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)

Thanks for your explanation, SlimVirgin. It's easier for us (Wikipedia contributors) to use the abbreviated style above, but what about people wishing to check our references? I agree about inline citation templates cluttering up the text -- I notice that it's sometimes hard to figure out what's a reference and what's text. But after it's done, and the reference appears neatly in the text, it's great. The reference is easily checked with two mouse clicks -- boom -- there's the reference. So, while the inputting method is somewhat more difficult, it's great for checkers. The overall result works for me because it's much less likely that my stuff will be reverted. Is there a way to use your method (in paragraph above) while still permitting two-mouse-click reference checking?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates have no benefits for checkers, Tom. If I want to ref the Guardian, for instance, I write: <ref>Arthur, Charles. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/datablog/2010/jan/21/government-free-data-website-launch UK's free data website 'is a world showcase'], ''The Guardian'', January 21, 2010.</ref>, which turns out as this.

So templates are only things with {{ and }}? I think I could start using this style too. So there are no pipe-characters (vertical bars) in it. Are you saying this is easier on Wikipedia's computers? Faster loading & such?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates are the things that begin e.g. {{cite =}} SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

(section break for easier editing)

Fair enough. I prefer the citation template style to the template-free style since I'm accustomed to it, and I find it easier. But others might like the template-free citation style. Perhaps what we need is another quickie-reference guide for the template-free version. Check out this: Proposed new Wikipedia guide. Just the top half of the sandbox. See what you think. If you like it, let's float a second simple guide for the template-free referencing. But may I ask a favor? The battling over the preferred referencing method -- can we keep battling off of the tool guides? Like, the idea of these guides is to help nooBs learn a fairly complex Wikipedia task (referencing). And slapping on warnings on the top of a simple-how-to-reference guide, in my view, is counterproductive, since it lengthens the page and will surely turn off some users. Let's keep rules on rule-pages; and let's keep how-to guides for beginners simple, short, and sweet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the academic community has not settled on one single citation style. For better or worse, Wikipedia has decided not to pick one single style, but rather, to allow editors to use any recognized style they want. Thus you can't write a short guide explaining how to use the template free citation style, because there are many of them. Frankly, I don't think anyone who hasn't been chewed out by a professor for getting citations wrong should be writing style guides. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Granted. There are many citation methods available. Wikipedia hasn't picked one. Fair enough. There are pluses and minuses with different methods. Let people pick. I have no problem with these ideas. But my general concern is this: that nooBs don't know how to reference using any method. When I was a nooB, I had trouble figuring this stuff out. And, here's the kicker: not knowing how to reference, particularly when much of the encyclopedia is written, means that it's very difficult for nooBs to contribute since much of their stuff gets reverted. If you've been following pages like the Wikipedia:Areas for Reform, you'll know that there are huge problems retaining and recruiting new editors. And trying to learn a method, any method, is tricky when there are (in my view) senseless battles over citation style preferences, extremely long and wordy lawyer-like laden tracts mentioning every detail to wade through -- it's hard learning how to reference. That's what prompted my effort at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. But nobody reads my quickie guide for all practical purposes. I tried winnowing down the lengthy Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners but ran into article police who like it long. I'll be happy to advocate template-free, template-laden methods. But I think this whole problem is important. Let's teach nooBs to reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)