Help talk:References

Reliability of References
Using wikipedia's criteria there are several ways a reference can be reliable:


 * " for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because, as a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." Using sources referenced by wikipedia (if they meet Reliable/Verifiability criteria) are perfectly fine.
 * sets the standards for which references can even be used in an article
 * Clarifies the standards for references. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (sic) with the caveat they can  never be used as third-party sources about living people even if the author meets the other criteria.  Obviously, statements by a living person about themself and their activities are reliable unless proven otherwise.
 * Sources that meet Reliable/Verifiability may not contain accurate information. Stuff slips through the cracks and things provided by otherwise Reliable/Verifiability sources can be proven to be untrue.  The suggested policy over at Wikipedia is to put both referenced sources and let the reader decide per wikipedia's Original Research guidelines which don't apply here on Rationalwiki.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting the question of w:Template:Notelist ?
So, 7 years ago Ryulong and WalkerWalkerWalker, amidst a discussion of footnote usage, alluded to the idea of bringing w:Template:Notelist over from WP, so that a Notes section wouldn't have to be numbered the same way regular references are (i.e. 1., 2., 3., etc.). Given I specifically came to this page to find out if there was a way to use "group-lower-alpha," as WalkerWalkerWalker mentioned, as a number format for a Notes section (a., b., c., etc.), I figured I'd pop the old aside into its own Topic, and ask if anyone ever got around to 'repurposing' that code?

FTR - my inquiry is for my User page, not informational RW articles. And I'm sure everyone will agree, that I am well within my rights to enhance the comic timing of my own witticisms, on my own page, in any way I choose - including putting my inane quips into their own section. EpigrammaticKat (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)