Help talk:Index/Formatting/References

MAIN PAGE

Carry-over from sandbox draft version

This looks good so far. A couple of notes:

• It may be easier to start off with a simple example that does not use the cite template. For example: <ref>http://forum.citizendium.org/ - Citizendium Forums</ref>. Then introduce the idea of the cite template in the next section.
• Personally I would put the "Single insertion of a reference" section before the "Multiple insertion of the same reference", as the former is the simpler case. I find it always best to start with the easiest things, and work up to the more complex things.
• It may be worth mentioning that if there are a lot of references then {{reflist|2}} can be used.
• I'm not sure on this, and it is a matter of personal taste, but we could split the article up into three different articles in order to simplify the process of the user finding exactly what they want. The first section could be an introduction to what references are, the second could be instructions on inserting the embedded inline references, and the third could be about using the cite template.

Of course, all of these are just opinions and you don't have to follow them. --Chris Key 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for your review. I agree with your first three suggestions and will work them in. As for your last suggestion, I think it is better to keep the article as it is rather than splitting it into three articles. Milton Beychok 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (This was my response as best as I remember. History of discussion of the sandbox version got lost after the article was created in the namespace.)

Edits and revisions

Typo, spelling and grammar edits are welcome. However, it would be greatly appreciated if major or significant additions, deletions or revisions were first thoroughly discussed on this Talk page. Milton Beychok 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken references

This is a very informative page, and I found the instructions easy to use, thanks. The only thing not perfect is that at the bottom of the page it says:

• Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found

and I am not confident what I should do to fix it. David Finn 01:58, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

Good pick-up, David. I fixed it. The problem was that I repeated the example a second time in the "How to place the reference insertion points" section which meant that another {{reflist}} was needed ... but two {{reflist}}s on one page really causes a mess. So instead of the <ref>..</ref> references in that second example, I used blue colored superscripts. Milton Beychok 11:58, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

Multiple references with different page numbers

One may wish to cite a source already cited with different page numbers, for example, upon first appearance:

• Patrick Suppes (1972). Axiomatic set theory, Reprint of D Van Nostrand 1960 ed. Courier-Dover, pp. 14 ff. ISBN 0486616304. 

and for the second appearance, perhaps:

• Patrick Suppes. Previously cited work, pp. 50 ff. ISBN 0486616304. 

The idea is to (i) clearly identify that the same work is cited again, and (ii) provide the relevant link and page numbers. The in-line <ref></ref>'s are then something like <ref name =Suppes1></ref> and <ref name= Suppes2></ref>. WP has a "harvard" reference system to do this a bit differently, but I've found that to be too much overhead. Any comments? John R. Brews 17:42, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

John, you are correct. The way to use a single reference multiple times (for different pages within that reference) is just as you have described it. However, it is even easier to do that with the new method described at CZ:List-defined references and which was installed with the recent upgrade of our MediWiki software about a week ago. The only thing I would do somewhat differently is not to use "Previously cited work" as the title of the second (or third or etc.) use. I would simply repeat the entire source information ... it is just a simple copy-and-paste job and all one has to do is after completing the paste is to change the page numbers. Milton Beychok 21:34, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

I have used this approach with <ref name= ??></ref> in my comment above. It makes the ref list look like it is well populated even if only one reference actually is used, but many times.

The WP approach schematically works like this (as you may know): It places a list of titles and all relevant info at the end of the article under some rubric like "General references", but with no page numbers. Entries in this list are named, for example a name might be "Suppes 1972". Then in the main text one can use <ref name=Suppes 1972, pp. 25-36> and what appears in the {{Reflist}} is simply "Suppes 1972; pp. 25-36" which is linked to take you down to the location of the full reference details under "General references".

I wonder if the CZ "Bibliography" page could be used like that? The main text could provide an entry in the reflist with only an author name and page numbers, but that links to the general info about that title on the Bibliography page?

The advantage of this approach is elimination of redundant info, and a clear picture of the multiple use of a source. Repetition of all the info with each page reference is more of a clutter, and one cannot see at a glance what the reference structure is. Of course, one doesn't really need this approach unless the article is a long one that depends heavily upon repeated reference to a few sources. I am not aware of any articles like this yet on CZ. John R. Brews 10:49, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

John, once again, read CZ:List-defined references which I just wrote last week. It describes how to use that WP system you just described. It only became available to us when we upgraded our MediaWii software very recently. That is why you have not yet seen it used in CZ. I would encourage everyone to use it ... it has many advantages. Most of all, it eliminates the clutter from the body of the edit page text and transfers it down to the References section at the bottom of the edit pages. - Milton Beychok 13:36, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

Milt: I know you are busy, and this matter is not a priority. I just want to note that I have used this system from the outset on CZ; for example see footnotes 11 and 13 in this article. It is not what I have described above. Am I misunderstanding you somehow, or are you simply skim reading my protracted commentary? We can skip all this if you like. John R. Brews 14:09, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

John, perhaps we are both misunderstanding each other. Have you read CZ:List-defined references? If you have read it, what I said above is that the method you described seems to be pretty much the same as described in that article, if I understood correctly what you have described. I am busy, but I assure you that I am not trying to "flip you off". If I came across that way to you, then I apologize. But it would really help me in this discussion if you would confirm whether or not you have read CZ:List-defined references. Milton Beychok 14:54, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

As for tying references in a main article page to detailed information for that reference in the bibliography subpage (if I am interpreting you correctly), it is an interesting idea, but I personally would prefer to have that detailed information available to a main article reader without having to go to the Bibliography subpage. - Milton Beychok 14:54, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

Milt: I have absolutely no impression that you are flipping me off - it is something I'd never suspect you of, Milt. Here is an example from WP of what I am talking about. Look at note 3: (Heath 1921, Vol 1, p. 144). Clicking on this note, the imbedded link takes you to the general description: Heath, Sir Thomas etc. etc., which is not in the Notes section but in the Reference section. I do not think that is system you describe, is it? John R. Brews 15:41, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

John, I simply do not understand why you avoid telling me if you have or have not read CZ:List-defined references. What is the problem with answering that question?

To answer your specific question, no, your example in a WP article at [1] is not what I am referring to. What I am referring to is explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List-defined_reference_how-to_guide and that is the system that I think we should all adhere to here in CZ ... and that is why I wrote CZ:List-defined references to explain how that system is used.

Just to let you know, I have some other pressing matters to do for the next 3-4 hours. - Milton Beychok 16:01, 12 May 2011 (CDT)

Footnotes and references are not simply for corroboration

This article is focused upon corroboration, for example here. Although that is one function of references and footnotes, it is not everything. I'd say that references for elaboration of the text are very important. In fact, many encyclopedia articles have as their main purpose guiding the reader through a reading list to build up an understanding of a subject that the article itself cannot provide in adequate detail.

The article should be rewritten to downplay this emphasis on a very narrow interpretation. I rewrote the introductory paragraph, but the problem is pervasive.John R. Brews 10:24, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Revisions

I've made massive changes to this article:

1. Formatting: the various entries that appear on an edit page are formatted in boxes with green font. IMO that helps the reader to separate these exhibits from the text explaining what to do.
2. Two examples of what is produced in the article itself are exhibited in boxes as well, but with normal black font to separate them from the edit page exhibits.
3. Real and accessible examples are used throughout so the reader can click on links and actually see the referenced material.
4. The vertical template format has been exhibited in several places. I believe the column format shows more clearly what the function of each item in the template is. It is pointed out in each case that a linear format is equivalent.
5. Headers and sections have been altered and re-arranged in the hope of making the flow smoother. John R. Brews 01:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John, with all due respect, you have been working on editing this article for days now and have made literally hundred of edits. Please don't take offense, but don't you think that perhaps you have gnawed all of the meat from this bone by now? - Milton Beychok 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt: Yes, I think I'm done for now. John R. Brews 05:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Format for journal citations

In this section the "hand made" style recommendation places quotation marks around the article title. On the other hand, the template {{cite journal}} does not follow this practice, at least, not with the standard options. I believe the "hand made" citation should follow the same practice as the template, so I have removed the recommendation for quotation marks. John R. Brews 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

It appears we have an inconsistency in the template {{cite journal}}: if a url is included we obtain no quotes:

James A. Bierlein, Webster B. Kay (March, 1953). "Phase-Equilibrium Properties of System Carbon Dioxide-Hydrogen Sulfide". Ind. Eng. Chem. 45 (3): 618–624. DOI:10.1021/ie50519a043. Research Blogging.

but when we have no url, quotes appear:

James A. Bierlein, Webster B. Kay (March, 1953). "Phase-Equilibrium Properties of System Carbon Dioxide-Hydrogen Sulfide". Ind. Eng. Chem. 45 (3): 618–624. DOI:10.1021/ie50519a043. Research Blogging.

Sigh... John R. Brews 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John, when you run into what you consider to be something amiss in a template, sighing won't solve the problem. It would be much better to:

• Contact some of our members who are quite knowledgeable with how to correct templates like Peter Schmitt, Daniel Mietchen or Chris Key..
• Bring the problem to the attention of the Technical staff by posting in the "Technical Issues" forum.

I might also add that the problem you have pinpointed is not particularly earth-shaking, so let others know (as above) and then relax a bit. - Milton Beychok 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I brought it to Chris Key's attention. I'm relaxed. It's just one more minutiae. John R. Brews 23:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)