Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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": [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)

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 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)

@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)

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 [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)

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}}).

* [[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

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

References

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 Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)