Article ... talknic (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is easy to forget that when fact-checking (something I do a lot of on and off Wikipedia). Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realise that. But the wider context is still missing. You really need to be able to see the whole page and leaf around in the book to make sure the context is being interpreted right. Not to mention that you are not really doing proper citation or verification. Search results are a starting point, not the end point. And linking to search results is not guaranteed to be stable. If you can't cite to another source, and absolute verification is needed, then you have no real option but to find someone with a copy of the source, or get a copy yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth - In the example, (and it is only an example) I ended up with the surrounding text that provided the context, exceeding the Snippet View. How I arrived at the end result is irrelevant to the fact that the whole citation is verified as being in this book ... talknic (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Harvard Citation style would read the cite as "Biger 2005, p. 173." FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
- Bzuk - Unless the reader finds a hard copy, it proves exactly nothing and leaves the reader less informed than '1 page matching' "search text" 'in this book' ... talknic (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- It would seem simplest to link to the "summary page" for the book, and let readers/other editors do any searches for themselves. By all means give a short quote from the search results (making clear that you got the quote from the Google search results, not from a hardcopy or preview of the book itself), as that will help make it clear what you are referencing, but linking to search results themselves is just messy. Mainly because, as others have pointed out, the results of searches are personalised. Provide the data to allow people to do the search themselves, and leave it at that, is the best advice I can come up with right now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- talknic, regarding deep text searching. Here is the wrong way: go to google books, load one of Benjamin Valentino's books on genocide, deep text search communist mass-killing, cite that page for the existence of communist mass-killing. The problem here is that Valentino uses that text string as a descriptive phrase, not as a sociological term. The right way: load the Valentino text, deep text search communist mass-killing, read the entire chapter in which it appears, realise that Valentino is using the string of text descriptively, and that this isn't a sociological category. In the first case, of pure deep text searching then citation, the editor did not actually read what they were citing. We have to read what we cite, which means at a minimum reading the lowest level coherent unit of a text. In the second case, the editor reads the text they're citing and gets it right. That's why we don't cite off deep text searching alone: we might deep text search to find what we need to read, but after searching, we read that portion of the text (and any other portions necessary for a correct citation, like terms and definitions, or occasionally methodology or theory sections). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - Show WP:policy for your notions on deep text search/ing ... thx.
- The only thing I can find on "deep text search" and/or "deep text searching" are your notions
- WP:VERIFY criteria is to show a cited passage exists. How one finds a source is completely irrelevant ... talknic (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:V itself, "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), … Base articles on … sources …. Source material must have been published …. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." Please note the phrase, "the work itself." If you haven't consulted the work they you can't source the text to the work. The work is not a snippet, or a deep text search. Would you like to indicate the articles on which you have used deep text searching without actually reading the material you cite, so I can examine them in detail? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - The 'quote/citation' must be in the 'work' .. WP:VERIFY does not require 'quoting/citing' the whole 'work', only what one 'cites/quotes' in the article from the 'work' is required to be in the 'work'.
- "If you haven't consulted the work " you wouldn't know what to cite/quote from the 'work' or what page or the title or the author or the year or publisher or the surrounding text.
- "Would you like to indicate the articles on which you have used deep text searching without actually reading the material you cite, so I can examine them in detail?" I have never used your mythical 'deep text searching' method, whatever it is, to either find or quote/cite in an article
- AGAIN: Policies please and some evidence of this Google copyright filtering ... thx ... talknic (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:V itself, "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), … Base articles on … sources …. Source material must have been published …. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." Please note the phrase, "the work itself." If you haven't consulted the work they you can't source the text to the work. The work is not a snippet, or a deep text search. Would you like to indicate the articles on which you have used deep text searching without actually reading the material you cite, so I can examine them in detail? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I second Fifelfoo's request for specific examples from articles. Especially on topics like the ones used in the examples starting this section. That, combined with the tendency of Talknic not to accept anything being said here unless it is part of Wikipedia policy, sets off lots of red flags for me. Practice and debate about sourcing should drive policy, not the other way around. Or to put that another way: just because something is not mentioned in Wikipedia policy doesn't mean it isn't valid. Wikipedia policy can't be an exhaustive description of every possibility, and when debating things like this, you need to be able to interpret the spirit (intent) of the policy, not the letter (literal interpretation of what it says). Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth - "I second Fifelfoo's request for specific examples from articles. Especially on topics like the ones used in the examples" ... Is there something peculiar to Israel about using the search facility dialogue 1 page matching " yadda yadda " in this book.? It works the same for items not specifically involving Israel
- "the tendency of Talknic not to accept anything being said here unless it is part of Wikipedia policy," = you can't cite any policies. Odd that policy reigns supreme when the shoe is on the other foot
- "Practice and debate about sourcing should drive policy, not the other way around." Odd...this IS debate, Perhaps you missed that small fact ... talknic (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to cite single pages. But you should be reading more than a single page in a work before citing it. If you are citing based on deep text searching all works for a phrase you wish to support, then you are pushing a POV associated with demonstrating that phrase, rather than reflecting in an encyclopaedic way on the appropriate synthesis of highest quality sources. Deep text searching to provide specific citations would run afoul of WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS for two cases. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - "But you should be reading more than a single page in a work before citing it. " WP:policy? Thx
- "If you are citing based on deep text searching..." What is it? You are the ONLY person in Wikipedia using the phrase. Where is the WP:Policy. Thx
- "...for a phrase you wish to support, then you are pushing a POV associated with demonstrating that phrase" the same could be said for ANY citation from ANY Reliable (or unreliable) Source.
- "Deep text searching to provide specific citations would run afoul of WP:WEIGHT" Odd, WP:WEIGHT says NO THING about your "deep text searching". Nor does WP:WEIGHT say how one can or cannot find Secondary Sourced information
- "... and WP:MEDRS.." says NO THING about your "deep text searching" . NIL ZIP NADA ZILCH!!! ... talknic (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to keep up IDHT behaviour, expect to be treated as if you are disrupting the encyclopaedic project. WEIGHT says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. … Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." If you cannot see the relevance of POV pushing by searching google books for "A phrase that I like" and then citing the result, then you need to develop your citation skills. Similarly, MEDRS says,
- Feel free to cite single pages. But you should be reading more than a single page in a work before citing it. If you are citing based on deep text searching all works for a phrase you wish to support, then you are pushing a POV associated with demonstrating that phrase, rather than reflecting in an encyclopaedic way on the appropriate synthesis of highest quality sources. Deep text searching to provide specific citations would run afoul of WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS for two cases. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I second Fifelfoo's request for specific examples from articles. Especially on topics like the ones used in the examples starting this section. That, combined with the tendency of Talknic not to accept anything being said here unless it is part of Wikipedia policy, sets off lots of red flags for me. Practice and debate about sourcing should drive policy, not the other way around. Or to put that another way: just because something is not mentioned in Wikipedia policy doesn't mean it isn't valid. Wikipedia policy can't be an exhaustive description of every possibility, and when debating things like this, you need to be able to interpret the spirit (intent) of the policy, not the letter (literal interpretation of what it says). Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.
- I suggest that you reflect upon how aiming to force sources to say what an editor wants them to say is fundamentally unencyclopaedic practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - I suggest you stick to the subject. Nothing you wrote is relevant to whether or not the Search facility text saying 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book is a viable way of showing a statement/citation/quote exists. Such a statement/citation/quote could reflect either or even both sides of an argument
- As for IDHT behaviour, it is you who have made unproven assertions A) about "deep text searching", B) towards obligations to read the whole page before citing anything, C) an unsupported notion about Google filtering depending on countries' copyright laws and; D) now you're completely off topic citing WP:WEIGHT & WP:MEDRS on issues that have NOTHING to do with the actual discussion ... talknic (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest that you reflect upon how aiming to force sources to say what an editor wants them to say is fundamentally unencyclopaedic practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with relying on any single, brief, de-contextualized bit of material is that you may miss important bits. Anyone with any brains will recognize the problem of the selective quotation: "The US Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law'", right? How about "The Bible says 'There is no God'"? These phrases do appear in these documents, but the context completely changes them: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'." If you only read the snippet view, you may seriously misrepresent the source.
- Even if you don't misrepresent the source as saying "X" when it actually says "not X", you won't be using the source in the most effective manner, which involves first reading the source, and second figuring out what ideas in it should be included in Wikipedia. At best, you'll be doing second-rate work of first figuring out what you want to say, and second seeing whether any reliable-sounding source could be named as support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing - The issue is NOT using the Snippet View at all. Instead using the dialogue provided by the search facility saying 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book, specifically to show the reader that the citation/quote/statement does exist in a WP:RS Source. Many references/sources show the reader absolutely NOTHING AT ALL unless they lay hands on a hard copy
- If an editor has a hard copy to hand and; has read the whole book and; has formulated a valid WP:NPOV edit citing that book and; there are only Snippet Views available on line, one can show readers that the citation does exist by using the expanded dialogue provided by the search facility, rather than a truncated Snippet View ... talknic (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to me that users Carcharoth and WhatamIdoing share my deep concerns about using deep text searching and failure to read sources prior to using them. I believe that I'm being trolled and baited by a user whose behaviour is IDHT. As such I do not believe that I need to interact with that user any more in this discussion, as their behaviour is disruptive due to IDHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fifelfoo - Odd.. they haven't mentioned "deep text searching". WhatamIdoing appears not to have understood the issue re using only the search facility dialogue and NOT the Snippet View
- "..and failure to read sources prior to using them" Do you honestly believe one can make up a dialogue of about seventy words and have it show up in a book word perfect, then use it as a reference? Furthermore, AFAIK nothing from this discussion has been used in an article except the sources which tell the reader NOTHING unless they find a hard copy, which is completely un-informative to an online reader.
- "I believe that I'm being trolled and baited by a user whose behaviour is IDHT" The record shows you're the editor who has failed to support your assertions ... talknic (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Odd, I thought I began with the words "The biggest problem with relying on any single, brief, de-contextualized bit of material..."—any, as in any, not just the particular brief, de-contextualized bits of material seen in snippet view.
- Oh, wait, I did begin with those words. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote? Or perhaps Fifelfoo is right, and you're having trouble believing that my comment means what I said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to me that users Carcharoth and WhatamIdoing share my deep concerns about using deep text searching and failure to read sources prior to using them. I believe that I'm being trolled and baited by a user whose behaviour is IDHT. As such I do not believe that I need to interact with that user any more in this discussion, as their behaviour is disruptive due to IDHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A thought from the gallery: why I use snippet views and link to them. First, unlike English, Google is not bothering with seeking copyright agreement in other languages, so they make those book snippeted much more often than not (for example, over 99% of Polish books post-1923 are snippet or no preview). Occasionally, even tiny snippets may be useful, for example, if one wants to show a rare spelling or a simple fact ("X was born in 19XX in Y"). Still, snippet views are useful for certain facts, and with some skills and understanding of a google system, it is possible to improve a snippet into a full page view (basically, be able to get the text of an entire page). Now, I can see why we may want to ask for quotes (as searching for them can lead to verification, whereas snippet link is a dead link). That said, please note that it is going above and beyond our usual practices; we accept regular book references without a quote. Of course, snippet or no, each book reference should have a page reference, which I believe we do require. If this is provided, a link to a snippet or even a no preview book is fine, if not very informative. I really do not see what this fuss is about... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would not want to encourage external links to any commercial website that was "not very informative". IMO this includes both snippet and no preview links to Google Books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing - The examples I gave in the beginning [11] ... [12] give the readers no indication whatsoever that a citation/quote/statement exists unless they lay hands on a hard copy. They're not informative at all. In your opinion are they OK? Yes? No?
- However, the dialogue (not the Snippet View) provided by the search facility saying 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book is informative, can be bigger than the Snippet View, can provide context depending on the point and shows readers that the citation/quote/statement exists ... talknic (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Look, fundamentally you are still missing the main point here, which is that both 'snippet' views and 'search dialogue' results are sloppy approaches to sourcing articles, a 'first attempt' which always needs to be followed up and consolidated. When you make an edit and put your name to some text you have added to Wikipedia, you are essentially saying to our readers "I have a copy of this source and have read the article, or this page, or the chapter or the whole book, and based on that, I am saying this about the topic covered by this article". However, if in fact, you are saying "I Googled some phrase and found this result in this book and am putting it here as a source for this statement in this article", that is something completely different. And no, please don't ask for a quote from policy. This is standard practice in source-based writing, actually having access to the sources you are citing. If you went to a publisher with a book you had written, and the editor asked you what the basis was for a statement you had made in that book, and you replied "I found it in a Google Books snippet", you would be laughed out of the building in an instant. If you want to write to the highest standards on Wikipedia, you need to have access to the sources you are using, even if that means going to a library, buying an expensive book, or asking someone in another country to go to a library. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth -- "I found it in a Google Books snippet" Uh? Fundamentally you are missing the point entirely, because I haven't mentioned 'finding' anything in a Google Books snippet. "If you went to a publisher " Uh? We're talking about proof of existence in Wikipedia, an ONLINE encyclopedia.
- The issue is: 'proof of existence' of a passage in a book, whether found by reading a hard copy or by seeing it cited elsewhere or by a Book Search. The issue is NOT how it is found.
- One could leave the reader ignorant until they go lay their hands on a hard copy a la: [13] and [14] neither of which tell the reader anything what-so-ever unless the reader lays eyes on a hard copy. Neither prove the existence of the passages they cite unless the reader lays eyes on a hard copy. This is considered OK. Yes?
- An editor could treat any example, which does exist in a book, does have an ISBN, known author, Publisher, page number, is WP:RS, like the prior two examples. Make the reader go get hard copy and it would be OK. Yes?
- However, wishing to take advantage of the INTERNET, one ought surely be allowed to instantly prove the passage exists by using the Search Facility results text i.e., 1 page matching "whatever yadda yadda whatever" in this book (NOT the Snippet View) ... talknic (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unless it's something very simple like a birth date in a dictionary of biography, it probably isn't a good idea to give source URLs like [15], because they may lead to the unwanted impression that this is a valid way of researching sources. It's better to just give the ISBN. It's possible to have ISBNs go to the corresponding Google Books entry when clicked upon via preferences, and readers or other editors can verify the quote there. --JN466 18:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jayen466 -- It is NOT about researching. It is about showing that a source does exist AFTER the research has been done, from for example, a hard copy
- Furthermore if I wanted to show only how far Israel's second invasion of Lebanon went in June 1982. The text (not the Snippet View) shows it to have been "all the way to Beirut". It is completely in context, not misleading and the citation is indeed shown to be in the book [16] even though the Snippet View itself doesn't show that much
- "It's better to just give the ISBN" [17] has an ISBN. After going to the ISBN page[18], the reader then has to go further to a copy of the book [19] only to find the citation is actually part of the books own publicity spiel ::::::[20] has an ISBN number. In order to find the passage referred to, the reader has to first go to the ISBN number[21], then go to the book [22] only to find page 173 isn't on line
- In both instances, the reader has had to visit three pages and are not much better off than where they began ... talknic (talk)
- Unless it's something very simple like a birth date in a dictionary of biography, it probably isn't a good idea to give source URLs like [15], because they may lead to the unwanted impression that this is a valid way of researching sources. It's better to just give the ISBN. It's possible to have ISBNs go to the corresponding Google Books entry when clicked upon via preferences, and readers or other editors can verify the quote there. --JN466 18:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Look, fundamentally you are still missing the main point here, which is that both 'snippet' views and 'search dialogue' results are sloppy approaches to sourcing articles, a 'first attempt' which always needs to be followed up and consolidated. When you make an edit and put your name to some text you have added to Wikipedia, you are essentially saying to our readers "I have a copy of this source and have read the article, or this page, or the chapter or the whole book, and based on that, I am saying this about the topic covered by this article". However, if in fact, you are saying "I Googled some phrase and found this result in this book and am putting it here as a source for this statement in this article", that is something completely different. And no, please don't ask for a quote from policy. This is standard practice in source-based writing, actually having access to the sources you are citing. If you went to a publisher with a book you had written, and the editor asked you what the basis was for a statement you had made in that book, and you replied "I found it in a Google Books snippet", you would be laughed out of the building in an instant. If you want to write to the highest standards on Wikipedia, you need to have access to the sources you are using, even if that means going to a library, buying an expensive book, or asking someone in another country to go to a library. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I share the concerns expressed by several editors here about the approach to source research. Now, I know that by using iterative searches it is often possible to establish the text for an entire book page; by changing the search string, each time you get a few more words added at the end, etc. However, unless it concerns a very simple case, like sourcing the birth date and educational history of a person in a reputable dictionary of biography, this sort of thing can go really badly wrong. I once cited something for fact, having only seen snippets, which another editor advised me (the same day, luckily) was actually meant as dry humour. That was due to my not having seen the context, not having understood that what I was citing was a book of humorous essays. I was deeply embarrassed. It was a very salutary experience! I remember another passage about Scientology I found once which asserted various things as fact that I had not been able to verify elsewhere, but something gave me pause for thought; and upon further digging and investigation, I realised that the passage I'd found was part of a four-page statement to Congress made by a Scientology celebrity. Even if I had then chosen to use the material, it would have affected the correct way of presenting it in the article (i.e. with attribution and the context identified). So I agree with Fifelfoo and others above that you need at least to have access to a chapter to be sure you are not falling prey to confirmation bias, that you are not being misled by the words you have found, and that you in turn don't end up misleading readers and other editors. Online libraries like Questia can help with doing more in-depth follow-up research and are cheaper than buying a bunch of books. Sometimes you can get lucky with a combination of Google Books preview and Amazon, which has Look Inside enabled for many books. But it can't be emphasised enough that an isolated Google Books snippet can really be worse than worthless, introducing errors that are very hard to spot and remove, because of the superficial appearance that the statement is verifiable. It's not a research method anyone should use. If in doubt, buy the book. --JN466 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jayen466 - It has nothing what so ever to do with source research. It is about showing on line readers that a citation exists, without them having to lay their eyes on a hard copy.
- "by changing the search string, each time you get a few more words added at the end" Er no. By reading a hard copy for example, you can type, in "quotations", an already known paragraph from that hard copy into a Book search engine, along with the title of the book.
- If it comes up with only a Snippet View or even a preview or even a whole free book, one could cite it like this instance [23] and/or this instance [24], a method which is already acceptable according to WP:policy ... Alas, it gives the reader no indication whatsoever that a citation/quote/statement actually exists unless they lay their eyes on a hard copy.
- OR
- One could further inform the reader immediately, being online, that a passage does indeed exist even if there is only a Snippet View, not by using the Snippet View, but by using the resulting message 1 page matching "whatever yadda - whole paragraph in quotes - yadda whatever" in this book. It shows the existence of the citation in that book, WITHOUT looking at the Snippet View and WITHOUT them having to lay their eyes on a hard copy.
- "I was deeply embarrassed." - Yes well you might be. Alas, it has nothing to do with this discussion, where the research has already been done with for example, a hard copy and the purpose is only to show a passage or that a whole paragraph does exist for online readers (the only kind on Wikipedia)
- "I agree with Fifelfoo and others above that you need at least to have access to a chapter " - A)Under what WP:policy? B) Please read what the discussion is about. Proving the existence of a known passage in a source, not finding a passage using Snippet View.
- " If in doubt, buy the book." - You haven't read the discussion before chipping in? The two examples [25] and [26] are acceptable. Yet they tell the reader LESS than the Search Engine facility which gives the message 1 page matching "whatever yadda - whole paragraph in quotes - yadda whatever" in this book
- "an isolated Google Books snippet can really be worse than worthless" 1 page matching "whole paragraph in quotes" in this book is NOT the snippet. It has already been found for example, in a hard copy and the notion is to prove it does indeed exist ... talknic (talk)
- OK, I think I'm understanding what you are saying. You are trying to pre-empt objections to a statement by providing a direct search-quote link (i.e. a link that searches directly for a quote). My answer there is that you simply don't need to do this. You only need to go that far when you think something is likely to be challenged. In most cases, readers and editors will accept that editors have truthfully represented the sources used. If this turns out not to be the case, then editors that misrepresent sources should be questioned about that and sanctioned if it is a deliberate deception. If you think something is likely to be challenged, include a quote with the citation. The combination of the quote and the citation means any future reader or editor will be able to find and verify the quote using the same method you did. You can provide that link for them as a courtesy (effectively hand-holding them through the searching process), but it is not necessary. All you have to do is provide sufficient citation information to enable someone to verify the statement. You don't have to provide the most convenient and quickest method of verification. And in any case, genuine verification still involves more than checking that the quote is correct. A proper verification process involves obtaining access to the entire page or chapter of the book in its proper context. Just as sourcing requires access to the context, so verification also requires that access. There are no short-cuts, I'm afraid. Links of the sort you are proposing help verify that a quote is correct, but still don't provide the context needed to judge whether the quote is being used correctly or not. Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth -- Indeed, one does not have to provide the most convenient and quickest method of verification. But by using the 'Result Line text', one can! Both verifying existence and saving the reader finding a hard copy. "A proper verification process involves obtaining access to the entire page or chapter of the book in its proper context " Please show WP:Policy
- "still don't provide the context needed to judge whether the quote is being used correctly or not" I've already give instances where it CAN be used to provide context and;
- [27] shows something which is only from the preface page, nothing to support it at all, and:
- [28] goes to a page that is un-available on line. NEITHER complies with your own criteria ... talknic (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Talknic, you ask, "A)Under what WP:policy [is it necessary to at least have access to a chapter]?" I am not aware that this is presently mentioned in any policy. But do you disagree with it? --JN466 11:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jayen466 - A) Quite, there is no WP:policy B) Do I disagree? Yes. All one needs to have access to in order to make a valid edit to an article, is enough information from a reliable verifiable source, to put a point in context ... talknic (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- And here we come to the nub of the matter. It is not possible to generalise how much of a source's context you need to see to put the source in context. It can range from very little (for a birth date or year) to a lot (for a nuanced argument spread over several pages), to an entire book (if anyone is foolish enough to try and cite something based on a summary of an entire book). What this means is that the editor adding the original material, and later editors and readers, all need to judge for themselves how much context they need to see in order to fully verify the material added, with this verification being carried out using the source provided. Most of the time, the original editor won't see the need to provide detailed context, and will provide a reference, and will trust that the reader and other editors will, on looking up that reference, understand or read the necessary context. It is only when an addition and its source are questioned that more detail is needed. I think it is at this point that talknic is suggesting to add more detail (sometimes pre-emptively) by using the 'results dialogue' (which has talknic says can be adjusted to provide more detail than a snippet view provides). This may be useful at times, but I think this is a technique best left for article talk pages, where editors can discuss in more detail how best to present the matter under discussion. In most cases, it will be simpler to provide a quote and citation and trust the reader and other editors to realise that they need to look up the full source to get any needed context. This happens all the time on Wikipedia when people assume good faith about offline sources. In summary, talknic's proposed method of getting round the limitations of snippet view has some use, but more for talk pages than actual use in references in articles. Trying to lead readers by the hand to every last quote and text used in sources is ultimately counter-productive. You only need to do this when a source is challenged, and sometimes not even then (if the challenge is frivolous). Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jayen466 - A) Quite, there is no WP:policy B) Do I disagree? Yes. All one needs to have access to in order to make a valid edit to an article, is enough information from a reliable verifiable source, to put a point in context ... talknic (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'm understanding what you are saying. You are trying to pre-empt objections to a statement by providing a direct search-quote link (i.e. a link that searches directly for a quote). My answer there is that you simply don't need to do this. You only need to go that far when you think something is likely to be challenged. In most cases, readers and editors will accept that editors have truthfully represented the sources used. If this turns out not to be the case, then editors that misrepresent sources should be questioned about that and sanctioned if it is a deliberate deception. If you think something is likely to be challenged, include a quote with the citation. The combination of the quote and the citation means any future reader or editor will be able to find and verify the quote using the same method you did. You can provide that link for them as a courtesy (effectively hand-holding them through the searching process), but it is not necessary. All you have to do is provide sufficient citation information to enable someone to verify the statement. You don't have to provide the most convenient and quickest method of verification. And in any case, genuine verification still involves more than checking that the quote is correct. A proper verification process involves obtaining access to the entire page or chapter of the book in its proper context. Just as sourcing requires access to the context, so verification also requires that access. There are no short-cuts, I'm afraid. Links of the sort you are proposing help verify that a quote is correct, but still don't provide the context needed to judge whether the quote is being used correctly or not. Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth - "It is not possible to generalise how much of a source's context you need to see to put the source in context. " Yes, as I've been saying. BTW this is yours is it not? ... "A proper verification process involves obtaining access to the entire page or chapter of the book in its proper context. You've now turned 180 degrees. "(if anyone is foolish enough to try and cite something based on a summary of an entire book)" Again, as I've said and; again, this is yours ... "It would seem simplest to link to the "summary page" for the book" another 180! Maintaining good faith becomes harder and harder.
- "..it will be simpler to provide a quote and citation and 'trust' the reader and other editors to realise that they need to look up the full source to get any needed context" A complicated and un-necessary waste of time when, in appropriate instances, one could show them immediately via the 'Result Line Text'.
- "...happens all the time on Wikipedia when people assume good faith about offline sources" Indeed it does. The two examples I've given of seemingly OK sources lead the reader NO-WHERE on-line, even if they did check. In those two instances, 1) [29] where the reference is citing the preface of the book and not actual reasoned information, is hardly valid according to your own criteria of "obtaining access to the entire page or chapter of the book in its proper context" but apparently it's OK? In the 2nd example [30], if the editor had the hard copy, they forgot to cite it. Had they actually cited something, the 'Result Line Text' of the 'Preview' (in this instance) could show readers immediately whether or not a citation actually existed even though page 137 is not available On Line. Instead, readers must source a hard copy.
- "..talknic's proposed method of getting round the limitations of snippet view has some use, but more for talk pages than actual use in references in articles. " A) it's not an attempt to get around anything, it's an attempt to avail readers of information immediately rather than having them dash off a source a hard copy and; B) why limit it to Talk pages? C) "Trying to lead readers by the hand to every last quote and text used in sources is ultimately counter-productive." Uh? That is NOT what I'm suggesting. Seems you're just making it up, which stretches the notion of good faith even further.
- The 'Result Line Text' is a wasted resource ... talknic (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Instead of claiming that I've switched 180 degrees, a more charitable interpretation would be that on consideration your arguments have started to persuade me that the 'Result Line Text' method has some limited use. But only where an editor has access to the hard copy and wants to demonstrate to others that don't have access to the hard copy that something exists. There are some editors out there who will not believe that another editor has access to the whole source and is cherry-picking their quotes based on deep-text searching and falling prey to confirmation bias. One way to avoid this is to quote from any part of the source when asked. If the 'Result Line Text' can be used to demonstrate that such quotes are accurate, this is good. But I'm still wary of using this method in actual references, if only because there must be a reason that snippet views are limited and this method seems to be circumventing that. In other words, my stance now is that this is a useful tool for discussions between editors, but you don't need to drag readers into that process. It is the job of the editors to produce something that readers can to a certain extent take on trust. You said "attempt to avail readers of information immediately rather than having them dash off a source a hard copy" - I think you are over-estimating what readers do. Most readers just read articles unquestioningly and it is editors who tend to go to the effort of getting a hard copy and arguing over what an article says. If you replace 'readers' with 'editors' in what you say, I would agree with you. As a reader (putting my editing hat to one side for the moment), I'm comforted that I can follow and check citations if needed, but it is impractical to follow and check every citation, so a certain amount of trust is involved. Anyway, here is a practical question that I hope you can answer: do you know the limit of the size of the text you can quote using this 'Result Line Text' method? Using the examples above (I presume you have access to the full sources) can you extend the quotes a few words either side? Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Summary @ 04:31, 30 November 2011: Fifelfoo, Carcharoth, Jayen466, have insisted on focusing on editor/s researching/finding by using Snippet View. However, the issue/suggestion is not 'research or finding', but 'proof of existence' using the 'Result Line text' generated by the Google Book search facility, (not the Snippet View itself).
- In respect to copyright/Google and the country/ISP of the reader: Nikkimaria has shown that copyright laws of various countries can make ANY referenced book with some form of copyright issue, unavailable to some readers depending on their location. It is not only applicable to the text of the 'Result Line' of a 'Snippet View'
- Using a chunky 'Result Line' (more than the 'Snippet View' itself shows) can A) show existence B) could give either POV or both POVs C) Can give more than is required by WP:RS wherein a source can be provided, but in the end, the reader must dash off to view a hard copy to see if a citation/passage/statement/convention/ relating to what an editor writes, does in fact exist and; that the writer has accurately conveyed it's meaning and is not referring to a page such as here A)[31] where the citation is only part of the book's own publicity spiel on the preface page (Page 5) and; here [32] only to find page 173 isn't on line. In both instances they must find a hard copy to be better informed
- Finally: the Result Line text 1 page matching "whole paragraph in quotes" in this book supplied by Google Book Search can be a valuable additional tool showing information beyond what is required by WP:VERIFY. When referenced properly, it can also contain any existing ISBN, Author, Publisher, Year, type of work ... talknic (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Fifelfoo, Carcharoth, and Jayen466. I would also suggest that snippet view cannot show proof of existence of a source, since a little burp of text in isolation by itself cannot serve as a reliable source--the proof is proof of the blurb. We're not required to show proof of existence in any case, but rather to provide a reference, from which a reader can gain enough information to be able to track down the source and read it. I personally believe pointing to snippet view is rather sloppy and suggest that the snippet alone might be the source. Do you see the points we are trying to make? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nuujinn - you agree .. to ignore the actual suggestion, which is: NOT TO USE the Snippet View. "I would also suggest that snippet view cannot show proof of existence of a source" The example I gave does, in the 'Result Line text', which gives more than the 'Snippet View' itself
- "Do you see the points we are trying to make?" Yes, you're attempting to make points by completely missing the point ... talknic (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Fifelfoo, Carcharoth, and Jayen466. I would also suggest that snippet view cannot show proof of existence of a source, since a little burp of text in isolation by itself cannot serve as a reliable source--the proof is proof of the blurb. We're not required to show proof of existence in any case, but rather to provide a reference, from which a reader can gain enough information to be able to track down the source and read it. I personally believe pointing to snippet view is rather sloppy and suggest that the snippet alone might be the source. Do you see the points we are trying to make? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just not convinced, and at this point, there's no hope of you convincing me. There might rarely be limited value to such links, in IAR-worthy cases. It is not, however, anything even remotely like a best practice and IMO should not only be "not-encouraged", but actually discouraged.
- I suspect the underlying problem is that you are uncomfortable with WP:PAYWALL and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. I'm not. I don't care if readers have to click three times, or if they have to go to the library, or if they have to buy a book. I'd far rather that they had to go to this level of trouble than to give them convenient, but de-contextualized and potentially misleading quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced either. Talknic, neither snippet view nor result line text provides sufficient context for one to determine if a source is accurately reflected in the article. I'm not ignoring your suggestion, I just think that pointing to either one is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Using this example you provide I see little different between the snippet and the text result, and no context in which to place the statement, and I think the context is very important. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nuujinn -- The Snippet View is 54 words and has an incomplete sentence. The Result Line Text is 79 words and completes the sentence, and you see little different?
- "and no context in which to place the statement" What article and what statement? I haven't even suggested a statement for the article. It applies to any relevant statement within any article.
- For example: if the statement was to be '[???] pushed all the way to [???] in the second invasion of [???]' It's A) not shown in the Snippet View but; B) it is shown in the Result Line Text and; C) it is in context with the statement ... talknic (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing - the underlying issue is that talknic fishes google books for sentences that support his preconceived POV and tries to use the result in articles (in the very contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, no less). It's not even a matter of a reader not being able to verify the source, talknic himself has not even read the book, a single chapter, a single page, or even a whole paragraph from the book. I tried explaining to him at length why this is unacceptable, but as you can probably see from the above discussion, that's not an easy thing to do. I'm happy to see that a group of uninvolved editors agree with what I told him.
- FYI, this discussion will continue indefinitely as long as someone responds to talknic's posts, so I shall now bid you all farewell and remove this page from my watchlist. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- NMMNG - The issue is in fact: informing readers with a means available online. Rather than them having to source hard copies of every book only showing a Snippet View or books with a Preview but not all pages, by using the Result Line Text accompanying a Snippet View or limited Preview. I've demonstrated, the Result Line Text can show more than the Snippet View itself. Anyone with a hard copy of a source or with knowledge of a text can use it, not as research, but to prove existence where there is only a Snippet View OR in books with a limited Preview. It can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject. False accusations are not the stuff of good faith, you're really stretching it to the max
- False: "the underlying issue is that talknic fishes google books for sentences that support his preconceived POV " The notion of using the Result Line Text can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject. Never the less, it is odd the record shows your main complaint has been the use of Primary Sources. None of which are my preconceived POV. In fact you've even accused me of using Primary Sources when I haven't, which seems to indicate you've not even bothered to look on those occassions.
- False: "..and tries to use the result in articles (in the very contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, no less)." The examples are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, however, the notion of using the Result Line Text can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject.
- False: "It's not even a matter of a reader not being able to verify the source," The topic is verifying a source by using the Result Line Text accompanying a Snippet View. The example I gave verifies the source. It can apply to ANY POV and ANY subject, to prove existence.
- False: "talknic himself has not even read the book, a single chapter, a single page, or even a whole paragraph from the book" Odd I was able to cite far more than the Snippet View in the example and despite what you're trying to infer, one is not required by WP:Policy to have read "the book, a single chapter, a single page" in order to make a valid edit, as long as the edit is within Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.
- Gloating about uninvolved editors agreeing with you is hilarious. You've actually given no rationale here as to why you object. How can they agree with you? Nor could they, unless they knew where your 'explaining to him at length' took place and followed that discussion. In which case they're very likely to be involved?
- The editors you agree with, (without you having given any rationale here what so ever), have focused on 'finding/research' rather than 'proof of existence' after having already 'found/researched', which misses the point entirely
- This is tops the bizarre list "I tried explaining to him at length why this is unacceptable" This is Talk Citing sources. It's where one takes the first steps towards possible changes in policy in respect to citing sources. In this instance to better service readers through an already existing and overlooked mechanism.
- A personal attack based on false accusations doesn't qualify anyone to put their hand up in respect to consensus against at a later date
- Wikipedia is not the place for personal vendettas. It would behoove you to stop. Thx ... talknic (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit request
Include redirect WP:CS in "Shortcuts" box. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- We've already got two shortcuts, and that's normally considered quite enough. (We don't have to advertise every shortcut that works.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Rules relating to the citing of public domain material are not mentioned in this guideline
The issue : A "required" practice related to citing sources is not mentioned in this guideline.
In the guideline Plagiarism, in the Public Domain sources section, there is guidance on what to do if an editor decides to incorporate PD material. The guidance specifically says:
- For sections or whole articles, add an attribution template; if the text taken does not form the entire article, specifically mention the section requiring attribution.
This guidance is perfectly reasonable, however, an editor interested in citing sources correctly should be able to cite sources correctly if they read Citing sources completely and followed it. Yet that guideline makes no reference to public domain material, or how to cite it, not even in the See Also section.
Possible solutions: edit the Citing Sources guideline to include instructions, or more likely, a pointer to the instructions on how to address public domain sources.
At a minimum, there should be a mention in the See Also list. However, I think a better solution is to include a section, even if just a sentence, alerting the editor that there are special considerations when it comes to PD material.
Protocol question: is this issue so non-controversial that we could write up a couple sentences, decide on a location, and just add it, or do changes to guidelines (beyond mere copy-editing) require an RfI? I think the latter is the case.
I've decided to be Bold and add an entry in the See Also section, but I'd like to discuss a more complete solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why should "public domain" material be cited any differently than other material? "Public domain" refers to rights to copy, distribute, sell, etc. If the copyright expires on some article from which I have taken a quote, does the citation need to be change? Not at all, as copyright status is not a "bibliographic detail" that needs to be in the citation in the first place. What one can do with the material – such as ripping a really cool drawing – changes, but not how it is cited. It still has the same author (etc.), and failing to give proper credit is just as plagiaristic for being "public domain" as not. I think the only thing we need to mention regarding the citation of public domain material is that it makes absolutely no difference. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The confusion here is arising from the difference between directly importing public domain text unchanged (with only an attribution template at the bottom to show its origin, or dumping it as a cited quote inside an existing article, i.e. using both the information and the original wording), and a Wikipedia editor using new wording to say the same thing, and citing the addition to a public domain text (i.e. using the PD text as a source for the information, but using different wording). These are two different processes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
RfC: "Short cites" vs. "Shortened footnotes": need uniform terminology
There has been some great work in the past few months improving the examples and clarity of some citation guidelines. Unfortunately, the terminology for a "short cite" has gotten out-of-whack (I think I contributed to the problem), and it may be time pick one term and use it everywhere. The three guidelines that are involved are:
- 1) Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations - "short cites"
- 2) Help:Footnotes#Explanatory_notes - " shortened citations"
- 3) Help:Shortened footnotes - "shortened footnotes"
- 4) ... also: templates and shortcuts such as {{sfn}} and WP:CITESHORT
So, we now have three terms for the same concept. This is confusing to readers, especially novices trying to figure out what to do. (Veterans will read the various terms and quickly grasp that they are all identical). Which term should be used uniformly across all guidelines? Note: this question does not suggest that any change be made to any guideline, other than substituting terminology (and, the recently created Help:Shortened footnotes may get renamed). --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't have a strong feeling one way or another The word "footnote" is broader than "citation" because footnotes include explanatory footnotes (i.e. comments) that are unrelated to citing or verifiability. "Short" is probably better than "shortened" just for reasons of conciseness. So perhaps "short cite" is best? But the other terms are not bad. We just need to pick one and use it. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, not all short citations are footnotes (they may be parenthetical). If we want to refer specifically to citations that are given as footnotes AND given in short form, we probably need to call them "short footnote citations" or something like that (except where the context allows us to shorten the name without reisk of confusion).--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is a good point. But "short footnote citations" is a bit verbose, and it could not be used within Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations, because that guideline addresses both footnotes and parenthetical cites. If the term "short cite" were adopted, it would probably be understood (as it is now described in WP:CITE) to include both footnote cites and parenthetical cites. Readers who saw "short cite" within a footnote guideline would just ignore the parenthetical aspect of it. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Chicago 16 (14.24) refers to a similar method as shortened citations and the actual format as short form. I don't see anything similar in APA 6. The method used on Wikipedia has been shortened footnotes since its inception; the name is well used and is reflected by templates such as {{sfn}}. I would rather stick to shortened footnotes, and define it where needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would "shortened footnotes" work within Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations (e.g. the sentence "This is how short citations look in the edit box...")? Would you suggest that the title of that section be changed to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened footnotes ? --Noleander (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Chicago 16 (14.24) refers to a similar method as shortened citations and the actual format as short form. I don't see anything similar in APA 6. The method used on Wikipedia has been shortened footnotes since its inception; the name is well used and is reflected by templates such as {{sfn}}. I would rather stick to shortened footnotes, and define it where needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is a good point. But "short footnote citations" is a bit verbose, and it could not be used within Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations, because that guideline addresses both footnotes and parenthetical cites. If the term "short cite" were adopted, it would probably be understood (as it is now described in WP:CITE) to include both footnote cites and parenthetical cites. Readers who saw "short cite" within a footnote guideline would just ignore the parenthetical aspect of it. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, not all short citations are footnotes (they may be parenthetical). If we want to refer specifically to citations that are given as footnotes AND given in short form, we probably need to call them "short footnote citations" or something like that (except where the context allows us to shorten the name without reisk of confusion).--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Shortened footnotes" is a meaningless term (even absurd), which we should avoid like the plague. Like I said before (at Help_talk:Footnotes): there is serious confusion of citation and footnote. The latter is one place where citations can be found (as well as in the text), and are not limited to citations. Whether a footnote is "shorter" or "longer" (compared to what?) is meaningless. On the other hand, a "short citation" has a specific meaning: a citation (of a source) with just enough information (typically author and date, but there are other schemes) to locate the "long" (or full) citation in a list of sources. The long citation (reference) contains as much "bibliographic detail" (as the CMOS puts it) to find and identify the source somewhere in the world, the short citation (or cite) has only enough information to find (or link to) the full citation within the article. Granted, we have past "historical" usage otherwise, but we should amend future usage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with J. Johnson. "Short cite" is a better term. And I also agree that the terms "references", "footnotes" and "citations" are often used interchangeably by Wikipedians when they don't really mean the same thing. The guidelines, at least, should attempt to use them consistently. (I was the one who named
{{shortened footnote template}}
"{{sfn}}
". At the time, this was the only term used in Wikipedia for this format.) There may be as many as thirty guidelines and other documentation that will need to be changed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with J. Johnson. "Short cite" is a better term. And I also agree that the terms "references", "footnotes" and "citations" are often used interchangeably by Wikipedians when they don't really mean the same thing. The guidelines, at least, should attempt to use them consistently. (I was the one who named
I prefer "shortened cite" over "short cite" because "shortened" is a verb and indicates an action has been taken to remove information, and even implies that the full citation should appear somewhere in the article. "Short", on the other hand, is an adjective that could describe a cite that just happen to be short while providing full bibliographic information. Also, I think there will be occasions to refer specifically to parenthetical citations (which are always shortened, so no need to say so) and shortened footnote citations. An example of needing to refer to shortened footnote citations is with the sfn template, which is only suitable for shortened citations and only when used as a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the verb form is just shorten, while shortened – describing the result – would be the adjective. While I see no effective difference between citation and cite (both considered as nouns), in respect of short or shortened I think we should follow the example of the Chicago MOS in sticking with "short".
- Please note that "short" (in this context) does not mean "relatively few characters", but relatively few fields (or bibliographic elements). Which is most typically only two fields, typically the author's last name and date. It is quite unlikely that full citations ever are short in the sense of length, unless they are simply incomplete.
- The sfn stuff is a challenge, and it is unfortunate that matters got so confused (I sympathize with Charles). But clarifying these concepts and terminology is probably the biggest step we can take towards resolving the infamous difficulties of proper citation.
- ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- JJ: I agree that "short(ened) footnote" can be confusing because many footnotes are explanatory notes, and have nothing to do with citations or shortening. Question: Are you saying that "short cite" may be the best all-around term? And if that term were used in the context of citations within footnotes, it would still be "short cite" - that is, rely on the surrounding text to make it clear that footnotes are involved rather than, say, parenthetical (short) cites? --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "best all-around term"; I have to ask: for what? It should be firmly kept in mind that 1) citations and footnotes are completely independent things, and 2) footnotes are just places where "stuff" can go (just like stuff can go into the article text, or within parentheses in text). "Short cite" (or "short citation") is the best term for a short cite, no more, and without regard to where it occurs. Is that what you meant by "all-around" – regardless of where it is in the text, parentheses in text, or footnotes? If so, then the answer is yes.
- On the otherhand, a "parenthetical cite" is just a citation, sort or full, that has been placed in parentheses, and has absolutely no significance beyond that; we ought to proscribe the use of that term. Similarly, "short" and "full" are significant only for citations, and are meaningless when applied to footnotes. Each term has a proper domain, which if not honored only creates confusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- When I said "best all-around term", I meant: if we had to pick one term to be used in all three guidelines listed at the top of this RfC, what one term would be optimal? Some of the guidelines are focusing on citations, and some are focusing on footnotes. The big question is: when they are discussing "shortened foo", can a single word be used for "foo" in all those guidelines? --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
I'd put this on the list of unsolvable problems:
- A footnote is any text at the bottom, associated with any text above. Footnote is also the wikijargon for a citation <ref> tags.
- A shortened citation (both "short" and "cite" are grammatically incorrect) could be a shortened footnote (using the <ref> tag definition of the term "footnote"), but it might also be a shortened-non-<ref>-tag-using citation, in which case it is not a shortened footnote.
Because we use footnote to mean "citation using <ref> tags", we cannot use shortened footnote when we refer to any and all means of shortened citations. And when we're specifically and exclusively referring to shortened <ref>-tag-using footnotes, we need to be specific, i.e., to refer to shortened footnotes rather than to shortened (any kind of) citations.
As a result, there is no good solution. The best we can do is to remove the grammatically incorrect abbreviations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Au contraire, there is a good solution, a most excellent solution that goes right to the heart of the problem: stop confounding "footnotes" (as created with the unfortunately named <ref> tags) with "citations". This "wikijargon" is exactly the kind of imprecise terminology that needs to be reformed (as Noleander has proposed). As I have said before: "shortened footnote" is a rather meaningless term. Do you not understand the distinction (as applied to citations) between "short" and "full"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I understand the distinction; I've even helped write some of the pages in question. And I agree that there are excellent solutions, my favorite of which is to ban the use of the unadorned word footnote in every single guideline and help page, and to strictly limit is qualified use, primarily to explaining why it is that we're not going to use that word. We could have "explanatory comments", "shortened citations", "full citations", and "ref tags" instead of "footnotes", "shortened footnotes", "footnotes", and "footnotes".
- It's just not a realistic solution: For better or worse (and IMO it's for worse), the community has adopted this confusing terminology, and changing it would require a dedicated effort for the next two years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to be so pessimistic. Right off the bat, it should be easy to pick one of "short" vs. "shortened" ... that is an easy choice, and simple to implement. As for "citations" vs "footnotes", that is more complex, but I think the glass is half full. Over 90% of all footnotes are citations, and over 90% of all citations are footnotes (that is, parenthetical cites are relatively rare across WP). Things get a lot simpler if we realize that this RfC is only addressing the term "shortented footnotes/cites" ... because all cites can get shortened (but not all footnotes can be: explanatory footnotes are not shorten-able). So, it looks like "short cite" is more useful than "short footnote". When the term is used within a Footnote-centric guideline, "short cite" should not be a problem, because "short" would only be used in the context of citation-footnotes, never explanatory-footnotes. I guess I'm starting to lean towards "short cites" as the best term, even in a footnote context. --Noleander (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think this is a hard problem at all, we just need to think clearly. When we mean citations, we must be careful not to write a woolly "footnotes", and vice versa. When we mean specifically citations in footnotes, we must say all of that, unless part of the information is absolutely clear from the context. Personally I prefer "short" to "shortened" (though I don't think it matters very much, it's just... shorter), and I prefer "citation" to "cite" since I'm not sure "cite" is considered to be usable as a noun in good English.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- So your suggestion is "short citation", occasionally supplemented with the word "footnote" when needed to help the reader. What about the title of the recently created Help guide Help:Shortened footnotes ... should that be renamed to Help:Short citations? or something else? or left alone? --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to be restricted to the case where short citations are placed in footnotes, so I guess it should be something that includes all those three words ("short", "citation", "footnote"). Help:Short citations as footnotes? Or else expand the scope of the page to cover parenthetical ones as well.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Short citations" is still grammatically wrong.
- We don't always restrict this terminology to those shortened citations that happen to be placed inside ref tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to be restricted to the case where short citations are placed in footnotes, so I guess it should be something that includes all those three words ("short", "citation", "footnote"). Help:Short citations as footnotes? Or else expand the scope of the page to cover parenthetical ones as well.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- So your suggestion is "short citation", occasionally supplemented with the word "footnote" when needed to help the reader. What about the title of the recently created Help guide Help:Shortened footnotes ... should that be renamed to Help:Short citations? or something else? or left alone? --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Banning unadorned "footnote" is not without appeal. But I think renouncing the combination of "shortened footnote(s)" would be a strong step in the right direction. Help:Shortened footnotes should be renamed. I am inclined to replace it with a brief explanation why the term is nonsensical, giving some cushion to all those editors who are accustomed to it, and trying to wean them off of it.
- Looking a little beyond the specific topic here: I think we should not have separate topics of "citations in [pick one: text, parentheses, footnotes]". Better to explain citations in a way "locationally neutral", merely noting the various locations where they can be placed. Likewise with footnotes: "Here is how you create footnotes. These generally contain citations - explained elsehwere - or other supplementary text." In other words, these separate topics are cross-linked, but not intermingled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the container (ref tags, parentheses, or several uncommon options) matters depends on the purpose of your page. A how-to page needs to deal with the container ("Type the following code:". A what-to-include page ("Usually, people list the author and page number, and sometimes the date") doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep the word as "citation" don't use "cite". As for "short" not being grammatical correct I don't buy that one. For example there is a weapon called a "half pike" or a "short pike" they are called that because they are pikes that have been shortened. The weapon is not usually referred to as "shortened pike", (if was it was, then long ago shortened to "short pike" for ease of expression! ) -- PBS (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite the same situation. I really doubt people usually built a full size pike, then removed the metal from one end, cut the handle in half, and put the metal back on. But we do start with a full citation, remove the parts we don't want for the shortened citation, and add the page number or equivalent information. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not getting how "short citations" is grammatically wrong. There may be something else (what?) wrong with it, but grammatically it's surely impeccable: "adjective + noun = noun phrase" or however Chomsky would have notated it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Both "short" and "shortened" sound fine to my ears, which is the real test in English grammar. "Shortened" is certainly valid, since it emphasizes that the cites could be longer. But "short" is also appropriate, since it indicates that there are two possible formats for the same data: a "long cite" and a "short cite". I don't have a preference for one or the other (although I do note that WP community tends to favor concise wordings) ... we just need to pick one and stick with it. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not getting how "short citations" is grammatically wrong. There may be something else (what?) wrong with it, but grammatically it's surely impeccable: "adjective + noun = noun phrase" or however Chomsky would have notated it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Time for poll?
Should we take a poll? I think I'm seeing some consensus for something like 1-4, below:
- "Citation in a footnote" (Commonly called "references" by Wikipedians)
- "Explanatory footnote"
- "Short citation in a footnote" (2009 name: "Shortened footnote")
- "Short citation in parenthesis" (2009 name: "Parenthetical reference". 2007 name: "Harvard reference")
- ??"Full citation in a list at the bottom of the page" (I.e., the target of a short citation)
- ??"General reference" (Or "General citation"? Or just "Citation"? Also appears at the bottom of the page.)
This is the dramatis personae of the guidelines WP:CITE, WP:FOOTNOTE, and so on. We should choose names for each of these. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, a poll sounds good. I like "short citation". As for the numbered items above, perhaps we could eliminate the items that are not related to short cites/footnotes ... because including additional terms in this RfC ("explanatory footnote", "general reference", etc) may cause confusion and make it difficult to achieve consensus. So maybe the poll question could be:
When referring to a shortened citation or shortened footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding.
- Does that look like a good yes/no poll question? --Noleander (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you want include (what we used to call) "parenthetical references" or not? You include it when you write "in parenthesis". Did you intend to include it in "shortened citation or shortened footnote"? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Charles: This RfC is addressing all uses of the various terms "short[ened] cites/footnotes" in the guidelines. For example, WP:CITESHORT says "Short citations are used in articles which apply parenthetical referencing (see below), but they can also be used as footnote citations, as described here...", so, yes, this RfC is including parenthetical references when that term is used in conjunction with the word "short". However, I don't propose that every usage of "parenthetical reference" be changed at this point in time, because that would be objectionable to many editors, I'm sure. Maybe we could go in two phases: Phase 1: convert all "short[ened] cite/footnote" to "short citation [in foot/parenthesis]"; Phase 2: convert "parenthetical refs" (when not used in conjunction with the word "short") to "short parenthetical cites" (or whatever the community agrees to). --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lets not have a poll, as they are divisive. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right about that. How about this: is there consensus for the following proposal?:
Proposal: When referring to a short[ened] citation or short[ened] footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding.
Rationale: Today, WP guidelines use a variety of terms for "short cite". For example, the shortcut WP:CITESHORT takes the user to a section named "Short citations", which uses terminology like "shortened notes", and has a {{main}} link to Help:Shortened footnotes. Even more terms are used elsewhere. The goal of this proposal is to establish a uniform term to be used throughout the guidelines.- How does that look? --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care for the term short footnote, because it might be an explanatory footnote that happens to be short. How about this:
Proposal: When referring to a parenthetical citation or short[ened] citation footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (by adding "in a footnote", "in parenthesis", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding. "Parenthetical citation" may be used when it is important that only that type of citation is being discussed, and short citation footnotes are being excluded from the discussion.
- The rationale would be the same. I consider the phrase "short citation in parenthesis" to be redundant because parenthetical citations are always shortened, but the redundant phrase could be used where the concept of parenthetical citations is being introduced. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. Some minor tweaks:
Proposal: When referring to a parenthetical citation or short[ened] citation footnote, the standard term will be "short citation". The term can be qualified (e.g. "short footnote citation", "short parenthetical citation", etc) if that will help the reader's understanding. "Parenthetical citation" may be used (in lieu of "short citation" or "short parenthetical citation") if its usage is unambiguous based on the context.
- The purpose of the tweaks is: "Parenthetical citation" is used quite a bit, and we need to give clear guidance on when/where that must be changed to "short parenthetical citation". Also, "short footnote citation" seems better than "short citation in a footnote" --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. Some minor tweaks:
- I don't care for the term short footnote, because it might be an explanatory footnote that happens to be short. How about this:
- Do you want include (what we used to call) "parenthetical references" or not? You include it when you write "in parenthesis". Did you intend to include it in "shortened citation or shortened footnote"? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Terminology: inline citation
Another piece of wiki-jargon that seems to confuse the uninitiated is "inline citation", which in the real world seems to mean (if it means anything) a citation written out in the text, not a footnote. I know this is part of the "verifiability not truth" wiki-religion and so might be hard to change, but does anyone have any suggestions as to a more comprehensible name? (If not, then we should at least make it clear that it's our own term of art.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Chicago (14.14) calls it a 'note reference'. This WP page calls it a 'citation marker'; WP:REFPUNC and Help:Footnotes calls it a 'footnote marker'.
- Chicago (15.7) uses the term 'in-text citation' for the in-text parenthetical reference used in the author-date system.
- ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Kotniski: That's a good question. The term has to indicate that the citation (or at least part of it) is in the prose of the article, not down in the References section. Maybe "embedded citation", or "adjacent citation". PS: I made this "inline citation" section a top-level section, so it is separate from the "short vs shortened" RfC section above. RfCs are confusing enough without introducing other issues. :-) --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a good move. I think the original usage (prior to WP) is "in-line" as in "in text", but it appears that here footnoes are deemed "in-line" by reason of the super-scripted link. This might be another terminology question to rectify, but do we want (or need?) to do so here and now? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen no instances of this terminology confusing people. Can you give a specific example of someone not grasping the concept (as opposed to not knowing how to format it)?
- WP:INTEXT is already being used as wikijargon for something unrelated to citations, so adopting anything along those lines will create even more confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- 'Inline citation' as used here appears to mean the element placed in the text that:
- Footnotes: Contains a link to the citation that supports the preceding content. Formatted as superscripted alphanumeric characters enclosed by brackets with a link to the citation; example: [1]. The element is created by enclosing the citation in
<ref>
tags. The citation may be full or may use a name to invoke a previously defined citation. - Parenthetical: The author-date short citation formatted in parenthesis; example: (Smith, 2011).
- Footnotes: Contains a link to the citation that supports the preceding content. Formatted as superscripted alphanumeric characters enclosed by brackets with a link to the citation; example: [1]. The element is created by enclosing the citation in
- ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- 'Inline citation' as used here appears to mean the element placed in the text that:
In "in the real world" Kotniski no work that only has a bibliography at the end, would ever be described as having citations. We have the term inline citations because until recently some people argued that general references were also citations, therefore we had to distinguish between inline citations (meaning citations "in the real world") and those articles which some argued carried citations because they have general references or heaven help us sections called "external links" (see {{no footnotes}}).
I think it is too soon to drop "inline" (until templates like {{no footnotes}} are up to date and have been for a year or so) and as we have a definition section, I do not see why "inline citation" usage in this guideline should be considered confusing. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
-- PBS (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. In might be also worthwhile noting that WP simply has requirements and problems they don't exist "in the real world" to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it does, but not in relation to citations/references, I don't think. Everything we have, real-world journal articles et al. also have. Presumably they have names for these things, and we should aim as much as possible to use such real-world names in Wikipedia's instructions, to avoid confusion and looking silly. If general references are not considered to be citations in the real world, then we should not call them so either. The sooner we change our inaccurate terminology, the less ingrained it will become, so the less painful the change will be.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. In might be also worthwhile noting that WP simply has requirements and problems they don't exist "in the real world" to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Inline citations also may consist of a description of the source in running text, such as "In 1989 Jones reported that..." with the full details in the reference list. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
In my experience "inline citation" is used to distinguish it from general citation/general reference. Contrary to the latter which ist just added at the bottom of the article the former is directly attached to particular place and content in the article (hence "inline").--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think Kmhkmh is partly right; "inline citation" emphasizes a particular passage in the article is linked to a particular source, rather than the whole article being supported by some general references. Unfortunately the term "general reference" has two meanings within the Wikipedia guidelines: