Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 75 days ![]() |
|
![]() | To find archives of this talk page, see this list. For talk archives from the previous Manual of Style (footnotes) page see Help talk:Footnotes. |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What if a source in another language is quoted?
[edit]Enka, North Carolina Reference 4. Shouldn't there be a translation, and if so, how to put it there?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
|trans-quote=
Ifly6 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes, per WP:RSUEQ a translation should be included… the policy section explains how to request one. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I did it wrong, but the translation has not been done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have to provide the translation. Just adding
|trans-quote=
does nothing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have to provide the translation. Just adding
- References given as footnotes, such as this one, don't need to include quotes at all. A quotation in the main text should always be translated, but that's not the case here anyway. Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- True, we don’t require that citations include quotations - however, if a citation does quote a non-English source (as is the case here) we need to translate it … per WP:RSUEQ. Even a machine translation is preferable to no translation. The alternative is to remove the non-English text from the citation. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here – after reading the guideline – that WP:RSUEQ uses the language should. That is, non-English quotations in footnotes do not require translation, but they are encouraged and recommended.There are quite a few Classical Chinese quotations scattered about the project, where the quote primarily serves as a search string to locate the text in the source. Translating all of these would take a whole lot of work, and they're already summarised in English in the prose citing them. Removing them would nearly break verifiability. Folly Mox (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Folly Mox; if there's a reason to provide a non-English quotation, it should never be removed, and WP:RSUEQ doesn't recommend this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here – after reading the guideline – that WP:RSUEQ uses the language should. That is, non-English quotations in footnotes do not require translation, but they are encouraged and recommended.There are quite a few Classical Chinese quotations scattered about the project, where the quote primarily serves as a search string to locate the text in the source. Translating all of these would take a whole lot of work, and they're already summarised in English in the prose citing them. Removing them would nearly break verifiability. Folly Mox (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- True, we don’t require that citations include quotations - however, if a citation does quote a non-English source (as is the case here) we need to translate it … per WP:RSUEQ. Even a machine translation is preferable to no translation. The alternative is to remove the non-English text from the citation. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I did it wrong, but the translation has not been done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:RSUEQ a translation should be included… the policy section explains how to request one. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that there are two things that need translation into English for a non-English source: the title and any quotations (in text or in the citation). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the title. Gawaon (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- the title needs to be translated and presented in the trans-title parameter -- this is an essential thing, I believe. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- (sorry if trans-title is the wrong field - not checking the template at the moment so memory might not serve.) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a trans-title parameter, but its usage is optional. I've seen dozens or hundreds of references to French, Spanish, German etc. works, and the title is never translated – indeed to me it would feel a bit silly if it were. Now, if the original is in a different script (Cyrillic, Chinese etc.), a translation might be more useful – but I don't have found any rule suggesting that it must be translated. The only rule that seems to exist is WP:RSUEQ, which refers to translating quotations, not titles. Gawaon (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the only information required to be in English is body prose (including direct quotes). Citation information – title, quote, author, anything – does not require translation, although translation is recommended and often quite helpful for readers and editors both. Folly Mox (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’d encourage translation but not require it (status quo). Similar to WP:OFFLINE sources it's allowed, but if there’s doubt and inability to verify, that’s a good reason to request clarification, but solely on its own we shouldn’t be removing sources merely because we don't access it or understand its language. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the only information required to be in English is body prose (including direct quotes). Citation information – title, quote, author, anything – does not require translation, although translation is recommended and often quite helpful for readers and editors both. Folly Mox (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- the title needs to be translated and presented in the trans-title parameter -- this is an essential thing, I believe. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the title. Gawaon (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- People posting here might like to check out the template documentation, e.g. Template:Cite web#csdoc_title, Template:Cite web#csdoc_trans-title, Template:Cite web#csdoc_quote, Template:Cite web#csdoc_trans-quote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just keep in mind that not all citations are created using a template. We still allow editors to type them out the old fashioned way. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was specifically about Enka, North Carolina Reference 4, which uses
{{cite web}}
. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was specifically about Enka, North Carolina Reference 4, which uses
- Just keep in mind that not all citations are created using a template. We still allow editors to type them out the old fashioned way. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Dating webpages
[edit]A notable example of a date of limited relevance is the date when an author accessed a document.
- Including the date of access inexplicably breaks with tradition. Would a reference to an ink-and-paper document show when the authors of the citing document accessed that document, say at a public library? No.
- Unlike other elements in a reference, an access date is not a property of the referenced content.
- An access date doesn't show whether the referenced content has changed between the time the citing document was written and the time the reader might view the referenced document. The way to learn that is to compare the date of the citing document to the update date of the referenced document.
- Using an access date in place of an update date is something of a con. If a referenced document's date were missing in the ink-and-paper world, the reference would say "n. d." or "no date."
Recommendation: Allow "date of last update" as well as the access date in references. Page Notes (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Page Notes 01:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be arguing that access date is not a useful datapoint, but then propose that another parameter be added to it rather than replace it. Could you explain the reasoning there? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Replacing access-date with last-update rather than including both is better.Page Notes (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Page Notes, "date of last update" would just go into the
|date=
parameter. (Like using the date of whatever later edition of a book you're reading.) The|access-date=
parameter is useful on a page that changes,(6) and when a link goes dead. Access dates are used in APA, Chicago, and Harvard Style citations. Rjjiii (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)- These style guides differ regarding last update. APA has this to say: "If a date of last update is available (such as for a webpage), use it in the reference." ... "Include a retrieval date only if the work is unarchived and designed to change over time. Most references do not include retrieval dates." -- https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/elements-list-entry#retrieval
- I agree that access dates are useful for webpages that go dead. Page Notes (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the Chicago view: “Chicago does not [...] require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date publication or revision can be determined from the source.” (CMOS 14.12) -- https://library.bowdoin.edu/research/chicago-author-date.pdf Page Notes (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- We don't require them either. Including them is nevertheless a good idea, especially if the page is more or less likely to change or go away. Gawaon (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Access dates are used by editors who are trying to match the correct versions at archive.org. They therefore have a practical purpose.
- Also, they put a limit on "no date" sources. We may not know when the webpage was published, but we know it was on or before the access date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- For a lengthy and recentish discussion on the uses of
|access-date=
, we have Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91 § Do we need |access-date ? Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- We don't require them either. Including them is nevertheless a good idea, especially if the page is more or less likely to change or go away. Gawaon (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the Chicago view: “Chicago does not [...] require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date publication or revision can be determined from the source.” (CMOS 14.12) -- https://library.bowdoin.edu/research/chicago-author-date.pdf Page Notes (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What if I cite something in parentheses?
[edit]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
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Note: Not sure if my first attempt went through (please excuse if this is redundant).
Regarding "Slavery in colonial Spanish America" article:
4. Seijas, Tatiana.Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians. New York: Cambridge University Press 2014.[page needed]
Add: space after author's name and "pp. 73-98" after the year of publication. Mearnest1 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. {{edit semi-protected}} is placed on a talk page to request an edit of the corresponding article or project. The citation mentioned in the request is not present on Wikipedia:Citing sources, rather, it is in Slavery in colonial Spanish America. That article does not appear to be protected. I'd do it myself but I don't have that book. Since Mearnest1 has done the research to find the page number, it's Mearnest1 who should make the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- TWL has the book 🤫 Folly Mox (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Repeating publisher and location information for different articles from same website?
[edit]This is a relatively niche question. Let's say an article, such as AHS Krab, cites ten or more separate articles from the same news website. The citations cannot be combined using a single reference name, because each one links to a different URL. Must the publisher and location information be repeated for every single citation, or is it sufficient to include it in the first reference to that website? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will help in that case, but I did something like that in citing several sub-pages of a web site in Molasses Reef Wreck. Donald Albury 00:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Sneaking in here so this reply makes sense) A similar effect can be achieved using {{harvc}}. Folly Mox (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Huntthetroll, the editors at the article are welcome to set up whatever system they think is sensible. See WP:CITEVAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would make each cite stand totally by itself.
- In many articles references are removed or replaced with better ones. If that replace reference happened to be the one that contained the complete set of source details then they are lost for all the subsequent references from the same source. Of course, they are still in the article's history, so they could be recovered but at extra cost of editor effort - which often doesn't happen. Or sometimes the order of cites is changed, making a middle cite fuller then both preceding and following cites from the same source - weird looking!
- On the flip side, the cost of putting full the details in every reference from that source is just a copy/paste operation, so it is quite minimal effort. In fact, I often build up one in full by hand, then copy it many times and then alter the specific details - much quicker than typing it all by hand. Stepho talk 00:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, making each citation self-contained seems best, as it is probably easiest to follow for the reader and robust in view of future changes. Gawaon (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gawaon, I came to the same conclusion as you and |Stepho did when I was editing AHS Krab last night. Since I intend to continue adding content and citations to the article, I prioritize reader convenience and robustness in the face of a changing set of references. I will also investigate Folly Mox's suggestion about using {{harvc}}. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, making each citation self-contained seems best, as it is probably easiest to follow for the reader and robust in view of future changes. Gawaon (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Huntthetroll, this reply will assume you're referring to the citations to the websites Defence24 and Altair, repeatedly cited with the respective parameters
|website= Defence24
|publisher= Defence24
|location= Warsaw, 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)
- Sure! Whatever works best for your own editing flow and job satisfaction. I said above
- I initially thought the same, but I eventually changed my mind.
Note, not ref
[edit]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)
- Thanks. I looked at an article that used notes and it didn't make sense what was done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:CITESHORT question
[edit]WP:CITESHORT says, (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)
Is this saying that I should not add citation templates to an article that does not already use citation templates? Schierbecker (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- When in doubt, leave a note on the talk page. In practice, I don't remember ever being challenged when I have proposed changing citation style on an article. Also, many pages that have more than a couple of references already have a mixed style. Donald Albury 18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says
an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus
. If I'm rescuing a dead article with all the contributors long gone the first thing I'm doing is upgrading the refs with templates so that the short citations are followable to the long citations. I've never had a problem with this from other users. If we followed that rule, nearly every page created before ~2010 would still be using the legacy citation style (and we'd have a lot more dead links that the bots normally take care of when the refs are formatted as templates.) If I'm more comfortable adding citations by template then I should be able to do that. Schierbecker (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)- In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)). Sometimes, nobody cares: Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing. Donald Albury 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah you shouldn't change an existing style, if there isn't one then imposing one style is considered helpful per 'Generally considered helpful' point 3 in WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the fact that exceptions exist (e.g. for substantial rewrites, merges etc.) should be made more obvious. Overall, the admonishing against updating references is just spelled out too strongly. What about something along these lines:
- If untemplated references are preferred, take special care to maintain a consistent citation style throughout the article. Similarly, avoid changing templated citation styles without seeking consensus.
- Consistent citation styles are preferred. That being said, use whatever citation style you feel comfortable with. No one is required to know how to use your preferred citation style. If inconsistent citation styles bother you, fix it. Schierbecker (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page already says that style should be consistent, and already included under "Generally considered helpful" is "making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any). Do not revert someone else's contribution merely because the citation style doesn't match. If you know how to fix it, then fix it." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- From the lead: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.
- Maybe we should put it in bold.
- That said, I wonder if the community is ready to be done with the idea that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)). Sometimes, nobody cares: Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing. Donald Albury 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says
Source is not the newspaper, but it looks like source has a page number
[edit]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)
- I followed the bot directions and did get the URLs converted. So is the page number all right the way it is?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this just a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to get into the issue of how to link to newspapers.com. The problem is not that, but how to make it clear what the page number refers to. It looks like it is the page number of "TV Media".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Order of the example in WP:SAYWHERE
[edit]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)
sharing Zotero libraries with other wiki-editors
[edit]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)