Inline Templates | ||||
|
Added plural use of citations, as over use always involve several citations. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Primefac ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
– One is an inline template; the other is a standard maintenance tag. Both have the similar purpose: inform readers that a page or statement may have too many citations or references. However, the current names are very confusing. Also, the inline template is transcluded in 100+, while the other is transcluded in seven pages. If the suggested titles are not suitable names, I welcome alternatives. George Ho ( talk) 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox ( diff). I have added the current template data from to the documentation page, where it can be filled in by non-template-editors (currently it included a blank array of parameters). I would have filled it in myself, but I'm not familiar with template data enough. The change would also remove a few unneeded blank lines. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I changed the link target to its original WP:OVERCITE, but was reverted by Primefac. [1] I believe that, for an inline tag, the most appropriate link target is indeed OVERCITE, which describes the problem and various remedies. In contrast, the current link only suggests to group citations in a bundle, which is in most cases not what is needed. I've seen WP:REFBOMBS of 8 citations or more, all telling the same thing, so that the appropriate advice is to keep just the top two or three. There are indeed a few cases when all citations are useful and should be bundled for concision, but in that case the person noticing the issue would likely proceed with the bundling directly instead of splashing a tag in the text. When encountering a refbomb, I usually try to trim the citations myself, but it's often better to leave this to editors who are already knowledgeable with the subject matter and its RS coverage, so they can select the best sources to keep among all those cited. Therefore I reckon it's better to inform the "local experts" with this tag, and guide them to the most appropriate advice. — JFG talk 00:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Added plural use of citations, as over use always involve several citations. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Primefac ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
– One is an inline template; the other is a standard maintenance tag. Both have the similar purpose: inform readers that a page or statement may have too many citations or references. However, the current names are very confusing. Also, the inline template is transcluded in 100+, while the other is transcluded in seven pages. If the suggested titles are not suitable names, I welcome alternatives. George Ho ( talk) 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox ( diff). I have added the current template data from to the documentation page, where it can be filled in by non-template-editors (currently it included a blank array of parameters). I would have filled it in myself, but I'm not familiar with template data enough. The change would also remove a few unneeded blank lines. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I changed the link target to its original WP:OVERCITE, but was reverted by Primefac. [1] I believe that, for an inline tag, the most appropriate link target is indeed OVERCITE, which describes the problem and various remedies. In contrast, the current link only suggests to group citations in a bundle, which is in most cases not what is needed. I've seen WP:REFBOMBS of 8 citations or more, all telling the same thing, so that the appropriate advice is to keep just the top two or three. There are indeed a few cases when all citations are useful and should be bundled for concision, but in that case the person noticing the issue would likely proceed with the bundling directly instead of splashing a tag in the text. When encountering a refbomb, I usually try to trim the citations myself, but it's often better to leave this to editors who are already knowledgeable with the subject matter and its RS coverage, so they can select the best sources to keep among all those cited. Therefore I reckon it's better to inform the "local experts" with this tag, and guide them to the most appropriate advice. — JFG talk 00:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)