Wikipedia talk:Inline citation

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.^[1] It is so big that it's hard for people to image its size.^[2]

References

1. [1]

   Expert, Alice. (2008) The Size of the Sun. p. 14
2. [2]

   Expert, Alice. (2008) The Size of the Sun. p. 14

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

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.

This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (Feb 2014)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Currently the text says:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"^[1] might work OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Maybe this is too specific but it is related to citation policy. I wanted to ask if interpretation provided at the bottom of this discussion (at this moment should be last 3 comments – Talk:Museum of the City of Skopje#Capture of Skopje in 1944) is appropriate? Maybe I am too cautious and I apologise for spamming if the editor in question fully correctly interpreted our guidelines. MirkoS18 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The disputed edit is permissible but not required. The other editor is mostly wrong about the guideline but is still applying a common and permitted style.

WP:CONSECUTIVECITE says Material that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph does not require an inline citation for every mention.

However, note that:

• The rule is about "Material that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph", which is not the same as "A citation that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph". For example, if the paragraph repeatedly mentions the fact that elephants are mammals, then the fact that they are mammals need only be cited once. However, when the material in question involves no repetition, e.g., "The institution was established in 1949 by the People's Committee... The museum was opened in 1951...", then these sentences contain different, un-repeated material, so CONSECUTIVECITE doesn't actually apply at all.
• "Does not require" does not mean "is prohibited".

The rule that is most relevant is WP:CITEVAR. If you would like to read other editors' opinions in favor of a greater use of little blue clicky numbers in such situations, then you might start with what Piotrus wrote about Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that consecutive repeated citation seem to be required for quotations (or facts to be cited in WP:DYK). I am not sure if this is rule formalized somewhere or just a WP:DYK practice, but it is a requirement for DYKs. Ping @AirshipJungleman29, @BlueMoonset - maybe you know which MOS part is relevant here and inspired DYK practices? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't normally have a direct quotation repeated in the same paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

DYK's direct citation rule is special and specifically ignores the MOS, with the reasoning being the source for the fact on the main page should be easy for a reader to find. Once the article has left the main page, it no longer needs to meet the special DYK requirement. CMD (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It is just a practice at DYK: as the "hook" format focuses in on a specific point, it has been considered better to make that point as easily verifiable as possible. Personally, I am not that attached to the practice, but that is the reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless I’ve missed something, the “Inline citations and Wikipedia” section shows how to do these citations only in the Source editor, and I’d like to suggest that doing them with the Visual editor should also be covered.

This is because the Visual editor brings up helpful templates that allow us to add inline citations, though I don’t think the threefold choice described as available in the Source editor are possible in the Visual editor. But … do we really need the 2nd and 3rd options nowadays anyway? Augnablik (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A template exists in the source editor too actually, with a bit more flexibility. You can also edit the source in VE, which you will need to do if you want to name the references, VE has no ability to do this. Perhaps the easiest way to do this is to link to the relevant Help pages, Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2 and Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/2. CMD (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The vagueness of this section gives cause for a rewrite. I do not know how long it has existed but it does not follow the verifiability policy. The section begins Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for featured articles, good articles, and A-class articles. No matter how many arguments that we don't need references as long as they are out there "somewhere" in the universe, is a fallacy. The sourcing requirements are not class related. They are just inforced more rigorously on better class articles.

WP:BURDEN is actually pretty clear that not only does challenged material need an inline citation but also material that is "likely to be challenged", as well as "contentious material about living and recently deceased persons".

The bottom line is that Wikipedia's somewhat historical and lackadaisical form of never really issuing directives (we have a few) but suggestions, are just a polite way to state some things really are required, even if attempted to be watered down by wikilawyering. An example, and proof, is the policy on no personal attacks. Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia is rarely, if ever, inforced. It was largely written out of existence with the harassment policy and our forgiving attitude. An attitude of "if something doesn't bother me why in the world should it bother you", has been been a reason for hostile environment claims.

Anyway, the issue of identifying incivility, who is at fault or is both at fault?, dealing with harassment, how to deal with harassment, are all forms of cyber-harassment or cyber-bullying, and has become convoluted in bureaucracy, and the victim is all but lost.

Our sourcing policy, while argued and debated, has not been overshadowed or undermined over the years. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (WP:BURDEN). Lead information of Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed is still applicable.

By specifically pointing out that "featured articles, good articles, and A-class articles" require inline citations, makes it appear that other classes do not have this requirement, which is false. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

So here’s how this works… suppose I notice that WP does not have an article on the “ABC Turnpike”, a divided highway that runs between town X and town Y. So I start an article about it.

I write:

• The ABC Turnpike is a divided highway that connects town X and town Y.

Not much of an article, I admit… certainly not “good article” material… but it contains nothing contentious… and the text is easily verifiable by looking at a road map. It is very unlikely to be challenged. Do I need to actually cite the road map just so the article contains a blue clicky number?

Nope…

Unless/Until some idiot comes along and demands one, per WP:Burden. Now, idiots are like Wookies - very stubborn creatures. They don’t like backing down. Sure, I could spend hours (or even days) arguing with the Wookie in an attempt to convince him that his demand is ridiculous. He might see reason. But… probably not… and it is much easier to just “let the Wookie win” and spend two minutes adding the demanded citation (even though the demand is ridiculous). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, if you write:

• The ABC Turnpike is a divided highway that connects town X and town Y.
• ==References==
• Official ABC Turnpike Map, Department of Roads, 2023
• Reporter, Rae (2021) "New highway between X and Y to be called ABC Turnpike". The Daily News.

then it's not a case of citations being out there "somewhere" in the universe; it's a case of the references being formatted as WP:General references instead of WP:Inline citations.

Our sourcing policies recognizes what you might call three layers of sourcing:

• Sources that are out there "somewhere" in the universe: These are required for absolutely everything, even "The sky is usually blue during the daytime" and "The capital of France is Paris". Anything that fails this is a WP:NOR violation. NOR requires that there be "somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article" a published, reliable source that could be located and cited, assuming someone went to enough effort and expense to make that happen.
• Sources that are named somewhere in the article: These are desirable for absolutely everything but not technically required for absolutely everything. These are usually formatted as little blue clicky numbers, but they don't have to be, unless the requirement is specifically mandated for the type of material. Which brings us to:
• WP:MINREF material: Inline citations are required only for four types of content (WP:QUOTATIONS, WP:CHALLENGED, WP:LIKELY, and contentious matter about BLPs). A list of general references is not sufficient for these four types; there must be inline citations. That is, the ref needs to be on the same "line" as the content; it's not enough to list the source at the end of the article with no indication that the quotation in the third paragraph can be verified in the fifth source in the list. But the converse is: If it's really, truly not one of those four types of mandatory-inline-citation items, then an inline citation is not actually mandatory.

These entries from the Wikipedia:Glossary may be helpful. Perhaps we should put them in this page, too.

verifiable

Something that people are "able" to "verify". Specifically within the meaning of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, it is information that someone (although not necessarily you) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been published in a § reliable source, even if no source is provided in the article. Contrast § uncited.

uncited

Material in an article that is not followed by an inline citation. The uncited material may be § verifiable (editors could locate a reliable source that supports this material, if they tried to) or § unverifiable (nobody can find a reliable source that directly supports this material).

unverifiable

Material in an article for which editors are unable to find any reliable sources that could be cited to support it. Unverifiable information may be § cited (e.g., to an unreliable source or to a source that doesn't support the material) or § uncited. Determining whether material is truly unverifiable may require substantial effort.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

12.207.88.132 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)gen ai is lester tremaine norwood cite please

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere that shows the proper parameter to use for each RS? IOW, when to use newspaper=, agency=, work=, etc. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Documentation for the Wikipedia:Citation templates is on each template's documentation page, e.g., Template:Cite magazine/doc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I am asking for an actual list, or better yet a table, such as:

• The New York Times, use newspaper=
  
• Vanity Fair, use magazine=
  
• Associated Press, use work= (when cited directly as the only source)
  
• Associated Press, use agency= (when cited along with the source that is using it)
  

IOW, a literal list for most of the RS in common use here. I was just corrected for using the agency= parameter for the Associated Press. That confused me, but apparently the agency= parameter should only be used when the AP is included in the reference along with the publisher of the article, such as the NYT. Otherwise, when citing the AP directly as the only source, the work= parameter is to be used. That messes with my head. I am just hoping that such a list exists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Here are some relevant parameters:

• |periodical=
• |journal=
• |newspaper=
• |magazine=
• |work=
• |website=
• |encyclopedia=
• |encyclopaedia=
• |dictionary=

The question is always which one(s) work in which templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a nice list of the available parameters. I'd like a list that pairs sources with the correct parameter to use for that source, per my small sample above. It would obviously be a long list. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The correct parameter depends on the template, not just the source.

If you use the visual editor's automagic ref-filling system, then it will mostly do this for you, assuming that it recognizes the source in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have never used it. Maybe I should try. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

AP can publish original content on its own website, or it can act as a wire service providing content to other outlets. Agency= is used only for the latter case. This also applies to Reuters, UPI, etc. This should not mess with any heads. See description of |agency= at {{cite news}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Always more to learn here! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)