Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 56: 2 months

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Why doesn't Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves. It is unusual for Wikipedia articles to strictly adhere to a formally published academic style.
Isn't everyone required to use clickable footnotes like this^[1] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia: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.

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Wikipedia Help High‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
High	This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove citation tools from this page

I propose that most of the § Citation templates and tools be removed from this page. First, I don't think a content guideline page is a good place for this content. Second, it duplicates an existing page, Help:Citation tools. To be precise, I propose that the following sections be removed from this page, and merged into Help:Citation tools insofar as they are useful there:

The text directly under the section § Citation templates and tools and the § Metadata section should stay. Daask (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Duplicated pages mean we have to update everything twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Moxy🍁 01:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. Wikipedia:Newspapers.com says that we're meant to use clippings rather than "/image/" links, so I've been doing it that way. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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=[[Detroit Free Press]] |pages=3F, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-news-wins-r/156927271/ 6F] |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref>

Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 09:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

doi for a conference paper

This edit[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re "There's generally no editorial control over conference papers": [citation needed]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [2] except for chapter/section 23 which is missing on that site but is online on a different site at [3]. Alex Hajnal (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^[1]^: 18–3 (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|18-3}}) or ^[1]^: §18 (<ref name=MMA />{{rp|§18}}).

* [[IBM 034]]: 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^[1]

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

References

^ ^a ^b ^c
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[MMA-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).

[2] "AM-0 Introduction (revised)" (PDF).

[3] (other sections skipped for this example)

[4] "AM-24 International Automatic Carriage" (PDF).

[1]