Help talk:Referencing for beginners with citation templates

Created article

Based on discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Referencing for beginners with users such as User:Tyrenius it was suggested to make a daughter article to offer a fast referencing tool. The idea was to offer a quick, easy-to-use but versatile referencing method for beginners; at the same time, it was felt that the longer, more detailed page was still necessary and helpful. So this article was created as a daughter article to the page Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. The idea is to keep this article short and simple to make referencing seem less intimidating to beginning Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not required, sometimes not allowed

Since this is for beginners, it should point out, in the first paragraph, the need to follow existing style, including respecting the decision to not use citation templates. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other pages which mention these options. But the whole idea of this page here is to shorten and simplify the referencing procedure so beginners don't get turned off. When I tried to learn about referencing a year ago, I found myself wading through pages and pages of instructions; it felt overwhelming. Please, let's try to keep this page short; I'm even thinking of deleting the bottom part about "reflist". Make it easy. So many nooBs don't know how to reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Beginners must be warned, otherwise their edits will be reverted and they will receive templates such as {{uw-mos1}} all over their talk pages. If you don't add a warning I will. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep it very short and sweet. The vast majority of beginners don't know how to reference at all. This simple short easy quick basic no-frills page shows how. And decisions about when to reference or whether to reference are discussed on other talk pages; this is about how to reference. Strongly urge keeping this focus.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you think my change is short and sweet enough. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but I still think this is adding unnecessary complication. This article is only talking about how to use ONE citation method. That's it. It isn't advice about how to find out which citation method is being used. They can explore that topic elsewhere. It's so easy to have these advice pages grow into gargantuan marvels that offer SO MUCH ADVICE that it overwhelms most people. And frankly, I think this standard method, described on the project page, will work almost everywhere. Please understand how complex referencing will seem for nooBs, and please try to keep this simple.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot accept a page that advises people to impose a system that some editors HATE on articles that do not currently use it. If you remove the warning, I will have to pursue dispute resolution processes. But if you can get the point across more succinctly, be my guest. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who hates this template form? I'm curious. I thought it was universally workable. I have yet to come across some kind of article where this template wasn't liked. Please let me know what you're talking about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) And no, I really don't like your addition; I think you mean well, but it goes against the purpose here. When a user comes to this template, they've already decided that they want to reference; and I don't see how your "warning" is helpful when all they're trying to do is learn how to reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting. Any better? In my view, it's a detail, and it doesn't belong in the LEDE, but I can see if you feel strongly about inclusion that we put it in there somewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look in WP:CITE you will find the phrase "Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred over another". If you look through the archives of the talk page you will find instances where people tried to put in language that either favored, or assumed the use of, templates, and all these attempted changes were rebuffed. The arguments against templates include too many keystrokes, making pages harder to edit because the citations contain more text, and slowing down the rendering of pages and increasing the size of the html because the templates are inefficient. User:SlimVirgin might be able to point you to specific discussions. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your change is fine. I reordered the further reading list to go from the general to the more specific, and annotated them to give a hint of what they are about. I added WP:Parenthetical referencing for two reasons: (1) the beginner might come across it and not know what to make of it, and (2) the beginner might be a middle or high school student who is required to use it, and be wondering how come Wikipedia doesn't do it like their teacher taught them. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Check "page view statistics". Do you know how many people look at this page? 12. So I don't think it makes much sense to fuss over this particular page much; nobody's reading it. I agree editors are free to choose any method they want; all of this discussion happens on the parent article Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, or on other articles. Rather, the idea of this article is this: IF people want to reference using a citation template, here's how. That's it. Not a discussion about whether templates are good or not. This little article won't push people to try one method or the other. Nobody's reading it. Not worth us fussing over it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw are you good at computers? I'm trying to figure out how I can do a double box? Like, I'd like to have a box to the side, but inside the box it's split left and right, with arguments for on one side, and arguments against on the other. Do you know how I can do this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, this page needs to reference the guideline, because the use of these templates is contentious, and increasingly so. In fact, it's reaching the point where I think the community will soon do something about them, so we don't want to encourage their use anymore than it's already encouraged. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Battling over templates? Sheesh. What next? I thought the battling was about the content! Are there alternative reference methods? Please keep me informed here. I've been using this basic template about a year and have had no problems. Let me know if there's a better way. I know it's hard for me to read text in editing mode with the reference things inside it; I'm wondering whether there's a better method myself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with them, Tom. It's very hard, actually impossible, to copy edit an article well if it has a lot of templates cluttering up the text, so using templates leads to bad writing. The templates also encourage the addition of unnecessary information, because editors will tend to fill the parameters without thinking, which is more clutter. They also slow down loading time, sometimes significantly. Plus, when I last looked, some or all of them used a citation style that didn't exist outside Wikipedia. So really, they make very little sense to use. It's easier and faster to write e.g. <ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref> or better still, <ref>Smith 2010, p. 1.</ref> with a long citation in the References section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)