Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikicite/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

A good start. Don't forget to synch the meta page, on occasion, with this one. +sj + 08:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will do when all the draft information has come in, and there are more user comments. Stirling Newberry 14:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1:n?

I'm really looking forward to this, but at the moment I don't see how different editions are handled. Or worse: different books with the same title. We could use only ISBN, but this seems a bit impractical to me. Also, some of the time it isn't really important if the book cited is the English paperback or the American hardcover version. And then there are articles, which really should be cite-able, too. At least the design should be one which would allow not only books, but also articles, newspapers, maybe even URI websites. Another problem (at least for me) is that for some commonly cited works I remember author(s) and year. So I would want to be able to write {{cite:Glaser & Strauss 1967: 87}} and have this exanding to Glaser, Barney; Strauss, Anselm (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Such-and-such-place: publisher, p. 87. This would be nice because it looks almost like one of the more common citation standards used in scientific articles and books. Of course, here the problem of "identifibility" multiplies.

The first pass is to provide ISBN citation. We can then work on creating ISSN citation (journals). Part of the design of the fields will be to create a unique "title" record which would be used for title citations. Having a densely populated version of the card catalog then solves the "multiple titles" problem because the user can search wikicite for the book title and select the correct card. That card will have the unique ways of referencing the work. Stirling Newberry 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ISSN wouldn't work for journal article citations; they identify only the journal, not the article. Here some other unique id would be necessary -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Multiple editions of the same book can be handled by parent-child relationships in the database.

How should a citation system react on {{cite:Smith 1988}}, finding ten or more Smiths who have written books (or articles) in 1988 ((my university catalogue says: 92))? Maybe a kind of specialist red-link/auto-dab, expanding this to "Smith 1988 -- multiple entries possible, please specifiy", which links to an disambiguation page? In the next step, the author of the article could correct their cite for the one they want, say {{cite:Peter R. Smith 1988,title=PROLOG}} [1] or {{cite:Smith 1988,ISBN=0470209119}} giving Smith, Peter R. (1988): Expert system development in PROLOG and TURBO-PROLOG. Wilmslow: Sigma Pr.. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 19:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current spec would have the link be red because there is no unique identifier. I prefer this, because red links will be obvious signs of something that needs to be fixed, rather than a link to a search (which is possible) which would not be a flag that something is wrong. Stirling Newberry 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Adding line to the spec list to cover this explicitly. Stirling Newberry 19:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a problem in databases, say different actors staring in the same movie. There will be different ISBNs refering to different editions of the same book. The way to docuement this generally is like this:
Title - Edition - ISBN
Cell Biology - 1 - 0001
Cell Biology - 2 - 0002
Cell Biology - 3 - 0003
Cell Biology - 4 - 0004
Then in another database, if we get large and relational ;), we can have it like this:
Title - # of editions
Cell Biology - 4
with it linking to the 4 editions. As long as each element has a unique ID (like ISBN), we can pretty much organize it anyway we want in the end. --ShaunMacPherson 21:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ISBN

Citing books would be very useful, and ISBN makes this very easy. We should somehow organize the ISBN numbers together though since different ISBN numbers can refer to the same book but different editions. ISBN is like nomenclature for animals, we know for sure that we are talking about the same book (animal) with it.

Does anyone know a database of ISBN numbers we could use? Since it will be pretty much a list database at first, ISBN#, Title, Author, Year, etc, such lists are generally not copyrightable.

It maybe useful to have different people focusing on different media types (Books, magazines, web pages, etc.). I'll take Books:ISBN for now. Anyone know of other media identifiers like ISBN that would be useful for a citation project? --ShaunMacPherson 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One can query for free individual ISBN numbers to get MARC records. The initial implementation would then be "sparse". User creates a refence with an ISBN number, a small routine queries for the MARC record, populates a wikicite card and the editor goes from there. We can get full ISBN databases by paying, or by forming a cooperative venture with another institution. Given full backing from wikimedia foundation, the latter is certainly possible. Stirling Newberry 22:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ISBN has some information about ISBN databases, and more (huch, who did think that about a wikipedia entry ;-) -- inter alia, that there are plans to change the ISBN format starting January 2007. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See: OttoBib.com, a free tool to generate an alphabetized bibliography from a list of ISBN numbers in MLA, APA, or Chicago/Turabian format (with a permalink). I did not post it here first because it is an extremely useful tool for citing sources.Dhaluza 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Sciences Citation Index

If we become large enough we could create an open source '[ http://www.isinet.com/products/citation/ssci/ Social Sciences Citation Index]', except for all works. This is probably an idea for when our project is much more mature, but it allows researchers to see who is citing what papers to track progress in specific areas in their fields. I.e. Who is citing John Nash's Game Theory paper, and who is citing that one, and so on to current papers on the topic. --ShaunMacPherson 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. sj thought the same thing when I discussed it with him. We can use ISSN to get a list of journals. Stirling Newberry 22:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adding isinet to page. Stirling Newberry 22:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This database of ISBN #'s and lists of journals could be come very very large. I also think the journals should also have the library of congress's #, and the dewie decimal # if we can use that system without paying (i hear Dewie is very strict in enforcing their copyright), more information the better. With MySQL we can choose which elements of the database to show, so information overload should not be a problem unless we make it one :).
The reason why I ask if MediaWiki uses MySQL is that a lot of the data in these pages are inputed by hand, while if it were in MySQL there would be some sort of querry command asking for, say, all jouranls starting with A. Here we actually list the journals starting with A in Wiki format. Having it in MySQL format allows us to massage the data on the fly, say we want all the journals starting with A from 1960-1965 from a specific publisher, MySQL could do that with relative ease compared to having to have that particular listing already inputed. --ShaunMacPherson 23:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents

  1. please move to meta
  2. have a look at http://www.citeulike.org/

-- de:Benutzer:JakobVoss

Citations bot

I'm making progress on a bot to standardize citations in articles. Here is an example edit; note that only five of the numbered References were human-created. Use of inline links vs citation entries is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Footnotes_vs._inline_web_references.

Code is based upon pywikipedia bots and will be published shortly. Improvements needed:

  • Examination of info in URLs and extraction of citation information (author, title, etc).
  • PDF support.
  • Detection of data calling for various citation templates and use of that template rather than only the Web citation templates.
  • Recognition and parsing of citation templates.
    • Standardization of template contents (ie, standard format for author names).

This is intended as a Wikicite tool which will be able to extract citation data from References. This will allow population of a citation database. (SEWilco 7 July 2005 16:15 (UTC))

Editing References

I point out that some means of editing references should help. I proposed an enhancement as Bug 2745: Have References text edit window on Edit pages as a starting point. If there is the ability to edit References while editing an article section, References are more likely to be kept up to date. An obvious extension is to have edit buttons which produce citation templates. (SEWilco 23:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC))

Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources

Comments requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources. (Notice copied here from Wikipedia talk:Cite sources --Francis Schonken 08:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

Data available

I point out that {{Book reference}} has thousands of defined book citations now. That is data which is ready for further processing. (SEWilco 05:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

Arbitration Committee is crazy

I don't know how much longer I can participate. The Arbitration Committee, in violation of Wikipedia policies and Arbiration policy, dragged me into a farce of a case and now placed me on Probation and forbidden me from following policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and improving citations. [2] Another example of the need for Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights so we know the rules and arbitration actions are limited. (SEWilco 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

I have to say, it looks pretty insane. From what I can see, SEWilco was simply replacing blind numbered links to external articles (which are widely disparaged) with a better citation apparatus. I do the same thing all the time, though not as my primary activity in Wikipedia. I've never had anyone object to it, and I certainly intend to go on doing it. The fact that someone reverted him on this would seem to me to be a problem with that person, not with SEWilco. I've left a question on the talk page of the RFA, because, even having read their report I have no idea what is their rationale. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

News reference template

User:Pfctdayelise has pointed out a problem with the news reference template here. I've proposed a solution, but I'd welcome some feedback and suggestions from this WikiProject. --Muchness 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates do not wikilink

I've installed a mediawiki server at work and am configuring like Wikipedia. The cite.php plugin and cite web templates work and display correctly except it does not automatically wikilink the date or accessdate parameter. If I drop the exact same citation into Wikipedia, they autolink. So, there is a setting, additional plugin, etc I need to get the dates to autolink. Can anyone help?Rlevse 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More details...actually, they do wikilink, but they are red because the date and year pages are not created, BUT they appear in ISO format (what I typed them in), NOT the MMM DD, YYYY date format I have my preferences set to. What is causing this?Rlevse 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Cite journal and Cite confrence

I have not been able to figure out the difference between Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference. I realize the second is meant specifically for the Procedings of confrences, but what, in terms of template arguments, or, output style, is the difference? I presume there is one, which is why I'm posting here. Thanks! (copied to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources also) JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Template for streaming media

Hi, is there a template specifically made for citing streaming media? -- Lost(talk) 14:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographic record keeping discussion.

On the Village pump (technical) there is a discussion to simplify the citing of commonly used sources, and more generally to improve our bibliographic record keeping. There are a number of options presented, some of which are ready for prime-time, and an organised effort is required to consider their suitability and prepare a well rounded proposal if any option appears to be workable. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikicite/Archive_1&oldid=1137358099"