Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Foreign lang template to throw after a foreign-language reference? (references without citation templates)

Back in ye olde days of Wikipedia, there used to be an unobtrusive template like lang|en lang|fr lang|ru that would just put a smaller font (Ru) or (Fr) after a footnote reference that's in a foreign language, and automatically added the article to some hidden category for such works. I know {{in lang}} exists now, but it's bulky and plain-text and doesn't appear to have any real benefit that isn't to be had by simply writing "In Russian" myself. Any help finding something smaller? I'm working on an article that is almost entirely non-English sources and I'd rather not put "In German", "In French" after each citation. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There's {{lang}} and {{lang-x}} that might help, but I'm not sure they are exactly what you're after. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If you’re using the CS1/2 citation templates, there’s a |language= parameter you can use that takes the ISO 639 code; is that what you’re looking for? Umimmak (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In the CS1/2 citation templates, there are also parameters like |script-title= which can be prepended with an ISO language code for non-Latin languages, as in |script-title=zh-Hant:瘋狂亞洲富豪. Furthermore, if there's a Wikipedia article you want to link to where the article in another language is the only one that exists or is more complete than the English Wikipedia article, I use {{ill}}; so for example for the Chinese-language Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao the Chinese article is more extensive in discussing nuances of its coverage and biases so in citations I fill in |publisher={{ill|Ta Kung Pao|zh|大公報|preserve=1}} which produces "Ta Kung Pao".

Finally, for parameters like |authorlink= you can fill in a link to a language on a different wiki, you just have to begin it with a colon: for example |authorlink=:id:Daniel Rudi Haryanto for Daniel Rudi Haryanto, an Indonesian documentary film maker who despite winning international awards currently only has an article on Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia and not English Wikipedia.

p.s. a benefit of using an appropriate language template or parameter that may not be visible in your own browser is that the HTML code is marked up to indicate the language being rendered, which may help other peoples' browsers or screen readers show it properly. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Umm, no. Do you not see the at the top of the {{ill}} documentation? What your example really produces (as far as the cs1|2 templates are concerned) is this:

{{ill|Ta Kung Pao|zh|大公報|preserve=1}} → [[Ta Kung Pao]]<span class="noprint" style="font-size:85%; font-style: normal; ">&nbsp;&#91;[[:zh:大公報|zh]]&#93;</span>

All of that ends up in the citation's metadata which should only hold (for your example) the publisher's name; no html markup, no wiki markup, just the name.

{{ill}} may be the template that the OP was thinking about. That, in my opinion is a badly thought out design. We as editors may know what ru, or es, or kl, or sq mean, but it is doubtful that readers know. We are here for the readers and there is no limit on space; use {{in lang}} so that you can use the IETF language tags and so that readers know what you mean without having to decode the tag.

{{in lang|ru|es|kl|sq}} → (in Russian, Spanish, Greenlandic, and Albanian)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"We as editors may know what ru, or es, or kl, or sq mean, but it is doubtful that readers know" – agreed, that's why there is {{Interlanguage link info}} to explain it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing a section of a web page?

Transmission of COVID-19 cites https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html in multiple places. The problem is, the page is hard to navigate, with the collapsed sections. At least in Chrome, if you search on a page for a word in a collapsed section, it won't be found. So, is there some way, analogous to {{rp}}, to cite a specific section on a web page? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith:, if you use shortened footnotes ({{sfn}}), you can use |loc= instead of |p=. If you are using {{cite web}}, you can use |at= instead of |p=. And if you're hand-rolling the citation, you can use plain text. In any of those cases, I'd just put the closest header title above the section of interest. Naturally, if it's an anchor, then include the fragment in the link. Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example:

Can wild animals spread the virus?

Note that in this example, the term '§wild animals' in the short footnote is a direct link to the FAQ question. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Works cited

• "Coronavirus (COVID-19) frequently asked questions | CDC". CDC. 18 September 2020.

References

Citing documents in proprietary formats

Is it permissible to cite a document in a proprietary format, and what is the proper way to do so? The case that I am thinking of is in IBM BookManager format. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether the format is proprietary is somewhat irrelevant, though it does decrease the likelihood that someone can read it (consider that MS Word file formats were proprietary for some time). What does matter is whether the document in question was published in a place where it can be accessed by company-outsiders. In a citation template, file formats can be specified in the badly named |format=, but only if you have a URL to go with it (it should be something like |url-file-format=). --Izno (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this? |url-file-format= isn't valid. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Chatul, your citation seems fine if you just omit the url-file-format parameter. I take Izno's comment to mean that |format= won't work if there is no URL, and that Izno doesn't think "format" is a wise name for the parameter; Izno thinks it would have been wiser to name it "url-file-format". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Totally acceptable, as long as someone independent of the creator(s) of the file format can read the document in question in one way or another. Glades12 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Whether YouTube is a reliable source

YouTube allows uploading anything, and some possibility on one supporting oneself is here. -- PythonSwarm ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 23:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources#YouTube. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Youtube in a sense isn't really publisher itself but a distribution system or media "format". Hence the question whether it is a reliable source or not doesn't make much sense and is a bit like asking, whether a book, video cassette pr website is a reliable source. Instead you need to look athe publisher/author of an individual video (being available on Youtube). Now if the video is a legal copy and the publisher/author meets the requirement for reliable sources, then youtuve video is usually a reliable source otherwise it is not. However it is also worth to note that even in cases, where the reliability criteria is met, text sources are normally preferred to video sources (assuming both are available).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I could create an account and upload virtually anything on YouTube right now, and it would honestly have a decent chance of surviving even if was intentionally shocking/misleading or a copyright violation. In other words, YT is only a reliable source if the (verified) uploader in question is. Glades12 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing an encyclical

What would be the correct and appropriate cite template for referencing a Catholic Church encyclical? For example, Fratelli tutti. The general structure is numbered paragraphs and numbered footnotes. They are eventually published as books, but most people don't access them that way. The primary thing I'd want is accurate citation of a paragraph number or footnote, because these things get long. Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, you might use {{cite web}}:

{{cite web |url=http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#DARK_CLOUDS_OVER_A_CLOSED_WORLD |title=Encyclical ''Fratelli tutti''|author=Francis |website=The Holy See |at=¶11}}

Francis. "Encyclical Fratelli tutti". The Holy See. ¶11.

Alas, you can't link directly to the paragraph but you can link to the nearest heading.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You can always generate a citation with a template, and append whatever you want:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#DARK_CLOUDS_OVER_A_CLOSED_WORLD |title=Encyclical ''Fratelli tutti''|author=Francis |website=The Holy See |at=¶11}} Search for "transsubstantiation".</ref>
Also, remember that a citation isn't necessarily a template; you could, for example, use the template to generate the citation, copy it from the list of citations, edit the copy and enter it without template (Entered as
<ref>Francis. "[http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#DARK_CLOUDS_OVER_A_CLOSED_WORLD Encyclical Fratelli tutti]". ''The Holy See''. Typed in pointer to exact location here. ¶11.</ref>
Less convenient than a quick template. I expect other reasons not to do this will be appended.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both, this is very helpful. Is "¶" the accepted emoji? The docs say to use abbreviated words such as "para." I assume that I can also cite a footnote with at=? Elizium23 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not an emoji; pilcrow, very often used to mark or reference a paragraph. Yes, |at=fn. 8 or:

|at=[http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#_ftn8 fn. 8]

The list of things that can be used in |at= is not a prescriptive list; it is just a list of common in-source locators.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments appreciated regarding proposed citation-related maintained template

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Citation_cleanup#New_maintenance_template_idea:_Source_title_missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

consistent citation style

reference info for Airbus A300

unnamed refs	47
named refs	32
self closed	140
cs1 refs	75
cs1 templates	62
cs2 refs	1
cs2 templates	1
rp templates	87
webarchive templates	5
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	35
cs1|2 dmy access dates	29
cs1|2 ymd access dates	3
cs1|2 dmy archive dates	13
cs1|2 last/first	14
cs1|2 author	8
List of cs1 templates cite book (2) Cite book (5) cite journal (2) cite magazine (4) Cite news (5) cite news (7) Cite web (11) cite web (26)
List of cs2 templates Citation (1)
explanations

Hello, we had a discussion on Talk:Airbus_A300#Citation_style_conversion? about citation style consistency, as I relied on WP:CITEVAR stating Generally considered helpful: imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit). Other editors thought I went too far. What would be the correct interpretation of this quote? Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

When making citation styles consistent, it should be to the format that is used most predominately or from the standard style first established with the article, not to a style that only has less frequent use in the article. If you want to propose that minor style to become the predominate, that should require a consensus -based discussion. EG As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. --Masem (t) 17:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There were 66 refs in the article, mostly inline, and 8 books refs with multiple calls. Those 8 books were cited in shortened footnotes, and I replaced then with inline citations. I was waiting for m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing, but this was delayed to 2021.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Replacing references to specific pages in books by generic references to large page ranges in books, as you did, is a disimprovement, because it makes it more difficult for anyone who actually wants to use the reference to verify the information that was referenced. The purpose of references is not to make the article look pretty and referency and all-ducks-in-a-row, it is to make the information in the article verifiable, and your edits go against that purpose. The article reference format was not problematic before, and should not have been changed to a worse format merely to promote your ideas of consistency of format. I think you should revert those changes. Consider an analogy: would it be ok to require that all citations be {{cite web}}, and to remove all print sources, merely for the reason that using a single type of citation is more consistent than using a mix of sources of different types? If not that, then why should what you did be considered any better? If you are going to enforce a consistent format, it needs to be a format flexible enough to allow for multiple separate references to separate pages in book sources; the mix of long+short references in place before had that flexibility, and your new straitjacket does not. Meanwhile, you overlooked a genuine inconsistency of format that could have been fixed without such problems: the "AirDisasters" reference is in citation style 2 and the rest are in citation style 1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I did restore page numbers for the ref with the widest page range, but I'm going to do the same for the others, with 2-3 page ranges. Meanwhile, a bit of civility would be pleasant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Civility is about not making remarks about you as a person, which I have not. It is not and should not be about silencing criticism of your edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"straitjacket". And "you overlooked a genuine inconsistency..." is a personal remark on my capability, not an answer to my question. Constructive criticism would have been saying shortly page numbers should be kept.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Both are remarks about content. "Straitjacket" = the heavy restraints that article referencing would be subject to if we were unable to make citations to individual pages of books, as your push for consistency in this instance has done. "And you overlooked" is again a (completely accurate) description of your edits in this specific case. Constructive criticism requires pointing out problems with edits, not staying silent about them and meekly suggesting that maybe something else would also have been possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note that according to :m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing "All previous methods for referencing are still possible without restriction" so that still wouldn't give carte blanche to change the reference style of an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible but inconsistent, then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A technical point about references with page numbers: there were comments and criticisms here about reference editing which lost page numbers. I would remind that the template {{rp|pagenum}} can be used; it is placed after a reference to indicate a page number or range, so that a single detailed reference can be used to support points on different pages, It also has what I consider the advantage that it is clear to the user that different text is supported by the same reference, as the number shown in read mode is the same.

Best wishes; Pol098 (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. references cited in this comment are spurious examples, no need to look them up!

My personal opinion is that {{rp}} is an abomination. I won't use it in articles I create. But it is of course a consistent citation style and should not be removed without discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Work" versus "agency" versus "publisher"

One mistake that I made consistently during my early wiki career was to misuse the "publisher" and "agency" fields for e.g. The New York Times, when what I was looking for was actually the "work" field. "Work" just isn't a very good label. I notice that there's a question mark in the form that displays a clarifying message—perhaps that was added more recently, helping newer editors more than I was, or perhaps it just took me a while to notice because it's so subtle (in which case newer editors are probably going through the same thing). Is there anything we could do to help people learn about these fields more easily? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Maile66, who I notice asked about this at VPT three years ago. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple alternative parameter names for various specific types of works, eg |website= or |newspaper=. Based on your VPT link it seems like the best way to help people learn about these in that specific case would be a change in RefToolbar? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, yeah, I'm thinking primarily about RefToolbar, since really that's the only way any newer editor (using source code) ought to add references. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It is probably true that "work" could be confusing new editors who use structured citation helpers. A better label might be "source" since that is what "work" represents, and that is what is cited.

In a citation context, "source" is any published, discoverable, free-standing item that unambiguously verifies, or includes subitems that unambiguously verify, in real time, claims (in this case in wikitext), in whole or in part. Sources unrelated to the editor of such claims are preferred, though this is not necessarily a disqualification. Proven past reliability applies only to the related past citations, and no source should be considered a priori reliable (or unreliable) on any subject.

Good luck! 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Source" is ambiguous, since a typical news or journal article has an article title and a publication title. That is probably why |source= is not a supported parameter in any of the Citation Style 1 "Cite xxx" templates. "Publication" or "Periodical" might be more helpful than work, although the latter might be too jargony for the average editor. For those of us who do not use RefToolbar, a screen shot or two, showing the placement of this word "work", would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing the source (the journal) with an in-source location (the article). Until a few years ago journal articles were practically non-discoverable by the general public. Many if not all reference databases would index journals, not articles. That was the singular, free-standing, searchable item. Granted that with digital indexing it is easier to zero in on a location rather than to the contents of the including source. But there is no such structured helper in Wikipedia. All of them, whether they are templates or addons are focused on sources (the enclosing works), not in-source locations. So there is no "cite article". The reason a parameter "source" does not exist in one part (or anywhere) of Wikipedia's citation environment has more to do with entrenchment of faulty design and of the attendant (erroneous) terminology than anything else. 135.84.167.61 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

1. I am not confused (this time). Journal articles have been discoverable at public libraries for as long as I can remember. I learned how to use an index of periodical articles in the early 1980s as a young student, before there were general-purpose computers in school libraries; here's one from 1922.

2. {{Cite journal}} is specifically for citing individual journal articles, and will give an error message if the title of the article is not provided. {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} are the same.

3. The phrase "in-source location" is used by the Citation Style 1 documentation to refer to a page number or other specific location within the cited item. It would help this discussion if you referred to the documentation before making claims about how templates work and what they are for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not discussing any specific part of Wikipedia's citation environment. Neither am I discussing documentation that in certain cases perpetuates erroneous approaches to citing materials. The documentation of the templated application of citation style 1 falls in that category, but that is often because it documents flawed design, or in this case outright novel and wrong information. The point is that citations are about published sources. Journal articles are not published (when they are, they are no longer "articles"). Journals are published, and they are classified accordingly, in libraries or elsewhere. Until very recently, you could not just search for a journal article. The first question always was, what journal is it published in? Because as stated earlier journals and their TOCs was what was indexed. There are/were databases of journals, not articles. To find the relevant part (article) one would first find the (work) journal, again because that was the published entity, and therefore that was what could be easily found. Citations are there to provide an easy, quick path to verification, they are not research material. Sure, you could find an article not knowing the journal. If you had a LOT of time in your hands, for something so pedestrian. 64.18.9.208 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, you can look at GorillaWarfare's video at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 (or just enable RefToolbar and test it for yourself). When you hover over the question mark near "work", you get the tooltip Name of journal, magazine, newspaper, periodical or website, encoded here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the video, and at 0:53, the "Cite journal" pop-up box shows "journal" as an option, but I don't see "work". Can you be more specific about how to reproduce the problem that you are experiencing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, make sure you have RefToolbar enabled (as is default). Go edit a page in source code, go to the cite tab, and under the templates menu click "cite news". The box that pops up will have a number of fields, including "Work", "Agency", and "Publisher". The discussion here is about the potential confusion among those fields. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The definition of "work" present in the toolbar is correct, even if it is not complete. The confusion between the fields mentioned above is more a social issue. Understandable, correct documentation should be provided, that clarifies each field's use; hopefully editors will apply it. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

An aside on "source" as parameter label for the work: if I remember correctly (this goes back to the early days of Wikipedia), "source" was rejected because editors thought it would be confused as referring solely to "source code". The majority of early editors were technically inclined. If they were dealing daily with accounting instead, "journal" would probably never be used as a citation template name or parameter. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

An idea: add tooltips for "agency" and "publisher"

How about this: let's add an explanation next to the "agency" and "publisher" fields the same as the one next to the "work" field. Going off of the documentation at {{cite news}}, for publisher I'd suggest parent company that published the work being cited and for agency I'd suggest news agency (wire service) that provided the content published elsewhere. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As in a tooltip in RefToolbar itself? I'd suggest that be proposed at the tool's talk page rather than here. Or did you mean something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Do we have any stats on how often the toolbar is used.....do new editors not see it? Why is it not used by the majority? Never seen "agency" paramater used.--Moxy 🍁 23:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not the most commonly used cs1|2 parameter, but it is used in about 104k articles

I expect that most 'new' editors don't see WP:RefToolbar because that abomination that is ve is the default so must be disabled or editors must intentionally switch – both are things that new editors likely know nothing about.

I hold the opinion that WP:TemplateData's attempt to combine control and documentation into one crippled tool is a failure. But, I think that if the 'documentation' that TemplateData holds is considered in the same light as the suggested RefToolbar tool tip, then ve gets it more-or-less right for |agency=: 'The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I put an invitation there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Update: I requested implementation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing an image

I'm a bit rusty, and can't easily find the answer to my problem. I want to cite an image as a reference. Note that the information i am referencing is only contained in the image, not in the text of the article that the image is displayed in. Do i still use 'cite web', and use the image's title text as the title attribute? Thanks in advance.Julianhall (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the article containing the image? That would make it easier for others to understand the issue. Glades12 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC), updated 19:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is here:[1]. The Wikipedia page in question is List of Leeds Rhinos players, and the specific information contained only in the image is the heritage number which can be seen on the player's shirt. Thanks. Julianhall (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would make a normal citation to the article that the image is displayed in, with an annotation (either in the |at= parameter or immediately following the citation if |at= would interfere with the page numbers of the citation) describing which image from that article is being cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll investigate that. Julianhall (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

citing personal communication confirming a cited fact?

I worked on a page for a person who plays the organ for sports teams. After the recent Dodgers World Series win, someone pointed out on Twitter that he's played for three championship teams in three separate sports. I thought this was notable and while I have an authoritative citation that confirms he was the staff organist during the time those games were played, I reached out to him to get confirmation that he was actually playing AT those games, a fact he confirmed. I think this is OK under WP:SELFSOURCE. Is that correct? If so, how do I cite that personal communication? Thank you. 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You cannot use a personal communication to source some fact because it is not published in the sense required by Wikipedia. See WP:PUBLISH. --Izno (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Jessamyn: Izno is correct regarding our policies/guidelines, so if you were trying to get Ruehle's page recognized as a good article or featured article, a non-published confirmation would not be sufficient. However, given where the page is right now, no one is likely to complain if you just include the fact as original research. You can add the {{Better source needed}} tag to indicate that your existing authoritative source doesn't confirm that he was actually playing at those games, and perhaps a source will be published/found providing confirmation sometime in the future. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Jessamyn (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Expand WP:DEADREF

I have been doing RC patrol recently and I've noticed that tons of people seem to, for some reason, think that the official protocol is to simply remove material from articles (sometimes entire sections) because "the link is dead". While WP:DEADREF does mention this as bullet point 6 (the final point in the list), I think it might be better for that section to mention up-front that removing large referenced sections from articles because "the URL didn't load" is not a proper application of policy. I might just go ahead and do it if nobody objects. jp×g 09:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What specifically would you propose adding? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I ended up doing it with this diff, which wasn't as major a change as I had expected it to be. jp×g 10:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I was just reading point 6 and wondered - how doesn't it contradict Assume Good Faith? I could be trusted to add a newspaper or magazine print citation but for some reason online is expected to work forever. Why was point 6 added in the first place? I improved an article to GA in 2007 and it was a Featured Article Candidate in 2008. The links were checked by several people in the FAC process and they worked then. Now many links are dead and I bet many are hopelessly lost. I am considering another Featured Article attempt. Royalbroil 04:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Royalbroil, if the scenario you describe, the process probably stops at item 4, "Remove convenience links: If the material was published on paper (e.g., academic journal, newspaper article, magazine, book), then the dead URL is not necessary. Simply remove the dead URL, leaving the remainder of the reference intact." In other words, if you cited that newspaper article, and the URL dies, but some library probably has the original print copy on microfiche, then remove the URL (only) and keep the content. The citation about "Big News"] in The Daily Paper becomes a citation to "Big News" in The Daily Paper, sans URL, and everything's fine.

If the content isn't available anywhere (e.g., an online-only source), then we have a problem with Wikipedia:Published#Accessible. One of the main points of citing content is so that a dedicated person could check to make sure that you weren't making it up. If your source completely disappears from the face off the Earth, and no other source contains the same claims, then the content stops being verifiable; our dedicated person is literally no longer "able to verify" that any source contained that claim. In that case, the content no longer complies with the core policies and needs to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Videography/Music videos section

When creating a list of official music videos of a musical artist, can we link direct YouTube Music videos link as the references, or must it be from a third party source? Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@TerryAlex, if you are still looking for an answer, then I encourage you to copy your question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which exists for the purpose of deciding whether a source is strong enough for specific claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)