Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

What if I cite something in parentheses?

I encountered a situation today where I needed to put an additional detail in parentheses that is covered by a separate source from the sources used for the rest of the sentence. It seems kind of strange to use all three sources for the sentence that was there before both at the end and before the parentheses, but the source I added does not cover what came before the parentheses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Would an explanatory foot note work? It will hide the content you are putting in parentheses until the reader clicks on the link, but it certainly makes the connection between the content and the reference clearer. If you want to keep the extra content always visible, you could also break up the sentence. Donald Albury 20:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Won't help if I don't know when I've done this previously. I found that one of the three sources for the entire sentence didn't verify anything, and got a 404 error for another source. So I concluded the third source would verify everything (it requires a subscription) and put it before what was in parentheses, and reworded so the information would match.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Note: Not sure if my first attempt went through (please excuse if this is redundant).

Regarding "Slavery in colonial Spanish America" article:

4. Seijas, Tatiana.Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians. New York: Cambridge University Press 2014.[page needed]

Add: space after author's name and "pp. 73-98" after the year of publication. Mearnest1 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. {{edit semi-protected}} is placed on a talk page to request an edit of the corresponding article or project. The citation mentioned in the request is not present on Wikipedia:Citing sources, rather, it is in Slavery in colonial Spanish America. That article does not appear to be protected. I'd do it myself but I don't have that book. Since Mearnest1 has done the research to find the page number, it's Mearnest1 who should make the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

TWL has the book 🤫 Folly Mox (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeating publisher and location information for different articles from same website?

This is a relatively niche question. Let's say an article, such as AHS Krab, cites ten or more separate articles from the same news website. The citations cannot be combined using a single reference name, because each one links to a different URL. Must the publisher and location information be repeated for every single citation, or is it sufficient to include it in the first reference to that website? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help in that case, but I did something like that in citing several sub-pages of a web site in Molasses Reef Wreck. Donald Albury 00:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Sneaking in here so this reply makes sense) A similar effect can be achieved using {{harvc}}. Folly Mox (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Huntthetroll, the editors at the article are welcome to set up whatever system they think is sensible. See WP:CITEVAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would make each cite stand totally by itself.

In many articles references are removed or replaced with better ones. If that replace reference happened to be the one that contained the complete set of source details then they are lost for all the subsequent references from the same source. Of course, they are still in the article's history, so they could be recovered but at extra cost of editor effort - which often doesn't happen. Or sometimes the order of cites is changed, making a middle cite fuller then both preceding and following cites from the same source - weird looking!

On the flip side, the cost of putting full the details in every reference from that source is just a copy/paste operation, so it is quite minimal effort. In fact, I often build up one in full by hand, then copy it many times and then alter the specific details - much quicker than typing it all by hand.  Stepho  talk  00:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, making each citation self-contained seems best, as it is probably easiest to follow for the reader and robust in view of future changes. Gawaon (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gawaon, I came to the same conclusion as you and |Stepho did when I was editing AHS Krab last night. Since I intend to continue adding content and citations to the article, I prioritize reader convenience and robustness in the face of a changing set of references. I will also investigate Folly Mox's suggestion about using {{harvc}}. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Huntthetroll, this reply will assume you're referring to the citations to the websites Defence24 and Altair, repeatedly cited with the respective parameters |website= Defence24|publisher= Defence24|location= Warsaw, Poland and |website= Altair|publisher= Altair Agencja Lotnicza|location= Warsaw, Poland. I'd argue that the publisher and location of these websites are unnecessary in every case, including the first references to these sources.

It's almost never helpful to include both |website= and |publisher= where the values for those parameters match to a large degree, as they do in these cases. It's also rare to include the |location= of a website, unless it's the website of what used to be a physical news-paper. Folly Mox (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I initially thought the same, but I eventually changed my mind.

• I tried to imagine the perspective of a reader that is completely unfamiliar with the article's topic, or with any of the sources cited. I would not expect the reader to know or assume that, for instance, the Polish-language website defence24.pl and the English-language website defence24.com are published by the same Polish limited-liability company, Defence24 Sp. z o.o. In fact, I was going to leave out the publisher for the similarly named site nowiny24.pl, because I assumed that the same company would be responsible, but decided to double-check the site's "O nas" ("about us") page, just to be sure. Suprisingly, nowiny24.pl is published by a completely different company, which should mean that it can be used to cross-check information from Defence24. I would not have known this, nor would any reader, if I had not looked up the publisher.
• In the case of a web citation, I treat |location= as the location of the publisher's headquarters. I find that this provides important information about the publisher's "institutional perspective", for lack of a better phrase, by showing the publisher's proximity to centers of political and economic power.

Huntthetroll (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure! Whatever works best for your own editing flow and job satisfaction. I said above I'd argue, which appears to have been incorrect. Happy editing, Folly Mox (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note, not ref

I messed up on The Iron Lady (film) and I can't find any explanation of what I should have done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for {{efn}}, <note> doesn't do anything. See my edit[1]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at an article that used notes and it didn't make sense what was done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, learning is part of the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT question

WP:CITESHORT says, (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)

Is this saying that I should not add citation templates to an article that does not already use citation templates? Schierbecker (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave a note on the talk page. In practice, I don't remember ever being challenged when I have proposed changing citation style on an article. Also, many pages that have more than a couple of references already have a mixed style. Donald Albury 18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus. If I'm rescuing a dead article with all the contributors long gone the first thing I'm doing is upgrading the refs with templates so that the short citations are followable to the long citations. I've never had a problem with this from other users. If we followed that rule, nearly every page created before ~2010 would still be using the legacy citation style (and we'd have a lot more dead links that the bots normally take care of when the refs are formatted as templates.) If I'm more comfortable adding citations by template then I should be able to do that. Schierbecker (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)). Sometimes, nobody cares: Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing. Donald Albury 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you shouldn't change an existing style, if there isn't one then imposing one style is considered helpful per 'Generally considered helpful' point 3 in WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that exceptions exist (e.g. for substantial rewrites, merges etc.) should be made more obvious. Overall, the admonishing against updating references is just spelled out too strongly. What about something along these lines:

1. If untemplated references are preferred, take special care to maintain a consistent citation style throughout the article. Similarly, avoid changing templated citation styles without seeking consensus.
2. Consistent citation styles are preferred. That being said, use whatever citation style you feel comfortable with. No one is required to know how to use your preferred citation style. If inconsistent citation styles bother you, fix it. Schierbecker (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The page already says that style should be consistent, and already included under "Generally considered helpful" is "making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any). Do not revert someone else's contribution merely because the citation style doesn't match. If you know how to fix it, then fix it." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

From the lead: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.

Maybe we should put it in bold.

That said, I wonder if the community is ready to be done with the idea that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Source is not the newspaper, but it looks like source has a page number

This is the diff. Notice that when you look under references, the page number from the newspaper makes it look like it is a page number in the original source.

Also, I should point out that I can't create a clip, so access to the source is currently limited to Wikipedia library users.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really clear what you are asking, if you are asking anything. Presumably, you have read the source linked by the url. You have actually consulted this source, right? The page number is in the bottom left margin. If you have not, then you shouldn't be using that source in an en.wiki article.

Do not use https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ urls. To do so, does a disservice to readers who aren't editors because they will never get beyond the Wikipedia Library banner page. Use the correct newspapers.com url. There is some discussion about clipping at WP:Newspapers.com.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The page number is the page number in the Concord Monitor. But if you look at the ref, it looks like it is a page number in TV Media, which provided the article to the Concord Monitor.

I'm not sure how to convert the newspapers.com URL because of the problem that I linked to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I followed the bot directions and did get the URLs converted. So is the page number all right the way it is?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Use the page number as it is written in the source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Look in the lower left margin. It gives both Concord Monitor and Sunday TV Magazine names along with the page number and issue date. You could write a {{cite magazine}} with |magazine=Sunday TV Magazine and |via=[[Newspapers.com]] / ''[[Concord Monitor]]'' or some such.

Apparently, others have solved the clipping issue. That is why I linked to WP:Newspapers.com. If you have questions about clipping, you should ask at the WP:Newspapers.com talk page. If the current url cannot be translated, remove it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The page number is not the page number of Sunday TV Magazine, but the TV Magazine of the Concord Monitor.

For the clipping, I'm not doing whatever they did. If someone wants to create a clipping using my ref, they can, because I did fix the link. I'm waiting until I can create a clipping myself without doing something exceedingly complicated.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this just a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to get into the issue of how to link to newspapers.com. The problem is not that, but how to make it clear what the page number refers to. It looks like it is the page number of "TV Media".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Order of the example in WP:SAYWHERE

Maybe this is really minor. Currently, WP:SAYWHERE has the order CITED by CITING. Should not it take the order CITING citing CITED? That is, in Smith (2009), p. 99, cited in Jones (2010), p. 29. instead Jones (2010), p. 29, citing Smith (2009), p. 99. That would place the actual location of the material first. Ifly6 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd put the source that you personally read yourself first, but either is probably okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm used to the "cited in" order given in the example. And like WhatamIdoing says, either should be fine, so I don't see a reason for a change. "Actual location" doesn't really apply, since the quoted text should be present in both locations. And the "CITED first" order had the advantage of crediting the original/actual author first. Gawaon (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to check, but I think that both options used to be present. Personally I prefer the one that is given now, but both are acceptable. Zero^talk 07:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

sharing Zotero libraries with other wiki-editors

I have several Zotero and EndNote libraries with detailed bibliography and full-text pdfs of Open Access publications. The topics cover lithium-ion batteries, sodium-ion batteries, flow batteries, international order, nuclear warfare, nuclear submarines, persistent organic pollutants etc. The data came from Scopus, Web of Science, The Lens, CORE (research service) and other databases. I would like to share these libraries with interested wiki-editors, and I wonder if Wikipedia has a mechanism for such sharing. Walter Tau (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mvolz, are you around? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The only place we centrally share structured citation is as wikidata items and I don't think there's an easy way to import from those libraries to wikidata. Mvolz (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about WikiData. I do not think I need to export anything from my libraries.

I can just post a Zotero file (or its archived version) on to WikiData.

Let me give it a try and see how it works.

Have a good day. Walter Tau (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata is not meant for arbitrary files. Gawaon (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Gawaon: thank you for your comment. Is there is a decription of what is suitable for wikidata and what is not? Also, am I the very first wikipedian, who wants to share a searcheable database (with or without full texts) with others? I would think, that many wiki-articles (or topics) would have such databases by now (especially, if they are created using no-restrictions sources like The Lense. If no such option exists today, how can I post it for a discussion? OR would you be willing to do it, since you may know better how such thins work here? Walter Tau (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata has citation/bibliographic information for a large number of scientific papers. I think that Daniel Mietchen has done some of the work on that.

(For myself, I keep wishing someone will do some mw:Citoid/Creating Zotero translators for the BBC's website. It always surprises me that the visual editor doesn't recognize it as a news site, and can't pull most of the information.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Videos

Can someone please make a series of YouTube videos going through and verbally explaining, with examples everything on the Wikipedia help pages?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Cole Massi1 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)