Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation underkill

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation underkill

[edit]
Wikipedia:Citation underkill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable essay, which clearly indicates it is an essay. There is a disclaimer for essays: "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." That means they do not have to reflect widespread consensus. Consensus was against adding additional content to an existing essay. Both User:Bluerasberry[1] and User:RexxS.[2] suggested a new essay be created. See WP:GUIDES: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." I think this essay gives good advice such as "It is perfectly reasonable to provide an inline citation for each mention." This addition added by User:Doc James was deleted. The content was effectively silenced at the other essay. Contrary views were quickly deleted. The new essay includes content that was deleted from Wikipedia:Citation overkill. There are other essays like WP:NOTBLUE that are considered beneficial to the encyclopedia. In a nutshell, the new essay indicates it is beneficial to cite every sentence. Others may have other views. QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to balance the other one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ESSAYPAGES or move to userspace as per WP:PRJDEL.--Moxy (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace. The essay as written contains at least two falsehoods (the author's interpretation of policies and guidelines being presented as requirements). Some of the views are legitimate, although I disagree with them. However, it appears to be so out of touch with common Wikipedia practices across the project and as absolute no attempt to provide context has been made, userspace would appear to be more appropriate. Scribolt (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You opposed including a contrary view at the other essay. This essay does not encourage over citing content. This essay is intended to promote verifiability which increases sourced content for our readers. Promoting a single inline citation for each idea or concept does improve the verifiability of the content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Scribolt, you still want it moved to userspace? The essay as written contains no falsehoods. Editors are required to be able to provide a citation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it should be moved to userspace. The language has been softened, during this process which you initiated, which is to be welcomed but it is still badly written and ironically in places still mischaracterises the guidelines it cites for support. I am not convinced that nominating your own essay for deletion instead of responding to questions on the talk page and then rewriting it during the Mfd process is best practice, but I know you have your reasons. Scribolt (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have not shown it is badly written and it does not mischaracterise the guidelines. For example, encouraging citing four fingers plus a thumb does not contradict any guideline. Placing a citation where it verifies a statement does not contradict any guideline. The essay covers things that are not part of any guideline. The essay cannot mischaracterise any guideline when they do not cover it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sigh. OK. Example: "Placing citations where they clearly correspond to specific claims improves the verifiability in accordance with WP:CITEFOOT." This guideline actually says that "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." which is considerably more nuanced than how you've presented it, and the conclusions you arrive at later. Example 2 "Adding citations to the lead can be very helpful, both for readers as well as editors. Without citations in the lead, our readers may think the content is not neutral or is original research, even if sourced in the body." Again, you've referred to a guideline, the MOS. The way it's been presented it, it seems as though the MOS recommends placing citations in the lede. Except it doesn't. It specifically recommends considering whether redundant citations for non contentious material is required. This lack of context is prevalent throughout the essay, it only really partly touches on the only policy requirement relating to citations, i.e. that the only time they're are required in line is when the claim is controversial or a quotation, but I suspect that is because it doesn't really fit with your view. There's nothing wrong with presenting an opinion, that's fine. My issue is that you disguise your opinion by linking to policies that in order to add legitimacy that doesn't exist. Badly written? "Changing single words or certain phrases" makes very little sense in the context of the essay, the example is badly presented (do you really expect people to read through all the sources and figure out what you're trying to say?) TBH it just seems like a rebuttal to an old argument you lost. Please note that I am extremely unlikely to respond to you again here, unless you have something substantive to add. Scribolt (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quack, why in the world did you nominate your own essay for deletion? Are you hoping that by having this discussion now, then there will somehow be "proof" that people agree with it? ("Tolerate its existence" might be more accurate.) Are you expecting that after weeks of editors begging you to write this instead of editing WP:OVERKILL to say the opposite of its point, that someone will try to have it deleted? What's going on?
    If you actually wanted it deleted, then {{db-author}} is the bettart er approach. And if you didn't, then you shouldn't be wasting everyone's time and energy with this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or userfy - Essays are opinion pieces, and this essay reflects the opinion of at least one editor. The question this MfD may answer is how widely supported the essay is. If widely supported it should be kept in main policy space... if not widely supported, it should be moved to Userspace per WP:USERESSAY. In either case it should not be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until there's clear evidence that more people espouse the ideas it invokes, and until it's been established through conensus at the Talk page that any errors it contained have been satisfactorily addressed, yes, I do. DonIago (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The essay says "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". No essay must represent a majority view in order to stay in essay-space. Can you be more specific what you or others think needs improving? QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's unclear about what I said. DonIago (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you understand that any essay does not have to represent widespread support. If the essay had widespread support then it could become a guideline. It is too early for that. There are no errors in the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because Scribolt's comment today cites, if not errors, at least mischaracterizations. Additionally, I've found your approach to this whole situation...troublingly unorthodox. You self-initiated this discussion preemptively rather than engage with editors who were expressing concerns at the time, and in several cases when asked for diffs to support arguments you were making, you claimed you couldn't provide them. If you want my specific support for keeping this in mainspace, then I'd like to see more of a willingness to back up your claims and build consensus for changes on your part. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have not explained even one mischaracterization. There are specific examples in the essay that explains a better option where to place citations. Claiming there is a problem without showing there is a problem shows you are unable to show any problem. That means there is no problem, according to you. QuackGuru (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse "unable" with "uninterested". DonIago (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion. You have refused to provide even one example. Cheers. QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have discussed how Wikipedia, a freely editable encyclopedia, has its editors challenging almost every info in every article, i.e. citation overkill, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 65#Restart: do Wikipedia articles use too many sources?. I even discussed the necessity of footnotes. No opinion on this essay, but I think overkill is stronger than underkill... unless one topic is controversial? --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the concept of this essay. Regardless of policy or guidelines, what actually happens at WP can be quite different. Furthermore, guidelines can be subject to interpretation, can seem self-contradictory, or can be disputed or modified. There is value in essays that explain in plain language what actually happens. Personally, I'd rather "citation overkill" than see content deleted for "citation underkill." Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – While I think the essay is still in its early stages and will likely undergo many revisions until it reaches a more complete state, I don't see any harm in its existence. The biggest concern is that its creator realizes that having the essay in the Wikipedia namespace means others are free to edit/expand the essay. If there's any desire to protect its content, then it should be voluntarily (or forcefully) moved to a user namespace. Another concern is that it avoids contradicting policies and guidelines. WP:UNDERKILL and WP:OVERKILL both express concepts that are supported by WP:CITE; it's just that each promotes a different approach and preference to some of those concepts. I think that's perfectly fine as long as neither is calling the opposing view incorrect, since each view has the support of a guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. For the record, I have never requested that this essay be deleted. I pointed out that as it was written, it contained some positions being stated as requirements when they weren't and the tone is hostile (using the same example as overkill and calling it incorrect). When I asked QuackGuru if he intended to address these, he initiated this process himself, which doesn't seem like a very good indication of a more temperate tone. If it remains in namespace I hope that other editors are indeed permitted to improve it. Scribolt (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You agree, User:Scribolt? It says it is "not the best practice" using the same example. Of course it is not the best practice. Another concern is that it avoids contradicting policies and guidelines, according to User:GoneIn60. There is no concern when it does not directly contradict policy. It is expressing an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in Wikipedia-space — A legitimate essay that can be built upon and expanded and supplies a much-needed counterweight to WP:OVERKILL. That you disagree with an essay is neither a reason to delete it, nor is it a reason to move it to userspace (where it won't be edited by multiple users or improved as much). Carl Fredrik talk 11:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one on this or the talk page has suggested deleting the essay. My opinion that it better belongs in userspace was not related to the fact that I disagree with the content. I would have never initiated the process myself to move to userspace if QuackGuru had indicated that the misrepresentations of policy might be presented in a different way, or even responded. Scribolt (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flyer22 Reborn suggested it should be deleted. This is the same person who made this edit.
Citation overkill states "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention." That decreases readability because our readers will not know whether the content is sourced or is not sourced.
Wikipedia:Verifiability states "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." It is a clear violation of policy when our readers are unable to verify a claim. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not a clear violation of any policy if material is not followed by an inline citation, but readers are still able to verify the claim through other means.
You recently fact-tagged and then supplied citations to support a claim that the human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb. Do you believe that "Readers [were] able to check" that this information was "not just made up" even before you added citations to that sentence? Or were readers only able to verify that information after you provided sources for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read again: It is a clear violation of policy when our readers are unable to verify a claim. We're done here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True...if the only source is behind a paywall, it does need a citation. However, policy gives us an option as to where to place that citation. Your opinion is that it is best to place the citation next to the claim... and if that is what your essay said, no one would object (they might disagree, but not object)... but that isn't what your essay says... it says policy requires citations to be next to the claim. That is what people are objecting to.Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that policy requires citations to be next to the claim. It is giving an opinion what is the best option. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor tweaks to make it more clear it is a better option, which is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policy does not specify how claims are to be verified... only that they be verifiable. A claim such as "Paris is the capital of France" can be verified by looking in any modern world atlas. It is verifiable if we put a citation next to the claim... it is verifiable if we cited it three paragraphs later at the end of the section... in fact it is verifiable even if that claim is never cited at all. If you are unwilling to let other editors make reasonable edits to your essay, then it should go to userspace. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "when". If a claim is only verifiable via WP:PAYWALL then a citation is needed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Placing a citation at the end of a sentence (or at the end of a paragraph in rare situations when it's applicable) are both acceptable practices per WP:CITE#Types of citation. Both of these essays take a stance saying they prefer one method over the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. You can express the opinion that one is more correct than the other, but I'd draw the line at saying one is incorrect. As long as neither essay is doing that, we should be able to move on from this. All this energy could be focused on a more productive use of our time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that everything in this essay is a really bad idea, but that is not a reason to delete it. Essays are free to contain really bad ideas. Conversely, it should be clear that a "keep" result in no way indicates support for the bad idea contained in the essay. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make this simple. User:North8000, which is better? Without citations or with citations? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Maybe we should discuss the quality of the essay itself at Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page is more active. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You see what SmokeyJoe said below. Will you consider withdrawing the nomination, QuackGuru, and then continue discussing improvements at the essay talk page please? --George Ho (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten a lot of good advise as a result of this process, which directly led to improving the essay. I don't want to stop the good advice. A new essay does not have many editors discussing improvements on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WP:SK#1, no reason offered for deletion. TROUT the nominator for the disruption of nominating their own essay with a "keep" rationale. Is it some kind of attention seeking, or a perverse WP:GAME? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is a Wikipedia essay which says "yes" then anyone can write one which says "no". The point of essays is to inform conversations. This essay is a counterpoint to another one and information from at least two sides is required to think through the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Perfectly legitimate essay and not a valid reason for deletion. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as contrary to policy. To take just one example "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does require an inline citation for every mention, to make it easier to verify the content" is, as stated, false. There are some special cases where it does help, but they are quite rare. WP is a general encyclopedia, not a medical or legal textbook, where everything is documented exhaustively. The citations in WP support the text by giving links to verify it--they are not the primary part of the particle. Even were the essay correct, the manner in which it is written with extensive examples is contrary to the style of WP essays, which try to be readable. But I am not surprised--the style of medical and legal textbooks is also notoriously unreadable, and that's what the ideas in thisd essay is based on. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You claimed we were both wrong, but you were wrong. Everything you wrote was irrelevant and ignoring the content in the article. Content that failed verification and failed to use reliable sources were absolutely contrary to policy.
    • You are also wrong here. For example "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does require an inline citation for every mention, to make it easier to verify the content" is, as stated, is giving an opinion. It is stating that in order to make it easier to verify the content a citation is required. This is also common sense. By not having a citation at the end of a sentence it can make it more difficult to verify the content. Without a citation at the end of the sentence it disrupts the readability of the content for our readers, because they may think the content is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the word "require"... Not having a source at the end of a sentence (and instead having it at the end of a paragraph - or even at the end of a section) may well make verification more difficult... but it does not make it impossible. That is an important distinction. Policy does not require easy verification ... all policy requires is verifiability. As long as readers are able to verify information (whether with ease or with difficulty), our policy requirements are met. So... It is correct to say that placing a citation at the end of a sentence (or even in the middle of a sentence) makes it easier for readers to verify the information... but it is incorrect to say that this is required. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read it more carefully the entre sentence together: "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does require an inline citation for every mention, to make it easier to verify the content." It is not claiming a citation is required after every sentence. It is saying a citation is required after every sentence to make it easier to verify the content.
You wrote "So... It is correct to say that placing a citation at the end of a sentence (or even in the middle of a sentence) makes it easier for readers to verify the information... but it is incorrect to say that this is required."
You agreed it is easier for readers to verify a claim when there is a citation at the end of a sentence. This means a citation is needed at the end of a sentence to make it is easier to verify a claim for our readers. Policy does not cover "easy" or "more difficult" verification. That means it is not contrary to policy because policy does not cover this. Policy does not cover a lot of things in the essay. Policy is limited and gives editors a lot of leeway. The essay is suggesting which option is the better option. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point.... while repeated citations may be helpful (or even necessary) for easy verification... easy verification isn't required. Since easy verification isn't required, neither is repeated citation. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be grammatically easier on the eyes just to state, "In order to improve verifiability, material that is repeated multiple times throughout an article should have an inline citation for every mention."? Just a thought. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly resolve my issues with the use of the word "require". Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and made the change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change. See "To improve verifiability, material that is repeated multiple times throughout an article could have an inline citation for every mention." QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, I argued that this essay should be deleted, since it was a WP:POINTY creation and was unlikely to be helpful. Since then, changes have been made to this essay, but I sill feel that this essay is unlikely to be helpful or gain traction. Citation overkill is far more of a problem than citation underkill; underkill is usually resolved by using "citation needed" tags or a Template:Refimprove tag. The second example in this section is overkill, plain and simple. One would be better off reducing the number of "electronic cigarette aerosol" examples instead. Plus, QuackGuru thinks even sky is blue cases should be sourced, which I completely disagree with. Citing that people typically have five fingers, or four digits and a thumb? Get out of here with that. Since QuackGuru pinged some people above, I'll go ahead and ping Nightscream since he is possibly the greatest proponent of WP:Citation overkill and might want to weigh in on the RfC I started there and/or the deletion discussion here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "underkill is usually resolved by using "citation needed" tags or a Template:Refimprove tag." is incorrect. For example, citations are misplaced. Placing all the citations at the end of a sentence may not verify the entire claim. There is another way to place citations. In certain circumstances, it is better to place each citation where they verify each specific claim rather than place all of them at the end of a sentence. The content may need to be rewritten after a source is found.
The second example with 17 citations is not overkill. Each specific claim must be verified otherwise it should be deleted. If all the citations were placed at the end of the sentence it would be very confusing.
The sky is blue cases can be sourced. An editor may think it is a sky blue case, but people make mistakes. For example, because the color of the sky varies, it may not sky is a blue case. The essay does not say it "should" be sourced. It is encouraging you to find a source for a claim. If the wording needs to be tweaked then it should be tweaked.
"People typically have five fingers." is incorrect. "The human hand normally has five digits." is correct. You've shown why sources are helpful because the thumb is not called a finger, except in certain languages. It is better to be accurate using a source than make mistakes. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that citation "underkill" is necessarily less of a problem than overkill, since citation underkill is essentially manifest when material is not supported by any citations at all, and I come across that day in and day out on Wikipedia. This move of a big chunk of uncited material from an article to its talk page that I performed just today, for example.
I also do not agree with the second example mentioned just above, because in that case, it's a list of 17 items, and putting all seventeen cites at the end would make it difficult for a reader to know which piece of info comes from which cite. Mind you, I'm not saying that I don't ever put multiple cites at the end of a passage. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I place them individually at the end of specifically-supported passages. It's a judgment call in which I weigh clarity and ease of verification versus clutter. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, like I've stated before, I do not think it is productive that I continue discussing this issue with you since we go in circular arguments. It is also my opinion that you have shown time and time again that your interpretations of the rules are off (not always, but often enough). I've noted before that a number of editors, at the WP:Citation overkill talk page page, have already successfully challenged you on your interpretations. You disagree that they have, I know. You stated that "people typically have five fingers" is incorrect. And yet you added "In other languages, the human hand is said to have five fingers, including the thumb as one of the fingers." Other languages, huh? English is surely included in that language since various reliable sources, including those on music (such as guitar playing), refer to the thumb as a finger. The OxfordDictionaries.com states: "The OxfordDictionaries.com definition for finger is as follows: ‘each of the four slender jointed parts attached to either hand (or five, if the thumb is included)’. This wording implies that, while the thumb isn’t typically regarded as a finger, there is enough evidence of this use to include it in the definition. Although thumbs have certain similarities to fingers, there are some key differences. It’s therefore more accurate to describe a thumb as one of five digits that we have on each hand, rather than as a finger." So although the source notes what is more accurate in terms of what a finger is, it is also clear that there exists leeway to call a thumb a finger. In any case, the vast majority of "sky is blue" matters do not need to be sourced, and I will continue to disagree with your assertion that they should be. The lead also does not necessarily need to be sourced if the content is sourced lower; this is per WP:LEADCITE.
Nightscream, I wasn't so much talking about material being completely unsourced as I was talking about material seemingly needing additional sources when commenting on "citation overkill [being] far more of a problem than citation underkill." But I understand if you consider articles needing additional citations (and not just seemingly needing them) to be as much of a problem as citation overkill. We already know that a lot of material in Wikipedia is lacking inline citations. We have the WP:Verifiability policy for that. But, as recently mentioned on that policy's talk page, lacking inline citations is not all that WP:Verifiability is concerned with. And we should also consider the WP:Preserve policy. QuackGuru's citation underkill essay is encouraging excessive citations, which is a problem. If extra citations are necessary, fine, but I am against excessive citations. I agree that "putting all seventeen cites at the end would make it difficult for a reader to know which piece of info comes from which cite," which is why I stated that "One would be better off reducing the number of 'electronic cigarette aerosol' examples instead." Another option is to look for sources that cover all or most of the examples. WP:Bundling is also an option. Despite QuackGuru seeing bundling as a problem, bundling can be used to specify, with text, which source supports what. And, really, exactly why are all those examples needed? In this case, it's excessive examples, which leads to a lot of citations and ugly-looking text. The aforementioned section states, "WP:Citation overkill claims using repeated single inline citations is overkill, but by not using repeated single inline citations an editor or reader may mistakenly assume the content is unsourced. Citations are usually placed at the end of each specific passage that they support. It is better to place each citation at the end of each sentence to support each claim. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is not sufficient, to increase the readability of the content. It is a better option to provide a citation for each individual consecutive sentence." I find this problematic for reasons that you remove such excessive citations. That stated, I have had issues with editors being lazy and assuming that material is unsourced simply because a reference is not placed after each sentence in a paragraph, which is why I used to cite like that. It's why I still sometimes cite like that (but not excessively). This -- editors being lazy about checking that the material is sourced -- is an editorial problem more than it is a citing problem. I also do not want this new essay to be taken to mean that a lot of references are needed after a single sentence when the sentence is already supported by one or two sources; this is an important aspect that the WP:Citation overkill essay addresses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment about the aerosol example... If there is a situation like that where you have a lot of items in one or two sentences that require individual sources for each, simply remove the items from prose and add to a table. It's a lot easier to list and cite them there. Sometimes we get so caught up on A vs B, we forget about C. I also agree that one of the most important aspects of overkill – the unnecessary citation of more than three sources – should not be overlooked in any of these conversations. I don't think it makes any sense to advocate a counterpoint to that part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't create a table for a single sentence. This was not a random or fake example. There are many of them that require multiples citations. I will not be creating multiples tables.
You say "The unnecessary citation of more than three sources – should not be overlooked in any of these conversations." It is not overlooked in the new essay. See "In certain circumstances, it may be better to add usually up to three citations to verify the same claim like this:" QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point was you can create a table, not that you have to or that it would work in all situations. A smart break in prose is often needed, so obviously it's not going to always be an option. Also, your statement about adding "up to three citations" is a bit awkward. But this isn't really the place to discuss low-level details. That can be done on the essay's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created many tables. For this case it does not work. If it is awkward then go fix it or someone else may eventually fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why my generalized statement above applies, and no, I have no interest at this time to fix it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I previously said "The human hand normally has five digits." is correct. You've shown why sources are helpful because the thumb is not called a finger, except in certain languages." Read my previous statement.
Now you claim "You stated that "people typically have five fingers" is incorrect. And yet you added "In other languages, the human hand is said to have five fingers, including the thumb as one of the fingers." Other languages, huh?"
Huh, about what? I did say "except in certain languages." That means in other languages. You misquoted me. That showed we do need sources to back up claims because people often get it wrong. Policy gives editors leeway, but it is better to be more accurate.
You are correct that "The lead also does not necessarily need to be sourced if the content is sourced lower; this is per WP:LEADCITE."
But there could be a problem for our reader and even editors. Citation underkill says "Without citations in the lead, our readers may think the content is not neutral or is original research, even if sourced in the body. We cannot expect our readers to always read the body to try to verify the content they read in the lead." See Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Citations in the lead. Policy gives editors a lot of latitude. Citation underkill explains what is a better way to edit to maintain high quality article content. Without citations the information may be deleted, which means it may not be WP:PRESERVED.
You stated "the vast majority of "sky is blue" matters do not need to be sourced, and I will continue to disagree with your assertion that they should be." Citation underkill does not state "sky is blue" matters must or should be sourced. It only encourages editors to cite claims. You are misinterpreting the essay again. If there are a few sentences that need to be toned down then that can be done but so far you have not shown any problem with the essay. The essay shows multiple problems with Citation overkill for our readers.
Citation underkill says "In addition, bundling all the citations together in one citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph may make it difficult to determine which citation verifies which claim." Bundling can be very confusing. Ease of verification improves the readability of the content.
Ease of verification versus clutter is a case by case basis. The new essay is giving editors an option they may not be aware of. It is not encouraging excessive citations. It is discourages excessive citations, while encouraging citing each claim. That's not excessive. See "Controversial claims usually require only single citations..." It is explaining what is really happening in content disputes. The new essay makes Citation overkill obsolete and dated. QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are trying to counter with the finger matter; my point on that is that the thumb may also be regarded as a finger, and not just in "other languages." It's so the case in English as well, and I provided two sources above showing this. As for the rest, like I stated, I disagree with you. I'm not going to keep arguing with you over these matters. Your repeated insistence that you are right even though a number of editors have successfully countered your points shows that continued discussion with you on these matters is pointless. Anyone who points to this essay to counter WP:Citation overkill is unlikely to get any support on the issue if best practice is what WP:Citation overkill states. And, for the record, I did not misquote you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a person quotes someone out of content or only quotes part of the comment, then it is misquoting. WP:Citation underkill fixes all the mistakes resulting from WP:Citation overkill such as deleting repeated single citations. Confusing our readers is a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"[O]r only quotes part of the comment." So even your definition of misquoting is off. Sheesh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See "to quote (a text, speech, etc) inaccurately".[3] You quoted only part of what I wrote on this specific matter.
See You've shown why sources are helpful because the thumb is not called a finger, except in certain languages. It is better to be accurate using a source than make mistakes.
This new essay may not of been created if this revert was not done. It is interesting how things worked out. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've once again shown why debating with you is fruitless. You misinterpret just about everything. I'm inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing's WP:CIR charge. Quoting a part of your post that I am responding to is not misquoting you whatsoever. If am responding to a certain part of your post, there is no need for me to cite the whole quote. Nothing was taken out of context. As for how things worked out, I was right to revert that mess. Things certainly did not work out in your favor. That is why you needed to create this POINTY, useless essay that you are trying to popularize to no avail. And do stop repeating yourself. Repeating yourself doesn't make you any more right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See here. The IP said it was also uncited, which led to the discussion at Citation overkill. One edit by an IP eventually resulted in a new essay!
You quoted a small part of my post, but not the entire certain part of the post that pertained to the human hand has four fingers and a thumb. It was taken out of context. So why quote one part but not the entire part related to the human hand? By directly responding with a diff it shows the response without any misquoting.
Things are continuing to work out in my favor such as the creation of this useful essay and a new template that encourages citing sources. See {{subst:Welcome-citation}}. If anyone thinks the Welcome-citation is useless then they can nominate it for deletion. If the essay was useless then how come so many people voted keep? QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The essay is generally contrary to Wikipedia consensus and good writing. This edit suggests the essay will be promoted in places it ought not to appear unless decisive action is taken. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not required to reflect general Wikipedia consensus. Indeed, one primary purpose of an essay is to express minority views and disagreement with broader consensus. That said, linking to an essay at a policy/guideline page does need broader consensus. The solution to that is to remove the link, not to delete the essay. Blueboar (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The broader consensus has been linked to original research and a multitude of other problems. The community's consensus is committed to amateurism. The solution is to examine both sides and think through and understand the issue. Censoring the other side is acknowledging the other side does indeed have merit. They don't want others to read what they can do others can do better! QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link should be discussed at WT:Citing sources, not here. I see Izno reverted your proposed change at that guideline, so it would be wise per WP:BRD to gain consensus through discussion at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are situations where I think that this essay offers valuable advice. I don't necessarily agree with the high number of shortcuts or about linking to it in welcome messages, but I like the essay. It may also be possible to improve it. I consider this as a circumstantial essay, not policy. —PaleoNeonate - 04:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Citation_underkill&oldid=1144105440"