Wikipedia talk:Citing sources: Difference between revisions
m →Citing emails from official sources: added other talk page as the discussions across both TP's |
|||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:::::My doubts were mostly related to whether an email, if published, would be considered a reliable source. I can agree that it wouldn't be. I don't think it could be considered as original research in this case as the content of the email (and the 'research') has been created by the email sender and I would merely publish the same. In either case, I'm not adding the information for now. I'll see if I can find anything published. [[User:Ciridae|Ciridae]] ([[User talk:Ciridae|talk]]) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
:::::My doubts were mostly related to whether an email, if published, would be considered a reliable source. I can agree that it wouldn't be. I don't think it could be considered as original research in this case as the content of the email (and the 'research') has been created by the email sender and I would merely publish the same. In either case, I'm not adding the information for now. I'll see if I can find anything published. [[User:Ciridae|Ciridae]] ([[User talk:Ciridae|talk]]) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::Hi apologies for butting in on this discussion but this is relevant to an ongoing talk page discussion here [[User talk:Navops47/sandbox16]] that relates to this draft article here [[User:Navops47/sandbox16]], as it concerns the expansion of this existing article here [[Eastbourne International]] and talk page here[[Talk:Eastbourne International]] both myself and another editor have emailed the club directly I got a reply from the club chairman who confirmed that my draft article name and the current article are indeed the same tournament just with name changes however we are at an impasse and the discussion has stopped with no resolution when the club itself has confirmed by email that its the same event so I don't know how to proceed now I would appreciate any suggestions from anyone also many thanks.--[[User:Navops47|Navops47]] ([[User talk:Navops47|talk]]) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
::::::Hi apologies for butting in on this discussion but this is relevant to an ongoing talk page discussion here [[User talk:Navops47/sandbox16]] that relates to this draft article here [[User:Navops47/sandbox16]], as it concerns the expansion of this existing article here [[Eastbourne International]] and talk page here[[Talk:Eastbourne International]] both myself and another editor have emailed the club directly I got a reply from the club chairman who confirmed that my draft article name and the current article are indeed the same tournament just with name changes however we are at an impasse and the discussion has stopped with no resolution when the club itself has confirmed by email that its the same event so I don't know how to proceed now I would appreciate any suggestions from anyone also many thanks.--[[User:Navops47|Navops47]] ([[User talk:Navops47|talk]]) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Want to link to an online archive of a video, a book citation already exists == |
|||
Alright, this is my situation. I want to put in a reference to a 50 year old film that is hosted on AT&T's site (the copyright holder). I do not think it is in the public domain so this is the best source I have. |
|||
However, there is already a citation in the form of a book listing present, should I: |
|||
# Replace the citation with my own as I am linking to the actual film (this doesn't seem right but I am mentioning it anyway for clarification) |
|||
# Add an additional reference so there are two, side by side (are multiple references tolerated?) |
|||
# Merge my URL into the original book reference, somehow |
|||
The article in question is [[Computer graphics#1960s|Computer graphics, 1960s section, second paragraph]]. The film is called ''"Simulation of a two-gyro gravity-gradient attitude control system''" and is the first film to use computer-generated graphics. [http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2012/7/18/AT&T-Archives-First-Computer-Generated-Graphics-Film The film itself is hosted here]. I'd appreciate any advice on how to handle this. |
Revision as of 00:46, 8 December 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page. |
|
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 ![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia Help NA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
|
![]() | 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 ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Citing mirrors of websites
How do we handle citing website mirrors, if we had occasion to do so? I expect we would use |website=original website’s name|publisher=mirrorer's name
. Is this right?
Cross-posted from Help talk:Citation Style 1; please discuss there. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Answered! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal regarding citation quality and the reliability of sources
Greetings to everyone concerned about the reliability of sources used in the Wikipedia. For the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, I have created a proposal that addresses some aspects of this called "Citation quality assessment". Please check it out, and consider giving the proposal your support in the two-week voting period beginning November 28 (Monday). Any ideas to improve upon the proposal are also very much welcome. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
How to Cite Government Documents/Library of Congress Research reports?
unnamed refs | 52 | ||
---|---|---|---|
named refs | 116 | ||
self closed | 54 | ||
cs1 refs | 174 | ||
cs1 templates | 165 | ||
use xxx dates | mdy | ||
cs1|2 df mdy | 4 | ||
cs1|2 dmy dates | 11 | ||
cs1|2 mdy dates | 90 | ||
cs1|2 ymd dates | 41 | ||
cs1|2 dmy access dates | 10 | ||
cs1|2 mdy access dates | 80 | ||
cs1|2 ymd access dates | 49 | ||
cs1|2 mdy archive dates | 14 | ||
cs1|2 ymd archive dates | 3 | ||
cs1|2 last/first | 96 | ||
cs1|2 author | 14 | ||
| |||
explanations |
I'd like to cite this https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43390.pdf but I'm not sure how to classify it...
Thanks! Supaiku (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at WP:CITEVAR, you'll see that Wikipedia does not have a house citation style. Thus, how you cite it depends on what article you are editing. Would you please mention which article you would like to add the article to? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dakota Access Pipeline
- Thanks!
- -Supaiku (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Consider
{{cite report}}
- John Frittelli; Anthony Andrews; Paul W. Parfomak; Robert Pirog; Jonathan L. Ramseur; Michael Ratner (4 December 2014). U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion! applied :) - Supaiku (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Consider
Citing emails from official sources
I had sent a mail with a query about some help in researching Göran Fredrik Göransson to the Swedish Royal Palace. They have replied and have provided details but they do not have any written sources that I can reference directly. So my question was if it would be possible/acceptable to reference the email itself as a reliable source? If so, how do I go about publishing the email so that others will be able to verify it? Ciridae (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- unfortunately, emails are not considered WP:Reliable sources. It is too easy for an unscrupulous editor to fake an email, so even if you scanned it and posted it on line, it would not be considered reliable. Also, information gathered in this way would be considered Original research. What an email can be used for is confirmation in talk page discussion, to help reach consensus if there is argument over other (published) conflicting sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't WP:OR apply to original research on Wikipedia only? Otherwise, any magazine or journal article or book that I author could not be cited. Off-wiki is where the original research should happen, no? The concern there is more about conflict of interest than the fact that you created content off-wiki. The former point is totally correct, though - emails generally are not published content. In order for a source to be used, in needs to be published somehow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The way I look at it, if an editor adds information from an unpublished email, the first place of publication of the original research in the email would be Wikipedia, which is not allowed. It doesn't matter if the editor created the original research, or is serving as an intermediary for an off-wiki author. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The first place an item is seen publicly is its original publication. What is communicated to an editor (author) directly is a personal or private "communication". Some journals allow that, if the author is deemed reliable, and possibly subject to confirmation by the original source. But we don't. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- My doubts were mostly related to whether an email, if published, would be considered a reliable source. I can agree that it wouldn't be. I don't think it could be considered as original research in this case as the content of the email (and the 'research') has been created by the email sender and I would merely publish the same. In either case, I'm not adding the information for now. I'll see if I can find anything published. Ciridae (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi apologies for butting in on this discussion but this is relevant to an ongoing talk page discussion here User talk:Navops47/sandbox16 that relates to this draft article here User:Navops47/sandbox16, as it concerns the expansion of this existing article here Eastbourne International and talk page hereTalk:Eastbourne International both myself and another editor have emailed the club directly I got a reply from the club chairman who confirmed that my draft article name and the current article are indeed the same tournament just with name changes however we are at an impasse and the discussion has stopped with no resolution when the club itself has confirmed by email that its the same event so I don't know how to proceed now I would appreciate any suggestions from anyone also many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- My doubts were mostly related to whether an email, if published, would be considered a reliable source. I can agree that it wouldn't be. I don't think it could be considered as original research in this case as the content of the email (and the 'research') has been created by the email sender and I would merely publish the same. In either case, I'm not adding the information for now. I'll see if I can find anything published. Ciridae (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The first place an item is seen publicly is its original publication. What is communicated to an editor (author) directly is a personal or private "communication". Some journals allow that, if the author is deemed reliable, and possibly subject to confirmation by the original source. But we don't. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- The way I look at it, if an editor adds information from an unpublished email, the first place of publication of the original research in the email would be Wikipedia, which is not allowed. It doesn't matter if the editor created the original research, or is serving as an intermediary for an off-wiki author. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't WP:OR apply to original research on Wikipedia only? Otherwise, any magazine or journal article or book that I author could not be cited. Off-wiki is where the original research should happen, no? The concern there is more about conflict of interest than the fact that you created content off-wiki. The former point is totally correct, though - emails generally are not published content. In order for a source to be used, in needs to be published somehow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Want to link to an online archive of a video, a book citation already exists
Alright, this is my situation. I want to put in a reference to a 50 year old film that is hosted on AT&T's site (the copyright holder). I do not think it is in the public domain so this is the best source I have.
However, there is already a citation in the form of a book listing present, should I:
- Replace the citation with my own as I am linking to the actual film (this doesn't seem right but I am mentioning it anyway for clarification)
- Add an additional reference so there are two, side by side (are multiple references tolerated?)
- Merge my URL into the original book reference, somehow
The article in question is Computer graphics, 1960s section, second paragraph. The film is called "Simulation of a two-gyro gravity-gradient attitude control system" and is the first film to use computer-generated graphics. The film itself is hosted here. I'd appreciate any advice on how to handle this.