From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Libraries (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Science (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

See what the following mean......[edit]

-- (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations and Note-Systems for Web-Publications[edit]

I've come up with an end-note system specially handy for web-publications. It also works when printed on paper and when converted to PDF documents. Above all it is easy to program utilizing ordered lists <ol> tags and basic HTML #anchors.

A "source" is noted using Roman numerals. Its position within a text is marked by Arabic numerals e.g.: I.) 7, I.) 8, III) 9, II.) Img. _01, I.) 10 , allowing for "endnote-blocks" and easy cross-referencing. (See description)

Apart from getting rid of some 'paper' originated conventions, I’m following the "" sequence ['title', author, publisher, year of publication or date of retrieval… URI] which works especially well for websites and other multimedia sources. [Assuming ‘title’ to be the only unique property.]

See it in 'action': example --Mediaarchitect (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Double Entry[edit]

The entry of the American Political Science Association appears twice, one under humanities and once under social sciences. It should be removed from humanities since political science belongs to the social sciences. --Benny 919 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about citation style[edit]

What is this citation style called--where you first put the author or authors, then the name of the book, then the city the book was published in, then, after a colon, the year the book was published, and finally the name of the publisher of the book (and after that, if more specificity is needed, the specific pages numbers within the book)?

    • "Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press" Keraunos (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Three new sentences about using in-text citations in online publications[edit]

I added three sentences about using in-text citations in online publications (the end of "Parenthetical referencing" section). It is not a trend yet but I see it as a future of referencing :-) For example, PubMed is now using it in "Related Citations" section which is linked to user search results.

Radova (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing Line Numbers in Wiki:Cite[edit]

How does one cite line numbers in a Wikipedia cite? Currently Wiki jumps to the top/first line in a citation, and not to the Nth line if that where there relevant text starts. Such as:

CiteNoLineNumber: [1]

CiteWithLineNumber?? [2]


  1. ^ "THE FESTINIOG RAILWAY". The South Australian Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1858 - 1889). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 27 May 1872. p. 2. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
  2. ^ "The Festiniog Railway". The South Australian Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1858 - 1889). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 27 May 1872. p. 2. Retrieved 1 December 2011. Unknown parameter |LINE= ignored (help)

First Cites to Online Sources[edit]

So the earliest citation of an online source that I know of is my 1993 INET paper, which includes cites to ftp servers:

I wouldn't want to put that in this article myself, but if someone feels like it.... :) (And maybe someone would find something older if we put it up?) Just an idea. Thanks for considering it! Asbruckman (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The death of the page number[edit]

Over the last few years I have moved almost exclusively to ebooks and web pages for references. These generally lack any sort of page numbers, even when they might have had them in dead-tree format. Consider this (wonderful) book, which has been rendered page free on Google: Most Secret War.

In the GA and FA process it is common to see people demand page numbers in cites. I've always found this a bit useless in the age of search engines. What to do when this happens?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Your question, not on citations, but on Wikipedia citations (or is it Wikipedia citation warriors ;) ?), probably belongs over on the Talk page for Wikipedia:Citing_sources (where I have recently asserted highlighting in the lead sentence the multiple uses for citations on Wikipedia, as virtually everywhere else in the world - and the article itself WP:WHYCITE). Move this section there if you will, but with such a great section title - "the death of the page number" - I'm sure this perennial ebook issue will get more attention here. Let's see if we can distinguish between general ebook citation guidelines and Wikipedia ebook citation guidelines.
Sorry to hear of hear of your difficulties with FA & GA reviewers. Common sense may conflict with consensus, odd as that may sound. I err on the side of common sense - and the Chicago Manual of Style, as it is more coherent and common sensical on ebook citation than Wikipedia ebook citation guidelines, but I digress.
Are you citing a downloaded ebook or a Web page version of a book? Stability of source format dictates need for degree of explicit identification. See Turabian or Chicago, cite WP:Page numbers. Ebooks usually have chapters and almost always a unique ISBN, distinct from the ISBN of the print version (if any); online books have (minimally) an accurate and searchable book title, URL, and an access date. Both often have print counterparts, which may be helpful to add after the consulted source, but the basic principle is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If you can't verify the print location, using Google Scholar to steal such a cite (not that you would) only invites confusion and error. Another editor may addend such to your citation. Its absence certainly should not be a barrier to article FA or GA status. You can always add non-printing code to the effect of no pagination in your ebook cite. It would be good to have such a field added to the book (and Web and journal) citation templates to make such facts of life explicit. The workaround I used below is the format field of the book citation template.
Though your (truly wonderful, thanks!) example Google Book only has chapter numbers and not book page numbers, it is still virtually paginated by Google Books. Thus I can link directly to a quote by virtual Google Book page (not numbered for human use), per WP:BOOKLINKS - and with a little help and fiddling with the valuable Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. Search for a unique phrase ("Napoleon and Wellington") and you're done, even in snippet books, contra BOOKLINKS's "they will not work with snippet view".
R.V. Jones (6 August 2009) [1978]. Most Secret War. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-195767-8. Retrieved 8 July 2014. Napoleon and Wellington both made the point that when handfuls of men are involved in combat, the outcome depends on individual fighting ability, but that when armies are involved, individual ability may be less important than ability for an army to fight as a whole.
If I was citing my own copy of an ebook, it might look like this:
Kate L. Turabian (2007). "15.1: Reasons for Citing Your Sources". A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (ebook, no pagination)|format= requires |url= (help) (7 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-82338-6. 1. To give credit. ... 2. To assure readers about the accuracy of your facts. ... 3. To show readers the research tradition that informs your work. ... 4. To help readers follow or extend your research.
I lost another edit, but I hope this helps for now. More on the lamentable death of pagination later. Give me a hail if you have FA/GA ebook verification snafus I luv WP:V!. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So the actual example that is causing problems for me is Zimmerman's Britain's Shield. I only have this in iBook format on my Mac, and this re-pages every time I change the window size. It displays numbers, but they are ephemeral (I have no idea why they even bother). It would be easy enough if there were some sort of universal bookmark, as this would bypass pages entirely and simply point to the selection, but alas...
I understand where you're going, but I try to use a short note format as my cites lists tend to be multiple pages as it is. Using a direct quote format would likely result in notes areas as long as the body. Any suggestions on how to shorten them up? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, re: short note format citations (my preference, too) and I'll show you below how I would handle it. (I used the book citation template above, using the optional quote field parameter, which isn't necessary at all.) But first let me document my thinking, as we could use a revision to our WP:Citing_sources Guidelines to make this as clear for all of us as it is to professional editors of citation style guidelines.

From WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT "You also do not need to specify how you obtained and read Smith's book; so long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the book using an online service like Google Books, using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon, on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering), through your library, with online paid databases of scanned publications like Jstor, using reading machines, or any other method." -- emphasis added, as non-paginated e-books are the issue. Non-paginated e-books should be identified as such - say where you got it.
From WP:Page numbers: "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can list other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title."

These Wikipedia guidelines accord very well with the authority for those writers using a Notes and Bibliography style, the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition (2010).

From Chicago, section 14.166: Books downloaded from a library or bookseller
"... authors must indicate that they have consulted a format other than print. ... [in] the last part of a full citation..." (p. 726) -- original emphasis
"Note that electronic formats do not always carry stable page numbers (e.g., pagination may depend on text size), a factor that potentially limits their suitability as sources. In lieu of a page number, include an indication of chapter or section or other locator. (p.727)

My common sense summation, incorporating existing Wikipedia guidelines and editorial challenges, truly expert guidance, and e-book realities:

  1. Reference the specific e-book format in the References or Bibliography. Consider adding "Not paginated in source").
  2. Cite the chapter in the Note. Add a section name for a chapter with subheadings, for maximum helpfulness.



The development of Britain's strategic air defense system was a direct reaction to Germany's two devastating daytime bombings of London on June 13 and July 7, 1917, killing hundreds and leading to the formation of the London Air Defense Area (LADA) under the command of Brigadier-General E. B. "Splash" Ashmore on August 8, 1917.1


1Zimmerman, chap. 1, under "The First Battle of Britain."


David Zimmerman, Britain's Shield: Radar and the Defeat of the Luftwaffe (Sutton, UK: Stroud, Gloucestershire, 2013). Apple iBook edition. Not paginated in source.

(substitutes: Kindle edition. | Microsoft Reader e-book. | Nook e-book.)

Might follow specific e-book format with "Not paginated in source." (much clearer to non-native speakers of English than "Not paginated" or "No pagination" or "Non-paginated source" -- which also may look like a citation needed flag to those pesky pagination demanders ;).

What do you think? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Boundary marks?![edit]

Having never heard of the use of U+02FB and U+02FC as "boundary marks" or "citation marks" rather than tone marks, I looked around a little online without finding any evidence of this use, first described here on 2011-07-15T17:11:19. At the very least, there needs to be a citation to a reference explaining this rare usage.

Poslfit (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed – I can't find any evidence of this usage and since no reference has been provided in over five months since {{Citation needed}} was added, or apparently in over four years since the section was added to the article, I've removed it. Perhaps this article should have something about how to identify which part of the text a citation is meant to support – there are several ways of doing that and I don't see any evidence that special punctuation is a widely or even occasionally used approach. – Andy Smith (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Citation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with the citations of universities in this article?[edit]

Some of the inline references in this article are merely wikilinks to Wikipedia articles about universities (currently endnotes 8–10 and 15–17 but of course the numbers are subject to change). This does not make sense to me. Please explain the purpose of these citations. If nobody can provide a good explanation, I will remove them. Biogeographist (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I figured out "what was going on with the citations of universities in this article": The wikilinks to Wikipedia articles about universities were disguised (unrecognizable) references to certain citations in the section that was titled "Bibliography". I moved those citations into the ref tags and deleted the wikilinks to Wikipedia articles. Biogeographist (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality improvement: misleading description[edit]

Contacting every author of every source cited in an article is hardly a 'simple' measure to improve quality. Even living authors can be hard to track down. Moreover, without further qualification 'simple' tends to imply 'easily done', but obviously that's not the case given the amount of time which would be required. -- (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the section on impact belong here?[edit]

The section on impact seems poorly explained and not really to fit anything else. (It is poorly explained because people are unlikely to follow it unless they already know about 'impact factors', their importance etc.) It isn't about citation, but about one way of creating and using a metric based on published citations. -- (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)