Wikipedia talk:Inline citation

Hyperlinking/using embedded links

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

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

Breakdown of Ref function by Gallery

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

merge and redirect to WP:CITE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is 'Inline'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why isn't the project page a redirect?

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

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

Where is the "to inline citation" template?

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

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

Is Cite.php still "relatively new"

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

Please make a nutshell

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

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

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

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

Inline dictionary links

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

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

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

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

Close paraphrasing

SlimVirgin,

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

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

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

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

How do I update the date in a link

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

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

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

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

General references

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

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

only needs to say:

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

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

Others may not require any inline citations at all

Currently this essay say

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

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

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

Intext citations

Currently this essay says:

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

This is a valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes

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

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

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

Multiple citations leading to one source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will produce this:

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

References

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

Detrimental advice

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

for instance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple quotations from the same source in consecutive sentences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about inline citation requirement at Articles for creation

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

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

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

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

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

In-text attribution

Currently the text says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to end conflicting date formats within the same citation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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

Obscure wording

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

Providing author names

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

"See also" needs a link to a related policy

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

Citation rule grieves me

"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references. For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library."

This statement is why so many articles exist in Wikipedia that are of low quality and the reason the world has decided that Wikipedia is unreliable. It could be different. I am a believer. I am a purist. I believe higher standards would have diminished the overload of poorly written, poorly sourced articles that need overhauling by experienced editors, and that applying higher standards could still help to diminish them. I live by the standard "If you can't source it, don't write it." I will forever believe that should be the Wikipedia standard and I am grieved that I have been editing here for more than a decade only to find the requirements I have applied to articles to raise them to a standard of excellence are not required by Wikipedia. In keeping with the note above, I am not trying to raise a consensus here, only responding to what I believe is an issue "related to the consensus described here." If I have placed this section incorrectly, please advise me before removing it. I will be happy to delete it an paste it onto the appropriate Talk page. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Inline citations

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

Citation density example

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

Wikipedia citations from Trove website

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

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

It worked for me:

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

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

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

Unverified statements about valid challenges

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

Proposal for valid challenges

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

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

• Support as nominator because removal of dubious statements that have no support in any policy due to not being fully resolved anywhere is needed to leave room for adding the non-controversial statements of generally accepted valid challenges that don't require being resolved in any policy since they already have been. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, and keep this discussion centralized. The revert was based on the fact that the OP is already involved in a very lengthy discussion on this topic at the policy talk page, and that discussion ought to be resolved there rather than split between there and here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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