→Twitter: comment |
m →Twitter: re |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
::Scan the wiki-code for the twitter.com URL. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
::Scan the wiki-code for the twitter.com URL. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I see that tweets can be viewed without having to create an account, which makes be feel somewhat better about using twitter as a source. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::I see that tweets can be viewed without having to create an account, which makes be feel somewhat better about using twitter as a source. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: The consensus is that Twitter can be used as a primary source under some conditions, see [[WP:TWITTER]]. To reference an account, use {{tl|Twitter}}. To reference a specific tweet either use {{tl|cite web}} or cheat a little and use {{tl|Twitter}} with the entire message URL starting with the account name. For example, <code><nowiki>{{Twitter|twilightheroes/statuses/69862762490245120|Twilight Heroes Tweet}}</nowiki></code> results in {{Twitter|twilightheroes/statuses/69862762490245120|Twilight Heroes Tweet}}. I suppose this should be improved by supplying date and accessdate, is that what you are looking for? --[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] ([[User talk:Muhandes|talk]]) 09:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:11, 20 May 2011
Reliability | ||||
|
Wikipedia Help Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Citation problem
The Shakespeare authorship question article uses a source that was published simultaneously in the UK and the US in two very different editions. The page numbers rapidly diverge because the US version has fewer pages and m0re type on the page than the UK version. To help readers find the cited refs, we have configured the ref and cites with the US version page numbers in parentheses. However, in the ref, if both ISBN numbers are included it invalidates them. Is there any way to include two ISBN numbers in one template? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Give the ISBN of the edition which was actually used, and (hopefully) for which the page numbers correspond. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. If both sources are available, you can add both as separate citations with the appropriate page numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but is there some better way to handle the following situation? Particularly due to the controversial nature of the SAQ, there are many footnotes and references. As mentioned above, one important source is given with two sets of page numbers (60 footnotes).
- For example, some wikitext in the article looks like this:
- Example text.<ref>{{Harvnb|Shapiro|2010|pp=238 (209–10).}}</ref>
- which gives a footnote:
- Shapiro 2010, pp. 238 (209–10)
- which links to this reference:
- Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, UK edition: Faber and Faber (US edition: Simon & Schuster), ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6 (978-1-4165-4162-2), retrieved 17 Dec 2010
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help)
- Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, UK edition: Faber and Faber (US edition: Simon & Schuster), ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6 (978-1-4165-4162-2), retrieved 17 Dec 2010
- Both sets of page numbers have been checked by editors, and are provided for easy access to the reader who may have the UK or the US edition. Duplicating 60 footnotes would be a lot of clutter. Is there a better solution than omitting one of the ISBNs? Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then you will have to pick one source. You can't combine two different sources like that and make any sense from it. If you are linking to the US version and using the page numbers from the US version, then use that as the primary. You can add the UK version as Further reading. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That misses the point completely, which is to give retrievable citations for both US and the UK readers. Using only one edition would leave the readers of one entire continent scratching their heads trying to find the cited text,so doing so would require an explanation in the text that would be intrusive and miss most readers, I'm sure. Since ISBNs are not mandatory, I think we'd be better off just leaving them off if there's no technical solution. The Google link is strictly for convenience; the article wasn't written from it.
- Or.....if there's any way we can disable the ISBN link, that would work also. Is there any kind of invisible prefix we could use to do that? Tom Reedy (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you've missed the point. You can only cite one edition as the source. If it's so necessary, post a section on the article's talk page with "For readers of the US edition (US ISBN given) , the following page numbers correspond to the UK edition's pagination." or the reverse. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like an awfully clumsy way to handle it, especially since we have both page numbers for each citation. The content of each edition is exactly the same; one is the UK first edition {Faber & Faber) and the other the US first edition Simon & Schuster), published by two different houses. It seems to me that insisting on strict conformance to technicalities (if indeed only one edition can be cited) at the expense of reader convenience reverses the priorities of the encyclopedia. Perhaps the reference template should be reconfigured to take care of these types of problems. Simultaneous publication has been common for quite some time; it is only in the present day of globalism that it has led to what is essentially a minor problem. Anyway, thanks to everybody for their input. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no rule that says only one edition can be cited. I think the solution described above with the Harvard references is pretty good. If that method were used consistently, I think it would be fine. A bit of explanatory text after the full reference details would help. We shouldn't assume that a standard template alone will handle every possible situation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like an awfully clumsy way to handle it, especially since we have both page numbers for each citation. The content of each edition is exactly the same; one is the UK first edition {Faber & Faber) and the other the US first edition Simon & Schuster), published by two different houses. It seems to me that insisting on strict conformance to technicalities (if indeed only one edition can be cited) at the expense of reader convenience reverses the priorities of the encyclopedia. Perhaps the reference template should be reconfigured to take care of these types of problems. Simultaneous publication has been common for quite some time; it is only in the present day of globalism that it has led to what is essentially a minor problem. Anyway, thanks to everybody for their input. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you've missed the point. You can only cite one edition as the source. If it's so necessary, post a section on the article's talk page with "For readers of the US edition (US ISBN given) , the following page numbers correspond to the UK edition's pagination." or the reverse. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then you will have to pick one source. You can't combine two different sources like that and make any sense from it. If you are linking to the US version and using the page numbers from the US version, then use that as the primary. You can add the UK version as Further reading. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. If both sources are available, you can add both as separate citations with the appropriate page numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
First, you need two {{citation}}
templates, one for each edition from which information has been drawn. Give each one a custom |ref=
; also, add the publisher's location:
{{harvid}}
{{Citation|last=Shapiro|first=James|title=Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?|authorlink=James S. Shapiro|publisher=Faber and Faber |location=London |year=2010|isbn=978-0-571-23576-6 |ref={{harvid|Shapiro|2010|(Faber)}} }}
{{Citation|last=Shapiro|first=James|title=Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?|authorlink=James S. Shapiro|publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York City |year=2010|isbn=978-1-4165-4162-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC|accessdate=17 Dec 2010 |ref={{harvid|Shapiro|2010|(Simon & Schuster)}} }}
These look like this:
- Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, London: Faber and Faber, ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6
- Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, New York City: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 978-1-4165-4162-2, retrieved 17 Dec 2010
Note that only the Simon & Schuster edition has the URL.
Next, construct your footnotes inside the usual <ref></ref>
tags but without using {{harvnb}}
- instead, use a regular wikilink, whose target is the {{harvid}}
:
[[#{{harvid|Shapiro|2010|(Faber)}}|Shapiro 2010 (Faber)]], pp. xxx
[[#{{harvid|Shapiro|2010|(Simon & Schuster)}}|Shapiro 2010 (Simon & Schuster)]], pp. yyy
If both editions carry the cited fact, give two footnotes, thus:
This gives:
- ^ Shapiro 2010 (Faber), pp. 2–3
- ^ Shapiro 2010 (Simon & Schuster), pp. 3–4
and each links to the correct full citation; click them and see. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for all the detail. I'll digest that and try it out in a day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that you don't have to do a handcoded link.
{{harvnb|Shapiro 2010 (Faber)}}
or{{sfn|Shapiro 2010 (Faber)}}
*{{Citation|last=Shapiro|first=James|title=Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?|authorlink=James S. Shapiro|publisher=Faber and Faber |location=London |year=2010|isbn=978-0-571-23576-6 |ref={{harvid|Shapiro 2010 (Faber)}} }}
- Works as well. Try it:
- Shapiro 2010 (Faber)
- Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, London: Faber and Faber, ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6 ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Improvement, or mere change of style?
Oftentimes when I implement citation templates (or suggest to do it) I hear that this would be a "change of citation style, which is prohibited per WP:CITE". But is it? I always considered it an improvement of the existing article, like implementing {{birth date}} (etc.) in infoboxes. Because these templates also produce machine-readable information that "can be used by web browsers and other software tools to extract the details, and display them using some other website or mapping tool, index or search them." So is this a mere change of style, or an improvement? Does WP:CITE apply, or doesn't it? --bender235 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It may or may not be an improvement overall. Gaining machine readability comes at the price of worse view in edit mode, more disconnection from the output (I've seen it happen with myself and other), more work to do the input. Even if it is an overall positive--and it may be there are some other positives like forcing a style and fixing formatting--the intention is not to allow or promote edit wars where someone incorporates a new style over otherwise engaged editors. If the article is lying fallow, if you are in the middle of upgrading it, if you are starting it, then sure use the templates (I do). But don't ram them down over people who don't want them if others are actively editing or if someone thinks they own the article.TCO (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Audiobooks
What's the best way to cite an audiobook? I edited the article on Professor Ellen Schrecker -- the listing of her works didn't include an audiobook she'd done for the Modern Scholars series. For lack of anything better I used the "cite book" template. I think it's a weakness that the resulting listing doesn't indicate that the work is an audiobook, although a reader who notices that the publisher is "Recorded Books, LLC" may figure it out.
According to the publisher's website, there are three different ISBN numbers for the work, depending on the format. I happened to have the one on CD so I used that number in the citation. JamesMLane t c 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does
|format=Compact disc
work for you? Normally that field would be used to indicate that an online source is something other than plain HTML, like a PDF, but I assume that would work just as well for an audio book. Imzadi 1979 → 17:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)- Yes: each significantly-different version will have its own ISBN (since an ISBN is essentially a unique code for ordering the publication, a significant diff includes whether it's CD or tape, so that a bookshop is ordering exactly the right format), and you should give just one of them, the one of the edition which you consulted. I'm not sure whether you should indicate the fact that it's an audiobook in the
|format=
,|edition=
or elsewhere however. BTW the URL that you give for the publisher's website just shows a small amount of text and four buttons, this audio book isn't mentioned on that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)- If you follow my link on Firefox or Opera, you see only the four buttons. If you follow it on MSIE, you see the full information on the book. Evidently the company's web designers think everyone uses MSIE. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hrumph. Yes, I use Firefox. It's quicker and uses less memory than IE. To h*** with Bill Gates and his evil deeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right, have just tried it on IE 7.0.5730.13 and the result is same as Firefox: text "Modern Scholar Great Professors Teaching You!" and four buttons "Library", "Consumer", "School" and "Retail". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's weird. I just tried it again on MSIE 7.0.6001.18000 and saw the full course information displayed. The explanation for this discrepancy is left as an exercise for the reader. JamesMLane t c 07:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right, have just tried it on IE 7.0.5730.13 and the result is same as Firefox: text "Modern Scholar Great Professors Teaching You!" and four buttons "Library", "Consumer", "School" and "Retail". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does this digression have anything at all to do with the discussion in which it is embedded? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find out about the various formats that this audiobook has been produced in, so that I can advise on the original question, but the only URL that has been provided so far doesn't work on any of the four browsers which I have (IE7, Firefox, Chrome, Opera). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hrumph. Yes, I use Firefox. It's quicker and uses less memory than IE. To h*** with Bill Gates and his evil deeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you follow my link on Firefox or Opera, you see only the four buttons. If you follow it on MSIE, you see the full information on the book. Evidently the company's web designers think everyone uses MSIE. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes: each significantly-different version will have its own ISBN (since an ISBN is essentially a unique code for ordering the publication, a significant diff includes whether it's CD or tape, so that a bookshop is ordering exactly the right format), and you should give just one of them, the one of the edition which you consulted. I'm not sure whether you should indicate the fact that it's an audiobook in the
- AFACT, this title is only available on as an audiobook (see [1]). Apparently, the cited ISBN is an edition in the form of seven CDs containing containing 14 university lectures -- a total of 14 hours of audio. (see [2]). You could add a note saying something like "(audiobook)" in the bulleted citation item following the templated citation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Use the
|type=
parameter. For example,|type=CD
would add (CD) after the title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Use the
- That sounds reasonable, and apparently calls for an update of Template:Cite book/doc and Template:Citation/core/doc. {{Citation}} doesn't appear to support such a parameter -- perhaps that should be added there and its docs updated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cite book does document
|type=
, and the meta-parameter in core is|TitleType=
; that is|type=
in book is passed to core as|TitleType=
. Could use an update, as it only notes "thesis or dissertation". Don't know why {{citation}} doesn't support this, but it is easy enough to add. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)- Cite book does document the type= parameter. It says, "If the publication is a thesis or dissertation, the type can be specified here. [...]". Citation/core docs say something similar. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've boldly updated the docs for Cite book and Citation/core to liberalize the usage of the relevant parameters. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:29, March 7, 2011
- Cite book does document
- Thanks for the help! I've added the type = to specify that Schrecker's book is a CD. The discussion of documentation and core goes over my head. My normal procedure is to go to the Wikipedia:Citation templates page and cut and paste the template I want. In this instance, that process gave me no hint that I could insert the "type" line. If you template mavens can do something to make life easier for the next ignoramus who bumbles into this area, it would be great. JamesMLane t c 08:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Citation templates only includes the most commonly used range of parameters available for these templates. Editors should read the full documentation to get full use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Cite web and cite news
I have raised a thread at WP:citing sources about whether cite news should be used instead of cite web for 'online newspapers'. Please post there if you have any comments to make. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion there is now concluded, and the answer is of course "yes". -- Alarics (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Cite google book template
The Template:Cite_google_book template has more than 2 thousand unprocessed usages on Wikipedia. This template seems really popular but is not yet supported by a bot so all these references are sitting around saying "Citation will soon be automatically completed. In the meantime, please check that you have correctly copied the book identifier." Can we do something about this? -Craig Pemberton 07:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need such a template in the first place? Why won't "cite book" do? -- Alarics (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno, but it seems to me that either a servicing bot should be implemented or the template should be modified to remove the notification that the citation will soon be automatically completed. With 2,000 or so transcluding articles out there (your count), it's probably not a good idea to deprecate the template. Note that this tool could be used by a bot to complete the citation, but I don't know how solid the commitment to long-term support of that tool is, and completing the citation by web scraping the HTML produced by the tool without solid arrangements to keep the tool and the bot in sync is pretty fragile. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh man I feel silly. 2000 came from a Google search for "Citation+will+soon+be+automatically+completed.+In+the+meantime,+please+check+that+you+have+correctly+copied+the+book+identifier."&fp=904e06910588146f a string and I could have sworn "Citation+will+soon+be+automatically+completed.+In+the+meantime,+please+check+that+you+have+correctly+copied+the+book+identifier." my search included site:wikipedia.org but apparently the total count is just 24 and the rest is other sites mirroring Wikipedia. Given the significantly lower deployment I feel we should make template page and template notification clearly state that the template doesn't actually work and notify the template author on his talk page. -Craig Pemberton 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. If there is no work in progress to implement the servicing bot, I'd suggest that 24 or so articles which transclude the template should be edited to use {{cite book}} instead (easy to do manually with the tool I mentioned above) and the {{cite google book}} template deleted. I don't really like the idea anyhow -- it seems to me that this invites problems with editors leaving erronious URLs (either inadvertently pointing to the wrong book, containing inadvertent typos, or maliciously incorrect) for the servicing bot to deal with, and the bot not being well equipped to recognize the presence of some errors or to deal well with recognized errors. As a first step, this should probably be raised at Template talk:Cite google book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- That tool is very good and what I ended up using to fix the cites on the page I was working on. It should be easier to find so people find it instead of the defunct template. -Craig Pemberton 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I manually converted a number of Template:Cite google book transclusions into Template:Cite book, intending to complete that work and then WP:PROD Template:Cite google book. I stopped this work partway through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_google_book when I came to Template:Cite doi. It turns out that actually comes from Template:Cite doi family, and I've left a message at template talk:Cite doi family asking for comment here if appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the message so users know what is going on. -Craig Pemberton 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I could write the bot independent of reftag.appspot.com. Copying 6 pieces of information from one page to another is the most tedious process that would be better automated -- ke4roh (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you do that, I have some suggestions --
- Parse author data to last= and first=. Handle multiple authors properly.
- Render author data as last= and first= by default. Handle multiple authors properly.
- Support editor(s) similarly as for author(s). Handle multiple editors properly.
- Support to-be-added options to {{cite google book}}
- author=a (?) to render author= instead of last= and first=.
- Support page={arbitrary string} or pages=={arbitrary string}.
- Support quote={arbitrary string}.
- Support ref={arbitrary string} for working with {{Harvnb}}.
- Those cases are plain-vanilla enough that they ought to be handled, I think. There may be others which don't come to mind just now. Then again, perhaps it's better to deprecate cite google book; the devil is in the details. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you do that, I have some suggestions --
- I could write the bot independent of reftag.appspot.com. Copying 6 pieces of information from one page to another is the most tedious process that would be better automated -- ke4roh (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the message so users know what is going on. -Craig Pemberton 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I manually converted cite google book citations in the remaining mainspace articles using this template to cite book. I placed a notice at template talk:Cite google book that possible deprecation and deletion of that template is under discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I manually converted a number of Template:Cite google book transclusions into Template:Cite book, intending to complete that work and then WP:PROD Template:Cite google book. I stopped this work partway through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_google_book when I came to Template:Cite doi. It turns out that actually comes from Template:Cite doi family, and I've left a message at template talk:Cite doi family asking for comment here if appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh man I feel silly. 2000 came from a Google search for "Citation+will+soon+be+automatically+completed.+In+the+meantime,+please+check+that+you+have+correctly+copied+the+book+identifier."&fp=904e06910588146f a string and I could have sworn "Citation+will+soon+be+automatically+completed.+In+the+meantime,+please+check+that+you+have+correctly+copied+the+book+identifier." my search included site:wikipedia.org but apparently the total count is just 24 and the rest is other sites mirroring Wikipedia. Given the significantly lower deployment I feel we should make template page and template notification clearly state that the template doesn't actually work and notify the template author on his talk page. -Craig Pemberton 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno, but it seems to me that either a servicing bot should be implemented or the template should be modified to remove the notification that the citation will soon be automatically completed. With 2,000 or so transcluding articles out there (your count), it's probably not a good idea to deprecate the template. Note that this tool could be used by a bot to complete the citation, but I don't know how solid the commitment to long-term support of that tool is, and completing the citation by web scraping the HTML produced by the tool without solid arrangements to keep the tool and the bot in sync is pretty fragile. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the remaining link to this template from Template:Cite doi family — as of now this template has no links from mainspace or template space. I added a {{Prod}}, proposing deletion. I've never used Prod before, and see that the Prod hatnote on the template page says "Please use PROD only on articles." In the absence of feedback to the contrary, if this template is still around in a week or so (after 9 April or so), my intention is to delete it. Please speak up if you object. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the prod and submitted to Templates for discussion since that is how template deletion is normally handled. Please visit Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Template:Cite google book to contribute to the discussion there. --RL0919 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
While Twitter clearly isn't a reliable source for most things, sometimes it's necessary to cite a specific tweet, in order to demonstrate that the account holder actually said what they did: for example, the reference in Middleton Lakes RSPB reserve. Can we have a template for such occasions, with semantic markup such as COinS and <blockquote>
, and an agreed standard of formatting? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- So I can better understand what you are requesting, please specify where in Middleton Lakes RSPB reserve the citation in question is? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Scan the wiki-code for the twitter.com URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see that tweets can be viewed without having to create an account, which makes be feel somewhat better about using twitter as a source. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The consensus is that Twitter can be used as a primary source under some conditions, see WP:TWITTER. To reference an account, use {{Twitter}}. To reference a specific tweet either use {{cite web}} or cheat a little and use {{Twitter}} with the entire message URL starting with the account name. For example,
{{Twitter|twilightheroes/statuses/69862762490245120|Twilight Heroes Tweet}}
results in Twilight Heroes Tweet on X. I suppose this should be improved by supplying date and accessdate, is that what you are looking for? --Muhandes (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The consensus is that Twitter can be used as a primary source under some conditions, see WP:TWITTER. To reference an account, use {{Twitter}}. To reference a specific tweet either use {{cite web}} or cheat a little and use {{Twitter}} with the entire message URL starting with the account name. For example,
- I see that tweets can be viewed without having to create an account, which makes be feel somewhat better about using twitter as a source. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Scan the wiki-code for the twitter.com URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)