Memory Alpha talk:Cite your sources

Deprecated style
A while back there was a consensus to keep the "series abbreviation" linked on EVERY occurrence of the term an episode list:



This was contrary to our link policy, which states that once a term has been linked, it should not be linked over again. People attempting to comply with the policy altered the lists to look like this:


 * TOS:
 * VOY:
 * VOY:
 * VOY:
 * VOY:
 * VOY:

This wasn't well recieved, its kind of unattractive, so the standard was set using the first method, which is contrary to the multiple link policy.

I've been toying with a new alternative, with the help of some style-minded archivists, where we tree the list to avoid even wasting the space to mention the series name over and over, let alone linking it:



I've added this to the policy page, I hope its well received.

Is there a bot that could help reformat all the long lists of appearances we have around here? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no existing bot to do that, because it is not a standard wikipedia task. It might be possible to teach the bot to do that, but I think this style has too many exception rules, and it is more likely the bot will do harm here. On a personal note: I liked the first style, with the minor addition that all series abbreviations are excepted from the rule. -- Kobi - (   ) 19:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ug, I like this new style even less. (Also, Mike, I think the links look a lot better if there's a space between the colon and the quotation mark.) -- Steve 13:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References (archived, )
I'd like to point out that Logan 5 has been moving references from articles into lists at the the bottom of the page (example Ferengi), while Gvsualan has been running about doing the opposite and removing reference lists (example Breen). Is one of these users in violation or is there no standard? As a regular user of MA I find I am sometimes wondering where info comes from and would therefore like to see the in-article info kept, at the same time I am also sometimes wondering which episodes a certain species has been referenced in and would therefore like to see the lists kept. Would it be difficult to simply leave both types of citing in place? Jaf 13:47, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf


 * Linking from within an article is important to see where a specific bit of information came from - we're losing that information if we are just using lists at the bottom. I agree with Gvsualan here, and think that this is a part of some policy somewhere (at least we discussed this already). Double references could be a solution, although I don't know if they are necessary in all cases - let's discuss this further. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a month Cid, I'm starting to think we are the only ones who care about references. Jaf 13:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf


 * I have a separate issue with references. Mainly, I have been operating under the impression that when citing episode sources, one should use the following format for inline references: .  However, I've been seeing a lot of episode citations using italics, i.e. , so much that I've even started doing it.  Which way is preferred for episode citations? - Intricated 18:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no point in double referencing a page, hence why I removed the "references" section at the bottom of various pages and limited it to appearances, as appearance can't necessarily be cited on a page as easily as one might cite a specific reference at the end of each sentence or paragraph. Additionally, we do not italicize episodes (just movies)...I argued that what you are arguing long and hard and it was nevertheless decided that it is unnecessary to do (italicizing eps). I don't know the exact talk page that was discussed, but after futher analysis of that discussion (at that time), I do think it looks better and I'm pretty sure it is the proper way to cite an episode (versus a series or movie). --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * We do italicize in a lot of articles, that's still under discussion. --Memory 23:31, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

More than two years have passed since this discussion, and the policy still says it's OK to cite references at the end, but articles that do this still get tagged with. So I suppose no agreement has been reached on this? Hokstein 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the policy says that... it's incorrect really. It should be updated.  Agreement was reached.  A long time ago... it just appears that the "policy" never really caught up. -- Sulfur 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What the policy basically says is that it's preferred whenever possible/practical to use the inline citation format. There are a few, scattered instances where it's not practical to do that, in which case the end-of-article list is acceptable. In practice, the only place the list is used to any extent is in real-world articles like actors pages, etc. -- Renegade54 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the confusing part is the statement that "References can also be in a list or at the end of an article". It should probably be reworded to take into account the statement above that end of para citations should be used where all possible.  Put it this way - if one user can be confused, others can too. We should be as clear as possible on policy to avoid confusion.


 * I absolutely agree by the way with the in-article citations - it's much easier to track where info is coming from. – Cleanse 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Trek or not?
I've noticed that there are two styles of the episode references: the Picard type  and the Riker type which is mixed with the Picard type for movies. This makes no sense, especially because the references are Meta-Trek and should be italicized like all other Meta-Trek comments. So the logical format will be:


 * She adjusted phaser banks to emit a power beam. 

For movies:


 * She adjusted phaser banks to emit a power beam. ("")

--Memory 20:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Star Trek: The Next Generation is to -- whereas  is just the name of an episode within the series. The italicizing episodes was cast off a long time ago, and its just a matter of removing italics from the rest. Movies shouldn't be given " (quotation marks) and are italicized. This goes beyond what is and isn't meta-trek...this is citing sources. --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if the sources are meta-trek, they have to be italicised like all M-T stuff that is not written in the M-T sections (e.g. "background information"). And title is title, episode or not. --Memory 21:46, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the meta-trek rules don't apply to citing sources. And just as in the titles of short stories (ex. "The Telltale Heart", "A Rose for Emily") as compared with novels (Canterbury Tales, Robinson Crusoe), movie titles are italicized, while episode titles are "quoted." --Commodore Sixty-Four 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironically...
Ironically, I just had to fix the "punctuation inside quotes" problem...on this very page (not the Talk page). It originally read:


 * Please note that, even though American English (MA's standard) recommends placing punctuation within quotation marks, episode title links are an exception: commas, semicolons and periods are outside of the quotes (when used against a linked episode or story name).


 * Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive on Earth. (;" )

-- Commodore Sixty-Four 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More Punctuation
I've got a related issue: I've been going through fixing a lot of these citation problems and a couple things have cropped up that remain inconsistent. For example, within a paragraph I have seen the punctuation near citations handled in three ways:


 * Janeway ordered Tuvok to fire photon torpedoes, full spread. Tuvok fired and there was no effect on the alien vessel.


 * Janeway ordered Tuvok to fire photon torpedoes, full spread . Tuvok fired and there was no effect on the alien vessel.


 * Janeway ordered Tuvok to fire photon torpedoes, full spread. . Tuvok fired and there was no effect on the alien vessel.

Which of these is appropriate? The first I think seems the most right although for some reason a bit awkward, the second looks better but somehow feels wrong, and the third I'd say is just wrong. I don't care personally which is used, I just happen to be anal about consistent formatting :>

Also, in regards to meta-trek: the example listed on this page appears to suggest that something such as the following would be appropriate:


 * ,, (DS9) and (VOY) all aired on the year of Star Trek's 30th anniversary.  and  were tribute episodes written for this occasion.

Because the episodes are being refered to directly there is no need to cite what series they are from again (at least this is how I understand it from the citation page). However, not citing which series each episode is from can lead to confusion in when it should and shouldn't be done. Personally, I'd lean towards adding the series after each episode in these cases simply for simplicity and consistency. I am already seeing this, although usually instead of the "Quote" (ABRV) method it seems to be the normal citation with the parenthesis dropped as in ABRV: "Quote". Example:


 * ,, and all aired on the year of Star Trek's 30th anniversary.  and  were tribute episodes written for this occasion.

versus:


 *  (DS9), (DS9), and  (VOY) all aired on the year of Star Trek's 30th anniversary.  (DS9) and  (VOY) were tribute episodes written for this occasion.

Examples on this page clarifying how to handle citations within paragraphs for both canon and meta-trek would be helpful.

--Wobbles 09:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, for the first one, I would suggest:
 * Janeway ordered Tuvok to fire photon torpedoes, full spread. Tuvok fired and there was no effect on the alien vessel.
 * But I see your point, how to cite in the middle of a paragraph. Personally, I dislike attributing in the midst of a paragraph, and prefer to collect all of the citations at the end of said paragraph.
 * For the meta-trek references, I believe that this seems to be the preferred method:
 * , and all aired on the year of Star Trek's 30th anniversary.  and  were tribute episodes written for this occasion.
 * Note that the first two, being part of the same series are collected without doubling the name in there. -- Sulfur 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right according to my example's content that it fits better at the end, but it was more to illustrate style in very long paragraphs where the citation is specific to a certain peice of information. There are some very large paragraphs where placing all citations at the end makes it impossible to tell where each bit of information came from. To pull a section out of the Enterprise page, it currently reads:
 * The bridge, captain's ready room, and conference lounge were on Deck 1, and were protected by redundant safety interlocks to prevent environmental systems failure.  The main shuttlebay was on Deck 4, supported by several cargo bays on Deck 4 and Deck 18.   Two additional shuttlebays were found on Deck 13.   Deck 8 of the ship was a non-finished multi-purpose deck.  Additional work spaces were set there when needed.   It also contained the officers' quarters and the battle bridge.    Ten Forward, the center of the ship's social activity, was located on the extreme forward end of Deck 10, offering the best view of space ahead of the ship.   Holodecks could also be found on Deck 10.  Deck 12 contained sickbay, while main engineering was located on Deck 36.  Engineering took up twelve decks of the secondary hull, with the antimatter storage pods housed on Deck 42.    The primary docking ports were located on either side of the torpedo launcher on Deck 25 ; the nacelle control room was also on that deck.   According to Lieutenant Commander Nella Daren, the most acoustically perfect spot on the ship was the fourth intersect of Jefferies tube 25.
 * whereas gathering them all at the end would have it look like:
 * The bridge, captain's ready room, and conference lounge were on Deck 1, and were protected by redundant safety interlocks to prevent environmental systems failure. The main shuttlebay was on Deck 4, supported by several cargo bays on Deck 4 and Deck 18. Two additional shuttlebays were found on Deck 13. Deck 8 of the ship was a non-finished multi-purpose deck.  Additional work spaces were set there when needed. It also contained the officers' quarters and the battle bridge. Ten Forward, the center of the ship's social activity, was located on the extreme forward end of Deck 10, offering the best view of space ahead of the ship. Holodecks could also be found on Deck 10. Deck 12 contained sickbay, while main engineering was located on Deck 36. Engineering took up twelve decks of the secondary hull, with the antimatter storage pods housed on Deck 42. The primary docking ports were located on either side of the torpedo launcher on Deck 25; the nacelle control room was also on that deck. According to Lieutenant Commander Nella Daren, the most acoustically perfect spot on the ship was the fourth intersect of Jefferies tube 25.
 * Converted refs list to nowiki to avoid adding to cramped category -- sulfur 13:15, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the second approach, since it looks much cleaner &mdash; but I hesitate to switch the former to the latter since people have already gone to the trouble to cite each specific bit of information seperately.

In-text citations
This policy doesn't give any guidance for the in-text citations used in real-world articles and background information sections. The "bibliography" style here isn't particularly useful as it doesn't link claims in the text to their source, potentially leading to confusion. Nor is the style shown here used in many places.

Regarding what actually is used, in-text references to books and external links are fairly consistent - e.g. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion) and. But citing DVD special features seems all over the place. I've seen the following formats at least:


 * (DS9 Season 4 DVD)
 * (DS9 Season 4 DVD)
 * (Charting New Territory: Deep Space Nine Season Four, DS9 Season 4 DVD special features)
 * (Hidden File 05, DS9 Season 7 DVD, Special Features)
 * (Phase II: The Lost Enterprise on Star Trek: The Motion Picture (The Director's Edition) DVD)

Which of these is correct? References to magazines have also varied in the detail included, italicisation etc. Then we've got stuff like AOLchat, which I kind of just made up a style for. ;-)

– Cleanse ( talk 04:29, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

An (incomplete) draft of my proposal can be seen here:. I went with my own preference for DVD citations, but I don't really mind which is chosen.– Cleanse ( talk 02:38, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds good to me. The only thing I would change is the need to point out that a DVD special feature is a special feature, seems kind of redundant to me. - 05:14, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way on that. In some cases it might be confusing (some special features have unusual titles like "Hidden File 04"), but on the other hand there is the link to the DVD page.

I also added a suggestion for magazines. I couldn't find many examples of "formal" citations to magazines, so I just went with the title and the issue number. If there is another style preferred by anyone, feel free to change it.

Furthermore, thanks to Sulfur for the addition regarding commentaries, as well as the interesting fact. ;-)– Cleanse ( talk 10:55, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers?
Should references to secondary sources such as books and magazines require page numbers?

In the past, page numbers have not generally been provided, and consequently this policy doesn't include them. But I see that some users (such as Sennim and Defiant) have started to include them. See them in their native habitat here and here. I wouldn't mind adding such a requirement to the policy. Admittedly, if we did do this, there are thousands of pages without page numbers that would probably never get them since they refer to obscure sources. On the other hand, I think it would be a better "best practice" to request them - it'd make it easier for readers and archivists to double-check sources in the future (sometimes a contributor quotes from one side of the book then the other, for example). – Cleanse ( talk 00:44, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that they should be required, but desired is good, yes. -- sulfur 01:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't suggesting to e.g. tag incites on existing citations without page numbers or nominate an FA for removal because it lacks page numbers in the background section. That would be silly. But if we could say it's desired, that'd help with new additions (and I might e.g. go back and add page numbers to my old contributions when fixing something else on the page). This is hardly a big issue, but I thought I'd just bring it up. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk 02:01, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to have page numbers in the citations. Would really help validate them. Quick question - since google books has quite a bit, would it be possible to link directly to the citation page on google books? Might be something worth looking into. &mdash; Morder (talk) 02:38, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all books on google books are visible in all locations. -- sulfur 02:55, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely welcome, but not required. The google books link is a good idea; some system could be used to ID where it would work via template. - 07:25, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with "welcome:yes, required:no" - but in any case, we should define a common style for that sort of referencing. Should it be "page" or just "p.", and don't we need to make sure that the book's edition is also given in that case? -- Cid Highwind 09:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I too think it is a good idea to have page numbers as a desired addition to citations, but don't believe it should be a mandatory requirement. As for the abbreviation, I tend to use "pg" but that's probably because I'm British :) I keep forgetting to use American spellings all time here on MA! -- TrekFan Talk 09:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * "p. XXX" is the standard American method I do believe, and also the common one being used by Defiant and Sennim. Seems like a good choice to use. -- sulfur 10:18, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with "p. 47" etc. This leaves a small number of formats to resolve before we can implement this. How about:

– Cleanse ( talk 01:25, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * References to multiple pages take the format "pp. XXX-YYY"
 * To address Cid's concern - Reference to a book with multiple editions (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion 2nd ed., p. 47)
 * A reference in-text with the format "According to The Art of Star Trek (p. 555), Risa is an alternate name for Pluto."


 * I support the non-compulsory adoption of this format as an MA guideline. It was actually Sennim who started it; I saw that he was using "p.", so I thought that was a cool idea! As for multiple pages, I don't think we'll be able to find anything whose meaning is so obvious to a new user than "p.", relating to "page". As a result, I've just been using the full word "pages". Also, I think we should also include, as part of the guideline, the difference between "-" and "&" (such as "11-13" including page 12, whereas "11 & 13" not including page 12). --Defiant 03:13, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * We might as well adopt a scientific format here - which has "pp." as abbreviation for "pages", as Cleanse suggested and, I think, typically uses a simple enumeration like "pp. 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42" if single pages instead of a range is intended. -- Cid Highwind 10:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'll be cool about that being the accepted format, if it's what the community decides/has decided. My concern about it confusing new users will essentially evaporate if it's made thee method, as we can make helpful info about it available. So, I'm fine with that. --Defiant 13:29, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I modified the page according to the discussion here. Feel free to rephrase etc. as necessary.– Cleanse ( talk 02:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think italicizing the edition looks kind of weird. Also, I was under the impression that italics (in this sense) were used to sort of divide the publication title from the rest of the text. If this is not strictly the case, I still think it's a good idea to implement. --Defiant 07:53, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I just went with what the citation style I generally use does with editions. I agree though, that plain text might be easier to read for our purposes, and it would certainly be easier to type. I'm happy to go either way on this issue.– Cleanse ( talk 07:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've duly made the changes. It was only a small nitpick, though, and I'm happy with the rest of what you've done here, Cleanse; good work! :) --Defiant 08:01, September 30, 2010 (UTC)