Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill/Archive 2

Citations: extended comments re "spanning"

 * Comment I haven't the patience to read the above -- maybe someone said this already, but... somewhere, I'm sure of it, there's some facility that allows the "span" of text covered by each cite to be defined in the wikitext. I even think the reader can hover over the superscript cite callout to make the portion of text the cite covers light up in color. This must be buried in one of our 23 conflicting and overlapping help pages on citation mechanics.  E  Eng  16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are thinking of abbr. I don't believe we have any "spanning" form of citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, {abbr} has nothing to do with it. I figured it out. It's Citation needed span. Turns out it's for citation needed, not citations, but you can see what I was thinking of. If there was some way to tie a cite to a definite block of text that the cite covers, so that the reader could ask to see the boundaries of that block on demand, that might be the right idea. The problem, of course, is that there's no way to prevent someone from sticking something new in the middle of such a block -- something which is not, in fact, covered by the cite.


 * In very complex articles where this kind of issue was a problem, I've sometimes used the technique of adding a newline (not visible in the rendered page, of course) after each citation. That helps editors see at a glance the text block which immediately precedes, and therefore is presumably covered by, by that citation.  E Eng  21:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was some way to tie a cite to a definite block of text that the cite covers -- YES.  Exactly what I was thinking of too. I would support opening up a new section or possibly something at Teahouse technical about seeing how hard it would be to get a draft template to do this--unless you think it would be easy.  Who would have to approve it? Who wrote the code that does the hover stuff we do have? I just noticed it started happening one day... I've sometimes used the technique of adding a newline (not visible in the rendered page, of course) after each citation.  That sounds good too--but I would think the newline would mess up the rendered page.  I like the idea.  Can you give us an example where you used it?     --David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Designing a template will involve many challenges. But the newlines-to-make-blocks-clearer is easy. Just try it somewhere. Except in some special places like bullet lists, adding a single linebreak in the middle of the wikicode has no effect at all on the rendered page. (Two linebreaks in a row is interpreted as a paragraph break.)


 * Adding "internal" linebreaks like this has an additional benefit: it makes diffs of complicated paragraphs more focused and easier to interpret.  E Eng  12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know what you mean about adding line breaks to help out the diff program.  I was just doing that tonight, trying to make a minor change from looking like big change.  You sound like a coder yourself (like me), esp. with the title EEng.  Do you know if there is a spec. somewhere, like a grammar and syntax guide that says exactly how the machine interprets the wikitext? I don't have the energy to read the code directly (what language is it in?), which I imagine is huge (maybe not?), but a specification would be nice to answer questions like these.  I find it very odd that carriage return follow by a space, gives a big multi-line block in light color.  For years I would see that and it would take a while to figure out what went wrong.  I find that completely bizarre choice, and have never seen it explained anywhere.  And the same with what you are saying about line feeds.  Even the way it interprets the opening [,, {{, [[:, [[File:, etc. seems to put it in a special kinds of parsing mode, each with unique rules, that often do something I do not expect, and a nice grammar definition would be easier than trying to read every single help page.  It's got to be far more confusing to people who have never written a [[parser and don't understand computer language formal grammars.  Maybe I should ask as Tea House Technical if you don't know? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's a formal specification anywhere, just a pile of code you can look at, and I predict you will find it a shocking and frustrating experience. Someone at WP:Village pump (technical) can no doubt point you in the right direction.  E Eng  13:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the right thing to do.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've heard that there's no formal specification for wikitext (and that most of MediaWiki is written in PHP, so perhaps this is, too), but you all might be interested in what the Parsing team is doing. The "old parser" is being replaced, and there might even, someday, far in the future, become something sort of like a specification.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Before anyone gets too deep into designing something new: a "spanning" type of citation has really quite limited use. (E.g., wrapping some text in a {spanning-citation} template precludes putting the citation in a note.) More useful would be a "spanning" type of note (specifically, that produced with {{tag|ref}} tags), which could then contain all of the citations and comments pertaining to the "spanned" text.


 * But the problem hardly needs to arise. E.g., where sentence contains one or more simple assertions (like, say, some number) it is simple enough to put the pertinent supporting source directly following that material. (The problem here is where some editors insist on moving all notes to the end of the sentence.) For more complex assertions, or where a source applies to multiple simple assertions, it is straight-forward enough to say as much in a note. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Appeal to common sense: Cite sources logically.  Citing is necessary, an I don't think the proposer or anyone else is arguing against citation, but not citing the same source repeatedly in sequential sequences.  Something like This is a sentence.[1] This is another sentence.[1] This is a third sentence.[1] just looks unprofessional and rather silly. Where an entire paragraph is cited to the same source, and then some tag-bomber shows up, there is no reason not to do something logical like add hidden texts stating that the situation is, i.e.: This is a sentence. This is another sentence. This is a third sentence.[1] It is absurd to have a mechanical "cite every sentence" rule where the source is identical.   That said, there is the opposite situation too:  sometimes multiple sources may be needed in a single sentence : This is a clause,[1] with another, more detailed clause,[2] concluding with a third clause.[3] Yes, {[u|EEng#s}} is right that sometimes there is creep over time and content can get separated from sources, but that is what watchlists are for.   Montanabw (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree per this. The purpose of policy and guidelines is to try to slow does the majority of editors who are against the rules. Most people on Wikipedia should not be deciding what the rules say because they are against the rules. Editors continue to misplace citations. When multiple sources are needed for a single sentence each citations can be placed where it verifies the claim. If all the citations are placed at the end of the sentence then all the citations must verify the entire claim. Misplaced citations is continuing to cause confusion. If only one citation is placed at the end of a paragraph then any editor can delete any sentence that is unsourced. We need counter measures to improve the verifiability of content. It won't improve the readability of content when the text could be deleted. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What?? That is a distinctly odd statement, that "[t]he purpose of policy and guidelines is to try to slow does the majority of editors who are against the rules. ..." It might be interesting, perhaps even useful, to get into that, but also off-topic. And it distracts from the rest of your comment.


 * As to the rest: yes, I agree that sources (notes) at the end of a sentence should be applicable to the whole sentence (unless otherwise qualified), and sources (notes) applicable to only some sub-section cited immediately following that sub-section. Note that the same principle can applied to paragraphs.


 * Re 's objection: Would you repeat the same material in successive sentences? (E.g.: "Fact A first time.[1] Fact A second time.[1] ...") I think not; you would have different facts ("A", "B", ...). Even if all those facts come from the same source, they are likely to have different in-source locations (e.g., page numbers). So while you are correct in that all these facts are supported by the same source, they are not the same citation. The proper citations would be something like "Smith, 2001, p. 17", "Smith 2001, p. 24", "Smith, 2001, pp. 31-33". Something applicable to all of these can be added to the last note. E.g.: "While Smith 2001 has long been considered authoritative (Jones, 2012), a recent study (Brown, 2015) suggests the true values are 10% higher."


 * In summary:
 * 1) It's not "overkill" to cite everything that needs to be cited.
 * 2) Repetition of identical citations is a possible indicator of incomplete citation.
 * 3) Issues of "spanning" can be handled at the meta level; syntactical level tools are not needed.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Flow regarding the content about hiding citations
QuackGuru, regarding this and this, I argue that the content flows better by stating what hiding a citation entails and then noting that it can be problematic. It does not flow well to begin by noting that citations can be hidden, then stating that it can be problematic, and then explaining the matter of hiding citations and then explaining how hiding them can be problematic. It's why I made the edits I did, including this and this one. Furthermore, stating that one can hide citations and then adding "but realize" is poor flow because even though you are trying to state that one should realize that hiding them can cause a problem, it can be read as "One can hide citations but then realize the problem." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "One can hide citations with ." Our readers disagree. Editors may think the content is unsourced.  It is time to move forward and fix the wording.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I like I stated in the edit history, it is Doc James who added that bit. So I'm thinking he should weigh in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One can hide all the citations throughout the entire article? It needs to be fixed. I never seen a page where all the citations are hidden. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is simply that if one paragraph with three sentences is supported by one source, the first two instances of the ref for the first two sentences can be hidden with only the third and final ref of the paragraph showing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says and even if it said that it is a problem hiding citations per WP:INTEGRITY. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree editors on this talk page clearly have different opinions about this whole thing. That means there is no consensus for hiding citations. I don't see any article benefiting from hiding citations. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That does not mean that this needed to be added. You act like the text was stating that one must hide citations. All it was/is stating is that citations can be hidden. There is no need to state that there is no consensus on the matter. And regarding your WP:INTEGRITY argument above and this, WP:INTEGRITY is not about hiding citations at all. It is about making sure that the source used to support a sentence or paragraph actually supports it and has not been moved to an area it does not support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is against hiding citations. See WP:INTEGRITY: "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." The citation will be misplaced if they are hidden and they will be lost for our readers. The point is to let the reader verify the claim. Please show me an article that benefits from hiding citations for our readers. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've clearly seen WP:INTEGRITY; I simply do not agree with your interpretation of it as far as hiding citations go. It seems you need to read the rest of that guideline, including its examples of what WP:INTEGRITY violations are. I see no issue at all with hiding some citations in the case of a citation overkill matter. The citations are not misplaced by being hidden; they are simply hidden. Unless you can show that all of the citations need to be displayed, I will not be agreeing with you that hiding citations is inherently bad. Hiding them can be problematic, I agree; I do not agree that hiding them is automatically bad. And since you often interpret our policies and guidelines in ways that others do not, as also indicated above on this talk page, I do not think it is beneficial that I continue to argue this matter with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bump it up to a policy page. See WP:VERIFY: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]" It says "All content must be verifiable." Our readers cannot verify the claim when the citation is not visible. It is clearly against policy to hide citations. If you disagree then explain how our readers are going to verify a claim when there is no visible citation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy also says that verifiABLE "means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article." That gap between "able to be verified, through any means, including by doing your own web search or going to your own library and asking your own reference librarian for help" and "someone has already typed a citation to a source (that is allegedly reliable and allegedly supports the material in question) into the article" seems to trip you up fairly often.  The policy requires that some people be ABLE to verify the material.  It does not, and never has, required that everything be CITED already.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy says under Verifiability: "means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."
 * What you quoted what not about verifying a claim. It is about a different, unrelated matter regarding original research.
 * For years it says "This means all material must be attributable..." Verifiable does not mean as long as a reader can verify the claim somewhere on the web or at a library the text is verifiable. Verifiability is accomplished by providing a citation according to WP:PROVEIT.
 * According to your argument as long as the text is verifiable a citation is not even needed. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the policy: Material (text or otherwise) does not need to have a citation, unless the material falls into one of the four categories in WP:MINREF (three of which are determined by WP:V, and the fourth by BLP).  The policy is not verifiED; the policy is verifiABILITY.  If someone (i.e., anyone other than the editor who originally added the material) has the ability to verify that the material could have come from a reliable source, then the material is verifiABLE.  The presence or absence of citations in the text is irrelevant.  The policy only demands that it be possible, not that it already be documented.  It is perfectly allowable under WP:V to have a sentence such as "Smallpox is a vaccine-preventable viral disease" without a citation after it.  That material is verifiABLE to anyone who spends a few seconds with their favorite web search engine, and therefore it fully complies with WP:V even if it is uncited.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I challenge all unsourced statements. Any statement on Wikipedia that is unsourced is now challenged. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you probaly shouldn't edit Wikipedia (see WP:POINT).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Including "the human hand normally has five digits", which even young children should know?
 * Seriously, editors have tried that kind of end-run around the policy before, and the community rejects it as WP:POINTY and disruptive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But we do cite a source for the human hand having 5 digits. See Hand: "The human hand has five fingers and 27 bones, not including the sesamoid bone, the number of which varies between people,[3]..."
 * Many editors reject policy and follow their own rules. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is often OK until someone objects, at which point policy tends to have the upper hand until changed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy is not consistently enforced. If it was enforced then editors would stop replacing sourced content with text that fails verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't, Even the law isn't consistently enforced, and there are professionals trained and employed to do that A deviation from policy must be noticed by someone who knows that it is a deviation from policy, considers it an actual problem, and cares enough to do something about it, before anything is likely to be done. Then there is the problem that it is quite common for several people to disagree with any given policy, and with the interpretation of that policy regarding the current application, which can slow things down. Even if the specific policy was enforced, failing verification is also a minefield of uncertainty. It can happen simply because the source has changed, it can happen because what one person understands as what the citation says may differ from another person's interpretation, and as you are aware, we are required to restate the information to avoid plagiarism. It can also happen because the wrong source was cited, intentionally of by accident. It is a problem. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are numerous articles that contain text that fails verification. For example, read the chiropractic talk page. For almost ten years I have been trying to remove the failed verification claims. Now it is only one paragraph in the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised if the majority of articles contain text which would fail verification. One of the problems with failing verification is that it does not prove a statement to be wrong, hence the "verifiability not truth" principle. In a way this is less of a problem with uncited material, as people are more inclined to assume that a referenced statement is verifiable without bothering to check, so a bad citation can be worse than none at all. Shit happens, eventually much of it gets cleaned up. Sometimes it takes years. On Wikipedia we can watch it happening, elsewhere we may have to assume good faith because there may not be an option.
 * What is the root cause of these problems? The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)? The WMF ignores almost everything on Wikipedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki edited by volunteers. No-one is obliged to check references. The wiki is growing constantly. That some references remain unchecked and incorrect is a logical consequence of those conditions, and nothing to do with WMF, which has no obligations to check or interfere with the development of the encyclopedia providing that editors comply with the terms of use. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru, although I don't fully agree with WhatamIdoing on verifiability, it is not true that everything needs to be sourced. What needs to be sourced is material that is likely to be challenged. Common sense material does not need to be sourced. We absolutely do not need to source that people have five fingers on each hand. And as for hiding citations, my point is that it's not always the case that all of the citations need to be shown in the article. What is important is that the sentence or paragraph is clearly supported by at least one reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When it can be sourced, then "attribute to" a source rather than claim it is "verifiable in" a source and not provide a source for the claim. Hiding citations will be hiding citations from the reader. The reader cannot verify the claim without a citation. It is more important to verify the claim for the reader. WP:INTEGRITY is another important point. After a sentence is deleted, editors continue to leave behind the citation where it does not verify any claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You stated, "Hiding citations will be hiding citations from the reader. The reader cannot verify the claim without a citation. It is more important to verify the claim for the reader." Did you not grasp what I just stated? I am talking about cases where the claim is already verified by one or more sources. In cases where content is already verified by one or more sources, the additional sources do not need to be shown; they can be hidden, just like they can be bundled. Why hide them instead of remove them? Maybe because they are or will be useful in the future. And, no, we don't have to cite everything; I've already noted why and will not be repeating myself to you on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When there is no visible citation at the end of a sentence the reader cannot be expected to know here to find a citation to verify the claim. Maybe the citation at the end of the section verifies the claim or maybe it does not. An editor may start tagging the sentences without a citation. I have no problem citing everything I add. It is not hard for me. Verifiability is far more important than allegations that the content will be less readable due to one citation after each sentence. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is false. The reader can (and should) verify content by in doubt checking all citations (or sources) in the neighbourhood of the sentence in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that verifiability is important, and that it should be possible to see a useful citation, but also that some statements will never be challenged, and therefore do not need a citation. However there is no fundamental harm in providing a citation for something which may be, as Al Capp so pungently expresses, "as any fool can plainly see". Most of us are happy to wait until some exceptionally under-informed person challenges an obvious statement before providing a citation, but, as is often the case with medical articles, if the editor sees fit to provide a citation for every statement to reduce the hassle of looking it up again later, then good for them, and it should be accessible to the reader in some useful way. This should be permitted, but not obligatory. It would be nice if there was a software method of hiding references during reading. For example, a toggle button to hide/show references. Ideally this would remain visible at all times, which might be a technical challenge for mobile view. For desktop maybe a button in the sidebar that moves down the page with the reader, for mobile, maybe an icon at the top of the screen. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, it's clear that you do not understand what I am trying to state about hiding citations. I repeat: "In cases where content is already verified by one or more sources, the additional sources do not need to be shown; they can be hidden, just like they can be bundled." If a sentence in an article is already verified by a visible source and the additional sources are not needed to verify that sentence, they can be hidden. An editor might hide those sources in the article because they can be used for something else later in the article. So, no, those additional sources, which are causing citation clutter, do not need to be visible in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about adding additional citations or hiding additional citations after a sentence when there is already one citation after a sentence. This is about when there is no citation after a sentence and there is only one citation at the end of a paragraph. If there is only one citation at the end of a paragraph the other sentences that don't have a citation need a citation. Those citations should not be hidden because the reader can't verify the claim when they are hidden. Bundling different citations into one citation is very confusing to editors and to readers. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion concerns the "Needless repetition" section, which is about trimming needless repetition and includes the "hiding citations" aspect that you disagree with. As for citation bundling, I doubt that it is "very confusing to editors and to readers." I sometimes use WP:CITEBUNDLE and using it is allowed. You should take any cite bundle issue you have to that guideline talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "needless repetition" to make visible a citation for the reader and if the citation is not visible the reader will not be able to verify the claim. That makes the text unsourced to the reader. As for citation bundling, it is misleading. It makes it more difficult to verify a claim. Which source verifies a claim when different sources are bundled together? There are times when more than one citation is needed to verify the entire sentence. The best approach is to place each citation only where it verifies each particular claim rather than place all the citations at the end of a sentence where all the citations do not verify the entire sentence. There are other problems. I noticed there are editors who add multiple citations but all the citations do not verify any of the content. Editors are getting smarter to get around policy. Uninvolved admins most often refuse to enforce the most basic policy. A lot of things are allowed but that does not make it appropriate.
 * See Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Other people including our readers can't check to verify a claim when there is no citation at the end of each sentence. A citation way down at the end of a section without providing visible citations for the other content is deemed to have failed verification for the other content according to Wikipedia:Verifiability policy because other people must be able to be given the opportunity to be able check to verify the content. The other content is considered unsourced to who? Our readers. Hiding citations is a flawed concept. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Other people, including our readers, can't use their favorite web search engine to determine whether facts have been published in a reliable source?  Other people can't go to the library?  Other people can't buy and read books?  The phrase that says "can check that the information comes from a reliable source" includes every possible method.  It does not require that other people be able to "check that the information comes from a reliable source" through the exclusive method of clicking on a blue number and looking at that citation alone.
 * Also, there should not be any statement anywhere in Wikipedia that says humans normally have five fingers. Strictly speaking, each human hand has five digits, or four fingers and one thumb.
 * The citation at the end of that slightly wrong sentence has nothing to do with the number of fingers on the human hand. The citation was added with the material about 27 bones.  The  bit about the number of fingers was added later and cannot be assumed to be supported by the source.  I've split them back into two sentences, and described it with more precision.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, I agree to disagree with you. Also, there is no need to point me to policies or guidelines I am aware of.


 * WhatamIdoing, depending on the source/definition, the thumb may be defined as a finger. This is even currently mentioned in the Finger article. And I state "currently" because I see that QuackGuru has a habit of going to articles and changing them when they are highlighted in a discussion; I see that he also followed you to the Hand article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)