Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 117: Line 117:


<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">[[File:Face-smile.svg|18px|link=]]</abbr> —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User_talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] - 03:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">[[File:Face-smile.svg|18px|link=]]</abbr> —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User_talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] - 03:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
:Possibly a sign of a not very well chosen title if so many ways to shortcut to it are needed. I suggest leaving out most of them and leaving the addition of shortcuts to people who find them actually useful. &bull; &bull; &bull; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:55, 24 June 2017

WikiProject iconWikipedia essays Low‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
LowThis page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Relevant guideline

Not sure where this should be mentioned ....WP:LISTVERIFY.--Moxy (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus

Hi User:QuackGuru. I see that you have created your own essay in Wikipedia namespace. I, for one, have concerns that the content of this essay as it exists at the moment does not reflect the community consensus as to how Wikipedia polices should be applied. As per WP:POLICIES, essay pages that "are found to contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace". Therefore, I believe an MfD is appropriate to test if the views contained in the essay are indeed shared in the community, and if not then it should be placed in your namespace where you can still refer to it if required. I'm aware that you have only recently created it and there may be further development, so thought I'd ask you a few questions as to whether certain aspects are likely to change in near future.

  • Will the essay continue to maintain that citing well-known information, such as that the sky is blue or that the normal human hand contains four fingers and a thumb, regardless of context is always of benefit to the reader?
  • Will the essay continue to maintain that editors are required to include a citation for every recurrence of material?
  • Will the essay continue to maintain that editors are required to provide a citation for each sentence?

Please note that obviously any other editors who are aware of this article and intend to improve it (and improvements are required in my opinion) are welcome to comment as well, but if the primary author holds these views does not intend to change, then I believe that the community should be approached to see if these views are indeed widespread and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and if not to move it to namespace. My availability is somewhat limited for the next few weeks, so dependent on the responses given here, obviously anyone else is welcome to initiate the MfD process should they wish to. Scribolt (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments on the above... We need to remember that essays are opinions... and opinions do not need to be shared by the majority. Minority opinions are allowed. The question is whether an essay reflecting a minority opinion belongs in mainspace or in userspace (per WP:USERESSAY).
Personally, I advocate for a reasonable standard... I think a minority opinion essay should remain in mainspace as long as it is supported by a fairly large minority (I would call this a "minority consensus"). If we go with my standard... what we would need to establish is whether this essay reflects such a "fairly large" minority, or is simply the view of a small group of editors (or even the view of one single editor). I honestly have no idea how supported this essay will be... and so I support the idea of fining out, by holding an MfD. I also support giving QuackGuru (and anyone else who supports this essay) a reasonable amount of time to work on it before it is tested at MfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the bar is set pretty low for namespace essays, and quite rightly. An MfD shouldn't remove it from namespace unless there's consensus that it's either harmful or that only a tiny minority agree with it and therefore is not useful. I personally believe that this essay as written is both incorrect, harmful and not reflective of what more than a tiny minority think. This opinion of mine would be tested at an MfD when it occurs. The reason why I separated out those points because if the supporters of this essay indicate that they are prepared to moderate and more importantly add context to the existing essay, then my opinion might change. At the moment it reads like a somewhat spiteful refutation of Overkill, and quotes requirements that do not appear to exist in policy. More time can and will be given, but I wanted to indicate my personal concerns at an early stage. Scribolt (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRJDEL--Moxy (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Rebels citation: page range vs single pages

In the example using "Comic Book Rebels," I would cite a page number for each quotation, rather than a page range in a repeated citation. This would make the quotations easier to verify. Especially when someone is being quoted, it can be helpful to be as specific as possible. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples aren't representative

The example with 20+ references about electronic cigarettes seems a little unusual in my book. I think we'd be served better by using an example with say 4-5 different sources. The solution for that example is probably to have a note at the end of the sentence including all 20 references, and which specific claim each reference supports. Carl Fredrik talk 11:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. I would do like this:

Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silicate, silver, strontium, tin, titanium, zinc, and zirconium have been found in the electronic cigarette aerosol.[1]

Notes

^ Aluminum,[1] barium,[2] cadmium,[3] chromium,[4] copper,[5] iron,[6] lead,[7] manganese,[8] mercury,[9] nickel,[10] silicate,[11] silver,[12] strontium,[13] tin,[14] titanium,[15] zinc,[16] zirconium[17]

References

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [5]
7. [3]
8. [2]
9. [6]
10. [3]
11. [5]
12. [5]
13. [2]
14. [5]
15. [2]
16. [2]
17. [2]
  1. ^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Farsalinos, Konstantinos; Voudris, Vassilis; Poulas, Konstantinos (2015). "Are Metals Emitted from Electronic Cigarettes a Reason for Health Concern? A Risk-Assessment Analysis of Currently Available Literature". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 12 (5): 5215–5232. doi:10.3390/ijerph120505215. ISSN 1660-4601. PMC 4454963. PMID 25988311.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ a b c Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2014). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1340 (1): 65–74. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.
  4. ^ Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.
  5. ^ a b c d e Farsalinos, K. E.; Polosa, R. (2014). "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review". Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety. 5 (2): 67–86. doi:10.1177/2042098614524430. ISSN 2042-0986. PMC 4110871. PMID 25083263.
  6. ^ Dagaonkar RS, R.S.; Udwadi, Z.F. (2014). "Water pipes and E-cigarettes: new faces of an ancient enemy" (PDF). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 62 (4): 324–328. PMID 25327035.

This seems to be unnecessary repetition, and it requires an extra step for any person wanting to review the source of a specific claim. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case I propose the following shortened version:

At least 17 different metals, including: the heavy metal lead; and poisonous oxide of aluminum have been found in electronic cigarette aerosol.[2]

Using extreme examples or contentious topics in our examples is not helpful overall (even if I know this may not have been intentional, simply a result of in-depth knowledge of those articles by the original author). Carl Fredrik talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

A better example from Malaria is:

The signs and symptoms of malaria typically begin 8–25 days following infection;[1] however, symptoms may occur later in those who have taken antimalarial medications as prevention.[2] Initial manifestations of the disease—common to all malaria species—are similar to flu-like symptoms,[3] and can resemble other conditions such as sepsis, gastroenteritis, and viral diseases.[2] The presentation may include headache, fever, shivering, joint pain, vomiting, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, hemoglobin in the urine, retinal damage, and convulsions.[4]

References
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference PPID 2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Nadjm 2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bartoloni 2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Beare 2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Each color here indicates a different source. Carl Fredrik talk 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The color variations are good for the Citation confusion section. It would be a distraction if the color variations were added to another section. The Needed repetition and citation placement section has two related examples. Using both a simple example and an extreme example is better than just example. Three examples might be too much. For now there are two examples for most sections. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winding down the hyperbole

This essay may gain more traction if it appears less WP:POINTY. I appreciate that you have a point, but going over the top is not often a good way to persuade people that you should be taken seriously. You risk a failure to communicate. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work to tone this down and to clarify what is meant. However, we really need to get rid of all the e-cig examples — they're not doing anyone any favors. Carl Fredrik talk 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better and less dictatorial, nice work! I feel as if I can actually get on board with parts of it now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The e-cig examples are very helpful, especially the "Changing single words or certain phrases" and the "Controversial claims" examples. QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but having each and every example be about the same thing makes the piece look like something written by someone with an agenda. This is about so much more than e-cigs, and I would hope that we could get rid of a few of those examples and have equally valid examples from other articles, and even other fields outside of medicine. Carl Fredrik talk 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the cause of "winding down the hyperbole," this is becoming a characterless essay by committee. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem, only solutions. Quack's MfD has been wonderfully successful in generating interest. Wikipedia:Time management. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A high level of article content"

Quack... you have recently added this phrase to several sections of the essay... but I am not sure what it refers to. Does it refer to the amount of content, the quality of content, or something else? Blueboar (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as requested

I took another look and noticed a couple of items that I think can be improved.

  1. The headings for the coloured text examples: Appropriate, Problematic and Essentially useless express your opinion on the citation style without clarifying why you have that opinion. It is necessary to read through the text to get the picture. As a means of communication this is not effective and is an example of the problem illustrated by the third case. Essentially useless is an overstatement, as the presence of the refs at the end of the paragraph is much better than none at all, as they make it possible, though unneccesarily tedious to verify. Most useful, Less useful and Least useful are more accurate descriptions. Useless would be the uncited example which you have not given.
  2. The virus comment in the caption for the malarial parasite image is confusing. It may be explained somewhere in the text, but if so I missed it. I have no idea what point you are trying to illustrate with it.
  3. I agree with the point made by Carl Fredrik above about too many e-cigs examples. Try to avoid using more than one example from any specific article. If the problem is as widespread as you claim, it should be possible to have an equivalently wide range of examples. It would make the essay seem less pointy, therefore more credible to the neutral reader.
  4. Bear in mind that we are absolutely required to avoid plagiarism, and that the standards for this on Wikipedia are high. This requires us to use our own words to express the information we get from the reference. it is not always possible for everyone to convey exactly the same meaning in different words in all cases. There is inevitably some drift.
  5. You could mention {{rp}} as an alternative page reference system for people who do not want to take the trouble to use {{sfn}}. It takes more space, and is less visually pleasing, but someone more fussy can reformat later and the information is there, which is the point of the argument.

More when I see it. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening the examples beyond science

I notice that all of the examples are from science related articles. (This is understandable - given that this is the subject area that QuackGuru is most involved in, so that's where he has come across the problem he is trying to address.) Unfortunately, this may give the impression that citation underkill is only problematic in science articles. I am assuming that this is not the case (or is it? If so... that should be noted). In any case, the essay would benefit from examples of citation underkill in other fields. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any controversial topic (e.g., politics), and any article where notability has been disputed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One finds examples where one works (or not). Editors in other fields can bring their examples here. A wider range of examples would be more convincing that this is a widespread problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome-citation

Not sure we should be spamming new editors with Template:Welcome-citation that links here over our guidelines. Was going to ask for deletion as misleading....but perhaps we should just fix the links.--Moxy (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It links to Wikipedia:Five pillars among other links. Nothing needs fixing. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move talk to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Template:Welcome-citation..--Moxy (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 24#Template:Welcome-citationunderkill. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut overkill?

—PaleoNeonate - 03:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a sign of a not very well chosen title if so many ways to shortcut to it are needed. I suggest leaving out most of them and leaving the addition of shortcuts to people who find them actually useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citation_underkill&oldid=787233318"