Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:48, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:CITE WT:CS

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: 2 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why doesn't Misplaced Pages require everyone to use exactly the same style for formatting citations on every single article, regardless of the subject? Different academic disciplines use different styles because they have different needs and interests. Variations include differences in the choice of information to include, the order in which the information is presented, the punctuation, and the name of the section headings under which the information is presented. There is no house style on Misplaced Pages, and the community does not want to have the holy war that will happen if we tell people that they must use the style preferred by scientists in articles about history or the style preferred by artists when writing about science. Editors should choose a style that they believe is appropriate for the individual article in question and should never edit-war over the style of citations. What styles are commonly used? There are many published style manuals. For British English the Oxford Style Manual is the authoritative source. For American English the Chicago Manual of Style is commonly used by historians and in the fine arts. Other US style guides include APA style which is used by sociologists and psychologists, and The MLA Style Manual which is used in humanities. The Council of Science Editors and Vancouver styles are popular with scientists. Editors on Misplaced Pages may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves. It is unusual for Misplaced Pages articles to strictly adhere to a formally published academic style. Isn't everyone required to use clickable footnotes like this to cite sources in an article? Yes. Footnotes (also called "<ref> tags") or shortened footnotes are now required in new articles, although some older articles may still use the now-deprecated citation system of inline parenthetical referencing (see WP:PARREF). Why doesn't Misplaced Pages require everyone to use citation templates in every single article? Citation templates have advantages and disadvantages. They provide machine-readable meta data and can be used by editors who don't know how to properly order and format a citation. However, they are intimidating and confusing to most new users, and, if more than a few dozen are used, they make the pages noticeably slower to load. Editors should use their best judgment to decide which format best suits each specific article. Isn't there a rule that every single sentence requires an inline citation? No. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability requires citations based on the content rather than the grammar. Sometimes, one sentence will require multiple inline citations. In other instances, a whole paragraph will not require any inline citations. Aren't general references prohibited? A general reference is a citation listed at the end of an article, without any system for linking it to a particular bit of material. In an article that contains more than a couple of sentences, it is more difficult to maintain text-source integrity without using inline citations, but general references can be useful and are not banned. However, they are not adequate if the material is one of four types of content requiring an inline citation. The article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is an example of a featured article that uses some general references. Can I cite a sign? Yes, signs, including gravestones, that are displayed in public are considered publications. If the article is using citation templates, then use {{cite sign}}. You may also cite works of art, videos, music album liner notes, sheet music, interviews, recorded speeches, podcasts, television episodes, maps, public mailing lists, ship registers, and a wide variety of other things that are published and accessible to the public.

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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Misplaced Pages Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

How to cite something in newspapers.com?

What's the right way to generate a URL for a publicly-viewable clipping in newspapers.com? Cannonball (Milwaukee Road train) had a reference that linked to https://www.newspapers.com/image/1066814482 but that gets you to "You need a subscription to view this page" if you're not logged in. So I logged into my account and generated a clipping, which has a URL of https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-waukesha-county-freeman-cannonball-c/159032901/ which is only marginally better; if you're not logged in, it gets you to an image of the page that's too small to read the type, and if you click on it, you're back to "Create a free account, or sign in". I thought the idea of a clipping was that it was publicly viewable. Am I just doing it wrong? RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, so far as I can tell, a clipping image is always the same width for logged-out viewers. So, if you're clipping one column, even if it's a long one, then the legibility is good. Clipping a whole page across will come out fuzzy. Misplaced Pages:Newspapers.com says that we're meant to use clippings rather than "/image/" links, so I've been doing it that way. Rjj (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Rjjiii, clipping image can be seen by non-logged or logged-out viewers and you should take a news block for clipping instead of the whole page and use the "/article/" link. Here is an example (taken from a citation in WXYZ-TV)

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=L.A. |date=February 3, 1995 |title=Channel 4 newscasts take the ratings lead in Detroit |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012091020/https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |access-date=March 3, 2023 |work=] |pages=3F, |via=]}}</ref> Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 09:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

In my case, the original article was laid out so as to span the full width of the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on this to help out, User:Chew/essays/Citing Newspapers.com Clips.

It should give plenty of examples of how to cite; if anything is missing, let me know. Chew 22:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

doi for a conference paper

This edit introduced the new source given the name "Bill 2006". The source is a conference paper, but has a doi, so I used the cite journal template to generate the reference. That all seemed to work fine, but it produces an error message "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)". The template seems to provide the best result for someone who wants to check the reference, but, of course, there is no journal. Is there a solution to this problem?

Incidentally, there is some reason to use caution in citing conference papers. However, this example has been cited by others in a way that supports it as an RS, and it is written by a leading authority in the field. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's not published in a journal you shouldn't be using cite journal, you're looking for cite conference. There's generally no editorial control over conference papers, as you would have with a journal article. So it's reliability is mostly on the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Re "There's generally no editorial control over conference papers": . Maybe this is true for some fields but it is far from universal. The computer science conferences I'm familiar with are highly selective and have a strict editorial process involving multiple independent peer reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This also applies to the military history ones I am familiar with. They have strict editorial processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said generally, as it's in no way a universal situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

{{cite conference |last1=Bill |first1=Jan |date=2006 |section=From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600 |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Bockius |title=Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006 |doi=10.13140/2.1.5120.3204}}

Bill, Jan (2006). "From Nordic to North European. Analysis in the study of changes in Danish shipbuilding A.D. 900 to 1600". In Bockius, Ronald (ed.). Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006. doi:10.13140/2.1.5120.3204.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. The point about conference papers and their reliability is dealt with in this case by tracking the classification used in the paper to later peer-reviewed articles that reference the conference paper. The classification is clearly adopted as a useful way of thinking. It is not presented in the Misplaced Pages article as a definitive classification as the supporting peer-reviewed material does not make it clear whether or not that is the case. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, @David Eppstein, @Hawkeye7, @ThoughtIdRetired, @Trappist the monk: You may be interested in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Conference proceedings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I have the page watchlisted and have been following the discussion, but I don't have anything to add at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing a source that's split across multiple URLs / sites?

How does one cite a source that is available online but only in fragmentary form? e.g. a single 10-chapter work with chapters 1-5 at SomeSite.org and chapters 6-10 at AnotherSite.com?

The specific example this is in reference to is the book Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines. It's online at except for chapter/section 23 which is missing on that site but is online on a different site at . Alex Hajnal (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You can do something like what I did at Molasses Reef Wreck, with in-line citations pointing to different entries in a References section. You should create a citation for the main book, with a sub-citation for the bulk of the book, and a second sub-citation for chapter/section 23. Then have the in-line citations point to the appropriate entry in the References section. Let me know if you need help on the details. Donald Albury 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at what you suggested however it doesn't seem like a good fit for the existing article (which uses a single unified References section).

I'm thinking something like the following as existing references (of which there are many) won't need to be changed; new or updated references can all use the same ref but append the page or section number e.g. (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|18-3}}) or (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|§18}}).

* ]: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933<ref name=MMA>{{cite book |title=Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines |publisher=IBM |year=1936}}<br />
Single book divided into separate pamphlets:
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-00.pdf |title=AM-0 Introduction (revised)}}
* (other sections skipped for this example)
* {{cite web |url=https://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AM2-24.pdf |title=AM-24 International Automatic Carriage}}
</ref>

This renders as:

• IBM 034: Alphabetic Duplicating Printing Key Punch; 1933

Thoughts? Alex Hajnal (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Machine Methods of Accounting: A manual of the basic principles of operation and use of international electric accounting machines. IBM. 1936.
   Single book divided into separate pamphlets:
   • "AM-0 Introduction (revised)" (PDF).
   • (other sections skipped for this example)
   • "AM-24 International Automatic Carriage" (PDF).

Citing an mp4 video?

I cited a A/V presentation packaged as an mp4 video in Special:Diff/1263609252. The mp4 is the meat of the source, but all the metadata is on an HTML page that's frankly, kind of sketch. I wanted to make sure I got links to both parts, if for no other reason than to make sure IA picked up the mp4. My first thought was to just add the 2nd URL to some field in the {{cite web}}, but that generated CS1 errors. I ended up cramming a {{cite AV media}} next to the {{cite web}}, which is itself pretty yucky. Any suggestions on how to do this better? RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

(Doy, failed to understand in my last suggestion.) Would a sub-list help? e.g.

• "Crowdsourcing". GLOBAL Bryophyte & Lichen TCN Project.
  • Zwingelberg, Miranda (August 25, 2023). Collector Profile: Margaret Sibella Brown (Video).

Remsense ‥ 论 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What if I use newspapers.com and the newspaper got its information from USA Today?

Please look at the citation here and tell me if I did it right. The Asheville Citizen-Times is where I read it but the reporter does not work for that paper.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Remsense ‥ 论 17:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just think it looks weird. It looks as if you're on page A6 of USA Today.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's correct as written, but if you don't like it, you could swap in the original: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/11/15/blackwolf-armed-driver-rideshare-service-texas/76331189007/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That works here, but I have encountered cases where only the newspapers.com link works if one wants to see the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I might also suggest use a more appealing layout; please try uploading it in a single line to improve its appearance. That would look great Thank you! DerryGer120 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Titles with line breaks

If the title of a ref source haa a line break, should we mark that explicitly with a <br> tag, or leave a plain space? This relates to edits such ss my edit here and other similar. Notifying Maurice Oly. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I usually substitute a colon, full stop, or ndash. I don't remember where the guidance is, but punctuation in source titles can be conformed to our own style (and often is: I see Citation bot modifying curly quotes to straight quotes all the time, even though they render the same in citation templates). Folly Mox (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 I went ahead and replaced all breaks in the concerned articles with colons. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAREN and endnotes

A question was raised at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Beauty Revealed/archive1 regarding the use of parenthetical referencing in end notes/explanatory notes. The current wording of WP:PAREN reads This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). (emphasis in original), with the only explicit exception reading This does not affect short citations that use <ref> tags, which are not inline parenthetical references; see the section on short citations above for that method.

Could there be some clarification as to what exactly within the article text itself entails? Does it mean in the body of the text; the body and the infobox; the body and the media captions; the body, image captions, and explanatory notes, or some other unspecified mix? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I was the editor who brought up the above concern at the Beauty Revealed FAC. My interpretation of the above quote was that it was emphasising that parenthetical citations should not be in the article body. I could not find any text that gave an exception to notes within WP:PAREN or the RfC. My belief is that the deprecation and prohibition of parenthetical citations include notes. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's correct; I had not mentioned any arguments to avoid potentially influencing the discussion. My argument (copied from the FAC nom) is that "Regarding the treatment of explanatory notes, I note that MOS:FNNR treats them as though they are equivalent to citations (If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function.). Template:Efn also treats explanatory footnotes as similar to citations, defining explanatory notes as footnotes which provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text (emphasis mine)." I note also that the initial RFC made a specific reference to reader-friendliness, which is why I have used in-line for footnotes (one less click for readers who have already had to click once to read the endnote). I removed all endnotes from the FAC under consideration above; examples of what the style being discussed is like can be seen at Gao Qifeng and The True Record. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the endnotes are not part of the article body and so not covered by PAREN. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that the readability of the endnotes as used in this version is much better than forcing inline citations into the notes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. I realize that's a hard story to sell at FAC, but it's a long-standing policy.

In this case, the two short citations were well-formatted, with links to the books they refer to. They are identical to the short citations in the immediately following ==References== section. The only difference is that, having already clicked down to read the footnote's text, you don't have to click another time to find out which source is being cited. I think that this is actually a good thing, as the (rare) interested reader need only:

1. Click to get to the footnote, and then
2. Click to get to the full citation for the whole book.

instead of:

1. Click to get to the footnote, and
2. Click to get to the short citation, and then finally
3. Click to get to the full citation for the whole book.

@Z1720, this is a bit pedantic, but I notice that in the FAC page, you say that the short citations "should be replace with inline citations". They already are inline citations, because anything that associates a given bit of material with a source is an WP:Inline citation. I think you meant something like "should be reformatted to use little blue clicky numbers". Ref tags (those little blue clicky numbers) are the most popular, but they are not the only permitted form. If you truly can't bear the idea of parentheses in a footnote, then we can replace them with something else. Daggers would fit the time period of the article's subject, if the OP doesn't wish to see little blue clicky numbers in the footnote, or the full citation could be duplicated in the footnote, if the OP doesn't wish to make readers click three times to see it. But I think this is unnecessary. This is not an unreasonable approach to citing this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I do not think parenthetical citations are an improvement in the notes, which is why I did not invoke WP:IAR. I actually think parenthetical citations are detrimental to the reader because of the reasons mentioned in the RfC that deprecated them: most readers do not care about the citations and ignore the footnotes when reading articles, and parenthetical citations clutter the text with extra characters that the reader is forced to read to get to the information. I think it is better to have a footnote be at the end of each note. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is insane to require footnotes in your footnotes merely because some of the footnotes have added explanations in them and that turns them magically into text and text cannot have parentheses. If you have footnotes with short citations (clearly an accepted style, still), and some of those footnotes also have explanations in them, that is not a problem. Otherwise your point taken to a logical extreme would require an infinite regress of short citations because the nth-level short citations could not contain parenthetical references and would have to have footnotes pointing to (n+1)-level citations, and so on ad infinitum et ad absurdam. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If most readers ignore the footnotes, then it doesn't matter how we format the information we put in them. The argument for deprecating in-text parenthetical references was based on the clutter that they (supposedly) introduce. If most readers are just skipping over the footnotes, then they won't care about those footnotes containing clutter, will they? The rationale for avoiding parenthetical references just doesn't apply. An example: I recently overhauled the article on von Neumann entropy. Prior to that, I'd been working on quantum entanglement, which used a lot of {{rp}} tags to provide page numbers for repeatedly-cited books. I stuck with that style per WP:CITEVAR; I don't dislike it as much as some people, but there was an awful lot of it, so I decided to avoid it for von Neumann entropy. There, I went with {{sfn}}s for everything that is cited more than once. It's also helpful for when the same point is discussed in multiple books, so we can do short footnotes like Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 106; Rieffel & Polak 2011, p. 218; Bengtsson & Życzkowski 2017, p. 435. But not every book discusses the same topic at the same level. Rieffel and Polak's Quantum Computing: A Gentle Introduction is written at a more introductory level than Bengtsson and Życzkowski's Geometry of Quantum States; the former is for undergraduates and the latter for graduate students, basically. If we wanted to explain this, so that our readers can know where to look first for what they want, the natural way to do that would be to give a few words within the footnote itself. Requiring footnotes within footnotes is just demanding blue clicky numbers for their own sake. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If an explanatory footnote contains material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, then it must cite one or more reliable sources in-line. If Template:Efn is used for the footnote, then either <ref>...</ref> or Template:Sfn may be used as a short footnote citation, eliminating any need for parenthetical citations. In practice, I almost always cite sources for content in explanatory footnotes to head off any future challenges. Donald Albury 23:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to make it harder for the reader to find and understand article sourcing by making them have to jump three times, first having to go to one kind of footnote that explains the sources, and from there to a second kind of footnote that gives you a brief reference to the footnote, and from there to a third part of the references containing the detailed reference metadata, then I guess that's a valid style, but I don't see the point of all this separation. Requiring that other people do it your way goes against WP:CITEVAR, is not what the deprecation of parenthetical references in actual article text is about, and cannot be justified by that deprecation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Explanatory notes are not supposed to be for explaining sources, they are for content that may be of interest to readers, but is more or less peripheral to the topic of the article. If explanatory notes are used as intended, then there are not three jumps to the source. In explanatory notes, as in the main body of the article, there are in-line citations that link to the Reflist, some of which are full citations, and some of which are short references to the full citations. Donald Albury 00:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"In explanatory notes, as in the main body of the article, there are in-line citations that link to the Reflist" not on mobile though. Most reader will get a popup from a footnote now. If you click the footnote link in a mobile popup, it'll replace that with another popup. I've done parenthetical/short citations in explanatory notes because it allows a mobile reader to have the explanatory note and citation on the screen at the same time. {{Efn}} makes ref tags so parenthetical citations within that template seem outside the scope of the deprecation RfC. Rjj (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Explanatory notes can be for whatever one wants to explain. If one wants to explain something about the sources, in a footnote, in an article that uses short footnotes, then there is nothing wrong with doing that, and with using a harv-style parenthetical reference in the explanatory footnote to say which source the explanation is about.

An article in which the footnotes contain lots of text about the subject of the article is often a badly organized article. If the text about the subject is relevant enough to include, it is relevant enough to include in the main article text. For a horrific example see 24-cell (current version) in which the huge number of explanatory footnotes on off-topic material include the subset {m,r,s,t,ab,ad,ai,al,am,ar,bz,ca,cf,ci,cj,ck,cl,cm,ct,cu,cv,cy,cz,dd} all of which can be reached from each other by following internal chains of footnotes within footnotes within...etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a good reason to just combine all of the footnotes, whether they contain prose or citations, into one unified category of "Notes", so that there won't be pedantic arguments about what possible kind of text is allowable in which type of note. –jacobolus (t) 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Convenience links

We have a question for Cass Review. The story goes something like this:

• Ruth Pearce (sociologist) has a page on her blog: https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/ On this page, she collects all the criticisms of the subject of the article we're working on. This page also says, in the introductory text, that the Cass Review "has been extensively criticised by trans community organisations, medical practitioners, plus scholars working in fields including transgender medicine, epidemiology, neuroscience, psychology, women’s studies, feminist theory, and gender studies". In case it helps, I would describe this webpage as self-published, primary, advocacy-oriented, and independent of the Cass Review, and I think she would qualify as a subject-matter expert under WP:SPS rules.
• Four months ago, three non-profits (e.g., the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)) issued a joint statement about a different/non-Cass report (called "Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024"). I would classify this joint statement the same way as Pearce's blog post, but a joint statement is bigger than just "somebody has a blog". This other/education report mentions the Cass Review's final report in one paragraph.
• The joint statement deplores the school report relying on the Cass Review's final report (e.g., "poor and inconsistent use of evidence"). The joint statement also quotes the bit on Ruth Pearce's blog post I give above. A Misplaced Pages editor summarized it thusly in the article: "They also quoted healthcare activist and feminist Dr Ruth Pearce, who collated criticisms of the review and said it "has been extensively criticised by trans community organisations, medical practitioners, plus scholars working in fields including transgender medicine, epidemiology, neuroscience, psychology, women’s studies, feminist theory, and gender studies". ("They" in this sentence refers to the three organizations issuing the joint statement.)

The citations given for this were the joint statement plus the blog post that the joint statement quotes. The latter is described as a Misplaced Pages:Convenience link for anyone who wants to go straight to Pearce's blog post instead of reading the joint statement and clicking through to the blog post from there.

The questions are:

1. Is it acceptable to cite the blog post directly? This would be a second ref, as obviously the original blog post can't support claims about what the later joint statement says.
2. Assuming it's acceptable to add the blog post, would citing it (in addition to the joint statement itself) be ordinary/usual/typical in Misplaced Pages articles, or at least desirable for some reason?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Including a link to the primary source mentioned by the reference is acceptable if not required. You could include it as a separate reference, although this can sometimes be confused as using it to support content, or construct something with one reference to avoid that issue (<ref>{{cite advocacy group}} quoting {{cite blog post}}</ref>). I would also think in such a situation you could not include the blog in a reference, and instead include it in the Further Reading or External Links section. Adding any additional content based on the self published posts alone would depend on the author, if the are "an expert in the field who has previously published by other reliable sources" then it shouldn't be an issue.

Looking at the discussion at Cass Review I would add that although quotes require references, that doesn't mean the original source is required. If the quote is republished in a secondary source that secondary source is fine for verification purposes. Also none of this is a statement about whether it should be included, as I don't want to be involved in that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My own view exactly aligns with although quotes require references, that doesn't mean the original source is required. I wonder if anyone else has any views, or wants to make any guesses about how often both the original and the quoting source are cited together?

Including it in ==Further reading== or ==External links== would probably violate WP:ELPOV, but if that comes up, we can ask for advice at Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It happens quite often, but I wouldn't call it common (unless that's observation bias). It's common in some academic areas, but Misplaced Pages ≠ academia. I see your point about ELPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

CITEVAR for a TFA

I'm not sure where to ask this question; if there's a noticeboard for this I don't know about it so please point me at it if this is not the right place.

Gerald Durrell has just been on the main page; I took it to FAC and it became featured using short citations. While on the main page, JnpoJuwan, who had not previously edited the article, converted the citations to sfn in good faith. I reverted and left a message on their talk about CITEVAR, and they accordingly opened a discussion on the article talk page, here. Two other editors have joined that conversation, both of whom agree that the article should change to a templated style, though one suggests using harvnb instead. Pinging those editors too: DuncanHill & Chew.

Per the footnote under CITEVAR, The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: "Misplaced Pages does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Misplaced Pages does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Misplaced Pages to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

I don't think I've run into this situation before, where an editor not otherwise involved in the article makes a style change and argues for it on the talk page, where others agree. I would have thought that "editors should not ... edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style" applies here. If half a dozen editors who like any style, say {{rp}}, were to suggest converting any actively edited article to that style, it's unlikely there would be more than half-a-dozen editors to disagree with them, and that seems to go against the spirit of CITEVAR. (I've certainly left talk page messages suggesting changes to citation styles, but only for articles I am editing or plan to edit.) So am I right to think that the discussion on Talk:Gerald Durrell is overridden by CITEVAR, since those editors have not actively edited the article in question? Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Mike positively encouraged JnpoJuwan to open the discussion on the talk page. Now he seems to want to ban the discussion he himself invited. A clearer case of ownership I've never seen. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I did encourage them, and I think it was the right thing to do. I was just surprised when others uninvolved in the article showed up. I agree there's a contradiction between CITEVAR and OWN, and that's what I'm trying to understand -- after all, what does the Arbcom ruling I quoted mean, if there's no distinction between editors working on the page and those who are not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The citation style shouldn't be changed without discussion, that discussion should happen on the articles talk page. If there is then consensus to change it then there is no reason it should not change. CITEVAR doesn't say it can never change, only that doing so against consensus is a bad idea. The relevant text from CITEVAR would appear to be ... without first seeking consensus for the change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that editors should not ... edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style has no force, then? As far as I can tell that was JnpoJuwan's only reason for editing the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

But now he's seeking consensus on the talk page. He hasn't edit-warred, he's accepted your reversion and followed your advice to go to the talk page. You have absolutely no basis to complain. He made a mistake, you corrected him, and now he's doing what you told him to do. Other editors are participating in the discussion in good faith. You don't get to decide who can take part in the discussion, and you don't get to stop a discussion based on "the wrong people are taking part". DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

CITEVAR is not a prohibition from changing the citation style. Another relevant sentence would be "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." So if editors believe a change would help improve an article they can do so (as long as they have consensus), not making a change that by consensus would improve the encyclopedia because of a rule would seem to go against policy and the spirit of Misplaced Pages.
I don't think you can take just that section of the sentence as law, without the rest of the sentence "... nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." The prohibition is singular. An editor shouldn't edit an article just to change the style based on their own preference, but that doesn't exclude the style changing based on consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If the is a dispute over the style I would suggest following the normal dispute resolution methods. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the correct interpretation of the P&G: it doesn't say it can never change; just that changes should be discussed. If the consensus on the page is to move it to {{sfn}} (which, notably, co-exists with {{harvnb}}), WP:CITEVAR does nothing to stop that consensus from moving forward. Ifly6 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I honestly don't see much point in CITEVAR in that case, but as that seems to be the consensus interpretation I can accept it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Inline citations

Hi everyone. Some time ago, I revamped the article Pokémon. On 20 occasions, the article uses inline citations to books and scientific essays. For example:

According to Tomisawa (2000), the phrase "Capsule Monsters" was already registered. According to Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), the word "capsule" could not be used in the trademark.

1. Tomisawa (2000), p. 65-66.
2. Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), p. 99-101.

I'm only now seeing this paragraph: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Does this policy also apply to the referencing style I used above?

I've compiled a list of inline citations here: Talk:Pokémon#Inline citations. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Would that not be WP:INTEXT attribution? Rjj (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that that looks like in text attrbution and not parenthetical referencing. Ifly6 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any parenthetical citations in the article. Parenthetical referencing refers to placing citations in text without using <ref> ... </ref> or {{Sfn}} formatting. Donald Albury 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Manifestation: This old version of Actuary used parenthetical referencing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like "According to Tomisawa (2000)" is indeed a parenthetical citation, even if no full reference details are given. It would be better to just give the author's name if in-text attribution is considered relevant ("According to Akihito Tomisawa"), or otherwise to omit the "according to" clause altogether. Gawaon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"According to Tomisawa (2000)" is not in parentheses, therefore, it's not parenthetical. It's in-text attribution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@everyone: Thank you for your responses! My point is: there is nothing on this policy page regarding the inline " ()" format. This is the format used in academic papers. I know that Misplaced Pages isn't an academic paper. But I still feel this type of in-text citing could be useful to us.

An example:

• Roberts (1986) believed that John Doe committed the murder. However, Reese (2006) presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Jake Roberts believed that John Doe committed the murder. However, Tim Reese presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Historian Jake Roberts wrote in The Butler Did It (1986) that John Doe committed the murder. However, in a 2006 JFS paper, cold-case detective Tim Reese presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Some historians believe that John Doe committed the murder. However, modern evidence points to James Roe as a possible culprit.

In the first phrase, the years between parentheses provides readers with a visual cue, helping them differentiate between the cited authors of sources (Jake Roberts, Tim Reese) and the key figures within the historic case (John Doe, James Roe).

In the second phrase, this differentiation is not explicitly made, and the reader may not immediately understand who Jake Roberts and Tim Reese are.

In the third phrase, the text makes more of an effort to explain the sources and its authors. This may be important, but it also makes the text longer and more cluttered.

Mentioning an author in-text is crucial when you wish to make it clear that this is what *they* believe to be true, not what *Misplaced Pages* believes to be true. It is *their* point of view, not Misplaced Pages's. This improves an article's accuracy and neutrality.

Explicitly mentioning the year of a source may also be important. If the murder was committed in 1983, then a source published in 1986 would've been written in a very different context than a source published two decades later. With regards to forensic science: DNA evidence would not have been available in the 1980s, but it could be in the 2000s. - Manifestation (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if the source from 1986 is outdated, we probably shouldn't mention it altogether. Misplaced Pages doesn't strive for completeness, and not every possible source needs to be included. Gawaon (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

A source from 1986 may not necessarily be 'outdated' in the sense that it has become useless. Quite the opposite: it could be a priceless historical document, e.g. containing interviews with people who have since passed away. It may also be relevant to emphasize in a Misplaced Pages article that the source is from that time period, hence the "Author (Year)" format. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

More general, I'm confident that WP:PAREN is meant to forbid "Tomisawa (2000)" just as well as "(Tomisawa 2000)", as those are clearly two variants of the same citation style – authors will use one or the other depending on which one fits better into the text flow. See Parenthetical referencing § How to cite, where this is explained. Gawaon (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less confident that we intended to ban this, but you could write "Tomisawa in 2000" instead, and then not have to worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• NA-Class Help pages
• High-importance Help articles
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages