Talk:Reference/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Reference. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I can't find any reference to EC250 anywhere. It makes no sense to me that it would ever be used to refer to the concept of a reference section containing all works cited, but only those works. I'm taking it out; if it is in fact valid please add it again, but with a reference. And may I add that of any articles, this should have decent citations. Mike.lifeguard 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Mathematics, the absent referent can be seen with the symbol for zero, "0" or the empty set, "{ }".

This issue is much more complex than the sentence above indicates. Some would argue that the empty set and even zero are perfectly respectable objects and not just "nothing". Other would argue that no mathematical symbol has referents. 1Z 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A personal reference, or "character reference" is not only for employment, as the article states. It is also used for legal purposes. During a criminal trial, the accused may produce character references in an attempt to gain a lenient sentance. Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.36.172 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

someone has a sense of humor here, an article about Reference needs more References--Termer 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the section on referencing in scientific writing not fall under that of Scholarship? If so, the whole scientific writing section should be deleted.Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.248.249 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I considered taking a screenshot of this and using it as an image for the Irony page, but then I remembered wikimods don't have a sense of humor Peter Deer 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Funniest thing i've seen all week.--Wiggstar69 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

hahahha hahahah this is brilliant --'n1yaNt 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL I was actually about to make a post in here about that, but you guys beat me to it.--Flash176 (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha me too, motivational poster on the way.

I assumed the not citing references was just a joke 82.16.99.223 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just posted this page o FARK.com, of course under the tag of "ironic". Davide Andrea (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I second using a screenshot of this on the irony page -it is the perfect definition of the word irony. It really is the funniest thing I've seen all week. Possibly all year.

Mystic eye (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I just couldn't resist it. So I added it to the Situational Irony section of the irony article. Do you think it will be deleted =))

Mystic eye (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of all the articles that aren't referenced in wikipedia, shouldn't this one atleast have a couple?--Brentt 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OH THE IRONY!! Yes. You're right. It should. -kotra 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing. I have been working on some Philosophy project clean up issues and came across a series of orphaned pages (on philosophers), several of whom are involved in this very issue - but instead of working on this article, which is of higher importance than writing about their own lives and work, and then appropriately linking to it, they have not. None of them seems to be an active Wiki user, so contacting them on their talk pages isn't working. I'll go around and post on their individual discussion pages that their expert help is needed - as it should not be the case that people are self-proclaimed experts on reference in their orphaned articles, while this article exists as a place where people might actually learn about reference and then find the bios.--Levalley (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Completely agree, Levally. For precisely that reason I may be able to make some time to work on this page. Reference is at the heart of Wikipedia, but it is also at the heart of all human communication and has been studied by great minds in great depth. Let's share! :) Harold Philby (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Should this be tagged with {{disambig}}? Gflores ^Talk 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag from the article because this is not actually a disambiguation page. 75.36.255.227 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! This page is screaming for disambiguation. It kind of is a disambig page atm. Let's change that.

A new disambiguation page is created by:

1. typing in the mark-up for a link to the new page;
2. clicking on that (red) link; and
3. editing away!

Voila! Reference (disambiguation)

Harold Philby (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed that it avoided deletion. I read it twice, then went and dragged home my linguistics and philosophy of language texts and monographs and, well, nothing on this page makes sense to me. It's like falling down a rabbit hole. I then sent it to two colleagues who are philosophers and they just shook their heads and said "maybe I'll write something," but neither is a wikipedian and I just know they won't do it anywhere in the conceivable future. Now, I could probably write an encyclopedia start article on reference, but I'd have to spend hours and hours finding citations to do it right. There are other areas where the citations are either in my head or on my desktop - much more appealing. But, I will start using the Philosophy Project and Philosophy of Language Project to point out how much work this needs. I'm going to assume that disambiguation is coming, down the line and start putting sections in that will eventually branch off (that will remove some of the humor, but really, it needs to be done). "Reference" may need an ordinary use page, a linguistics page and a philosophy of language page. I counted no less than 20 orphaned philosophers' pages claiming expertise in this subject, I will invite them on their user pages to please fix the article to which they should be linked. Sounds fair to me.--Levalley (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

You're a star Levalley. Keep up your great work. Harold Philby (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the idea that there is "a range" of application of intensional references. If intension is "any property or quality connoted by a word, phrase, or other symbol", should we then say that there is a "range"?

If we agree that "endless" is better, then the sentence might begin to seem unnecessary. An "endless range" is superfluous.

If the whole thing is debatable, perhaps leaving the judgment out, and sticking only to the numerous examples, is the best recourse. (That would be a good thing for lucidity.)

CpiralCpiral 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Some general examples are:" sidebar box appropriate? The fact that it's not using a template suggests that it was just one editor's idea, rather than a standard used in other articles. --McGeddon (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further information: Talk:Hyperlink/Archive 1 § The first sentence of the article is questionable....

--222.64.29.38 (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=bank+slip&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.64.223.117 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

and in the mean time, I call for the standardization of Bank slip --222.64.223.117 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).==The cake is a lie??== Shouldn't we write how there are only 42 video games that don't have references?

                                                          <reference>

or how You can't be lazy when cooking by the book? Or should that remain in the MEMES article? What about the fact that I will never give you up, let you down, run around, desert you, tell a lie and hurt you.... Well, i gotta go brush my teeth and then hit this city. Think about it, though DO NOT THINK OF THIS AS VANDALISM! IT IS A LOAD OF EXAMPLES! Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.206.60 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should get the gold medal for "Article with the longest TOC and the shortest and vaguest body"--Hans (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"This section requires expansion." 85.217.20.33 (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Victor, I don't have any specific problem with these edits, I'm just not 100% sure about where the WP:RS sources are for, for example, an identification of referent = reference, referent reference, referent reference, referent reference, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone's saying "referent = reference" (except that the Websters dicdef you cited implied that referent might be used to mean that which refers, though we haven't seen any examples yet). Clearly in normal usage, referent reference (no problem with RS for that). I don't think we're saying referent reference, or referent reference, either. Just that the "referent" is one of the objects involved in the relation of reference - the one that the other object "refers to". Victor Yus (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I was reading a book by Luigi Barzini and wanted to write that his sentences seemed to ... umm ... "embody" (not the term I knew I wanted) the architecture of Renaissance Italy even when describing such banalities as the clothing of tourists; but I knew that the term I really wanted was something I'd come across years ago when studying semantics, a way of alluding to something that is not as arbitrary as a symbol, but acquires its allusive power from an isomorphism (though I knew "isomorphism" wasn't the right term either).

So I came to Reference on 2013-02-22=Fr and found nothing. I had to search Google for "nonsymbolic reference", get bogged down in a bunch of Perl stuff, stumble across the word "iconic" in some neuroscience paper, fail to notice the irony that I used to be an Icon programmer, /then/ pull out of my own brain the phrase "iconic reference", google that, and thereby find my way to Indexicality, which actually contained "Peirce's trichotomy of signs", which was the concept I'd been remembering.

Nothing in /this/ article on 2013-02-22=Fr helped me rediscover the term "iconic reference". I don't much like the word "indexicality" either because it seems to pertain only to Peirce's indexical references, whereas it's the title of the article where I first rediscovered all three types of references, of which indexical references were not the type of interest; but it's a standard term in pragmatics so I guess it'll have to do.

I'll put Indexicality into See Also to mitigate the problem I encountered, but because "indexicality" seems (inaccurately) to be specific to indexical references, I don't feel that this is good enough. I wonder whether some editor could write a paragraph that introduces the concepts of Peirce's trichotomy of signs briefly enough to be appropriate for the main text of this article, just enough to point someone searching for such concepts in the right direction.

Before you ask why /I/ don't write that paragraph, I just spent at least 45 minutes trying to get "See Also" and "Icon" coded correctly, and I still don't really understand what I was doing wrong in my first attempts. I had to start from Wiki to try to find a help page, go thence to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary (really - because q{"Edit summary" redirects here} is at the top of that page on 2013-02-22=Fr!), go thence to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_index, go thence to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia_links, give up on that chain of references, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Badtitle, then realize that there was no way to find out how /that/ page is /coded/, because it has no edit link, no View [wiki] Source link, and browser "View Source" would only show me the generated HTML, not the original wiki markup. And at that point I had no access even to a Special:Help:Foo talk page where I could explain what had happened to editors who might care.

At least I cared enough to /try/ to write my code correctly ... but only up to a point. /Why/ only up to an obviously-very-limited point? Shouldn't I try to become more proficient in wiki-fu in general, so I can help clean up messes like the help pages?

Not after the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia%7C Notability Wars]], no. It is a waste of time to write books that will be burned.

I am aware the link in the previous paragraph is miscoded; I don't know how to code it correctly, and have given up trying to figure out how.

67.171.37.107 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP is built on the concept of references. Although, there are many references on the internet of questionable nature - untestable and/or unverifiable. E.g. they fail scientific scrutiniy So what can be done to assure both accurate and unbiased references?--97.95.38.108 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you put a reference into a page? I am new to this. -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dose it right way to get Reference from third party as this link ( seoclerks.com/Article-Writing/248271/Write-and-post-a-Wikipedia-Page ) sell Reference for $50. Isn't it against the terms of Wikipedia by Buying or Selling References? How people can provide you reference and do Wikipedia approve these kind of References? Mr Singh 09:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  free internet internet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.134.165 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)