Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 8 February 2008

Rumination

The link under "Rumination" leads to a disambig page that does not include the meaning of this word hinted at in the Citation article. Perhaps the link should be removed altogether. Hoot

Irony

Is it just me or is it very ironic that the page on Citation does not cite any source whatsoever. I think that something as important to Wikipedians as citing, should itself be cited.
Gonzo fan2007 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What's even more ironic is that when an anonymous user adds a link to the XKCD comic poking fun at wikipedia's growing problem with prolific 'citation needed' tags, it gets removed immediately by someone who is becoming an editor. MobileOak 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats not really ironic but ok. And i really dont get what u r saying, all i was saying is that the article on Citation should itself be cited to set an example. If an editor looks up "Citation" and reches a page that preaches about citing but the article itself lacks any sources, then what is thateditor to think? In the next couple weeks i will try to place citations on this page. Its not what Im best at doin, but i will try and get it fixed so we can knock one 'citation needed' off of a[REDACTED] page.
Gonzo fan2007

It is hilarious, pls leave it like that.

Haha, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the thing at the top. Oh, the irony...CarpeGuitarrem (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

EasyBib cannot be included?

I can't put EasyBib under the tool section? It's decent tool, I don't see why it can't be included there...I am not advertising things...

How should Misplaced Pages itself be cited in MLA style?

Answer/discussion is/should go here Misplaced Pages:Citing Misplaced Pages --Ebricca 13:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd say merge this little stub Works_cited article into the larger Citation. --S.O.T.A. 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sota ColemanJ 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean "See also"

Citing WP belongs to WP and not to main articles. There is enough info about citing WP at the beginning of this page. What do you think ? -- DLL 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be better to instead merge this stub with the MLA article, as they are related

I believe this would better fit with the MLA than citation. Just link it from Citation.

Thanks to you, MLA dedicated man. But the point is to make a clear distinction between an encyclopedia article and data related only to WP. I'm watching for a clear answer. -- DLL 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Microformat for citations

Please be aware of the proposal for a microformat for marking citations in (X)HTML. See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Special syntax

A common way found in printed works to cite references in continuous text is adding a short key of an abbreviation of the author's / authors' name(s) and the year of publication, all put in box brackets. This key can than be used to look the citation in the citation example. For example: may stand for F. Wilder: A Guide to the TCP/IP Protocol Suite (2nd Edition). Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1998. Where does this style come from? --Abdull 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Change of Wiki to CitationNeeded.org ?

I love Wiki; I use it almost everyday to find new info. Now a days people are putting up citations for the most stupid reasons. The citation are for either info that can be found in seconds, or it deals with something so common that you really can't find a source for it. I just updated a profile where someone had asked for a citation on this person being adopted. It took me 38 seconds to find doing a Google search. The owners should place a banner stating that you must try your best to find the info that you have asked for a citation for. Give them a line to write what they did while looking for the info. If they didn't do anything, then deny the citation.But I see so many citation that it is impossible for me to update them all. Like I mention on the other profile; I once found a citation needed when someone said that the water in the ocean may appear blue. WTF?

This is a great place, and we all work hard to make it that way, but these lazy people shouldn't be allowed to add citation. If you don't understand a topic, then let someone else handle it.

the2ndflood

Ironic

the fact that there are two s in the article ABOUT CITATIONS has simply become too ironic for words, this issue should be brought to a larger audience, or the sheer irony factor may destroy us all!

PiAndWhippedCream 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How to make this Wiki better...

Uhh...I was trying to do homework and was trying to see how to write a bibliographic citation but no examples were given
-___- Wow... How 'bout adding examples how to write a bibliography people?
Jaewonnie 6:53 PM, 21 January 2008

There are a lot of styles, linked to from this page. Each style generally has examples. --Karnesky (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Avi, why did you revert all my changes? SlimVirgin 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, it the first editor to fill in references in recent history used citation templates . Removing them is not a "copyedit". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the changes I made. It was indeed a (much-needed) copy edit, and for some reason it was entirely reverted. SlimVirgin 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(moved from user talk)

The first editor to add references to this article in recent history used citation templates . It was inappropriate to switch to a non-template system during the copyedits. I am certain you are aware of our convention not to change the style of an article once it has been established. Could you explain why you did this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with citation templates. Someone had used a mix of two systems -- Harvard referencing and footnotes. It meant the reader had to click on the footnote, be taken to the Notes section, then click again on that link, and be taken to the full citation in yet another section. There's no need or justification for that.

What is going on here? I feel almost as though I'm being wikistalked. Neither you nor Avi have ever edited that page before that I can see, and yet Avi turned up to undo my entire copy edit, and now you're asking a question. Also, it would be better to discuss this on Talk:Citation, so I'll move the conversation there. SlimVirgin 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this because it was raised as an example on WT:CITE. If the original references use templates then the templates shouldn't be removed in order to switch to a different citation style. I thought is already explicitly covered in WP:CITE - changing to a new reference system should not be done lightly, even if you feel it is an improvement, any more than regional spelling should be changed. SlimVirgin, you have argued this point yourself on WT:CITE, which is why it's surprising that you were the one who changed the style here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the mixed style - where the footnotes have short references, and the full references are in the references section - is quite common and generally accepted. See featured articles Charles_Darwin and Night_of_the_Long_Knives for two randomly chosen examples. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It had nothing to with citation templates, as I said. The refs that had been added created an extra step for the reader. Also, the editor couldn't see what the citation was in edit mode without going to the end of the text e.g. "UC Berkeley" -- this isn't a short footnote or a Harvard reference. It's nothing. It gives no information at all to an editor.

Carl, I think there's some trolling going on at WT:CITE. I wish you wouldn't support it, or encourage it melting over into other pages, as here. SlimVirgin 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Joke tags"?

I noticed that throughout the history of this article, tags were being removed, denounced as "joke tags". All irony aside, there are very few sources in this article, and a tag would be appropriate in some cases. Teh Rote (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add them if you think something might be wrong. Or list your concerns here. SlimVirgin 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the most obvious things that looked like personal opinion. By all means add citation tags for anything else you feel needs a source. SlimVirgin 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)