Template talk:Wikipedia referencing

Pages to consider for inclusion

• Wikipedia:Verification methods
• Wikipedia:Overlink crisis
• Wikipedia:Citation overkill
• Wikipedia:Bombardment
• Wikipedia:Citation needed
• Help:Citations quick reference
• Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts
• Wikipedia:Advanced footnote formatting
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations
• Wikipedia:List-defined reference how-to guide
• Wikipedia:How to mine a source

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

More

I use these 2 regularly, and would have liked to have known about them earlier in my wiki-journey. Possibly they should be listed here?

• http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/
• http://ottobib.com/ (also http://zeteo.info/references.php )

There's also the bots which fill in fields, based on what info is avail. They don't seem to be listed in any navboxes currently? Maybe add here?

• http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ (via WP:UCB)
• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks

And today whilst trying to find an ottobib-equivalent for DOIs – (I found http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ (doi-based-lookup near the bottom) but it doesn't return wikicode information, just xml) – I read more about {{cite doi}} and the related bot-filled templates (currently listed at Template:Citation Style 1). I'm just mentioning them for completism, and to aid anyone else searching in the future. —Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

footnote1,2,3,4 links

I'm thinking we should remove the footnote1, footnote2, footnote3, and footnote4 links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Embedded citations

I removed the link to Embedded citations from this template (at 15:19, 26 October 2017) -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template?★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:*Treker I have copied you comment from my talk page so that others can see it.

I see it as WP:BEANS. How is it still relevant? -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I simply felt that it would be of interest for someone who would be looking up citations on wikipedia to see some historical stuff becuse why else keep an outdated page if not for people to look at it out of curiosity. I doubt many common vandals would be familiar enough with wikipedia to find this template. As for being relevant. The literal point of a navbox is to link articles that share somthing in common, which that article, outdated or not still qualifies as in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There is already far too much policy and guidance available for inexperienced editors to try to get their heads around without cluttering up navigation pages, with stuff that has been out of date for years. The relevant section for this is WP:CITE#Avoid embedded links -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess we just disagree. I don't see the harm in having it there. I don't see how it would be clutter.★Trekker (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we should use the wp:dispute resolution process. Are you happy to use Wikipedia:Third opinion? -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be great.★Trekker (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (whether to keep a link to Wikipedia:Embedded citations in an historical section):

Greetings, ★Trekker and PBS! I have read through the conversation here and agree with PBS's recommendation to remove the link to WP:Embedded citations from the navbox. In my opinion, including it in its original location gives it a significance it does not warrant given its status as an inactive policy. A historical section would be better, but even though I agree that the likelihood of someone using inline citations as a result of seeing it in a historical section is pretty low (I could think of far easier ways to edit perniciously than to correctly use inline citations), to be honest I think a historical section serves only to make the template longer than it needs to be. It's my opinion that we should keep the template as a quick reference for relevant policies, advice, and documentation. That being said, I think a historical section in the template documentation, which would be visible on WP:Embedded citations itself, is a great place to include historical information on what was at one point part of the template. I could even see adding a summary and/or links to discussions as to why they are no longer included. That would certainly provide the curious types with better information than they would get by a simple historical section of the navbox, and keep the navbox as succinct and relevant as possible. What do the two of you think? CThomas3 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it seems like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I won't implement it, but I won't oppose it. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)