Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 11 January 2014 (→The interpretation of 'consistency'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:CITE

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

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: 14 days

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.

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 Project‑class

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 Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Proposed clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

During a previous discussion on this page it emerged that book publishers quite often use the same ISBN, and possibly the same year and edition, for significantly different versions of a book. Thus ISBN 185326024X is used for several versions of David Copperfield, with different introductions and different page numbering. Two versions of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition were issued in 2009. The second had many corrections but the same ISBN, year and edition, distinguished in the front matter only by the words "second printing". Publishers should not do that, but they often do. A second issue is that the metadata (author, title, date, publisher etc.) given by a website that provides scanned pages from a book is often incorrect. A 2012 study found that 36% of a sample of Google Books had metadata errors. Finally, the information returned from a given url may change from time to time – perhaps when the website corrects their error.

If you have found a book page online, you should of course include the metadata in the citation. It may be inaccurate but is probably not wildly inaccurate. But all you really know for sure is that you saw the page at that url on that date.

This is to propose adding the following warning to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT:

Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, ISBN, edition, year of publication and so on. Even if accurate, the metadata may not precisely identify a printed version of the book. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page that you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you should give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw.

Wikisource goes further and recommends adding UTC access time, as in:

Artikel „Auliczek, Dominicus“ von Wilhelm Adolf Schmidt in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, herausgegeben von der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 1 (1875), S. 687–688, Digitale Volltext-Ausgabe in Wikisource, URL: http://de.wikisource.org/search/?title=ADB:Auliczek,_Dominikus_Jakob_von&oldid=1685662 (Version vom 23. Dezember 2013, 15:06 Uhr UTC)

In my view this is excessive. url+date is sufficient. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Support / Oppose)

• Support adding boxed text to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If the "cite" templates make this easy, consider adding an example. If they do not, consider improving them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. That previous discussion was your "ISBN oddity", where it did not "emerge" that "book publishers quite often use the same ISBN for significantly different versions of a book." My recollection is that, in fact, your demonstration of an alleged problem involved your misattributon of one publisher's ISBN to the edition of a different publisher.

For sure, materials accessed on-line most definitely should have the url, and generally the access date. But you are not persausive that there is a problem, and your proposal's prologue (the arguments why url and access date should included) is excessive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

During the "ISBN oddity" discussion various examples were given of an ISBN being reused for different versions of a book, but that is only part of the problem. The inaccuracy of the metadata provided by the website is probably more important, as is the instability of urls. Would this proposal be acceptable if the second sentence were dropped, as in ALT1 below? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You seem confused as to what you want (comments? or a straw-poll?). But to the extent that we are commenting/voting on a particular proposal, you need to not alter that in the course of discussion. If you wanted to determine what form of a proposal might fly, that should have been discussed prior to askng for "support/oppose". But whether any change here is useful is doubtful: Your statement of a problem is sketchy at best, relying mainly on a dubious interpretation of a previous discussion that was unpersuasive in large part due to your own errors. This undermines any proposal you make. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not needed, and not all citation styles use ISBN. I never cite to ISBN, and don't intend to start. GregJackP Boomer! 01:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "ISBN" is a red herring. To me an ISBN has value in a cite as a useful link to the special "Book sources" page - but that is a different discussion. Would this proposal be acceptable if the term "ISBN" were dropped as in ALT1 below? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, edition, year of publication and so on. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page that you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you should give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw.

I'm not interested in doing that either. On a book, I cite the author, volume no., the book title, the page(s), and year of publication. That's all that the style I use requires (with limited exceptions), so that is all I cite. It provides enough information for someone to identify and locate the reference material, which is all it is supposed to do. GregJackP Boomer! 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose I see the link to e.g. Google Books as a convenience for some readers and editors: it often doesn't work for all readers. I.e. if its missing or out of date it's not that important. It's not like the URL in a cite web, which can be checked by anyone and should be updated if a page moves, tagged if it's dead, changed to an archive link if that's all that's available. As with all sources errors can be fixed as they are detected, perhaps by editors with access to a physical copy. Changes between e.g. editions, printings can be indicated in the metadata. Again this might only happen when another editor notices a discrepancy later/people using the source become familiar with its revisions.

But it should be needed rarely: errors in metadata and changes between printings that significantly change a source should be rare, much rarer than e.g. changes to web sites and news articles which are quickly assembled and much more ephemeral. So an access date is overkill.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A URL is less likely to work in countries that impose strict web censorship. This is not really related to whether the URL leads to a scanned book page. The 2012 study says there are metadata errors in 36% of the sample of Google Books. I assume the error rate with other book scan websites is similar. That is significant. Some books are relatively volatile, such as guides and directories, so the version cited is relevant. It seems to be within the spirit of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to provide the url and accessdate - and very easy to comply. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But it is not required, and not all citation styles require it, or allow it for that matter. GregJackP Boomer! 02:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The same study says, "Chapman and Massey (2002) find an overall error rate of 34.4% in their study of errors in MARC records" (about two-thirds minor errors and one-third major errors). It sounds like Google's metadata is somewhat worse, but it's not like the "gold standard" is very good, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How about ALT2 below, not requiring anything but just pointing out the issue and making a suggestion? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT2 Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, edition, year of publication and so on. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you may choose to give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw.

My main concern is that, since we don't require editors to do anything with their citation styles, we can't really require this one thing, either. Also, we'll get objections from some people about "advertising" or "promoting" Google Books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because there will be some idiot (none of those present, of course) who will take an optional or recommended practice and decide that it really means "required." Then we'll have to deal with that disruption, in addition to those that don't like GBooks to begin with. GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This guideline already covers the possibility of linking to Google Books Previews; I think this is good practice, but I'd oppose making it mandatory. The tamed-down ALT2 isn't proposing anything new, except that an accessdate should be provided along with the url. The problem is you can't archive a GBooks Preview (can you?), so there's no way of knowing what the page looked like at any given point in time. So what's the point of the accessdate? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books is just one site that holds scanned book pages. I would not assume it can never be archived, and would not single it out for special treatment. The German Wikisource is an example of a scanned book website that specifically recommends giving accessdate in citations. That is common with other websites. We know the metadata is often wrong - 36% is a lot of errors. ALT2 points that out and suggests giving url+date to identify where the information came from, as well as where the website says it came from. I can't see why that would be controversial. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not needed. GregJackP Boomer! 14:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@GregJackP: have you ever cited a page you found in a scanned book site, giving incorrect metadata provided by the site? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I primarily use the Bluebook style, so I don't use ISBN or other unnecessary data. For example, I regularly cite to various volumes of Kappler's Indian Affairs, digitized at Oklahoma State University. The citation would look like this: "2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904)." It shows I got the material from vol. 2, p. 138, gives the title, editor, and date of publication. That's all that is needed to identify the work, whether it is from the OSU library or a hardcopy in my hands. No other data is required. GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You are trusting that the Oklahoma State University site is giving correct metadata: the correct title, author and edition. No doubt it is. But have you ever used the metadata provided by a high-volume commercial scanned book website like Google or Amazon? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't all that inforrmation on the scanned flyleaf page (except for the page number)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. GregJackP Boomer! 15:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Information like author, title, publisher, year etc. can be checked when the scanned book website displays the front matter page that holds it, but it often does not. For example, I do not see the flyleaf in http://books.google.ca/books?id=5RqDAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover (likely to go through frequent editions), or http://books.google.ca/books?id=CAyDCKdiZ2UC&printsec=frontcover. The reader has to trust the website-provided metadata, which may be inaccurate - 36% of the time with Google. I often use copyright-expired books as sources. Particularly with those that are not in English, the volunteers who scanned them sometimes made ludicrous mistakes in the metadata. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Google gives the title of the second book above as رحلة في الخليج, which translates to "Trip in the Gulf". Amazon shows the front cover, but not the flyleaf, and says ISBN 389930070X is Unterwegs am Golf. Along the Gulf, which seems much more likely. I did not pick that one to make a point. Honest. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the requirement for WP:VERIFY is to describe where you got it well enough for someone else to get it. If there are two books by the same title, author, and year of publication, one of which has the referenced material and the other one of which (say, due to being another edition or a reprint) does not, then you have not provided a useful reference, as someone with the "other" copy of the book may look it up and tag the material with {{verification failed}}. ISBN numbers are generally helpful because most of the time they distinguish different editions of the same book. The unfortunate reality is that we rarely know if we have in fact given a complete-enough-to-be-useful reference, so we err on the side of caution by providing as much information as possible without getting silly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, but that still does not require ISBNs (or a lot of other metadata, for that matter). See WP:CITEHOW. For example, citing Dickens in Bluebook style would look like this: Charles Dickens, Bleak House 49-55 (Norman Page Ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853). You may err on the side of caution, I'll continue to cite with what I need to cite, and no more. GregJackP Boomer! 06:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

With Google, the initial scan of out-of-copyright works from university libraries was done by an army of volunteers who often made mistakes recording metadata, particularly when the book used archaic fonts in an unfamiliar language. I have seen the dedicatee given as title and the location given as author. Even with recent books, scanned book websites have a lot of errors in metadata. Saying "If you can not determine the title, author, year of publication, and page number, don't use the reference" seems reasonable, but what about the book that Google says is رحلة في الخليج by Annegret Nippa, Peter Herbstreuth 2006? Most editors would wrongly assume they do know the title, author and year of publication.

ALT2 therefore suggests adding a caution to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, pointing out that a scanned book's metadata as provided by the website may be incorrect and you may therefore want to identify the url+date where you read the book. This is not an attack on traditional citation styles. They do not require url+date, but they allow addition of such information, which may be helpful. Given the extent of the problem (36%), adding the caution seems reasonable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. At the very least, any such caution should clearly state that this is optional, and not a requirement. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Break

From the above discussion, it is clear that there will be no consensus on any new information requirement for citations. Even a suggested addition must be very clearly identified as purely optional. However, there remains a concern about the 36% inaccuracy of metadata supplied by the various scanned book websites. This is to withdraw the original proposal and ask for comment on ALT3, which simply identifies the issue and makes a suggestion. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, edition, year of publication and so on. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you may choose to give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw. This is strictly optional, and is not required.

I suggest that your nominal withdrawal of the original proposal should not be confounded with presentation of a what is essentially a close variant of the nominally withdrawn proposal. Withdrawing a proposal normally ends the discussion of it, and you could so signify by use of the {{archive top}} template. If you have a new and different proposal to make you should start a new discussion. However, what you have just presented ("ALT3") is barely different from what you have already proposed. And you still have failed to demonstrate a significant problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW (and partly for my own amusement) I offer the following example of how to demonstrate an alternative text. Note how the use of strike-out and underlined text enables us to see immediatley the exact changes (here, between your original proposal and your ALT3, above). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Diff: Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, ISBN, edition, year of publication and so on. Even if accurate, the metadata may not precisely identify a printed version of the book. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page that you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you should may choose to give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw. This is strictly optional, and is not required.

• It seems appropriate to continue the thread, since the revised proposal is a tweaked version of the original that takes into account the feedback. The significant problem is that a 2012 study found that 36% of a sample of Google Books had metadata errors. Various examples are shown above. There is a high probability that editors who cite metadata from scanned book websites will provide an incorrect attribution, violating the moral rights of the authors. We are aware of this risk. If we deliberately choose not to warn editors of the risk and fail to provide advice, we are complicit. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the significant problem is that this is not needed, nor required. I have better things to do with my time working on article creation than worry about bureaucratic BS, such as which ISBN or URL is needed. Nor do I want to have to deal with those that don't understand either our policies or citation systems in general, like I had to recently on an article I created. It hasn't been a problem and we don't need to create a problem. J. Johnson is correct, this is not new nor different, and it should be closed.

GJP Proposal: Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, ISBN, edition, year of publication and so on. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you may choose to give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw. This is strictly optional, and is not required. you are responsible for presenting the information properly, according to the citation style in use.

• Normally we give at least a week for discussion of a proposal so that editors who can only access the Internet occasionally, e.g. on weekends, get a chance to contribute. A discussion is generally closed when no new points have been raised for some time, There is no urgency. The ALT3 proposal is less than one day old. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight—it is OK for you to modify proposals about a day apart or so, but the rest of us have to wait a week? Bullshit. The "Alt3" proposal is the same as the "Alt2" which was the same as the "Alt1" proposal. All of them are unneeded. GregJackP Boomer! 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this seem self-contradictory to anyone else?

• Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time.
• give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw.

If the website changes what is displayed at the URL you give in the citation, then the URL you added will not "precisely identify what you saw", and if no independent archive is available, then it's worse than useless by providing false precision.

The only thing of potential value that I see here is a plain statement that the semi-automated metadata may not match the (more accurate) information on the copyright page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• The url+date precisely identify. The url alone is imprecise, since what it points to may change from time to time. Archiving services appear and disappear. It would be simple and useful for an archive service to periodically back up all urls newly added to Misplaced Pages articles. For all I know that is going on today, and the archivers are waiting for the legal green light before going live. I don't see a book page scan as significantly different from other material on the web, which also may or may not be subject to copyright. Maybe only the out-of-copyright pages get archived: a lot better than nothing.

The url alone has some value, not just as a convenience link, assuming what it points to rarely changes. If the copyright page is not visible and the website-provided metadata is wrong, there may be clues in the visible page or snippet that can help locate the true identity of the source. A page heading may give a clue. Or take a sentence from the page and search for that exact sentence on the web. It may work. The proposal is to point out that website-supplied metadata is not very reliable, and to gently suggest that the editor may provide a bit more information to make verification easier. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The convention of at least a week for comments starts with the initial proposal; it does not restart everytime you tweak your proposal. Indeed, that you keep tweaking it is a definite demonstration that your proposal was not ready for presentation. These tweaks also confuse the discussion (as it potentially alters the relevancy of prior comments). Additionally, ALL of your alterations lack a foundation: you have not adequately demonstrated a significant problem. Except as a courtesy to others that may want to comment, I think this discussion could be closed now on the basis of the WP:snowball clause.

While these points that concern you might warrant some discussion, your proposal has little chance of success. I think you will be much less frustrated letting this one go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• After just four days discussion of this complex issue I see good progress towards a better understanding of the problem with inaccurate scanned page metadata and towards developing a generally acceptable version of the warning message. I encourage further comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is no different from any other source: there are errors. There are quite a number of erroneous ISBNs and other metadata in every possible place, not just Google Books. (Open Library, for example, is notorious to the point that most librarians will not participate.) There are errors in all library catalogs, all publisher listings, on the title pages of published books, in references to them in even the most authoritative sources, and in all other sources for publication data. (Indeed, the actual publisher , place and date of a work can be ambiguous or fictional--intentionally or accidentally. Many works are redistributed by various publishers, sometimes changing the title page, sometimes adding a stamp or label, sometimes with no visible identification. These problems have been with us since the invention of publishing, and the ease of reprinting electronically will only add to them. The entire fields of enumerative and descriptive bibliography has arisen from the difficulties in straightening these out.

The standard cataloging rules therefore prescribe that all ISBNs found are included in the cataloging record, even ones that are obviously erroneous), and that all other identification numbers the item carries are included also, so the redundancy will help to distinguish the correct entry.

There seems to be some antipathy here to ISBNs. I do not understand it. They are, to be sure numbers originally invented by the publishing business, not libraries, but so are many other things, including the entire concepts of printing and publishing books, five centuries ago, and distributing them electronically, much more recently. I'd as soon omit them as I would a url--url's , after all, have a very high frequency of error much greater than any conventionally published material. ISBNs are so useful that all librarians began using them from the moment they became available, and it is not merely incomplete but altogether erroneous cataloging to not include them. Other numbers such as OCLC are no better--in some ways, they are worse, because they are derived from the uncoordinated and inconsistent practice of different libraries. Their primary useful is for older titles that do not have isbns, and of course as a secondary check. OCLC and other library numbers only cover the material that gets into libraries. ISBNSs apply to essentially anything anyone wants to put them on, and identify a large amount of material that never gets conventional cataloging, especially non-Western material. I do not regard their omission as a permissible practice. It hampers the use of our books sources system and makes international coordination more difficult. I always add an isbn if I see a reference without them if I have the time. The only real question is whether we should include all isbns, or just a single one, because the publishers apply separate isbns to paperback/hardcopy/electronic/special binding/ vols. in a set, and other things they need to keep track of. A cataloging librarian automatically adds every one they can find. I do not do this here, because it is not usually necessary--any one of them will lead to the correct record, and the exact physical format is not generally relevant here.

In short, I do not think there is a need to alter our guidelines, except perhaps to require a ISBN for all items that carry them. The possibility of error is present in every reference, and I think everyone involved realises this. People should be as accurate as they can; it's better to give whatever reference one finds, soit can be straightened out more precisely if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

except perhaps to require a ISBN for all items that carry them—absolutely not. Some reference styles do not support ISBNs. The purpose of citations is to document what material was referenced, not to enact a bureaucratic nightmare for article and content creators. GregJackP Boomer! 04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still, 36% error rate in metadata is highly alarming and I don't have the time to check out the data of every single book source. Google have really disappointed here, it was vital that they get the book data right..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books is just advertising inventory. Google does not charge for use. We can't blame them for errors, but we should recognize the errors exist. As DGG points out, there are errors everywhere. Maybe 2/3 are fairly minor. That still leaves perhaps 10% of citations based on Google-provided metadata holding major errors. I think that is a lot higher than most editors would expect - it certainly surprised me. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not making "good progress". Much of the discussion is about the alleged problem, which should have been established prior to any proposal. The defects to your proposal that I and others have pointed out still stand. Even if you were to remedy them (unlikely), it would be necessary re-state on a clean slate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@J. Johnson. I though the concerns had been addressed. The problem is clear: based on DGG's thoughtful comments it is larger than first stated. The proposed wording has been tweaked to address issues identified, or the reasons explained. While other editors are digesting DGG's comments, perhaps you could point out any additional changes or clarifications needed so they can be addressed in the next phase. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not addressed the concerns of J. Johnson or my concerns. There is not a problem that needs this solution, and the solution goes against what the project has always done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is a problem with having to rely on scanned book websites for book metadata, since they are often wrong. This is a citation problem. The citation guideline should explain how to deal with citation problems. This proposal suggests a change to the guideline to deal with the citation problem. The question is, what improvements are needed to the proposed change. Let's give J. Johnson a chance to express his views. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP's views are in accord with my own: you have not addressed our concerns, and particularly you have not shown that there is substantial problem that needs addressing. For sure, all bibliographic records (your "metadata"), of all sources (WorldCat, Ottobib, Amazon, the publisher's own webpage, etc.) are subject to error, and editors should always be alert to such problems. However, your concern is narrowly "scanned book websites" (i.e., Google Books), and your proposal (in all of its variants) is not only awkwardly articulated, it is disproportionate in disregarding other possible problems.

I point out that the authoritative statement of any book's particulars is the title and copyright pages. And a scanned image of the actual page (provided there has been no alteration of the image) trumps any reported "metadata". It seems you do not understand this difference. E.g., accuracy of "metadata" is a general problem, but your proposal addresses only "ebsites that display scanned copies of book pages...." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is specific to scanned book pages. It does not exist when the editor can see the printed book. Editors should be warned that the metadata provided by the scanned book website may well be inaccurate, so they should check for a scan of the copyright page. If they can see the copyright page, they should use the data there. Perhaps that should be made clearer. If they cannot see the copyright page, they should provide the metadata given by the website, but should be aware that it may well be inaccurate. By providing a link to the page they saw, they make it at least possible to verify what that page contained, and give the starting point for confirming the author etc. I personally rely heavily on scanned book pages, as do many other editors. Dr. Blofeld expresses the same concern. This is a serious problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is specific to scanned book pages. This means that it is not a widespread problem. We do not provide step-by-step instructions for other areas of citing sources, why do it here? We certainly do not want to require editors to use a "house" style, and many styles do not support what you are requesting. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Template:cite book is used on over 500,000 pages. Most pages that cite books cite several books, and mostly they refer to Google Books. That is why this guideline has the WP:PAGELINK section, which discusses linking to Google Books pages in some detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are definitely confused. The only reason seeing the printed book should give a different result than seeing a scanned image of the printed book is if the image is corrupted or cannot be made out. And you have not alleged that.

The problem you keep adverting to is not about the scanned image, but the metadata that someone attributes to a given source. This (in general) has nothing to do with the scanned image — these are entirely different. Indeed, viewing the scanned image is one way of verifying the metadata; the scanned image is a solution for certain metadata problems.

If the problem is that you cannot see the title and copyright pages: you are most likely accessing a "limited view" item, and probably can't see much of the rest of the text. In that case you do not the full context of the material you have found (probably via Google Search?), and cannot evaluate it. In such cases you really should not be relying on that material. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• @J. Johnson: What are your criteria for considering that an issue is serious enough to deserve a couple of sentences in the guideline? Assuming this can be demonstrated, what changes to the wording would you recommend? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not J. Johnson, but my changes to the wording would be to delete the entire proposal as being unneeded. Until a need is shown, we shouldn't delve into this. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Use of Template:Cite book on 500,000 pages is not evidence of any problem whatsoever, let alone with any "scanned book image". This is not only very specious argumentation, it approaches preposterous.

It has been a week now since the initial proposal was made, and Aymatth2 has yet to demonstrate that there is any special problem with "ebsites that display scanned copies of book pages", let alone "specific to scanned book pages.". There has been only one vote in favor — certainly not a consensus to proceed — and plenty of time for anyone else to chime in. The sole point in continuing is explain the matter to Aymatth2, but this is getting tiring. I propose this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 Proposal for "Say where you read it"

The ALT3 proposal reflecting feedback on the Proposed clarification for an addition to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT was submitted on 26 December 2013. The proposal is to add:

Websites that display scanned copies of book pages often contain errors in "metadata" such as the author, title, edition, year of publication and so on. Websites may also change what they display for a given address (url) from time to time. When citing a book page you have viewed online, in addition to the metadata you may choose to give the url and date of access of the online version, since these precisely identify what you saw. This is strictly optional, and is not required.

Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rationale

Template:cite book is used on over 500,000 pages, and many other pages cite books without using the template. Most pages that cite books cite several books, often found in Google Books. Google Books may display a selection of pages in "full view" or "snippet view" but not the front matter page holding "metadata" like author, title, year and publisher. Google Books provides digital metadata, but according to a 2012 study the metadata is 36% inaccurate. An example is http://books.google.com/books?id=CAyDCKdiZ2UC&printsec=frontcover, where the front matter is not visible and the title is given incorrectly. There are 2 million+ citations in Misplaced Pages based on Google Books pages. Many have used the readily available but unreliable metadata provided by Google books. The popular http://reftag.appspot.com/ tool does just that.

A warning and advice is warranted. The Google-provided metadata alone, if inaccurate, may make the citation impossible to verify. With a link to the page viewed, a reviewer can verify what the page said, and can start to confirm or determine the source. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of previous discussion

The initial ALT3 discussion was quickly confused by rival proposals. No "votes" were made. One editor is against any requirement or even suggestion that cannot be explicitly handled by the Bluebook style for legal citations. Another considers that no problem has been demonstrated. It has been noted that many indexes contain errors, not just the Google Books index, and ISBN may be more important than URL in tracking down the source. Perhaps the scope is too narrow. However, informal comments suggest a leaning towards some version of the proposal. The key point is that errors in Google Books metadata are damaging to editors who rely upon them. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 comments (Support / Oppose)

Oppose and Close per above proposal. There is no evidence of a problem, and this is clearly a case of WP:IDHT. GregJackP Boomer! 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support While there haven't been any "scandals" and examples of repeated gross inaccuracies over google book info in articles, if a reliable report has indicated that 36% of google book entries have inaccuracies in listings of some kind then surely it's common sense to at least exercise caution when drawing up google book references.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and close, strongly, for the reasons previously explained. This proposal is confused in concept, and a huge waste of time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and close. There's no issue here that I can see, and the solution is to keep things simple. ISBNs are not always correct, so the best thing is not to use them (in my view), and CITE doesn't require them. Google Books links are allowed but not required either, and if they're misleading for a particular book just leave them out. This – John Smith, Book Title, Name of publisher, year of publication, page number – will get the reader to the right place 99.999 percent of the time. SlimVirgin 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that 36% of the time Google Books metadata is wrong. A scenario is that an editor searches for Muscat+Portuguese and finds a useful scanned page from what clearly is a serious book. They extract the information they need and put it into their article, then make a citation using the metadata supplied by Google Books: رحلة في الخليج by Annegret Nippa, Peter Herbstreuth, page 173. But there is no such book. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So? It's not a problem. Please drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth, I think that different people are using the word "problem" in different ways. You seem to be thinking "It's a problem: this is objectively, factually, technically wrong." But everyone else wants to hear, "Show me exactly how many references you personally have been forced to correct because some other editor copied the metadata, and that metadata contained a serious error (not just a simple typo or capitalization error)". How much of your time has been eaten up by fixing these errors? WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway, but if we pretended that they did, then how much of your time would we free up for other editing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Instruction creep is an issue. I can think of two scenarios:

1. I check citations when reviewing DYK articles. If a book citation has a URL, I check it. If not, I tend to assume good faith if the information is plausible. I may look for an online version of the book, and if I can't find that look for other sources that support the information. If I can't find any online sources I may point that out in the DYK review. I would only go that far if I were uncomfortable with the information provided.
2. I often find information in other articles I can use in one I am starting. In that case if there is no URL I hunt for the book online. If I cannot find it, I do not use the citation but hunt for another source that supports the information. I do not want to propagate errors. If I find a source that contradicts the other article, and am confident about the facts, I correct the other article, removing the dud citation.

In either case, if the other editor had provided the URL for what they were viewing they would have saved me time. Since I am a fairly active editor and obsessive about accuracy, lack of URLs in scanned book citations wastes an hour or so of my time each week. Inaccuracy of metadata would not be a major issue in the DYK scenario, because a search on the (incorrect) title would find that title in Google Books. In the scenario of copying from other articles, the search may not find the title because Google may have corrected it. I have no way of telling, because the editor has not said where they read the book. I quite often fail to find a cited title. I cannot say how often that is due to the Google metadata problem, but usually you would expect to find a title in Amazon or eBay or somewhere like that if the book exists.

This seems a case where some instruction creep is warranted. Google Books is presumably by far the most widely used source of book citations, and a significant source of total citations, which is why the guideline includes WP:PAGELINK. If we know that relying on the metadata will give a high level of incorrect citations, surely we should point out the problem and suggest a way to mitigate it. "Nobody checks citations" is not really true. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So where's the problem? No diffs, no examples from real articles? And your comment that if the other editor had provided the URL for what they were viewing they would have saved me time shows the real reason for this suggestion. It is not the content creator's responsibility to make your life easier. You use the example of رحلة في الخليج (which translates as "Trip in the Gulf" per GTranslate), with an ISBN of 9783899300703 and then you stated But there is no such book. That's funny, because I had no problem identifying the book by ISBN via www.lookupbyisbn.com/, www.isbnsearch.org, and www.worldcat.org. I also did not have a problem identifying the book by authors as the first page in a Google search by the authors last names led me to the book at a number of different sites. All of this took no more than 10 minutes, easily within a reasonable time frame for finding a source. I'm not at all interested in making my article creation more difficult to make your job of "checking" citations easier. Show us an actual problem and I would be willing to talk about it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth2: As already suggested, please drop the stick!. You asked for a vote, but arguing with folks when you don't like the result is not going to get you anywhere. And, frankly, your argument is ridiculous. That you seem unable to see that makes you look ridiculous, and is embarrassing the rest of us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor It appears to me that the consensus is that the proposed change would be an unnecessary complication and is rejected. The discussion has reached the WP:DEADHORSE stage. Sorry, Aymatth2, it looks like you put a lot of thought into your proposal, but it's not flying. It happens. Give it six months, see if inaccuracies in metadata become a more serious problem, see if other editors' attitudes change, see if your own understanding of the problem changes or you get other ideas about how to approach it. Your efforts and dedication to making Misplaced Pages reliable are appreciated. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I obviously think a warning about the inaccuracy of the metadata would be useful. But I have to agree that instruction creep can be counter-productive, and that consensus in favor of the warning is not going to happen. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth2: then we are agreed, that "consensus in favor" is not going to happen. So I am going to close the discussion. But please note: the consensus here is not against warnings as such, but that you have not demonstrated a need for this warning. I am concerned that you do not understand the basic problem here, but this has been taking too much time. If you'll come see me this summer I might have some spare time to help you with your concern. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Cite web; new fields

Hi everyone, I've been trying to cite Medscape reference page which often have page editors as well as author and since it's a webpage I feel it necessary to cite it using the "cite web" template. Thanks, in advance, people. Fuse809 (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Among its other offerings Medscape "features peer-reviewed original medical journal articles". If you cite these articles you should note that though they are found on a web page, they are not web pages as such; you should cite them as any other journal article, including authors, editors, date of publication, doi (if available), etc. That an article can be found on a web page is convenient, and you can add a link with the |url= parameter.

Note that Medscape has a lot of other material (e.g., a data base) which would be cited as a web page, and which does not have the same authority (reliability) as the peer-reviewed articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How to cite webpages with page numbers?

If the first page of the article is at http://example.com/foo, and the second page at http://example.com/foo.2, how do I reference the second page? Do I use the first address for the url of the citation, and then add "page=2" or whatever? PurplePieman (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a real example? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In the Dominion article, an article from The Escapist is referenced. Some of the citations are on page 1, and some are on page 2. Page 1 and page 2 have different URIs. Right now, I have the page 2 references as a separate item in the reference list, but that looked wrong, which is why I'm asking. PurplePieman (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. For books, pages within a PDF, etc. it's easy, just use the same basic reference but append the {{rp}} template after the </ref>. For cases when the URL changes, I'm not sure what the best approach is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine to cite the pages separately. Some editors would not, but I like the extra specificity when available. Using two full citations showing different page numbers is fine. But you can also use full citation including |page=1, and an abbreviated citation for page 2 as follows:

7. Varley, p. 2

(Note: no template used, since title isn't used. No date needed, since only one Varley publication is used.)

Other options certainly exist, but you're on the right track, anyways. I boldly implemented my suggestion at Dominion; revert at will. --Lexein (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (Heh - (Masem reverted with "Page numbers aren't needed with online sources" then kindly unreverted. IMHO page numbers are occasionally useful for long paginated online sources for which no "show all" option is available. Legal citations frequently carry on-page (paragraph or line number) locators. It's all about simplifying and speeding verification for the reader. Carry on.) --00:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see this discussion but reverted after I did. I agree that when there's no "print all" option, or that the web site doesn't take advntage of media-type css to provide single page layouts for certain media, that the page number can be helpful. If you can provide, though , a print-all link to an article, then that's better to use as the URL so that there's no issue with pagination, which can be something the website changes at a whim. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks, and good point about changeable page numbering - good to watch out for. --Lexein (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh! please don't use {{rp}}. It was a heroic effort to solve a problem, but went the wrong way; it's just too grotesque. And using the |page= or |pages= parameters (in the {{citation}} or {{cite xxx}} templates) is the wrong use — those are for locating the source within a larger work (such as journal articles), not the specific location of material within the source. Putting these two together will work if you have only one citation, but as you noticed: how do you reference a second page?

For all that, it is not only fine, but recommended, to cite specific pages. The general solution is to have a single full citation for the source as a whole (which both describes the source, and where to find it), then short cites (that link to the full citation) every time you cite the source. Each of these short cites can then have the specific page number (or section number, pargagraph, etc.); these need only enough information to find the full citation, plus the specification.

But please note that your example is quite skimpy. E.g., the page=1 url isn't just a web page: it points to something published on 4 August 2009 by Allen Varney titled "Dominion Over All" (apparently a regular column called "Editor's Choice") in The Escapist magazine. That is all good information to put into a citation. Or rather, into the full citation. But you don't have to repeat this every time.

The first time you reference a source use a full citation (suffixing the specific page number referred to). Subsequently, just use a short cite, something like "Varney, 2009", that contains enough information to identify the full citation. Plus, of course, a page number or such, perhaps linked in the manner you have done.

Alternately, you can also put all the full citations together in a separate reference section, but that is just a wee bit more complicated; the foregoing will do you fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Almost posted in the middle of your comment. So I removed the blank lines, to make the comment a block). I agree about {{rp}}: IMHO it forces looking in two places to mentally construct the full ref, instead of just one. And I agree about the use of full, then short cite (I called it abbreviated, above). But IMHO if there's only one work used by an author, or the date is long (periodical publication date) the whole date can be omitted. No? --Lexein (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You're thinking of "Varney" versus "Varney, 2009" as a short cite? Of course. All we really need is enough information to locate the full citation. But! as use of "lastname+year" is so standard, and some indication of date is often so important, and (especially where the author appears to be a regular contributor) there is a good chance of adding another piece by the same author (which would then require revising existing short-short "Varney" cites), it is prudent to just go with "author+year".

Regarding terminology: "short citation" — or as I prefer, to emphasize the characteristic, "short cite" — is a standard term and concept in several style guides. I believe "abbreviated citation" is generally applied to a form of full citation (often used in journals) where titles (etc.) are severely abbreviated to save space. But I see some instances where the examples verge on being short cites, which shows inconsistency of usage. I think we should avoid using "abbreviated citation", as it just invites too much confusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of 'consistency'

Re: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods

Our Template:Sfn aka the shortened {{sfn}} footnote was created on 4 June 2009 by by CharlesGillingham. It didn't exist earlier but the Misplaced Pages:Citing sources already featured a relevant section called Citation styles with guidelines listing following examples of differing methods: Citation APA style MLA style The Chicago Manual of Style Author-date referencing Vancouver system Bluebook Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/example style. – The formatting compatibility guideline stated: Any of these styles is acceptable on Misplaced Pages so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one.

Until that time there was no conflict between <ref> tags and 'braces' because {{sfn}} didn't exist. Therefore the interpretation of the so-called consistency was also different. All footnotes in Misplaced Pages including {{cite}} templates were kept inside the <ref>...</ref> markup. The introduction of the {{sfn}} braces made the <ref> tags incompatible with them, and for the first time in history also 'inconsistent' stylistically with the norm. As of today, some editors who follow the rules to the letter, insist on trying to get rid of them in order to win the little green star. However, the change in scope was a result of an 'accident', because the <ref> tags have always been the backbone of Misplaced Pages, featured in millions of articles, and I don't think they should ever be dubbed 'inconsistent' to the point of being wrong. They are the sanctus dictum of our basic policy/guidelines.

Please express you opinion. I'm aware that template {{harvnb}} inside a <ref> span can be used to create a sense of consistency in formatting, but some ideas are sacred in my view, like the HTML mark-up for <br> inside an {{infobox}}, not 'inconsistent' when used together, by any means. For the heated discussion that led me here please see Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1#Referencing. The nomination was failed because of that. Poeticbent talk 02:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that inline citations be hyperlinked to the short footnote or bibliography entry that supports them. It has always been acceptable to use a parenthetical citation such as (Misplaced Pages contributors, "Citing sources") or or combined with suitable endnotes or bibliography. Thus, the date when {{sfn}} was created is not relevant. In addition, there are ways to link inline citations to bibliographies without using templates; see WP:Anchor.

Bibliography for foregoing paragraph:

• Misplaced Pages contributors. "Citing sources." Misplaced Pages, The 💕, 7 August 2003. Web.

Jc3s5h (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I reopened the GA nom, evaluated it and passed it. Your comments on the talk page were correct, the reviewer may not impose his standards on citation style to the article in order for it to pass GA. GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Rereading Poeticbent's post and reading Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1#Referencing for the first time, I find it all rather incoherent. I think "until that time was no conflict between <ref> tags and 'braces' because {{sfn}} didn't exist" asserts that before the {{sfn}} template was created, no one ever used braces, that is, information in parentheses after a claim, to perform an inline citation. The assertion is that everyone used <ref>. If that's what it means, then I don't believe it. If it means something else, please explain what. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Section 1b of the GACR states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources" Misplaced Pages:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:

To be avoided

• Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another

Generally considered helpful

• Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent

By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here. GregJackP's reassessment is arbitrary and did not consider the lead, OR, sourcing, images, grammar and use of MOS correctly, and I don't consider his "pass" as a good faith act, more a favour to the nominee. Either way, my own review was far more detailed than his, as he made no evidenced attempt to review the prose. This is NOT a GA, it barely scrapes C-class, and needs reassessing by someone without WP:COI issues which Greg appears to represent as he didn't make a practical attempt to review the content from top to bottom, unlike my good self. Ma®©usBritish 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have some evidence of a COI, you need to retract that. If you fail to, I will, as a personal attack. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is in your lack or review notes and the "insta-pass" response without comment. Consider it a personal attack, I don't care.. your revert of my fail was editwarring and considering your "experience" if you were a driver I'd revoke your licence for crashing under the influence of bias in this case. You failed to consider all the GACR, it too me 5 fucking hours to initially review the article from top to bottom. That stands as fact that you didn't even take 5 minutes to read it all. If you had, you'd know it fails in othe areas of the GACR, as it is biased in tone, language and sourcing. That's why it is unstable and the talk page full of concerns which you did not address. That represents a WP:COI in favour of the nomination. I stand by my words, if that bothers you.. as you say: "too bad". Ma®©usBritish 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That represents a WP:COI in favour of the nomination. No, it just shows that you don't understand that policy either. Maybe we should get you a mentor, since competence is required. GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get a mentor when you get a shrink. Stop editing people's comments, per WP:TALKO this is not allowed. A bit like WP:NLT, see your block log for examples of how not to behave like a self-righteous fool again. Ma®©usBritish 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight—it's not OK to remove any of your comments, but you are allowed to remove my comments, like you did here? Seems hypocritical to me. GregJackP Boomer! 06:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier if you dropped your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude full stop and accept that your "pass" was wrong, and that you did not perform a proper GAR, you only "rubber stamped" it for no other reason other than you think yourself above everyone else, as evident in your comments on my talk page which aren't worth the bandwidth that stores them. You'd think a man who claims to have been in the USAF would show some self-discipline in these matters, but instead you're better at warmongering and self-righteous cynicalism. I readded my comment via an undo without noticing your comment, consider that your own fault for violating TALKO twice now. Man up and stop using policy in your favour like a WP:WIKILAWYER. You screwed up the GA and now you're causing wide-spread damage as a result of your WP:LASTWORD attitude. It is very juvenile of you, to say the least. Quit pissing me about and let others reassess the mess you left behind. I ended this debate yesterday by failing the GA, it's you and you alone who is relishing in this wiki-drama by maintaining the debate to no end. And don't ever presume to talk down to me again American, if you know what's good for you. Ma®©usBritish 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus, talk down to you? If I know what's good for me? ROTFL. Yeah, OK. As to the rest of your rant, it's laughable. Two well-respected MilHist editors told you that you were wrong, and you basically told them to piss off. And then you have unmitigated gall to tell me how to talk to you? God, that's funny. LOL. I needed that laugh. GregJackP Boomer! 06:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Three well-respected MilHist editors believe I was right to challenge the inconsistent referencing. Who are you to determine which views I should listen too? I wouldn't take your advice to save my life. You'll address me as an equal on this website or not at all, capiche? As a "Native American" you'll understand what happens when you treat others as lesser, how it leads to long-term bitterness and resentment, so it's not a behaviour you'll want to continue to emulate if you know what's good for you. Now, do us all a favour and walk away. Ma®©usBritish 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you presume to know what Indians feel? It's not that the Indians were treated as a "lesser", it is the fact that the Brits started the genocide of the Indians. BTW, I'll address you how I choose, when and how I choose. Got that or do I need to have someone explain it to you? GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

GAs don't have to follow WP:CITE, and therefore don't have to be internally consistent. What the Good article criteria are not says under "mistakes to avoid" by reviewers: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" Any discussions of what this guideline should say, and what the GA criteria require, should ideally be kept separate. SlimVirgin 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. WP:WGN, quoted by SlimVirgin, is an essay mostly written by two editors, WP:CITEVAR is a standing MOS-guideline within WP:REF based in consensus. I refuse to accept that any essay trumps a MOS page, and all those citing WP:WGN are cherry-picking non-consensus words not community results. 1b of the GACR states to follow WP:LAYOUT or which WP:REF is its format guideline, and contains WP:CITEVAR. This isn't a matter of what the criteria says, by interpretation is not inaccurate, but those who pick an essay to challenge a policy are WP:STONEWALLing consensus-based standards because they don't want to apply them and want to pick and choose, manipulatively, what standards apply to them. This article was passed as a GA under false reasoning. I propose a reassessment by an uninvolved GA reviewer with experience and sense. Ma®©usBritish 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This guideline and talk page have nothing to do with the GA criteria, which are very specific and do not mention compliance with CITE, or with most of the MoS. SlimVirgin 04:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking over all the wikilinked guidelines within Misplaced Pages:GACR#Criteria none lead directly to WP:CITE that I can see. However, there is a lead to WP:FNNR which is a parent of WP:CITE in that one states the requirement whilst the other states the format. Therefore I consider WP:CITE as an implied requirement of any GA article. Nothing in the GACR suggests to the contrary. Ma®©usBritish 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't make up, or imply requirements. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Marcus, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout is not the parent of WP:CITE. WP:CITE is not part of the MoS, and compliance with it is not part of the GA criteria, not even implied. Consistency is better than inconsistency, yes, and if you want to make suggestions to that effect, fine. But they are just suggestions. If the writer says she is happy with the way she's written the citations, and if enough information is offered to allow the citations to be understood, that's good enough for GA. SlimVirgin 04:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. And a number of editors at MilHist, three in fact, have stated that they too would have raised consistency as an issue had they reviewed the article. That makes four editors who disagree with you. I disagree with your interpretation, as is my right. You're the one who quotes essays as fact, yet they are not apart of policy whatsoever. I find that ironic. Ma®©usBritish 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent because there is a mixture of full citations that do not use templates and full citations that use cite xxx templates, and the format of some of the non-template citations do not resemble the rendered cite xxx templates. Whether this inconsistency disqualifies an article from being a good article should be discussed somewhere else, and I'm not interested in that discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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