Help talk:Citation Style 1

This help page not for novel rules

Is it improper to link to a reference source if the page linked to contains only a short extract, with insufficient context to verify the extract was used properly? Should the only "escape clause" be that the full source of the source be available at the same web site? If such a rule is advisable, should it be stated only at the help page for a subset of citation templates? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of the issue. A correct summary would be "Is it improper to link to a reference source if the page linked to contains only a short extract, with insufficient context to verify the extract was used properly? Should an "escape clause" be that the full text of the source is available, e.g. via a clear link, from the same page being linked to in the citation? If such a rule is advisable, should it be stated only at the help page for a subset of citation templates?" No one cares what server the full text is hosted at, and our purpose isn't to say what the only possible exception could ever be but to identify an obvious one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this rule because a help page is not the proper place to introduce new rules about what should or should not be contained in a citation. Such novel rules should be introduced in WP:CITE if they are of general application to all citations, or a suitable guideline of the rule only applies to a subset of citations (perhaps a rule might only apply to footnotes, only to templates, or only to parenthetical citations). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have undone this edit because I am dissatisfied with discussion through edit summaries, and particularly dissatisfied with the edit's summary:

RS/N has repeatedly rejected snippet views as verifiable, so ELNO becomes effective (this line duplicates current practice

I would like to see the snippet views that were rejected as verifiable. If this is to be a policy or guideline, it should be put into an appropriate policy or guideline rather than being buried in the history of a notice board.

Furthermore, WP:EL states:

This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Since this help page is about certain citation templates, which are predominantly used to format citations, not external links, WP:ELNO is only slightly relevant to this help page. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When an external link provides no capacity to verify, it is advertspam. Snippet view has been thoroughly rejected as useless for verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When I added this, I thought it was on one of the guideline pages, but darned if I can find it now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it isn't about the external link, it is about the citation as a whole. If a citation provides the capacity to verify, perhaps by going to the library and reading a paper copy, then verification is possible. The fact that a web link is available that allows partial verification does not diminish other verification possibilities. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A web link to a snippet view does not provide any verification. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia talk:Citing sources which has been extensively over this ground in the last month. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a really poor discussion, which fails to explain to refer the reader to any comprehensible discussion of how the various Google features work. Leaving that discussion aside, the edit to this page purports to prohibit "Very short extracts such as Google Books snippet view where there is not enough context to verify the content, unless the entire work is also freely available there." This prohibition is much broader than just Google Books snippet view. It could be applied to abstracts, for example. If the prohibition were confined to just Google Books snippet view, I question the wisdom of prohibiting one feature of one website in an obscure help page.

Further, if the prohibition is such a great idea, why wasn't it possible to add it to WP:CITE, where the discussion was held and which would be a much better place for a prohibition on a class of sources? Perhaps the inability to get it added there should be regarded as a de facto rejection. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that people are capable of verifying off abstracts? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the case where specific material in the full text of a source is cited, but the abstract summarizes it and a online abstract is available, while the full source is only available in paper. However, page 202 of the APA style manual states "Although it is preferable to site the full text of an article, abstracts can be used as sources and included in the reference list". Seriously, what style did you read that says abstracts should never be used as sources? Jc3s5h (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disciplinary history, where there's an expectation that people have read the source, and where a courtesy link to half a source isn't a courtesy link, its an insult. If you intend to cite an abstract, then feel free to link an abstract. I don't think it would survive an excursion to RS/N. I don't think attempts to provide discourtesy links to snippet views would survive community consultation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Links to sources specifically states "If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link. And if the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted." Jc3s5h (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as you quote, that's the publisher's copy; books snippets aren't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE does not make any clear statement about whether snippets are acceptable. If you think it's important they be disallowed go to WP:CITE; a page about how to use a certain category of templates is not the place to invent new rules about what may be linked (even if the new rule is correct). Jc3s5h (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Abstracts and snippet views are not the same thing anyway, so any argument with regard to snippet views that is really about abstracts (at least ostensibly neutral attempts to summarize a work) isn't applicable to snippet views (auto-generated proximity-based search results that make zero attempt at any form of summarization, much less any that exercises human judgement and does so in a balanced manner). Apples and oranges. More like apples and lugnuts. And let's not get too fetishistic about WP:CITE. It is not a policy, and there is no policy anywhere suggesting that good advice about editing practices cannot emanate originally from the "Help:" namespace. Indeed, it would be pretty weird if it did not. If someone thinks there is an actual conflict between Help:citation Style 1 and WP:CITE, then I would have to suggest that WP:CITE needs improvement, since it is rather obviously inevitable that in the course of documenting in great detail the difference between citation styles, various shortcomings of the generalist document at WP:CITE are going to become clear. That's no reason to dumb down the advice here. They're entirely severable issues. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) PS: "This prohibition is much broader than just Google Books snippet view. It could be applied to abstracts, for example. If the prohibition were confined to just Google Books snippet view, I question the wisdom of prohibiting one feature of one website in an obscure help page.": This isn't a defensible argument, because it amounts to "The straw man version that would affect everything under the sun is too broad, and the straw man version that would affect nothing but one tiny case is too narrow." The actual, non-straw-man wording obviously is not intended to affect abstracts, since (aside from its own clear verbiage about context-free snippets, which are not context-rich abstracts), abstracts are frequently cited, and some of the citation templates even have parameters for them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The actual new rule introduced was (in the context of online sources that should not be linked to):

• Very short extracts such as Google Books snippet view where there is not enough context to verify the content, unless the entire work is also freely available there.

This should be interpreted from the point of view of someone who is just reading this help page, and has never seen the arguments on RS/N or this talk page. Further, most help page readers won't know exactly what a Google snippet view is. So one should not link to very short extracts unless the full source is also available. "Very short extract" is rather vague, and the requirement that the full source (as opposed to a good summary or large extract) is quite a strict requirement.

I also fail to see why the full text must be free; sources need not be free. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I often find info in book search snippets, and book snippet-view snippets, which may or may not line up or overlap. Sometimes I use what I find to go to the book on the shelf and read more. Should I then just not provide any link, if the snippets aren't enough? Or is the link still useful, especially since it relates to how I found the info? Is there an assumption that a link gets you all you need to verify with? except not in the case of abstracts? Is there a general principle that should be applicable here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  The essence of the novel rule being discussed seems to be this:

• Very short extracts where there is not enough context to verify the content.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is probably not the best place to discuss, this, but lets take a look at an example:

• Jeal, Tim (2001). Baden-Powell. Yale University Press. p. 260. ISBN 0-300-09103-6. Baden-Powell operated a food policy so heavily weighted against the black inhabitants that it amounted if not to mass murder, to a form of discriminatory ...

Reading this snippet, you could readily conclude that Baden-Powell was a racist who discriminated against African natives and allowed them to starve. Since I own the book and can read the entire chapter, I can see that the chapter begins with a summary of accusations raised by another author and the bulk of the chapter refutes the charges.

Snippets are fine as a way to locate potential sources, but should never be used as a source in itself. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The example snippet probably offers nothing beyond what the citation to the book offers. If, instead, the snippet included a multi-digit number that would have been easy to mis-transcribe into Wikipedia, the snippet would have provided a useful check on the transcription. A reader who questioned whether the Wikipedia claim properly reflected the context in the source would, of course, have to consult the full source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting example, but an example of a potential misuse of a snippet is nowhere near to showing that all snippets will always be misused.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I concede. Snippets are apparently enough to understand the entire context of a book. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gadget850 is obviously being sarcastic. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's a good thing too, because adding a snippet obviously makes it impossible to access the full version of the text; as soon as the snippet is added all those paper copies on library shelves turn to dust. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We should still advise that when there is a choice between linking to a copy that provides context, e.g. a chapter or an entire book, it is better to do so and identify, if necessary, where in that context the material can be found, than to link to a snippet view that provides only the target material, with no or incomplete context, unless it is patently obvious at that link target how to get to the broader version. This isn't a "new policy" (this RFC is hyperbolic and making a mountain out of a molehill), it's simply WP:COMMONSENSE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the novel rule was inserted as an overreaction to one editor who some think has misused snippets. (I have not viewed the edits that some consider inappropriate and have no opinion about whether actual misuse occurred). Creating new rules as a reaction to one editor is almost always a bad idea. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeat: "When I added this, I thought it was on one of the guideline pages, but darned if I can find it now." I know it has been discussed elsewhere, but the MOS is a moving target. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I still see a path forward here in agreeing that snippets are not part of the discussion, when the issue to be discussed is, "Very short extracts where there is not enough context to verify the content."  Is there a purpose to saying this here?  This discussion seems to have been dominated with talk about snippets.  If this text exists only to talk about snippets, I'd say that the text lacks a reason for existence.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an obvious logical disconnect between the two ideas "this debate is only about snippets" and "this debate cannot include mention of snippets." You are setting up a scenario between two opposing forces that don't exist, a false dichotomy. Some editors clearly think that Google snippet views are problematic, because they are automatic and lack context (they invoke WP:V and WP:RS ssues), and others feel that some other forms of short extracts, especially those that show evidence of editorializing or biased summarization, can be problematic for entirely different reasons (e.g. WP:NPOV ones) because they are a subjective filter between the source and the reader verifying of the source. These two views are not at odds with one another, and are quite compatible (I happen to hold both of them). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed snippet and abstract wording

The crux of the issue here is actually quite clear: it's whether it is genuinely useful, per WP:V and WP:EL, to link from reference source citations to things that are not actually those sources, but some layer between the source and reader, when the unfiltered view is not clearly available. I think the answer to that shines clear:

• It is misleading and not helpful to our readers, per our source verifiability policy and guidelines covering external linking, to link directly from a reference source citation in an article (e.g., via a citation template's |url= parameter) to something off-wiki as if it were actually the cited source, when it is instead some layer between the source and reader, such as an auto-generated snippet view, or some other stand-in for the source, such as a review or abstract. An exception is when the unfiltered source is also clearly available from the page that is the link target. In other cases, such a link can sometimes be useful as a secondary link in a note after the citation template, before the closing </ref>, explaining what is being linked to, and preferably with a link to the entire source (or relevant section thereof) in the |url= parameter of the template. But beware snippet views that provide insufficient context, and human-created summaries that editorialize personal opinions.

I'd be happy taking something like this to WP:MOS and WP:V to see where consensus felt it would need integration into guidelines or policies. I strongly suspect that it would be seen as a guideline issue for WP:MOS and WP:CITE, not a policy matter for WP:V. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Request that the query be rephrased. This is the issue, contracted a bit by me:

  Is it improper to link to a reference source if the page...contains only a short extract, with insufficient context to verify the extract was used properly? Should the only "escape clause" be that the full source of the source be available at the same web site? If such a rule is advisable, should it be stated only at the help page for a subset of citation templates?

  and I find this incredibly poorly worded. It's confusing. What I will contribute is simple: 1) What exactly is meant by "a reference source"? Wikipedia or external? 2) What is meant by "the full source of the source"? That sounds like a drunk wrote it.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge template talk pages

Propose to merge the talk pages of the 20 templates that form Citation Style 1 to Help talk:Citation Style 1:

• Many of the less-used templates are not well watched.
• Most of the discussed feature/fix requests require updates to {{citation/core}}.
• The bulk of discussions are general questions on how to cite a specific source.

It this seems like a good idea, then I will move it to VP.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea for the future. How would you handle the existing talk page discussions? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Add them to the archive box in the header. See Help talk:Cite errors and Help talk:Footnotes for two different methods. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that when issues specific to an individual template were discussed, the template might not have been named; it was implicit which template was being discussed by the name of the talk page. After the merge, it might be ambiguous which template was being discussed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Current talk pages would not be moved, just listed in the archive. The centralized talk page would have an editnotice using {{Editnotice central}} and list the centralized talk pages using {{central}}. This should be documented at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And now it is: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Centralized talk pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)