Wikipedia talk:Inline citation

Hyperlinking/using embedded links

I thought that this type of inline citation is considered 'the worst' of all choices. Is it just my opinion? Wikipedia:Citing_sources lists disadvantages of that specific inline citation style (such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material) but makes no recommendation whether to use it or not. Personally I think it is the least useful and it looks most lame, but what do you think? Note that very few Featured Articles use this style, and a common objection during FAC process is 'remove external links from main body, transform into proper inlince citation style.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is more of an introduction to Inline Citations; as such all I am doing is explaining how to insert them in an article. If this particular type of citation is considered inapropriete for use in Featured Articles or Featured Article Canidates then insert a line to that effect in that section. TomStar81 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown of Ref function by Gallery

Recently the <Gallery> function breaks down the Reference output of the function <Ref>, as in articles Indo-Greek kingdom or Hasekura Tsunenaga. Basically, every reference before the Gallery is dropped, but every reference after appears. I have temporarily replaced Galleries by individual images, but it would be nice to repair this (recent, like 1 or 2 weeks) bug. 82.123.131.127 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

merge and redirect to WP:CITE

This page appears to be one of at least 3 different places where citations are cross-linked and explained (WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Inline citation, individual technique pageas). This essay has not improved my attempts at understanding these techniques, but has added to the delay. Based on numerous comments behind WP:CITE, I'm not the only one having a hard time with our introduction to citations. I would recommend this page be merged and redirected to WP:CITE, as introducing inline citations appears to be the primary goal of that page. Gritty details should be on each technique's page individually. At the least, I would like to de-link this page from WP:CITE to avoid sending newcomers in circles. Thoughts? ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The sooner the better; this is a POV fork, and (despite being labelled essay) is being quoted as policy, which it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the hyperlink for inline citations in WP:WIAGA to the section on Inline citations in WP:CITE, and put in a missing hyperlink from there to Wikipedia:Inline_citation for anyone wanting to read the "essay" - which has the further link to the stub article Inline citation towards which WP:WIAGA originally directed people quite uselessly. I hope this solves the problem but being new to Wiki I dont know if this is a generic change that can be reinforced with bots in other places. Please let me know if so and if this is helpful! I want to use my energies where they are needed! Lucy Skywalker 14:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-removed the link to this article from WP:CITE. From my first comment : At the least, I would like to de-link this page from WP:CITE to avoid sending newcomers in circles. When I get an extra moment, I'd like to see this page sent to MfD. ∴ here…♠ 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge This is linked to from WP:WIAGA. Quadzilla99 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a guideline. It does not belong on any guideline page. Cliff smith 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support It's the same topic. It should be on the same page then. Basketball110 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is 'Inline'?

I'm uncertain about what counts as an 'inline' citation. In particular, is the Harvard style

This was a big deal, (McFooBar, 1897)
==References==
*{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title = It WAS a big deal}}

an inline citation? Or is it only inline if it's

This was a big deal.<ref name=mcfoobar>
{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title= It WAS a big deal}}</ref>
==References==
<references />

David.Throop 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Both are inline citations and are acceptable, although your cite web could use an access date. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, the latter one is inline citation, while the former one is simply adding external links in (supposedly) External links section (not References section). Chongkian (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the project page a redirect?

While this is called an "essay", it's an instructional/information page, and as such, it significantly overlaps with WP:CITE and a number of other pages. If it were current, I'd shrug it off, but (for example) to say that Cite.php is a "relatively new method" is worse than meaningless to most Wikipedians, who weren't here before Cite.php arrived. Worse (much worse) is clear implication that the "Reference" and "Note" templates are acceptable citation approaches; they are not, per WP:CITE, as best as I can tell, and are certainly bad advice.

So, in short, this is NOT an essay; putting lipstick on this pig doesn't make it into something different; it's simply an outdated page that ought to be salvaged for anything useful, and then a redirect put in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the "to inline citation" template?

Where is the "to inline citation" template? I have seen a template that put a box on a page requesting inline citation instead of citations just listed on the bottom of the page. Now I cannot find it — fnielsen (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it myself: It is called Template:Nofootnotes — fnielsen (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Cite.php still "relatively new"

FWICS from the cite.php edit history at mediawiki, it has been around since late 2005. Can we drop the "relatively new" characterization, or at least quantify the "relatively" part? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make a nutshell

I can't be bothered reading through all this. Could someone please make an 'In a Nutshell' for this page? Flash Man999 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AMEN. I looked for a very long time so I could add one sentence to an article and cite it. There was nothing on the cheatsheet, not even a link, and by the time I saw a page telling me to install something if I didn't have it (Cite.something?), my eyes had glazed over. If the lack of citations and footnotes is one of the major problems of many articles, just tell us how to do it simply. Then we novices can capture the information before our eyes glaze over and later get it cleaned it up. Please? Thanks. --Geekdiva (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown together a quick first-cut attempt at a nutshell page at Wikipedia:Inline citation/nutshell. Feedback and/or improvements are welcome. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved that page to Wikipedia:Inline citation/examples and added a {{nutshell}} to the project page with a link to that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Inline dictionary links

This edit on 6 May 2009 by 199.125.109.81 introduced this section:

Readers are expected to look up any word they are unsure of, and inline links to Wiktionary (like this) are not needed, nor desirable, even if a word is used in a particularly obscure manner.

That doesn't reflect editing practice and it is against WP:LINK and common sense. I suggest to remove that section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

SlimVirgin,

Do you want to tell me where WP:V absolutely requires inline citations for "close paraphrasing", i.e., a pair of words that do not appear anywhere in that policy?

It seems to me that it says, "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation..."—with nary a word about "close paraphrasing" in the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CHALLENGE, part of V, requires in-text attribution for close paraphrasing. Editors who don't do it risk getting into trouble, as we've seen a few times, so it's important not to give the impression anywhere that it's not needed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was actually under the impression that close paraphrasing was unacceptable, even if provided with an inline citation, because of COPYVIO. Where COPYVIO does not apply—say, all the Enc1911 material—then inline citations are not actually required, as proven by overwhelming community practice (which most certainly does not provide inline citations for every sentence taken from Enc1911 or a US government website), and in-text attribution is basically never used. For example, I've never yet seen a close-paraphrasing of Enc1911 text that says "According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica...", and I'll bet that you haven't, either. {{1911}} is transcluded almost 14,000 times. Either that's 14,000 policy violations that you will doubtless dedicate the next year to fixing, or the community doesn't actually provide in-text attribution of close paraphrasing and direct quotations out of public-domain material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How do I update the date in a link

Certain cited information is changeable. For example, a sister-cities list. I found a link to the official list for a given place, and noted that the sister city was still there. Therefore, I would like to update the date on the link. (The status of the given city is controversial, so it resonably could change.)

What is the proper method? Just change the date? Add "rechecked on (date)"?Mzk1 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to use "Vol.", "pp.", etc. in citations instead of ambiguous formatting like "9 (4): 7"

You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC: Use "Vol.", "pp.", etc. consistently between citation templates, instead of ambiguous formatting like "9 (4): 7". The talk page at Help talk:Citation style 1 is where the discussion about most of our citation templates is centralized. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

General references

The absent or presence of general references is irrelevant to whether in-line citations are needed, and the phrase does not need to be mentioned in this article. For example take the sentence.

"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."

only needs to say:

"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to any reference any source."

-- PBS (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Others may not require any inline citations at all

Currently this essay say

"Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all."

Can someone supply a link to an article that does not require any inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that it says that we have any articles that do not require any inline citations, although a stub on a major subject certainly might not ("Algebra is a branch of mathematics."). The statement here is that "Others", i.e., "Other sections", may not require any inline citations at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Intext citations

Currently this essay says:

Alice Jones said in her 2008 book, The Sun is Really Big...

This is a valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes

This is not so because there is not enough information there, there is no page number or publisher. Without that information verification is more difficult than is considered acceptable. There will either have to be a footnote with the full information or the book will have to be listed in a general references section and include page numbers in that listing.

This is just as true for short citations (either in parenthesis) or in footnotes -- they are only adequate if supplemented by a full listing in a references section. -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Publisher is not a required field for an inline citation.
• If you are citing the entire book, then page numbers are pointless (and "pp. entire book" would just be silly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple citations leading to one source

Hi, Wikipedia says: If multiple citations for the same source are included in the article, and you are using < ref > tags, you can name the footnote to link to the same note repeatedly

However the method decribed makes superscripts of the same number appear throughout the article. However, in the Harvard referencing system, footnotes superscripts leading to footnotes follow logically: 1, 2, 3 etc. It makes me confused when I see a Wikipedia article with superscripts repeated throughout the article.

Is it allowed to simply cite in a way that will have repeated sources in the reference section, rather than repeated superscripts? The latter doesn't look quite logical. Does the editor decide which to use?

Edward Akufo-Addo is an example. SandisterTei (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Edward Akufo-Addo, all five refs are identical, and read <ref>{{cite web|title=Edward Akufo-Addo|url=http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/people/pop-up.php?ID=123|publisher=Ghana Web|accessdate=30 January 2014}}</ref>. Here, I would alter the first instance of that so that its initial <ref> became <ref name=Ghana123> and then I would replace each of the remaining four with <ref name=Ghana123 /> --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Or you can simply repeat the entire citation each time, like this:

The Sun is really big.<ref>Expert, Alice. (2008)  ''The Size of the Sun''. p. 14</ref>  
It is so big that it's hard for people to image its size.<ref>Expert, Alice. (2008)  ''The Size of the Sun''. p. 14</ref>

will produce this:

The Sun is really big. It is so big that it's hard for people to image its size.

References

That puts the numbers in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Detrimental advice

I'm astonished at this guidance, as I had previously thought/assumed that wikipedia required inline citations - after all there are numerous banners requesting such things.

for instance.

However I now find the guidance here that pretty much anything goes until someone challenges it i.e there is NO REQUIREMENT for inline refs at all except in exceptional circumstances. This however contrasts with the wording at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes) which suggests:

"Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed.".

Could this be part of the reason that so many edit wars etc are flourishing on wiki?

There seems to be a general confusion over citations etc that needs to be urgently addressed imo. For instance at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles the only banners are for where there ARE inline citations but there's something wrong with them!! It seems illogical to me to provide a banner for an infraction that wouldn't have existed if no inline citations at all had been provided. If anything, the imbalance encourages editors not to provide them.

I only noticed all this because I straightened out a non-existant internal page ref in the systems article and then noticed the article's grammar and style, that there were no inline citations and that this appeared to be the case for many (most?) of the systems articles on wiki (they seem to me to be high school or undergrad contributions - cut 'n paste and/or original research). I thought I'd pitch in to push for some quality improvement, only to find here that actually such poor quality is perfectly acceptable on wiki. Gobbsmacked!

LookingGlass (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, LookingGlass, that you are surprised, but that has been the policy at Wikipedia right from the start, see the verifiability policy, where it says:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately."

If anything we have been getting more insistent on inline cites over time. As to banners (maintenance tags) we do have {{Unreferenced}} for the no-sources-at-all case. That is not as common as the refs but no inline cites case, in my experience. And "allowed" is not he same thing as "perfectly acceptable", which is why we have {{refimprove}} and {{onesource}} and similar tags. Feel free to source articles yourself and call on others to do so, and to challenge any statements that you think need sourcing. But do read WP:BLUE - having an article become such a forest of citations that valuable sources are obscured is not helpful either. DES ^(talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wires seem to be crossed here DESiegel, not clear how/why. I was bemoaning the LACK of inline citations in the arrticle(s) AND the guidance quoted which says inline citations are ONLY needed under four specific conditions. Your comment seems to reinforce my point that wiki guidance (at least in the sections we cite) needs to be more tightly co-ordinated to reflect the position you seem to outline (which, for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I support) Where do you see our divergence? LookingGlass (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I understood you clearly, LookingGlass, or at least I think I did. I seem to have been unclear, however. My point was to make it clear that while providing inline citations for many (not all) facts is good and favored practice, it is not, and in my view should not be, required. I also meant to point out that it can be encouraged without making it required. I didn't really say, but it is my view that if (as some editors I have interacted with recently would favor) every new added fact required an inline citation, it would in my view significantly slow the growth of Wikipedia and greatly reduce editor retention, which is already too low. Also you bemoaned that we have "banners" for insufficient or poorly implemented citations, which might seem to discourage placing any at all, i pointed out that we also have tags for the no-citations-at-all case. So I favor adding and encouraging others to add appropriate inline citations, but not changing the policy which says they are only required in a few specific cases. Now is my disagreement with your position clear? DES ^(talk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I found the tag you refer to DESiegel... I had been looking for it but hadn't been able to find it, hence my post here. The reason I had not been able to find it is that the ONLY place on the cleanup page.citations that it appears in in the general introduction regarding how to include dates in banners! Perhaps this illustrates a cultural difference between researchers and readers. Some people, like me, look for information in a quite targetted way, others prefer to read entire texts. If you have plenty of time and a tight focus the latter may suit, or if you are reading for enjoyment. If on the other hand you have a large volume of information to get through (potentially unlimited) then you need to sift it in a keener way. I have always looked for the banners etc in the relevant sections. That seems to me to be logical. It never occurred to me that because something was used as an example of something else it would not then be included in a listing in which otherwise it would be. This case of {{Unreferenced}} seems quite extreme as it could be considered to be the first in such a list. Anyway, it's good to find it but shouldn't it be in the body of the article?

Yes, your disagreement, that you "favor adding and encouraging others to add appropriate inline citations, but not changing the policy which says they are only required in a few specific cases", is now clear, though it makes no more sense to me than when you first artuiculated it. However, as I think you are saying, that's an end to it. LookingGlass (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The gap between the minimum and the goal is often surprising to some people. It helps if you think about what we're trying to do here, which is to set the minimum standard, not the average. MINREF is more like "if you don't do at least this much, then you failed". It is not a statement of what's normal or what's best; it is a statement of what's barely enough to avoid outright failure.

If you see material that you don't believe is a MINREF violation (for example, it's uncited, but you know, based on your education, that the material could be verified from a comp sci textbook), then your only real recourse is to find and add the citations yourself. You can't legitimately WP:CHALLENGE the verifiability of material that you personally know to be correct/verifiable. You'll just get people yelling at you about WP:POINTy behavior. But you can improve articles by providing "missing" citations whenever you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree WhatamIdoing, unless I misunderstand that is. I assume MINREF refers to the "law" of inline citations - only required where etc etc?

For me the bottom line is that I don't believe a legalistic approach to editorial guidance is being successful on wiki (which is NOT the same as saying that wiki is failing!). The better articles here are imo better not because they follow the letter of WikiLaw but because they understand its intent, and don't attract the interest of WikiWardens - editors that focus on the letter of the law to the detriment of its spirit.

I think whether I "know" something from my "education" or not is a moot point. Often I find that what I think I know is not in fact so. Also, simply because I think I know something doesn't equate with me being able to verify that it is so. It seems to me that asking for references does not have to be seen as part of an adversarial context ... we COULD view it as simply part of a co-operative endeavour. To me that's the way to go. I've not seen the yelling that goes on in Wiki seving any useful purpose. He who shouts the loudest or kicks the hardest will always win, unless the group focuses on the process to achieve convergence AND quality. LookingGlass (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you are correct, LookingGlass, when you say that "The better articles here are imo better not because they follow the letter of WikiLaw but because they understand its intent, and don't attract the interest of WikiWardens...". People who create our better articles know (or quickly learn) not only what our polices require (in the way of citations, and in other matters as well) but the "best practices" — things that make an article not only acceptable, but excellent. I would be very gratified if all or most editors would take those best practices on board. There would be far less need for such policy pages as this, and even less need to refer to such pages. I would prefer never to have reason to act as a "WikiWarden". (And when I do so act, I try to calmly point out policy and the reasons for it, but not "yell" or be confrontational.) I would agree that one can ask for a reference citation without aggressively demanding it. Note that if we changed the policy and guidelines to raise the minimum bar, there would be more reasons to "yell" at editors who are not getting over that bar, which as you point out is often not productive.

As to the pages that list the available tags and banners, I wouldn't be surprised if they can and should be improved. I am not sure which page you looked at, but Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources lists {{unreferenced}} in its proper alphabetical place in the "individual" list. These days many editors use the WP:TWINKLE script (available on your preferences page, gadgets tab) or one of several similar scripts, which provides an interactive menu of available tags depending on the type of page being displayed. I find that very helpful. Perhaps you would also. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We need a "WikiLaw" to rein in the people who aggressively demand a citation after every single sentence, even when it would be pointless clutter. Otherwise, we have articles that are tag-bombed and gutted, which is bad for readers and bad for retaining content contributors. This is occasionally a serious problem, especially when we're dealing with people who have limited WP:COMPETENCE but a lot of time for edit warring.

Or, to put it another way: This was written to defend you from the kind of person who fact-tags or removes statements like "Most humans have five digits on each hand" (real example, by the way) on the made-up grounds that "policy requires" a citation after every single sentence. It is an accurate summary of the actual policies' minimum requirements; it does not change or limit the policies themselves. If you want to collaborate by adding citations even if they're not, strictly speaking, "absolutely required", then (a) please do, and (b) may we clone several thousand copies of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DES for the WP:TWINKLE suggestion. Sounds interesting. The source of my comment re "collaborative prompting" vs "challenge" for citation requests, came from making a disastrous request for a citation. The request was answered with the supply of an innappropriate one and my request being deleted. I noted the insufficiency of the reference and replaced my tag, only for he entire paragraph to be deleted by the person supplying the poor reference - on account of MY "challenge" not being met within a "reasonable time"! I got into an edit war which I gave up on. I should go back and provide a reference so the paragraph can be reinstanted but ....

I'm also wondering WhatamIdoing if there isn't a middle ground between the absolute minimum being specified and the generality of the desire for something better? I wonder if the WikiWardens will not nitpick whatever is done as that is their pleasure, so a phrase might be added like "substantive statements should carry inline citations" which could then be cited as a challenge?

I want to add that I am very grateful for the exchange you have all afforded me here. It restores some faith for me in wiki. Combined with deletion episode referred to, another edit war changed my attitude to editing. It arose when I tried to add into what had become a rather muddy intro, that there was an originator of the theory concerned. Although the other party fully acknowledged the facts of the matter he insisted that what I wanted to add constituted OR and was therefore inadmissible. It seemed to me like demanding a third party confirm that a book exists rather than simply being able to cite the book. Again I could see no other route than to concede.

The result is that I now make edits here but do not watch the pages concerned. If my contribution takes then there is nothing to follow and if it does not then there is no point in following. If I find something valuable, and realise it will be valuable to me in the future I make a copy so as not to risk losing it. LookingGlass (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The middle ground is recommended in the policies. This is the place to define the minimum.

"Improve and move on" is an effective strategy. I recommend it to anti-spam people all the time. You canimprove ten articles in the time it takes to dispute one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple quotations from the same source in consecutive sentences

I'd like to seek clarification of how this information page should be interpreted. It says that direct quotations require an inline citation, but also that where "[e]verything in [a] paragraph deals with the same, single subject from the same source", it "can therefore be supported by a single inline citation". In the course of the good article review of "Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law", there was a difference of opinion between the GA reviewer and myself concerning the following sentence:

Lord Justice of Appeal Alfred Denning said that it was "well settled that the remedy by certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word 'final' is not enough." The effect of such a clause is to make "the decision final on the facts, but not final on the law. Notwithstanding that the decision is by a statute made 'final,' certiorari can still issue for excess of jurisdiction or for error of law on the face of the record."

I had placed one reference at the end of this entire text block as both of the quotations are from the same source, down to the same page number. However, the GA reviewer has suggested that, on the strength of WP:MINREF, the reference must be repeated twice, once after each quotation.

What if two quotations from the same paragraph and/or page in a source appear in the same sentence? Would both require footnoting as follows?

Judge Whazzit said it was "insupportable that the rule of law should be breached in such an egregious manner",^[1] though "there may be rare instances where the behaviour of the plaintiff will be tolerated by the court".^[1]

Views? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the second case needs only the reference at the end because it is a single sentence that is only broken up via comma. Secondly, a block quote indicates this is different then other plain text. It may seem trivial, but when I see a quoted text, I have the expectation that it is not paraphrasing and it should be cited to its source. This was also more than just an quote because its application is cited by a different source in another case. That's really all I'm trying to point out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm, I put the sentences above in a block quote for clarity, but in the article they were not in a block quote. I don't follow what you mean by the sentences being "more than just a quote because its application is cited by a different source in another case". Could you clarify? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be faster to add a copy of the citation after each quotation-containing sentence, than to figure out who is "right".

The answer has changed over time; for a while, WP:V appeared to require a citation immediately following the closing quotation mark, not merely at the end of the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Best to do it on a per-sentence basis, because the most likely insertion point of new material is between existing sentences. This is probably the no. 1 form of citation repair I have to do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about inline citation requirement at Articles for creation

Please join the discussion at Articles for creation about the necessity of inline citations as essential for accepting certain drafts into mainspace. This issue is a cause of concern at AfC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does linking to a well-sourced Wikipedia article count as a citation?

Let's say you write a sentence making a claim. For example, you write that the Empire State Building was the tallest building in New York when it was built. You hyperlink 'Empire State Building' to the Wiki article of the same name, which contains many citations supporting this assertion. Does this count as an inline citation for the purposes of verifiability and WP:MINREF? Lugevas (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugevas: Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, fails WP:SPS big time, and see also WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

However, if someone is slapping piles of citation-related tags on the page, that's not helpful and is often a sign of an interpersonal pissing match, not actual encyclopedia work. It takes about as much time to copy-paste a source from article A to article B as it does to fill out a testy dispute template. WP:V policy requires that facts be verifiable not verified; lack of an inline citation for something that is not controversial and has already been verified isn't a big deal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

In-text attribution

Currently the text says:

In-text attribution sometimes involves naming the source in the sentence itself:

Alice Jones said in her 2008 book, The Sun is Really Big...

This is a valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes—it permits the reader to identify which source supports the material—but it is normally used in addition to some other system of inline citation for quotations, close paraphrasing, and anything contentious or distinctive, where the editor wants to draw attention to the source's name in the article.

This is not a good example. If Alice Jones wrote such a think then a full citation would be needed because it is unreasonable to expect the reader to read a whole book to prove a that she did so. Therefore the book name, page number and the edition or location is required as a minimum, and as it is a 2008 book preferably an ISBN.

The only place where a full citation is not required would be for a statement such as:

Thomas Hardy wrote a novel called Far from the Madding Crowd. — Personally I would add a link to a citation even for such statements, but some do not see for example Thomas Hardy#Works.

Would someone care to come up with an example that does not need a citation? If not then this section ought to be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Independently of PBS's observation, I also noticed this problem, and think that my edit to change "This is a valid inline citation" to "This is a valid inline attribution", in combination with the "in addition to some other system of inline citation" material that follows, should probably resolve it. If it doesn't, then removing the word "normally" will do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have changed you "inline" to "in-text". -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether Alice's book needs to be provided with a page number depends entirely on what the rest of the sentence says. Sometimes books get cited in their entirety. (See also #Intext citations, where the same editor asked the same question in 2013, and the WP:PAGENUM guideline, which says "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole.")

But the change is wrong, or more specifically, irrelevant. Yes, it's a form of in-text attribution. But it is also an WP:Inline citation, as defined in the very first sentence of the page: "any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it." If you provide the name, (recent) publication date, and title of a book, regardless of whether you write them in the middle of a sentence or in a footnote, that information is usually enough to identify the reliable source. It is no less an inline citation than putting "Jones, Alice. (2008) The Sun Is Really Big" inside ref tags. I have therefore restored the claim that this is, indeed, an inline citation.

In practice, this form is not common, and when it is used, it is used primarily in two contexts: the newbie who might appreciate being shown fancier and more complete methods of citing sources (but whose work should on no account be met with claims that the absence of little blue clicky numbers means that no citations have been provided), and references to classical sources. Even in citation-heavy academic sources, people will usually look at you funny if you provide an inline citation to Bible or Quran verses, to Plato's The Republic, etc. Template:Bibleverse is – according to the definition at the top of this page – actually an inline citation, and it does serve the purpose of helping people verify that whatever quotation, etc., was not merely made up by a Wikipedia editor. If you think it would be preferable, we could remove the generic example and replace it with an example about one of Shakespeare's plays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

But, Bible verses, like dictionary entries, are actually more specific than page numbers (in any particular Bible edition).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to end conflicting date formats within the same citation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Obscure wording

This is listed as an "information page" rather than just an essay. The wording in the "Inline citations and Wikipedia" section seem to dance around using inline citations. The wording "Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles." might be true but it seems to indicate that any articles other than those types listed do not require inline citations. The "Further information" includes Wikipedia:Citing sources that states: Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material "challenged or likely to be challenged", and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. The "policy" states: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material., and the section does not need to make it appear any different. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Were someone to create an article that says only "Algebra is a branch of mathematics", then that version of the article would not require an inline citation, as anybody who WP:CHALLENGED that would get laughed at, just like we laughed at the IP who fact-tagged the statement that the human hand has five digits. See also the first version of Reference work vs how it is now; the first version of ADHD vs how it is now; the first version of Baking vs how it is now. Once the article acquires information that is LIKELY to be challenged, it needs refs. Hopefully that will happen more or less immediately, so we have interesting things to read. Articles containing only "unlikely" content are boring. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Providing author names

Is it a requirement when authors are available or just recommended? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, as a rule of thumb, the more information written in the citation, the better, especially when they are available. So yes, I will always write the authors in the inline citation if it is available from the sources I'm citing for my Wikipedia article. Besides, there is a syntax for that, which is 'last1=', 'first1=' Chongkian (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule that the authors be known. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"See also" needs a link to a related policy

I am trying to find the policy that forbids constructions like My Fantastic Fanzine but I can't find it. Could anyone (a) remind me and (b) either of us can then update the see also. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"See also" is a bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles Only per MOS:SEEALSO. Chongkian (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation rule grieves me

In February 2021, I posted my thoughts about whether content had to include a citation, saying I was grieved that it did not. I have since found that I was wrong, so I have deleted the post since it contained inaccurate information. Of course, the post remains in the History of this Talk page. Below I have responded to an editor who commented on my post, and that response includes accurate information. I apologize for any confusion. MarydaleEd (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd, I think you might be interested in Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited and related entries.

Last year, I ran across some interesting research into how readers decide whether a website is credible, and it turns out that it's not really the right question to ask. Readers want sites that are useful, which doesn't exactly require reliability. At the risk of causing despair, readers click on a ref (the little blue clicky number itself) only once out of every 300 page views. They read the linked source even less often than that. The refs are really there for other editors, not for readers. Also, based on my experience of the old Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 comments, when readers talk about low-quality articles, they usually mean that it's too short (including being longer but missing the specific information that the reader is looking for), doesn't have enough pictures, or doesn't agree with their POV. It's been years, so I might have forgotten one, but I don't remember reading a single reader complaint about having too few citations, out of hundreds of complaints.

I don't think there's much correlation with sourcing and writing skills. You seem to work mostly in BLP-related articles, but among our scientific editors, the ability to write a grammatically correct sentence seems to have little to do with the ability to figure out whether something is common knowledge (I'm sure the meaning of that initialism truly is common knowledge, among the people who also wrote their PhD dissertations in computational genetics, but for the rest of us mere mortals...) or the ability to figure out why this peer-reviewed journal article saying X is vastly more reliable than that peer-reviewed journal article saying not-X. If we all pull together, then it works out in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I followed the research you linked here, but found it to be entirely unrelated to anything you state as fact in your post. Clearly, there was an effort almost 10 years ago to gain feedback from readers on how Wikipedia could make it easier for them to leave feedback on articles, but the project was abandoned, and the only information that remains from the project was feedback on what people thought of the project itself.

You have made several statements of fact for which you have offered no supporting evidence, leaving them to be properly interpreted as only your opinions or guesses. How is it that you have come by the authority to speak for all readers when you say "Readers want sites that are useful, which doesn't exactly require reliability." As a Wikipedia reader, I was not consulted on allowing you to speak for me. I submit to you that for a site to be useful, it must be reliable. Otherwise, we are here only to entertain. You claim that readers "click on a ref...only once out of every 300 page views." Please support that statement with evidence. You claim that readers "read the linked source even less often than that." Again, please support that information with evidence.

I disagree with your statement that references are "...really there for other editors, not for readers." First, editors are readers and readers are editors. Second, you offer no evidence on which to base that comment. I found nothing in the article you linked that supports your statement about what readers mean when they consider an article a low-quality one. While citations are for everyone, the standard of excellence for articles is not based upon readers' opinions. The standard of excellence, or a quality article, is based upon the tenets of Wikipedia, serious journalism, academia and other encyclopedias. I edit all types of articles.

When I read an article and see an error, I fix it, regardless of the type of article. As for your comment about "the ability to figure out whether something is common knowledge," at Wikipedia "common knowledge" does not exist. If you include content in a Wikipedia article because you believe it to be "common knowledge," you can expect me or another editor to come behind you and remove that content based upon the Wikipedia principle that editors must not create content that is original research, WP:OR.

The ability to write a grammatically correct sentence is important in all writing. Incorrectly written sentences are just that, incorrect. Proper grammar is required for all editors, whether they are writing for a science-based article or an article about a pop star. You seem to suggest that those whom you call "scientific editors" or those who have PhDs are somehow above the requirement to write a grammatically correct sentence. It does not matter if you hold a dozen PhDs or a third-grade education, when writing formally, like for Wikipedia, you are required to write grammatically correct sentences. If you cannot, then your sentence will be corrected by an intelligent editor who can.

My passion for properly written sentences has not dictated the length of this post. My passion for accuracy and intelligence has.

Finally, my lament above was wrong. In further research, I found that according to WP:V, all content must be verifiable. The burden to verify is on the editor and the burden is satisfied by inline citations. Since I erred in my passionate lament, I plan to delete it so as to not cause confusion.

Again, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. All the best to you. MarydaleEd (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, @MarydaleEd; I did not realize that you would assume that I was a liar who would just make up garbage and claim that it was true. I suggest you continue this conversation with someone you can trust. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A shorter version of all that might be that what Wikipedia editors write, to conform with Wikipedia policy, is an entirely different beast than what readers (allegedly) want, and thankfully, we (and our policies) are not dictated by what readers want or what they click on or don't. Wikipedia editors write to conform to policy. If readers don't click on our sources, or have a different idea of what a source should be-- not our problem. Our content has to be based on, and cited to, reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your point. However, until I am shown evidence to the contrary, I do not believe anyone has any reason to suggest he or she knows what 2023 Wikipedia readers "want." I appreciate you qualifying your point with "allegedly," but I do not believe readers want anything other that what is being supplied by Wikipedia. If readers wanted something else, they would not come to Wikipedia in the first place. They come to Wikipedia because of what we do, not in spite of it. You are absolutely right that if there are some who do not like what we write, that is not our problem. We continue to write according to the properties and style of an online encyclopedia. Has there been some published and proven data that indicates Wikipedia is lacking in online traffic? MarydaleEd (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest the key feature of Wikipedia that is being missed here is simply that articles do have citations. That most people don't actually follow those citations is essentially irrelevant: the mere fact that they can be seen to exist is enough. Readers have confidence in Wikipedia precisely because they can see that is not just another chat forum where people can say what they like without any evidence to support it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This "essay" about how to write citations took a very wrong turn in 2011, which went unnoticed simply because it happened on an obscure page. There is more purging that needs to be done then that which MarydaleEd has already corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Readers have confidence in Wikipedia precisely because they can see that is not just another chat forum – I've not seen that given as a response in any of the reader-focused research. File:WPCREDIBILITYcorrected.png has an organized list of the reasons readers have given when they're asked why they trust Wikipedia (or a specific part of it). No research has been done on which reasons are more important, and AFAIK no research has been done on whether these responses are true (self-reports are sometimes based on self-delusion, or on survey respondents trying to guess what the authority figure wants them to say). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I could not agree more, SandyGeorgia. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well said, JMF! 👏👏👏 MarydaleEd (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I never assumed you were a liar. I never assume anything. If I thought you were a liar I would have said so straightforwardly. What I said was that you were making statements of fact with no supporting evidence and that I disagreed with your opinions. Reasonable people disagree every day. There are no Wikipedia editors whom I trust or distrust. I do not know any editors well enough to make such an assessment. As Wikipedia editors, when we make comments in the Talk sections of articles, we should expect other editors to challenge our statements, whether they are of facts or our opinions. Such interactions are healthy and enrich us all, as long as respect is maintained. All the best to you. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable people say things like "I'm interested in what you were saying about 99.7% of page views not resulting in anyone clicking on a ref. Do you happen to have a link to the research handy?", and then I could reply with something like "Oh, that's from doi:10.1145/3366423.3380300, but if you're really interested in this kind of subject, then you'll want to be following m:Research:Newsletter, because there's actually quite a lot of research being done about readers, and the newsletter summarizes the best papers."

Notice how different that hypothetical exchange is from you claiming that uncited facts that differ from your current personal beliefs are "properly interpreted as only your opinions or guesses".

I am not finding interactions with you to be either healthy or enriching. I am finding them to be needlessly antagonistic, hostile, and disrespectful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not realize that you would assume that I was a liar who would just make up garbage, comes across as quite hostile as well. This whole page could do with calming down from all sides. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Inline citations

The "Inline citations and Wikipedia" section includes a list of article classes "requiring" inline citations but omits B-class. The criteria states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Even trying to "beat around the bush" the only things debatable might be what is considered "important" or "controversial" that could possibly be challenged. A tag removes all doubt that "someone" deems the content deserving a citation. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation density example

Just wondering whether the example given in WP:IC#Citation density should be updated now that WP:Parenthetical referencing has been deprecated as a citation style. If someone clicks on "(Jones 2010, page 2)", they'll see this since it takes them to the relevant seciton on WP:CS, but if not they might mistakenly assume it's still OK to format citations as such. Maybe it would be better to reformat the citation accordingly using Template:Dummy reference. For example, "Citation density example" might work OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia citations from Trove website

The Trove website (digitised newspaper articles and other material from National Library of Australia) includes a ready-made 'Wikipedia citation' text that includes the page of the article within the original source document, amongst other date fields. However, when used on Wikipedia, the resulting in-line citations do not include the page number. It has to be added by a manual edit of the citation. Seems like a bug.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an issue you'd need to take up with Trove. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It worked for me:

• "TRUMP". Townsville Daily Bulletin. Vol. LV, , no. 205. Queensland, Australia. 28 August 1933. p. 10. Retrieved 29 October 2022 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Although the above example does have a different problem. The volume number in the wikitext should not have a comma after the volume number. I suggest you provide a link to an article where you are having a problem, or construct an example in you sandbox. Maybe the problem isn't Trove, but the way you are using the citation in an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever helpful suggestions Trove may provide, editors always have to make sure Wikipedia citation standards are being followed; it's not difficult. The example above ought to be sanitized for the comma after the volume number, but also the unnecessary full stop after the title should be removed (although the citation template already does that), and the title, the horse's name, should not be in upper case. Further, I prefer to use |via= with the more specific Trove instead of NLA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Unverified statements about valid challenges

The directive for me to resolve my request for verification of these dubious statements at the very policy page that was cited to supposedly support the statements is exactly why I asked for verification in the first place. The fact it was stated without hesitation that I needed to resolve it at the policy page is a very powerful indicator that none of those statements I tagged have ever been fully resolved at that policy page, and I think it is very wrong that we should be making any such statements here that claim or pretend as if they have been resolved. Furthermore, making claims that tagging, and removing are both valid challenges in the same sentence at the same time are contradictory in nature anyway, and that is probably one good reason why it has never been fully resolved. If we pretend tagging is a valid challenge, then removing as a valid challenge becomes a moot point thus effectively rendering it an invalid challenge since anything tagged has already been challenged, and anything not tagged can simply be tagged to initiate the challenge rather than removed. OTOH, if we pretend removal is the valid challenge, then tagging becomes invalid because the tag itself would not be enough to initiate the challenge until the actual removal occurs so you can't say both are valid here at all. I would also argue that you can't even say removal alone is valid since that implies that vandal blanking of content constitutes a valid challenge. I propose the following changes to MINREF:

Important notice about the following proposal: [The observations I have made about the statements in this information page are purely for the purpose of giving reasonable explanations to demonstrate why the statements are dubious, and should be removed. This proposal is absolutely not intended as any form of request for consensus on policy or to be confused or conflated with any request for resolving any policy issues. This proposal is strictly limited to deciding if statements that are currently in a dubious condition should be removed from the informational page or not. Let this notice stand to remove any doubt as to the intentions of this proposal. Thank you for your participation.]

Huggums537 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for valid challenges

Change: Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag)

To: Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., with an adequate edit summary, or questioned on the talk page.)

• Support as nominator because removal of dubious statements that have no support in any policy due to not being fully resolved anywhere is needed to leave room for adding the non-controversial statements of generally accepted valid challenges that don't require being resolved in any policy since they already have been. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, and keep this discussion centralized. The revert was based on the fact that the OP is already involved in a very lengthy discussion on this topic at the policy talk page, and that discussion ought to be resolved there rather than split between there and here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC) To elaborate: in addition to the procedural concerns, the proposal should fail on its merits. The change would cause more problems than it solves, and the underlying logic is questionable at best. It is surprising that a proposal that claims to be motivated by lack of support from the relevant policy would be less supported than the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  The merits of The proposal are fine. Part of the reason the proposal seeks the removal of the dubious statements is because they are controversial and unresolved in policy so they are not supported by any policy while on the other hand it does not matter if the changes being proposed are "less supported", or even supported at all because those changes are non-controversial statements that don't make any exceptional claims so the justification for them is not required to be supported by any policy. I hope by now you can see the difference even though it has been stated in the proposal already. Huggums537 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  So... you feel the original statement is unsupported by policy, but you want to change it to a different statement that is even more unsupported by policy? One you've just made up that you somehow feel is uncontroversial? Yeah, no, not seeing any merit in that at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I never said the new statement isn't supported by policy, only that it doesn't have to be since it isn't controversial or an extraordinary claim unlike the dubious statements that remain controversial, and unresolved by policy. Huggums537 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would say it is extremely unfair saying I'm involved in this topic anywhere else since "this topic" is about dubious claims being made here on this page. The fact that those claims are also being [mentioned or] discussed somewhere else is purely incidental. I'm sure I could do a search for "tags" and "challenge" or some other kind of search and find other discussions related to those dubious statements, but it would have nothing to do with the fact that we need to discuss if these dubious statements belong here or not. So I agree that discussion ought to be resolved there, and this one ought to be resolved here because they are in fact two different discussions. Huggums537 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that there is a currently active discussion in which you are making basically the same argument doesn't seem incidental at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have the same opinion in two different discussions, but if for some reason that kind of stupid rule did exist, and I just didn't know about it, then I think this would be a perfect claim for WP:IAR for the improvement of removing dubious claims from policy. Huggums537 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't a policy, it's an information page. As the editnotice indicates, issues related to the consensus described here should be raised on the talk page of the associated policy. Which you have done, and which is in process, and which should be resolved where it started. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just because I mentioned my opinion in a different discussion that somebody else started about something else does not mean what I opined about is in any kind of "process" at all (Personal attack removed). I would not have started the process if I did not firmly believe the issue at hand about this page hosting dubious statements are issues specific to this information or how-to page as outlined in bold on the edit notice. You might not agree with me on that, and that would be fine if you leave it at that (Personal attack removed). Huggums537 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I made absolutely no personal attacks in my comments, simply commented on the procedural problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, whatever. Huggums537 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  (Having separate discussions in separate places, especially when you're not getting strong support in the older discussion, can lead to concerns about Wikipedia:Asking the other parent and Wikipedia:Discussion forking. It's not about whether you're "WP:INVOLVED"; it's about whether we might have Discussion #1 say 'A' and DIscussion #2 say 'not A'.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the concerns of what you are trying to say, but I never asked for any support or proposed any changes in the older discussion. I merely gave my opinion that certain changes should occur. Telling people that my thoughts are these and those changes should occur here or there is not the same thing as asking anyone to make those changes or support those changes. It is 100% expected I would not get any "strong support in the older discussion" or any support at all for that matter because you don't get any support if you aren't asking for it in the first place. The first time I decided to ask for support for the ideas I had about this page is when I made this proposal, and asked for support on this page. That isn't a discussion fork, or "asking the other parent" that is discussing my thoughts and ideas on one page, and then putting them into an actual actionable process on another. (Two different things, and two different types of discussions in spite of the fact they are about the same topic.) Your suggestion that we might have a possible outcome of Discussion #1 say 'A' and DIscussion #2 say 'not A' might be of a concern in general terms, but in this particular case, it is a patently absurd application of "asking the parent" and "forking" when you consider the totally disjointed nature of first discussion that will likely result in nothing, and the support I will get will be none at all since I didn't ask for any related to this discussion. It is absolutely and totally unjustified, and unfair framing this proposal as asking the other parent or forking. Otherwise, anybody who simply talks about their ideas for a proposal in any great detail on a talk page such as their user page or another page closely related to the page where they plan to make the proposal will suddenly be subject to unwarranted accusations of "asking the other parent" and "forking" as soon as they make the proposal on the other related page. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a bunch of bullshit that is actually really completely needless disruption to the proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nikkimaria. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• I ...kind of don't see the practical point behind this proposed change. BURDEN says you can remove anything that's uncited. Whether this page says that {{fact}} is a sign of a CHALLENGE or not, people will still be able to remove anything that's uncited. So we keep the old version, and you can blank 50% of most articles; we switch to the new version, and you can still blank the same 50% of most articles. What's the practical value (beyond having neat and tidy pages, which I always support)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I hope we can still have a productive discourse here in spite of my angry flame about the "ask the other parent" incident. I agree the proposed change will make no difference about whether people will be able to remove uncited content or not, and it never was meant to. I'm rather glad you brought this up actually because I forgot to mention it in the opening statement, but the actual practical point of the removal is different than what you might have guessed. Part of it has to do with neat and tidy pages (including this page itself), but a much bigger part of it has to do with exercising our right to use BURDEN itself on this very page to remove anything that is "uncited" (or at least unsupported in this case since we don't use actual citations on policy pages, but we do reference things in other ways) for the very important purpose of making sure we don't lead our readers or editors into believing that certain ideas are grounded in policy when in reality they are actually unresolved controversial issues. We would think this unacceptable in our articles, and it should be doubly so in our policies, guidelines, and informational pages. Huggums537 (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  BURDEN (and the rest of WP:V) only applies to the mainspace. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not part of the encyclopedia. (You may be looking for Template:Under discussion inline.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, yeah that might be true, but I still think the practical value of the proposal remains intact to keep readers focused on absolutely proven solid concepts while protecting them from exposure to the use of more controversial and unresolved concepts and ideas. Huggums537 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, now that I read my opening statement again, I see that I did mention it slightly; I think it is very wrong that we should be making any such statements here that claim or pretend as if they have been resolved., but I am glad you asked the question so I could expand upon that with my intentions and the practical value of the proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Burden is upon those wanting to include text, this appears to be attempting to put blocks in the way of that burden. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I honestly have no earthly idea what you are saying. How is the proposal putting any blocks upon those wanting to include text? Huggums537 (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nevermind. I see now you are suggesting my ulterior motive for the proposal "appears" to be an "attempt" to somehow block the process of that part of WP:BURDEN which is about editors having to prove any piece of text they wish to add or restore. Well, that would have been a very nice postulation, but since you haven't given any reasonable explanation as to why, then I will just accept it as an unwarranted accusation for now. Besides, this proposal doesn't in any way stop editors from having to prove the addition or restoration of text, so I fail to see your logic about it being any kind of attempt at blocking that particular process so I will ask a similar question to the one above, how is the proposal putting any blocks on the process of those wanting to add text where they have to prove it? Huggums537 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  No suggestions, no accusations, no further implications. I don't believe this is in anyway a good idea, that has nothing to do with you personally. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok. Sure, man. Huggums537 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to say something say it. If you wish to read something that isn't there into it, well I can't stop you. But I am going to ignore you from now on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I told you in my first reply I didn't understand your comment, and directly asked kindly for an explanation. Then, in my second reply I tried to make some sense out of your comment, and asked directly and kindly for an explanation yet again. Your response essentially boiled down to being: "No, you're wrong, and I'm not giving you any further explanations other than to say your proposal is a bad idea. Don't take it personal." I'm not going to beg you for an explanation for your comment. If I had something to say, then I would have said it. I think my response was appropriately expected for someone who appears to be deliberately avoiding the question and withholding an explanation. You say you can't stop me from reading something that isn't there into it, but you easily could by simply providing the explanation I asked for. Huggums537 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Dammit I shouldn't but I'll reply again. You replies to people now constitute the vast majority of this discussion, stop. Not everyone is going to agree with you, it's not personal. Yes it is your proposal, but my comments are about that proposal not you. Finally no-one has to satisfy you desire to be answered, that's not how this works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  If I can't reply to respondents on my own proposal who have either asked me a direct question, or to correct statements that I think are absolutely mistaken, and also ask for clarity on comments I don't understand without being commanded to stop just because there are more respondents than there are of me, then maybe you are the one who should stop barking orders. If a dozen respondents ask me questions, say things I think are untrue, or make comments I don't understand, I might not be obligated to answer, but I choose to do so. That is my prerogative. Answering questions, asking for clarity, and correcting mistakes is neither taking anything personal, nor is it simply responding to everyone who disagrees with me, and sure nobody has to answer any of my questions, but I still have the right to ask them, and point out the fact they went unanswered. Huggums537 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process before? To get a change accepted, editors usually need to know How to Win Friends and Influence People. On wiki, it appears that most editors believe that arguing with everyone who disagrees with you isn't going to advance your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I've read the bludgeon article, and I've had a copy of the Dale Carnegie book in my que for some time, but maybe I should get to it sooner than later so thank you for the reference, but I still think answering questions like this one, and asking for clarification and such things of the like are far from trying to force my point of view by posting a sheer mass of comments. Huggums537 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that when you have questions/comments/answers for everyone, then other editors don't necessarily feel like you are genuinely trying to learn more from them. Perception is a tricky thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• From my perspective, the significant flaw with the proposal is that it attempts to define certain forms of challenge as being “valid” or “invalid”. I disagree with that. There are lots of different ways to challenge uncited material (ranging from marking the material with a simple cn tag up to blunt removal), but all of them are “valid”. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, imagine that I'm trying to help a relatively inexperienced editor beef up the sourcing in an article (e.g., in preparation for sending it to GA). The other editor is having trouble figuring out which claims should be cited and which sources should be replaced with stronger ones. How can I tell that editor "add citations in these exact 14 places and replace these 11 sources", without that looking like a WP:CHALLENGE to other editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  You could leave a note at the article's Talk page and possibly tag the article itself with an appropriate template such as Template:Under construction so that other editors would know what was going on? DonIago (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thing is, you ARE making a challenge by telling him a citation is needed in those 14 places etc. That you are making this challenge in a very helpful and constructive manner is commendable, but it is a challenge never the less. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I am making a challenge. I fully believe that everything is verifiable (else in this scenario I'd be suggesting changes to content, not just addition of sources). I'm really just trying to help someone learn how to create a Good Article, and I'm thinking that it would be easier (for me) to do this by spamming fact-tags in specific locations instead of copying a lot of text to other pages and then trying to piece it back together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  For me, the problem becomes when another editor sees the CN and takes it as license to remove. There's a difference between challenging the veracity of the content and challenging editors to improve the content by adding an inline source. In an ideal world, someone placing CN tags would use the reason= to explain their intent to differentiate between "This sounds right and is likely verifiable through one of the general resources on the page, but I'd like someone better versed in the subject to take a look." and "Prove this or it should be removed." Although {{dubious}} is primarily for cases where a source is listed, it also is appropriate to use it instead of {{CN}} on an unsourced statement you believe to be incorrect. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Another way to handle it is to copy the uncited text over to a subpage in USERSPACE (either your’s or that of the inexperienced editor) and work on it there… then, as each bit of material is properly cited, it can be pasted into the MAINSPACE article (or added back, if someone removes it.) Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm actually starting to see where you might have a point about this; There are lots of different ways to challenge uncited material (ranging from marking the material with a simple cn tag up to blunt removal), but all of them are “valid”. , [emphasis added] and maybe framing things from a "valid/invalid" challenge perspective was not the best way to explain things in hindsight, but in the current form, the information page is essentially wrongly claiming that anything at all that gets removed is a verifiability challenge to inline citations, but this simply just is not true because there are also lots of different ways to challenge other materials with also valid challenge removals that have no relation whatsoever to inline citations or verifiability such as many common removals during routine maintenance tasks. Perhaps my proposal was incomplete, and should have said something more along the lines of;

Change: Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag) To: Any statement whose verifiability has been challenged (e.g., with an adequate edit summary, or questioned on the talk page.)

That way, it isn't wrongly claiming that just any and all statements or that any old thing being removed is a "valid" challenge to verifiability or inline citations. It might be a valid challenge for something else such as a conduct dispute or any number of other things a person could name as a valid challenge, but that doesn't make it valid for inline citations or verifiability, and that is the only reason I was using that terminology. I hope that explains things. Huggums537 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It still doesn’t change my opinion. You keep wanting people to have to jump through hoops to remove problematic material… I oppose that. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I want people to jump through hoops to remove "problematic material", it's that this page is supposed to be about inline citations, and verifiability, not disputed challenges about the editing conduct of another editor, or any number of other of "problematic materials" such as the routine maintenance removals I mentioned earlier which also include spam or image removal and the like. The depiction of challenges on this page for removal is way too far reaching, and broadly over-encompassing for the scope of this article. Huggums537 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words, it isn't the job of an article about inline citations, and verifiability to tell readers that every dispute to all problematic things on Wikipedia is pertinent to everything that could ever be considered a valid challenge in the world. Huggums537 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, my point becomes especially true when you realize the fact that 99% of the guidance about the removal of other types of "problematic material" don't even mention the challenge concept at all such as the ones I linked to above as well as ones like external links, and this is most likely due to the fact they are not related to verifiability or inline citation issues so they are not relevant to the "challenge" concept, which is exactly the whole underlying point of my entire debate. Huggums537 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean honestly, if it is a concept that goes without saying in all those other pages, then why did someone feel the need to say it in this page? And, even if there were a real need to say it, then why say it in a way that encompasses all types of removals related to any valid challenge in the universe as opposed to limiting the scope of it to inline citations? It's actually psychotic when you think about it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This would weaken BURDEN and make it harder to deal with unsourced content. And, per Blueboar, there is the issue as to whether this RfC is stated in a neutral manner. Donald Albury 18:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  (There are no Wikipedia:Requests for comment here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for valid challenges

In light of the discussion I had with Blueboar above, I would like to propose the following alternate proposal, and ask those who have participated to cast their votes on this new proposal so am pinging those who commented so far, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, Crossroads, ActivelyDisinterested, and Donald Albury. I'm also going to cast a wider net with this new proposal, and actually ask for a request for comments since it appears we are not getting that much activity on this local page even after the announcement of the other proposal at the policy level. Thank you for your participation.

Change: Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag)

To: Any statement whose verifiability has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag))

• Support as nominator to clarify that not every single statement or type of removal on Wikipedia is a challenge to missing inline citations. For example, removing statements of vandalism or other problematic materials are not challenges to missing inline citations. Huggums537 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Should WP:MINREF be clarified to distinguish the differences between removal of content that is specifically related to missing inline citations, and the ordinary removal of content that is not related to inline citations? Please make a voting decision in this alternate proposal. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't functionally different from the last proposal. Actually this is possibly worse, as it looks likely to lead to wikilawyering about what removals do and don't qualify as challenges. As with the last proposal no barrier should be placed before novice editors, or any editor, challenging text by removing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think the functional difference is that the previous proposal was an attempt to completely eliminate the concept of content removal and tags being valid challenges to missing citations based on them being dubious claims not supported by policy while the new proposal is more forgiving of the concept that all challenges are valid, but with the very clear understanding that when we are talking about content that must have inline citations we aren't talking about just any old content that should, could, would, or must be removed. We're talking about content that has verifiability issues and absolutely requires an inline citation. This isn't everything in spite of popular belief. There are tons of things that can be added or removed (categories, internal links, short descriptions etc) that don't require inline citation because the general reference to the articles they refer to is considered acceptable. Huggums537 (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  But what the proposal would achieve is editors wikilawyering over "Any statement whose verifiability has been challenged". Also this is a solution looking for a problem. Has there ever been a case of an editor demanding inline citations to restore categories or wikilinks? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking again on this, it reminds me of the situation with legal threats over BLP issues. Just because editors who make legal threats should be blocked, doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be checked for BLP issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The problem of wikilawyering about it already exists as evidenced by the debate that made me aware of this in the first place. This proposal is an answer to the much more severe problem of what it means to answer the question, "What if editors actually were removing short descriptions, categories, wikilinks, or any other content that doesn't require inline citations, and citing that the BURDEN is on them to "prove" re-adding with citations that are not allowed?" It becomes quite evident that the power shift toward content that has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability whatsoever is under the complete control of BURDEN since any editor wanting to restore content that doesn't even have anything to do with verifiability or citations would be unable to do so because the current structure allows BURDEN control over all content rather than just the content dealing with inline citations or verifiability that its intended purpose was for. Just because there are not any examples of editors abusing the system to this extent, does not mean the situation should not be put in check for potential abuses of power. Huggums537 (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying that this RfC is intended to address a problem which may not even exist? DonIago (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what I've said at all. What I've said is that just because the problem does not yet extend to the extreme examples mentioned does not mean there isn't a problem. Those examples still remain as evidence of the consequences of the undue amount of power given to BURDEN, and this information page regardless of the fact of whether anyone has actually abused it to that extent or not. The debate I mentioned is evidence enough that it is in fact already being abused to a lesser extent, and whoever the genius is that dreamed up the whole "solution looking for a problem" thing must have never heard of the much wiser saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Huggums537 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, who says we have to wait until such extreme examples present themselves before we fix the problem? That's like saying yeah, we know you are telling us the wolf got in the henhouse, but is it really eating any hens or just looking for a place to sleep? Get back to us when there are some hens gone, and then we'll talk. Ok, sure we could do that, or you could just help me get the stinkin' wolf out without risking the loss of any hens and the damn wolf can find somewhere else to sleep... Huggums537 (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  The level of emotionalism that you're injecting into this is making it more challenging for me to view your arguments objectively, especially when thus far no other editors have come forward in support of your proposal. I think you may want to consider whether engaging with the editors who have expressed concerns regarding your RfC in this manner is more likely to persuade them to your POV, or instead increase their reservations about it. DonIago (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  There is no problem to fix here. Editors who restore unsourced text without supplying an inline reference are acting against policy, and that should never change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  There have been several ANI complaints against editors for removing unsourced content, all have closed without action as it's a completely valid thing to do. Editors restoring unsourced content that has been removed, without supplying inline references are acting against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Many removals of content have nothing to do with questions of verifiability, but are rather based on opinions about what content is appropriate and pertinent in the article. I think the proposal complicates the process of improving an article. - Donald Albury 22:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, it would uncomplicate an already already complicated process that produces far too many edit wars, and disputes since it was a big ol' dispute that drew my attention to the problem in the first place. I'm really struggling very hard seeing your point of view. If this section is dedicated to guidance about content that must include citations, then how does content that is based on nothing but opinions, and has nothing to do with inline citations have anything at all to do with the process of removing content that must have valid inline citations, but doesn't? It sounds to me as if it would be more accurate to say you somehow believe it would complicate the process of removing all possible questionable materials that anyone could ever have an opinion on since that would impede the improvement of articles, but materials that must have inline citations doesn't cover materials which people have opinions on, but have nothing to do with citations, and neither does this section about materials that must have inline citations. If you think the policy is an impediment to the improvement of articles because it is too limiting and restrictive to strictly material that must have inline citations, and you feel it should be expanded to include any and all material anyone could have an opinion on then the proper way is to make a proposal at the policy page, not make a false statement here that implies the policy is otherwise. Huggums537 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that this is creating an additional hurdle for editors who are addressing unsourced material by requiring them to establish that they're specifically challenging the verifiability of the statement. Instead of adding a CN tag and calling it a day, under this proposal it appears I would additionally need to (IMO redundantly) claim (how?) that I was challenging the verifiability of the statement. The RfC doesn't suggest any mechanisms to establish that it's the verifiability of the statement that's being challenged, but I don't feel additional mechanisms should be enacted in any case. As an editor who frequently removes unsourced material, I already get plenty of pushback from editors who feel the material should be retained despite lacking sourcing, and the last thing I need is a pedant challenging removal on the grounds of, "You didn't say you were challenging the verifiability of the material." The fact remains that the easiest way to address the removal of unsourced material is to provide a source rather than questioning the need for one, and if a source is provided and the removing editor still has an issue with the content, then they can outline those reasons on the Talk page or via edit summary, depending on the circumstances. Conversely we do not currently require edit summaries, and I'm frankly not at all convinced that we should, and this change could be interpreted as a backdoor way of requiring that editors deleting unsourced material due to verifiability concerns provide an edit summary or risk having their edit challenged based simply on the lack thereof. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, completely unnecessary bureaucracy which makes it harder for editors, especially inexperienced ones, to address unsourced material that could be false or POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Substantially exceeding policy requirements

So about two years ago, a now-inactive editor boldly (i.e., without any discussion or evidence of consensus) changed some pretty simple text (key differences underlined):

Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material. If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation.

to say this:

Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Substantially exceeding them is a necessity for any article to be granted good or featured article (or list) status. The featured article criteria, for example, require that articles seeking to exemplify Wikipedia's very best work must be "well-researched," defined as a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", presented by "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes". If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation.

I suggested merging the actual long-standing version with the bold version, so that it would say this:

Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material in an article that is not followed by an inline citation may be supported by WP:General references or by sources that already named as inline citations for other material in the article. Even at the level of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it is only necessary to provide an inline citation once for a given fact in an article. If, after a good-faith look, you can't find a source that WP:Directly supports a statement without an inline citation, ask on the talk page, or request a citation with a {{citation needed}} tag.

This has been reverted with a desire for a discussion, which – since I know what Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says about the first person to start the discussion being the one who is best following BRD ;-) – I'm opening now.

I suggest that editors who think that FACR and GACR "substantially exceed" the minimum requirements provide a couple of examples of content that (they believe) would definitely not require inline citations under MINREF, but which would definitely require inline citations under FACR's rules. That should help us all develop a shared understanding about just how big the difference is between the minimum requirements and the FA requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TFA is British logistics in the Normandy campaign. Its body opens with "Between the world wars the British Army developed a doctrine based on using machinery as a substitute for manpower. In this way, it was hoped that mobility could be restored to the battlefield and the enormous casualties of the Great War could be avoided." This is not a direct quotation or a BLP, and is not (as far as I am aware) one of those charged topics where a challenge would be expected. It is however not general common knowledge, a plot summary, or cited elsewhere. CMD (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Another example is my most recently promoted GA, The Holocaust. A lot of this article's content would require citation even under MINREF rules, but let's take the first sentence of the background section:

• "Jews have lived in Europe for more than two thousand years". That is not really open to debate, although I guess it could be considered common knowledge.
• Then there is "The annexations of Austria (1938), Sudetenland (1938), and Bohemia and Moravia (1939) also increased the Nazis' popular support", which cannot really be considered common knowledge but is an indisputable fact and unlikely to be challenged in good faith.

Some content from the same article that would require citation under MINREF rules:

• "Nazi repression was directed almost entirely against groups perceived as outside the national community. Most Germans had little to fear provided they did not oppose the new regime", since I believe if not sourced it is likely to be challenged in good faith.
• Although there is not technically a requirement to cite exact figures, I believe they are similar to quotes in that if we are saying (later in the article) that 440,823–596,200 died at Belzec extermination camp the reader has a right to know where the information comes from. Although these could be considered to fall under material likely to be challenged if not cited inline.

In the lead we have, "It [the Holocaust] has become central to Western historical consciousness as a symbol of the ultimate human evil." This will not get a citation even if the article becomes FA because it summarizes material cited elsewhere.

Note if I were reviewing this at GAN I would require citations in the article in all the places where they are currently. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@North8000, I wonder what you think about these examples. Do you agree with @Chipmunkdavis that "Between the world wars the British Army developed a doctrine based on using machinery as a substitute for manpower. In this way, it was hoped that mobility could be restored to the battlefield and the enormous casualties of the Great War could be avoided." is not Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged? Or do you believe that WP:V would require an inline citation for that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: IMHO: From a policy standpoint we don't get much guidance on "likely to be challenged" and so from a structural standpoint it is good guidance but only that. But (for better or worse) policy gives us a clear cut way to resolve any questions regarding that. If I think that "the moon is made of green cheese" is "unlikely to be challenged" I can put in in. Anyone can challenge it (or my "sky is blue" statement) and then both are challenged and both need an in-line cite to stay. Next any statement about using general references to consider material to be supported is problematic on two fronts (or to put it more directly,meaningless and worthless) First it (rightly so) doesn't fulfill wp:ver/wp:nor for challenged material. Second it is practically unverifiable because a reader would need to read the whole "book" to show that the general reference doesn't verified. As in science, it must be testable/falsifiable. Now, on to IMHO answer your question. There is no guidance on "likely to be challenged" and so I could not give a wikipedia answer on that. If I was just reading the article I would not mess with them. If I was doing a GA review on it, judging those on a case by case basis I would require cites on all of those (in the lead I would I would want it sourced in the body) The are very substantial statements, and few readers would have the knowledge to know that they are sky is blue. I mentioned case by case basis because I would be be against any adding categorical requirement in GA for such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't require verification to be easy; it only requires it to be possible.

The way gen refs are mentioned above is to narrow the search field: If you need to find a source, you can start by looking in the ones that are already listed on the page (most of which won't be "whole books" anyway) instead of starting with a whole library, or the entire internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have a chicken and egg problem here where the discussion on the GAC are referencing MINREF and MINREF is commenting on GAC. I don't think, to be honest, either place should document exceeding policy and guideline. For example, over at GAC they are suggesting everything needs a citation and that's plainly untrue wrt policy and we have SandyGeorgia's Tourette syndrome and Dementia with Lewy bodies as examples of FAs without excess citations. And Graham Beards' Introduction to viruses or my own Ketogenic diet.

If individual reviewers at GAC wish to hold their subjects to a higher standard of referencing than policy or guideline then that's up to them I guess, GAC is at the mercy of individual reviewers whims. They could write an essay about how important those extra inline citations are for readers of good articles. But I don't think either FA or GA should explicitly define sourcing standards that are unsupported by the general community, which already allows a degree of flexibility to "challenge" a statement and effectively insist on a citation as long as one is being reasonable. And I don't think that general content information guidance pages like this should document the peculiarities of those projects, should they have them. The table at WP:MINREF documents what policy expects. It isn't the job of this page to document a sub-group's peculiarities. -- Colin°^Talk 08:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Colin, could you explain please how in your view Dementia with Lewy bodies and Ketogenic diet don't meet the proposed GA wording? They're pretty much exemplars of the sort of sourcing that the new wording looks for, they exceed the proposed GA wording (which makes sense, as they meet the FA sourcing requirements). Both vastly exceed WP:MINREF, and both are sourced to a much higher standard than what is needed by our basic sourcing policies and guidelines. I believe that SandyGeorgia makes a point to meet WP:MEDRS, so it's doubly odd to see their work as an example of minimal sourcing standards. I'm frankly unable to parse how either article is an example of not needing inline citations; Ketogenic diet even has them in the lead! CMD (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I misread the proposal at GAC and didn't see the "and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article" as it began "All content, except for plot summaries " and I read it as being just plot summaries. So I assumed this was another drive to demand our leads be overcited. Sorry.

But let me turn it the other way around, cause I don't think they exceed MINREF and complying with MEDRS is a guideline we already have and don't need GA or FA to demand different. If we have MINREF requiring inline citations on anything that has been or might likely be reasonably be challenged (and certain material about living people), and MEDRS laying the standard for those references, then which sentences in those two articles do you think might not need to be cited if the GA requirements were simply that the relevant policy and guidelines should be followed. Where did we exceed that? Remember that editors routinely challenge uncited medical facts even they are trivial to source, and I've no reason to believe politics, say, is any easier ride.-- Colin°^Talk 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose that if your definition of MINREF is that every uncited thing that is trivial to source is sourced, then no, they don't exceed MINREF, but if the minimum references is citing everything then MINREF is entirely meaningless. CMD (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My rather garbled sentence was more a comment on editors happier to slap an uncited template on a paragraph than to stick the claim into google or PubMed search and fix it. As Sandy quotes below, the FA guidelines requirements for inline citations are "where appropriate" and we have an entire explanatory essay documenting this since 2007. I know that essay was setup to help define what "where appropriate" meant, but the point is that it is explaining policy and guideline, not trying to come up with some special rules for one part of the project. And it says "In practice, this means that most material is backed by an inline citation." So again I'm wondering what, in practice, you think we could get away with not citing in the above two articles, and still comply with MINREF and MEDRS. Both those subjects are about things that aren't common knowledge, so maybe they are hard examples. Maybe there's a better example of a subject that includes more "stuff anybody knows already", like how many fingers you have or where to find your nose in your face. That "When to cite" essay is exactly what I mean by saying these rules should enforce policy and guideline, not be a different set of rules with their own inclusion/exclusion definitions. -- Colin°^Talk 16:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I have the presumption that the minimum citing requirements must be different to our best-practice citing. You seem to be saying that MINREF is not much different to the FA citing expectations, and that our sources should be as good as those on Dementia with Lewy bodies and Ketogenic diet. Given that, I'm afraid I do not understand your position here or at WT:GA. You state you are opposed to the changes, but your arguments seem to be in support of them. The proposed GA wording has, except for explicitly mentioning general common knowledge (which seems pretty good for a sentence as compared to a whole page), exactly the same exceptions as the FA inline citation guide you reference. The articles you cite as what we should be looking for have higher sourcing standards than what the new GACR wording proposes. CMD (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CMD, I'm wondering if the problem here is that everyone is calling this advice "MINREF" and we have the oddity that a section called "When you must use inline citations" has been abused, I would say, to include details of the supposed higher standards set by other projects or editors. That really shouldn't be in that section. The page Wikipedia:When to cite takes a more balanced approach, covering both "needed" and "may not be needed". What lies in between the two should I think be a matter for editor judgement, challenge and consensus. Instead GA seems to be proposing the answer is "always". -- Colin°^Talk 14:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't follow. This discussion was opened because WhatamIdoing removed the text that noted that there was differentiation between our minimum reference standards and our higher reference standards. I disagreed, as I see our minimum referencing requirements as not requiring our highest standards. As for the balanced approach you mention, I again must note that you provided high-quality medical FAs as the example of good citing that had minimal references. That framework puts what lies between "needed" and "may not be needed" at maybe 1% of the text, if any? For any reasonable approximation, that's pretty much always. (The Wikipedia:When to cite essay, which you note as balanced, has pretty much the same exceptions as the proposed GA wording!) CMD (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Remember that when I offered those FAs as examples, I was under the impression that the proposal was to require citations in leads. I'm more concerned now with there being multiple places where GA and FA requirements (according to some editors) are being described. Why on earth is it the job of a information page on Wikipedia citations to note that the folk at GA can be fussy. But similarly, if we have policy/guideline/information pages for the whole community that already explain when citations are not needed, then why is GA trying imperfectly to repeat that. -- Colin°^Talk 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The WP:GACR and WP:FACR repeat policy and guidelines because that is their purpose, to note how much adherence is expected to those from our articles at each particular quality standard. MINREF's comment on the GACR and FACR is merely to note that sourcing expectations for both "exceed" the minimum expectations for something to exist on en.wiki. That seems to me an almost axiomatic statement, but others disagree, and hence this discussion. CMD (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia is correct that it is not necessary to mention either FACR or GACR anywhere on this page. (It is certainly unnecessary to mention consistent formatting in a section called Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations; perhaps someone else would like to remove that small bit.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is necessary, but I'm unsure why a page titled Inline citation wouldn't discuss the expectations surrounding inline citations. CMD (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Why should a page that describes the different types of inline citations also be saying that FAs require the consistent use of punctuation? I don't know of anyone who actually expects consistent punctuation in our citations. I can't imagine any experienced editor willing to stake money on ten random articles all having consistent formatting in the citations. I wouldn't take that bet even for FAs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time punctuation has been mentioned in this discussion? I have no idea what this comment refers to. CMD (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The version that has been reverted back into this page says, among other things, that FA requires 'presented by "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"'. In other words, that they have consistent punctuation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems accurate, in my experience FAC comes down quite hard on footnote inconsistencies. CMD (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely; consistent formatting of all citations (whether inline or otherwise) is a requirement for FAs. But do we need to repeat that here? Does knowing that getting the punctuation correct is a requirement for a process than >99% of articles will never enter help you understand what an inline citation is and when you need to use one? Or do you think it's kind of off topic for this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Had another look, and I can see the argument that the sentence is unnecessary, especially given the previous one linking to WP:FA. CMD (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

IF this page functioned as an information page (as it was when the essay started-- explaining how to write an inline citation when the things were new and no one knew how to use them) rather than what it is now (an essay trying to extend and re-interpret policy pages), THEN it would explain to those who don't understand such that writing consistent inline citations ala WP:CITEVAR (an actual guideline) goes well beyond punctuation. Introducing the idea that requiring citation consistency (based on an actual guideline) in FAs amounts to "punctuation" into this discussion reads like an attempt to denigrate the FA process and is a distraction to the issue and the real problem here--which is still, why does this page exist when there was consensus to merge it away after it became no longer useful when the info was incorporated elsewhere? *IF* the page is truly an information page, even though it is no longer needed, of course it would explain that to readers, even more so now that we know one established editor doesn't seem to understand how much is involved in using a consistent citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the only reason I can see at this point for this page to exist would be to explain how to conform with WP:CITEVAR and clear up the very confusion we now see does exist on this page that isn't already covered elsehwere ... an information page would explain how to conform with CITEVAR with consistent inline citations, and clear up the confusion expressed above (it is much more than punctuation). Since CITEVAR is "only a guideline", of course most editors don't need to know how to comply, and often don't understand until/unless they happen upon an FA and start changing the style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

> IF this page functioned as an information page (as it was when the essay started-- explaining how to write an inline citation

Um, you have described a {{Wikipedia how-to}} page. The goal of an {{Information page}} is usually to say what something is, rather than how to do it. The original goal of this page was to answer the question "What is an inline citation?" and "What are they needed for?" rather than "How do I put one on the page?" The how-to information is largely redundant (e.g., with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes and references section) but I'm not aware of any other page that explains that whatever you put in the article to explain where you got the information for a particular sentence or paragraph is an inline citation, even if it doesn't use the most popular format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the content as it stood. It has remained for well over two years, and I suggest if you want to change it you should put forward a proposal to do so. I would object to your merged version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that this change and this discussion appears to pre-empt the RFC at WT:Good article nominations. I would suggest that ends before continuing this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That proposal (to require "all content" to be followed by an inline citation) does not depend on MINREF. This page only came up because editors are discussing how much higher "all content" is than the existing minimum requirements for all articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I never mentioned MINREF here, if there is a discussion going on somewhere else then let that discussion finish rather than editing this before it does. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Why should editors stop talking about what to say in MINREF until a discussion that is not about MINREF is finished? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a current RFC about referencing requirements for what you changed, at a place that is appropriate for that RFC. So changing wording here while that RFC is open is obviously inappropriate. Until that RFC is closed there is no point discussing the matter here. Honestly this essay should under go TNT, it's meant to be about how to use inline citations not a place to squirrel away details that belong elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a current RFC about referencing requirements that have nothing to do with what I changed. Seriously: The RFC proposal does not refer to MINREF, link to MINREF, depend on MINREF... You have to go through 90 (ninety!) comments before anyone even mentions MINREF, and only 6 out of the (currently 165) comments on the page mention MINREF. That RFC is not about MINREF, and if you still believe that the RFC is about MINREF, then I challenge you to explain how a proposal that doesn't mention MINREF, in a discussion that fails to mention MINREF in 96.4% of the comments, could be understood as being "obviously" about MINREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also as the issue that seem to have started many of these conversations have been about content being challenged. No matter what MINREF says Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports.. the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source is policy and this is just an essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

MINREF exists purely as a summary of the real policies. No matter what MINREF says, or doesn't say, WP:CHALLENGE is still a policy.

(This page is not technically an essay; see Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages. Pages like WP:BRD and WP:SNOW are the ones you should be calling "just an essay".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Still if you want your change, find consent for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That's how it always works. 😉 WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe either the existing or the proposed statements in the first post reflect what WP:WIAFA actually says, which is:

• 1c – verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

Also, this is an information page ... I can hardly recall referencing this page when writing or making such decisions at FAC or FAR. I suggest it would be optimal for this page not to attempt to redefine what goes at FAC, and leave that to FAC. (PS, Other than in the lead, I would never not cite something just because it's mentioned more than once in an article; some readers read only certain sections.) I was pinged here, and I may be entirely missing the point of this discussion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The chosen quotations strike me as a bit odd, too. Why, for example, should a section about which content requires citations need to have a statement about consistent formatting? It's just irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

All I can come up with here is ... too much scope creep happening. What is this page trying to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This section of the page is trying to provide a handy cheatsheet for what the sourcing policies require. MINREF does not create any rules; it merely repeats rules that are spread across two other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again, but the idea that WP:VERIFICATION isn't relevant to inline citation is a 'unique' claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making such a claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

whether the source is reliable is unrelated to whether the description of said source is an inline citation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

So... you don't think someone could write an inline citation for an unreliable source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No.... I think they could, which is why the link was relevant but you removed it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The CITE guideline defines a citation as something that "uniquely identifies a source of information", and it defines an inline citation as "any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote."

It sounds like you believe that if I were to write this in an article:

Smoking tobacco increases your risk of getting lung cancer.<ref>[http://example.com/post/1210p9 Social media post] by a high school kid, 24 January 2024</ref>

then these ref tags do not constitute an inline citation? They're inline, and they cite a source. What would you call that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

Besides that both the current and proposed text misrepresent WP:WIAFA (see above), there's a bigger general WP:CREEP problem here, and on a fairly obscure side page (albeit fed by the GA criterion), and whose evolution is difficult to follow from talk page posts here.

I'm wondering if the problem here is that everyone is calling this advice "MINREF" and we have the oddity that a section called "When you must use inline citations" has been abused, I would say, to include details of the supposed higher standards set by other projects or editors. That really shouldn't be in that section. ... Colin°Talk 14:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Some history: the cite.php extension was introduced in 2005 (and inline citations became required for FAs in 2005; see History of the featured article process).
2. The essay was created at about the same time cite.php came about, and through 2010, it was an essay about how to use/write inline citations (recall that when the cite.php format came to be, many editors didn't yet know how to best add inline citations, so help was needed about how to use cite.php). It had nothing to do with when to use inline citations, and only briefly mentioned article classes. If it had stayed at that, we wouldn't be having the current problem. But ... as cite.php (and other inline citation formats became common), overlap started to occur.
3. There were concerns about scope creep (the page duplicates WP:CITE)
   1. 2006–2008 Merge and redirect to WP:CITE
   2. 2007 Why isn't the project page a redirect?

So, from there:

1. Why did this 2011 removal of the "failed" merge proposal happen? Based on what discussion? The two discussions linked above support merging this page to elsewhere. Instead the page expanded to add more CREEP.
2. That is, this addition of "MINREF" expanded what had been the clear point of the essay (how to use cite.php) to when (already covered in broader pages), adding the GA specifics, rather than merging to the existing pages (and letting GA do whatever it is they do). This is where the scope creep got aggravated; where is the discussion that a) supports a failed merge proposal, or b) led to the overlap with WP:CITE being added here?
3. Later in 2011 SlimVirgin attempted to bring the essay more in to line with policy. (Noting that SV never returned to the essay, in line with my observations about how widely this page is (not) followed-- it's just an essay.)
4. In 2012, an IP converts an obscure essay, which has CREEPed, to an information page.

So, I don't understand a) why the essay wasn't merged to one of more appropriate pages when it instead expanded apparently to accommodate something in the GA process, rather than letting GA do whatever it is they do.

Why does this page even exist, when there was not consensus to not merge it away when the content is covered in much more widely viewed guideline pages, and the scope creep is creating an unnecessary problem. WP:CITE and WP:V tell us when to cite. WP:MINREF need not exist, and the GA process should separately decide what the inline citation requirements are for a GA. I agree with the poster who said years ago that the page has become a POV fork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree, it seems this should have been a help page. Most of what it covers is about technical details of inline referencing, before drifting off into things that aren't inline referencing, and then taking a sharp turn into policy matters. I suggest it's cut back to the technical details, and converted back into an essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That would definitely be my second choice. I'd be even happier if we merged it away completely (per the earlier consensus that simply never got acted on), as there is nothing here that isn't covered better elsewhere. There was a reason for the page to exist when cite.php was new and people needed guidance on how to use inline citations; that need has been met elsewhere now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see it go, I only have it watchlisted as it tends to have discussions that in themselves should probably happen elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts (unrelated numbering):

1. I disagree with the claim that this is an obscure page. This page gets about a hundred page views per day. For comparison, CANVAS gets 25 page views per day, BRD gets 30, CFORK gets 35, the Plagiarism guideline gets 40, FACR gets 50, and the Spam guideline gets 75. If this page is "obscure", then, logically, so are all of the pages that get looked at even less often. I don't think any of those are correctly described as obscure.
2. This page is supposed to describe all the inline citations, not just the cite.php ("ref tags") method of creating an inline citation. FA requires inline citations, but it does not require (and never has) that those inline citations use the cite.php software. Details of how, exactly, to use the cite.php software are in Help:Footnotes (since April 2006). This page, back in April 2006, said nothing at all about cite.php. The first information about how to use cite.php was added to this page a couple of months later; it was described as merely one (the last) of "four ways to add inline citations to an article; each has its own benifits and drawbacks." All four are still described in 2007, in 2009, before my first edit in 2010 (my first edit was to remove information about Wikipedia:Embedded citations, which have since been deprecated because of their susceptibility to Wikipedia:Link rot), and all current methods have been described in every non-vandalized version since then. In other words, this page has never been just about how to use ref tags; the page dedicated to how to use ref tags has always been Help:Footnotes.
3. When a merge proposal sits open for four years without any evidence of consensus to implement it, it's a failed proposal. Wikipedia:Merging recommends waiting "one week or more", not multiple years.

I think IC wasn't an appealing candidate for merging because it was too long to stuff everything into Wikipedia:Citing sources but too broad to merge into method-specific pages like Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. Much of IC functions as a sort of set index, to help editors find out what all the things called "inline citations" are, and to help them find the link to the page they actually want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest check the addition of MINREF, as it was never discussed I'll be happily dismissing it from now on until it gets community concenus and it's so very at odds to current community practices. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Most of the page views this page gets are probably related to it being puffed up after there was consensus to merge it away and then stuffed in to the GA process.
2. Strawman. The history of the page relates to it being useful when cite.php first came about. Everything we now need to know, 18 years later, is now covered elsewhere.
3. "When a merge proposal sits open for four years without any evidence of consensus to implement it" does not describe what happened here. [1] [2] The page was expanded in the face of no opposition to merging it away, and several supports. That no one did is likely related to the fact that very few people cared to follow the essay back then.

MINREF was created for no reason, and is a POV fork that goes beyond our policy and guideline pages, and is now being used to influence how policy and guideline are interpreted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

MINREF was created by me, for the reason that the list of content absolutely required to have inline citations were spread across two different policies (WP:V and BLP), and I wanted to have a single location that told editors what both of the polices required. I realize there are differences of opinion about whether "one-stop shopping" or "you have to read a dozen pages to find the answer, but at least they'll never conflict with each other" is ultimately the better approach to policy writing, but I would not describe holding a different opinion on that point as having "no reason". Reasons you disagree with, or reasons you consider less important than other reasons, are not the same as no reasons.

As for the rest:

1. The page views used to be much higher but have been steadily around 100 page views per day for the last three years. I think we can safely conclude that the page views have nothing to do with the discussion that started last week about GA's criteria.
2. Can you find a version of this page that was actually useful when ref tags were introduced? I don't think that any version even provided such basic information as how to get the refs to display on the page. They said that ref tags exist, and that refs can be named, and that if you want useful information, then you have to go to WP:FN (or the MediaWiki.org page).
3. If editors thought in 2007 that they had a consensus to merge and redirect the page, then they should have done so. By 2011, there was no evidence that anyone still thought it was a good idea.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:V gets roughly 3,500 page views per day, WP:RS gets between 900–1000. But that's beside the point. Splitting the discussion of such things into small and small section only ever leads to less oversight. Verification and it's requirements should be left to WP:V and GA and FA requirements handle in their respective places, not squirrelled away here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

By 2011, there was still evidence on this barely followed talk page that the page should have been merged, but one editor instead extended the page to include wording distinct from what is at WP:V, in ways that re-interprets WP:V, and introduced the MINREF portion based on no discussion.

Since there's no need to continue beating a dead horse, I've expressed my views, you've expressed yours about your addition; we disagree. There is a big problem here; no need to keep repeating it. Since the only parts of this page that aren't now covered in other pages have to do with re-interpreting WP:V, I suggest trying to get that interpretation added there-- a more widely viewed page with much broader participation. This very small audience is quite different from this (although I'll grant that in SV's absence, the integrity of all P&G pages is harder to maintain).

Otherwise, this page should be resubmitted as a merge proposal once this discussion has run its course. Then the only part missing that isn't now covered elsewhere (citation consistency) can perhaps be included at the CITEVAR page, since that is what citation consistency in FAs is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation consistency has been in CITEVAR for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Note that there is a proposal in Village pump regarding the consistency requirement for short and long inline citations: [3] Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)