Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill/Archive 4

Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?
In the "Citations" discussion above on this talk page, a suggestion was made to include text that encourages more citations. For example, in this discussion, it was suggested that adding a citation after each sentence instead of having one citation at the end of a paragraph supporting the entire paragraph is beneficial, and that the text in the essay that discourages more citations should be replaced with text that encourages more citations. One view is that the essay is specifically about citation overkill (excessive citations) and that it offers leeway for cases where it is best to cite multiple sources, but that excessively citing should generally be discouraged. The other view is that more citations are beneficial; for example, adding a citation for each sentence of a paragraph assures the reader that all of the content is sourced, since readers can otherwise assume that some text is unsourced.

Opinions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. The essay allows enough leeway. That some editors feel that we should be excessive in adding citations does not mean that the essay should be changed to encourage excessive citations (whether different citations supporting the same thing or repeat citations). Like I noted above, this is an essay that is specifically about not excessively citing. If someone wants to create a counter essay about excessive citing being perfectly fine, then they are free to do so, in the same way that we have WP:Sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. I completely disagree with these edits, which change the point of the essay and add useless or silly language, such as changing "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation." to "It is disputed for material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention." And WP:Med arguments should be had at WP:MEDMOS, which is an actual guideline. Medical articles should not be a primary basis for affecting many other articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are overloading our WP articles with citation (book keeping) bureaucracy that is becoming a serious hassle for editors and potentially driving them away and where the actual benefits for readers are rather questionable. Imho this might over time deteriorate quality rather than improving it. There also seems to be a trend towards providing/requiring a lot of metainformation on sources as proxy for actually reading them. For quality and correctness however the latter is critical and not the former. We need editors rather than stuffing articles with detailed metainformation and checking whether such details exists to actually read the sources attached to paragraphs and sentences to actually verify whether the content matches the sources or not. The same thing we should expect from readers who want to confirm/verify some content for themselves, they need to read the sources as well rather than just checking for some metainformation, the correctness of which can't be guaranteed anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing this essay (I agree with the arguments expressed above). However, I would  Support the creation of a WP:Citation overkill (contrary opinions) essay (which would be linked to within this one), to outline the opinions of those who disagree with what this essay says.  Blueboar (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem User:Blueboar is non-content editors come around and remove citations while linking to this essay. I think we need to more narrowly define what is "over citation". Some of the examples used here are not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is only a "problem" if you disagree with the current essay. If you agree with it, then it isn't a "problem".  I realize that not all editors agree with what this essay says, and there needs to be an essay that explains that contrary viewpoint... but the point of this essay is to explain the point of view of those who think it is perfectly OK to remove excessive citations.  We need to respect and explain both viewpoints.  Thus, we need two essays. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this might better handled with "dos and donts" essay for non-content editors, which can be linked here if needed. People not bothering with the content or sources (in particular if they are not really familiar with topic either) shouldn't tinker with the location of citations. They may do pretty printing/formating of the citations itself and but they may not ermove them from locations or move around their locations without actually being familiar with the content and the sources in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Saw the notification on the Film Project page. In-line citations are only required by policy is when the material is challenged or likely to be challenged (and quotations). Unless this applies, it needs only be verifiable and therefore it is at editors discretion as to how to ensure that this is done, in line with community norms, with no requirement that citations are placed at the end of sentences or paragraphs. If something non-contentious is already cited, there is no requirement for this to be repeated. There is no requirement for non-contentious material to be cited in-line even at the first appearance (established in the cite guideline, which emphasises readability as a consideration when citing).
 * This is a general (i.e. non-specific to topic area) essay that assists editors with identifying when too many citations are being used, and it is therefore quite inappropriate for the language in this essay to be diluted by vague and unhelpful repetitions of that fact that sometimes in-line citations can also be correct. Editors who are concerned that this essay will be used as an excuse to not provide in-line citations when required only need to demonstrate that the material may be challenged and they can use WP:Verifiability to ensure that appropriate sourcing is included at the appropriate place. I understand that certain topic areas may require much more in-line citation than others, and the community can develop guidelines and / or essays as to when they believe that material is likely to be challenged. This essay should not do anything to encourage over citing in any form, for this essay is intended to promote readability which in the vast majority of cases is decreased by inappropriate over citation. Scribolt (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This needs to vary with the situation.  Too prescriptive means will often be wrong. North8000  (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This essay needs rewording. We need the correct amount of citations. What that is, is not dealt with well by this essay. We should be accepting a wider range of practices including a citation for every sentence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support More citations prevent confusion and disputes. The argument against citations is an unfounded theory that readers get confused by seeing superscript numbers. I do not accept that theory. I think that there is no significant harm by posting citation notes for every claim. Reading and editing the wiki becomes much easier when people use citations at the end of every sentence and other endpoints, like items in lists or infoboxes. If claims are worth repeating then so are the citations.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The focus of the proposed change in the discussion above assumes that placing references at the end of paragraphs is less desirable than placing them at the end of each sentence within that paragraph. Where is the evidence supporting this theory? The level of controversy and the likelihood of the content being challenged should dictate when one method is more desirable over the other. WP:CITE states:


 * A preference to use one method over another for inline citations is not stated within the guideline, and therefore, a supplement essay such as this one should not attempt to promote one. According to the guideline, it is clear that "close to the material" is a subjective editorial decision that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. We should give Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt that they'll use common sense and apply the correct method as needed. Spelling it out here is a form of WP:CREEP, IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:GoneIn60 the proposal is to give equal weight to the different methods. The method chosen should be left up to the editors of the article in question via discussion / consensus on the talk page. What we want to do is decrease the people who go around and alter the refs to this style within articles they have not contributed any content to. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how the original version of the essay had an issue with equal weight. The text that was added recently, "putting only one reference at the end of the section might require ongoing maintenance as other editors may mistakenly add tags or delete content as they think it is unreferenced.", also does not maintain any balance, and in fact, seems to discourage one practice over the other. Ample evidence is needed to show why you believe editors may do this. If you wish to continue this sidebar, let's continue in the discussion section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support improving the wording for the essay to encourage editors to provide a citation for unsourced content and to avoid causing confusion to our readers. This essay is not neutral like Citing sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't neutral... that's why it is an essay and not a policy or guideline. essays express opinions... they are not supposed to be neutral. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be seen as disruptive if an editor tries to go to different articles and change the reference style per this comment. Giving equal weight to various methods for this essay should not be a problem. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * support per Blue Rasberry(and common sense...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the original writers of the essay are amenable to changing it. Essays are opinion pieces, and those who believe in the views represented by this essay are allowed to express their views, just as those with opposing views are allowed to express their own views. Either way, essays are non-binding, so changing this essay has no practical impact beyond that which editors allow it to have. DonIago (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is merely a personal essay. There is not a clear line between essays which are mere suggestions versus those taken as rules. My view is that many users treat this essay as closer to a guideline than any user's personal suggestion, and that this essay is often used to enforce rules. This is in the public Wikipedia space so no one owns this article. Sometimes pro/con essays exist simultaneously but I do not think we are at the point of needing to have separate camps of disagreement. I think that citation overkill is a broad concept, and within that concept, the one point about using at least one citation per claim is an idea which could get consensus.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Essays are not rules, they are opinion pieces. Anyone portraying an essay as a rule is misrepresenting it. If users are treating an essay as a guideline or policy, that's on them. I'm more than amenable to having a separate section added to this essay to discuss contrary views, but I would vehemently oppose refactoring the essay simply because some users have an issue with what it currently says. In my opinion that would be no different than refactoring a user's Talk page comments. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understand you both correctly, it seems like you both think that this page is just some opinions by a few people, and that you feel that no one should treat this like a rule set. I generally advocate for consensus rather than posting conflicting guidance around Wikipedia, but if you feel that this page should be intact, then how would you feel about the establishment of a second essay which contradicts this one in entirely? In the second essay, it could say, "use citations, put them everywhere" and dismiss the claims in this essay as inaccurate. Anyone who wants to continue the "pro" side of the discussion could cite that essay as their reasoning, then the pro and con sides would not have to have conversation with each other and could do their own thing. Do you think that would be more productive than seeking consensus here? If the essays can be with any view anyway, and both views are equal in the rules, then it seems like it is editors' choice to do things either way, right?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody should treat this like a rule set because it isn't a rule set, it's an essay. I'm fine with a second essay with contrary views, or even a separate section added to this essay representing conflicting views. I'm not fine with refactoring the existing text to change the views presented by those who composed it, any more than I would be fine with any editor editing any posts made at Talk pages because they didn't like what other editors had said. What some people don't seem to understand is that essays may be supporting documents, but they are not rules or guidelines, they carry no weight, they are not binding in any manner, and no editor should be telling another editor how to behave based solely on an essay (though they could present an essay as "advice"). DonIago (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. The current text adequately allows for one citation per sentence while discouraging overkill (more than about 3 per sentence). Here's a relevant snippet copied and pasted from the 4th paragraph of the essay: A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider bundling (merging) the citations. This is a good guideline that doesn't need changing. ~Awilley (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support that text. I do not think anyone here is arguing against it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle. Don't like this essay? Don't cite it. Don't like other people citing it? Cry me a river: other people have opinions different from yours, get used to it. It really is that simple.


 * An essay is allowed to have a point of view. People who are hostile to an essay's point of view are encouraged to write their own freaken essay; if they want they can link to from the "See also" section of this page. People who are hostile to an essay's point of view are not encouraged to edit that essay, at all. Don't do it. Edits to an essay should be made by, and only by, people who are in general agreement with the thrust of the essay and who wish only to make it more compelling. If there's some kind of special deal for medical articles, go make a rule or guideline for medical articles specifically. Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing this essay per DonIago, support the use of additional citations, one for every sentence or, if needed to clarify what applies to what, to every clause. Such use just doesn't need to be approved in this essay. If you include additional citations and someone cites this essay, tell them that it's just an essay and has no precedential weight whatsoever. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 06:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This essay provides good advice (and if you don't like it you may write another one, no?). If anything, we need *less* citation, having one citation for each sentence, or even parts of them, hints that there is no (secondary) source that talk about the article subject and we are stitching news together. That is a deeeeeper problem, but at least lets not encourage it further - Nabla (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The conflict being raised here stems from a misunderstanding about the intention. This document does not preclude the possibility of one citation per sentence in a paragraph, if and where that's warranted (for example, it's entirely possible for different sources to address different things that belong together in one paragraph) — what this document is primarily meant to preclude is the idea that we need to stack each piece of information with five or ten or twenty citations per sentence (which is a thing people do.) Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- the essay is fine as it is. If there's a need to discuss the different approaches -- i.e. a cite at the end of the para, vs at the end of each sentence -- then this can be done elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — This essay makes a large number of mistakes and entirely ignores the fact that our articles change. I strongly support adding a reference to each and every sentence, because the risk of not doing so it that someone sticks something else in the middle of a paragraph with an entirely different reference — and we don't know what reference supports which sentence. Carl Fredrik  talk 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the overall meaning of this essay. I agree with Doniago and TransporterMan on this point.  I also recommend that editors who disagree with this essay read this advice on what to do when you disagree with an essay.  Consider the confusion that would result if you cited a page, and people are trying to figure out your comments later, after the page has been changed to say the opposite of what you actually meant.  If you want a page that says WP:You should cite every single sentence (I note that, just last week, one of the supporters of change to this page fact-tagged a sentence about how many fingers humans have – and in the lead, no less) or WP:Sixteen citations behind the same sentence is a good thing, then go write it.  Don't try to hijack a page that says the opposite.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "I note that, just last week, one of the supporters of change to this page fact-tagged a sentence about how many fingers humans have – and in the lead, no less". You failed to mention sources were provided to verify the two distinctly different claims. WP:You should cite every single sentence is easy for me. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ....why not just write an a posing view essay. there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Essays are. On side note the above edits  to the hands article are one of the most absurd edits I've seen in awhile.....you writing this encyclopedia for aliens or just going out of your way to disrupt to prove a point??? Either way shows a lack of judgment. Perhaps we should amend  our policies on this to convey the fact we expect common sense to be applied.--Moxy (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit you made to hand does not verify the claim. The source you added says "five fingers". See Citation underkill. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another edit replaced sources that verified two different claims with a single source that failed verification. Once again, see Citation underkill. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The most urgent thing on Wikipedia is not to increase the number of sources we cite, but to increase their quality.  Using hundreds of citations is actually obfuscatory  it's also sometimes diagnostic of an editor with an agenda, concealing the fact that in certain paragraphs they're using sources very selectively.  Generally, most articles would benefit from being based on fewer, better sources.— S Marshall  T/C 19:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean like adding unsourced content like this? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to challenge that edit for being unsourced, Quack, and if you do, then you will justify pretty much every comment I've ever made about your poor editorial judgment.— S Marshall T/C 19:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree to stop adding content that is unsourced or very difficult for our readers to verify on that article? It looks like you are adding unsourced content even if sourced by other source or sources somewhere in the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree to change my behaviour at your request, in this respect or any other. Edits only need to be sourced if they're "challenged or likely to be challenged" by a competent, good-faith editor.  Edits that would only be challenged by an incompetent or vexatious editor are exempt.— S Marshall  T/C 21:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
This RfC is malformed. It is misrepresenting the dispute. It states "In the "Citations" discussion above on this talk page, a suggestion was made to include text that encourages more citations." That is not accurate. When a citation is hidden it is better to allow the citation to be shown in order for the reader to be able to verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go and read the discussion again. You focused on hiding citations. Others mainly focused on whether or not more citations are needed, including whether or not the same citation(s) should repeated for every sentence (which is more). And this edit by Doc James, which I contested, added "but it is also perfectly reasonable to provide an inline citation for each mention" onto "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention." So, yes, the discussion has mainly been about whether or not extra citations (or a repeat of citations) are needed; most of what I reverted you on with this edit is about whether or not extra citations are needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not about whether or not "extra citations" are needed. I do not know what "extra citations" means. Hiding citations or unhiding citations is not about "extra citations". It is not about more citations after each sentence. It is about verifying the statement without needing to hide the citations. This particular RfC is about a general discussion about the dispute. It has no focus. According to your view adding a citation after each sentence is excessive. Correct me if I am wrong. How can our readers verify a claim without a visible citation? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? What is discussed is clear for everyone to see. The oppose and support votes focus on whether a citation should be placed after every sentence, meaning whether it is a different reference or the same reference used multiple times. Some of these editors suggested that adding a citation after each sentence instead of having one citation at the end of a paragraph supporting the entire paragraph is beneficial. You focused on hiding citations, but most of the editors in that discussion did not and a number disagreed with your interpretations of the rules, just like I am disagreeing with your interpretation of the discussion. Regardless of what Doc James proposed, editors focused on whether it is beneficial to add additional references or repeat references. They mainly did not focus on hiding citations. I am not about to sit here and argue with you on this. I'm now off to alert pages to this RfC. And, yes, I agree that adding a citation after each sentence is needless when it's excessive (as in "more than is necessary"). For why, you can simply read the others' arguments on that above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "The oppose and support votes focus on whether a citation should be placed after every sentence, meaning whether it is a different reference or the same reference used multiple times." Nope. There is no specific proposal that is about whether a citation should be placed after every sentence. That shows this RfC is malformed or this discussion is more about getting opinions. The title "Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?" is misleading. There is no specific suggestion to add additional citations after each sentence. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This my last time replying to you on this because it has become clear to me that you twist just everything and misinterpret matters far too drastically for others to consider the misinterpretations seriously. Doc James has had an issue with the "Needless repetition" section for years. The "Needless repetition" section begins by stating, "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention." It also states, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." Doc James has an issue with this. He therefore added "This is also correct" to the overkill example in that section, and added that hiding citations can be a way of reducing citation overkill. In the "Citations" discussion above, he suggested that we "have all references shown," which means that the reference after each sentence will be shown instead of hidden. In that discussion, he also suggested "hide citations." Lastly, he suggested, "put the reference at the end of the section but realize that ongoing maintenance will be required as other editors may mistakenly add tags or delete content as they think it is unreferenced." So, yes, Doc James's proposal focused on citations being placed after every sentence vs. being hidden vs. being at the end  of the paragraph. Editors did not focus on his "hiding citations" proposal. They focused on whether a citation should be placed after every sentence, meaning whether it is a different reference or the same reference used multiple times. You focused on hiding citations. Others did not, except for when replying to you. Repeated citations are more citations when it comes to citation clutter.


 * You argued "nope" -- that the oppose and support votes focus do not on whether a citation should be placed after every sentence. But SlimVirgin stated, "Also, it's not a good thing to have the same ref repeated after every sentence." Zigzig20s stated, "I am a strong supporter of so-called 'citation overkill' for two reasons: 1) this is Wikipedia and our readers cannot know for sure if editors have added unreferenced sentences in the middle of a paragraph unless every single sentence is referenced. 2) as an editor, whenever I want to expand a paragraph, I at least know which content is cited and which one is not." Dmcq stated, "I think putting a citation on every single sentence is silly. A reader should just look at the next citation if they are concerned about what is said. A citation per short paragraph is what I would consider the minimum and more should be put in only where necessary." Sławomir Biały, stated, "What are we going to do, cite the same source for every single sentence in a paragraph, if that paragraph summarizes what's in the source? Don't be ridiculous." And those are just a few examples. So your "nope" argument is false. Furthermore, this edit by Doc James focuses on encouraging a reference after each sentence. These edits by you focus on the "repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention" portion of the essay and on the "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." portion of the essay. So regardless of a specific proposal to add additional citations after each sentence, the discussion has mostly focused on that. You can argue otherwise all you want, but the evidence above shows that you are wrong. You stated, "There is no specific suggestion to add additional citations after each sentence." And yet, above, we can clearly see TransporterMan stating, "Doc James' suggestion and, indeed, multiple citations. Not having at least every sentence cited leads to, with new editors, stranding article text without a proper citation by interposition of new material (thus leading to claims that the stranded material is uncited)." We can clearly see Seppi333, stating, "Support - medical content really does need citations for every sentence. WP:V and the reliability of Wikipedia are more significant in this context than in pretty much any other type of article IMO; citing every sentence facilitates WP:V and enhances the reliability of medical content by clearly indicating whether a sentence is supported by a particular reference or not. Consequently, when I read medical articles, I assume that sentences that are not immediately followed by a citation are not cited." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We need some kind of WP:ENFORCEMENT for this page. It sounds like editors are arguing against Verifiability policy. Per WP:V: "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." Our readers can't check the source when there is no citation at the end of a sentence. The suggestions do not focus on whether a citation should be placed after every sentence. There is no should. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you are drawing the conclusion that editors are arguing against WP:V. One of the main items discussed above and within this RfC has to do with whether or not inline citations should be encouraged to exist after each sentence, even when it would be a suitable alternative to place the reference at the end of the paragraph. Debating the location of the reference in no way violates WP:V, as that policy is only concerned that the reference exists and not necessarily where it is placed. I haven't seen anyone propose removing references altogether.With that said, I'm not sure what "Oppose" and "Support" represent in this RfC. So in that respect, there is some ambiguity in the proposal that should be cleared up by Flyer22 Reborn. Although the description points to the long-winded discussion above, it should stand alone with a clear objective allowing others to easily weigh in with yea or nay responses. Perhaps try a blunt statement that says something like, "Do you support stronger language that encourages inline citations to be placed after every sentence and discourages the practice of placing them at the end of a paragraph?" Doc's proposed change in the previous discussion could also be cited in the RfC description, allowing support/oppose votes to directly hinge off that example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, you know that I appreciate your viewpoint a lot. Feel free to change the RfC to your proposal. Do you want the question reworded to your proposal, or the entire paragraph changed to something else? I take it that you will need to add a note about the change and time stamp the RfC template so that it's updated on the RfC page? But if you feel that it's best to simply discard my entire RfC paragraph along with the question, feel free to do that also. But I do think that you should point to that previous discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you do, and I also know that you would take any criticism constructively! I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, and to be honest, I haven't read the whole thing. I appreciate the offer, but I feel there are way too many people involved for me to step in at this point and attempt to direct the discussion. In situations like these, it would probably be best to engage editors on both sides in a separate discussion on how to best phrase the RfC. That way, all relevant viewpoints are considered before the description is finalized. My suggestion above was only based on what I read, but others here may have other viewpoints they'd like considered. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question - why are we conducting an RfC about changing an essay? An essay is not policy, nor is it one or more guidelines, and as such is entirely non-binding and ultimately little more than an opinion piece. While certain essays perhaps have reached a level of general "best practice" status (Amnesia test for instance), it seems to me that if you disagree with an essay, the prudent course is to write up your concerns and either have them appended as a contrary view or established as an independent essay which could then be linked via WP:SEEALSO. DonIago (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Doniago, see the history of disputes regarding WP:BRD. As you know, that is "just an essay" as well (even though it's currently identified as a supplement page), but it's cited so often that it has been considered important enough to have RfCs concerning it; see this 2016 one that took place at Village pump (policy). WP:Citation overkill is also cited often, and for good reason. It's important enough for us to consider whether or not a drastic change should be made to it, especially since it's been stable for years. And after the latest significant discussion above, and these reverted changes, it was clear to me that an RfC was needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I was originally going to reference BRD, but upon seeing that it had been promoted to a supplement page felt that would confuse the matter. That was my first exposure to the supplement page notion, and without having more information about them I would be reluctant to equate them with essays.
 * I've never seen Citation overkill cited in any discussion I've been engaged in, so I'll have to take your word for it being cited often. Given my lack of exposure to it, and its state as an essay, it's admittedly difficult for me to feel too invested in this currently. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * DonIago, it wasn't officially promoted to a supplement page, though. Like I stated on my talk page, I've seen certain essay pages now categorized as supplement pages. It seems that someone tampered with a template and that this has had an effect on some essay pages. I haven't yet looked into it, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to review your findings, as I'd never heard of supplement pages until I was going to link to BRD here. Kind of glad I checked to see how BRD was categorized rather than just linking to it now. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you haven't seen already, on my talk page, WhatamIdoing stated the following: "The page hasn't changed since 2008; the template has (again, since that was the problem identified in the 2008 edit summary). User:Moxy could tell us the goal."


 * It seems that Moxy's 2016 edit has affected the categorization of some essay pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GUIDES.--Moxy (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * More stated by WhatamIdoing here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The notion that you can't verify content without having a citation after every sentence is simply not true. First of all you can/could verify content even without a citation, when it is rather obvious where to look it up. More to the point however citations are related to pieces of information rather than sentences and such piece of information might be a word, a half sentence a full sentence or a paragraph and you can't really tell beforehand without looking at the concrete case. In other words a default location of citations like every sentence doesn't work, instead you would need annotated citations that explicitly state which information pieces are found in which source and doing that for all information bits in the text. Which as requirement or even encouragement imho is a rather bureaucratic overload that ultimately yields very little, because without actually reading the cizted sources you have no idea whether those annotations are correct or not. However if you read the sources/citation attached to a word, a half sentence, a sentence or a paragraph then you know whether the content is properly sourced or not and you don't really need the annotation or meta-information on the sources.

Furthermore if there is no citation after a particular sentence you simply check those in the immediate neighbourhood. That is the common sense approach anyhow. If you want to verify content (from word to paragraph) you simply read the sources in the immediate neighbourhood and without actually reading the sources you never can be sure no matter bureaucracy we construct around the citations. In that sense citing every sentence is just pretense creating a (false) impression to readers of a better sourced content. Readers, who want to be sure, need to actually read the sources rather than checking whether every sentence has a citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The essay states "This is also correct, but is overkill". Adding one citation after each sentence for a paragraph is excessive according to this essay. Does any editor agree it is overkill? Why would it be overkill (unnecessary) to add one citation after each sentence?
 * It is not just about editors verifying content when there is no citation. It is more important for readers to be able to verify content. I have changed my opinion on this matter due to confusion among our readers. They don't always understand. Readers should not have to try to read which source may or may not verify a claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru: You are misinterpreting what is being stated, and to get the proper interpretation, you need to look at the entire section. Adding one citation after each sentence is not excessive according to this essay, except for when "one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph". In those situations, placing the individual citation "at the end of the final sentence is sufficient" and improves readability. On the other hand, the recommendation here does not apply when you have a paragraph that contains multiple citations which support different parts of the paragraph (and not the entire paragraph). When that's the case, placing the citations at the end of each sentence would be preferred. There is a big difference here between the essay's "one source alone" comment versus your assumption of any or multiple citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Placing one citation at the end of the final sentence is not sufficient for our readers and decreases verifiability for our readers. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again it is, it's just that you don't seem to like it for some reason. And to answer your question above, yes it is reasonable to expect a reader to check a citation nearby if doesn't find one at the end of a particular sentence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is simply an opinion and not a fact. A short three-sentence paragraph with a single citation after the final sentence isn't any harder to verify than if that same citation was repeated three times: once after each sentence. This is totally subjective, and like I said earlier, Wikipedians should be given the benefit of the doubt to use common sense. As a paragraph grows in size and/or requires more than one citation, we should trust that editors will naturally gravitate to citing at the end of each sentence instead of just lumping them on at the end of the paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors should be given an option to add a citation after each sentence without it being reverted. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection against a content editors adding a citations after every setence if he considers that appropriate for his (personal) editing and normally wouldn't revert that (certainly not if he insists on it. I do however have an issue with requiring that or declaring that the recommended/promoted standard. I'd also have an issue with non-content editors for purely formal adding "citation missing" to every sentence that doesn't have one. I. e. doing so without really looking at the content and its current sources first. Such a tagging with template I do revert btw. if i come across it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After I added a citation after each sentence it was reverted. I was reverted over a year later. This essay does impact articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I don't no the specifics of that case, so i can't comment on that. The general problem however was already addressed by two posts further down.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also in case you missed the quote above in the survey section, the guideline supports paragraph citations that are considered "close to the material" per WP:CITE. You can opine all you want about the content in this essay, but the guideline trumps it every time. You should work on changing it there instead, if you feel it's incorrect.


 * As for the option to add a citation after each sentence... This essay does not discourage that, except for special use cases where a single paragraph only has one citation. And even then, it only discourages the practice. It does not ban it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This essay does indeed discourage citations after each sentence for the circumstance where a single paragraph is supported by only one citation. It discourages the practice rather than being neutral. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite you to re-read what I just said. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it benefit our readers by decreasing the verifiability of the content when there is only citation at the end of a single paragraph? It is unreasonable to expect our readers to understand a single citation supports a single paragraph. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then why in the heck is it being allowed in WP:CITE, which is a content guideline that supercedes this essay? I think we'll continue to run in circles here, but again, I suggest you work on changing the guideline before you worry about this essay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It being allowed in WP:CITE is very different than it being discouraged in WP:REPCITE. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's what essays typically do. They take stances on issues, and are therefore more opinionated than the guidelines they reference or complement. This one isn't called Citation overkill by mistake. If you feel that a counter stance is needed, simply create an opposing essay. Maybe call it Citation underkill or get creative. Editors citing this essay are simply citing an opinion they share with other editors. When you get reverted with a link to this essay as the stated reason, simply discuss on that article's talk page to form a consensus in favor of your preferred layout. Anyone citing policies and guidelines in that discussion will carry more weight in their argument over others only citing essays. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See again "It being allowed in WP:CITE is very different than it being discouraged in WP:REPCITE."
 * You did not disagree with the above comment. This essay is not neutral like WP:CITE, which is a content guideline. There is no logically reason to try to block others from trying to improve the wording to make it neutral like WP:CITE. I should not have to waste my time by discussing it on that article's talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think an essay is supposed to be neutral... the purpose of an essay is to express a point of view held by a group of editors. If a different group of editors hold a different point of view, they can write their own essay to express that POV. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right. I didn't disagree. WP:CITE exists to let readers know that either method is allowed. This essay, on the other hand, takes a stance that favors less redundant citations throughout an article. And while it's not necessarily incorrect to be redundant, there are some editors out there that strive to reduce redundancy, hence the creation and frequent citation of this essay. Being less redundant is also supported by WP:CITE.With that said, editors shouldn't be going around to different articles with the sole intent of changing citation methods to their preferred style. That is disruptive behavior and should be called out. I see it along the lines of MOS:RETAIN, which explains that one style shouldn't be changed to another when both styles are acceptable. Go with the first prevalent style in the article. Perhaps that would be a good compromise here, if we add similar language to this essay. That should reduce the number of drive-by editors who are using this essay to be disruptive. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More than one editor was trying to come of with ideas to equally encourage different reference styles, but that was halted with this ambiguous RfC that is not about any specific proposal. I want to focus on "This is also correct, but is overkill" and the WP:REPCITE section. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, but keep in mind this essay is entitled Citation overkill, and advice within shouldn't contradict its title or be written in an ambiguous way. While I still oppose the changes proposed above, I would be open to adding a disclaimer of sorts that advises against arbitrarily changing from one preferred style to another based on this essay alone. Such a compromise wouldn't be covered in this RfC, but we can certainly begin a new section below to discuss further. The only question is whether yourself and others are willing to settle for such a compromise. We can iron out the specifics later. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The title Citation overkill does not prevent improving this essay.
 * A disclaimer against arbitrarily changing from one preferred style to another is irrelevant for this essay. That proposal is not a compromise. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You raised the concern that you have been reverted in the past for using a style that is supported by WP:CITE but is discouraged by this essay. Having some kind of disclaimer would help prevent that from happening arbitrarily, and when it does, it could be easily argued as disruptive behavior. I was not involved in the previous discussion, so this is an outsider's attempt at finding middle ground. Sorry to hear you disagree. Good luck with your endeavor, and if you'd like to revisit this suggestion later, just ping me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Having some kind of disclaimer about changing a reference style is a distraction and not the purpose of this essay. Therefore it is not an attempt at finding middle ground. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the attempt to find middle ground fell short. Thanks for pointing out the obvious a second time. I can see now why this has dragged on for so long. In the end, it is just an essay, and following the advice contained within is always going to be optional. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no attempt to find middle ground by you. A disclaimer about changing a reference style is not the purpose of this essay. It is about trying to have a more neutral essay with regard to repeated inline citations. WP:CITE does not discourage repeated inline citations, but this essay does discourage repeated inline citations. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel I have to ask- have you read WP:ESSAYS? Because based on some of the points you're making above, I don't feel that you have. An essay is simply an opinion piece with no actual weight. If someone refers you to an essay and you don't like what it has to say, you're under no obligation to respect it. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with making this essay more neutral like WP:CITE? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's an essay or opinion piece. If you don't like it, you don't have to follow it. You don't have to listen to people who tell you you are required to follow it. You can even write your own essay and nobody will be under any obligation to follow that either. Similarly, you can submit an op-ed piece to your local newspaper or television station, and just because they broadcast it doesn't mean they endorse it. The most I would ever say with regards to an essay, if I wanted to imply Authority, is "many editors may consider this to be best practice". DonIago (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What DonIago said. If someone cites this essay and you can demonstrate that the material might well be reasonably challenged, you'll have the full weight of a policy behind you. If you're just citing things that are self evident or because that's your personal preference, you'll have to discuss with the editor involved and come to a consensus, the same as any other situation in which there's disagreement. If someone cites this essay, it's just because they agree with opinions within it, you're well within your rights to disagree and make your case. Scribolt (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Doniago, "You don't have to listen to people who tell you you are required to follow it." is the wrong approach. It is better to make a few changes to avoid issues in the future.
 * User:Scribolt, "If someone cites this essay, it's just because they agree with opinions within it, you're well within your rights to disagree and make your case." can be prevented before it happens. Rather than make a case in the future it is better to tweak the essay before that future occurs. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But unless I've missed something here, you've never actually proposed why you think this is against policy. I can understand opposing an essay if it's against policy, but nothing in here contradicts verifabilty, or even citing sources (a guideline). You obviously don't agree with it's conclusion, and that's fair enough. I pretty much do, but that's irrelevant. But an essay doesn't have to be neutral, it's an opinion, an interpretation of how a policy should be implemented. It may be disputed, it can be disputed, it can refuted in a counter argument or essay and if there's consensus here that it's against policy it should he changed. I've not seen that yet, and in the absence of that, there's no need for it to be neutral, it's sufficient that enough members of the community consider it to be a good thing l. Scribolt (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE gives editors an option, while WP:REPCITE claims it is overkill (excessive). QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What part of "it's an opinion" isn't clear to you? Seriously, you keep hammering away at this (here and now on my Talk page) as though it's somehow critical. It isn't. It's an essay. If you don't like it, then you don't have to pay any attention to it. You won't get blocked for disregarding it, and anyone critiquing your editing for violating it is in the wrong unless they can instead cite a policy or guideline that you're violating. If it bothers you so much, write up your contrary opinion, but to me this seems increasingly inappropriate, and is starting to resemble a frankly creepy attempt to censor an opinion you don't care for. DonIago (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a guideline page that has contrary opinion called WP:CITE. That's means that is no reason to write another contrary opinion. But there is a reason to tweak this essay. It runs against our guideline. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the policy or guideline that stipulates that essays are not allowed to express opinions contrary to policies or guidelines. DonIago (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The essay isn't contradicting the guideline. It's expressing a preference, but still calls both correct. This is getting old. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "...while WP:REPCITE claims it is overkill"
 * Quick, somebody hand QuackGuru a tissue. The essay is being insensitive. How dare it call something overkill? Oh wait, that's all it does? You mean, it's not banning so-called overkill? Whew, for a second there I thought we were going to need to take it to mediation. Thank goodness I'm still allowed to cite the same reference as often as I want, when I want. Shame on those calling it overkill. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how this benefits Wikipedia with having an essay that is against WP:CITE. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And you have not shown how it is detrimental. Expressing a preference in an opinionated essay is permitted on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason why we should not tweak this essay (and should instead write a counter-essay) is simple... if we tweak this essay, it will no longer reflect the opinion of the segment of our community who agree with what it currently says... the segment of our community who wrote it. Unlike guidelines and policies, essays do not have to reflect broader community consensus.  Indeed they often express minority opinions.  Essays are the one place where dissenters from consensus can express and explain their dissent (Essays can even express dissent with core policy statements).  That is OK... because essays are opinions, and not rules. They are not policies or guidelines, but commentary on policies and guidelines.  Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The contrary opinion called WP:CITE is a counter-guideline. It trumps this essay. How does it benefit the encyclopedia to have an essay that is against WP:CITE? No policy or guideline indicates citations are overkill (excessive). This discussion shows we should improve the wording because editors are arguing to support a view that is against WP:CITE. It will save time in the future to improve the wording now rather than have editors waste time on the talk page later. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing contrary about it. WP:CITEBUNDLE refers to methods of bundling sources to reduce clutter. This essay's stance is in line with that, since removing repeated citations and placing it at the end of a paragraph reduces clutter as well. Again for the umpteenth time, this is only in rare situations when a small paragraph only contains one or two sources that support the entire paragraph. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is something contrary about it. WP:REPCITE takes a stance. WP:CITE gives editors leeway. WP:REPCITE claims it is overkill (excessive) to have a single citation after each sentence for a section. Placing it at the end of a paragraph reduces the verifiability of the content. How can a reader verify a claim when there is no citation at the end of a sentence? I want to make a mountain out of a dated assay. I want to bring it up to a better written essay. I am willing to climb this mountain. Who will join me? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This essay clearly supports leeway, including by suggesting WP:CITEBUNDLE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEBUNDLE causes more confusion by bundling different sources together. Cluttering different sources together is very confusing. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else see a contradiction here? Half of this discussion has been fueled by QuackGuru's suggestion that this essay be more in line with WP:CITE. Yet, when it has been shown to also be in line with WP:CITEBUNDLE, that apparently is a bad thing. You can't have it both ways if you want to be taken seriously. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not explicably say this essay should be more in line with WP:CITE. WP:CITEBUNDLE is the wrong thing to do most of the time. One citation should be one citation. Mixing different citation together makes is harder to read and understand the citations. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The essay is an opinion. Other opinions exist too. This is Wikipedia - there are probably more opinions than editors. Opinion essays are permitted. Opposing opinion essays are also permitted. Freedom of expression. Hooray. This essay is apparently used out of scope as an attempt to justify behaviour which is not approved by some of the community, and as it is an essay, not a policy or guideline, this is undesirable and leads to bad feeling. A possible solution is to slap a notice across the top of this and other essays warning users that it should not be used to attempt to justify edit warring, or, in this case, to attempt to push a POV on use of citations in any given article. Then we can all go away and improve some content. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was told it is allowed at a guideline page, but there is no policy or guideline that discourages one inline citation after each sentence. A better solution is to give editors options rather than discourage one inline citation per sentence. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the big shocker. Editors have the same options, regardless if this essay exists or not. Not sure why that isn't getting through to you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything is becoming even clearer. There is a difference between options and telling editors it is overkill. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Quack... our editors do have options... as you keep noting, these options are spelled out at the guideline page. What this essay page does is lay out the reasons why editors might want to choose one of those allowable options over the others.  The existence of this essay does not remove the choice, it simply explains why a lot of editors think that limiting the number of citations is the better choice.  At most, it is an attempt to persuade others to edit in a certain way...  it certainly isn't a rule that anyone has to follow. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The options are spelled out at the guideline page, but this essay is taking sides. It does not rationally explain why having only a single citation at the very end of a section is a better choice, but I explained why there are problems. It dictates it is better choice by claiming it is "overkill". How can it improve the readability for our readers when they have trouble verifying a claim? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes... this essay is taking sides... yes it uses the word "overkill"... that is called "expressing an opinion". Expressing opinions is what essays are for. However, it does not "dictate" anything... it is an essay and thus can't dictate.  All it can do is express an opinion and try to persuade.  Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain how does this help improve the encyclopedia when this essay takes sides contrary to WP:CITE. Contradicting a guideline is not an interpretation of a guideline. It is trying to persuade others that overkill is correct, contrary to WP:CITE. NPOV is important. Which mean being neutral is important. How does taking sides to try to persuade others that it is indeed orverkill to place single repeated citations for a section is better than being neutral or giving editors leeway help improve the encyclopedia? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, NPOV applies to article content... not to policy or guideline pages ... and especially not to essays. Second, the benefit to the encyclopedia is this: by reading this essay, you will (hopefully) better understand what a group of editors think.  This group of editors happens to think that there is such a thing as "citation overkill"... and they lay out their opinion as to what that is.  You don't have to agree with those editors, but... by reading this essay you will at least know what their opinion is.  That is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has essays... essays are where groups of editors express their opinions about policy and guidance.
 * Just so you know, I while happen to agree with a lot of what this essay says, there are parts that I disagree with... However, (to paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall) while I may disapprove of some of the things the authors of this essay say, I will "defend to the death their right to say it". If I were to change this essay to reflect what I think, I would be removing the thoughts of those who did write it... I would be removing the right of other editors to express their opinion.  So I leave it alone.  Those who disagree with this essay are free to write a counter-opinion essay of their own... one that says: "No, X, Y and Z is not citation overkill". (And if you write such an essay, I will defend your essay with just as much vigor as I have been defending this one). Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote in part: I will "defend to the death their right to say it". We don't treat an essay as if it is WP:OWNed by a small group of editors.
 * Your also wrote "Second, the benefit to the encyclopedia is this: by reading this essay, you will (hopefully) better understand what a group of editors think. This group of editors happens to think that there is such a thing as "citation overkill"... and they lay out their opinion as to what that is." By understanding what a group of editors think does not help improve the encyclopedia. What helps improve the encyclopedia is to give editors a little more wiggle room rather than take a stance against WP:CITE. Those who disagree with this essay should not write a counter-opinion essay because there is a counter-guideline, called Citing sources. There is still a need to improve the wording here because editors may think this is the correct way to edit when there are more options, especially when editors cite this essay often or even treat it as a guideline.
 * See again "How does taking sides to try to persuade others that it is indeed orverkill to place single repeated citations for a section is better than being neutral or giving editors leeway help improve the encyclopedia?"
 * You have not shown taking sides against our guideline helps improve our encyclopedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Letting people who have an opinion about a current policy express their opinion is always a benefit to the project. Sharing opinion causes the broader community to think about the policy in question... to examine it, and re-evaluate whether it is still a good policy (or not).  It leads us to think about whether the policy needs to change (or not).   Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Letting people who have an opinion about a current policy express their opinion is always a benefit to the project."
 * That does not directly address "How does taking sides to try to persuade others that it is indeed orverkill to place single repeated citations for a section is better than being neutral or giving editors leeway help improve the encyclopedia?"
 * When editors treat it like a guideline I think it needs to be shown how it benefits the project to contradict WP:CITE. How does it always benefit the project contradict WP:CITE? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any editor treating an essay as a guideline is operating under a misunderstanding of how essays work, and that misunderstanding should be pointed out to them. Problem solved. DonIago (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than point out a misunderstanding there is another way. It is a better solution to avoid a misunderstanding when editors cite this essay by improving the wording. No worries. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing someone's opinion because you don't agree with it is not improvement, it's censorship. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a censorship to give other opinions. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's expressing concern about you presenting another opinion; the concern is about you refactoring the existing one by revising the essay to change the existing wording versus adding a contrary opinion as a separate section or standalone essay. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly... in fact, by revising the essay, you could (effectively) end up being the one censoring opinions (the opinion of others). Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * DonIago, it is possible to add another opinion while not changing its meaning. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, by not allowing another opinion, it could be seen as censoring another opinion. That's no good. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But no one is "not allowing" other opinions... No one is stopping you from expressing your contrary opinion. You can write your own essay to express that contrary opinion, and link to your essay in "See Also".  Alternatively... You can add a "contrary opinion" section to this page, and express your opinion in that new section.  ALL we are saying is that you shouldn't edit the essay in a way that changes or omits the opinions that currently exist. Those you have to let stand. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "But no one is "not allowing" other opinions...". But the strangely worded RfC appears to be about never allowing any changes to this page.
 * You also wrote "You can add a "contrary opinion" section to this page,...". Take a close look down the page. Why should I add another "contrary opinion" section? One is enough. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This RfC should be closed in an effort to prevent it from continuing to be a distraction from improving this essay. It is not addressing any current issue that needs comment from editors. The wording is also ambiguous. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Section break
GoneIn60 stated, "Go with the first prevalent style in the article. Perhaps that would be a good compromise here, if we add similar language to this essay. That should reduce the number of drive-by editors who are using this essay to be disruptive. Thoughts?"

My thoughts on this are: What if the article uses 5-10 references for many sentences? I've seen egregious cases of citation overkill. I don't consider reducing citation clutter to be a WP:CITEVAR violation; I've seen and have been involved with WP:CITEVAR arguments, and they've never involved reducing citation clutter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Go with the first prevalent style in the article is irrelevant and not a compromise. The drive-by editors are deleting single repeated citations. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The drive-by editors are deleting single repeated citations"
 * Do you have evidence to back this up? Is your evidence based solely on personal experience? You do realize that single repeated citations that can moved to the end of a paragraph are rare instances, right? --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify the proposal... It was in reference to QuackGuru's concern that the WP:CITE supports two options: allowing repeated citations and moving them to the end of a paragraph. Adding a disclaimer that opposes arbitrarily changing from one to the other would prevent the drive-bys from citing this guideline essay as their reason to do so (though I still question how often that is really happening). I just wanted to point out that the proposal was NOT intended to represent all opinions on this page, including the preference to limit the number of citations cited at the end of a sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... how many times to we need to say this: WP:Citation overkill isn't a guideline... it is an essay. Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a typo, and it's not really a necessary proposal at this point. It has yet to be shown that there is a real problem here. Besides, any such language would be more appropriate at WP:CITE than it would be here. Editors citing essays should be educated as necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting single repeated citations is a serious problem but that is not the central focus of this essay. Even if a citation is provided the readers may think it is uncited. WP:CITE handles most of the details. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted above, there has been no evidence that this is a serious problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't think this is a serious concern then there is no need to provide additional diffs. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you still don't think editors should have a serious concern about one part of that article saying, "It is twice as common in males as females" and another part of that same short article saying, "Women are affected more often than men", then please forgive me for being blunt, but I think you should seriously consider not editing on grounds of WP:CIR. I think we can safely assume that the edit summary for that edit includes the word "contradictory" for a reason – a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with citation overkill.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary also included the word "uncited" even when it was cited. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a problem on a massive scale, or are we talking about a handful of examples? That was my point. It doesn't seem like there are a lot of editors chiming in here supporting that claim. I personally don't recall encountering the issue, and it would be a quick revert if I did. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This and other problems are beyond words that could describe them. Severe. Massive. Out of control. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] Herostratus (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation underkill
Given that QuackGuru has created an essay called WP:Citation underkill to express his concerns and disagreement with this essay... I think we can end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This essay contradicts policy be suggesting single repeated citations are unnecessary. Without a citation, the content is unsourced. Without including a contradictory view this essay is bias. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an essay. It's an opinion. It's allowed to be biased. I really don't understand why you're having so much trouble understanding this, especially now that you've started work on a contrary essay which is also an opinion and could also be called biased. DonIago (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I really think that Wikipedia:Citation underkill is misguided and should be deleted, per the excellent points made on this essay page and its talk page. There is no valid reason to have seventeen references after a single sentence, for example, even if bundled. A number of editors have challenged QuackGuru's arguments. I do not think that the new essay will be getting much traction. WP:POINTY essays are not helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Citation underkill is biased towards policy. I can't say the same for this essay. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A number of editors have challenged policy-based arguments to no avail. I really think this essay is telling editors to delete single repeated citations for no good reason. That's a good reason to include a contrary view. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you meant "Citation overkill is biased towards policy." Either way, your misinterpretations of the rules and what the WP:Citation overkill essay is saying are an issue that can affect readers and less experienced editors. Your counter-essay is not the least bit helpful. But I'm not going to argue with you about this; others have done it for me above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Struck through sentence because I see that you are trying to state that your essay, which so far only has your support, is supported by policy. Again, others have challenged your arguments. And they are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct interpretations of the rules and what new essay is saying can help skilled editors to follow and cite. It will be very helpful for people. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not even clear what's being discussed at this point, or even why. We should be able to put this debate to rest and drop the stick. QuackGuru, if there's something in this essay that violates WP:GUIDES or the information page it references (WP:ESSAYS) please let us know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on that talkpage. Scribolt (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)