Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citing sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:CITE WT:CS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 2 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why doesn't Wikipedia require everyone to use exactly the same style for formatting citations on every single article, regardless of the subject? Different academic disciplines use different styles because they have different needs and interests. Variations include differences in the choice of information to include, the order in which the information is presented, the punctuation, and the name of the section headings under which the information is presented. There is no house style on Wikipedia, and the community does not want to have the holy war that will happen if we tell people that they must use the style preferred by scientists in articles about history or the style preferred by artists when writing about science. Editors should choose a style that they believe is appropriate for the individual article in question and should never edit-war over the style of citations. What styles are commonly used? There are many published style manuals. For British English the Oxford Style Manual is the authoritative source. For American English the Chicago Manual of Style is commonly used by historians and in the fine arts. Other US style guides include APA style which is used by sociologists and psychologists, and The MLA Style Manual which is used in humanities. The Council of Science Editors and Vancouver styles are popular with scientists. Editors on Wikipedia may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves. It is unusual for Wikipedia articles to strictly adhere to a formally published academic style. Isn't everyone required to use clickable footnotes like this[1] to cite sources in an article? Not technically. Footnotes (<ref>...</ref>) are by far the most popular method of placing citations. A few older articles may still use a now-deprecated form of inline parenthetical referencing. Manual systems, usually using symbols† or lettersA, are used in a few articles (example). A very short article might not be required to use inline citations. See Wikipedia:Inline citation for more information. Why doesn't Wikipedia require everyone to use citation templates in every single article? Citation templates have advantages and disadvantages. They provide machine-readable meta data and can be used by editors who don't know how to properly order and format a citation. However, they are intimidating and confusing to most new users, and, if more than a few dozen are used, they make the pages noticeably slower to load. Editors should use their best judgment to decide which format best suits each specific article. Isn't there a rule that every single sentence requires an inline citation? No. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires citations based on the content rather than the grammar. Sometimes, one sentence will require multiple inline citations. In other instances, a whole paragraph will not require any inline citations. Aren't general references prohibited? A general reference is a citation listed at the end of an article, without any system for linking it to a particular bit of material. In an article that contains more than a couple of sentences, it is more difficult to maintain text-source integrity without using inline citations, but general references can be useful and are not banned. However, they are not adequate if the material is one of four types of content requiring an inline citation. The article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is an example of a featured article that uses some general references. Can I cite a sign? Yes, signs, including gravestones, that are displayed in public are considered publications. If the article is using citation templates, then use {{cite sign}}. You may also cite works of art, videos, music album liner notes, sheet music, interviews, recorded speeches, podcasts, television episodes, maps, public mailing lists, ship registers, and a wide variety of other things that are published and accessible to the public.

To find archives of this talk page, see this list. For talk archives from the previous Manual of Style (footnotes) page see Help talk:Footnotes.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Wikipedia Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There has been insufficient discussion for a change of this magnitude in my opinion. To be more specific the question answered in the close was not the question asked, therefore people did not address that question. This change would require a full RFC at the very least. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, do you mean that there was insufficient discussion to prefer "<references>" over "{{reflist|refs=" (the consensus that was actually reached in the discussion), or do you mean that there was insufficient discussion to prefer normal/non-WP:LDR over occasionally using LDR (a possibility mooted early in the discussion that proved to be overkill, and so was abandoned in favor of a much smaller change that met the goal)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is consensus about a major decision, which probably requires a widely advertised RFC.
2. The decision wasn't on the headline question.
3. The decision is against the last 20+ years of moving from HTML markup to Wiki-markup.

I'm not going to weigh in on the argument itself, I might even support it, but reintroducing <references>, except as a temporary patch will add more confusion to wiki-source.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Though <references> might look HTML-like, it's not actually HTML markup. Gawaon (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The <references/> tag is exactly as HTML-like as the <ref> tags themselves. I am doubtful that it will cause significant confusion, and even if it is unfamiliar to someone, I think they'll figure it out as easily as they figure out the use of {{sfn}} instead of ref tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the subheading and made up at least three quarters of the discussion. Even if there was a problem with that, I find it frivolously WP:Buro if we needed to have this extensive discussion on the appropriate forum be re-done in the even–more–time-consuming form of the RfC. Especially when I don't see anyone—who had a glance at the top-level ToC thanks to the unrelated Cent-listed discussion below—not interested to weigh-in on discouraging list-defined references (as mentioned in the h2 headline) yet interested by deprecating {{reflist|refs= (a feature only affecting list-defined references). Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The solution that ultimately found consensus was proposed early on under the title "New proposal: deprecate {{reflist|refs= in favor of <references>?" and it was discussed extensively, so this outcome seems fine and fair to me. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the text of Wikipedia:Citing sources be changed to prefer templates over hand-formatted citations, while welcoming contributions from editors who continue to format manually? 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Specific changes proposed:

1. Change "(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)" to "(Templates are preferred, but contributions with manually-formatted citations are welcome.)"
2. Add "change citations from manually formatted to templates, without admonishing of contributors" to "Generally considered helpful"
3. Change the line starting "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates" in "To be avoided" to "removing citation templates that are used correctly"
4. Change the first paragraph of WP:CITECONSENSUS to: "Citation templates are preferred in situations where they exist and can be used as designed. They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes. Contributions of manually-formatted citations from editors unfamiliar with or who simply do not care to use templates are welcome, and may be reformatted into templates by other editors without notification beyond a polite edit summary."
5. Add to "Generally considered helpful" the line: "Adding or enhancing templates and modules for recurring situations where citations would be otherwise left manually-formatted due to lack of support"

• Proposer rationale: This proposal would still allow any citation format to be used consistently throughout an article, but would allow interested editors to move from hand-formatted to template-formatted citations for the following reasons:
  • Much more consistently formatted output, tolerating variation in human-written input, resulting in a more professional and trustworthy appearance for articles.
  • Automatic output of COinS metadata for browser plugins and web spiders that power data aggregators.
  • Automatic detection of errors, such as dangling references, incomplete or vague citations, putting the wrong information in the wrong place, or using disfavored formats (such as for dates).
  • Automatic improvement by bots (e.g. adding archive URLs, adding missing data and links to full text).
  • Much easier to make future changes site-wide to formatting if consensus changes.
  • Much easier to change an article's citation format (if consensus finds the wrong one was chosen) simply by substituting templates or (with module support) simply adding a "mode" declaration to the page. This also makes it easier to move citations between articles that have different citation formats. (We can already set "mode=cs1" or "mode=cs2".)
  • Inexperienced editors (or those who simply prefer them) can use graphical tools like VisualEditor to add and edit citations without having to know wiki syntax or the formatting details of the specific citation style used by an article. Editors who use the source editor will still be under no obligation to use templates in new citations if they dislike them.
  • Manual formatting of citations should not be used as a workaround to avoid mangling by a bot. An explicit bot exclusion is a better way to handle this because it alerts future editors to the bug and prevents them from stumbling into it again. This also facilitates research into bot improvements.

According to the previous discussion, about 80% of articles already use citation templates, so the result of this guideline change is not much different than simply implementing our existing rule that articles should use a consistent format. Upgrading citations also provides an opportunity to eyeball neglected articles and passages and remove any obvious garbage. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose major change to WP:CITEVAR allowing the imposition of a new citation style at the whim of gnomes and encouraging gnomes to perform this imposition, regardless of whether the citations are already in a consistent format. Inconsistently formatted manual citations do not need this change; a consistent style can be chosen for them regardless. The only actual point of these changes is to impose machine-friendly human-unfriendly rigid templated metadata on citations.

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose addressing rationale: #1, #5 and #6 are disingenuous, don't care about #2, #3 and #4 are hopelessly naive, #7 is no different from present, and #8 is nonsensical. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In addition to the points made by David Eppstein and Airship, allowing manually formatted citations makes it much easier to copy them from external sources, and much easier to incorporate subject-matter experts into the community. Templates don't magically make citations look professional nor address vague or misplaced citations. And forbidding manual formatting of citations as a workaround to known problems is a non-starter. See also the thousands of words here explaining some of the issues with the concept of this proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors would still be allowed to copy already-formatted citations from other web sites. What problems are you seeing that require manual formatting as a workaround? -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying that others can clean up after them is not a good solution to something that's not a problem to begin with. As to workarounds, there seem to be several examples of issues provided in the discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked into the situations mentioned in the previous discussion, and it seems they can all be dealt with by putting an HTML comment in the citation template that instructs the problematic bot not to edit it. That seems better than laying a trap for someone who later comes along and changes the citation to use a template for whatever reason, and it gets tread on by the bot again. -- Beland (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose – allowing style variations at authors' discretion and leaving decision to local consensus is one of the best ways Wikipedia avoids pointless conflict and churn. There's not much benefit for every page to be perfectly consistent in every aspect of style, and the potential harms of changing this are dramatic. Aside: every editor should at least read and consider User:Jorge Stolfi § Please do not use {{cite}} templates.–jacobolus (t) 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to render citations e.g. "issue 10" instead of "(10)", I agree that would be an improvement. It could be done across millions of citations in a single edit because they use templates and not manual formatting. We could also allow articles to easily choose to do this or not by adding a mode selector. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Implementing a mode selector to "easily choose to do this or not" would require people to (a) notice a change in the template's behaviour, (b) figure out how to create the option to override it in the template, (c) get that template change implemented, and then (d) change the article. That's not a particularly easy process compared to just formatting refs manually. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's much easier than going through every single manually formatted citation and manually re-formatting them. -- Beland (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's really not. First off, if someone has already manually formatted a citation in a way that they feel is appropriate, no reformatting is required regardless of what changes in the template. If there is a desire to change the format, either way you'd have to go through every single citation - but the template approach adds a bunch of extra work to do that, because first you'd have to change the template and then change the citations in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I guess there are some scenarios where there is more upfront cost. If an article is already consistently formatted manually and wants to change to a different format, it will need to have all the citations re-formatted either way, and if it's done the template way and that style is not already supported, template upgrades will also have to happen. But compared to the number of articles (millions) the number of citation styles is quite small (less than ten?) so templates will seldom need to be upgraded to support new styles. The benefit of that investment in this scenario is only realized if there is a second style change where the entire page can be flipped with a mode setting.

  Maybe that happens with mature articles scoring high assessment grades, but I work on a lot of articles with detected typos, and I often see a mix of clashing citation styles on the same page. For those, most of the citations are going to have to be reformatted regardless of the chosen destination style. My thought is, why not make that destination style a template, so that we never have to do another mass-reformat no matter what changes about the preferred citation style? Also, a common way to fix poorly formatted citations is to use a script like reFill, which outputs templates. If we chose a non-template style, we'd have to do a lot of work to make up for the lack of automation, and then even more work after that to make up for the lack of automation finding archival URLs. -- Beland (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are literally thousands of citation styles that exist. I grant you that most are part of a long tail, but that's still a heck of a lot of template changes. Archival URLs are already automatically added on articles without templates, so that's not a benefit of mandating templates.

  If you're encountering an article with clashing citation styles, you're already allowed to make that consistent, using templates if that's what you prefer to do. Your proposal doesn't change anything about that use-case; it instead targets articles that already have a consistent style that just happens to not be template-based.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does prevent people from changing inconsistent articles to manually formatted citations, which is work that would have to be undone later if in the long term we are moving in the direction of using templates universally. And if that's the direction we're going, we might as well start on the manually formatted articles, too.

  I can't imagine people creating thousands of style templates for tiny variations; it would be a lot less work just to use templates for a popular style very close to one's preferred style. That also seems like a crummy experience for readers, looking at a thousand different styles and either having to learn to interpret a bunch of different conventions (extra difficult for those who are not native English speakers) or just being annoyed at what looks like sloppiness.

  I don't know of any bots that can operate on manual citations to validate date formats, find dangling references, create markup for COinS, fill in missing authors, or connect citations to databases like DOI. -- Beland (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But we shouldn't be preventing people from improving citations, even if we might sometime eventually want to change how they've done that.

  I agree with you re: I can't imagine people creating thousands of style templates for tiny variations - that's why I don't think your proposal about template upgrades and mode settings is at all workable. What is more likely to happen is (a) users try to shoehorn their preferred formatting into citation templates and get into edit-wars with well-intentioned bots or gnomes (as already happens!), or (b) users manually format citations to get their preferred formatting, and then get into edit-wars as a result of your proposal. As to crummy experience for readers, I don't see any evidence that CS1 is a better experience for readers than APA, MLA, or any other format you could name - the page jacobulus linked has already suggested some ways in which a non-CS1 format might easier to interpret.

  Bots aren't the panacea you suggest - see Jc's comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If an article has two citations, and one of them is manually formatted and the other uses a citation template (assuming reasonably equivalent contents: they both have the source's title, a URL, etc.), is removing the citation template actually a case of "improving citations"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All else being equal, as much as adding one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not?

  Because I think that eventually – maybe after I die, but some day in the future – citation templates will grow from "merely" 80% of articles having some to basically all articles using them for everything, and that means that the process will be:

  • Start with a 50–50 mix.
  • Switch to templates.
  • Done.

  vs

  • Start with a 50–50 mix.
  • Switch to manual formatting.
  • Eventually switch back to templates.
  • Finally done.

  And therefore I think that putting a finger very lightly on the scale in favor of citation templates will save time, net, in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All else is not equal; templated citations are more useful for browser plugins, data aggregation, and more easily changed en masse. Which is why this proposal would define one direction as an improvement.

  I think it would be reasonable to call a truce among say, the top 5 or so most popular citation styles and support those with templates, for compatibility with various academic fields and major published style guides and what people learned to use at school. It's reasonable to ask people to pick one of those and not to force our readers to learn citation style #534 which they came up with one day while filling a complaint with the local dog catcher. There are hundreds of style rules; generally the way they reduce edit wars is by providing unambiguous answers to arbitrary questions. -- Beland (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds very complicated and controversial, likely to waste vast amounts of effort and attention on style nitpicks. This discussion itself is already doing significant harm, insofar as the participants might otherwise be making productive content contributions. –jacobolus (t) 05:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept your opinion that content is more important than style. As a community of editors, though, it seems we have decided that style is important enough to worry about that we do have a Manual of Style instead of willy-nilly formatting, and we have decided that it should be consensus-driven rather than saving a lot of time by handing it over to a benevolent dictator or style committee. I can't think of a way to reconcile those choices with the idea that we can't have this type of discussion because it burns time we should be spending on content. It's a valid concern, though I'm not sure we're spending "significant" resources on it given how many thousands of edits are being committed while we're having this discussion. Also keep in mind that not everyone who enjoys wikignoming also enjoys working on content. Part of the reason I do a lot of wikignoming fixing spelling and style errors is so that other editors can focus more on their area of expertise and interest and don't need to be distracted fixing small things that I could fix more quickly en masse. And some days I'm too tired or stressed to wrangle a lot of prose and I just need to relax by fixing a bunch of malformed punctuation or unconverted units of measure. -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per David Eppstein and AirshipJungleman29. We want people to leave citations that support the information they add. That is far more important than putting people off by insisting on using a cumbersome or alien format that they do not understand. And what to do with people who can’t work in templates? Are we going to punish them for adding what may be good content with a good source if they do it the old fashioned way? It’s unworkable and unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your concerns. The language is meant to explicitly to welcome non-template contributions and advise against "punishing" contributors who do that. Specifically: "Contributions of manually-formatted citations from editors unfamiliar with or who simply do not care to use templates are welcome, and may be reformatted into templates by other editors without notification beyond a polite edit summary." and "contributions with manually-formatted citations are welcome". Is there some other language that would make that more clear? -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that you want this to happen, but there’s no need to bludgeon every comment that is made. - SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm trying not to bludgeon (and was actually hoping to just ignore this RFC for a few days); I'm answering the questions you asked. It was honestly unclear to me if you had read the proposed text which is supposed to solve exactly the problem you raised and upon thinking it through still came to the same conclusion, or if you were mostly just reacting to the title of the RFC? Maybe I'm missing something; do you think editors will feel that manually formatted contributions will be unwelcome when they read that templates are preferred, even though it also explicitly says those contributions are welcome? Do you think editors won't follow the guideline telling them not to complain about those contributions? Do you think just arriving at a page and seeing all the citations already using templates will put off potential contributors?

  I'm fine with this not happening - though I think it would be tidier and easier to maintain, I realize a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions about formatting. Hanyangprofessor2's questioning of the current guideline generated several comments favoring either encouraging templates or going even further and having a single citation style for all of Wikipedia. Seemed to me like it was time to check in and see if consensus on this has changed, but if it hasn't, there's plenty of work to be done cleaning up citations under the existing style rules. -- Beland (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You really are bludgeoning this, despite saying you're not. Your name is already appearing far too frequently contradicting those !voting against this So far, I think nine people have commented in this thread and you've made nine comments throughout the thread, all to those who oppose it. Please just let please comment without interference. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is supposed to be not merely a tallying up of opinions, but a discussion with the possibility of improvement and compromise. But if you are uninterested in exploring mitigation of whatever problem you are foreseeing and just want let your opinion stand, that's fine; I will sit in confusion given that we seem to be in agreement and disagreement simultaneously. -- Beland (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am NOT tallying up opinions - that's a complete mischaracterisation of what I have written, which is clear to anyone reading it. I was pointing out that nine people have made comments in this thread (that's tallying contributors, not opinions) and you have now made ten comments. To quote from the guideline: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29, @David Eppstein, @Jacobolus, @Nikkimaria, @SchroCat: I wonder what you would think about a short, simple factual statement, like "While citation templates are the most popular choice, using them is not actually required". (If anyone's curious, we ran the numbers: about 80% of articles contain at least one CS1|2 citation template.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the proposal is not just a solution in search of a problem, but a positive backwards stop that will inhibit editors, particularly the less experienced from adding citations. I am a huge fan and use them in 95 per cent of the material I add, but we should not be creating artificial hurdles that stop people from adding sources. That's only going to damage us. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the discussion above, I don't think that the OP has any interest in "creating artificial hurdles that stop people from adding sources". I think the goal is more like "if you put [https://www.example.com/source.html|Title of source] in ref tags, then let's have an official rule saying I can quietly turn that into {{cite web}} for you".

  Because, in practice, that's what happens. The manually formatted citations are almost never beautifully formatted examples of any style guide, they almost never form a "consistent" citation style, and they regularly do get converted to citation templates. We just sort of pretend in WP:CITEVAR that everything's equal, when it's really not equal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately (as I think you've found elsewhere!) once the language is added it really doesn't matter what the OP's intentions were. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  True, and I'm not wild about the proposed language. (For one thing, there's a lot of it.) But given the apparent intention, I think it might be possible to find language that meets the goal without making people think that it's a bot free-for-all. (Yes, that's an odd conclusion for text that doesn't mention bots at all, but I've had discussions in which I've told editors that if we moved one section of text out of a {{policy}} to another page, with no changes to the text and with its own copy of the {{policy}} tag on the new policy page, it would still be a policy, and they still thought it would result in the new policy page not being a policy. That's a plural they, by the way: two editors had difficulty with the concept. Wikipedia is one of the few sites on the internet that really does (and values) close reading, but we don't always pay attention.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose after reading through above. I'm a big fan of the templates, they help me input without much thought, and they help me understand what each piece of information is in others' sources. However, at its core, "This page in a nutshell: Cite reliable sources." It's gratifying when an IP editor adds a bare url, and if they want to manually add more information in plain text, this page should takes pains not to discourage this. Past a certain point of relevant information being included, the marginal benefit of encouraging gnoming to change manual sources into template sources seems limited. CMD (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentatively Support. As far as I can tell, this is how we operate by default in WP:MED, and I feel that the consistency of citation formatting is a big part of why medical articles tend to be easy to verify and to conduct further reading on. It also is pretty much immediately apparent when there's an "ugly duck" citation that is almost certainly subpar. I understand that not all of Wikipedia can or should be held to the standards of medicine, but at the same time, I think our pages are broadly a good demonstration of why this proposal has merit. That being said, I would like to hear what @Boghog has to say about this, and may well change my mind depending on what the medical citation master says. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We need to be rigid about verifiability but not about how to write references. See the top of my user page which starts with a large quote symbol and Don't worry about formatting references; just get all the information in there. Effective editors work in different ways and it is a mistake to try to dictate what they should do when it does not affect the reading of articles. I happen to love reference templates, but the hard task is to teach new editors why references are important and how to find the right kind of sources. Lets focus on that. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Nikkimaria, CMD, and StarryGrandma. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose implementation by bots, weak oppose in general. Previous discussion is full of complaints about what a bad job bots do of creating templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per most of the comments above, particularly StarryGrandma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed
  • Support Encouraging use of templates and adding missing facilities. Use of templates makes changes in style easier.
  • Strongly Oppose any wording that encourages mass changes via bots. They break things too often. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any wording encouraging people to use bots. Are you referring to "They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes."? Would you like to have that sentence dropped? -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't sufficient to not mention bots. The proposal should include language that strongly discourages bots. I'll add more on machine readability below. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the bot approval process the right place to make that sort of decision? Normally that's done on a per-bot basis rather than a blanket rule, to take into account different pros and cons. -- Beland (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The bot approval group is very pro-bot, and will be thrilled to approve citation-related bots with an error rate that many of us think is far too high. When is the last time a bot author was told "fix every mistake your bot made and do nothing else on Wikipedia until you're finished, on pain of a community band"? The prohibition must be in the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you talking about unsupervised bots or those with many human operators who are supposed to verify the output? I used to operate an unsupervised bot and administrators did not hesitate to block the bot if it made mistakes which I then had to clean up or explain as not mistakes. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I've seen, users who invoke supposedly supervised bots don't do an effective job of making sure the output is correct. A bot that tries to automatically change an article from free-form citations to citation templates would produce a mass of changes all mixed together, and the human thinking process just isn't good at checking that kind of change. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing in this proposal suggests writing a bot to change citations from manually-formatted to template. The whole idea is that bots have an easier time after the conversion, because the humans have done the hard part of segmenting strings into appropriate semantic fields. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The current rule of not allowing changes from consistent non-templated to templates serves as a restriction against doing this with bots. So it does encourage the use of bots, even though it doesn't mention bots. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose that's true, but only on the ~20% of pages (plus or minus those that use only one or two templates that violate an otherwise consistent style) that don't already use at least some templates. On most pages, bots could theoretically change citations from hand-formatted to template-formatted in order to achieve consistency or get rid of a style that violates the other rules of the MOS (like using all caps). Assuming that bot could get bot approval and be smart enough to actually do that. So it seems like that should already be a huge problem if it was something actually likely to happen. -- Beland (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the technical benefits are overwhelming. But oppose bots; understanding is still needed to avoid errors. Ifly6 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a one-size-fits-all diktat is not helpful. As long as citations are clearly and accurately presented to our readers it does not matter a rap whether templates are or are not used. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - what matters is that sufficient information is given to allow readers and editors to know what the source is and to find the information. Enforcing citation templates (which this proposal will effectively mean even if it isn't wording that strongly or meant by the proposers) won't help this and will inevitably break some references as data is unthinkingly rammed into fields just to get it into the template - whether correct or not. In addition forcing some "One True Wikipedia Reference Style" will drive some editors away, because it isn't the style that the editors are used to / is standard in that field, and this is just the sort of annoying little thing that gets some people angry enough to quit.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• support - "use whatever is easiest for you, and let someone else worry about reformatting it to get the many benefits of structured syntax" doesshould not be controversial (which isn't to say I'm surprised it is - I've opposed a lot of style standardization proposals in the past myself). I'm just having trouble finding a persuasive objection in the opposes as to why we should not have better archive links, why we should get in the way of the many tools that improve accessibility and verifiability, why we should make it harder for users of visual editor to work on citations, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes." I've seen too much sentiment that being machine-readable and bot-friendly comes first, and the ability of the editor to write a cite for any source the editor has access to comes second. The book in the editor's hand doesn't have an ISBN? Let bots add an ISBN for a similar book. Source has a publication date that's not supported by templates, such as Michaelmas term, 2001? Issue an error message. The guideline should very strongly discourage changing a manual citation into a template if there isn't a citation template that fully supports the source, and if the editor who wants to make the change can't prove the correctness of the revised citation because the templatephile doesn't have the source in hand. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC) (fixed in light of comments)[reply]

  One boldtext vote per person please. FWIW I agree any act of implementing a template must retain all of the information in the citation. I cannot imagine that would be controversial, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of templates we cannot violate the MOS. Any instance in violation of MOS:DATE needs to be changed whether we use a template for it or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Rhododendrites, Chatul, Ifly6. The proposal doesn't call for the abolition of handcrafted citations or the use of bots to convert those. Some free-form citations are not well-"crafted" and need improving. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am surprised people have so many issues with the bots, I have never seen them change anything besides doi/hdl and curly quotes and archive urls. But even then, if the bots are the problem that isn't the fault of the template that's the fault of the bots. Reverting people for having a wrong format in their content additions is already prohibited in the policy, so that wouldn't change. The templates have a lot of benefit and inconsistency is a negative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They do sometimes make a mistake. One example of such a mistake is this edit. The bot added a URL pointing at a book review (whose title is exactly the same as the book) instead of the book itself. That bot can be triggered by any editor, who is supposed to then check the output (the instructions for that bot say "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected"), but not everyone does, and even if they do, we can't guarantee that they'd notice a problem like this every single time. (The editor who failed to catch it has been blocked.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Has a similar kind of thing happened with the CS1 templates, not {{Citation}}? I see why the universal one would have that problem because it thinks all documents are the same thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Humans make careless mistakes no matter whether they are editing on full manual or semi automated. Given how many IP edits are vandalism, uncited rumors, heavily biased, ungrammatical, and so on, I would expect editors using semi-automated tools are reverted at a much lower rate than rando humans. -- Beland (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Parakanyaa, you can test it in a sandbox. Just copy that {{citation}} to a template, switch it to {{cite book}}, and trigger the bot for the sandbox page. If the bot makes the same mistake, you'll know that the problem isn't unique to the CS2 template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Citation bot mixes up the cs1 templates all the time, converting one to the other, often getting it wrong, and even when it gets it right doing a partial conversion that makes the converted template erroneous. And in many cases, the human editors before the bot also choose the wrong cs1 template Having multiple citation types is just one more thing for humans and the bot to get wrong; I don't think it provides much useful bot guidance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Humans also mess up citations all the time when they type things in, leaving off critical information, misspelling names, mangling the formatting, and leaving a lot of dangling references as pages get edited.

  Whether semi-automation makes humans more or less accurate and whether any mistakes are worth the massive productivity gains seem like questions for the bot approval process. The answer depends a lot on the bot. If you think Citation bot, for example, is doing more harm than good, then request to have its bot approval partially or completely revoked. Someone could easily write a more conservative bot that makes fewer mistakes for humans to stumble over, but which leaves more work undone. I don't hear anyone complaining that InternetArchiveBot, for example, makes mistakes. I wouldn't want to throw the IABot baby out with the Citation bot bathwater with an indiscriminate rejection of automation.

  I also can't imagine bots operating on manually formatted text are going to make fewer mistakes than bots operating on machine-readable templates. If we mandate supporting non-template citations forever, sooner or later every bot task that currently only looks at template citations is going to be attempted for non-template citations. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Beland's proposer rationale, Just-a-can-of-beans, Ifly6, PARAKANYAA and others. Changing manually written citations to some template format is an improvement and should not be discouraged. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written. Don't mess with people's citation styles. There are not many articles where this proposal would have a large effect (only those with consistent non-templated citations) but on those articles we should respect the WP:CITEVAR choices of the authors. —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Citations should be clear and complete. The template formats are often rigid and unhelpful. MOS:CITEVAR gets it right: If an article uses a clear and consistent format, it is a gigantic waste of time for people to come by and change it to their preferred template and start an argument about whether they even did that correctly. And, as others have noted, templates may discourage some users from contributing at all if they feel that they will have trouble using them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The citation templates are too fiddly and fussy and focussed on formatting. What matters most for the reader is not the format but the legitimacy of the citation. A relevant quotation from the source and a URL to link to it are the best value for verification but the citation templates tend to obscure this with bibliographic clutter. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest the opposite is true. The formatting of a properly constructed manual citation requires special knowledge; filling in parameters of a template doesn't and results in proper and consistent formatting. Many sources don't have URLs and require other identification means – that's not "bibliographic clutter". Even for online sources, a mere URL is clearly not enough, and quotations are rarely required. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of a citation is purely functional – to verify a stated fact. My impression is that editors such as Michael regard formatting of citations as an end in itself – an elegant craft like calligraphy or concrete poetry. But form should follow function and the current templates don't assist the function. A functional template would contain semantic features such as AI verification and a specification of the claim being made. Anyway, it seems apparent that we disagree and so consensus is lacking. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Current templates do perform some validation which manual formatting does not, for example with date formats or if some parts of the author seem to be missing or incorrect, or if a web page is being cited but no URL is given. They highlight these errors in categories other editors can find, to help minimize the number of readers who try to use a broken citation. If we had AI capable of reading a web page and determining whether or not the content there supports the cited sentence, we probably wouldn't need templates because we could just have AI fix all the formatting errors and inconsistencies that humans leave. -- Beland (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My impression is that current AI technology is just about capable of confirming that a citation supports what an article says. And it might go further to assess whether other, uncited sources are in general agreement with the cited source. Automating the fact-checking of our articles would be better than providing selected citations and expecting each reader to repeat the fact-checking themself. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm an AI engineer; that's nowhere near true. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My impression is based on use of Gemini Deep Research which does a web search and then analyses the results. That seems somewhat different from a LLM and more relevant to validation of citations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I can tell, Gemini Deep Research is simply a framework that organizes repeated LLM runs against a larger set of web pages than vanilla Gemini. -- Beland (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You could try testing 100 or so statements for yourself, but I expect high false positive and false negative results would make such a system not useful for a variety of reasons. 1.) LLMs aren't reliable even for comparing literal statements. That's compounded when the article is summarizing at a higher level than the sources, using very different words. 2.) If multiple sources are cited for the same sentence, it's difficult to know which parts of the sentence are supported by each source, and if all parts of the sentence are supported by at least one. 3.) Segmentation in general is difficult. Is a citation at the end of a paragraph for the whole paragraph or just for one sentence? If there is a citation in the middle of the sentence and one at the end, which words are covered by the first cite? We don't need AI to point out unreferenced paragraphs or sentences, and we already have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of manual tags for that. 4.) I don't know of any way to ensure that the AI hasn't been trained on Wikipedia content or web pages that reuse Wikipedia content; it could easily report all facts in Wikipedia are true simply because they appear in Wikipedia.

  There's also the practical considerations of cost and execution time. It currently takes over a day just to run a spell check of Wikipedia with a donated server. I haven't yet solved the engineering problem of running a full grammar check in less than a year of calculation time. It might be feasible to run an AI fact checker on a single page, but even that would require a large number of queries and someone would need to pay for a subscription beefy enough to handle that. We would need infrastructure to track which articles and statements had been checked, and I haven't even gotten that built for spell check yet. -- Beland (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just asked Gemini Deep Research "Please fact-check the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wendt" as this is an article that I worked on today. Its action plan was quite sensible

• The results took about 5 mins and were quite voluminous -- pages of output. The details and analysis seemed consistently rational and to the point. I was especially interested in its comments on a passage that I had added myself. "Wendt, playing the character Norm, made a prominent entrance to the Cheers bar in every episode. He would be greeted by a cheer of "Norm!" and make a wisecrack as he walked to his barstool. This regular bit of business was a highlight of the show. Disparaging references to the character's wife, Vera, and the wretched state of his life were other running gags." I'd written this as a paragraph with a citation at the end. Another editor had subsequently merged this paragraph with others to make a wall of text. And another editor had cited a YouTube video in the middle of my paragraph which caused confusion.

  The issue in this case is that Wikipedia citations don't clearly specify what they are citing. The reader has to make assumptions from the proximity of the citation and the surrounding text and it's easy for this to become unhinged as the text and citations are moved around. A citation should capture the text that is being cited when it is added so that any subsequent drift can be understood.

  The overall level and quality of the AI analysis was debatable but seemed comparable with what one would get from an average Wikipedia editor. The advantage of the AI is that it can do it all mechanically and doesn't tire. There is clearly big potential here for such a tool to make systematic checks and highlight issues for investigation. This would be comparable with WP:EARWIG which is routinely used to check for copyvio.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without access to the results of this automated evaluation, I can't say whether it was accurate or inaccurate. For example, you didn't quote what it said about the paragraph on Norm's entrances.

  It seems like many pages of textual output is not helpful in automating fact-checking, especially if it contains mistakes that can only be detected by human fact-checking. What would be helpful is having the system flag which sentences are and are not verified by the given sources. Having it go off and consult web pages which are not cited and thus have no bearing on the question being asked seems like a lot of wasted work, which may cause the human interpreting the results to have to do more work to sift through that. -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The details are not important as it was a proof of concept. Running this tool is not as difficult or expensive as you seem to suppose so I encourage you to try it yourself.

  The point is that the current system of citations is quite weak as a form of verification. Whether they use templates or not, the burden is currently on each reader to read and make sense of the cited works. A system of verification and fact-checking which was performed for the reader -- either on-demand or as an offline process would be better.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue the details are what make such a system feasible vs. infeasible. You only ran the AI on one article, but there are almost seven million articles, and it would by no means be feasible to do that if the goal is for editors to know what changes articles need to become 100% accurate.

  If the goal is for readers to fact-check a single Wikipedia article they are interested in, that's a different problem of a different scale. Readers cannot trust the output of an AI like the one you ran to be accurate or to detect errors in Wikipedia articles, especially since the AI may have been trained on bogus websites or erroneous Wikipedia articles. They would have to fact-check that output by checking its sources. For establishing truth there is no way around applying the traditional techniques of critical thinking, tracing citations, and evaluating the reliability of sources.

  Readers who want to do this anyway can already do it just like you did, and I don't see how their ability to do that has anything to do with whether or not our citations use templates. -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Metadata is useful; that's pretty much all there is to it. One day we should just use AIs to convert all citations we have into one uniform style, and do it dynamically. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have metadata, we should not use it to convert all citations into a uniform style, we should use it like a BibTeX database and allow displaying of the citations in any suitable style. There are massive differences in citation styles and practices between different academic disciplines and one size does not fit all there. —Kusma (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Wikipedia needs to remain accessible. The majority of contributors don't use citations at all. The most important thing for increasing Wikipedia's reliability is to go from no-citations to relevant citations-of-any-format, not to format citations we already have perfectly. Doing this requires the barrier of adding a citation to be as low as possible - someone dropping off plaintext, simple citations needs to be encouraged. I use the citation templates myself usually, but the plain text ones are still fine and not a problem - the value add of microformats is way too small to outweigh scaring off contributors who want to use plain text and would find having their citations forcibly turned into the templates off-putting. (For the scenario where an editor would explicitly like some passing help in formatting their citations with the templates but isn't sure how, no problem with having some noticeboard to drop such requests off, as long as there is some "I am a major contributor" checkbox to avoid passing editors from dropping every single article with plaintext refs in there.) SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not provide tools that make it easier to add citations in a standard format than to manually type in wikitext? There would be no need to say that they have to use the tools, just say that they might save the editor some time. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These tools already exist. Have you ever been to an edit-a-thon aimed at new editors? One of the words of wisdom is to run away from these citation tools as fast as you can and say "yeah if you become an expert you can come back and worry about this later." About the best case scenarios are tools which are "drop a raw URL in, get a formatted citation" but anything more complex than that is asking for trouble. If we make it a "mistake" to stop at a plaintext citation, some people will react by not adding citations, which is far worse a loss than the exceptionally minor gain of the auto-formatting. SnowFire (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per various points mention above. In addition (citation) templates imho are often a pain for editors working across several language wikipedias, as each wikipedia tends to have its own non-standardized template zoo.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've been using computers to edit and format text longer than most folks here. The idea that people want to hand-format references just blows my mind. Bibliographic citations are structured data and should be managed in ways which preserve that structure for all the reasons described above. On wiki, that means {{cite}} templates. And yes, I'm one of those "inexperienced" users who prefers the Visual Editor. The citation tools built into VE are infuriatingly clumsy, but still better than hand-formatting citations. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that people want to hand-format references just blows my mind. The idea that people want to hand-format anything just blows my mind. I refer to the usual GUI software as What You See Is All You Get^[a] (WYSIAYG) and strongly prefer markup languages such as SCRIPT and LaTeX that allow automating complicated layouts. Will a GUI makes simple tasks easier, unless it provides a mechanism to expose and edit markup, it makes more complicated tasks inordinately more complicated. I believe that the best short term strategy is for VE to create the initial template but make it easy to edit the underlying wikitext. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's two distinct things being conflated here: GUI (i.e. Visual Editor) vs source editing, and using citation templates vs hand-formatting citations. Those are orthogonal issues. Anyway, I'll see your LaTeX and raise you "bib | tbl | eqn | troff" :-) RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some editors prefer source editing and others prefer VisualEditor. Either type of editor might be the first to make a citation, so the other system always needs to be able to cope with the result, whether or not templates are used. -- Beland (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those came late to the game; I started with punched cards and IBM Administrative Terminal System. SCRIPT was a huge jump forward. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a follow-up to this, earlier today I wanted to know what the earliest dated reference in Modern flat Earth beliefs was. I was able to figure it out in a few minutes using standard command-line tools:

  % curl -s 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs?action=raw' | sed -e 's/|/\n/g' -e 's/}}//g' -e 's/{{/\n/g' -e 's/</\n/g' | grep '^ *date *=' | sed -e 's/[ -]/\n/g' -e 's/date=//' | grep '\d\d\d\d' | sort -nr

  that would have been much harder with hand-formatted citations. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as one of the most zealous CS lovers on Earth. Of all the times I've migrated a mixed-CITEVAR article or mostly debilitated manual CITEVAR article to templates, I've never had real pushback, because no one actually cares in articles they didn't personally contribute to and moreover polish considerably. That makes it obvious to me there's no reason to enshrine a thumb on the scale within site policy. If I ever for whatever reason preferred manual citations for an article, this is a potential headache it is simply needless to conjure. Remsense ‥ 论 16:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the desire for a rule is because some editors agree with you that badly formatted refs should usually be migrated to citation templates, but feel less bold than you. They're looking for written permission, in a model that Everything that is not permitted is forbidden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per @WhatamIdoing, @Just-a-can-of-beans, @Chatul, @Ifly6 and @Michael Bednarek. I feel like a lot of opposers are conflating "use of citation templates" with "imposing one particular citation style", when this doesn't have to be the case. Just because there aren't currently (to my limited knowledge, at least) widely-used non-CS1 citation templates, doesn't mean that non-CS1 templates could never exist.^[b]
  Aside from the issue of citation styles, I would be hesitant to risk patronising new editors by suggesting citation templates are too difficult for them to grasp. The most commonly-used citation templates (cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal) are already available by default in the editing toolbar via a form interface with prompts for clearly-labelled parameters that, in my opinion, can be easily understood, even by brand new editors.
  It's also worth noting that, per WP:CIRNOT, it's okay for new editors to make good-faith, constructive edits that don't 100% conform to the MOS; Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. So, if the MOS was updated to prefer templates (which is what this RfC is suggesting, not that we mandate templates and "punish" users for citing manually), that would just give future editors the ability to standardise these citations using templates while retaining the information added manually by the original editor. If anything, such a guideline might reduce edit warring, because it would reduce ambiguity, especially for articles where no citation style has previously been established.
  Apologies, this turned into a bit of an essay. If I've got anything blatantly wrong, I'm very open to corrections! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pineapple Storage: Well, since you offered... you phrased the matter as "patronising new editors by suggesting citation templates are too difficult." Now, there will always be dedicated people who love to grapple with this, but I'm sorry, this is just a factual issue. Please read https://xkcd.com/2501/ . I write this as someone who's been to edit-a-thons attended by smart, dedicated, interested people with college degrees and the like, and I can assure you that yes, messing with writing out citations is just factually difficult for many people. A problem with UI design is that it doesn't matter how much your 20% of power users reassure you that everything is fine, the 80% of quiet occasional users are hard to poll and much worse at handling your app / website / etc. than you think. Citation templates are not trivial. It would be an acceptable price to pay if the matter was very very important, but is it here? I really don't think so. SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    

    Yes, but it's not hard to use a citation filler, and that's what most new editors do. Most edit-a-thons start by telling people to use the visual editor (older version of which is what's blinking at you here), but there's a citation filler in the 2010 wikitext editor, too. Even a newbie can paste a URL into a dialog box.

    And the question here isn't "Shall we tell people on their first edit that they should do this thing?" but much closer to "Do I really need to have a full-blown CITEVAR discussion on the talk page before I quietly re-format the citations?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • • WhatamIdoing: Did you read https://xkcd.com/2501/ ? Please do so. Wishes are not reality. Yes, it is hard, no matter how much we can tell ourselves it's easy. We are geochemists talking among each other about how it's actually easy to understand the nature of ionic bonds involving Calcium all day, and among the people already in the group, yes, it very well may be easy. But that doesn't mean it's true of the least-skilled-with-templates/wikitext 20% of Wikipedia editors (who are still a very useful and positive resource to have!), and certainly not true of the misty potential Wikipedia contributor who isn't great at the tech side but might be convinced to join up, if it doesn't seem like there's an insurmountable barrier of policies telling them that they're in error for everything they add. SnowFire (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm familiar with the comic strip. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be familiar with the visual editor, which is how newbies mostly get started these days.

        Imagine a world in which nobody says anything as incomprehensible as "Please use this thing we've called a citation template". Imagine instead that there's a "Cite" button in the toolbar, and when you click it, it has a little box for you to paste your URL in. And then it magically turns your URL into something that looks very nice, and all you have to to is click the blue button to insert it. You never see the "template" and don't have to even know what it is.

        Try it out. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&veaction=edit Mash the keyboard to put some text on the page. Click the "Cite" button in the toolbar, and either paste in a URL (https://www.example.com) or put in a DOI or an ISBN if you want to get fancy. See what happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SnowFire I totally understand where you're coming from, and I think the xkcd comic is good and probably does apply to some more obscure/backend WP mechanisms, but I really don't think it applies here. I write this as someone who was a brand new editor less than three years ago, and my eleventh ever contribution was creating a page with 8 template-formatted citations. What spurred me to start editing was (if I remember rightly) seeing a typo on a page and thinking "Hmm, I wonder whether I could correct that...", so I clicked Learn to edit in the left-hand menu and went through the introduction. Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/2 says To add a new reference, just copy and modify an existing one. and that was exactly how I started adding references to my sandbox draft. If anything, the fact that citation templates are so readily available made it far easier for me to start referencing, because I could just copy and paste {{Cite web |date=1 January 2001 |last=Smith |first=Jane |url=https://www.example.com/example_page |title=Example page |website=Example}} and replace the values with my own, without having to figure out how to format the citation myself: Smith, Jane (2001)."[https://www.example.com/example_page Example page]". ''Wikipedia''. 1 January. (Just typing that out was exhausting, let alone having to look up an entry in Harvard MOS etc.) I understand that there will always be new editors who don't want to spend any time reading through tutorials etc, and that's fine; this RfC is just proposing that, if they choose a manual citation format (for instance, one that doesn't comply with any formal citation style, which, in my experience, manual citations often don't) then other editors can come along and standardise them using templates later, without anyone jumping done their throat about WP:CITEVAR. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, for anyone curious about what the tutorials for new editors say about referencing/citations, and citation templates specifically, see Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup § RefToolbar and Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor § Adding references. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "there aren't currently (to my limited knowledge, at least) widely-used non-CS1 citation templates", I much prefer the CS2 template {{citation}}. The CS1 templates of {{cite conference}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite podcast}}, etc. seem absurdly baroque and confusing. I use the {{citation}} template as a simpler and more universal option. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more pressure to standardise on this. There's a similar issue with infoboxes and there's a lot of pressure to merge and consolidate those. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (de-indent, re WhatamIdoing) Correct, I don't like VE that much, other than messing with large tables. But yes, I have used it anyway when interacting with new editors. And yes, I've even shown off the "transform a URL into a citation" option before! But the very fact we're talking about the toolbar at all says a lot. Again, I'm not making this up, many new editors have trouble with the absolute basics of editing. Telling them "if you switch to VE and find the right button there's a tool that automatically generates well-formatted citations, which are useful because, er, microformats and machine readability" is a lot when someone is learning the basics. And again, there's a lot that newbies need to learn, but why insist on this one in particular? I don't know what to say other than that I'm talking about the 20% least skilled in wikitext contributors + the current non-editors but potential future contributors who are scared off by assuming that editing Wikipedia is very complex. I have multiple talented, smart, educated friends who just ask me to make simple text edits on their behalf, the kind that don't require knowledge of citations at all. Sure, maybe some would never edit WP and thus are irrelevant, but it is hard to overstate how imposing the very basics of editing are on Wikipedia. The people who have trouble with this are not going to find this discussion, but we should keep them in mind regardless and advocate on their behalf. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why insist on this one? Because:

  • Nobody says the newbie has to do any of this. I know this has been repeated multiple times, but let's be clear: The goal is not to make the newbie figure out how to format any citations through any method at all. If the newbie can get a URL somewhere in the vicinity of the edit, even if it's just in an edit summary or a note on a talk page, the wikignomes will do their best to fix it. It happens that clicking a button in the toolbar (something most ordinary people don't find difficult?) will produce a satisfactory result in both the wikitext and visual editors, but in the visual editor, the newbie will have no idea that there's a template being used, and therefore cannot experience any of the disadvantages of citation templates. (For example, there's no "visual clutter" in the wikitext when you don't see the wikitext at all.)
  • The goal is for an experienced Wikipedia:WikiGnome to know whether, when faced with a mishmashed mess in an article, whether the community (a) would prefer the mess cleared up using citation templates or (b) would prefer the mess cleared up without using citation templates or (c) still feels that it's necessary to keep pretending that we're all 'neutral' about citation templates and that this stated neutrality will have any practical effect other than the wikignomes "randomly" choosing to use citation templates "on a case-by-case basis". Anyone who's been watching for the last dozen years knows that 'neutral' means citation templates in practice, but sometimes we have social/political reasons to say one thing while doing another.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm a zealous supporter of templated cites as they are much, much less susceptible to data rot than the text based alternative. I would support a preferred status for templates, a light finger on the scale for their use, but I don't support the current wording - it goes to far. Currently if you find an article you believe would be improved by citation templates you only have to get consensus on the talk page for doing so. These nothing in CITEVAR that says it can't be changed, only that there has to be consensus for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be worried that certain WP:OWNers will fight to the ends of the earth on that. Ifly6 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If one editor tries to own an article, it just takes two others to form a consensus for change. Styles are not set in stone, they are as open to changing consensus as much as any other article content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A majority of 2 users against 1 is not "consensus". Requiring local consensus is a way to make global consensus impossible to implement. Nemo 12:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment was about a single article, not a global consensus. Local consensus about article content is quite normal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't describe a consensus formed on a talk page, affecting a single article, as "local consensus". That's "ordinary consensus". WP:LOCALCON is about Alice and Bob deciding that all of "their" articles are exempt from relevant policies and guidelines. It's not about three editors making an ordinary decision on a talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per jacobolus among others. Not everything needs to be filed away into templates. Plain text can be easier to format. Cremastra (u — c) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and I say this as a huge fan of citation templates who uses them almost exclusively. This seems like WP:CREEP to me and does not have any measurable benefit other than allowing scripts and bots to read metadata. It should be sufficient that citations are consistent within an article. Mandating that people use citation templates brings up various problems, not the least of which is that changing citation formats is a waste of editor time when citations are already consistent in that article. The main purpose of a citation is to verify text, not to be visually appealing. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Allowing scripts and bots to read metadata sounds like a good enough reason to me. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith, I agree, and if this were a smaller wiki that already used citation templates predominantly, I would support this without reservation. The problem is that mandating this on millions upon millions of articles seems to be very cumbersome, especially if existing hand-crafted citations seem to work fine. To be fair, I could still support this if the wording were toned down. However, as currently written, it effectively gives editors free rein to indiscriminately convert manual citations to cite templates—which could result either in a waste of editor time (due to the amount of time that is required to do this carefully) or sloppy automated conversion of citations (if they use a tool like VisualEditor or reFill). Epicgenius (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There’s a lot to read here (can’t claim to have read all of it), but I don’t see anything about the encyclopaedia reader. It is a lot easier to find where article content comes from with short references if templates are used (mouse over etc). Shouldn’t we be focusing on the reader experience? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The citation templates are now extremely complicated, and really need a review and simplification before we move even to "encourage". If that were done I'd support some kind of gentle encouragement or at least discouragement from un-templating. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  

Complicated is subjective. Writing a reference from scratch is probably easy for someone who has spent a lifetime dealing with academic references. But for the new, younger editors that we are trying to encourage, I would guess that a template is a lot easier. Once they realise that cite book or cite journal are usually automatically populated from an ISBN or a doi, they only need to deal with cases where that doesn't fit. The solution to that is to ask for help. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also frankly not that hard to turn a Google Scholar formatted citation into a template. The parameter names just aren't that difficult. |title= is no Finnegans Wake. Ifly6 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are fine if you are doing a simple citation, which meets the expectations of the template writer, and the vert small clique who understand the code behind the templates. But there is, for example, no {{Cite book review}} which is an essential use case for scholarly discussions. Moreover the obsession with emitting COINS metadata has made the templates less useful for editors and readers, throwing errors when something doesn't fit with the ontology, rather than when it would display something misleading. How for example do you credit something to "Staff writer" or "Uncredited"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

In such cases one usually just omits the author fields, which incidentally also leads to nicer readable output. Gawaon (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is following a third-party style guide that says, for example, "use title case for books and sentence case for journal articles", which rules for implementing title and sentence case should be used? Wikipedia has guidelines for this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works, and some topic-specific pages.

For example, Wikipedia guidelines say the name of the game "Go" should be capitalized, but the name of the game "chess" should not. If a third-party style guide says "go" should be lowercase, which should take precedence? (The specific example is not important; I'm just using it as a neutral illustration.)

The sensible choices I can think of:

• Follow the Wikipedia guidelines defining title and sentence case
• Follow the third-party guidelines defining title and sentence case
• Pick one or the other for a given article and use WP:CITEVAR to arbitrate that choice

My reading of the current Wikipedia guidelines is that they apply to citations regardless of third-party citation styles; if there is consensus against that, I would support adding a note explaining the exception.

-- Beland (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, the last one is the one that's most likely to 'stick'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we have our own rules for title case, what would be the point in not following them if title case is to be used? Gawaon (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; just wanted to check because some people are interpreting citation capitalization guidelines in very different ways than I would expect. -- Beland (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with forcing title or sentence case, there's always issues of which capitalization is considered proper... That's why none of these options are an improvement but instead serve to pigeonhole individuals into others' preferred capitalization style. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anyone who has opinions about style will find something they don't like about any given manual of style, but the point of having one is to resolve those disagreements in favor of a single style so that presentation to readers is consistent. I don't see any particular reason that personal freedom to capitalize at will should be valued over quality of reader experience. -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a single allowed style though, that's the problem. And frankly, I'm not sure how reader experience is affected by the capitalization of references. Really don't think it makes anyone's experience worse. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Josh… we allow multiple citation styles, and that isn’t a problem. Most editors don’t care about capitalization in citations - as long as it is clear what book, journal, website etc the citation is pointing to.

For those who do care: feel free to conform to your favorite style, but don’t argue about it… and definitely don’t edit war about it. If someone else objects, and reverts your change… move on to another article and leave it be. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some edits to fix case errors, and sometimes that includes changing citation style when there does not appear to be a consistent citation style in use. Josh reverted a bunch of those, even though I was careful to first verify that the style was not consistent either internally or with corresponding outside sources. I'm not claiming that I made everything perfectly consistent, but I moved closer to the most common style, which was sentence case. Examples: [4], [5], where the titles I changed included several that were made up, that is, not findable in the source (e.g. title=Jonathan Mingo Draft and Combine Prospect Profile). It's annoying. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the capitalization matched neither the source nor a style guide, what was the reason for reverting? -- Beland (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for reverting, in those two examples, was that the articles were not made "entirely consistent", meaning that Dicklyon's changes were not an improvement. Prior to that, the references matched the source capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't: several were over-capitalized with no good reason. I was aiming for consistency; if I came up short, let me know and I'll work on it some more. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Jonathan Mingo Draft and Combine Prospect Profile" is from the browser's tab. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that some of these titles are from the page metadata, not visible on the page. Some others are not (e.g. title=2023 NFL Draft Scout Jaylon Jones College Football Profile appears to be "made up"). Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about that level of detail, use the Wikipedia MoS. In general just using the right case will be such an improvement over using the wrong case that it is probably sufficient. I often use https://titlecaseconverter.com/ (which has a Wikipedia option) for fixing titles in all caps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'm starting a new section rather further derail the thread above. I tried out Andrew's prompt, "Please fact-check the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example" I suspect that Gemini will struggle more with topics that are either obscure or surrounded by misconceptions. I tried the prompt above for the Piri Reis article. I plan to nominate this for FAC sometime in the future, and it's a topic that is surrounded by misconceptions and spooky stories. Here are the results:

• "A snippet from a scholarly article suggests that both Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310) and Piri Reis may have depicted a 'North American Baptistery,' identified as the Newport Tower, on their maps. This implies a much earlier and more detailed knowledge of North America in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires than commonly understood, which is a notable new insight not present in the general Wikipedia article." This is pseudohistorical nonsense.
• "While the Wikipedia article mentions Ptolemy's *Geographia* as a source for Piri Reis, it does not delve into this specific interpretation involving Planudes or the Newport Tower." It seems hung up on this "Newport Tower" angle. It's in Rhode Island, which no reliable source even claims is present on the map.
• "The article states Piri Reis's execution occurred in 1553 , while a scholarly source indicates 1554." More recent scholarship makes 1553 almost certainly the correct date.
• "This minor discrepancy should be noted, perhaps by presenting a range (e.g., "1553/1554") or acknowledging the scholarly debate surrounding the precise year." Sure, but the article already says, "Some older sources list the year of his death as 1554. Venetian documents from the period have allowed historians to date his execution to some point during 1553.".
• "While the article correctly states that the 1513 map is "accurate for its time," it could more explicitly incorporate the nuanced finding from Gregory McIntosh, who concluded that it was not the most accurate map of the entire 16th century, having been surpassed by numerous later works. Adding this context would provide a more precise historical placement of the map's accuracy." This is the best point so far. The Piri Reis map actually does give this context. It's just out of scope for the cartographer's biography. A thought though, the LLM has checked the map's Wikipedia article during this fact check. Is it basing its advice on a different Wikipedia article?
• "The article's debunking of pseudoscientific claims, particularly the "ice-free Antarctica" hypothesis, could be more detailed and explicit. Incorporating the geological and cartographic arguments presented in scholarly sources would strengthen the refutation." I'm not sure how much more the LLM is wanting here. Ther article already includes "Hapgood's book was met with skepticism due to its lack of evidence and reliance on polar shift.[158] According to geologist Paul Heinrich, the book also did not account for post-glacial rebound, and the 1949 survey initially cited by Mallery could not measure even one percent of the area drawn in the Piri Reis map. Subsequent studies have shown no significant similarities to Antarctica's coast.[159]" I think it may be asking of the kind detailed analysis of the Carribean section, but again I think that's probably out of scope for this article and it's covered in the map's article.
• "Additionally, a brief mention and debunking of the Newport Tower theory, referencing the claims and counter-arguments from academic analyses , would further enhance the article's comprehensiveness in addressing common misconceptions." I don't know why it is so caught up on the Newport Tower.
• "While summarized, the article could elaborate further on the unique breadth of information contained within Kitab-ı Bahriye. Highlighting its inclusion of socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural details, beyond mere navigational data , would more fully convey its significance as a comprehensive strategic document rather than simply a nautical guide." This is really more true of the Italian isolario genre, but a valid point is that I could give some additional detail. Even though I won't take the advice here, this is probably the first point where I'll make some kind of change to the article. I will probably add a couple lines based on Kitab-ı_Bahriye#Subjects_covered to flesh this section out. I would say this comment is useful for an editor who knows the material and harmful for an editor who does not.
• "The article could more explicitly discuss the limited contemporary circulation and appreciation of Piri Reis's works during his lifetime, contrasting it with their significant posthumous recognition and their role in fostering national pride in modern Turkey." The first paragraph of Piri_Reis#Legacy covers this in some detail already.
• Now we're at reccomendations: "Update the execution date to reflect the scholarly debate, potentially using a range like "1553/1554" or adding a brief note on the differing accounts." This is useless.
• "In the "1513 World Map" section, perhaps within the "Significance" or "Characteristics" subsection, add a sentence or short paragraph clarifying that while the map was accurate for its time, it was subsequently surpassed by other 16th-century maps, citing the work of Gregory McIntosh." This not good advice, and I suspect it is drawing from the map's Wikipedia article. A potential point is that maybe like one sentence could be added to the end of the section, but more detailed coverage of the map should be in the map's article and not duplicated in the cartographer's article.
• "Enhance the "Pseudoscientific claims" section to include a more detailed refutation of the "ice-free Antarctica" hypothesis, drawing on geological evidence, cartographic practices of the era, and the lack of historical evidence for pre-1770s Antarctic voyages." Again, I think this is not great advice and it feels like it is trying duplicate the map's article into the cartographer's article.
• "Consider adding a brief subsection or paragraph to the "Pseudoscientific claims" section addressing the Newport Tower theory, outlining Shekleton's claims and presenting the scholarly counter-arguments regarding carbon dating and the interpretation of early maps." Why does this keep coming up?
• "Enhance the "Kitab-ı Bahriye" section with more specific examples of its non-navigational content, drawing from the detailed descriptions in the provided research. This would emphasize its comprehensive nature as a strategic intelligence document." I noted above that I won't follow this exact advice, but it is a good point about giving some kind of tangible example.
• "Strengthen the "Legacy" section by explicitly contrasting the limited contemporary appreciation of Piri Reis's work with its profound later national and international recognition, linking this resurgence of interest to the 1929 rediscovery and its significance for modern Turkish identity." Again, this is the first paragraph.

So after reading that, I would say that it raises one good point for an editor with knowledge of the subject. I think it would be overall harmful for an editor with no prior knowledge of the subject.

One significant problem that I did not think about beforehand is how much Gemini relied on other Wikipedia articles. I'm the primary author for the articles on his cartographic works, the Kitab-ı Bahriye and Piri Reis map, and I noticed a bunch of places where it was clearly plagiarizing/scrambling material from those articles. According to Gemini's source list, it was able to access Gregory McIntosh's book so I am not sure why it relied so much on the Wikipedia article:

Gemini

"The distinctive and somewhat peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean on the 1513 map, which combines features of Central America and Cuba into a single landmass, is attributed to Columbus's original belief that he had reached Asia. Furthermore, Hispaniola is depicted as merged with Marco Polo's description of Japan, reflecting the geographical understanding of the time."

Wikipedia

"The northwestern coast combines features of Central America and Cuba into a single body of land. Scholars attribute the peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean to a now-lost map from Columbus that merged Cuba into the Asian mainland and Hispaniola with Marco Polo's description of Japan. This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a route to Asia."

McIntosh

"The Columbian conception of the transatlantic lands and islands (as recorded in Columbuss writings and the writings of his contemporaries) and the Toscanelli-Martellus-Rosselli-Behaim conception of the East Asian coast are combined with the geography of the West Indies and the Caribbean to produce the configurations of the Piri Reis map—configurations that are copied from Columbus's map."

I guess it's a bizarre complaint to criticize who the LLM plagiarizes, and in this case I do think the Wikipedia article is solid, but shouldn't it try to plagiarize the best source it can find? Why didn't it center on the book? Does the length or some other aspect of a book PDF make it too difficult? Does it consider a 25-year-old book to be outdated? The Kitab-ı Bahriye article makes more sense because pretty much all the other good sources for this book are offline or pay-walled; the LLM may have no way to access any of them. I tried running the prompt again on the book's article, and although Gemini did give me a result it was very bogus advice and the LLM could cite no sources, so I'm not sure how it did any fact-checking.

I also tried running the prompt on Roswell incident which is a Featured article about a topic heavily linked to misconceptions and conspiracies. Gemini had very little suggestions on this one, but did say, "Initiatives should be developed to improve media literacy and critical thinking skills among the general public." Which, okay, that's valid, but how am I supposed to do that from a Wikipedia article? It also gave the advice, "Ongoing efforts to digitize and make such records easily searchable for both researchers and the public are crucial to ensure that factual information is readily available to counter persistent myths." Which seems to assume that I work for the Air Force?

I realize that I am kind of focused on the topics where an LLM will struggle. Perhaps there are other areas where it is more effective, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: This is why I say the details and quality of the response matter; this sounds much worse than a manual fact check against cited sources. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples and comments. Trying such tools out to see what works is a sensible way forward. I see that the WMF have published their plans for using AI tools and their priority is to use them to support human editors, helping them to check content integrity, for example. This sounds similar but we shall see... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago I tried to get ChatGPT to even acknowledge that something Wikipedia had wrong was wrong. Eventually I gave up. However the systems are getting better. All the time: Rich Farmbrough 14:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Right, technology moves so quickly that this discussion could look outdated in five years. To use machine translation as a comparison, I remember a point where it often created gibberish. Now, editors regularly use machine translation to check the hard facts (names, dates, places, and so on) in cited sources written in other languages. With LLMs, I have used prompts like, "Make an outline of this article to write three introductory paragraphs"; that lifts the burden of fact-checking from the LLM and lets it just crunch the article down. I've also had some luck in technical areas with asking an LLM to go through and add comments; I've never added these AI-generated comments, but it helped me read and update templates. When it comes to fact-checking, I'm not sure. Perhaps it could skim a high-level article for missing facts rather than bogus ones. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an AI write an article intro, you need to manually verify all the claims made in that intro against the body, because LLMs can randomly inject false claims that sound truthy. Likewise, any "missing facts" would need to be manually fact-checked against cited sources. -- Beland (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(On mobile right now.) I agree. I am using "outline" very literally above. In the case of the lead, if an editor has already written the body content from sources then the human editor has the facts. An ai-generated outline could straight up invert a fact, but still provide an overview of the topics covered for a human editor to reference when seeking due weight in the lead. That is how an outline "lifts the burden of fact-checking from the LLM". The AI technology we have now can't deal in facts; people can. I am still unsure of the best uses for AI, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular guarantee that an LLM will respect due weight, either in the abstract importance of a given fact that can only be assigned by reasoning, or in terms of the number of words devoted to it in the body. The intro may instead reflect the weighting of the LLM's training data, or simply be random because it's not calibrated for this purpose. -- Beland (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's more true of an LLM than a human. Certainly if you emphasise please follow WP:DUE. It might be interesting to ask an LLM about contentious issues, in a WP writing context, and evaluate the results using the bias methods previously used to analyse human written Wikipedia text. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

User:Headbomb deleted the following because the issue "goes beyond capitalization, includes MOS:CURLY, bolding elements, italics, etc...": "Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source (note 6:For example, title case, sentence case, or "all words capitalized" style.) is not considered an acceptable consistent style."

I edited it to read:

"The format of cited sources should be altered to conform with the citation style of an article. Elements like bold, italics, quotation marks, and case style should reflect the article's designated citation style."

User:Gawaon restored the deleted sentence, without deleting my compromise language. So now, the passage is redundant:

"The format of cited sources should be altered to conform with the citation style of an article. Elements like bold, italics, quotation marks, and case style should reflect the article's designated citation style. Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source (note 6:For example, title case, sentence case, or "all words capitalized" style.) is not considered an acceptable consistent style."

Rather than delete Gawaon's language, I'm placing it here to figure out a solution. The main issue is clearly communicating to readers that a source's native style should be overridden by the citation style of the Wikipedia article.

It is clearer to spell style guidance out in the body of the article, instead of using an endnote. I thought the language I wrote addressed all the pertinent issues. Gawaon's note specifies different case styles, but in my view, "case style" is sufficient.Trumpetrep (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, it's not about just preserving case style, it's preserving any style element of the sourcing. Capitalization, bolding, italicizing, abbreviating authors, first/last vs last/first, use of and vs &, or nothing at all, what punctuation to use as delimiters, curly vs straight quotes and apostrophes, etc... any style element that clashes with the article's style must be thrown out.

Gawaon's language makes that clear, using capitalization as an example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC (I don't have the link ready, but it shouldn't be too hard too find) was explicitly and only about whether keeping the capitalization style of each cited source is a consistent citation style, with the result that that's not the case and that a corresponding note should be added to the article. The sentence I have restored was the result of that. (Today I had changed its wording slightly and added the explanatory note, but that was just to clearer explain what was always the intent.) With or without Headbomb's addition, that sentence is still needed, since otherwise somebody could again claim that "Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source is an acceptable consistent style", as had indeed happened before.

Otherwise I don't have a strong opinion about Headbomb's addition, except that it seems to suggest that each article must have a "designated citation style", which is indeed not the case. If we keep that addition, well okay, though some more prior discussion might be good. In any case, however, the sentence about "Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source" is not redundant and should stay to honour the RfC outcome. Gawaon (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?

"In order to maintain a consistent citation style in an article, all stylistic elements of an individual source may be changed, including capitalization, emphasis, and quotation marks."

The goal is to be direct and clear. This is an extremely indirect formulation: "Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source (note 6:For example, title case, sentence case, or "all words capitalized" style.) is not considered an acceptable consistent style".

It starts with a fairly straightforward and familiar practice (preserving capitalization), is interrupted by a parenthetical, and then veers into a windy prohibition ("not considered an acceptable").

At the very least, the order should be reversed to lead with the command, ie "It is unacceptable to preserve capitalization".Trumpetrep (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are many citation styles that may be regarded as consistent and "may" is not the same as "must", so your wording would still lose the result of the RfC. Gawaon (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, "In order to maintain a consistent citation style in an article, all text elements of an individual source must be changed, including capitalization, emphasis, and quotation marks."

Does that fit the bill?Trumpetrep (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was specifically about whether matching source capitalization is considered a "consistent citation style". To reflect the outcome of that RfC, we need to make clear that it is not. The original formulation does that; IMO neither of yours does. (Also, nitpicking: it's not necessarily true that capitalization must be changed, if the source happens to already use the capitalization that matches the article's style). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization is not the only issue, apparently. Headbomb raised a slew of other text elements when he deleted the passage.

So perhaps you or Gawaon could suggest language that solves the problem. The original language was not at all clear.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization was the only issue of the RfC, though. I've amended the text to focus on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 57#RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles. If you are looking at that, it might (or might not) be helpful to read User talk:Alalch E./Archive 4#Your close of RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles as well as the closing summary. A simple summary might sound something like this:

"Many editors passively accept whatever the auto-filling tools supply. The resulting mismatched, often incomplete, and sometimes incorrect citations do not constitute a 'consistent style' within the meaning of WP:CITEVAR or any other part of this guideline. However, we all know that most people are still going to do whatever is easiest for citation formatting, so beautifully and consistently formatted citations will continue to be rare outside of Wikipedia:Featured content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is an obvious thing, or I word something wrong--I can't seem to find a solid answer. I'm assuming someone, somewhere, has solved the "problem". Please click on this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Very_Polite_Person/draft/Mosaic_effect#cite_note-Pozen_Yale_mosaic_2005-16

In that draft, as you can see, I've used that source a lot (very WIP draft). If I had to or wanted to deploy 5, 10, 20 one-sentence quotes from that one single source... as in, in the cite template using the quote= option...

What do you do if you need more than one quote from a particularly rich source like that? I assume I would not just redeploy the full cite template 5, 10, 20 times. Is there a short-hand method like to use instead of <ref name="Pozen etc." />, something like <ref name="Pozen quote 1"|quote=blah blah blah>? Would there be a way to somehow link "Pozen quote 1" to the "master" citation?

Again, sorry if I'm wording this wrong. On another article draft because I wanted to keep a lot of complicated sources straight I did this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Very_Polite_Person/draft/Field_propulsion#cite_note-Myers_NASA_Electromagnetic_Propulsion_1993-6

Which has:

<br>Pg. 1: "Like most electric propulsion systems, electromagnetic thrusters underwent an intense period of development during the 1960’s and early 1970’s. These efforts culminated in first flights of solid propellaIit pulsed plasma thrusters in the Soviet Union in 19641 and in the United States in 1968.2 The Soviet PPT flight, in which the thruster provided attitude control for the Zond-2 spacecraft on its way to Mars, was the first use of electric propulsion on a planetary spacecraft."

<br>Pg. 8: "The thruster has been extensively studied experimentally over a wide range of operating conditions, and model input parameters reflect the results of these measurements.

Wedged between the closing \}\} of the cite template and the closing </ref> tag. That seems fine for a draft, but not for an article. How do others deal with this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the inns and outs, but maybe Help:Shortened footnotes, and the associated template {{sfn}} will be useful. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to be paraphrasing what the sources say. So paraphrase the source in the article body and cite what you've paraphrased. If you must, really really must, quote the source, quote it in the article body or, perhaps better, in a separate 'notes' section using {{efn}} and cite the quotation. Limit the number of quotations to only those that are absolutely necessary. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, wikiprose would be paraphrased, this is to have the 1:1 paraphrase:source clearly accounted for. Apologies for a possibly pedantic question, but would it be an issue or later raise concerns at stuff like GAC/FAC if I'm asked to explain where I pulled each of 14 sources out of a 500 page PDF, without the quotes/notes as a contemporaneous record on that level of granularity? Especially if it's maybe a source/passages I worked over a year ago and don't have it all fresh in my mind, and to not have to reinvent each instance later, or if someone one day challenges one or more? I was sorta thinking to have something to just point to. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the general case, I'd say to just refer to the specific page number in the cited document – {{sfn}} and friends are helpful for that. Literal quotes are very rarely needed. Gawaon (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what ↑↑ this ↑↑ editor ↑↑ said. In both of your examples, the sources are free-to-read so collecting lists of quotations from them to include in the articles is just unnecessary clutter. In-source locators (page numbers) are sufficient for a reader to see where you got the information that you have summarized in the article with the added benefit of context which is lost when you extract quotations from the source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tezcatlipoca really a good example of a footnotes section? It has separate subsections for "in-text citations" and references, but I don't know the rationale for this.

I do however like the idea of encompassing references and notes into a footnotes section in the first place, but I suppose we are stuck with inconsistent uses of "notes" and "footnotes" that would make this impractical to generalise. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wh1pla5h99, I have seen a lot of articles that do something similar with "In-text citations" called "Citations". Most articles use separate citations or re-use the same citations. Wikipedia's software doesn't have a built-in way to handle citing separate parts of the same source, so there are multiple ways to handle those. In that article, try clicking the link in footnote 2 for "Miller & Taube 1993". That link will take you from the short citation in the footnotes section to the full citation in the "References" section. The guideline for this is at WP:SFN, and the documentation at Help:Shortened footnotes. It's similar to the short citations used in the Chicago style. Feel free to ask more questions if any of that is confusing, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Tezcatlipoca, as it currently looks, is not an ideal example, especially since the "References" section is a subsection of "Footnotes". This doesn't make sense, since it contains references given as a list, not as (foot)notes. The name "In-text citations" is a bit clumsy; shorter ones such as "Citations" work just as well and are more frequent, in my experience. Gawaon (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. The naming is what's confusing since this short citations section is elsewhere called notes or footnotes. "Notes" used instead for explanatory notes, as here, is actually preferable in my opinion. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been scouring all over for this information and couldn't find it. If a user added a reference to an online publication some amount of days ago without using a template and neglected to add a date of retrieval, and I want to add a retrieval date for completeness, which date should I add? The date that the user added that reference? Or would it be the date that I, the person who wants to add a date, looked at that source with my own eyes? 2600:1700:694D:E810:0:0:0:3A (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I go hunting through the page history for whenever it was added, but this takes a lot of time and I have never seen someone else do this. As long as you verify that the source still says what you're citing it for when you're checking it, I believe you can add the current date. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you verified the citation, then just add the current date. Also, if the citation has a publication date, it does not need a retrieval date. In situations where you do need to find when the citation was added:

1. Open the "Tools" menu on the right.
2. Select "Page information".
3. Scroll down to the bottom and select "Revision history search".
4. Search for the title of the citation, like this.
5. The tool will give a diff (like this) showing when the citation was added or updated.

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all I do is copy the URL from whatever list I used, I don't add an access date because I didn't access it. More than likely I saw the information on ProQuest or NewsBank and didn't want to risk reaching the point where I had to subscribe to see something.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, if you find a referenced added yesterday or a year ago--with or without a retrieval date--and you yourself go through the link, and decide, "Yes, that source matches the inline[3] cite", no harm in adding your own retrieval date. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is a type that publishes something once and leaves it alone, such as an academic journal, and the date of the work is apparent from the citation or the source itself, a retrieval date is not needed. If the work shows a publication date but it wasn't put in the citation, put the publication date in the citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, if you don't verify the link yourself you have to cite the place you found it in addition to the link. This is policy, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. There are two standard ways to do it: (1) "A, cited by B", (2) "B, citing A". I hope that you are at least verifying that the link is not dead. Zero^talk 06:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Template:Refname rules has some rules about using semantic reference names. These rules don't belong in a template, they belong in WP:REPEATCITE. Also, at the moment there is doubt about whether they are considered policy. I propose they should be policy, and they should be moved to WP:REPEATCITE (perhaps a subsection). cagliost (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REPEATCITE links to WP:REFNAME (twice), which appears to list the same rules as the template. (I didn't do a word-for-word comparison to check for wording drift.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording at WP:REFNAME is exactly the same, as it translcudes the {{Refname rules}} template. So the wording in the template is part of the help page. My guess is that it's in a template as the same text needs to be repeated in many different places. The {{Harvard citation}} and {{Sfn}} families of templates all transclude it, as does {{Refn}}, and some other help pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. cagliost (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit, but then look at Ref 12. I forgot I was dealing with a British topic but then something fixed it for me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has {{Use dmy dates}}. The docs for that template say: Citation Style 1 and 2 (collectively cs1|2) templates automatically render dates ... in the style specified by this template. So no matter what format the date in the citation is in, it'll get rendered as day month year. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising this here as there has already been comment about Wikipedia:Citation templates#Use in footnotes on the article talk page, and it has been ignored by everyone.

The major criticism is of For a citation to appear in a footnote, it has to be enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags. I cannot derive a meaning from this that fits reality.

If one wants to put a reference in an informational footnote, and easy way to do so is
{{efn|Further information on something in the article.{{sfn|Jones|2021|p=53}}}}.
This works, and without use of <ref>...</ref> to enclose anything. And we are all clear that there are many referencing templates that do not need <ref>...</ref>. Am I missing the point, or is the section I am complaining about complete nonsense? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be more clear, but that template is making the "ref" tags. If you view the source, look on line two where it begins "{{#tag:ref". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit like including the principles of internal combustion engine thermodynamics in the instructions for starting a lawnmower engine? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the text refers to the typical use of {{cite whatever}} templates, where it is correct. {{sfn}} and friends don't define citations, they refer to citations that must have been defined elsewhere (whether inside of footnotes or not). Including sfn-style references inside {{efn}} is of course possible and occasionally useful, but that's not how citations are normally used. The how-to guide is for the normal workflow, and for that it seems to do a good job. Gawaon (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]