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)
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]
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]
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.


More