Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaSjieb (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 28 February 2007 (Citing a Flash Website). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archives

Conflict between References and Notes

I'm hoping I'm in the right place. I've just recently learned to use references, and I've come across a problem. The Manual of Style pages do not see mto differentiate between references and footnotes, and I wonder if there is an established way to have both a References and a Notes/Footnotes section in a single article. The problem comes when using <references/> and <ref></ref> , as there appears to be room for only one section; every Ref will automatically link to the References section. I've jerry-rigged a Notes section in the Clan Fraser article that operates effectively like the Refs section, with a link in the article and one from the Notes section back up to the section the note refers to. This is obviously not permanent. Maybe there could be <references1/> as well as a <references2/> tag? Then each ref tag could be either <ref1></ref1> or <ref2></ref2>, or something similar. I've no idea how this would be established, but it would certainly be useful. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cite.php (<ref></ref>) technology does not suit your needs, as you have discovered. Basically there are two workarounds: (1) just combine the digressionary notes with the citations in a general notes and citations section, using normal ref tags for all footnotes. (2) Use the <ref></ref> for citations, and another footnote-creating tag to create the other type of notes. You do not need to jerry-rig a system quite the way you did. Use of a template such as those listed at Template_talk:Ref can solve the problem slightly more elegantly. As for adding the functionality you want to cite.php, this has already been requested at the relevant location, but it waits on developer time and interest. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also perfectly acceptable to use Harvard references rather than putting the references into footnotes. CMummert · talk 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, per Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnote3, the {{ref}} template is deprecated and thus should not be used in any additional articles. CMummert · talk 12:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous discussions here and at the Ref talk page, I have removed those notices. Though older and less common, {{ref}} is not deprecated. There are two main reasons not to deprecate it: (1) first, the labelled editions in the series remain a major way to achieve labelled footnotes and Harvard style, and are still being used (properly) in new articles. (2) There is a substantial preference for the basic design of {{ref}} (i.e. notes not being inserted in the middle of the source) over the way cite.php works, as seen here. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are many situations ref3 could be used on new articles, but that text has been on the footnote3 page for almost a year undisturbed. Wouldn't that suggest some sort of consensus? Also, the way many active editors use the cite.php mechanism, the notes are not in the middle of the source text. Gimmetrow 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar text was removed from the other relevant pages (WP:FOOT and the template page itself) so obviously there is a conflict. It is difficult to read a consensus when different pages say different things. Cite.php requires whatever appears in the note to be in the middle of the source; not necessarily the full citation information, but the entire note. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, and the footnote3 page probably gets very little traffic, but perhaps the page is too weak now. Also I have seen editors add references like {{ref|http://somewebsite.org}}. Obviously that doesn't work (and in fact ref converter replaces these with {{cn}}, which is a big problem...), but it muddies the waters of common practice and consensus further. Gimmetrow 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do as you feel necessary to make clear that cite.php is the general common practice for adding footnotes. Obviously it is. By "ref/note is not deprecated" I mean only this:
  1. we are not at the moment intentionally phasing out ref/note (though as soon as its functions are supported by cite.php we probably ought to do so)
  2. there is no formal preference for one or the other, i.e. use of either is fine at FAC, GAC, etc.
  3. switching from ref/note to cite.php is not mandated by any policy, and any such changes are subject to normal requirements for discussion on talk pages in controversial cases.
Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge -- I could be wrong, currently there is no one standard referencing system which can differentiate the veritable source, and the rest, to the reader's perspective, although wiki writers may have raised this awareness when generating the wiki articles. I would suggest wiki admin to use two different templates to categorize these two sources. In terms of the reliability of the source as described at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, my thought is that some kind of sources maybe reliable but may not be necessary of verifiability. The typical examples are those empirical knowledges which could be reliable in most cases but yet to be verified. As different to empirical knowledges, scientific knowledges are of the verifiability in that these knowledges are derived from the steps of observations, evidences, arguments, conclusions and peer- reviewed / examined publishing which are the process of the verifications, alough the degree of the verification varies from one knowledge to another. In another word, the degree of the scientific truth varies, therefore one theory can be superseded by a new theory with the developement of science. For example, light speed is not constant as discovered by modern scientists. By large, nothing is perfect and nothing is absolute on the earth, however accuracy and precision of the relative truth have to be persued endlessly. If wiki is using the two different referencing system, that will satisfy both the academic AND social societies and provide an indispensable platform for both of the group peoples to communicating each other. At the same time, it will reduing the misleading effect in the article.

Space vs no space in citations

    • Incorrect: blah blah. [1]
    • Correct: blah blah.[1]
    • Incorrect: blah blah." [1]
    • Correct: blah blah."[1] This looks much better since the space pushed the quotation mark away from the superscript. So how did no space become the standard?

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeX does put extra space between quotes and footnotes vs. between spaces and footnotes. I would guess the no-space convention follows from the typewriter era, where footnotes were in full-size type and no space was needed in any circumstance. Professional typesetters certainly know how to do proper intercharacter spacing, but web browsers are notoriously poor at typesetting. CMummert · talk 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No space helps prevent detached reference marks. See image. Gimmetrow 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times in a video

How much specification is necessary to indicate where in a film/video something you're citing is? For example, how could one reference details of a specific scene in a movie? If it's on DVD should you just note the approximate time at which the scene takes place? Or is just one citation for the whole movie good enough? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give as much information as reasonably possible, including the particular time that the material supporting your claim appears. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, where might one put a time in a {{cite video}} citation? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should go at the end of the citation. I don't know how this would work with the tempalte, it may not even be possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a time parameter to {{cite video}}; not sure if this is the formal way to write it but I think this is the most comprehendible way, IMO. Any other thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one piece over naruto?

is it true that Naruto is only the second-most popular ongoing shōnen series in Japan, just behind One Piece? meaning, one piece is much more popular than naruto? but upon my observation, naruto is much more popular, having too many fan sites, photos, accessories, and so on... though i love those 2 anime series... im just wondering...

What does this have to do with citing sources on Wikipedia? Scourge441 22:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on citation format

I've spent an hour looking through various citation methods, and could really use some advice. Overall, I like the method of using the <ref> tags in the body text, which then link down to a "Notes" section at the bottom of the article. However, where there are extensive references involved, this often results in body text that is very difficult to edit because of all of the embedded citations.

Some relief from this comes from using <ref name=<name>/> tags, but it still requires the full citation to be placed inside the body text somewhere, and this can get cumbersome when an article is undergoing extensive editing -- If a paragraph is deleted that has the "root" citation, then it causes problems for all the other named citations in the article, unless the root citation is then moved to one of the other locations (a tedious process).

In order to address this problem, is there a way to cite things where the "root" citation is somehow placed as a named note or reference at the bottom of the article, and then all the bodytext citations can just use that name? I checked out the {{wikicite}} technique, but it loses the nice linkable numbers in the bodytext, plus it's difficult to work back from the Notes by clicking the on "a", "b", "c" etc. to pop back up to where that source is actually used.

Somewhere in the plethora of different citation techniques available on Wikipedia, is there a happy medium? A way to cite things once at the bottom of the article, and then just refer to their names elsewhere in the text, while still being able to use the linkable footnote numbers and letters? Thanks, Elonka 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, there is no such system. {{ref label}} (see Template talk:Ref for documentation) places all citations at the end of the article and uses footnote numbers and letters, but does not use a ref name element as simple as that of cite.php, and it is quite finicky and not good for use on a heavily edited article. To sort of feature you want has already been requested (see Wikipedia:Ref reform) but basically requires an interested developer. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, at least it's good to know that I'm not missing something somewhere. I'll muddle through with the ref name stuff in the meantime.  :) --Elonka 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "ref name" method that can't be broken by cutting is to repeatedly use the same full reference. For example: <ref name = "Smith">James Smith, ''The Easy Years''.</ref> Put the whole thing in for every ref, and the full book details in the references section. The abc thing will come out in the notes.
But I dislike the "ref name" style, partly because of the difficulty of accurately jumping back up, as you mention, but also because they prevent combining refs and adding particular notes to refs. For me the slickest, quickest, and easiest style is to put the full book details in the references section and then ref like this: <ref>Smith, 134.</ref> They are very easy to edit around. qp10qp 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the style I've adopted if a reference is used more than once in an article. With a lot of short notes you can use two columns (see Second Seminole War for an example). -- Donald Albury 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Donald: I do like that method, thanks, as it provides a way to cite the different pages when multiple cites are coming from the same book. But I'm a bit confused by some of the other references, which don't seem to be listed anywhere in the Notes. For example, the Higgs book, or the Tampa Bay Center. Are they being cited in some other way that I missed? Or are things like that supposed to be moved down to a "Further reading" section? --Elonka 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch! I split Second Seminole War out of Seminole Wars a while back because of the size, and missed that those references are no longer needed. I do intend to spend some more time on both articles (good intentions and all that ...). Thanks for spotting that. I'll go fix it now. -- Donald Albury 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Finding articles that contain unreferenced material

That forgotten unlinked and uncategorized page can perhaps be merged here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

are "External Links" sufficient verification of an artical? or is an article that has no references, and only a few External Links technically unverified?

and should i be tagging such unverified pages with {{not verified}} because from what ive read on wiki, it seems like i should. Sahuagin 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "External Links" is a form of further reading and therefore doesn't verify particular material. If those links are used under notes, however, they indicate that a specific fact or quote can be found in a particular source, and so, if done carefully (all other things being equal), that counts as an attribution, IMO. qp10qp 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of entries in "External links" is manageable, I would read them and see if I could verify the article with them. If so, I would move them to the "References" section, and possibly provide inline citations. --Gerry Ashton 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tagging unsourced material": clarity

I suggest a review of the "Tagging unsourced material" section, which represents the style guide for the "citation needed" tags. I feel it contains two ambiguous statements. The first is the last sentence of the first paragraph: "...but be careful not to overuse these tags. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material." At first I thought the intent was a warning against being overly aggressive in removing sourceless material, in order to prevent the tagging of trivial and common-knowledge statements. But it could also be read as having the opposite meaning, that the act of tagging a questionable statement can sometimes show inappropriate caution and that if you are really in doubt about the unsourced material, don't be afraid to remove it. So the sentence is a statement that could have contradictory meanings.

The second statement that I feel is ambiguous is in the first summary point: "...use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." Again, at first I thought the 'claim' referred to is the claim that a citation is needed and that the tag should be removed after a time, but the equal and opposite interpretation is that the claim referred to is the statement needing a citation and that if no source is found, the statement being tagged should be removed.

I propose replacing each statement with less ambiguous wording that is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Verifiability core content policy, which states "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source," meaning that in each case my second interpretation should be made unambiguously correct. 70.157.33.51 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

passim

Is adding sources with passim acceptable, even if one has not read the source but is extrapolating from the title. Should someone wishing to verify the source be able to ask for page or paragraph details? See Talk:Kingdom of Germany#Last King of Scotland for a discussion on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source you haven't read is obviously not appropriate in sourcing a disputed statement. As for the rest, I don't really want to wade into the dispute but whether a citation is specific enough depends on the situation and is a matter for talk page discussion. An RFC might be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously this page included recommendation on page numbers with citations [1] Given the example above, it is probably a good idea to reintroduce such a paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia

When a citation on a piece of information on a Wikipedia article is required, are we allowed to cite another Wikipedia article? Scourge441 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well… I think Scourge is asking if the information is about the article as a Wikipedia article, not a source on information on that topic itself, in which case the answer is yes. For example, the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy requires citations of Wikipedia pages, handled as external links (i.e. use single brackets, not double). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing printed sources, not available on the web at the touch of a button, only in a library or bookshop

If you do this, how does it meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards for the user? He/she is not going to want to go to a library that may or may not have this book that claims that a certain fact is true...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the verifiability policy is not that any user be able to verify a fact at the touch of a button. It is simply to ensure that all claims are supported by reliable sources. In judging sources, accessibility is very much a secondary concern to reliability. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Howard

can a source be your own knoledge, as what i've written is stuff i've known for years, i can't remember who told me what. post resonses on my homepage. Millm0w 12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information has to be verifiable from published reliable sources. Your personal knowledge or what was told you by someone else doesn't qualify, and is considered to be original research. -- Donald Albury 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've done the work, is it aright now ;Antoine Howard. Millm0w 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing nonpublished sources

Here's a hypothetical and slightly complicated situation. Editor X states that Dr. Y does not provide certain details about his methodology, and indeed a thorough search shows that these details can be found neither in print nor on the web. Editor Z says this is wrong: Dr. Y told him that he will provide details upon request. The actual communication between Dr. Y and Editor Z is not publicly accessible. Is it still correct to state that the details in question are not publicly available, or is the statement by Editor Y sufficient to establish their availability? Raymond Arritt 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is to place information about the methodology in Wikipedia, then the information must be published. If it is available upon requst to Dr. Y, it still isn't published, and still can't be used in Wikipedia.
If the point is to explicitly or implicitly criticize Dr. Y for not making public information about the methodology, that criticism would have to be published in a reliable source before it could be included in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Dr Y controls who sees his information, then it is not public and cannot be considered reliable. If Dr Y wants a better reputation, he has to publish for all the world to see and criticize. Rjensen 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notification template

{{Unreferenced msg}}
{{Unreferenced vgdate msg}}

I've made this template to notify users on their talk page when an edit of theirs has been reverted because it could not be verified. A bit like the warning templates, but then just a notice of what's happened to their edits.

update
I've also made one specifically for video game releasedates, since that's the issue that brought up the idea.

Feedback or ideas are welcome. JackSparrow Ninja 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might annoy people. Maybe editors will be watching the pages they're interested in and notice for themselves. I'm set to have any page I've edited come up on my watchlist. qp10qp 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly for new users and ip's, who might not understand why their edit has been reverted and try to add it again. Just a little notice of explanation to people. JackSparrow Ninja 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books?

Are links/refs to books available on Google Books allowed as links? I have this edit in mind. Sorry if this has been answered before, but it might be a good idea to give it a mention on the Project Page. Ekantik talk 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the pages being referenced are available online it seems like a good idea to link to them, all else being equal. If you are actually using Google Books as the source, rather than a convenience link as it appears to be in this case, you could note that in your reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Google.books is a very good idea, but optional. Rjensen 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COinS tags

A recent edit claims that some templates support machine readable COinS tags. The term "COinS tags" is wikilinked, but there is no such article. So, what is a COinS tag? --Gerry Ashton 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It's at COinS.Circeus 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tested this in my sandbox. I could see the COinS tag if I used subst:, but not if I didn't. Is this feature of any use if the subst: feature is not used? --Gerry Ashton 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It,s worked just fine for me so far with Zotero.Circeus 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] overload or we missed the point

I'd not for a minute suggest we don't need to cite source or put in our reference sources. In the military hardward section of our store we now have come to the sorry conclusion that our customers don't need to do anything as silly and stupid as to be actually able to read our articles... We have lost sight of our primary purpose when we scrapped after legitimacy. I have one guy running amok putting 60+ [citation needed] in an article and walking off... then threating anyone that starts to remove any so that article might actually be readable again... and make no mistake there is no reading it when every sentence is now marked with a [citation needed] and our customers are not always going to be interested in editing. We need a single small mark like an inline footnote for this or a way to mark a section for review of footnotes. Its gotten to the point where we now have a subclass of editor that thinks running through a article pasting [citation needed] 60 times and leaving it that way (contributing nothing whatsoever to actually footnoting it either) and calls it a day well spent... 5 minutes and done and days of work for anyone that cares... we have lost completely our mission... to have a wonderful readable online resouce... and only our customer suffers. We might well and truely lower our heads in shame. Have we completely lost our sense of mission? If anyone really cares about our customers and how our product looks to the world would you please let me know? Tirronan 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize, the reality is that reliability is a much bigger part of our obligation to our "customers" than aesthetic quality. The best solution to these problems is to provide sources for any of the tags for which this can easily be accomplished. If you believe a particular editor is disruptive or uncooperative in a situation such as this, you may want to contact an administrator. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try replacing the individual {{fact}} tags with one big {{verify}}. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is darned useful! I wondered why #60 tags were needed in a article. Tirronan 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{citation needed}} is not for facts that "could" or even "can" be sourced specifically, but for those that should be sourced, and it,s better to just remove them, especially if they reek of original research or unsourced attacks. Example of accurate such tags would be a population number for a Canadian city in 2004 (the last canadian censuses are 2001 and 2006).Circeus 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research (was: Please give me advice)

Hello! I'm writing an article but it is my first one and I'm feeling quite insecure. My article is about a singer, Justin Hayford. I contacted him personally and he gave me biographical information, which is not available anywhere else on the net. This means that the only source which proves that the information I provide is correct is the email he sent to me. How must I indicate this? What kind of reference must I give? Thank you! :-) Trilby*foxglove 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use information that isn't published in a reliable source. Find a magazine that would like to publish an article about Justin Hayford, get your article published, then write the Wikipedia article. Publishing interviews is the job of magazines, newspapers, and similar publications. The job of Wikipedia is summarizing information that has already been published elsewhere. --Gerry Ashton 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find a magazine or some reliable source to publish your article, you could try Wikinews, which allows original research. However, note that Wikipedia does not consider Wikinews a reliable source, and many magazines will want exclusive rights. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no information on a subject that is already published in a reliable source, it is very likely that the subject is not sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also can publish your information on WikiSource. However, first learn about copyrights and permissions concerning unpublished material. Justin Hayford owns the copyright to his e-mails to you. Una Smith 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all for your help! :) Trilby*foxglove 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing television documentaries

How do I cite television documentaries? Patiwat 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to get down the following information: title; date of broadcast; network; production company; executive producer or director. If it is part of a running series, also include the name of the series. Format is less important, but a try to be reasonable consistent with other references in the article; a good general format would be Person, Title, Network, Date. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Information

When citing something, does the particular order of what one is citing matter? For example, let's say I end up getting, "GameSpot.com, Resident Evil 5 debuting simultaneously on 360, PS3 Retrieved on February 19, 2007", (which is Publisher, Article name, and access date). Is okay to use that particular order on Wikipedia, as long as I consistently use it throughout an article? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For similar articles (i.e. web sources with no author) that order would be okay, although the citation might be improved by adding the date of publication. For books, articles with authors, etc. you need to include different information, usually putting the author first rather than the "publisher". Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for the help! :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"

A few recent edits made to Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" have presumed that the only time one would maintain separate References and Notes sections is when the notes are explanatory, rather than just bibliographical. This is not the case.

When writing footnotes in a paper publication, the order of the notes is predictable and fixed. Thus, the first note can be complete, and later notes can be shortened. If two consecutive notes are from the same work, the second note might just read "ibid. 98". But since Wikipedia articles are subject to frequent revision, note lists that depend on the order of the notes can quickly become corrupted. A way around this, which I don't think is mentioned in any printed style manual, is to use short notes, such as "ARRL Handbook (1990) 2-13." and then place the full bibliographical information in an alphabetical reference section.

I suppose the same think could be achieved with Harvard reference templates, but when I started editing about a year ago, I found the cite.php system more commonly used, and better explained, than the Harvard reference templates; I still have not figured them out, and I don't know if I would like them.

In summary, I think this style guide should accept the practice of maintaining separate sections even when the notes are purely bibliographical, until such time as a better system is clearly explained in this style guide. --Gerry Ashton 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th ed. CMS actually does advocate using shortened notes (of the form "Author, Short Title, Page") throughout and pulling all the publication information into a separate alphabetical listing. Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a Flash Website

Hi. After looking around a bit on Google and this page, I couldn't really find an answer to my problem.

I'm currently working on the article about Derrick Carter. On his record labels site (http://www.classicmusiccompany.com/) are biographies about the artists releasing on that label, including Derrick Carter himself. The site is build entirely in Flash. I'm facing the following problem: I can't include an URL to the actual article, because with Flash-only sites the addressbar-URL always stays the same. (ie no deeplinks)

My questions:

  • Is it OK to use Flash-only sites as references/resource, if it is 100% certain the information on it is correct?
  • If it is OK, what is the correct way to include a reference to the specific section on the site?

Thanks for your input. DaSjieb 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources&oldid=111553203"