Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill

Concerning link bundling

I've not done much of it, however, what I have done, I have tried to do properly - going so far as to post a question at the teahouse in order to get feed back on the practice. The markup which was recommended after a short discussion was as follows.

Extended content

<!-- citeweb template used in a link bundle test --> <ref> *{{cite web |url=http://www.indiapost.gov.in/Pdf/Customs/List_of_Psychotropic_Substances.pdf |title=List of psychotropic substances under international control |publisher=International Narcotics Control Board |format=PDF |access-date=25 August 2017}} *{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=Honi soit qui mal y pense |last=Joliet |first=François |date=30 April 2005 |access-date=25 August 2017 |language=French |trans-title=Shame on those who think evil of it}} </ref> <!--End test-->

and would look like this

I used it in an appropriate manner on the page Rocky Marciano. where it was necessary to qualify the statement, "Marciano has been consistently included by boxing historians in numerous lists of the greatest boxers of all time." - or something to that effect. This is a perfect place for link bundling because without many citations, the perfectly valid "many lists" part of that statement sounds like wp:weasel, while adding the number of links necessary to qualify the statement looks like overkill.

My point here is this: Your essay would be better if the paragraphs on bundling were removed and a wiki link added to the existing and accepted guideline at wp:cite, wp:bundling because

• the section titled "Citations in the lead" seems to be of great importance to the subject and has only one paragraph
• the section on bundling necessarily has loads of text which seems to outweigh the importance of the above section
• the actual text of the bundling section seems to be a) not quite in line with policy concerning the practice (although you might want to take some of your ideas to the talk page there as they are quite good - a mark-up example would also look good over on that page) and b) missing the point that bundling can actually be a great help to cite-underkill issues, by allowing large numbers of citations where they are necessary without lead-cite sensitive editors leaving drive-by citekill tags next to an already choppily cited piece of text.

Other areas of the essay seem a bit homiletic, as if it is imparting an admonishment before any infraction has taken place. A trend in Wikipedia guides is to convey the idea that one should follow policy to the best of ones ability and risk creating errors while being bold. Sentences such as "As a Wikipedia editor it is your duty to be humble and to remember that you may be wrong. This is not necessarily because you don't know what you are talking about, but you know there are others that don't. ", might be better written as "be bold and do not assume knowledge on the part of your reader, so as not to let a lack of cited material become a point of contention among editors". I think trying to be positive here would be a good move if your intention is to create a mainspace guideline. Edaham (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

The section titled "Citations in the lead" is important. One paragraph explains the main concerns with not having citations in the lede. It can be expanded if it will improve the section. It cannot be valid to include "many lists" or "numerous lists" unless an individual source made the claim. Adding up sources is a SYN violation. See Citation balancekill. It has wikilinks to polices pages for more information. Policy pages usually don't go into detail and can be ambiguous. WP:CITEBUNDLE does not explain any of the problems with bundling. See WP:CITEBUNDLE: "Bundling has several advantages:" There is no explanation what are the "several advantages". Wikipedia:Citation underkill does explain the benefits and the pitfalls. See Wikipedia:Citation underkill: "In certain cases bundling citations may help readability,...". It also says "If the sources verify different parts of the sentence or paragraph then bundling the citations will make it take longer to verify each statement." The content could be deleted if the citations were bundled at the end of a sentence because an editor may think part of the content is original research or failed verification. We are not going to water down an essay geared towards creating high quality of article content to stick a label at the top that says it is a guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

C'mon Quack, the least you could do is thank the man (or woman) for the feedback before ripping it to shreds! It's clear that you have no intention to mold the essay into a guideline-worthy candidate and instead prefer it to remain in the essay namespace. It reads like a forum post, and doggone it, you're perfectly happy with that! No one's going to slow your roll! I mean, what's the point of writing an opinion piece if you can't express an opinion? Am I right?  ;-)

As long as we aren't setting high expectations here, then there's really no reason to critique it at this point. There are some good arguments tucked within (and it's a decent counter to overkill), even if it is wordy and repetitive at times. Balls out with no regrets! --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done! You are right actually, QuackGuru. The word numerous should be removed from the article (per WP:SYNTH from which I drew the example. Your reply ranges across many subjects, this is perhaps my fault for not making my main point clear. May I edit your essay as I think fit, then you can revert it and we can leave the link to my edit here so we have a comparison? Edaham (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Edaham, since the essay is posted in the public namespace on Wikipedia, any editor is free to edit at will. If the author wanted to own the essay and buck consensus, they would be advised to move it to their user namespace per WP:USERESSAY. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that, but (privately between you and me) QuackGuru is very special and sensitive because of all the tireless effort ze puts into ensuring that shit gets done properly round here. A bit of flattery doesn't hurt sometimes. Edaham (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahh yes, pardon the blonde moment. Carry on! --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Edaham, you said "May I edit your essay as I think fit, then you can revert it and we can leave the link to my edit here so we have a comparison?" Based on your previous comment you want to change the original intent of the essay. We don't alter the purpose of essays. If that were the case I would of changed citation overkill to underkill. You proposed to start deleting things from this essay to make it more like a guideline. That's not the purpose of essays. I edit articles where editors change the meaning of content and weaken claims and then they turn around and blame me. Original research such as unsupported weasel words has always been a "content dispute". Editors claim the content is sourced even when it contradicts the source or when they refuse to provide verification. If any editor wants to change the meaning of an essay or think another essay is missing the point they can create a new essay. That's what I did. Editors are not obliged to follow this essay, but editors know the WP:TRUTH. Policy is not consistently enforced. I don't expect things to change on Wikipedia. If you want to expand it that follows the purpose of this particular essay then you can make a proposal. If it does not fit this essay then you can add it to another essay. QuackGuru (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to change the intent of it by deleting anything. I want to make the salient points clearer if possible. My purpose for wanting to do this is simple: I think the opening statement of the essay is solid gold - "The quality of Wikipedia improves by making an effort to cite each statement." I'd like to be able to refer people to this essay, and in order to do that, I think the structure of the essay could be reinforced to further support this intent! The contents of the essay fall into several categories and sub categories which could be defined -

• why cite? (the main concepts of the paper)
  • wikipedia core policies related to this paper
  • raising the quality of articles
  • avoiding synthesis or even the appearance of it
• what is "under-kill" and where does it commonly occur? (e.g., citing at the end of a paragraph rather than for each statement)
  • long pieces of text with few citations
  • lede under cite
  • assuming knowledge
  • changing words, adding them or removing them with the effect that the article text no longer matches the source text
  • under citing within citations
    • bare refs
    • lack of page numbers
    • incomplete citation templates
• What is a solution? (e.g. citing each statement, including page numbers etc)
  • understanding related policies
  • examples of good citation practice
• what is not a solution (e.g. cite over-kill of numerous low quality sources)
  • adding numerous low quality citations (cite-kill)
  • adding non rs citations
  • adding all the citations pertaining to a paragraph at the end of the piece of text
• and lastly, tools for sorting things out (e.g. link bundling if necessary, tools which prevent link rot)
  • summary of tools
  • links to the tools
  • see alsos

I don't necessarily prescribe rewriting it to strictly impose this structure, but I do think that reinforcing this order, and emphasizing the important parts of it would increase the usefulness of the essay and hopefully make it something that people use frequently with the result that the encyclopedia improves in general. I totally agree with you that this essay should draw attention to existing policy rather than change or append to it. An editor who looks at this paper should not be given rules or guidelines, but go away with the idea that citations (or the lack thereof) deserve more thought and scrutiny on a case by case basis. I also understand that this project page represents time and effort on your part, and would not presume to be able to make improvements through sweeping changes. My reason, in part, for wanting to collaborate on the topic is to deepen my own understanding to hopefully become a better editor. Edaham (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The current structure appears good. I would prefer to focus on improving each section. You mentioned adding the wiki link wp:bundling to "Bundling citations". I think a wiki link to wp:bundling can improve that section. To think through and understand the issues editors can read both Bundling citations and wp:bundling. There are no examples at wp:bundling when bundling is a problem in certain circumstances. That means guidelines are not perfect. You also mentioned wp:cite. There is a general wiki link to Wikipedia:Citing sources at the top of the essay. Bundling citations is on target. It does not neglect overciting. For overciting content there is a specific section.

I made a change based on your feedback. "Overciting content" is kind of short. If you have any specific proposals for a section then you can propose them. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no examples at wp:bundling when bundling is a problem in certain circumstances. That means guidelines are not perfect.

Absolutely agree. Go back several years in a guideline's history and you're likely to find significant differences. The beauty of developing a strong essay through extensive collaboration, is the likelihood that it may one day influence the ongoing development of related guidelines (WP:CITE) and even policies (WP:V), whether or not that was your original intention. Letting go of some control is a prerequisite, however, and editors like Edaham who sincerely want to contribute should be welcomed. Glad to see some progress is being made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like WP:UNDERKILL is provoking debate regarding policy and guidelines pages. See Special:Diff/800837860/801112877. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get too full of ourselves ... I hardly think one question (which did not even mention this essay), and a brief reply qualifies as "provoking debate". Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You think it is simple when verifiable content is rewritten and thus failed verification? You pointed to "our WP:Verifiability policy". How is V policy going to help resolve the situation quickly? Policy does not give specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

it often is easy... but it depends on the specific edit... a lot depends on whether the addition materially changes the rest of the information in the paragraph. Adding a date in the middle of a paragraph (for example) does not "break the citation" for the rest of the paragraph (the rest of the information in the paragraph is still verified by the original source, even if the date for it is added in the middle.) Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When the content fails verification the editor who changed the wording may claim it is still sourced or claim the source is wrong or may ignore the content failed verification after it was pointed out it failed verification. I asked above how is V policy going to help resolve the situation quickly? Where in any policy or guideline does it address this issue? QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Unstable media world, and Controversial topics, require more citations

There is, in my humble opinion, various legitimate reasons to disagree, at least partially, with key elements of the WP:CITEKILL policy, and endorse a WP:UNDERKILL policy.

See, for instance,

• Controversial topics need multiple, diverse sources and
• Mulitiple citations needed because so many_disappear, so often, below.

~ Penlite (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDERKILL says "Citation overkill" only occurs when many (often weak) sources are used to support the same statement, in order to give a false sense of authority. Using as many sources as you need to ensure verifiability is not overkill.

You can add a sentence or two to Wikipedia:Citation overkill (contrary opinions) or make a proposal here. I ran out of ideas to improve WP:UNDERKILL. Maybe it is time to improve WP:CITEKILL. Adding a sentence to the lede of WP:CITEKILL about WP:UNDERKILL is another possible idea. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

agree with quackguru, that wp:citekill could be improved in tandem with this essay. There's a case here that there really shouldn't be two resources on this information. I don't like the term "contrary opinions" or "conflicting opinions" or anything of that ilk, as it leads a first time reader of the topic to the idea that there are two schools of thought within Wikipedia as to what constitutes a well cited article. I think it might be better (eventually) to have wp:Citation overkill and wp:Citation underkill link to the same page, with advice on what constitutes overkill and what constitutes underkill. The current objective might be to improve this essay to the degree that it can adequately summarize what constitutes underkill and how to tackle it. In this way the two resources could be seen as supporting each other rather than presenting two points of view (albeit both great points) on the subject. Edaham (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill (contrary opinions) is an unused redirect. It redirects to Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Other views and solutions. Both essays will remain separate because there are at least two schools of thought within Wikipedia. There are non-content editors deleting single repeated citations. There are editors moving citations to the end of a sentence or paragraph when different citations verify different parts of the content. Citation overkill is discussed in the lead and body of Citation underkill. There is no mention of what is Citation underkill in Citation overkill. Maybe add something like "It is perfectly reasonable to provide inline citations repeatedly, according to Citation underkill." to Citation overkill. Or something like "The integrity of content depends on where a citation is placed. Misplaced citations cause citation confusion, which makes it harder to verify claims," according to Citation underkill.

I don't have any more suggestions or ideas on how to tackle underkill issues for this essay. The benefit of Citation overkill is deleting too many citations for a single sentence, but that is already covered in Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Overciting content. QuackGuru (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

An essay doesn't require balance like a guideline or policy, especially if its sole objective is to explain how one school of thought is preferred over another. You can't really emphasize one over the other if you merge the two, and your reason for linking to one from a discussion gets lost when its counterpoint is explained in the same breath. As for citations that appear at the end of a paragraph instead of every sentence, that's a perfectly acceptable practice assuming that those citations support all content in the paragraph. OVERKILL supports this practice in the name of reducing clutter, while UNDERKILL says the clutter is necessary and makes verification easier. It's a matter of preference; neither violates policy. The approach regarding when to bundle citations also differs between the two. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a policy violation if all the citations were moved to the end of a paragraph and others are having trouble verifying the content because different sources verify different parts of the content? QuackGuru (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt there's any policy saying that it must be easy to link a source back to the content it's verifying. DonIago (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability policy also states "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." If it is unclear which source verifies which content, then is it a policy violation? QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If I found an example where a source appeared to support content, but not easily, I would either try to clean it up myself, or raise the matter at the article's Talk page. "Policy violation" is a loaded phrase which reeks of aspersions to me. DonIago (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

How difficult it is to verify content in regards to the placement of citations is subjective. Also, the policy's "clearly support" is about verifying that a source sufficiently backs up a claim. It's not about the amount of time it takes you to match up a claim with its corresponding source. I think it's reasonable to assume that if citing at the end of a paragraph somehow violates WP:V, then WP:CITETYPE would have been modified by now. That guideline's talk page would be the best place to attack the issue, not on some article talk page or at some essay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Both WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE need to be updated. For now links to both Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited and Wikipedia:Citation underkill would help. I don't know if the community is ready for it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut overkill

Nightscream, we do not need additional shortcuts where they are not needed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: But we do need redundant, circular statements, but only when they're redundant and circular. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy is shortcut overkill. Your argument is for deleting the extra shortcut. You have not made an argument for adding an additional shortcut, especially when no editor is using the current shortcut. Therefore, two shortcuts is way too many. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, though, multiple shortcuts are found all over pages for policies, guidelines, essays, etc. The top of WP:Verifiability, for example, has them. Although I don't do this often, I have at time created shortcuts that I thought were easier to remember, or made remembering them easier. The operative words in my issue with citing each sentence in medical articles are "med" and "each", rather than "hide", which is why WP:EACHMEDCITE is easier to remember. Since it does not disrupt the page in any way, and may be easier for others to remember, this is perfectly reasonable. Sorry I forgot to present my non-joking article before. ;-) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The section is not specifically about EACH MED CITE. It is not specifically about medical citations. It is about unhiding citations with a brief mention this is preferred style for medical content. It does disrupt the page by creating an unnecessary shortcut. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed both and changed it to "WP:SEEABLECITATION". The section is about seeing the citations rather than remain hidden from view. We can choose another name such as "WP:VISABLECITATION". One is plenty. Two is overdoing it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

According to this edit, you think repeated single citations is wrong. You allege "Wikipedia:Citation underkill is also an essay."[1] It is not another essay. Citation underkill is the Citation overkill buster. Citation overkill is harmful to the project. If you disagree with underkill you may have better luck editing overkill. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I like WP:VISIBLECITATION as a shortcut. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the EACHMEDCITE shortcut pointing to this article because it invites confusion with WP:MEDCITE, so I think reserve all the *MEDCITE shortcuts for the draft essay about citations in medical articles. Another issue is that any essay that might seem to be about editing medical-subject articles will invite at least thorough scrutiny by the WikiProject Medicine if not complete WP:OWNERSHIP, possibly requiring secondary sources on every phrase. (We have WP:SHOOT and WP:Shoot it early already, but why is there no WP:SHOOTMENOW?) Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nightscream, you wrote "I support the current text of WP:REPCITE, as there is no justification for the inane citation clutter caused by putting a cite after each sentence. None of the arguments I've read above justify such a thing, and others have already stated why, so I will just refer to them, rather than engage in repetition [which is ironically consistent with my position on citations, if you think about it!"[2] Nightscream, please explain why you think making the article more difficult to verify the content as well as decreasing the readability improves the article.[3] When repeated single citations are deleted there is no way to know if the content is verified. It makes it more difficult for our readers to check the citation to try to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, there are several distinct things that I think require individual responses, so I hope you don't mind me fisking this one:

QuackGuru: The section is not specifically about EACH MED CITE.

This argument implies that shortcuts have to correlate precisely with the overall section topic, and cannot address a portion of it for easier-to-remember referral. Obviously, this is untrue, and I point you to the various shortcuts at here for an example that disproves it.

QuackGuru: You allege "Wikipedia:Citation underkill is also an essay."…It is not another essay.

Yes it is. It says so in the banner at the top of that page. And at the very bottom of WP:MEDCITE.

QuackGuru: We have WP:SHOOT and WP:Shoot it early already, but why is there no WP:SHOOTMENOW?

Oh, if I were Elmer Fudd.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-)

Seriously, though, it's because they’re all variations of the same message. But "WP:VISIBLECITATION" and "EACHMEDCITE" are not. One deals with hidden, or invisible cites, and the other deals with citing each sentence in medical articles. Two different aspects of that section. It's not a valid analogy.

QuackGuru: Nightscream, please explain why you think making the article more difficult to verify the content as well as decreasing the readability improves the article.

?????? Wha----?

So you think that I want "EACHMEDCITE" added to the section in question because I still don't want each sentence cited in medical articles???

Geez, how exactly do you make that work, QuackGuru?

I don't think that. In case you haven’t noticed, I have been convinced by the essays that Doc James pointed out that the consensus (or at least a wide swath) of editors on medical articles want each sentence cited. That’s why I want that shortcut there. I would’ve thought that would’ve been obvious to all by now.

Jack N. Stock: I'm opposed to the EACHMEDCITE shortcut pointing to this article because it invites confusion with WP:MEDCITE...

Finally, a valid argument not littered with non sequiturs and falsehoods. If you’re opposed to that, can we at least attempt to devise a compromise shortcut the portion of that section that deals solely with citing every sentence in medical articles, as opposed to “hidden” citations, that would be easier to remember? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You have taken these statements out of context. You are still talking specifically about medical articles, which are not the focus of this essay. Medical articles are just used as an example. If citations in medical articles are your main concern, it would be more helpful for you to remember WP:MEDRS or MOS:MED. The key issue here is that you are barking up the wrong tree. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The focus of the essay is not medical content. Adding "MED" to any shortcut for this essay is silly. The other does not solely deal with citing each sentence in medical articles. See "References can occur and can become unhidden after each sentence, which is the preferred style for medical content." This is also about making the citations unhidden for medical content. It is one sentence that is used as an example. Because other pages are littered with too many shortcuts that does not mean we should repeat those mistakes here.

When you click at the top of many articles it states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It is a policy violation to delete repeated single citations. Rendering the content from sourced, to unsourced is against Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. That means Citation overkill is harmful to the project. Any essay that is harmful to the project can be deleted. That's where we are headed for Citation overkill if it is not fixed. Wikipedia:Citation underkill is not another essay. It follows policy and gives detailed instructions on how to improve an article. Wikipedia:Citationoverkill does not. What it suggests, violates policy such as deleting citations where they verify the claim. Does that penetrate? QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If the focus of the essay is not medical content, re-evaluate the examples that you use and re-write. Here is what you're currently using to illustrate your points: Bundling correctly non-medical content example, Bundling incorrectly medical content example, Hidden citations refers to citing medical content, Necessary repetition 1 medical content example, Necessary repetition 2 medical content example, Citation placement 1 medical content example, Citation placement 2 non-medical content example, Citing different page numbers, medical content example, Citation balancekill 1 medical content example, Citation balancekill 2 medical content example, Overciting content medical content example. If you include 10 examples of things being cited correctly or incorrectly according to your standards, and 80% of them relate to medical content, it's not unreasonable for people to consider the focus of the essay or subsections of the essay to be medical content. I would also suggest that you consider your tone and your rhetoric in the recent posts and edit summaries on this talk page. Scribolt (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack N. Stock, stated. "Medical articles are just used as an example."[4] QuackGuru (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru stated, " It is a policy violation to delete repeated single citations. Rendering the content from sourced, to unsourced is against Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. That means Citation overkill is harmful to the project. "[5]

That means Citation overkill should be rewritten, deleted or redirected. We can't have any essay contradicting core policy.

Verifiability policy states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." A reader can't check the source when repeated single citations are deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You said that the focus of the essay isn't medical content QG, not Jack N. Stock. I just pointed out that if that's your intention, you should probably attempt to use examples that don't relate almost entirely to medical content, which in any case will in any case be covered by MEDCITE when completed. Scribolt (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The focus of the essay is not about giving instructions on how to edit medical content. The examples are just examples. They don't give editors detailed instructions on how to edit medical articles. There is a link to MEDCITE for detailed instructions covering medical articles. I cannot think of better examples. For example, the Malaria content are just examples. To replace it I would have to find another paragraph requiring 5 inline citations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

More shortcuts?

We don't need additional shortcuts when very few editors are using the current shortcuts. QuackGuru (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Overciting content section

Like I stated elsewhere, the section states, "More than three citations for non-controversial claims may be excessive." And also the following, "For controversial claims one citation is usually enough for content that is likely to be challenged."

It's the controversial claims that are likelier to need more than one reference. Why is this essay stating that more than one reference for non-controversial claims may be excessive but is outright discouraging more the one reference for controversial claims? It should be stating one reference for non-controversial claims is usually enough. Furthermore, it goes on to state: In certain circumstances, it may be better to add usually up to three citations to verify the same claim like this.", and lists an example text that may or may not be controversial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I improved the wording. Citation underkill strongly discourages adding more than one citation after each statement. It encourages editors to add one citation after each statement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing citations

I occasionally see where citations have been removed from articles, often along with the statement that was supported by the citation. I vaguely remember seeing some guideline that cautioned against removing citations, but I couldn't find anything. Nonetheless, some caution could be suggested regarding removing citations in the section Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Sentence merging, where it is stated that citations that don't support a specific claim should be removed. I see useful citations removed almost as often as questionable citations, and sometimes editors don't seem to have made the effort to differentiate, or perhaps they just haven't provided an adequate edit summary so I don't understand their actions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I added information to the section above. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nightscream, has this essay convinced you there is a better option? Are you still removing citations from articles and citing WP:REPCITE which is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy? QuackGuru (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I made my position clear above, in particular with regard to science-related articles. I continue to follow WP:REPCITE in non-science-related articless I don't know why you're asking me about this again, more than two months after the conversation ran its course. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

See Basing what you do on an essay is not best practice. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"...WP:REPCITE which is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy"

Quack, you've got to stop beating that dead horse. We've already established at WT:Citation overkill#Discussion that WP:CITETYPE permits paragraph citations, so if someone wants to use that method, the guideline supports it. It's a matter of preference and not a violation of WP:V. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITETYPE may be contradicting policy. Readers get confused when there is no visible citation.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Removing citations can cause confusion and make it not possible for other people using the encyclopedia to check that the information comes from a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can beat that drum all you want, but a paragraph citation does not make it impossible to verify a source. In some cases, it could make it more difficult, but in others, the increased difficulty may be negligible and easily offset by enhanced readability of the passage. It's entirely subjective, which is why WP:CITETYPE allows for both. Editors should apply common sense to know when it works and when it doesn't.

Furthermore, as you've been advised before, you should take the issue to the WP:CITE's talkpage if you feel it's contradicting policy. Trying to challenge that in an essay is pointless, and if you're not careful about contradicting widespread consensus here, the essay could get moved into the user namespace per WP:USERESSAY. I highly recommend you deal with your demons at the guideline's talk page and stop pestering others about it elsewhere. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To the uninformed reader it can be impossible to verify the claim when a citation is removed. Removing a citation also causes confusion because a reader may waste time trying to find the source to verify the claim. That means there could be a net decreased readability of the passage when a citation is removed. If WP:REPCITE contradicting widespread consensus, that section of the essay can be deleted or rewritten. In the future there will be a RfC for WP:REPCITE. I look forward to the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITETYPE gives you two options. This essay supports one of them, while the other essay (WP:CITEKILL) supports the other. As long as it remains that way, there are no issues. You cannot use this essay, however, as a platform for saying that WP:CITE is violating a policy. That's dangerous ground that could get this essay banned from the Wikipedia namespace. I don't know how to be more clear than that. It is your right to try to change the guideline at its talk page, but this essay isn't the proper venue for that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The content may be perceived as unverifiable when there is no citation. I have seen an editor delete a citation and then months later another editor came long and deleted the sentence. I have seen a reader complain the content is unsourced when there was a hidden citation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but the widespread consensus is that paragraph citations are permissible. You've been advised several times now on how you can properly challenge that consensus. Trying to convince me doesn't change anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Counter-essay

We don't need a template citing there is a counter-essay because the other essay is mentioned in the lead and body. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We also don't need to add duplication to the "See also" section. That would be overkill. "Necessary repetition" links twice to Citation overkill. Citation overkill is also mentioned in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. However, it's not a big deal. To avoid WP:WAR, an alternative to removing it from "See also" is to reduce mentions in the lead and body. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea re reducing the linking within the article. I'd point out though that the MOS guidence is for articles, not essays in Wikipedia space. Scribolt (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an article and we don't remove a link in the lead or body to overlink it or repeatedly state it in the "See also" section. QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim "It may be linked in the lead, but it's not identifiable as an essay with an opposing viewpoint.". It is linked in the lead and body and it is identifiable as an essay with an opposing view. This essay states "Wikipedia:Citation overkill claims using repeated single inline citations is overkill, but by not using repeated single inline citations an editor or reader may mistakenly assume the content is unsourced." QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Link where you like MOS does not apply in this namespace WP:PRJC.--Moxy (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

QG. It is not clearly identifiable in the lead as there are more than 20 preceding wikilinks before it and the link text doesn't identify it as an essay with an opposing viewpoint. Even if it was, and there wasn't a rebuttal with links deep within the text, it still wouldn't stop it being a good idea to be courteous to the reader by informing them of the existence of the contrary essay in the most logical place. I'm still in favour of removing some of the other references though, it will make this one seem much less pointy. Scribolt (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't remove other references to make it appear "much less pointy". There is a link in the lead to "Citation overkill". Editors will understand there is another essay by reading the content in the lead. The body also indicates there is counter-essay with one link for each mention. We don't need a fourth link to the same essay. That is by definition overkill. I thought editors thought overkill was a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited?

It's a very nice essay, but I wonder if it shouldn't be merged with my older essay at Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. Mine is shorter, this is longer, but overlap is very significant. (This has a more catchier name, of course). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)