Knowledge (XXG) talk:Citing sources/Archive 16

1176:

that the Knowledge (XXG) has already had the same kind of impact on the world as the first dictionary did is to ignore history and ignore what is going on today. To find that a "fact" can only exist if it has been documented somewhere ELSE besides the Knowledge (XXG) is utter nonsense. Why do the Knowledge (XXG) at all if this were the case. If the Wiki is ultimately just supposed to be a gathering of facts documented elsewhere then why bother? Wake up. Of course the Knowledge (XXG) can cite itself. A good example is the sillyness of flagging the word "Freeware" in this Knowledge (XXG) as not citing outside sources. In this case "Freeware" has only come into use in the age of the Knowledge (XXG). This entry about Freeware in the Knowledge (XXG) is most likely the only place that many people have bothered use to look up more info on it. In this case, the documentation provided here IS the foundation. Knowledge (XXG) people must not be so arrogant and start valuing their product as much as they value their process. For it is in this strange attachment to the process over the product that has lead to the Knowledge (XXG) people's growing problem with arrogance. Wake up. People are noticing you're doing something good but you've gotten off track.

367:, 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 In another word, the degree of the scientific truth varies, therefore one theory can be superseded by a new theory with the developement of science.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. 1523:

lost sight of our primary purpose when we scrapped after legitimacy. I have one guy running amok putting 60+ 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 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 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?

975:" 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 3257:

citation it is often impossible to re-find the external article. In case where newspapers only allow a limited time to view their articles, as does the NYT for example, the original link can be left in place, but with a "backup site" or "mirror" in parenthesis for ease of access those who do not wish to subscribe, but leave the original in place for those who which to check that the backup site is a true copy of the original article. I have quite often found that with foreign affairs articles they are often just copies of new agency articles from the likes of Associated Press or Reuters and even if one English language newspaper no longer has the article freely avaliable, papers like the

3533:. In essence reliable sources and the discussion held would seem to clearly indicate that the best source (whatever that might be) should be used, and if this is a hardcopy of an article that is not available on the web and only by subscription or a trip to a library, then so be it. The points Nephron discussed and added are only where two otherwise equally reliable sources are available, in which case the free access may be safely preferred to the not-free access, and likewise if all else is equal a web-accessible source over one that is not so readily accessible. 3225:

indicate a source at one point existed at that location, it still damages the ability to verify (or follow up on) the information. I guess my concern is whether the use of citations for web-based articles that disappear from public access could affect an article's survivability on Knowledge (XXG) given the increasing emphasis that articles must be cited or face possible deletion. And it works the other way too, as someone who is unable or unwilling to find a source/citation could simply make up a link and then claim it had already gone behind the subscriber wall.

3544:

non-free source, and sometimes the reverse). Also, no two sources are the same, unless one is a copy of the other, so it may be appropriate to cite both a free source and a non-free source, because each provides useful material. Remember that backing up the material in Knowledge (XXG) is not the only reason to cite information; allowing the reader to explore further is another reason. So if two sources allow the reader to explore in different directions, cite both of them, even though one is non-free. --

2856:

suggest that the community either vote (an endless discussion regarding the merits of one style over another would be ridiculous) or ask Jimbo for his opinion. Publishing companies have in-house styles that authors are required to adhere to when they publish with them (meaning, if you as the author don't like it, too bad). To encourage editors and reviewers to focus on substantive issues in the articles, I ask that wikipedia make its policy regarding citation as clear as possible.

3668: 38: 934:

on a sideways slanting, severely convex field a few days before I saw that statement and thought it was actually pretty valid to point out there is no rules saying it needed to be a flat field. And after searching the official online rules of the IRB, the closest it says is that it must be safe and that if either team objects the referee must try to resolve the issue before the games starts.

3192:

general public for a couple of days before they become available only to subscribers. In fact CNN.com is the only site that I've found that doesn't do this, so when I find a source on a newspaper site, I try to find the equivalent article on CNN.com and use that link for Knowledge (XXG). Anyway, I think some words of advice as to how to handle subscription links would be helpful. I know

3138:, you find it means "immediate, free and unrestricted online access to digital scholarly material, primarily peer-reviewed research articles in scholarly journals" . So anyone who takes the trouble to follow the link will understand this section is not advocating the use of self-published material. However, it might be better to find a less ambiguous phrase. 3449:) with autonumbering of citations. Basically, each citation system uses its own autonumbering sequence, so if all the citations aren't the same, then there will be duplicate numbers (for example, two 1's: one for the first embedded citation and one for the first footnote). I think it's important for this article (probably as another bullet in 3565:

abstract site for biomedical journals is likely a perminantly accessible abstract of articles. It maintains direct links to orignial journals' webpages where available (which may or may not require a subscription). So the references I tend to see/edit are marked up for the original hardcopy published

3206:

I'm not sure that this is much of a problem in this context. The important thing is to provide attribution to the source where you found the information. Frequently this will be a subscriber-only site, and that's not really a problem if things are being cited properly. The external links guideline is

2747:

Can anyone provide advice on how best to reference the article in a way that might get it to GA, in light of the single source problem. (There are actually three references cited at the foot, and I've found one or two other passing mentions in other publications, none of which are better sources than

2081:) 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) 1665:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article. Publishing interviews is the job of magazines, newspapers, and similar publications. The

1654:

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

1183:

Since anyone can add anything they want to Knowledge (XXG), its value as a reference source is solely dependent on the sources used to build articles. Articles in Knowledge (XXG) that do not cite independent reliable sources are worthless. In fact, they don't even give you a clue of where to look for

933:

Thank you, that might work. I realize that stating that a rule does not exist is usually not original analysis, but this particular rule comes after a series of specific rules about the rugby playing field then makes a note that the rules do not require a flat or level surface. I just played a game

641:

Somewhere in the plethora of different citation techniques available on Knowledge (XXG), 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?

455:

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

117:

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

3224:

that had gone behind the subscriber wall) I suggested the link be replaced with a date-and-page citation for the newspaper. But the odds of anyone having that information at hand is almost nil. So although as stated both in WP:CITE and WP:LINKS the very fact a link was at one time accessed serves to

3049:

You are referencing the web site, which makes a statement about the song. That is sufficient; it is not necessary to give an ISBN for the book. Indeed, an ISBN refers to a particular form of a book, and it changes depending on which edition it is, or whether it is hardcover or paperback. So for just

1175:

It is important to recognize that Knowledge (XXG) is building a a reference source that is in, and of itself, a known quanitity. As time passes the level of 'authority' which it comes to be viewed by those who reference it has, and will most likely continue to increase. As such, to ignore the fact

919:

I think it would be acceptable to cite the entire rule book. It would be even better to point out the section that would be most likely to contain the rule, if it existed, but the note should make it clear the entire rulebook was searched for the nonexistent rule, not just the most likely section. I

877:

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

672:

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

2973:

The "verbatim" part, maybe, but that is common sense. I think there are various ways, though, to transcribe citation details, and you need to make them consistent with other styles on the page. doesn't need mentioning: nothing to stop editors using it, but this is a general encyclopedia where most

2840:

I've noticed lots of articles with really long 'References' sections (100+ citations). Is there any way for the citations listed in the 'references' section to be placed behind some sort of 'click here for full listings' link, that would reveal (in the same page) all of the references (kind of like

2379:

I am the author of that JAPH; I wrote it in August of 2004. But I haven't published it, except to use it as an occasional e-mail signature, and to show colleagues and friends. I'm more than happy to have it appear in Knowledge (XXG) (it is rather unusual in that it is a syntactically correct Perl

1911:

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 Knowledge (XXG) articles are

1841:

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".

1522:

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

1015:

interpretations are correct. If information is suspicious, malicious, or otherwise seriously problematic, removal is more appropriate than adding a fact tag. But at the same time, adding fact tags to common-knowledge statements, especially doing so repeatedly or widely, is disruptive and unhelpful.

622:

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,

3062:

The way the information is presented in the sentence is fine the way it is. It would also be acceptable to use a footnote reference after the title to provide a citation with the details of the book. Or if the sentence was something like "The lyrics of the song are based on a book." then all the

2929:

I must say that I was surprised to find the MoS so vague. However, it advises the use of certain recognised style guides, and so I stick to CMS. The tricky thing is that where a different style is used on a page, I have to conform to that, which can be counter-intuitive. The best principle is that

2663:

Yes, you are welcome cite articles or papers that are only available through databases. You can use any relevant template or format that you find convenient; the format matters extremely little, as long as you provide all the relevant bibliographic information. Chances are this is available on the

1293:

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

992:

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

908:

If a statement says something does not exist, does it require verification? For example, if it is said that a rulebook does not have a certain rule how can this be cited? (Page 3 section 5 explicitly has an absence of this rule!) Would you just cite the entire rulebook and require the burden of

362:

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

3256:

is if the citation is given with the author of the piece, the full title and the date of publication, it is quite often possible to find a backup site or mirror site, which contains the external article, even if the original web site no longer has subscription free access. But with just an inline

3038:

Is this the proper way to handle book references? I've got a reference for this statement that would go at the end of the sentence, but would the book get its own footnote with ISBN info, etc.? Or is the inline information correct (I don't think I've seen anything alike elsewhere)? Please advise,

2885:

for proof that editors are reticent to nominate their pages due to this problem) and FAC in particular would result in better articles rather than bad feelings. Yes, initially there would be contributors who were upset, but instituting such a standard would be to the benefit of the content of the

2771:

I had one article which was created from a single source, and cited only that source. Then other info was added in. I cited the first source at the end of each Knowledge (XXG) section (when everything in the section was still from the first source), and also added a citation to the first source

2247:

Lately I've been running into articles with the a article needs citation tag on the top. Which is fine. But then I scan the article and don't find one cite needed tag within. So what facts need to be cited? Has it been taken care of and the top tag not removed? I've looked on discussion pages and

1919:

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

1628:

Not only do I consider there to be an overload of tags, there are also rather too many citations. I find they make reading articles difficult. I don't care about citations if they make it unpleasant to read text. Is there any setting to hide them, or even better have them in a margin rather than

3557:

Hmmm, interesting and valid points - feel free to reword/rephrase "the way these points are expressed" :-) Would some sort of indication to the reader as to whether a source is freely available or not be useful ? - there again probably too complex (eg BMJ has an open access that then is shortly

766:

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

727:

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

420:

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

245:

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

3191:

The section on what to do if a link goes dead should be expanded a little to discuss a variation of "going dead" which is falling behind a subscription wall. Many people cite online news sources such as newspapers, perhaps not realizing that in 99% of cases those links are only available to the

2003:

Create a "References" section which is a bulleted alphabetical list of all the works mentioned in the "Notes" section, together with general references that are not mentioned in any note. The reference for each work may be formatted by hand, or with a citation template, whichever is the general

1068:

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.

2855:

I would like to propose that wikipedia choose one or two common citation styles (such as MLA or Chicago), lay them out extremely clearly on a citation page and require all articles to use those. The endless debates on FAC and article talk pages regarding citation styles is counterproductive. I

1762:

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

3543:

I am not satisfied with the way these points are expressed. There is no consideration given to the likely longevity of the link; long-term links are preferable to short-term links (and I would expect a mixture of outcomes on this score; sometimes the free source can be expected to outlast the

2346:

a week ago, but it seems that is not checked very often. I am after some one (who knows what they are doing) to create a template for citing maps. This would be very useful, especially when some maps contain some quite relevant information on their reverse side, particularly hiking maps. I am

1533:

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

292:

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.

3154:

Okay, thanks, Gerry. Perhaps it can be worded to exclude self-published material, and the last bit about veracity of facts probably isn't necessary at all. This page is meant to be about how to write citations, not about which sources to use or why, so it's best to restrict it to that.

2485:

What is the proper procedure when an editor adds dozens of {{fact}} tags to article after article, week after week, in a disruptive, disfiguring and one-sided way? For example, adding 6 fact tags to a tiny section outlining alleged antisemitism in Sweden, including tags on obvious and

2880:

Looking over some of the FACs might demonstrate what I mean. Instead of being debates over substance, they often descend into debates over form. If there were a standard, that wouldn't happen. So, actually, I do think there is a lot to gain. More articles would be put up for FAC (see

2591:

There is not a tag for every situation. I would recommend discussing the issue on the talk page, finding out what the sources are, and adding them yourself. What I find disruptive are editors who neither actually desire to see the sources nor have any interest in editing the article.

2930:

all the information be clear and available to the reader. I sense that consistency over the whole encyclopedia is always going to be a bridge too far, but I don't see why FA couldn't insist that articles stick to one of, say, five recognised systems, and thereby deprecate hybridity.

2706:

which has been tagged with not having not enough sources. I went looking for sources on but the entire site is made out of flash and javascript so I can't properly source pages talking about price and such. How are pages in flash and such, where the URL doesn't change, sourced?

2418:

Hello everyone. This medium is popular enough I think someone should specify the procedures for it. I personally do not think that is a good source, whatever the circumstance is. If you agree/disagree/comment, please let me know. Does anyone want to add a section on it?

3219:

Perhaps but given the realities of the Internet age, and the number of articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are based upon current (or recent-current) events, more and more articles are going to be relying on these sources. In the case of one example I found (a link related to

1294:

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?

1224:

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.

272:

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

160:) 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: --> 3504:, and have sent out requests for information to his former publisher and various professional groups in the UK that he was involved with -- the information received is certainly believed to be factual, but is to my knowledge heretofore unpublished. Two questions: 307:

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

613:

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.

3616:. I think open access journals should be cited and I believe that this fits neatly into Knowledge (XXG)'s mission (“... a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” - 2758:(This same issue applies to articles ripped from EB1911. Assuming the coverage has not dated, we again have a single source situation, what is probably a good article, but we deny the article promotion for lack of (arguably redundant) inline tags.) 626:

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

2754:

Is there a case for accepting as a valid form of reference a single pointer at the foot of the document to the primary source. Alternately, do we debar from GA status articles which have only a single (albeit relatively unimpeachable) source?

2248:

sometimes nothing is mentioned on what needs to be cited. Could and should the top of page tag be removed if nothing within is asked to be cited. If the person who set the top tag wants citations should they not take the time to show where? --

3234:

I'm not sure I understand your issue; there's no obligation that sources be freely available, or even accessible online at all. Whether the cited source is publicly available should not affect the survivability of an article. Why would it?

2276:

Although everything in Knowledge (XXG) must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be

2032:

Thanks for adding the specifics. Personally, I like it when "general references" and "cited references" are kept separate. For example, if the "references" section contains ONLY general references, I'll merge the two in the following

125:

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/:

2866:

Even if a common style could be chosen, doing so would essentially mean upsetting a large number of contributors for minimal gain. (See also "Why isn't everything in AmEn/BrEn?", "Why isn't everything in AD/CE?", and so forth.)

1310:

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 Knowledge (XXG).

2440:

Did you ask him why? If so and he responded helpfully, try to resolve the issue through discussion. If he did not respond, you could replace the tag if you feel the statement requires specific attribution under our guidelines.

810:

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. --

1357:

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.

1304:

If the concern is to place information about the methodology in Knowledge (XXG), 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 Knowledge

3121:

First, we don't allow open-access sources. Secondly, we don't engage in checking the veracity of facts; all we do is attribute material to reliable sources. Please be careful to read ATT before adding anything to this page.

2959:

Transcribe citation details and quoted content verbatim; do not correct spelling errors or otherwise copyedit cited material. You may wish to use to indicate incorrect material is quoted verbatim and is not a transcription

2557:

In situations like this, when there are no sources at all for the section, I usually remove the fact tags and replace them with {{unreferenced|section}}. This has the same benefit to readers without clogging up the article.

3174:

Please don't keep adding the different kinds of templates people can use depending on whether something is OR or unreferenced or primary source. All it does is confuse people, because it's impossible to remember them all.

1923:

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.

1912:

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 "

891:

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.

3471:

What is Knowledge (XXG)'s stance on citing Google search results? For instance, when making a statement regarding the popularity of an opinion, it is very handy to cite the number of hits returned from a Google search.

951:

It might be worth finding a story in a newspaper, or the memoirs of a famous rugby player, discussing some of the more uneven fields, so that the issue can be shown to be a real issue, not just an abstract possibility.

3401:

Since the citation templates do not claim to follow any particular style manual, nor do they follow any master Knowledge (XXG) specification, there are no criteria to judge whether they are correct or incorrect.

2304:(emphasis added). If someone challenges a fact, it needs to be either sourced or removed. The best practice is to assume that anything and everything may be challenged, and source it all from the beginning. -- 1000:

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.

637:

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.

1201:

If you do this, how does it meet Knowledge (XXG)'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

166:

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.

834: 1122:

Well… I think Scourge is asking if the information is about the article as a Knowledge (XXG) article, not a source on information on that topic itself, in which case the answer is yes. For example, the

2501:

The obvious would be to either add the facts (that's always a good idea especially with controversial statements) or take it to the talk page. An alternative would be to change the tags into a single

2258:

Basically, everything in every article needs to be supported by citations from independent reliable sources. Anything you can provide reliable sources for helps the article and Knowledge (XXG). --

3603:

sources-- but I didn't want to make the section more complicated. Also, I believe that a compromise can be made--especially when large publishers are actively attacking free information sources.

1320:

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.

2486:

noncontroversial statements that Sweden has a relatively small Jewish population, while perfectly willing to go find links to obscure facts about Yiddish being an official language there?

2138:

is an essay about the various referencing styles used on Knowledge (XXG), and specifically FAs. I'd really appreciate some input to it, as I intend to eventually place it in projectspace.

162:

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

1705:

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 Knowledge (XXG).

3587:

Gerry: Your points are well taken and I think using several sources is a good practise. Also, I agree that long-term links are ideal. That said, I specifically made reference to the

1124: 1908:

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.

2800:

have an inline parenthetical of the form (Book chapter:verse) after the quote. Should there be a footnote instead? What is the appropriate way to indicate the translation used?

329:

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:

1054:

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

2577:

But what if there are some sources, but also many unsourced statements? If adding several tags is considered disruptive and a single tag wrong because some sources are given. //

2737: 1972:

You put a normalized list of references in a "References" section, then create shortened notes in whatever format you like (I can think of 3 off my head) inside the <ref: -->

1378:

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.

338:

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.

1455:

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? --

1818:", (which is Publisher, Article name, and access date). Is okay to use that particular order on Knowledge (XXG), as long as I consistently use it throughout an article? -- 2380:

program that contains no alphanumeric or whitespace characters, and actually does something non-trivial); but I'm wondering how to remove the "missing attribution" note.

1391:

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.

2903:

It's made pretty clear that either citation style is acceptable. Unfounded objections in FAC are routinely ignored, as I understand it. I don't see the problem. -

1422:

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

2184:

Is it perfectly acceptable to use textbooks as references on Knowledge (XXG)? Of course the information would be fully copy-edited and fully referenced. Thanks.

2772:

before the inserted material. My intent was to try to retain citations for blocks of text, but don't know how well it will survive future editors. Note that

993:

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.

1482:

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? --

3558:

afterwards restricted for a period of time before again free longterm access, but throughout of course freely available from a science library in hardcopy).

3264:

But having given those tips as Christopher Parham points out, there is no reason why the citation has to be to an online article that is freely available.--

864:

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

3734: 3726: 3721: 3709: 3704: 3696: 3278:

Is there a template for marking links as inactive? I mean one for links that are in references but cannot be found using the Internet Archive or WebCite?

121:, 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 104: 96: 91: 79: 74: 66: 394:

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

3570:

parameter link to PubMed. I appreciate though that for non-biomedical journal sources, having longterm accessible sources will be more problematic :-)

2390: 2007: 1245:

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.

2623:

article that made a few bold claims like "the best soft convertible top in the world" and "with great looks", but I have no real interest in Fiats. //

3053:

Even when making a reference to the book itself, and even when citing a certain page of a certain edition, the ISBN is optional (but nice to have). --

689:

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. :) --

3125:

Also, there's nothing wrong with "didn't" instead of "do not," and in fact the latter is usually preferable, so there's no need to keep changing it.

1723:. However, first learn about copyrights and permissions concerning unpublished material. Justin Hayford owns the copyright to his e-mails to you. 767:

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? --

3530: 3196:

indicates that links requiring registration should be avoided, but a lot of people don't seem to equate news links with membership-required links.

612:

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: -->

2457:

Should I ask on the talk page of the article or the editors own talk page? The first may be ignored while the second may be seen as agressive. //

332:

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)

3640:(a collection of all significant medical abstracts on-line & freely available that is continually up-dated) for engineering publications. 2733: 2653:, but I do not have windows, so I can not use it. Can I use standard MLA format if there are not templates to cite my source? Thanks a lot. - 3332: 1168: 1099:

When a citation on a piece of information on a Knowledge (XXG) article is required, are we allowed to cite another Knowledge (XXG) article?

3368:(and several other citation templates), the date appears just after the author. Is it supposed to be different for newspaper references? 2542: 1655:

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! :-)

751:

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

712:

A "ref name" method that can't be broken by cutting is to repeatedly use the same full reference. For example: <ref name = "Smith": -->

1618:. Example of accurate such tags would be a population number for a Canadian city in 2004 (the last canadian censuses are 2001 and 2006). 401: 2641:

I am trying to improve three business articles I created that are have proposed delete tags because someone does not think they have

2402: 2019: 3145:

might do, not what the editor did. Still, all the reader can really do with his mouse is check the reference, not verify the fact. --

3031: 2703: 714:

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.

3009: 2821: 2433:

What is the proper procedure when an editor removes {{fact}} tags without providing neither a source nor a reason for doing so? //

3063:

details of the book could be in a footnote. But unless "a book" is better due to the context, the current sentence looks nice. (

3531:

Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive14#Proposal_for_policy_on_freely_available_sources_--_encouraging_open_content_.26_open_access

2343: 3684: 867:

and should i be tagging such unverified pages with {{not verified}} because from what ive read on wiki, it seems like i should.

490:

Give as much information as reasonably possible, including the particular time that the material supporting your claim appears.

54: 17: 1694: 1577: 1151: 591: 536: 480: 3084: 567:; not sure if this is the formal way to write it but I think this is the most comprehendible way, IMO. Any other thoughts? -- 410: 2194:

Yes, of course. Essentially any book published by a large professional publishing house or university press is considered a

2886:

encyclopedia. Less time spent on the small things and more time spent on improving the content of the articles themselves.

3649: 3426: 3389: 2751:

The issue for me is that I could, with ease, reference every second sentence to the same book. That doesn't seem helpful.

2645:, but some of my sources are on databases. Can I cite newspaper articles that are only avivable through databases such as 2105:

You obviously CAN'T link to a specific section, so your best bet is to cite the page as a whole and specify , or whatever.

545:

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.

1806: 1800:

When citing something, does the particular order of what one is citing matter? For example, let's say I end up getting, "

364: 3486: 3258: 3239: 3211: 2668: 2619:

You do? I sometims do that when I pass by an article that is lacking sources. For instance I recently added tags to the

2467: 2445: 2170: 1846: 1767: 1538: 1430: 1229: 1073: 1032: 1020: 774: 696: 681: 649: 549: 494: 363:

use two different templates to categorize these two sources. In terms of the reliability of the source as described at

346: 297: 264: 171: 1412:

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.

3015:

If an article refers to an actual book (the book is not a reference), does ISBN information need to be included? From

3279: 2952: 2135: 1905: 972: 1889:

uses a Article, Publisher format, and since it,s very widely used, you might preer to copy it. Consistency is good.

3675: 1209: 45: 3265: 2992:

quite understandable, I hope. But as the experts I asked will look around here more often, I'll crosslink it, OK?

2797: 2654: 1348: 1341: 1127:

requires citations of Knowledge (XXG) pages, handled as external links (i.e. use single brackets, not double). --

1086: 1059: 3482:

Handy, but unfortunately mostly meaningless. Extrapolating popularity from Google numbers is original research.

3453:

to emphasize the importance of consistency within an article --- if all the citations use the same method, it's

2152:

Is there a template or model suitable for citing a brochure? I have in mind in particular brochures released by

2088:

Is it OK to use Flash-only sites as references/resource, if it is 100% certain the information on it is correct?

3634:). On that note, as someone that came from engineering, I still find it amazing that there isn't anything like 3313: 2366: 1600: 1137: 577: 522: 466: 2717:

I would give a brief description of how to navigate from the home page to the information you wish to cite. --

1864: 1828: 1365:

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

3291:

Does anyone have an answer to this? I haven't found a way to mark the date a link was identified as broken.

1690: 1573: 181:

It is also perfectly acceptable to use Harvard references rather than putting the references into footnotes.

3483: 3236: 3208: 2665: 2464: 2442: 2167: 1843: 1764: 1535: 1427: 1226: 1070: 1055: 1029: 1017: 678: 546: 491: 343: 294: 261: 168: 674: 257: 23: 2989: 2398: 2015: 1738: 1656: 1426:, rather than a convenience link as it appears to be in this case, you could note that in your reference. 1392: 1369: 3253: 1857: 1821: 1214: 203: 2765: 2620: 2598: 2564: 2505: 2321: 2288: 2204: 2070:

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

1916:(1990) 2-13." and then place the full bibliographical information in an alphabetical reference section. 1686: 1569: 1259:. Your personal knowledge or what was told you by someone else doesn't qualify, and is considered to be 1204: 1197:

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

427: 222: 187: 3087:, encourages referencing of freely available sources, when information is available from both credible 2882: 2376:

that happened to be written by me. Whoever it was left it with a "(Attribution is missing)" notation.

1002: 3608:

Looking at the articles I most often edit-- a significant number of journals in the life sciences are

132:, or something similar. I've no idea how this would be established, but it would certainly be useful. 3179: 3159: 3141:

Also, when it comes to verifying the veracity of a given fact, the passage is talking about what the

3129: 2686:

tag has a field for "quote" that can be used to insert the relevant text. Also you could perhaps use

1100: 146: 134: 3261:

do, so just switching the newspaper in the citation is all that is needed to "fix" an article link.

1938:

Page") throughout and pulling all the publication information into a separate alphabetical listing.

1276: 1239: 3653: 3613: 3574: 3548: 3537: 3519: 3489: 3476: 3461: 3432: 3406: 3395: 3339: 3295: 3286: 3268: 3242: 3229: 3214: 3200: 3181: 3161: 3149: 3105:

If a FOAS is deemed to be less reliable than a non-FOAS, use of a non-FOAS is perfectly acceptable.

3067: 3057: 3043: 2998: 2978: 2968: 2934: 2912: 2890: 2871: 2868: 2860: 2845: 2828: 2814: 2804: 2780: 2721: 2711: 2671: 2657: 2650: 2602: 2593: 2568: 2559: 2528: 2495: 2470: 2448: 2423: 2406: 2355: 2325: 2316: 2310: 2292: 2283: 2264: 2252: 2237: 2225: 2208: 2199: 2188: 2173: 2160: 2142: 2122: 2109: 2099: 2055: 2023: 1979: 1966: 1955: 1942: 1939: 1928: 1893: 1871: 1849: 1835: 1789: 1779: 1770: 1756: 1741: 1727: 1712: 1698: 1681:, which allows original research. However, note that Knowledge (XXG) does not consider Wikinews a 1670: 1659: 1643: 1633: 1622: 1591: 1581: 1541: 1534:

disruptive or uncooperative in a situation such as this, you may want to contact an administrator.

1527: 1507: 1486: 1473: 1459: 1442: 1433: 1416: 1395: 1382: 1372: 1324: 1315: 1298: 1295: 1283: 1269: 1249: 1232: 1218: 1190: 1155: 1147: 1113: 1110: 1103: 1089: 1076: 1062: 1035: 1023: 1005: 956: 938: 924: 913: 896: 882: 871: 854: 817: 803: 777: 761: 752: 734: 699: 684: 652: 595: 587: 561: 552: 540: 532: 506: 497: 484: 476: 442: 437: 431: 422: 404: 349: 324: 319: 300: 283: 278: 267: 226: 217: 191: 182: 174: 152: 318:, which is a big problem...), but it muddies the waters of common practice and consensus further. 3621: 3372: 3348: 3336: 3016: 2842: 2741: 2680: 2420: 1963: 662: 256:(i.e. notes not being inserted in the middle of the source) over the way cite.php works, as seen 3193: 2315:

As you must know, there is substantial disagreement over whether that is indeed best practice.

2091:

If it is OK, what is the correct way to include a reference to the specific section on the site?

335:

there is no formal preference for one or the other, i.e. use of either is fine at FAC, GAC, etc.

1666:

job of Knowledge (XXG) is summarizing information that has already been published elsewhere. --

3645: 3545: 3422: 3403: 3385: 3378:

has it appearing after the "work" parameter (the name of the newspaper). Is that correct? --

3362: 3146: 3054: 3040: 3028: 2908: 2718: 2525: 2394: 2384: 2305: 2259: 2234: 2218: 2185: 2011: 1925: 1883: 1667: 1640: 1483: 1456: 1312: 1264: 1185: 996:

I propose replacing each statement with less ambiguous wording that is in accordance with the

953: 921: 893: 847: 812: 756: 669: 631: 163: 3450: 2744:. It was rightly knocked back from consideration as a Good Article for lack of inline refs. 289: 3596: 3112:

is encouraged, as it enhances the credibility of Knowledge (XXG) if the reader can speedily

2762: 1709: 1677:

If you can't find a magazine or some reliable source to publish your article, you could try

771: 693: 646: 3604: 2642: 2270: 1615: 1260: 3571: 3534: 3446: 3176: 3156: 3126: 3116:

the veracity of a given fact by use of an outside source with a simple click of the mouse.

3088: 2801: 2352: 1630: 1562: 623:

unless the root citation is then moved to one of the other locations (a tedious process).

2195: 1682: 1611: 1256: 982:

The second statement that I feel is ambiguous is in the first summary point: "...use the

920:

would also be careful that the mention of a nonexistent rule is not original analysis. --

1606:

is not for facts that "could" or even "can" be sourced specifically, but for those that

3306: 3109: 2074: 1724: 1142: 1133: 1129: 1085:

Given the example above, it is probably a good idea to reintroduce such a paragraph. --

935: 910: 582: 573: 569: 527: 518: 514: 471: 462: 458: 199: 3282:

states that they shall be marked with the date when they were identified as broken. —

3113: 2118:

Ofcourse you are right about the specific section, stupid me :) Thanks for responding

997: 235:

and at the Ref talk page, I have removed those notices. Though older and less common,

3458: 3292: 3226: 3197: 2965: 2887: 2857: 2708: 1588: 1552: 1524: 986: 868: 807: 3561:

For medical articles I regularly edit on, the (USA) National Institutes of Health's

3050:

a general reference to the book as a whole, there is no advantage to giving an ISBN.

2004:

practice for the article. If it is a new article, you can use whichever you prefer.

1934:

The 15th ed. CMS actually does advocate using shortened notes (of the form "Author,

3641: 3417: 3380: 3310: 3064: 2904: 2825: 2777: 2691: 2624: 2578: 2546: 2522: 2512: 2458: 2434: 2222: 2139: 2119: 2106: 2096: 2052: 1976: 1952: 1890: 1786: 1753: 1619: 1504: 1470: 1439: 1413: 1321: 1280: 1246: 843: 250: 239: 210: 2773: 3591:

because a GFDL source can readily be copied and I think is more likely to remain

2463:

I don't think it would be seen as aggressive to drop a polite query on his talk.

3683:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3609: 3600: 3516: 3501: 3473: 3328: 3283: 3135: 3092: 2975: 2931: 2687: 2249: 2157: 1811: 1706: 1379: 976: 879: 768: 731: 690: 643: 312: 140: 122: 53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

216:

template is deprecated and thus should not be used in any additional articles.

3617: 3221: 3012:, and was advised to ask here instead. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 2492: 1587:

Now that is darned useful! I wondered why #60 tags were needed in a article.

421:

intercharacter spacing, but web browsers are notoriously poor at typesetting.

2511:. Also keep in mind that what you may feel is "disruptive" is subjective. // 3445:

I'm raising this topic before editing the article. I've seen confusion (in

2995: 1610:

be sourced, and it,s better to just remove them, especially if they reek of

1082:

Previously this page included recommendation on page numbers with citations

840:

That forgotten unlinked and uncategorized page can perhaps be merged here?--

1408:

Are links/refs to books available on Google Books allowed as links? I have

2646: 1801: 2664:

database page itself, so you could even just copy and paste it in here.

2649:? If so, can I use a cite tag, or do I need use another method? I found 2348: 3624: 2347:

thinking the citation should show something similiar to what is listed

1948: 3638: 3623:). Also, it would be nice to see what my professional association does 2078: 1994:

The Chicago Manual of Style explains how to shorten notes.<ref: -->

1991:

Where each citation occurs in the text, put a short footnote, such as

1763:

article; a good general format would be Person, Title, Network, Date.

409: 118:

in a single article. The problem comes when using <references/: -->

3635: 3562: 1962:

How do i do this (maintaining separate sections for them) anyway? --

1500: 1050: 3324: 835:

Knowledge (XXG):Finding articles that contain unreferenced material

3592: 3457:

important to use the same method if you're adding a new citation.

2793: 1906:

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

1900:

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

1466: 408: 3631: 3627: 3588: 3567: 2373: 2153: 2000:

Create a "Notes" section that only contains <references/: -->

1815: 3025:

The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution

3662: 3529:

I have reinsert the points about free sources as discussed at

3305:

Hi. I roughly translated the Italian Knowledge (XXG) page for

3099:

sources which require registration and/or payment (non-FOASs).

1678: 417: 32: 2541:

Nah, that is for discussing specific users who have violated

2282:

So the issue of what "needs" citations is not so clear cut.

436:

No space helps prevent detached reference marks. See image.

3010:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Inline book references

2841:

the hide contents function used for the table of contents?

1947:

We already do that in most new FA that relies on book (see

1438:

Linking to Google.books is a very good idea, but optional.

1125:

John Seigenthaler Sr. Knowledge (XXG) biography controversy

1011:

I'll try to clarify these points. On the first, however,

2369:

discussion page, but got no answer, so I'm asking here.

1177: 288:

Similar text was removed from the other relevant pages (

3500:

I'm working on editing the entry for the (late) writer

2792:

Does Knowledge (XXG) have a policy for citation to the

2490: 2487: 1988:

I agree with Circeus, but let me expand on his answer.

1409: 1169:

User: Private Person who would rather remain anonomyous

1083: 232: 2521:

One can also consider starting an RFC on that editor.

2738:

A record of the Great Fire in Newcastle and Gateshead

2489:

Or tagging almost every sentence in a small article?

2041:==References== <div class="db-cmVmZXJlbmNlcw": --> 1685:, and many magazines will want exclusive rights. — 3508:

Can I use this information for a biographical entry?

128:

tag? Then each ref tag could be either <ref1: -->

3415:Hm. But shouldn't they at least be consistent? -- 2221:. Most of the sources there are actually textbooks. 1807:

Resident Evil 5 debuting simultaneously on 360, PS3

2953:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources#How to cite sources 1095:Citing Knowledge (XXG) articles on Knowledge (XXG) 677:) but basically requires an interested developer. 3207:not intended to apply to citations, at any rate. 3079:Someone has added material that contradicts ATT: 2166:Brochures are generally cited the same as books. 658:The short answer is no, there is no such system. 3301:Citation from another language's Knowledge (XXG) 1255:Information has to be verifiable from published 977:statement that could have contradictory meanings 3075:This page must be consistent with the policies 1650:Original research (was: Please give me advice) 3566:paper in the journal, and with an additional 3023:The lyrics of the song are based on the book 2688:http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php 1056:Talk:Kingdom of Germany#Last King of Scotland 713:James Smith, ''The Easy Years''.</ref: --> 8: 3441:Citation Systems and Autonumbering Confusion 3280:What to do when a reference link "goes dead" 728:section and then ref like this: <ref: --> 3331:for marking citations in (X)HTML. See also 3187:When a link goes behind a subscription wall 2073:I'm currently working on the article about 24:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Cite sources/archive16 2990:Talk:Winston Churchill#Multiple References 2042:;General *<list of references here: --> 1995:''Chicago Manual,'' §248–261.</ref: --> 1720: 1719:You also can publish your information on 1499:It,s worked just fine for me so far with 145: 133: 3333:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Microformats 3309:. What is the proper template to use? - 2740:, 1855, George Routledge & Co, from 2728:Referencing advice / whinge / minor rant 2043:*... *... ;Specific <references/: --> 1854:Alright then, thanks for the help! :) -- 1752:How do I cite television documentaries? 3599:sources should be preferred over other 3108:Use of reliable FOASs available on the 2951:I'd like to propose an addition to the 2543:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines 2302:in Knowledge (XXG) must be attributable 1548:You could try replacing the individual 617:Some relief from this comes from using 3681:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3083:Knowledge (XXG), in the spirit of the 2131:essay on referencing style and formats 1275:i've done the work, is it aright now ; 844:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 502:Okay, where might one put a time in a 51:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2734:Great fire of Newcastle and Gateshead 967:"Tagging unsourced material": clarity 113:Conflict between References and Notes 7: 2955:section, along the following lines: 2822:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources/Bible 909:proof to be with the opposition? -- 3626:... expand to other ones (like the 3034:), by Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard. 2079:http://www.classicmusiccompany.com/ 730:They are very easy to edit around. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Citing sources 2974:readers won't know what it means. 2736:is drawn mainly from one source, * 277:in the middle of the source text. 127:as well as a <references2/: --> 31: 2776:will help track such sourcing. ( 2704:Comparison of online music stores 3666: 3595:. Personally, I think GFDL and 2344:Category talk:Citation templates 1737:Thank you all for your help! :) 1178:http://en.wikipedia.org/Freeware 365:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources 36: 3252:One of the useful things about 2372:Someone posted an example of a 2136:User:Circeus/Referencing styles 1974:tags and a <references/: --> 1748:Citing television documentaries 1518:overload or we missed the point 1368:Feedback or ideas are welcome. 3134:If you follow the Wikilink to 2351:. Anyone up to the challenge? 2243:tagging what needs to be cited 2156:about an experiment there. -- 402:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 372:Space vs no space in citations 1: 3496:Citing personal communication 2143:16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2123:19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2110:16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2100:11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2077:. On his record labels site ( 2024:18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1980:16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1967:12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1956:16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1951:, Today's FA for an example) 1943:21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1929:18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1894:16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1872:18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1850:17:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1836:09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1790:16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1771:17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1757:07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1742:09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1728:16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1713:01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1699:18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1671:18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1660:16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1623:22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1592:19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1582:18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1542:01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1528:01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1508:00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1487:19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1474:18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1460:18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1443:05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1434:05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1417:05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1396:23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1383:22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1373:21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1325:09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1316:05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1299:04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1284:08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1270:02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1250:12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1233:04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1219:03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1156:03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1114:22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1104:22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1090:17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1077:17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1063:16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1036:02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1024:01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1006:22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 998:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 897:04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 883:02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 872:02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 855:01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 818:03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 778:21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 762:17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 735:22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 700:21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 685:21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 653:21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 596:04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 553:21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 541:20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 498:04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 485:03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 443:04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 432:01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 405:23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 350:22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 325:17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 301:17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 284:17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 268:15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 227:12:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 192:12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 175:10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 153:08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3259:International Herald Tribune 2233:Nice, thanks for your help. 1058:for a discussion on this. -- 557:I added a time parameter to 148:File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 136:File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 2788:Citing to/Quoting the Bible 1975:under your "Notes" header. 1904:A few recent edits made to 1289:Citing nonpublished sources 1184:sources on the subject. -- 1028:Please review the changes. 971:I suggest a review of the " 3753: 3462:14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 3433:19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3407:18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3396:17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3340:14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 3314:19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 3287:22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 3269:09:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 3243:04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 3230:01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 3215:00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 3201:23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 3182:20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 3162:21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 3150:21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 3068:17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3058:17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3044:16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 2999:20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 2979:14:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 2969:06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 2935:14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 2913:03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 2891:02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 2872:01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 2861:01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 2829:03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 2387:18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2365:I asked about this on the 1333:User notification template 973:Tagging unsourced material 957:06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 939:05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 925:17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 914:17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 675:Knowledge (XXG):Ref reform 619:<ref name=<name: --> 158:The cite.php (<ref: --> 3654:20:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 3575:12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3549:05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3538:01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3520:14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 3490:21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 3477:19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 3319:Microformat for citations 3300: 3296:20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3274:Marking links as inactive 3254:Knowledge (XXG):footnotes 2846:17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 2805:17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 2798:Criticism of Christianity 2781:02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 2722:00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 2712:23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2672:15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2658:15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2603:17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2569:16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2529:16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2496:14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2471:16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2449:15:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2424:07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2407:18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2356:05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2326:00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 2311:23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2293:03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2265:03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2253:02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2238:07:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2226:04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2209:03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2189:03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2174:02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 2161:12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 2056:16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 1644:00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 1634:00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 1191:03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 608:Advice on citation format 231:Per previous discussions 204:Knowledge (XXG):Footnote3 3511:If so, how do I cite it? 2988:I explained our case at 2367:Just another Perl hacker 878:as an attribution, IMO. 802:Ah, good catch! I split 729:Smith, 134.</ref: --> 3323:Please be aware of the 2947:Verbatim transcriptions 2836:Long Reference Sections 2095:Thanks for your input. 1349:Unreferenced vgdate msg 1048:Is adding sources with 391:Incorrect: blah blah." 3119: 3008:I first asked this at 3004:Inline book references 2810:See the Talk page for 2342:I posted this over at 2066:Citing a Flash Website 1629:inline with the text? 413: 379:Incorrect: blah blah. 3679:of past discussions. 3081: 2621:Fiat 124 Sport Spider 2429:Blanking of fact tags 2393:comment was added by 2010:comment was added by 456:movie good enough? -- 412: 49:of past discussions. 3266:Philip Baird Shearer 2655:ChristopherMannMcKay 1796:Order of Information 1087:Philip Baird Shearer 1060:Philip Baird Shearer 755:for an example). -- 198:Also note that, per 3614:open access journal 3451:How to cite sources 2984:Multiple References 2748:the main source.) 1785:, which might help. 804:Second Seminole War 753:Second Seminole War 382:Correct: blah blah. 3484:Christopher Parham 3237:Christopher Parham 3209:Christopher Parham 3041:Daniel Vandersluis 3017:Download This Song 2742:Google Book Search 2666:Christopher Parham 2481:Disruptive tagging 2465:Christopher Parham 2443:Christopher Parham 2168:Christopher Parham 1844:Christopher Parham 1765:Christopher Parham 1558:tags with one big 1536:Christopher Parham 1428:Christopher Parham 1227:Christopher Parham 1071:Christopher Parham 1030:Christopher Parham 1018:Christopher Parham 905:Another question: 679:Christopher Parham 547:Christopher Parham 492:Christopher Parham 414: 344:Christopher Parham 295:Christopher Parham 262:Christopher Parham 169:Christopher Parham 3740: 3739: 3691: 3690: 3685:current talk page 3652: 3354:formatting error? 2964:Your thoughts? -- 2911: 2796:? Some parts of 2643:primary criterion 2601: 2567: 2410: 2324: 2291: 2219:Polar coordinates 2207: 2027: 1870: 1834: 1616:unsourced attacks 1612:original research 1393:JackSparrow Ninja 1370:JackSparrow Ninja 1261:original research 670:Template talk:Ref 430: 225: 190: 164:Template_talk:Ref 110: 109: 61: 60: 55:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 3744: 3718: 3693: 3692: 3670: 3669: 3663: 3644: 3597:Creative commons 3431: 3430: 3394: 3393: 3377: 3371: 3367: 3361: 3353: 3347: 3095:sources (FOASs) 2907: 2819: 2813: 2685: 2679: 2597: 2563: 2510: 2504: 2388: 2320: 2297:As WP:ATT says, 2287: 2203: 2148:Citing brochures 2005: 1888: 1882: 1869: 1867: 1861: 1855: 1833: 1831: 1825: 1819: 1784: 1778: 1605: 1599: 1567: 1561: 1557: 1551: 1465:My bad. It's at 1342:Unreferenced msg 1257:reliable sources 1140: 991: 985: 852: 850: 667: 661: 636: 630: 580: 566: 560: 525: 511: 505: 469: 451:Times in a video 426: 317: 311: 255: 249: 244: 238: 221: 215: 209: 186: 151: 149: 139: 137: 130:or <ref2: --> 119:and <ref: --> 88: 63: 62: 40: 39: 33: 27: 3752: 3751: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3714: 3667: 3527: 3498: 3469: 3447:Harry S. Truman 3443: 3420: 3416: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3369: 3365: 3359: 3356: 3351: 3345: 3321: 3303: 3276: 3189: 3172: 3077: 3006: 2986: 2949: 2853: 2851:Choose a style! 2838: 2817: 2811: 2790: 2730: 2702:I'm working on 2700: 2683: 2677: 2639: 2508: 2502: 2483: 2431: 2416: 2389:—The preceding 2363: 2340: 2245: 2196:reliable source 2182: 2180:Using Textbooks 2150: 2133: 2084:My questions: 2068: 2045: 2006:—The preceding 1902: 1886: 1880: 1865: 1860:ShadowJester07 1859: 1856: 1829: 1824:ShadowJester07 1823: 1820: 1798: 1782: 1776: 1750: 1739:Trilby*foxglove 1683:reliable source 1657:Trilby*foxglove 1652: 1603: 1601:citation needed 1597: 1565: 1559: 1555: 1549: 1520: 1453: 1406: 1335: 1291: 1243: 1215:r e s e a r c h 1199: 1138: 1097: 1046: 989: 983: 969: 862: 853: 848: 842: 838: 665: 659: 634: 628: 610: 578: 564: 558: 523: 509: 503: 467: 453: 374: 315: 309: 253: 247: 242: 236: 213: 207: 147: 135: 115: 84: 37: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3750: 3748: 3738: 3737: 3732: 3729: 3724: 3719: 3712: 3707: 3702: 3699: 3689: 3688: 3671: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3606: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3559: 3552: 3551: 3526: 3523: 3513: 3512: 3509: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3468: 3465: 3442: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3410: 3409: 3355: 3343: 3320: 3317: 3307:Images (album) 3302: 3299: 3275: 3272: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3188: 3185: 3171: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3139: 3118: 3117: 3106: 3076: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3060: 3051: 3036: 3035: 3005: 3002: 2993: 2985: 2982: 2962: 2961: 2948: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2875: 2874: 2869:Kirill Lokshin 2852: 2849: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2774:m:WikiTextrose 2729: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2699: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2674: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2572: 2571: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2516: 2515: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2452: 2451: 2430: 2427: 2415: 2412: 2362: 2359: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2244: 2241: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2212: 2211: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2149: 2146: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2113: 2112: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2075:Derrick Carter 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2029: 2028: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1983: 1982: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1945: 1940:Kirill Lokshin 1901: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1797: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1773: 1749: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1733: 1731: 1730: 1716: 1715: 1702: 1701: 1674: 1673: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1626: 1625: 1585: 1584: 1545: 1544: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1477: 1476: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1405: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1386: 1385: 1364: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1345: 1334: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1307: 1306: 1296:Raymond Arritt 1290: 1287: 1277:Antoine Howard 1273: 1272: 1242: 1240:Antoine Howard 1237: 1236: 1235: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1173: 1172: 1163: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1117: 1116: 1111:Kirill Lokshin 1096: 1093: 1080: 1079: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 968: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 944: 943: 942: 941: 928: 927: 904: 902: 901: 900: 899: 886: 885: 861: 858: 841: 837: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 705: 704: 703: 702: 621: 609: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 452: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 398: 397: 396: 395: 392: 386: 385: 384: 383: 380: 373: 370: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 341: 340: 339: 336: 333: 305: 304: 303: 200:Help:Footnotes 195: 194: 178: 177: 131:</ref2: --> 129:</ref1: --> 114: 111: 108: 107: 102: 99: 94: 89: 82: 77: 72: 69: 59: 58: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3749: 3736: 3733: 3730: 3728: 3725: 3723: 3720: 3717: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3672: 3665: 3664: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3605: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3550: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3536: 3532: 3524: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3510: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3503: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3485: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3475: 3467:Citing Google 3466: 3464: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3440: 3434: 3428: 3424: 3419: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3391: 3387: 3382: 3374: 3364: 3350: 3344: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3318: 3316: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3298: 3297: 3294: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3273: 3271: 3270: 3267: 3262: 3260: 3255: 3244: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3223: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3195: 3186: 3184: 3183: 3180: 3178: 3169: 3163: 3160: 3158: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3128: 3123: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3080: 3074: 3069: 3066: 3061: 3059: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3033: 3032:0-87639-059-9 3030: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3018: 3013: 3011: 3003: 3001: 3000: 2997: 2991: 2983: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2971: 2970: 2967: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2954: 2946: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2889: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2850: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2835: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2816: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2787: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2759: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2727: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2705: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2682: 2675: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2636: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2604: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2556: 2555: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2507: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2491: 2488: 2480: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2428: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2413: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2386: 2383:Suggestions? 2381: 2377: 2375: 2370: 2368: 2361:Citing myself 2360: 2358: 2357: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2337: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2307:Donald Albury 2303: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2281: 2275: 2274: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2261:Donald Albury 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2242: 2240: 2239: 2236: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2179: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2147: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2130: 2124: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2098: 2090: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2065: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2044:</div: --> 2031: 2030: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2002: 1999: 1993: 1992: 1990: 1989: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1973:</ref: --> 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1964:Jokes Free4Me 1957: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1921: 1917: 1915: 1914:ARRL Handbook 1909: 1907: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1885: 1879: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1817: 1813: 1810:Retrieved on 1809: 1808: 1803: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1781: 1774: 1772: 1769: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1747: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1687:Armedblowfish 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1649: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1602: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1590: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570:Armedblowfish 1564: 1554: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1517: 1509: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1488: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1450: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1404:Google Books? 1403: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1288: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1266:Donald Albury 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187:Donald Albury 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1171:March 5, 2007 1170: 1167:Absolutely. 1166: 1165: 1164: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1094: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1043: 1037: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 999: 994: 988: 980: 978: 974: 966: 958: 955: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 940: 937: 932: 931: 930: 929: 926: 923: 918: 917: 916: 915: 912: 906: 898: 895: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 881: 876: 875: 874: 873: 870: 865: 859: 857: 856: 851: 845: 836: 833: 819: 816: 815: 814:Donald Albury 809: 808:Seminole Wars 805: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 779: 776: 773: 770: 765: 764: 763: 760: 759: 758:Donald Albury 754: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 736: 733: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 701: 698: 695: 692: 688: 687: 686: 683: 680: 676: 671: 664: 657: 656: 655: 654: 651: 648: 645: 639: 633: 624: 618: 615: 607: 597: 593: 589: 585: 584: 581: 575: 572: 571: 563: 556: 555: 554: 551: 548: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 526: 520: 517: 516: 508: 501: 500: 499: 496: 493: 489: 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 473: 470: 464: 461: 460: 450: 444: 441: 440: 435: 434: 433: 429: 424: 419: 416: 415: 411: 407: 406: 403: 393: 390: 389: 388: 387: 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 371: 369: 368: 366: 351: 348: 345: 342: 337: 334: 331: 330: 328: 327: 326: 323: 322: 314: 306: 302: 299: 296: 291: 287: 286: 285: 282: 281: 276: 271: 270: 269: 266: 263: 259: 252: 241: 234: 230: 229: 228: 224: 219: 212: 205: 201: 197: 196: 193: 189: 184: 180: 179: 176: 173: 170: 165: 161:</ref: --> 159:</ref: --> 157: 156: 155: 154: 150: 144: 143: 138: 124: 120:</ref: --> 112: 106: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 56: 52: 48: 47: 42: 35: 34: 25: 19: 3715: 3680: 3674: 3546:Gerry Ashton 3528: 3525:Free sources 3514: 3499: 3470: 3454: 3444: 3404:Gerry Ashton 3357: 3337:Andy Mabbett 3322: 3304: 3290: 3277: 3263: 3251: 3190: 3173: 3147:Gerry Ashton 3142: 3124: 3120: 3101: 3096: 3082: 3078: 3055:Gerry Ashton 3037: 3024: 3014: 3007: 2987: 2972: 2963: 2950: 2854: 2839: 2820:. Also see 2791: 2761:Thoughts? -- 2760: 2757: 2753: 2750: 2746: 2732:The article 2731: 2719:Gerry Ashton 2701: 2640: 2506:Unreferenced 2484: 2432: 2417: 2395:Sue D. Nymme 2385:Sue D. Nymme 2382: 2378: 2371: 2364: 2341: 2306: 2299: 2298: 2260: 2246: 2235:Bobo is soft 2232: 2186:Bobo is soft 2183: 2151: 2134: 2094: 2083: 2072: 2069: 2012:Gerry Ashton 1961: 1936:Short Title, 1935: 1926:Gerry Ashton 1922: 1918: 1913: 1910: 1903: 1858: 1822: 1805: 1802:GameSpot.com 1799: 1751: 1732: 1668:Gerry Ashton 1653: 1641:Gerry Ashton 1627: 1607: 1586: 1521: 1484:Gerry Ashton 1457:Gerry Ashton 1454: 1423: 1407: 1367: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1313:Gerry Ashton 1292: 1274: 1265: 1244: 1213: 1208: 1203: 1200: 1186: 1174: 1162: 1136: 1128: 1098: 1081: 1049: 1047: 1012: 1003:70.157.33.51 995: 981: 970: 954:Gerry Ashton 922:Gerry Ashton 907: 903: 894:Gerry Ashton 866: 863: 839: 813: 757: 640: 625: 616: 611: 576: 568: 521: 513: 512:citation? -- 465: 457: 454: 438: 399: 361: 360: 320: 279: 274: 141: 116: 85: 50: 44: 3673:This is an 3610:open access 3601:open access 3572:David Ruben 3535:David Ruben 3502:Gilbert Odd 3329:microformat 3136:Open access 3093:open access 2763:Tagishsimon 2338:Citing maps 1812:February 19 123:Clan Fraser 43:This is an 3735:Archive 20 3727:Archive 18 3722:Archive 17 3716:Archive 16 3710:Archive 15 3705:Archive 14 3697:Archive 10 3593:free/libre 3222:Doctor Who 3177:SlimVirgin 3157:SlimVirgin 3127:SlimVirgin 2815:bibleverse 2802:Elliotreed 2353:Nomadtales 2300:everything 2269:Actually, 1780:cite video 1721:WikiSource 1631:Uberdude85 1451:COinS tags 1109:Nope. :-) 1101:Scourge441 936:Billy Nair 562:cite video 507:cite video 105:Archive 20 97:Archive 18 92:Archive 17 86:Archive 16 80:Archive 15 75:Archive 14 67:Archive 10 3373:cite news 3349:Cite news 3039:thanks! — 2681:cite news 1725:Una Smith 1410:this edit 1210:s p a c e 1202:true...-- 911:BillyNair 663:ref label 642:Thanks, 439:Gimmetrow 321:Gimmetrow 280:Gimmetrow 3459:Rickterp 3427:contribs 3390:contribs 3363:cite web 3325:proposal 3293:Gruber76 3227:23skidoo 3198:23skidoo 3194:WP:LINKS 2994:Thanks, 2966:Muchness 2888:Awadewit 2858:Awadewit 2843:Dr. Cash 2709:Chevinki 2698:Question 2651:Wikicite 2647:ProQuest 2637:Question 2594:CMummert 2560:CMummert 2403:contribs 2391:unsigned 2317:CMummert 2284:CMummert 2277:removed. 2217:Look at 2200:CMummert 2020:contribs 2008:unsigned 1884:Cite web 1775:We have 1679:Wikinews 1589:Tirronan 1525:Tirronan 869:Sahuagin 860:Question 632:wikicite 423:CMummert 218:CMummert 183:CMummert 3676:archive 3642:Nephron 3612:-- see 3418:SatyrTN 3381:SatyrTN 3311:PGSONIC 3065:SEWilco 2905:Amarkov 2826:SEWilco 2778:SEWilco 2692:Liftarn 2625:Liftarn 2579:Liftarn 2547:Liftarn 2513:Liftarn 2459:Liftarn 2435:Liftarn 2223:Circeus 2140:Circeus 2120:DaSjieb 2107:Circeus 2097:DaSjieb 2053:Circeus 1977:Circeus 1953:Circeus 1949:Aspasia 1920:them. 1891:Circeus 1787:Circeus 1754:Patiwat 1620:Circeus 1505:Circeus 1471:Circeus 1440:Rjensen 1414:Ekantik 1322:Rjensen 1281:Millm0w 1247:Millm0w 806:out of 290:WP:FOOT 46:archive 3636:PubMed 3563:PubMed 3517:Tthaas 3487:(talk) 3474:SharkD 3327:for a 3284:Ocolon 3240:(talk) 3212:(talk) 3143:reader 3114:verify 2976:qp10qp 2960:error. 2932:qp10qp 2883:WT:FAC 2766:(talk) 2669:(talk) 2493:Jayjg 2468:(talk) 2446:(talk) 2421:Yongke 2414:Blogs? 2273:says: 2271:WP:ATT 2250:Xiahou 2171:(talk) 2158:SCZenz 1866:►Talk 1847:(talk) 1830:►Talk 1768:(talk) 1710:(Talk) 1707:Finell 1639:No. -- 1608:should 1568:. — 1563:verify 1539:(talk) 1501:Zotero 1431:(talk) 1424:source 1380:qp10qp 1362:update 1305:(XXG). 1230:(talk) 1074:(talk) 1051:passim 1044:passim 1033:(talk) 1021:(talk) 880:qp10qp 732:qp10qp 682:(talk) 620:/: --> 550:(talk) 495:(talk) 347:(talk) 298:(talk) 265:(talk) 206:, the 172:(talk) 3618:Jimbo 2794:Bible 2545:. // 1467:COinS 1263:. -- 1205:h i s 849:talk 673:(see 668:(see 142:Canæn 16:< 3632:ASME 3628:IEEE 3589:GFDL 3568:PMID 3455:very 3423:talk 3386:talk 3170:Tags 3089:free 3085:GFDL 3029:ISBN 2996:FloK 2909:moo! 2676:The 2599:talk 2565:talk 2523:Beit 2399:talk 2374:JAPH 2349:here 2322:talk 2289:talk 2205:talk 2154:CERN 2033:way: 2016:talk 1816:2007 1695:mail 1691:talk 1578:mail 1574:talk 1553:fact 1013:both 987:fact 979:. 428:talk 258:here 233:here 223:talk 202:and 188:talk 3358:In 3110:web 3097:and 2824:. ( 2690:// 1614:or 1154:|| 1143:del 1130:Fbv 594:|| 583:del 570:Fbv 539:|| 528:del 515:Fbv 483:|| 472:del 459:Fbv 418:TeX 275:not 251:ref 240:ref 211:ref 126:--> 3731:→ 3701:← 3630:, 3620:- 3515:-- 3425:| 3402:-- 3388:| 3376:}} 3370:{{ 3366:}} 3360:{{ 3352:}} 3346:{{ 3335:. 3019:: 2818:}} 2812:{{ 2684:}} 2678:{{ 2596:· 2562:· 2526:Or 2509:}} 2503:{{ 2405:) 2401:• 2319:· 2286:· 2202:· 2198:. 2022:) 2018:• 1924:-- 1887:}} 1881:{{ 1814:, 1804:, 1783:}} 1777:{{ 1697:) 1604:}} 1598:{{ 1580:) 1566:}} 1560:{{ 1556:}} 1550:{{ 1351:}} 1347:{{ 1344:}} 1340:{{ 1311:-- 1279:. 1152:☛c 1150:/ 1148:☑t 1146:/ 1134:65 990:}} 984:{{ 952:-- 892:-- 775:ka 772:on 769:El 697:ka 694:on 691:El 666:}} 660:{{ 650:ka 647:on 644:El 635:}} 629:{{ 592:☛c 590:/ 588:☑t 586:/ 574:65 565:}} 559:{{ 537:☛c 535:/ 533:☑t 531:/ 519:65 510:}} 504:{{ 481:☛c 479:/ 477:☑t 475:/ 463:65 425:· 400:-- 316:}} 313:cn 310:{{ 260:. 254:}} 248:{{ 243:}} 237:{{ 220:· 214:}} 208:{{ 185:· 101:→ 71:← 3687:. 3650:C 3648:| 3646:T 3429:) 3421:( 3392:) 3384:( 3091:/ 3070:) 3027:( 2831:) 2783:) 2409:. 2397:( 2026:. 2014:( 1693:| 1689:( 1576:| 1572:( 1503:. 1469:. 1139:e 846:| 579:e 524:e 468:e 57:. 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Citing sources/Archive 16 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index