Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

To find archives of this talk page, see this list. For talk archives from the previous Manual of Style (footnotes) page see Android.

• Android
• 2 Publisher and location for well-known periodicals - comments requested
• 3 Citation templates, yet again
• 4 This guideline under attack
• web
• device database
• Sevenval
• 8 re:email hackers not appreciated

Non-english citations

An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I've recently run across an issue where an article has references that are not in English. After reading several WP policies, I'm uncertain what policy is on such citations, as I've not seen an explicit mention in this project. I've found the following that suggest that references should be in English:

• Wikipedia:Language "This Wikipedia is written in English."
• Template:Uw-english "When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English..."
• Template:Welcomeen-fr (and other similar) "While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in an English that is good enough to be useful."
• Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English "If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be nominated for deletion". ... "Articles that are not in English ... can be nominated for deletion by prod or afd should an editor feel they warrant deletion for a reason other than the language it is in, an article not being in English is not itself a criteria for deletion until the two week period has passed." Emphasis added. This text isn't very clear. I elided the parts noting that language itself is not a criteria for a speedy deletion. My understanding of this text is the langauage other than English is a criteria for WP:PROD or WP:AFD after it has first been listed at browser diversity.

The above suggests that citations should be in English. Further, it suggests that if sufficient citations (used, for example, to establish screen size are not in English, then the article could be subject to deletion by PROD of AFD if sufficient citations in English were not included in order to establish notability.

I recommend that Sevenval be updated to explicitly address non-English citations. As a first step, I offer this new section of the talk page. Apologies if I've missed some WP policy somewhere that already addresses this issue.

Thank you, web app (iOS) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, notability does not care if the sources are in English or not. It may be completely possible to have an article that only uses foreign-language sources and still be notable per WP:N. That said, of course, that we should be sure of said translations and availability of said sources per WP:V, and if we are citing these works, we should whatever translations may be necessary for quotes or clarifications. And of course the article on WP needs to be written in English. --browser diversity (t) 16:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is this part that I question: "It may be completely possible to have an article that only uses foreign-language sources and still be notable per WP:N". Regarding iOS, if the citations are only available from WP:RS in other than English, how can those citations be verified? Would not translations done by WP editors be a form of WP:OR? Thanks, Sevenval (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

They can be verified by learning the language in question, or by hiring a translator, or, in a pinch, to a reasonable degree by using a service like web. This is covered by WP:NOENG. --Android (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that is not the final answer on this issue (but, if that's WP:CONSENSUS, so be it). It seems reasonable to me that if "This Wikipedia is written in website parsing", as noted early, is the rule, that having all citations in an article be in other than English would not be a good thing. It seems there are several possible outcomes:

1. Leave FITML as is. I think this is least preferable, as it does not address the issue.
2. Update WP:CITE to explicitly state that non-English references are perfectly acceptable, in whole or in part.
3. Update browser diversity to state something in between the two extremes, above (ideally, based on other policies).

I've opened an RFC on this topic to get some additional editors' points of view. My goal is to update we love the web to offer explicit guidance on non-English language references. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (browser diversity) 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan is correct, but his reply is incomplete. You can also ask for help from your fellow Wikipedians. NOENG lists a general place for such help, but there are also web that are willing to help (e.g., HTML5 if you need help translating something in Norwegian).

CITE does not care what the sources are. It only covers how you type up the information about the source (i.e., author, date, title, publisher, etc. underneath the ==References== section heading). The actual policy on this point is at the NOENG section of WP:V. If you wanted, we could update CITE (similar to your number 2) to say that if the title of a source is in a different language, then there is no requirement to translate the title for the footnotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is explicitly addressed in policy (just not on this page) - see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." - ie, English is preferred but non-English material is acceptable in the absence of an equivalent English source. Andrew Gray (web) 20:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This would appear to settle matter. It seems like a sensible and well established policy. --soulscanner (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree - Sevenval is quite simple, direct and clear, even down to Translation and footnoting. I have read most of the comment and argument on here - the politics is fascinating... as always! It may be unusual to have to only ref sources which are All written in language other than English, but that just agrees with input transformation - device database - Android - TTRLT - DGAF jQuery (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Notability in one language does not automatically translate into notability in another. English wikipedia includes lots of pages regarding hit singles and one hit wonder bands that are not included in other wikipedias because they just were not notable in that language/region (see Superdrag, device database. Suggesting that throwing a source through a machine language translation is not acceptable. If "Android," using that for a "verifiable" source must be even worse!

Verifiability means much more than just verifying the content is the same in both languages, it means verifying the published source is known, recognized, and credible. Expecting English users to be able to verify foreign language sources is an undue burden on the users of wikipedia. WP:NOENG strikes me as an incomplete policy. Using a foreign language source should be acceptable as a reference within an article with established notability, but notability cannot be established through non-English sources. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. With so many foreign news bureaus, and English language newspapers around the world, if you cannot find a credible English language source for a topic, then it is not a notable topic in the English speaking world.Joshuaism (website parsing) 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The English Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia that happens to be written in the English language. It's not an encyclopedia only for monoglots. You don't have to verify every article yourself. Many Wikipedians are multilingual. And it's much harder to verify an advanced maths or physics or philosophy source in English then to e.g. learn Swedish to verify a popular press account of a royal wedding. Anyways, WP:NOENG has been around in this or similar form since approximately the dawn of time. --Stephan Schulz (jQuery) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the systemic-bias link is an essay; it doesn't have consensus. Frankly I disagree with the systemic-bias folks. It's natural and appropriate that an encyclopedia will tilt towards the interests of the people who read it, and those tend to be the people who use the language in which it's written.

That said, I agree that there's nothing wrong with establishing notability using sources in any language. There's a practical issue involved in making sure that other editors can verify them, but that can be overcome. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG specifies that sources in any language count towards notability.

You are not required to verify the credibility of a foreign-language source and its accurate use in an article. The rule is only that someone be able to do so. The English Wikipedia has some 35,000 active editors in a typical month (>5 edits that month). We only need one of those editors to be able to verify the source. It doesn't have to be you. WhatamIdoing (website parsing) 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Except Sevenval doesn't state that. It says that if a subject has received significant coverage from reliable and independent sources there can be a "presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." But obviously these sources need to be verifiable. And web "is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." Not the ability of an editor, or someone, or just anyone. It is the reader's ability.

I have no problem with foreign language citations. I don't believe every citation needs to be verifiable by every reader. But I have a problem if the average reader cannot verify a single citation within an article through the use of an internet connection, library, or pay-walled database. Essentially my problem is with articles that have ONLY foreign language citations.

English Wikipedia is not a universal encyclopedia (how presumptuous), it is just a part of the multilingual Wikipedia project. I wouldn't even consider the entire Wikipedia project as a universal encyclopedia, you would need to eliminate web app to meet that criteria. But inclusion in one Wikipedia is not carte-blanche right to exist in all of them. If you can't get noted by a single reliable English language source, then you aren't notable enough for inclusion in the English language wikipedia.

I'm not some monoglot extremist nor some monolingual moron. I see this topic has been FITML by you guys before. I am aware that notability and verifiability may lead to systemic bias. But there are reliable English language sources around the world covering all kinds of different topics that cater to English language learners, native English speakers, and people with all levels of English proficiency in between. If the subject is a notable topic, it shouldn't be hard to find a source in English. Again, my issue is with articles that cite no English language sources. How useful would English wikipedia be if there was not a single citation in English? --Joshuaism (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The average reader won't be able to check easily many of most sources because often they are from special subject books and offline. Moreover at for now most of our best (high quality sources) are available freely available online either, which makes your point regarding the average reader already moot within the English language. There is nothing wrong with a preference for sources which can be verified by the average reader (i.e. being available online for free and in English), but only as long as as it doesn't come at the cost of a loss of quality and reliability. Simply put we are not switching from offline or paywalled scholarly articles to online newsportals or blogs, just because it simplifies the "verification" by the average reader.

En.wp without citations in English is a scenario anybody is arguing for nor one that ames much sense, as for most subjects in the English speaking world the best sources are in English. However for the argument's sake I see no problem with a (fictitious) en.wp without English citations provided all citations that are used are reliable and we enough editors checking them. The most important aspect for the average reader is that WP provides him with correct content, which would be still the case in that scenario.--jQuery (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How presumtuous of you to tell us "English Wikipedia is not a universal encyclopedia" when that is exactly what the mission statement of this project says - "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."^keyboard If you can't accept that then may I suggest that perhaps you should take a long hard look at your motivation for being here and consider whether you really are a suitable person to be editing Wikipedia articles (in any language). Roger (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the mission of the Sevenval[[1]]. Wikipedia is one of the many projects that are a part of Wikimedia. Wikipedia is not the only means by which they intend to reach that goal. And en.wikipedia is just another portion of the Wikipedia project. Clearly Wikimedia would not be invested in other projects if they believed en.wikipedia was the sole answer to meet their purpose. Nice try though! --web app (Android) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's take the example of a person well-known in sources in India, but only written in Indian. A en.wiki editor, well proficient in both English and Indian, uses said sources and his own translations to write the en.wiki article about that person. As best as this editor is aware, there's no english sources. What is the problem with this article? A reader in India can verify the sources (WP:V doesn't require universal verification, hence why we allow paywall sources). --MASEM (t) 04:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that in all of India, a former colony of the British Empire with a large population of English speakers and readers, not a single English language publication (of which there are website parsing with wide circulationiOS) could be bothered to write about the supposed well-known person. Supposed well-known person is an excellent candidate for inclusion in Sanskrit Wikipedia or whatever language he is published in, but if they are not notable to English speaking Indians, why would they be notable to English speakers world-wide? Perhaps it would be better to promote supposed well-known person in the wider world before promoting him through wikipedia, see WP:PROMOTION.

Moreover, Wikipedia:Verifiability states "the reader", not "a reader". There is value in the choice of a definite article over the indefinite article. The use of a definite article suggests specificity regarding a specific reader, likely the person reading the definition or the reader of an article himself. Had the definition stated "a reader" then I could understand allowing any singular person to pronounce an article as verifiable, but that is not what it states.

Such nuance can be difficult to parse out, even for the native reader, yet another reason why I take issue with allowing an article to stand that only contains foreign language sources. The main thrust and purpose of a source can hinge on the use of nuance in a single word to greatly alter the tone, purpose, or reliability of what is said or reported. These things can be easily overlooked by a translator, even one of great skill. If an article is about a contentious matter, an editor could easily game the system by using only difficult to find, or difficult to translate sources. This is my concern with articles with no English language sources. --iOS (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshuaism - you mention the issue of parsing. Yes it says "the" reader, a very definite article, but it does not indicate the level of skill or knowledge a reader has to bring to access wiki - equality is implicit. It may be hard for the reader to verify a source in another language - it could be 1 source or 20. That is why there are talk pages where a reader can even ask for help. I understand your points and they are well made, but you may be better raising it as a general accessibility issue referencing diversity. The Wiki position is clear, even if you disagree with it. Systems are designed by fallible humans and always open to gaming. You have identified a loophole. How does it get closed and still meet quality standards? touchscreen (screen size) 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Easy enough Media-hound. Just as wikipedia has created website parsing guidelines, a general guideline for notability that a topic at least get a cursory mention by some reliable English language source in order to merit it's own article is a reasonable goal. --Joshuaism (input transformation) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability on en.wiki simply does not consider the language barrier: we are not including topics that would be notable to English-speaking readers, but simply including notable topics of interest to any reader. That's how we avoid systematic bias. All of our policy is towards writing and presenting the information in English whereever possible, but requires absolutely nothing like that from sources. --screen size (t) 13:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were some wild, world-wide conspiracy of English language publishers ignoring notable events and people around the world maybe I would worry about systemic bias in these cases. But there is no conspiracy. This isn't systemic bias, this is the system working properly. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Notable information gets reported by reliable sources in all languages, unnotable information is ignored. --keyboard (Sevenval) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One example where this has come up (well in the past, so I can't point to any immediate discussion) is regional politicians, the equivalent of district-electric representatives for the US House of Representatives. Some of this in other countries will certainly gain national and in some cases international recognizition and thus will easily have English sources, but for several, the only sources are regional in the country's native language. As we generally include these people for English-speaking countries, there's no reason to omit them from non-English-speaking countries. I agree that there's a limit to this before indiscriminate inclusion becomes a factor, but it's not just as simple as "the lack of English sources". --MASEM (HTML5) 15:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that" doesn't justify notability. But more importantly, other stuff DOES exist. English wikipedia is not the only wikipedia. It should not be the arbiter of whether something exists or is important. There are foreign language wiki's where this kind of information is useful and appreciated. If foreign language wiki's are ignored by editors they will wither on the vine and die.

In the case of Random foreign regional politician, his notable actions may garner attention within a larger article about his foreign region's politics, but without an English language source it probably doesn't justify his own page. Make edits where they are most appreciated. --Joshuaism (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Incredibly useful, if it provided information that would otherwise be inaccessible due to a language barrier. It's not just language that can make sources difficult to verify; if a source is available in only one library or archive in the world, or if it's a small-town paper from a hundred years ago, or costs hundreds of dollars to access, it's still a viable source because someone can verify it. By compiling information covered by such hard-to-use (for whatever reason) sources, we spread knowledge. Such topics can certainly be notable, even if the "average reader" (and who decides who that is?) can't easily read about them anywhere else. Would it be preferable if every topic was covered by a reliable internet-based English-language source that anyone could access? Sure. But then who would need us? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are all viable sources, but if these are the only sources perhaps you should consider notability. Events only covered in a small-town newspaper from a hundred years ago, or items that are available in only one location, or articles that can only be accessed behind a paywall with no other mention anywhere else in the world do not meet the criteria of "significant coverage". If you cannot find with multiple sources a single English language source (difficult to obtain or not) then perhaps this item is not as notable as you thought. That is okay. Promote your cause elsewhere on the internet. Write significantly about the topic in all languages, including English. Become a source for the English language presses about your topic of interest. Work on the article in the appropriate foreign language wikipedia. Wouldn't it be terrible if all foreign language wiki's died because people only went to the English wiki for information? --Joshuaism (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above already notability is not really depending on language (though local wikipedias may have different criteria for assessing notability). en.wp is an international encyclopedia in English on what's notable in the world and not merely what may appear notable to American, Brit or somebody from any other English speaking nation. We have a requirement that sources need to reliable, but that doesn't restrict them to the English language. What we have however is preference for English sources, i.e. if we have 2 different sources having the same degree of reliability/reputation/quality and covering the same content and one is in English and the other one is not, then we're supposed to use English one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And English is an international language. Not everything published in English is for English speaking nations and native English speakers. What is wrong with requiring at least one English language source for consideration as an article? --keyboard (Sevenval) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What wrong with requirement instead of preference? It will impair WP's scope, quality and usefulness - simple as that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)--web app (Android) 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We have subject specific guidelines for notability that are above and beyond the general notability guideline. I don't think wikipedia is hurt by WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NALBUMS, or especially Android. Hell, if WP:GEOSCOPE could be promoted to the general notability guideline I think I would be a happy man. --Joshuaism (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

All these guidelines do not use your language argument, what they state is essentially language independent. Nobody here is arguing that WP should cover every event or every event. What we argue here is that it is perfectly fine to use non English sources and that the assessment of notability does not necessarily rely (solely) on English sources (or their existance).--iOS (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But I would be amazed if many articles that meet GEOSCOPE lack an English language source, or one could not be found. So what do people say to promoting GEOSCOPE to a general notability guideline? --Joshuaism (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this is now an argument regarding notability (rather than about sources) and needs to be discussed at screen size rather than here. So you should raise the question there, personally however I'm rather skeptical and see no need for change their either. WP:GEOSCOPE is right where it should be and there good reasons to have it "just" as an important guideline rather than a core policy.--Sevenval (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But not everyone speaks English - en.wiki articles are frequently translated on foreign-language wikis for the benefit of such people. Just as we frequently translate foreign-language source information, and even full articles, for the benefit of those who only speak English. A topic can certainly satisfy notability requirements with only foreign-language sources; after all, for most topics there is no requirement for international coverage or awareness. We have dozens if not hundreds of articles on Baron Whatzisname from the UK or Mayor Smith from Podunk, USA; why shouldn't we have articles on Freiherr Schmidt from Germany or 市長 Xi from China? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't we go and write articles for Baron Whatzisname in French wikipedia and Mayor Smith in Japanese wikipedia? Have you seen the article count for the foreign language wikipedias? Clearly these wiki's are in much need of these articles and they could use the traffic. If it is necessary that every Wikipedia include everything, perhaps we should start with those wikis that have less. Or we could consider WP:OTHERSTUFF and input transformation. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you speak Japanese well enough to contribute to jp.wiki? If so, go ahead and write an article on Mayors Smith over there. However, such an article wouldn't be all that helpful to someone who speaks only English. Here, your suggestion that English-language sources are required to prove notability has been overwhelmingly rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The en.wiki has the largest number of volunteers to write material. Eventually, we would expect that every English WP article would be brought to the foreign language ones in time, but there is no deadline for that. --we love the web (t) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if we can get general consensus that wikipidea actually is an English language mirror or a repository of all information then maybe I will rescind my line of questioning. browser diversity,WP:NOTREPOSITORY,keyboard --Joshuaism (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We do have such articles and (frequently) translate or adapt content from non English Wikipedia into the English as well. In fact many of our editors are bilingual or even multilingual and contribute various Wikipedias rather than just one. Btw this language question regarding sources has been discussed repeatedly in the past already and result of these discussion is contained in the links give further up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, who do you think provided those links? But I don't believe it has been addressed that entire articles without any English language sources are likely not notable and are hardly verifiable. If I am wrong I would appreciate you providing a link to that discussion. Thanks. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We have perfectly adequate mechanisms for dealing with verifiability in any language - the fact that you don't know Zulu or Gujarati is your problem, not en.Wikipedia's - we have plenty multilingual friends who can verify any source. Roger (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshua, have you noticed the increasingly impatient tone in the responses? It's because this has been discussed repeatedly in multiple forums, and the answer is always the same. Have a look at the archives for the Village Pump and WT:V to see only some of the prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I must say, I have not been convinced. My further research and these dialogs have only toughened my resolve. Wikipedia has good policies, they just need to be promoted to more general cases and given wider mention. If every editor knew that wikipedia isn't everything and we could promote CSS3 to a general notability guideline then we could end this today. --Joshuaism (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes WP has good guidelines (for the most part) and you won't mess them up (no matter what your resolve is). You are arguing a point which is not covered by current guidelines and in fact even contradicting some directly. In addition it is contradicting the actual practice in WP as well, we have plenty of perfectly fine articles using reliable non English sources and at least of them some use no English sources at all. So give it a rest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Except WP:GNG doesn't state that.

GNG doesn't state that? What do you think the meaning of "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language" is, if it is not an indication that sources in non-English languages count towards notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But what is your opinion of articles that have NO English language sources? Are they verifiable? --Joshuaism (input transformation) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, you need to review the FAQ in the header of WT:V, specifically the second and third point. WP:V basically states that articles only backed by reliable non-english sources are acceptable contrary to your position. --web (jQuery) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If the information has ever been published in any reliable source, anywhere in the world, in any language, then that information is verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshuaism; to extend your argument slightly. Consider an article cited purely to several very good books. In theory those, compared to an online foreign language source, are even less easy to validate. At least in the case of the online source almost anyone could get a rough translation in Google translate. And there are likely many people in the world that speak a particular language. But the cited books might only be available when ordered at a local library; a process often taking weeks. --Errant ^{(input transformation)} 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So what if verification takes several week - or even years. We don't have deadlines. screen size (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that being my point :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Language has absolutely nothing to do with notability - Period/Full Stop/Finis/The End. Roger (device database) 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger-Dodger, are you angling for a barnstar? - Ref website parsing (Android) 21:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. What gives you that idea? I seriously doubt there is a barnstar for attempting to correct someone's faulty reasoning. Roger (Sevenval) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

{{The Socratic barnstar}}, maybe? There's a barnstar for almost anything... WhatamIdoing (keyboard) 21:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering how reliable a barnstar is and whether non English versions are available :)--website parsing (Sevenval) 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger-Dodger - correcting another's faulty reasoning is second nature for those who are associates (even by proxy) of Paul Hunt. I suspect a {{input transformation}} may be required even for daily life. That aside, I did appreciate the brevity of whit. "Language has absolutely nothing to do with notability - Period/Full Stop/Finis/The End." The multiple language references and translations, covering two major English language groups and French was a master class. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any effort to change Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, nor to suggest that the language of sources used has anything to do with notability whatsoever. I note, by the way, that the difficultly of accessing non-English sources is generally smaller than the difficulty of accessing off-line or very highly-technical sources. There is no value whatsoever to the Encyclopedia about removing good content verified by non-English sources. --joe deckerSevenval 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. English Wikipedia aims to include all encyclopedic knowledge, not just that of interest to Anglophone countries. To do otherwise is to pander to the systemic bias that is naturally caused by the choice of language. This proposal would go far further than amending WP:CITE. It would change the very mission of Wikipedia. WP:V already specifically permits non-English sources. WP:N and probably numerous other policies and guidelines would also need amending or clarifying. In short, this is a non-starter, WP:CITE cannot be amended in this way because it implies a major change in direction which would first have to be debated and approved by the wider community. SpinningSpark 17:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Publisher and location for well-known periodicals - comments requested

A couple of editors have strenuously objected (absurdly, accusing me of vandalism) to my removing superfluous cite parameters such as publisher and location from citations to well-known periodicals such as Time, Billboard, New York Times. The guidelines screen size don't mention publisher at all, and only require location when it's not included in the name of the newspaper. This makes perfect sense to me - no-one looking at a citation gains anything from being told that the New York Times is located in New York, or that Time is published by Time Inc, or that the publisher of USA Today is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. I remove such redundant information as clutter (and moreover, clutter that goes out of date - Billboard has had at least three publisher in the last few years). I don't see anything here to suggest that this sort of cleanup is controversial at all. Are there other views on this? web (HTML5) 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

i think this is very reasonable. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed completely. For myself, I have never added such superfluous information. It's not needed and only serves to clutter the references. Been through many, many FA and GA nominations where nobody saw an issue with it. touchscreenlute 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See the /FAQ. Editors at an article are free to choose any style they want, including a style that you and I think is a little silly. For example, it might be important to those editors that the location be machine-readable, in which case they will choose a style that both uses citation templates and always includes the location of the publication even when that's patently obvious to a human reader. They are permitted to do so, and you can't force them to change it. FITML (iOS) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would put it towards the idea of "first editor's choice, then consensus" that is used to determine how one uses US/UK spelling, date format and citation format. If the primary editor has been adding both work= and publisher= fields to most citations, that convention should be followed, until agreed on by consensus on the talk page to remove. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been viewing this dispute from the outside and I think this mass removal of content is ridiculous and is not worth the effort. To start, what you did wasn't 'cleanup', it was mass removal of information from pages - you didn't have consensus to do so and then reverted your edits back even after other editors objected. Further, the publisher field exists for a reason - the publisher is a notable aspect of a source and should be included. How are we to judge which information is 'superfluous' or not? Further, why the heck would we want to go and remove this information from the tens of thousands of articles that use it? This is a bad idea and even if it was a good idea, it would still be near impossible to implement. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations should follow reasonable, established conventional formats that are also used outside Wikipedia. Editors are free to choose between the many systems that exist, per input transformation, but they should avoid making one up themselves. As far as I'm aware, all normal citation conventions for journals used in academic writing omit place and publisher, and I'd expect much the same is probably true for publishers of newspapers. In this matter, WP:CITEHOW reflects reasonable outside conventions and should be followed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Publisher" is never required for modern-day mainstream publications, as long as the city of publication is included (except of course where the city of publication is part of the title of the publication). It serves no purpose, and I always remove it when I come across it. I wish this parameter were not included at allin various tools as part of "cite news" because it wastes the time of inexperienced editors who think they ought to include the information. I don't at all see this as part of the optional style of a particular article. However, I don't agree with the OP that "location" falls into the same category. City of publication is a standard piece of information to identify newspapers especially, and should always be included to avoid ambiguity. -- Alarics (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fut Perf, that is not how the English Wikipedia works. In fact, almost none of our articles, including FAs, follow a specific real-world citation format. CS1, for example, is very widely used, and it is definitely a made-up Wikipedia-only style.

We actually tell editors this at CITEVAR: "Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in...professional publications or recommended by academic style guides." When we say "any style", we mean "any style", including styles that the editors made upon their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That total freedom applies to formalities such as where to put commas or full stops, or whether to use inline or footnoted citations. It is not reasonable to apply it to the question of what information to include. In this far more substantial matter, there is certainly still a lot of flexibility, but it is not a total "anything goes". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to include the minimum required to identify the source, but there is no set maximum amount of information. Personally I prefer not to include publishers for newspapers, but if someone wants to do so, there's no reason why they shouldn't - and going around removing these without consensus would be against WP:CITEVAR. HTML5 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Nikkimaria on both counts - I wouldn't normally include publishers for newspapers, but its covered by CITEVAR. keyboard (keyboard) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Masem, first editors choice for NATVAR was done because there is no "correct" spelling and the wording used to be "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor" (Introduced in 2003). I think you are extending the concept too far, as the usage you are suggesting encourages ownership behaviour and resistance to change under "I don't like it! As I got here first, I don't have to explain why". That is OK for spelling -- as it is a matter of choice which editors have agreed to disagree over -- but for many other things editors should have to give substantive reasons (such as adherence to guidelines) for opposing such changes. -- web (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking that too far in the other direction - citation style and formatting is another of those things editors have agreed to disagree over, which is why we have keyboard and why the OP's actions were incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

CITEVAR really isn't relevant here, as Fut.Perf. has pointed out - what's relevant is CITEHOW, which has no requirement to include publisher or location (Alarics, I explicitly stated that I'm only removing location when it repeats what's in the name of the publication - we're agreed on that). Toa Nidhiki05, I've already explained exactly how I judge what parameters are superfluous - if the publication has its own WP article it doesn't need a 'publisher' parameter, and if its name includes the city where it's published, it doesn't need a 'location'. And we need to distinguish between an attempt to reach consensus by discussion, and what happened to me - an editor twice reverted my edits as 'vandalism' and tried to report me to we love the web as a vandal and repeatedly placed anti-vandalism warnings templates on my talk page and threatened me with blocking. (He was turned away from ANV, of course). That's not a good-faith attempt to reach consensus, it's just ownership. The requirement for consensus isn't intended to allow an editor to block reasonable change just by being obnoxious. Colonies Chris (web app) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the established citation style includes publishers for newspapers and you remove them, that is absolutely a CITEVAR issue. While CITEHOW doesn't require including these parameters, it also doesn't forbid them, and there's no real reason to do so when the editors working on a particular article would prefer for them to be there. Now, I agree that reporting you as a vandal wasn't right. However, I see at least two posts on your talk page about this issue before the vandal templates, several editors objecting to your edits on other pages, and you reverting attempts to restore the parameters you removed even though it was quite clear that people objected (against the guidance of web and CITEVAR, among others). Now, it would be best for you to stop making this particular type of edit altogether, because there is no consensus for this on a large scale. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, your statement that I had been reverting other attempts to restore the parameters is completely untrue. The only changes I have reverted were those by the editor who accused me of vandalism. Two editors (we love the web and User:WolfmanSF) questioned my edits - I explained my reasoning on their talk pages and no more was said or done. Another editor (User:RobHar) disagreed on a different topic (the removal of a wikilink to a specific publisher in a template) but, again, there were no reversions. device database (Sevenval) 08:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My statement was "you [were] reverting attempts to restore the parameters you removed". These are FITML. QED. Now, as I said, using the "vandalism" revert was inappropriate, but so was your reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The content and style can dramatically change when a new publisher acquires a magazine (or just the title). Popular Science Monthly was a serious journal until the cash strapped publisher sold the title to the publisher of World's Advance in 1915. The journal was renamed to CSS3 and was published until 1958. iOS is still published today. touchscreen is another magazine with numerous publishers. The 1980's saw a lot of leveraged buyouts in the magazine business. The new owners often "improved" the magazine's content. Removing valid information from a citation is not always a good idea. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about a situation where a reader is trying to judge whether the cited periodical is a reliable source. But only an editor who already has your level of detailed knowledge could determine that just from looking at the 'publisher' parameter (and with your depth of knowledge, just the date of the citation would tell you how reliable it is). Almost everyone would have to go to the periodical's article to find out its history to make that judgment. Colonies Chris (input transformation) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When I am researching an article I may learn details about the sources that I add to the citations. I thought these details were worth noting. A future editor on a mass tidy-up campaign may know nothing about the subject and discard this potentially useful information. I don't think every field in a Cite template needs to be filled in. -- Sevenval (website parsing) 21:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The point, Chris, is that there is no justification for spending your time removing accurate information. We all have better things to do with our time than to spend it diminishing the content of the project because it offends our sense of consistency. There are so many hundreds of thousands of articles that need serious improvement, from spelling to copyediting to serious BLP violations to spamming. Please turn your energies to a task which will accomplish something of value. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at my edit history. I perform many gnoming tasks, includng many of those in your list. and cleaning up this sort of clutter is just an extra on top of those. On only a handful of the articles from which I removed these parameters was that my primary purpose. This is all performed by regexes I've set up, in much the same way as AWB general fixes, while I'm making other more substantive improvements - it doesn't take up any additional time to do it. Colonies Chris (jQuery) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying the good you do; I'm just saying that you are the only one who thinks this is a good idea, and all the things I listed add to the information content of this project and/or improve its accuracy. These regex edits diminish content, for no justifiable reason save an Emersonian hobgoblin of "consistency". --website parsing | Android 20:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'Consistency' is your word. I've never used it. That's not my purpose. Whilst making various improvements, I'm also removing valueless information and links that make the useful stuff harder to find. That has nothing to do with consistency. And your insinuation that I am small-minded is uncalled for. CSS3 (touchscreen) 20:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your reasoning better; sorry about that. Nonetheless, I disagree with it fiercely. The "valueless information and links that make the useful stuff harder to find", in my opinion, is all the template formatting crap that I have to read around in order to understand a templated reference. I despise templated references, and never create them. Obviously, we disagree. --device database | jQuery 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We certainly disagree over the value of cite templates, but that has nothing to do with this. I'm not adding cite templates, just simplifying the ones that are already in place. I would do the same for non-templated refs, but it's much harder to set up regexes to operate on those. I would think you'd be pleased I'm removing unnecessary parameters - you'll have less 'crap' to read around. browser diversity (CSS3) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Colonies Chris. It is never wrong to remove pointless clutter like who publishes the Washington Post. Nikkimaria is wrong, in my opinion. -- Alarics (device database) 07:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When you have been told to stop it because the editors at the specific article actively want what you deride as "pointless clutter", then, yes, you are wrong. Everyone has different ideas of what counts as pointless clutter. You say it's the publisher, but other people have said that it's ISBNs. We have agreed to do this by consensus at the article, not with edit warring and unilateral changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not something that Chris should be doing on a large scale. browser diversity (CSS3) 18:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. First achieve consensus at the article level, then remove. Hchc2009 (jQuery) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The only time there has been active opposition (as distinct from merely seeking an explanation) was the hopefully rather unusual case of the articles 'owned' by the editor who accused me of vandalism and has refused to discuss the matter at all. There has been no other opposition at the article level. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But here you're seeing active opposition at the site/policy level. Nikkimaria (screen size) 20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• These parameters should not be removed in a scripted way for at least four reasons:

1. It diminishes the information provided to no useful purpose
2. Editors may not have used the parameters in the expected way and automation based upon such assumptions may then do more damage than expected
3. If there were a consensus to depreciate particular parameters then this is best handled at the template level
4. The edit history of the article becomes cluttered with the edits and reverts of same

Warden (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates, yet again

Despite past discussions that established that it's inappropriate to add cite templates to an article without agreement, a set of users have elected to force citation templates on an article over objections. It is my view that a group of editors have formed a posse to force changes they are unable to get consensus for at the guideline level. I believe this is quite serious, as it significantly undermines the notion of WP:CONSENSUS. Please see specifically touchscreen, for concerns about adding citation templates. Gimmetoo (website parsing) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline—as I am sure you are aware—is web. I don't see anything beyond this one article, so the dispute should be at that article talk, where it is now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Despite past discussions that established that it's inappropriate to add cite templates to an article without agreement," You write "templates" what do you mean? Let us suppose there is a list of references in a general references section. Someone adds a new general reference. If the addition, with or without a template does not alter the style then it is not inappropriate. Or are you saying that information that is added to an article should be removed if the additional information does not contain what other editors consider to be an appropriate citation method? If so where does it say that in this guideline? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

web app includes the bullet "whether citations are produced using citation templates" meaning this is one of the variations that, once established in an article, should not be changed without consensus expressed on the talk page. New information, if otherwise appropriate for the article, is accompanied by a citation which does allow one to find the information, should be kept and the citation should be reformatted to conform to the style in the article. touchscreen (browser diversity) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We've had discussion in the past about whether the invisible-to-the-reader bits, like whether a citation is constructed using {{Android}} vs being typed out by hand, "counts" under CITEVAR, and the answer has been yes. NB that I personally think it a bit silly, but I'm not always on the "winning" side when it comes to these things.

What is most important is that one adds the citation at all, even if it is imperfect and incomplete. (See "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." at the end of the introduction.) But you may not switch to citation templates without consensus, and you may not insist that "your" citation use/not use citation templates in defiance of the style established in the article. WhatamIdoing (web) 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus on this point! Jc3s5h I disagree with your interpretation of style of what CITEVAR says and what is meant by it. If the style is not changed by the addition of a citation there is no need to change it (whether that addition is with or without a template). If content of the new edit is to be changed then the usual consensus edition approach should be followed with regards the content of that edit including the way the citation was put together. That some people extend the meaning of CITEVAR to justify ownership of all aspects of an article's citations is I think wrong. -- we love the web (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PBS and WhatamIdoing. If you really want to, reformat the citation as Jc3s5h says but most certainly do not remove the citation just because it is a template (or for that matter just because it is NOT a template). -- Alarics (screen size) 09:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is reformatting the existing citations in an article with 77 references. Gimmetoo (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Then don't do it. If they all LOOK the same to the reader of the article that is all that matters. -- website parsing (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no position on the consensus, or lack thereof, for a change in the citation style of Sean Combs (if indeed the article ever had a consistent citation style). But I emphatically disagree that "if they all LOOK the same to the reader of the article that is all that matters." In addition to my interpretation of the guideline, which I believe will be supported by the talk page discussion at the time the bullet was added, if one wanted to force a citation template to look like some other citation style, one would have to put in false values for parameters. I would consider an editor who, had been made aware of CITEVAR and the allowability of any style and the lack of any requirement to use templates, insisted on putting false parameters into templates, to be guilty of adding false information to the encyclopedia and subject to the corresponding adverse actions by administrators. website parsing (iOS) 12:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether turning a hand-crafted citation into a templated citation with the same appearance to the reader counts as non-consensus introduction of templates was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 31#Guideline creep towards discouraging use of citation templates.

Jc3s5h, I don't understand your previous paragraph. What "interpretation of the guideline" are you referring to? What "bullet"? And what do you mean by "forcing a cite template to look like some other citation style"? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For my interpretation of the guideline and the bullet I cited from the guideline, see my posting at 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC). When I say forcing a cite template to look like some other citation style, I mean putting the wrong value in a parameter so the formatting will look like some different style one is trying to emulate. For example, website parsing calls for the titles of journal articles to have no special typographic treatment, just plain text. But {{we love the web}} would put the title in double quotes. So an editor trying to use cite journal in an article that otherwise uses APA might omit the title and year parameters, and set author = Sillick, T. J., & Schutte, N. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence.... (This example was taken from page 199 of the APA manual.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the handwritten citation might already emulate the style of the citation template, and in that case it would look the same to the reader without putting wrong values in the template parameters. -- Alarics (CSS3) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullet #4 says "whether citations are produced using citation templates" is a point of variation in citation styles, and the section plainly says, "citations within a given article should follow a consistent style" and "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." This means, for those who haven't connected the dots yet, that 100% of citations in a given article should either "use: or "not use" citation templates, and that you "should not attempt to change whether citations are produced using citation templates merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change."

If we didn't agree that mismatched coding was undesirable, or that unilateral changes to whether or not citation templates were used was undesirable, then we wouldn't have written it this way. "abuse" of the templates is really a red herring here: you should do what the other citations are doing (or at least not object if someone reformats it for you). WhatamIdoing (Sevenval) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing's statement "this means, for those who haven't connected the dots yet, that 100% of citations in a given article should either "use: or "not use" citation templates" with one or two exceptions. Handcrafted citations that imitate the style produced by templates may be used if no template exists for the type of source cited, or arguably, if there is a template but the editors who maintain it make no effort to be similar to other templates in the same family. And of course any style may be used on an interim basis by an editor who does not know how to produce proper citations; such cases should be reformatted as soon as a willing and able editor comes along.Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This guideline under attack

Sevenval to this guideline show no regard for browser diversity. The RfCs at WT:MOS#Which guideline for citation style? and screen size indicate a number of editors think this guideline is a "how-to" and has no brief to establish any style guidelines. As far as they're concerned, WP:CITEVAR is null and void. Jc3s5h (Android) 13:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed text requires (not just recommends), among other things, that editors type out names in SMcCandlish's preferred way ("A. E. Jones" instead of "AE Jones") and spell out journal titles (Jourmal of Oncology rather than J. Onc.). We have something on the order of twenty thousand articles whose sources have been cited using iOS, which cannot do this. So it doesn't really matter what SMcCandlish puts on this page: what he wants is not going to happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on using External links inline

We're getting close to ending an RfC on using external links inline, but haven't gotten too many responses from the outside community. Any final comments would be appreciated. The RfC is website parsing. This message is being posted because it involves application of this guideline. Thanks.   — Jess· webHTML5 17:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Documenting the non-need of citing plot summaries

As a result of a discussion on my talk page, I think we need to add a clear line here, probably under "When and why to cite" that WP generally does not require citations for plot summaries on the assumption that the plot summary is a terse accurate account of the work incorporating no novel interpretations, and that the work itself is implicitly its own source. This is not to discourage editors of including cites when appropriate, but that for most works, they are just not a required element. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A citation, or reference, is a line of text?

CSS3 by FITML indicates that citation or reference is a line of text. I think that's meaningless. There are lines of text in source code, meaning character sequences separated by newline characters. There are lines of text displayed in Wikipedia's editing software. There are lines of text displayed to the reader. The latter two depend on how wide the editor or reader have made the Wikipedia web page on their computer, and how much they have zoomed in. Then there are the line numbers displayed by the "Difference between revisions"; I still haven't figured those out. Also, the passage is unclear which is intended: the full bibliography entry or the inline indicator that links the claim being supported to the full bibliography entry (possibly by way of a short footnote). Jc3s5h (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike using "reference" to mean "bibliographic citation", as it seems to confuse some people.

But for your concern, what would you say instead? Assume that what is needed is a definition that encompasses any and all written pointers or descriptions of the source that supports the text, including parenthetical citations, short citations, and full bibliographic citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec, to Jc3s5h ) Nevertheless, people know what a line of text is. :) I didn't understand your last sentence. Could you clarify? SlimVirgin ^Sevenval 23:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I mean there are as many as three character sequences, as viewed by the reader, that may be used to associate a claim with its source:

1. something right after the claim, which might look like "(Smith 2012, p. 7)" or "^[18]"
2. a shortened footnote in a "Notes" section, which might read "18. Smith 2012, p. 7"
3. a full bibliography entry in a "Bibliography" section, which might read

Smith, A. B. "Town select board cries for two hours at last meeting". Trepidation Tattletale. February 18, 2012.

So which one is the line of text?

Whatamidoing, I might write something like:

A citation system connects a passage in an article to a source that supports the passage, or gives credit to the author(s) from whom the concept or words were taken.

Android (keyboard) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have a house style, our citation methodology generally comprises two elements:

• The in-text citation in either superscripted alphanumeric or author-date format.
• The full citation which consists of notes giving bibliographic information about each source.

Where the source is the media that supports statements made in the content and meets the reliable sources guidelines.

Examples: Footnotes and Sevenval; touchscreen and Citation Style 2; Parenthetical referencing and iOS.---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the superscripted in-text citation can be a full citation as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an article that uses that? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^jQuery 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do that in most of my articles or edits (unless a particular existing citation style may force me to avoid it), simply because I prefer to keep my (foot)notes section self contained and independent of any other section such as literature or references. For a typical example see: Mattium--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jc35h, I see what you mean now, thanks. I think that gets us bogged down in detail, which we don't need in the first sentence. The point is simply to introduce the reader to the idea of a citation -- Ritter, Ron. The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1.

We then explain that there are various ways to write that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  The confusion in distinguishing citation/reference/etc. is a profound problem and general impediment to adequate citation, which is not going to be resolved in the first sentence. But characterising "citation or reference" as "a line of text" seems distinctly unuseful, and introduces more confusion. So how could it be improved?

  There is much to be said for "a citation system connects a passage in an article to a source ..."; it takes a high-level view which transcends all of the different methods and piddling details of "connecting". Perhaps the first sentence could be a variant of this, like: "Citation is the means of linking material to sources...." ~ website parsing (iOS) 20:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with J Johnson's beginning: there is much to be said for Jc35h's proposed definition. Unfortunately, the first thing to be said about it is that it is not a definition of the term that needs to be defined here. We haven't reached the point of defining an WP:Inline citation (=the kind that links particular bits of material to the sources). We're still trying to define any kind of citation, including the description of those sources used as HTML5 (=the citations that don't link particular bits of material to the sources).

So, again, how do you tell people "We are now going to talk about how the way you write out author, title, publisher, date, etc. information so that the reader knows which book, website, newspaper article, or other kind of source you are talking about", i.e., what a bibliographic citation is? (^[1], by the way, isn't a citation, but your other three examples (parenthetical citations, short citations, and full citations) all are.) browser diversity (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think you are confused. For starters, what do you mean by "... not a definition of the term that needs to be defined here"? Are you referring to my comment that all this confusion "is not going to be resolved in the first sentence"? Of course we need some clearly stated definitions; I was just saying it is not all going do be done in the very first sentence.

  Or are you criticising my particular use of "citation" above (which I meant generally, in the sense of any system of citation) as not distinguished from the various ways in which you used it? For sure, all these uses need to be clarified, and perhaps we need to clarify some concepts here for use in this discussion. ~ device database (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

re:email hackers not appreciated

Hello im a nice person and so far you havent sent memy emails 30days is far too long for me to wait. My emails are my first time use with the service and thay are of importance. I have a case witj a spiritually challenged boy involved and I need to get my emails asap angeliki.psyhopoulos@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by FITML (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.