Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Proposal to stop adding Bibcode values to citations unless they provide information

In the middle of the preceding very long discussion about WP:CITEVAR the question of the value of bibcodes was raised. That topic got mixed up in the other one. So I want to open the question about bibcodes cleanly. Here is my proposal:

• Bibcode values should be added to a citation only when the linked page provide unique information unavailable through other links in the citation.

In my experience DOI has effectively replaced bibcode. The bibcode typically only shows the same info as the citation. I've compiled some examples here. The only exception I've seen is some older astronomy sources which are archived at the bibcode site and in these cases a bibcode would be fine. The proposal would apply to bots as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Support (Obviously, but I want to encourage other editors to be clear with respect to the proposal). Johnjbarton (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• First a disclaimer: I have no idea what a bibcode is… but based on the above discussion… if a bibcode simply repeats information already in the citation, I see no reason to include it. Exceptions can be made for specific citations where the bibcode does provide additional information (like a link to an abstract). That would probably mean adding it by hand, rather than by bot. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Please yes. I waste a not insignificant amount of time checking these junk identifiers added by citation bot and removing them. Went through the same thing with s2cid back in the day. Esculenta (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense. Additional information (metadata) is in my opinion usually helpful and should not just be forbidden because "some editors don't like it", but repeating information already accessible via other existing metadata (such as the DOI) adds nothing of use. Gawaon (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the value of Bibcode, as I don't use it myself – it is, after all, an "identifier used by several astronomical data systems", so only people editing astronomy-related articles are likely to see it – but the proposal creates some fortune-telling problems for editors:

• Alice adds a citation with a Bibcode in 2024.
• Bob adds a different identifier in 2025. The new identifier duplicates all the Bibcode content (and maybe adds something else).
• Now Alice's addition of the Bibcode should be reverted, because the "the linked page" no longer "provide[s] unique information unavailable through other links in the citation"? Or maybe we all just need to make a mental note that this now-duplicative Bibcode should stay, because when it was "added" there were no "other links in the citation"?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

so only people editing astronomy-related articles are likely to see it. One could argue that those are the people most likely to see useful bibcodes, but because it has been incorporated into Citation bot's editing, bibcodes appear widely outside of the astronomy context, in everything from Abortion to Zoonosis.

In answer to your question, it would make sense to remove the bibcode with or after Bob's edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I expect astronomy articles will continue use bibcode, but not elsewhere. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to set the bot up so it only triggers adding bibcodes when on astronomy articles (defined broadly/loosely)? Or alternatively only on citations to a broad whitelist of known astronomical publications. That might avoid a lot of the lower value ones, while keeping them for the contexts in which they are ore straightforwardly useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The proposal as worded doesn't apply to this case, where the bibcode was there first. It's only about adding bibcodes when all the supplied information is already there. And nobody has suggested a mass removal of existing bibcodes. Gawaon (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If we adopt this rule, then there will be someone suggesting mass removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, should that happen, we can discuss it. Gawaon (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Blueboar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support. More generally, I would support similar wording to WP:ELNO #1 for all reference identifiers (not just bibcodes): they should only be added when they provide a unique resource beyond what the reference itself already contains or should contain. So identifiers that provide article text (jstor, doi, most hdl, some bibcode) are generally ok, as are identifiers that provide reviews (mr, zbl) but metadata-only identifiers (most bibcode) are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  That wording would ban ISBNs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think not. ISBNs link through a Wikimedia page that, among other things, leads to Google Books pages for the book that might provide previews.

  It might ban ISSNs but I'm fine with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I only find ISSN useful in the case where a journal is obscure, especially if it has a common name and there is no publisher link or DOI for each paper. If the journal is called something like the Journal of Psychology but is the one published by a college in the Philippines instead of the one published by T&F, then throwing in the ISSN (2423-2084) could improve clarity and help a reader find the source (though disambiguating the journal title like Journal of Psychology (SDCA) or SDCA Journal of Psychology might also be a good idea). Adding the ISSNs to every citation seems unhelpful. –jacobolus (t) 19:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I also find ISSNs useful because it's more efficient to search Scopus with an ISSN than with a name. With an ISSN, you know that you're getting the right journal and not one that has almost the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  An ISBN is a "reference identifier". If you restrict "all reference identifiers", then you restrict ISBNs. You can argue that Special:BookSources is "a unique resource", but others can argue that it's not, especially when it's not linked (example, example). They can also argue that a DOI is not "a unique resource" compared to a direct URL since, in the optimal case, they both end up at the same place.

  More generally, I think it's misguided because it assumes that there is only one valid way to use these "references identifiers". I can walk into a book store with an ISBN and order the book. Is that "a unique resource" within the meaning of WP:ELNO#EL1? I don't think so, but it's still a valid use of the reference identifier. Similarly, I suspect that just as I gravitate towards PMIDs instead of DOIs, other readers may have a preference for various identifiers (e.g., if they're using citation management software that plays well with Bibcodes but not with PMIDs). I don't see any reason to give them "my" preferred identifier and hide theirs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible support with different wording. A bibcode links to a database, so by definition it gives more information than a doi alone. It is also being expanded to cover fields other than astronomy. The new SciX replacement coming has a neat field indicating whether the paper as been refereed. The question is what kind of information do we need for references? I propose including the bibcode only if it links to a full copy of the paper with no subscription required and the doi does not, or if the paper does not have a doi.

The bibcode and ADS have become so successful we may not need them for many astronomy articles anymore. The American astronomy journals have gone open access and also put their pre-1998 archives into ADS. A doi for one of these old astronomy articles is translated into a bibcode on access, and ends up at the database. See doi:10.1086/115657. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

If ADS hosts a full copy of the paper, I think it's fine to include a bibcode, irrespective of what the DOI has. If there is a DOI and a bibcode which lead to the same webpage, I think we should just use one of them (the bibcode is probably better in that case, but either would be fine). –jacobolus (t) 22:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You have a good point. I just ran into a small journal where the full copy in ADS downloads easily but the journal site keeps timing out. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion these cases are covered by the proposal. This is proposal is not against using bibcode when they are uniquely useful. It is against using them routinely even when they offer nothing but a waste of time. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Why do say the bibcode would be better in such a case? DOIs are far more widespread, so they should be the better choice when in doubt. Gawaon (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In many cases when full copies are available through multiple sources, they are behind different paywalls and different copies might be accessible to different readers. This often happens to me with articles on JSTOR (which I can read courtesy of my employer) for which the official doi version points elsewhere. The same is likely true with some ADS full-text versions. So I am happy to keep both bibcodes and dois for those ones; its the ones that don't provide full text that are problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

But my reply was about the situation where both "lead to the same webpage", excluding scenarios such as the one you mention. It's more or less agreed that if the bibcode provides additional useful information (such as another full-text link), it's helpful to add and keep it. Gawaon (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Let me be more precise:

• If there is a DOI for the publisher's website which points somewhere different than the bibcode, and the bibcode contains unique information (e.g. has a full-text scan, or some data files or code associated with the paper), then they should both be listed.
• If the only available DOI is just a redirect to the bibcode page, we should only keep one of the two; I think it's preferable to keep the bibcode in that case, because it gives readers a better idea where their click will go, but either one or the other would be fine.
• If there is a DOI or other link to a publisher's site or JSTOR or comparable and the bibcode for the paper leads to a page which does not contain unique information (e.g. only has basic citation metadata, or only citation metadata + abstract but the abstract is also available at the publisher's site) I think we should leave out the bibcode.

–jacobolus (t) 05:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems largely equivalent to Johnjbarton's original proposal if one prefers the DOI when in doubt. And too complicated a solution won't work anyway, so that's probably for the best. Gawaon (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"A bibcode links to a database, so by definition it gives more information than a doi alone." Please provide one example. I provided multiple examples of the opposite. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The example doi:10.1086/115657 is registered by the American Astronomical Society itself, see https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1086/115657 . Which makes me wonder, is there any case where a bibcode leads to a fulltext which is not provided by the corresponding DOI's destination? Last time I checked, such cases were exceedingly rare (say, about 100 records out of 26 million ADS records), but right now I can't find a single one. There are some cases like records for 1970s articles in soviet journals which claim to have a PDF but actually don't. (Not sure if the translation allegedly attached to the record went missing in one of the recent pointless redesigns.) Nemo 14:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I have seen cases where there was a scan in ADS and also a separate paywalled publisher link which did not provide free access to the full text (I don't have any examples at hand though). I have seen cases where there was a scan in ADS and a different scan freely available from the publisher. I have also seen cases where there was a scan available in ADS and as far as I know no DOI at all (e.g. Bibcode:1984QJRAS..25..126S). This proposal would support keeping bibcodes in all such examples. –jacobolus (t) 14:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Question, aren't DOI's subject to a lot of linkrot? This search shows 8,336 articles with broken-doi notes. Abductive (reasoning) 14:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well, in theory they are meant to last forever. In practice, of course, things aren't always quite as neat as in theory. Gawaon (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell from

  • Singh, H., West, R., & Colavizza, G. (2021). Wikipedia citations: A comprehensive data set of citations with identifiers extracted from English Wikipedia. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 1-19.

  in 2020 there were around 1 million DOIs in wikipedia, so that puts the link rot around 1%. In my experience that is low compared to other issues with citations. In any case, the proposal here is not affected one way or another. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Naw, I think that broken DOIs never get fixed and are removed from the citations over time. And also people shouldn't count on the PMID and PMC identifiers staying up, as they are US government websites currently controlled by anti-vaxxers. During the shutdown the US Census and GNIS websites went down. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  DOIs are still valid unique identifiers and remain so forever. If broken, they can be restored at a later date (I have seen that happen after someone inquired about one), and I wouldn't advice removing even a broken DOI from a reference. It's less useful than a working one, but not completely useless. Gawaon (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Some broken DOIs are fixable, they are simply edit errors. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I think the citation bot could repair these. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have also encountered broken dois from still-active journals when they rearranged their web site. Contacting the publisher can often get them to fix these. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I've run into a few of those. In a few cases that can make the source inaccessible; it is better to have other alternatives, when possible. Praemonitus (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  This remains irrelevant to the current proposal, which is not about alternative ways of accessing the source. When a DOI is broken, a bibcode which leads to an ADS page containing nothing but redundant article metadata and a "publisher link" consisting of a DOI is not going to be of any additional use to readers. If they click the bibcode and then click through to a broken DOI, they'll end up at exactly the same 404 page as if they clicked a broken DOI directly from Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 05:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  What jacobolus said. But I'll answer the question anyway: it's pretty rare for DOIs to fail, although it happens more often with some incompetent legacy press. Some mistakes take longer than others to solve. A DOI will nearly always return at least the metadata record associated with it. There can be some complicated situations where it's not clear who "owns" a DOI (or not), e.g. if a publisher is failing but not completely dead yet; or when a publication is sold to a new publisher and remains in a limbo for a while. The full text is often not archived, but when it is the DOI eventually directs to an archive when the publisher fails. Nemo 14:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that it is valuable for readers who look at citations (I grant that such readers may be in the minority) to have as many methods of getting to the source material as possible. This allows readers to exercise their own choice in terms of their preferred method of looking things up, and guards against future failure of other links. What harm does an additional link do? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  We normally edit article to remove two sentences that say essentially the same thing, saving the one that provides the best explanation. We should apply that principle here, for the same reason. The vast major of bibcodes waste editor time when verifying sources. The ADS site is often slow and the page it delivers is almost always pointless. The bibcodes are extraneous junk characters except in few cases. By asking editors to only include bibcodes that provide value we make them much more valuable. Bibcodes are not an alternative lookup method as I demonstrated with my example above. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think that there is a big difference between removing redundancy in article content, which I agree is a good idea, and removing redundancy of possible access to article sources, which I think is a bad idea. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  The bibcodes under discussion here do not provide access to the sources. They only contain metadata and redundant links to the publisher's site. –jacobolus (t) 01:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support: bibcode is the first or second worst offender in terms of cruft added to citation templates. It could be ok to add it to the wikitext if templates are modified to not display it. When the bibcode leads to a full text, the direct link to the PDF should preferably be in the URL parameter. Nemo 17:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
• Question Somewhere in the prior discussions about bibcodes, it was pointed out that the ADS website gives information on which articles cite which. It was argued that their citation graph is too incomplete for this to really be useful information. I'm not sure of that and am open to being convinced either way. (I think the relative completeness might be a field-by-field thing that probably depends on how much that corner of science uses the arXiv. Speaking very informally, the citation counts in ADS seem to be lower in my experience than those from Google Scholar, which isn't always a bad thing because GS picks up random PDFs from all over the place, and sometimes ADS catches things that GS misses.) Is there a consensus that the ADS citation graph is not useful information? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  There are a large number of citation graph websites. I don't think linking (any or all of) them is useful enough to justify such links, especially since going to the site and typing in the DOI or other metadata takes only a few seconds for any reader who cares (or faster using a bookmarklet or browser extension), and then they can pick between Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Internet Archive Scholar, CiteSeer, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ADS, OpenCitations Corpus, or whichever other, based on personal preference. Cross-linking all of the citation graphs seems like another thing that could be done at Wikidata or some similar venue, but it doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 01:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  I updated my list of bibcode examples to include the number of citations reported by ADS and Google Scholar. Scholar, in my experience, is inflated a bit, including some sources that don't cite the root article but I guess the biggest issue is that the ADS database is limited and its citation tree is only among the articles in its database. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  The ADS database is limited, and other citation-graph services exist, but does that make the citation information brought up by clicking a bibcode useless information? It's still information that no other link in the reference would immediately provide. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  There has to be sufficient benefit to balance the extra distraction caused by adding each new identifier. I could plausibly imagine that for an article about astronomy or astrophysics, where the relevant part of the citation graph is mostly included in the database, many sources may have full text and/or extra data files available, and readers in the field may be heavy users of ADS, it might be worthwhile to include bibcodes for every citation which has one. But for Wikipedia articles about other topics, the content hosted at ADS is entirely redundant with the citation metadata already included in Wikipedia, the database only contains an arbitrary small fraction of the citation graph, and typical readers (including experts) are unfamiliar with bibcodes and destined to be disappointed or even confused if they click one. –jacobolus (t) 09:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I could get on board with a rule that bibcodes generally shouldn't be included when arXiv IDs are, since the ADS page is only a click away from the abstract page that the arXiv serves up. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Bibcodes are useful. That you don't personally find them useful is not a reason to ban them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Please read the proposal: bibcodes are not being banned. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Although about a different context, WP:USEFUL is also relevant: to whom are these particular bibcodes (the ones we are discussing, the ones that do not provide information) useful, and why is that an encyclopedic purpose? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: in many cases the ADS page linked by the bibcode provides a free ADS_SCAN, giving an accessible copy of the article. That's reason enough to retain bibcodes. But I'd be okay with the bots only checking articles under the 'category:astronomy' tree. Probably what the bots should be doing is checking for citation urls that point to the bibcode link and replacing that with the bibcode parameter. Praemonitus (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is why the proposal specifically calls out cases where the ADS page adds value. In my experience ADS add value for older astronomy sources but not across the entire spectrum of wikipedia. The proposal is not about removing bibcodes. My sole goal is to stop edits that add them when they are just noise. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose that wording. Bibcodes are generally useful, as discussed above, so should generally be included. But the specific problem here is what counts as 'unique information'? Every ADS entry provides things like citation counts, links to open access or preprint versions, links to other sources cited by or that cite this one etc. None of those are available via the DOI, so there's always unique information. This wording would appear to allow every Bibcode, which doesn't seem to be the intention and would be pointless to specify. Modest Genius ^talk 13:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the above discussion does not support "bibcodes are generally useful". On the contrary, only a couple of editors can find a use for bibcodes and only in articles related to astronomy. Your claim that "every ADS entry" provides links to various bits of information does not match the examples I pulled out of an article. For example the information on 2005JRScT..42...84B is a dead link and some a list of 17 citations out of 45 given by the DOI link or 104 given on Google Scholar. The bibcode seems to only give citations within the ADS system. This matches my experience: the ADS system is fine for their core audience in astronomy but the system was not designed and does not support useful content for the breadth of Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Of course you can cherry-pick a broken entry, but even your example does provide 'unique information' that isn't available at the DOI - specifically the citations, references and metrics tabs. Whether that's enough to qualify under the proposed wording is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. One dead link does not make a database useless. I agree ADS is most useful for its core subjects of astronomy and planetary science (and is currently expanding to geophysics as part of the SciX rebrand) - perhaps restricting bibcodes to those areas would be a more sensible guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 13:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's not "cherry picking" when the majority of the bibcodes added by the bot contain no new information. The bot currently adds bibcodes completely indiscriminately, which includes references to e.g. history, mathematics, or biology papers where the ADS database includes only the bare minimum of metadata and a tiny subset of the citation graph. If Wikipedia readers click these links, they get to a page which does not help them to locate the source or learn anything new about it. Even if Wikipedia readers don't click these links, they add a lot of clutter, because they are illegible identifiers consisting of distracting random letters.

  "perhaps restricting bibcodes to [astronomy and planetary science]" – That is more or less what is being suggested. The part people are annoyed at is the indiscriminate low-info bot-added bibcodes all over Wikipedia. I don't think anyone here has a problem with either (1) bibcodes added where ADS contains a scan of the paper and/or other related documents (e.g. code, data, appendices, extra figures), or (2) bibcodes added with human-editor support on articles about astronomy or related fields. –jacobolus (t) 19:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is more or less what is being suggested. No, that is not the wording being suggested. I understand your concern with bibcodes, but this proposal would not fix it and could do immense damage in the fields that do use bibcodes extensively. Depending on how the phrase 'unique information' is interpreted, it could either continue the current situation, or deprecate all bibcodes, or anything in between. The proposed wording is far too vague and open to personal interpretation. Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  could do immense damage – Stopping a bot from automatically adding content-free bibcodes is not going to "damage" anything. Bibcodes are not going to be "deprecated". –jacobolus (t) 16:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  I tried to make a small scale proposal that would allow the important cases. How can we alter the proposal to address your concern while retaining the widely-agreed positive aspects? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Bibcodes provide an alternative lookup when doi fails. In addition, I've found the former to be useful for direct author lookups in NASA ADS. An additional benefit is that the bibcode can provide photo-scanned images of (usually older) papers. Praemonitus (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Praemonitus This comment is not responsive to anything that has been written in the above discussion, and is not related to the specific bibcodes being discussed here. –jacobolus (t) 18:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @jacobolus: I disagree. The wording puts the burden on the citer to demonstrate that a bibcode is needed, which is a negative connotation that will tend to have it unnecessarily removed. I'm saying that it almost always does provide unique information and/or a necessary backup for document access. There's no need to make a special rule for the exceptions that can lead to abuse. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Did you look at Johnjbarton's list of exmaples, or at the numerous other non-astronomical bibcodes added by the bot which have next to no meaningful information when you click through? –jacobolus (t) 18:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you dislike the wording of Johnjbarton's proposal, there could certainly be other concrete ways of cutting the number of vacuous bibcodes. One obvious one would be to just disallow bots or script-assisted humans from adding bibcodes unless they include a full text scan. That would take care of at least 99% of the problem. –jacobolus (t) 18:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see this as a problem. We could debate this endlessly, but I've used bibcodes extensively, including on non-astronomy articles. I'm satisfied with my position. Praemonitus (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you add bibcodes you find relevant as a single human editor, I also don't think anyone has a particular concern (if they do, it can be worked out on a local talk page). The complaint is about a bot adding tons of bibcodes with zero/marginal value to articles all over the project. –jacobolus (t) 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Meta-comment: As this discussion was opened more than two months ago and has become fairly quiet, it might be a good idea if somebody could formally close it? Gawaon (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: as mentioned by others, bibcodes are a useful and standardised system for astronomical (and related) citations in the NASA ADS system. They are useful, or at least widely-used, beyond the cases where only ADS provides access to a paper, often where a doi and/or preprint also exists. If you want to stop them being sprinkled in citations in other fields where they are not a standard and not useful, then come up with a proposal for that, rather than all-but-preventing their use in astronomical articles. Lithopsian (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  "all-but-preventing their use in astronomical articles" – I really don't understand how you inferred that, since it is almost diametrically opposite to what has been said here. –jacobolus (t) 22:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  How would you feel about an alternative proposal which only said that bots or tool-assisted humans should not indiscriminately add bibcodes to articles unless they include a full text scan, but otherwise left decisions about explicit manual addition of bibcodes to local consensus? –jacobolus (t) 23:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: as mentioned before bibcodes are useful, not just in the case of older astronomy sources, but in my experience at least for any astronomy source, as easy accessible different formats are provided. The current proposal wording seems not adequate and as also mentioned the burden should not be put on the citer to demonstrate that a bibcode is needed.

Stevinger (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The burden for additions is always on the editor who adds content. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. But we had that example above added by WhatamIdoing. If Alice adds a reference with bibcode as only source and then later Bob adds a different identifier. Then it should be the burden of Bob or another person later on to show the bibcode gives no additional information anymore and can be removed or not remove it. Stevinger (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: Many of the replies here may be due to a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy in which user:Headbomb characterized this discussion as "a proposal to effectively ban Citation bot from adding bibcodes", which seems to me like an intentional mischaracterization. YMMV. @Johnjbarton, maybe we can come up with a more clearly worded proposal which makes it clear that astronomy-specific articles can choose to add as many bibcodes as they feel like it, if there is a strong local consensus that even the empty ones provide value to that particular audience. –jacobolus (t) 01:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a clearer proposal. Any useful bibcode is allowed under my proposal, astronomy or not. I am unable to understand why adding non-useful bibcodes is allowed. If a URL, DOI, or wikilink pointed to useless trivia I believe it would be deleted. Why bibcodes are special eludes me. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The question is nevertheless how a bot (Citation Bot or any other) would know whether a bibcode is useful? If that's hard for a piece of software to decide, then Headbomb's comment/warning seems essentially correct. Gawaon (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend that the bot not add bibcodes unless ADS has a scan of the article, except possibly to wikipedia articles which have opted in (e.g. ones directly about astronomy). –jacobolus (t) 15:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify I did not read what Headbomb wrote and stumbled across this topic differently. Telling people coming in many of them did not form their opinion on their own might not easily convince them of the opposite, but YMMV. Also strong local consensus should not be a requirement to use an identifier. If you are, let's say in geophysics and add a bibcode because it provided you with a benefit in information and a third of people agree, the other two thirds (mostly not using bibcodes) should not remove it because it is a bibcode as sole reason.

The problems seem to be:

• You need to make sure people agree what a useful bibcode is. Benefit of a bibcode eluding someone should not be a reason to remove it.
• A bot needs to understand somehow whether a bibcode is useful as given above. The priority needs to be that useful bibcodes are never removed, especially the ones inserted by hand. If then a maximum of agreed upon not useful bibcodes are removed this would be perfect and help out people asking here for a change.

If these two points are covered, I assume you will get all the support.

I am writing this because I liked the previous sentence 'I tried to make a small scale proposal that would allow the important cases. How can we alter the proposal to address your concern'. But people are worried that the concept changes to 'somehow it will work out' and that will probably not be successful. Stevinger (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! But I can't figure out how to apply your suggestions.

• "You need to make sure people agree what a useful bibcode is." As far as I can tell those who oppose do not care whether or not the bibcode is useful, the possibility that it might be useful is sufficient. My proposal already gave a criterion, that "the linked page provide unique information unavailable through other links in the citation." Is there a better criterion?
• "A bot needs to understand somehow whether a bibcode is useful as given above." Indeed! The observed fact, by both those who oppose change and those who seek it, is that the bot is inadequate to determine if the bibcode adds value. The bot is not currently good enough: why do we allow it? (My proposal says nothing about bots because in my opinion the issue is quality of content.)
• "The priority needs to be that useful bibcodes are never removed, especially the ones inserted by hand." My proposal only talks about addition.

As I reflect on the posts above it seems clear that editors who work on astronomy articles want bibcodes because they are invaluable in some cases even if they fail in others. I think this point of view places the burden on the wrong set of editors. An editor who adds content is responsible to the community for that addition. Part of that burden of responsibility is to not waste other editors time with links that have no value, even if a bot makes that easy.

I appreciate your suggestions but I don't know how to make a better proposal. I want bibcode links to work for us. Bibcodes link a lot of useful older astronomy sources: let's use bibcodes for the cases where they add value. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we not use bibcodes for the cases where they are useful. But you keep insisting that the existence of some useful bibcodes is a reason to continue automatically spamming the useless ones to our references. The distinction between useful and useless seems clear to me: bibcodes with scanned article copies are useful; bibcodes with only metadata are useless (because that metadata is or should be already in our own references). And in other cases where this misses some other usefulness of a bibcode they can be added manually rather than automatically. What is the obstacle to blocking the automatic addition of no-scan bibcodes? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, how does the bot determine whether a bibcode that it happens to add contains a scanned article copy or not? I imagine that at present it only constructs the relevant URL. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Such bibcode metadata pages include links like articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/«bibcode» and .../pdf/«bibcode» from their right-hand sidebar, under "FULL TEXT SOURCES" / "ADS". For instance, the only obituary I know of Laurence Patrick Lee (Bibcode:1985SouSt..31..221R) was published in Southern Stars, the journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand, and is only available online through ADS, with scan at
.../full/1985SouSt..31..221R or .../pdf/1985SouSt..31..221R.
In this case, it's essential to include the bibcode in the citation, which is why I manually added it. My understanding is that citation bot gets its data from (among other places) the ADS database, which can presumably be directly queried about whether there is a scan available. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the obstacle is that some astronomers would prefer to always see a bibcode wherever it exists, because they are accustomed to using ADS for most of their work. I think a special article-specific opt-in can handle this kind of case. (Or just a non-bot tool that a human who loves bibcodes can run where there is local consensus supporting it.) –jacobolus (t) 19:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate you discuss the points, but I have to admit your answer is disappointing.

• 'As far as I can tell those who oppose do not care whether or not the bibcode is useful' Well, this is the second time I am answering and I am one of the persons who oppose. If you assume others don't care instead of looking for common improvements things are of course difficult. 'Is there a better criterion?' I said you need to make sure people agree what a useful bibcode is. This is easier if people that give ideas are listened to. In the discussion above with Modest Genius Jacobolus gives a better description of what you likely meant with "the linked page provide unique information unavailable through other links in the citation." and Modest Genius disagrees that this is 'not the wording being suggested' in the proposal. So the proposal is likely too vague and points to improve it are given. (If everyone assumes they know what useful means in this context and this is the only possible way then this won't work, and I am not speaking of you Johnjbarton in this case.)
• 'My proposal says nothing about bots because in my opinion the issue is quality of content.' I do understand what you actually mean, what is correct, but this statement is again wrong, regarding you directly write 'The proposal would apply to bots as well.' in your proposal.
• 'My proposal only talks about addition.' This is correct, but if you follow up by 'In my experience DOI has effectively replaced bibcode. The bibcode typically only shows the same info as the citation.' this can mean a lot of things. In my experience bibcode always provides more information than DOI when both have relevant data and are not just dead links (or on either side). This means one could remove DOI in cases both give relevant data, but this seems not necessary.

You write what you want is that 'bibcode links to work for us', but you keep repeating things like 'link a lot of useful older astronomy sources'. Several people said this is not giving a correct picture and thus not helpful, and let's people doubt you ever used bibcodes. Again, I appreciate a discussion, but if not even a first proposal can be improved by arguments already raised during the discussion and by a description how you would want to change the bots I am doubting this will work. At the moment it feels like 2 steps forward and then randomly 1-3 steps backward. I am sorry, but the current proposal text can mean a lot of things as emphasized by half of the discussion participants and is thus not acceptable. Not knowing 'how to make a better proposal' is unusual when some lines of input is already given.

Addendum: I just realized Jacobolus gave as last entry (by time it was added) a description of how bots could be changed (above). Another thing that would improve a proposal, especially if it is not only presumably possible to be incorporated. Stevinger (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support because bibcodes are not useful. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure how discussions work on Wikipedia but why would you want to remove bibcodes? Sometimes isnbs and digital identifier objects don't work. And bibcodes contain a lot of information about the source! Keep them! I would be very annoyed as a reader if bibcodes were lost or forbidden from being used by tools and such. I don't like pickles, but I'm not gonna ask McDonald's to stop selling pickles on their burgers! Let readers decide for themselves if bibcodes are useful to them. They are to me! ~2026-17564-77 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  "bibcodes contain a lot of information" Did you look at any of the bibcodes specifically under discussion? Many bibcodes added by the bot contain almost no information. That's what people are complaining about. –jacobolus (t) 03:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Referencing individual page numbers by embedding pdf links

I stumbled across Metropolitan Manila Transit Corporation which cites different pages of several sources multiple times and is using {{Rp}} to do so. That's perfectly OK per WP:IBID and is something done by many others. What I've never seen done before is the embedding of links to individual pdf pages into the "Rp" syntax (like ). I've looked a both the documentation for the template and WP:REFPAGE but was unable to find any type of guidance regarding this kind of thing. An example of what I'm talking about can be see at Metropolitan Manila Transit Corporation#cite_ref-JUMSUT-MT-C2-1984_33-0. It seems like there should be better way to do such a thing (e.g., WP:SFN) but perhaps it's not wrong per se. Has anyone else ever come across this type of thing before? In principle, this seems like a potential problem per WP:CS:EMBED since this using embedded citations is a style that was deprecated more than ten years ago (I think). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have never seen it before with {{rp}}. However, I don't think it is a problem with respect to WP:CS:EMBED because it is not an embedded citation as such; that is, the external link does not appear in the article content body, but as part of the inline citation. Template:Reference page § Intent says {{rp}} is an alternative to the method of using shortened footnotes and then Template:Sfnp § Adding a URL for the page or location explicitly allows this If a specific link to the page or section is available, a URL can be added to the location or page number, so I'd deduce from that that it's OK. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. However, in the alternatives you cite, the embedded link appears in the "References" or "Notes" section pretty much the same way it would for any regularly formatted reference; in this particular case, the embedded link actually does appear in the body of the article, i.e., withing the footnote marker itself. Moreover, the first two examples given in Template:Sfnp#Adding a URL for the page or location look like parenthetical references, a style that was deprecated a few years back; so, it seems possible that part of the template's documentation wasn't updated to reflect parenthetical referencing is no longer considered OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I would say that it meets the spirit of the rules, which is that bare urls within body text like this [5] are bad in the absence of fuller bibliographic information; in this case there is fuller bibliographic information, and I would not myself consider it to be against WP:CS:EMBED or WP:NOELBODY.

With respect to Template:Sfnp § Adding a URL for the page or location, the fact that {{harv}} (the first two rows in the table) is deprecated (maybe unless wrapped in <ref>...</ref> tags?) does not to my mind take away from the statement that URLs are permitted to be added to the location or page number in other shortened footnote templates, and so, I think, by extension within {{Rp}} too.

More generally, I think that doing something like this is practically helpful for the reader - it makes it quicker and easier to get to the actual source material and helps avoid duplicating bibliographic information - so why not? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up: We'll do the global roll-out of sub-referencing this year. One of the use cases we've observed is adding the page number in combination with a link to individual pages, e.g. de:Doris Stockhausen#Einzelnachweise. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That actually looks quite interesting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But it's also a visible change, so expect some editors to object. (After all, we get about three-quarter million registered editors a year, so it'd be weird if everyone agreed on anything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The {{rp}} technique is an ugly relic and should be phased out as the opportunity arises. True it is not formally deprecated but it is a typographic disaster, it makes pages look like crap graffiti on a subway train. To make it even worse, as this technique would do, crosses a line that should not be crossed. Embedded citations are explicitly deprecated and this is an embedded citation in flashing neon lights. The right way to do this is to use {{sfn}} or {{sfnp}} – SMcCandlish has done a great essay at User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates if anybody would like more details. Meanwhile, revert. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you posted, this isn't a case of simply reverting a change made by someone else. The creator of the article, who is also the primary contributer, actually did this from the get go; so, it wasn't a case of someone showing up and introducing a new citation style mid-stream. I've notified the creator of this discussion; so, perhaps they will comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly reasonable for that person to have input, but they don't have "more say" than anyone else. There's a frequent misunderstanding about WP:CITEVAR and all the MOS:VAR provisions, that we defer to the preferences of first/earlier editors. That's not the case. All of them are clear that only when consensus cannot be reached on which variation of something is preferable do we defer to the version used in the first [non-stub] version of the article (or of the material in question). This is simply to have some kind of fall-back default, not because the first major contributor has a supervote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree with this, and I probably should've made that more clear it my prior post. I was just trying to note that there was no other citation style to "revert" back to per se. Since this was used from the beginning, it would mean a new style would need to be introduced. So, that's one of the reasons I notified the article's creator (who introduced this style) of this discussion. Once everyone is on board that a change is needed, then how to change it should be fairly easy to discuss on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I actually didn't check any policy or guidelines before using links with {{Rp}}; I just saw a few articles use it when citing a book source by using it to link directly to the specific page of the book on Google Books. Though given that most of the times I've used it were for mere PDFs on websites and not actual direct links to pages on Google Books, I'll probably consider limiting the use of links with {{Rp}} in the article to only those that directly link to the page. Oh, and I look forward to using the sub-referencing feature instead when it comes out. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deprecation of {{rp}} and related templates

There are really two considerations here, and they are not actually at cross purposes.

First, the community completely deprecated parenthetical citations (WP:PAREN). This is the shoehorning of citation data (authors, dates, page numbers, etc.) into article text as inline parenthetical asides. "Parenthetical" here has its original and primary meaning of an extraneous annotation or comment; it does not refer in particular to round brackets, which are only called "parentheses" in American English (and only because of their frequent use for parenthetical-in-the-original-sense annotations). So, yes, {{rp}} is, like all other parenthetical citation, deprecated by the community and should be replaced, whether or not anyone's bothered putting {{Deprecated template}} in that particular template's documentation.

Second, we should generally do what is helpful for readers and not do what is unhelpful for readers. Confusing, geeky gibberish like "^[12]:349" is not helpful to readers, but an impediment to their reading. On the other hand, it is certainly useful to link (in the citation, not in the middle of article text) to specific online page scans in a source when we can do so. This can save a reader (including an editor) anywhere from minutes to months (depending on how hard it is to otherwise get ahold of the source and go through it) in an effort to determine whether a cited work actually supports the claim in our article. A simple way to do this in short footnotes: {{sfnp|Smith|Garcia|2003|p=[https://www.archive.org/whatever 349]}}</ref>. This has for {{em|practical}} purposes the same use as <code><nowiki><ref name="Smith & Garcia (2003)" />{{rp|[https://www.archive.org/whatever 349]}}, except better in at least three ways: It keeps the citation data in the refs section instead of stuffing it into an inlined parenthetical, and it links to the full citation of the Smith & Garcia (2003) source in the bibliography, and it associates the page number with the source identifier in an immediately human-readable way (versus something like "^[12]:349", which requires the reader to click around and try to figure out what "[12]" refers to).

While Template:Rp served a purpose when I created it in 2007, it was actually made obsolete within only a couple of years by improvements to the <ref> system and further development of templates to work with those improvements (with more improvements coming soon, like sub-referencing). {{Rp}} is now just an unslightly and pointless cancer. We really should not have drawn out article-by-article discussions about replacing it, when there is already an across-the-board community consensus for replacement of all parenthetic citation methods. Just do it, in a way that doesn't lose functionality (like linked pages). PS: If a link has been put around a page number but does not go to the page but only to an entire PDF (or an Internet Archive "Login and borrow" page), that is reader-hateful behavior, and the link should instead be in |url= in the main citation (with |access=registration if needed). Similarly, any URL that just goes to a Google Books or Amazon or whatever page about the book without providing any access to the book text should just be removed, since it serves no function but advertising/sales.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! But if {{rp}} is de facto deprecated, maybe we should put {{Deprecated template}} into its documentation? That would certainly help to facilitate transitions away from it and discourage its usage in new cases (which still happens quite a lot). Gawaon (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is long overdue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I've seen suggested for using {{rp}} is that it allows the reuse of a refname while also allowing for different page numbers with each instance. This is exactly what sub-referencing will allow, so rp will become redundant once sub-referencing goes life. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, {{rp}} is already obsolete, and has been for years, even without sub-referencing. You can reuse the same ref with a different page number at each instance in this manner (among others):

Article text making claim no. one.<ref>{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Jane |date=2006 |title=Big Important Book |publisher=Miskatonic University Press |pages=22–23}}</ref> Claim no. two.{{sfnp|Smith|2006|p=47}} Claim no. three.{{sfnp|Smith|2006|pp=139–140}} Claim no. four, which needs some annotation.<ref>{{harvp|Smith|2006|pp=ix, 2}}. Some editorial annotations here.</ref>

It's easy and consistent. See my tutorial for more details: User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

My point was in regard to editors who dislike using short form refs. Rather than saying that RP has any real current use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"dislike" doesn't convey the attitude of editors invoking WP:CITEVAR when they resist any improvement in an article's citation mechanisms. I wonder how the forthcoming subreferencing feature will fare. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, {{rp}} is slightly ugly^[133:12] but so are sub-references^[133.12]. This is not a significant improvement and rp is more concise. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Current policy allows for a wide breadth of different referencing styles, CITEVAR says the style of an article can be changed if their is consensus to do so. Curmudgeons not liking their articles changed is just something that has to be worked through.

RP isn't styled ^[133:12] instead the difference between RP and sub-refs is ^[133]:12 and ^[133.12]. So between leaving page numbers in the body of the article, and having the page numbers in the reference section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Morever, there are often several page numbers or a range and they have two or three digits, while the first nine different subreferences to any given reference (which should be enough in nearly all cases) have just one digit, so the actual difference is rather between ^{[133]:123–137,151} and ^[133.2]. To me, at least, the latter looks indeed more reader-friendly and less cluttered. Gawaon (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

"...and rp is more concise". It's not. "^[23:12]" is precisely the same length as "^[23]:12", but is also easier to parse than the latter, as it groups the entire citation inside [...], instead of slpitting it into [one]:two parts with different formatting. Rp has always been problematic in this regard, but was not "fixable" because the <ref> extension is what generated the [...] markup. And that's without considering Gawaon's point about "^{[133]:123–137,151}" and "^[133.2]". In actual practice, a sub-ref of the latter sort will always be shorter than a corresponding rp instance, except in the unusual cases that the same source is cited 10+ times, at page numbers shorter than 10 (i.e. to produce something like "^[133]:7" vs. "^[133:12].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Sub-referencing – Reference Previews

We've seen quite a number of dewiki articles using the same source more than 10+ times with different details (e.g. de:Magdalena Spínola – 22 different sub-references), but readers don't mind about footnote numbers like ^[1.22] according to our user research, especially given the benefit of showing both the main bibliographic information and page number (or other details) in Reference Previews, just like with regular references.

However we are thinking about improvements to the reference list, because users pointed out that there's a lot of unused space when an article uses more than just a few sub-references.

We've published our learnings from the first months of sub-referencing on German Wikipedia in m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing/Learnings – including our next steps in the development of sub-references and our plan for the global rollout this year.

If anyone want's to try Sub-referencing: It is deployed on German Wikipedia and testwiki as well as the beta cluster. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

But this creates the annoying two-layer sources thing, so it does not replace rp. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

SMcCandlish said: "Parenthetical" here has its original and primary meaning of an extraneous annotation or comment; it does not refer in particular to round brackets [...] {{rp}} is, like all other parenthetical citation, deprecated by the community and should be replaced, whether or not anyone's bothered putting {{Deprecated template}} in that particular template's documentation. This does not seem to be a valid interpretation of the parenthetical citation deprecation. Neither the content guideline at WP:PAREN nor the successful proposal for parenthetical citation deprecation at WP:PARREF mention {{Rp}} or anything like it. Both only mention in-text citations using parentheses as described in Parenthetical referencing. There may be good reasons to deprecate {{Rp}}, but the deprecation of parenthetical citations at WP:PARREF is not one of them. Biogeographist (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That's classic WP:Wikilawyering. If what you believe were correct, then the entire WP:PAREN decision could be instantly circumvented at will (and with no recourse other than a new anti-parenthetical-citations RFC to stop you) simply by tweaking all the old Harvard referencing templates to emit things like "[Garcia 2012]" or "Garcia [2012]" instead of the original "(Garcia 2012)" or "Garcia (2012)" [depending on which brand of the template you chose, as to where it put brackets]. Let's not be silly. There is not a person in this e-room who will believe for a second that you could get away with that. The obvious and only sensible interpretation of the entire discussion that resulted in WP:PAREN is that the community does not want citation detailia injected inline into articles, interrupting the reader in mid-sentence (any more than the minimal "^[2]" already does).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You must be joking, because I don't believe that anyone would simply replace parentheses with square brackets to implement parenthetical referencing, nor have I seen anyone try to do that; you're just making up a thought experiment about an implausibility! (And then you're accusing me of being "silly" and "wikilawyering"?) In the huge discussion at WP:PARREF, the proposal said I am merely proposing that we do not use inline, non software based, text parentheticals, and the only mention of {{rp}} in that discussion was an approving statement about it being an acceptable way to cite multiple pages from the same book, a statement which only elicited agreement. So it can't be right that the WP:PARREF discussion applies to {{rp}}; there was ample opportunity to explicitly say in the discussion that the deprecation applied to {{rp}}, but the exact opposite was said instead: {{rp}} was considered an acceptable alternative. Biogeographist (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Second, we should generally do what is helpful for readers and not do what is unhelpful for readers."

I disagree with the unsupported claims about what readers want. (The evidence in the world suggests they want AI summaries). But if we did believe that citation marking is unhelpful for readers it would not be very difficult to change the rendering to omit footnotes altogether.

In my opinion "verifiability" is much more important than "readability" in the parts of Wikipedia I work on. Readability is "nice to have"; verifiability is essential. Helping editors add sources and check sources is a priority. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon, SunloungerFrog, and SMcCandlish: If you are going to put {{Deprecated template}} into the documentation of {{Rp}}, as the three of you said above that you want to do, you should do the same to {{R}}, which produces the same kind of superscript inline page numbers. (There may be other templates that do the same?) A week ago I added a reference using {{Sfn}} (which was the template I instinctively used to reference multiple page numbers) to Against Empathy, then a few days later I noticed that other references already on the page used {{R}}, so I changed my {{Sfn}} references to {{R}} per WP:CITEVAR. I had never heard before that templates like {{Rp}} and {{R}} are deprecated, so you definitely need to do a better job of getting the word out about that, if it's true. If I had known about the deprecation, I would have done the opposite and changed the existing {{R}} templates in that article to {{Sfn}}. Biogeographist (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I had in fact never heard of {{R}}, but it seems to be just a shortcut for <ref name="whatever" />? Re-using named references doesn't led to clutter and certainly won't be deprecated, so I cannot see a good reason to deprecate {{R}}. That said, whenever you need additional information (such as a specific page number), named references alone won't do the trick, and in such cases I'd always prefer and suggest {{sfn}} over ugly and unreadable {{rp}}. Gawaon (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

When I use {{r}} I use it only as a shortcut for named refs but it can also add page numbers like {{rp}}. In the unlikely case that we deprecate {{rp}} (which I do not like but do not think should be deprecated) then it is only that feature of {{r}} that would be concerned, not the whole template. But the argument for applying WP:PARREF makes almost as little sense as deprecating all footnotes because after all we format footnotes as numbers in brackets and WP:PARREF was about numbers in parens so it should apply equally well to footnote markers. (Of course it doesn't apply, neither to footnote markers nor to page numbers attached to footnote markers.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

{{R}} has a "feature" to do what {{Rp}} does; so just that aspect of it should eventually be deprecated and then (after uses of that are replaced with something else) the "feature" removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I use {{rp}} because it is the closest to the inline citation style that I prefer (which looks something like [HW: 123]). This is standard citation style although it depends on the field. I believe they should not be deprecated. Rather, the subreferencing feature should provide options to support various well-established citation styles (including inline parenthetical citations, deprecated here but not everywhere) used and prefered by different groups of people. 慈居 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Support or oppose deprecation

Summary section to permit simple expressions of support or opposition without cluttering the debate above.

• Support per SMcCandlish's proposition and good typography. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per SMcCandlish and because {{rp}} produces ugly clutter that reduces readability, especially with several page numbers, page ranges, or when there are two or more references in a row (all of which are fairly common). Gawaon (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose until sub-referencing, which has a similar inline look as {{rp}}, as others have mentioned above, is implemented in English Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The readability claim is a personal preference I do not share. The alternatives are not better or are worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Biogeographraphist and Johnjbarton. None of the alternatives currently available offer objective improvements.WP:CITEVAR makes it clear that preference for one form of citation style over another are principally subjective and that changes to an article's style may only be done based on consensus of the editors of the article concerned. Editors not supporting your personal preference are not "curmudgeons" as they have been labelled above any more than you are curmudgeonly for not supporting their equally valid preference. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not only is sub-referencing not even available on enwiki yet, it doesn't solve one of the major problems with Harvard-style referencing (which rp does solve): Citing a large number of individual pages in one source produces a large stack of items in the references section. Until that problem is solved, rp is important to have. The arguments for depreciating rp seem to be based on personal preference; I'm particularly unconvinced by the readability/clutter concerns because sub-referencing will look almost the same. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  We are currently investigating different ideas on how to address the issue of reference lists getting cluttered with lots of sub-references. Interestingly our user testing shows that most readers rely on the reference pop-up instead of using the reference list (which is in line with previous research that most readers don't even scroll to the end of the page), but we recognize the importance of for editors and for those readers who do care about working with the reference list. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Which suggests that the reference number and page need not be shown for any citation format. A small mark for the pop-up would suffice for most readers.^* Johnjbarton (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Sub-referencing won't look almost the same in many cases, see the discussion above; and of course there are other alternatives with even better readability/less clutter, such as {{sfn}} and friends. Gawaon (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose At least until the community has had a chance to use sub-referencing on a large scale. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Sub-referencing does not deprecate the utility of rp as the page number is not shown in-text, and thus is a useless second click. The fact that shortened footnotes can do the same job as rp doesn't mean that one is redundant to the other: depending on the situation, either referencing style may be more useful. In terms of utility, it's easier to edit and maintain an article that reuses references and uses rp for page number than one that has shortened footnotes (besides the fact that sfns require two reference sections and thus needlessly take up article space.) Rp is also somewhat easier to use in the VE than sfns. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  To add to this: shortened footnotes are little better than parenthetical citations squirrelled away into a footnote. This is needless obfuscation for the reader. Why not give them the whole footnote, as we have a very convenient format to do so with? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Cremastra I hope you don't mind me asking, it might be relevant for future improvements to our feature: What do you mean with "second click"? Perhaps that's a misunderstanding, sub-referencing shows the page number in the same pop-up as the main information (example), making it accessible in-text without any extra click. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, that was very badly worded. I meant one still has to hover over the footnote to get to the page number, as opposed to putting it in-text directly. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support deprecation Even if sub-referencing never happens. {{rp}}'s cryptic numbers attached to the in-article superscript rather than being anywhere near the actual reference were a terrible idea from the start. Anomie⚔ 23:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP. We do not need more and more rules about exactly how citations need to conform to some format that only bots are capable of formatting correctly. I don't happen to like {{rp}}-produced page number referencing but deprecation is going in the wrong direction. The argument that this will preempt the subreferencing format before we even have a chance to test it is also strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per SMcCandlish. Prefer short references. Ifly6 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf and Cremastra. As a reader, shortened footnotes irritate me, so as an editor, I avoid them. I don't think rp is an ideal solution, but I prefer it to sfn both as an editor and as a reader. I'm looking forward to the implementation of subreferencing and seeing how that plays out. When I started editing, I found it frustrating that there are so many different ways to do things, but that's how it is and I don't find it likely that the project will ever land on One True Way for anything. As it is, those who prefer shortened footnotes use them to write their articles and those who prefer rp use it to write their articles and CITEVAR tells them to adjust when they work on an article using the other method. I don't see a widespread adoption of either method that would justify calling either the only method that should be used. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I spent some time last year experimenting with different styles of citations (sfn vs rp, and template vs handwritten). Handwritten is not as laborious as it sounds and greatly improves the readability of the wikitext; the downsides, of course, are obvious. I wrote or expanded several articles with sfns, and while I don't hate them, I find them cumbersome to handle, especially in the VE which I use for article writing. I usually find myself defaulting to the rp system, as it's the most comfortable for me. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Rp does get annoying, especially when working with page ranges, but I disagree that there's any obviously better alternative right now. Would be happy to reconsider when sub-referencing is implemented. For my part, as a reader I've always found sfn more reader unfriendly than rp. 95% of the time when I click or hover over a citation, I want to see what the citation is, and 5% of the time I'm actually following it through to where I'd need a page number. But most of the time, Sfn just takes me to a last name, year, and page number, then I have to scroll around and cross-reference that with a separate list before I can even see what the source is. It's, to me, the worst of all the systems (other than the non hyperlinked ones, I guess), but I digress. I'd have to see the discussion deprecating parenthetical references, but the argument above that Rp is already deprecated just sounds like wikilawyering. I wonder how many people, when they hear "parenthetical references", imagine something other than a reference in parentheses. Indeed, "regarding something contained in parentheses" is a common definition of "parenthetical", so just thoroughly unpersuaded on that end, without having a link to the actual discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons I've given in great detail above. It also means, necessarily, deprecating essentially identical functionality in {{R}} and any other template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cremastra and Rhododendrites. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, Schazjmd and Rhododendrites have explained how the rp system while imperfect is more helpful for readers than some other systems, others have also made good points I won't repeat. Surprised it has to be said that the consensus on parenthetical referencing applies to parenthetical referencing, and is not about things that are not parenthetical referencing. CMD (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least until sub-referencing becomes available. I think sub-referencing has significant advantages, but there are situations in which citing numerous different pages from a single book would result in an unwieldy number of sub-references. Boghog (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed, we need to see how subreferencing copes with situations like List of lakes of Yukon where circa 70 different pages of one source are used (and several other sources are used over 20 times each) a significant number of times) before we can see whether it can replace {{rp}}. Short footnotes are terrible in these situations though so it's unlikely to be the worst form of referencing available. Thryduulf (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Lists are indeed a use case where we frequently observe a higher number of sub-references than in regular articles (e.g. de:Liste der Straßen in Bad Honnef#Einzelnachweise und Anmerkungen). We've received a couple of suggestions how to deal with that, happy to hear your thoughts as well! We are currently looking at different ideas and will ask for community feedback once we've completed our initial investigation. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe such sublists could be automatically rendered in multicolumn format on wider screens? In that way they wouldn't need to much vertical space. Gawaon (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  That's one of the ideas we're investigating, but it probably just works for page numbers and is less suitable if sub-references include more information, e.g. de:Ophiuride#Einzelnachweise. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I agree with the multicolumn suggestion. Also, if possible, when a reference is clicked on the actual reference details should be at the top of the screen with the specific page continuing to be highlighted. At present if I click e.g. de:Liste_der_Straßen_in_Bad_Honnef#cite_note-236 I can tell that the reference is to page 88 of something, but I have to scroll upwards to find what. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback! That's another suggestion we're considering. Other ideas included collapsing sub-references in the reference list, only showing a few of them (including the one a reader clicked on) if a single source has been used a lot of times. We're doing UX research on articles with lot's of sub-references and will ask for community feedback once we're closer to proposing a solution. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to review MOS:COLLAPSE before suggesting that here. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose until the sub-referencing feature becomes widely available.Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that it's instruction creep, that it would rule out a working system that is arguably the best fit for some circumstances, and that the "it's already deprecated" argument is wiki-lawyering in the face of the facts. The consensus of the 2020 discussion that deprecated parenthetical referencing says nothing about {{rp}}. The entire discussion mentions the {{rp}} template all of twice, with one editor liking it and another not (and both of those editors supported the deprecation proposal). Nothing in the proposal wording itself implies that "parenthetical" is to be interpreted in a broad way. It means in parentheses, not secondary, auxiliary, ancillary, etc. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support, {{rp}} is an absolute blight on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anything, {{sfn}} should be deprecated as a travesty upon editing and readers eyes. Katzrockso (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as I personally find it a better reader experience than {{sfn}}, as Rhododendrites explains quite nicely. It's also more straightforward to manage as an editor if there are only a few sources that are cited multiple times with different page numbers; in these cases {{sfn}} becomes overkill.

I also agree that the 2020 discussion does not concern {{rp}}, given that it is scantly mentioned in the actual content of the discussion itself; any attempt to construe it as such is a stretch IMO.  novov talk edits 06:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is a stretch to construe the 2020 discussion as deprecating {{rp}}, and we should wait for sub-referencing to be established before we can take more definitive decisions on this topic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Additionally, given the impact of the change, I wonder if it may be relevant to make this into a RfC and put a notice on WP:CENT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good idea. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support once sub-referencing is available. For this to work, it'll need an example article converted over from superscript page numbers to sub-reference page numbers. The {{rp}} template is widely used, so it'll need a proper RfC to deprecate it.
  Also, that RfC should probably mention the widely used shorthand template, {{r}} (which is used across 34,000 pages to create over 40,000 superscript page numbers).
  Also also, it should probably deal with the concept of superscript page numbers. Thousands more pages use handwritten superscript page numbers following references, like Madrid § Tourism, for example. There are also niche templates creating these, like {{ran}} and {{listref}}, which were both made to solve the issue created on pages where named references would create dozens and dozens of backlinks, making the references unreadable.
  Above, I see some debate about whether {{rp}} was deprecated when parenthetical referencing was deprecated, to avoid confusion this time we should try to be clear with an explicit RfC about this style of citation. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is false that {{r}} is merely a shorthand for {{rp}} and false that it's primary use is to create superscript page numbers. Mostly, {{r|something|another}} is a shorthand for <ref name=something/><ref name=another/>. It can also add page numbers but in my experience usually does not. The same statistics page you list shows that maybe only one in seven uses of {{r}} include page numbers. Please do not confidently advocate deprecation of something you obviously are unfamiliar with. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  From what I understand of @Rjjiii's comment, they weren't saying that {{r}} was a shorthand of {{rp}} specifically, or that this was its primary use. In fact, as you've pointed out, that same page shows {{r}} being used 284,000 times, including for other purposes. Maybe I misread their comment, but it doesn't seem like they were making a claim that strong. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein: It is false that {{r}} is merely a shorthand for {{rp}} and false that it's primary use is to create superscript page numbers." I agree? Click the "over 40,000" link. The |page= parameter is used over 40,000 times. It doesn't really make sense to deprecate {{rp}} and leave the same functionality in other templates. "The same statistics page you list shows that maybe only one in seven uses of include page numbers." 41,183 / 284,578 is one in seven, but it's also thousands of footnotes. Can {{r}} create sub-references instead? If not, what should be done with the |page= parameter? Do you not think those are relevant questions here? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know whether r can be made to create subreferences because we do not yet have subreferences. Until we have enough experience with them to consider questions like converting r+pages to use them I think this RFC is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose because alternative formatting sacrifices salience—you get a context-free stack of page numbers when perusing the reference list. (It is almost never important to see a list evidencing the fact that pages 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are cited. It's more important, though only when reading deeply and critically, to see which page is cited for which proposition, as you read those propositions.) Maybe a plurality of readers don't care about page numbers and only want to see them after a click; that could be a user preference, and even a default. But I certainly dislike a click or mouseover that delivers me to an incomplete citation or takes me away from the sentence I just read. TheFeds 08:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subreferencing will not provide the exact style that rp does. Both subreferencing and rp are only close to a standard inline citation style that is my favorite ([AB2: 123, §1.2]). I am still going to prefer rp over subreferencing – the more you write at the bottom the more often you will have to go to the bottom (either directly or using reference preview). 慈居 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. For example, This parameter is very confusing for non-editor readers. What are they supposed to understand from it? A math equation? What does 1/22 even mean? IdanST (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Superscript numbers in the first place are confusing if you haven't seen them before. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  And if you hate the colon in superscript numbers, you'll probably hate the period in the forthcoming sub-referencing feature too.^[1.22] Biogeographist (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Where are you seeing "1/22"? "[1]:22" looks nothing like a math equation. And hovering over it will reveal "Page: 22". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, {{rp}} makes it easier to do WP:V checks and the reference section is tidier. It's also simpler. We should not force everyone to use {{sfn}} or put page numbers in the ref. How about we let people have preferences? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose until sub-referencing is implemented per Biogeographist. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC notice: VisualEditor automatic reference names

Hi, I’m Johannes from Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team. We are considering to work on Community Wishlist/W17: Improve VE references' automatic names and reuse. This has been a long-term issue for wikitext editors (see e.g. WP:VisualEditor/Named references) which has been among the top-voted wishes in several Community Wishlist Surveys, e.g. 2017, 2019, 2022 or 2023.

Further information: m:WMDE Technical Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names

We would like your input on the solutions proposed on our project page. We are considering several options, which can be combined if desired by the community.

• Changing the default pattern for automatically generated reference names (currently ":n", e.g. ":0", ":1"...) to use the reference type instead (e.g. "book_reference-1").
• Providing a simple mechanism for communities to configure a different default name.
• Generating automatic reference names based on the domain name (if it’s a web citation).
• Generating automatic reference names based on template parameters (e.g. "title" or "last"+"first") – defined by the community.

Feedback

Visit our project page to read about our proposal in detail and share your thoughts on metawiki.

Please note: We will only implement a solution if there’s clear consensus among the global community. Our intention is not to build the perfect solution, but to find a simple and lean one that alleviates the pain caused by auto generated names. We are aware that some experienced VisualEditor users might prefer an option to manually change reference names in VisualEditor, but such a UX intervention is difficult to achieve across reference types and thus out of scope for our team, we can only improve the auto-naming mechanism. We are happy about suggestions for improving certain details of the proposed solutions. Any other feedback and alternative proposals are also welcome – even though it’s out of scope for us, it might still be relevant for future work on this topic.

Please support us interpreting consensus by clearly indicating your opinion (e.g. by using support/neutral/oppose templates). We are aware of WP:NOTVOTE, but given that we are facilitating this discussion with users from different wikis, potentially commenting in their native language, clearly indicating your position helps us avoid misunderstandings.

Thank you for participating! --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I did it right

No response here so I'm trying again here.

I edited this article after the Wikipedia article was subjected to WP:TNT. I believe the information should be available and the other site probably allows such content. Is the notice I put at the bottom of the page good enough?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

idk how to do it on the app

I click the link button which I think is right but it goes to search Gatoguy65 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Duplicated citations that are from excerpts from other pages

In this comparison of the edits, I attempted to fix a duplicated citation by copying over the "McCarthy" reference, but the ref from the excerpt doesn't transfer from the Eliminate Sparrows campaign#Ecological disaster section into the Four Pests campaign article, so what is the proper approach to WP:DUPCITE fixings, since there's no mention of dealing with this specific case of duplicated citations in that Wikipedia page section? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 12:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are trying to cite a source in two separate articles, it is not a “duplicated citation”. That refers to citing the same source twice (or more than twice) in the same article. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This type of issue isn't fixable. As long as it's not causing an error message (two cites with the same refname for instance) the best idea is just to ignore it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Better guidance for "chapter =" ?

Should there be better guidance, either way, for using the "chapter =" parameter, specifically in a single author published book? Another editor insists on using it that way. I see discussion that "Chapters should only be cited if the book is a compilation of multiple chapters authored by different authors", is this still the purpose of the parameter? It does produce an odd author, chapter, title format with the chapter in quotes.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's used for specifying the chapter title if the chapter is in fact an independent work in a collection. If the whole book is by the same author(s), it's not particularly useful and usually better avoided. Gawaon (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. I think that citing "Chapter Thirty-Five" is a little weird, but:

• e-books don't have useful page numbers, so a chapter title is helpful, and
• when a real chapter title is given ("Methods for Measuring the Sun", in The Sun is Really Big), it can provide information.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. It can be really helpful in say, Encyclopedias, or digital books that don't have page numbers. Ultimately it's a matter for citevar, both methods are fine in most cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the {{Cite book}} documentation is vague, so either reading is possible. However, the docs say that chapter= is for the "chapter heading" and it looks distinctly odd if one uses it for just the chapter number (which makes most sense as locator). Prefixing the name with the number is possible but still looks a bit odd. For a mere locator, if specifying the page number/range is not possible, I use something like at=chapter 4 or at=ch. 4, which is rendered in the same way and place as page numbers are. And at= is explicitly listed among the "In-source locations", while chapter= isn't. Gawaon (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

And, BTW, there's a {{Cite encyclopedia}} template, which might make most sense for that specific case. Gawaon (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That template does the exact same things as cite book but it does all of them worse. So, I avoid it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. If so, I agree that {{Cite book}} with chapter= makes sense to cite entries in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and similar works. But I still wouldn't use it as locator when referencing works by the same author(s) that are typically read from start to end. Gawaon (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

With e-books it is often the only option. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Not at all, at=ch. X works just fine for them. Gawaon (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if chapters are not separately written by different authors, it can be useful to cite a chapter if information to support the claim is spread throughout the chapter, rather than on just a few pages. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If people think we need to deal with e-books et-al should there be a change in Template:cite book re: something like a parameter "chapter (title) =" that inserts a chapter just before page number? The parameter "chapter =" puts that chapter title in quotes ahead of the actual book title making it confusing for anyone trying to figure out the source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's very confusing, but |at=Chapter 35 at the end looks nicer to me than "Chapter 35" in the middle. I don't think that the citation template allows |at=Chapter 35|page=234–256 but in that case (i.e., we have reliable page numbers), I'd just skip the untitled chapter number.

Chicago says, for a "Book Consulted in an Electronic Format", "if no fixed page numbers are available, cite a section title or a chapter or other number in the note (or simply omit)." MLA similarly says that when no page numbers are listed on an e-book, you should cite the chapter number instead of page numbers, e.g., "(Smith ch. 2)".  The chapter number is acceptable; the question is really only whether it's best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

When chapters or sections are numbered and titled, I prefer to include both the number and title. This is definitely a useful way to specify the cited subset of material within a monograph; it should not be restricted to edited volumes with separately-authored chapters. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Coincidentally, a friend of mine, who teaches elementary school, was telling me recently that numbered chapters are difficult for students with dyslexia. From what she described, I believe that a chapter that is both numbered and titled would likely be best for people. The chapter number helps you find it in the book, and the chapter title helps you know whether that's the chapter you're looking for. "Chapter 35" may be useful for navigation, but it is not useful for anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CONSECUTIVECITE

Just so I'm getting it right, is it OK to use the same source at the end of different sentences of the same paragraph, when the information is different? When I used to put a source once at the end of a paragraph, I got this response [6]. Now when I cite every sentence, and I get this response. [7]

As you can see from my current practice, surely citing every sentence lets the reader know that the information is cited and has not just been made up and added to a paragraph. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

If a whole paragraph is due to just one source, I'd put it at the end rather than repeat it after every sentence. However, it's not worth bothering or having a long discussion if others prefer to repeat it more frequently. Gawaon (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

In some circumstances it is actually required to repeat sources. In particular, when a claim is used for a Did You Know hook, we must repeat the source for that claim on the sentence where it appears, even when the same source might be used in a consecutive position. Direct quotes must also be marked with a source, on the quote, even when the same source is nearby. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but DYK is not all that common and most paragraphs don't actually contain direct quotes, in my experience. Gawaon (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with @GiantSnowman's claim. Every sentence does not need a citation. The purpose of a citation is allow verification, not to notify that verification has been applied or certified. Cited sentences are not verified, so tediously repeating the same citation for sentence after sentence provides no value to readers.

If a topic is contentious, then repeating the same citation is absolutely not the right fix. Per neutral point of view every reliably sourced view should be included and cited. In that case even phrases may need a citation to clarify who said what. The result might mean a source is cited more than once in a paragraph. But a single source does not need to be repeated in a paragraph because there is only one point of view being summarized. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You patently haven't read what others have said above. If one long paragraph is cited to only one source, it probably needs to be re-written... GiantSnowman 18:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but for a short paragraph (not more than 4 or 5 sentences, say) that's not so unusual and often fine. Gawaon (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that long paragraphs don't generally work in an encyclopedia. Our work is to summarize, not expound. But that is a different issue than citation requirements. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope, GiantSnowman, I'm pretty sure that I know exactly what you meant when you wrote "Every sentence needs to be referenced" in that prior discussion. I think you meant "Every sentence needs to be referenced", which – for better or worse – happens to be something different from what our policies say, even for BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• There is no one-size-fits-all simple answer to this. One can certainly write a reasonably long paragraph that is all verifiable by one single source. There is no need to repeatedly cite each sentence when the entire thing is covered by that single source.

However, that changes if someone subsequently inserts something into the middle of that paragraph - something that is cited to a separate source. At that point, it is probably best to start repeating that original citation, so readers know which parts of the paragraph are covered by which source. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the sourced insertion should be preceded by a duplicate citation from the end of the paragraph. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the practical concern is that if someone writes a long paragraph with "only" an inline citation at the end, e.g.,:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

then it is difficult for the would-be enforcers of the non-existent but aspirational "everything must be cited" rule to know whether those 200 words are 100% sourced or if only the last five are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Blueboar who says that "There is no one-size-fits-all simple answer to this." When I have a paragraph that relies on a single source, my general practice is:

1. Small paragraph: single cite at the end of the paragraph
2. Larger paragraph: two cites: one in the middle one in the end
3. A paragraph containing controversial/contentious material: one cite per sentence
4. A paragraph that other editors are likely to insert sentences into: one cite per sentence

If you are not sure, it is always okay to use one cite per sentence, and if someone objects, tell them they are welcome to remove some cites if they want. Noleander (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. My issue with this is that either users have taken a gospel reading that each sentence needs a citation, or one citation at the end of a paragraph, and in that case it has been impossible to please two interpretations. I know that WP:NOTBROKEN is about redirects, but it can also refer to this situation: in some cases, common sense dictates that two related sentences come from the same source, in some cases two sentences are so contentious they must both be sourced. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I've encountered that sort of inconsistency within Wikipedia many times, in many places. I used to stress over those things .. but it made my time on Wikipedia not very fun. So I've learned to let it go :-) Noleander (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I somewhat dislike #2, because it sometimes makes me wonder whether only the middle sentence and the last sentence are supported by the source. But I've done it myself, especially if that middle sentence contains statistics or similar content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Inline references rolling over

Is there a way to prevent the <ref></ref>{{rp|xx}} text at the end of a sentence from line-breaking to the next row, other than by manually inserting & nbsp ; (sans spaces) between the final punctuation mark and the opening angled bracket of the ref? Anothersignalman (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to know too, but I think you'd have to force it. That could (I'd imagine) break things like different skins/mobile accessibility? I think it's supposed to be wholly dynamic. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can't agree with this more, by fixing it so that it appears correct for one screen size / ratio it will likely break it for another. Although the default formatting can sometimes cause oddities in some instances it does a good job at getting it nearly right for everyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so, but frankly, {{rp}} is best avoided anyway. Try {{sfn}} and friends instead for a much nicer reading experience. Gawaon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

{{rp}} is best avoided anyway. Try {{sfn}} and friends instead for a much nicer reading experience.

I'd been curious about this as I had started using RP a fair bit for it's convenience. Can you tell me why you think the other way is better for readers and (hopefully!) easier for editors?

I had built Abigail Becker where needed with RP and wanted to use it for a simple example of mine.

1. With RP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Becker&oldid=1347938455
2. With SFN (just a quick dirty bulk conversion I had saved but not used yet): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Becker&oldid=1347938385

Why's it better? Is it mainly moving the inline cites down out of the body for the pages? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Lengthy references like "by the fire.^{[6]:126–127}" are distracting and can interrupt the reading flow; shorter ones like "by the fire.^[10]" are much easier in my experience. Gawaon (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you tend to read articles more often on phone in portrait mode, or laptop/desktop PC with a wide monitor? I think the width of the display would be a relevant factor, as well as whether the article is more narrative or technical in tone (because that will also impact the type of audience most likely to read it).

Well outside of the scope of this discussion, but maybe the long-term solution is to have a system that allows each user to select the reference format on their current device, similar in concept to how some sites have light and dark modes?

Anothersignalman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I mostly use larger displays (laptop or external one), rarely small mobile devices, but I don't think that matters here – on a smartphone, the lengthy "tail" added by {{rp}} to references would be even more annoying, needlessly taking some of the already rare space. User-customizable solutions aren't going to help, since most people aren't logged in when reading Wikipedia. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

As an advocate of {{rp}}, I oppose using ranges. They almost never contribute to verification. A single page is adequate. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you not ever have to cite a sentence split between two pages? That happens constantly for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Same here.

Anothersignalman (talk) Anothersignalman (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation is to WP:verify content. The source is enough if a human can read the source and verify the content. The page number is simply an bonus, a helpful aid. (In my experience, the human most likely to be aided by the page number is me ;-) Occasionally an source may be challenged for a page number because a human is unable to verify. Rewriting the content is usually the best fix. There is no requirement for the page number and certainly no requirement that the page include all of the information required to verify the content. I think it is great that you are taking extra care, but in terms of trade-off, the range may not be optimal. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that The page number is simply an bonus. Whenever a book is cited, it's necessary; where it's missing, adding {{page needed}} is justified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I've gotten in the habit of using a page ID/value if I can reasonably find one. Even if it's a static web page with a clear page-like tracking, or a flat PDF with no-inline text labeled pages, and we have just the PDF document pages... those are fine too. You only have to do it the once. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Me too. That's great. But I don't use page ranges, the cost/benefit is poor. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the content you refer to extends over more than one page and you include page numbers, you have to give the full range, to avoid misleading the reader. Gawaon (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Misleading them how? Are we expecting readers to say something like "Well, that can be verified on a single page, so _____"? Or maybe "Wow, someone wrote a whole 20-page chapter about this – that must be more important than I thought?"

"The reader" almost never checks the refs, and if they do, there's every likelihood that they won't stop reading the sentence in the middle just because it runs over to the top of the next page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Not in the middle of the sentence, no. But neither can they be expected to read on and on until maybe they found what they sought or else give up. So if you summarize content spread over pages 19–27, but give only p. 19 as source, that would be misleading, and readers who do bother to check (I'm among them, at times) may rightly complaint that "the cited information isn't actually there". Gawaon (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Per tm:page needed This template may be added after an in-line citation that is not precise enough to easily verify the article content associated with it. There is no broad consensus that page numbers are required. FWIW I add pages numbers whenever I can. But now we are far from the OP issue. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I was told to use {{rp}} a few months ago, as a preferred alternative to having individual citations for every single instance from a book with each one having its own {{cite book| ... |pages=xyz}} section. For example, references No.3 or No.20 here - Victorian Railways E type carriage or No's 1, 5, 9, 11, 27, 38 here - Walhalla railway line (note I do plan to spin off a chunk of the article at some point, I still need to go through a few more books.).

Comparing the two, I think sfn can be neater in some instances, but in the relatively technical articles with lots of numbers, converts, currencies etc the benefits of pulling numbers out of the text are reduced, and the cost of having to check both the "notes" and "references" sections in tandem, plus possibly interfering with the separate {{notelist}} section. I'm guessing the conversion isn't as simple as extracting all text to a notepad file, replacing prefixes {{rp with {{sfn and repasting it? Also, there's a long discussion here from only a few months ago that, at a quick skim, doesn't look conclusive as to whether all rp's should be abolished and replaced?

Anothersignalman (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The sfn/rp debate is long standing and unlikely to be resolved. They each have pluses and minuses. The only thing that everyone agree on is that once an article has adopted a citation style it should only be changed by WP:consensus developed through discussion on the article's Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

^ This. People have their individual preferences. I've never seen anyone argued out of their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Could post an example of this issue? I have never seen a problem and I can't reproduce one by trying. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Victorian Railways W class - when set, on my screen, to 325mm wide, I get a line break after "December 1959." before the reference. Anothersignalman (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Which browser? I can't reproduce this with Chrome on Mac Air. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Mozilla firefox, Linux Mint, desktop LG monitor 24" diagonal.

Anothersignalman (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I was able to reproduce this with Firefox on Windows, but not Chrome or the Window native browser on Windows. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What about firefox on Mac? That would confirm the browser, not the page, is the issue.

Anothersignalman (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Short answer: known problem, nothing you can do about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Noting that sub-referencing (<ref name="..." details="..." />) will be deployed to English Wikipedia later this year which would avoid this issue. The MediaWiki feature for re-using references with different details is currently deployed to Czech, German, Italian, Polish and Swedish Wikipedia and a couple of small wikis. Of course WP:CITEVAR applies, users can continue using template-based solutions if desired. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

How will that system resolve the issue of citations (with or without page numbers) being kicked to the next row in, apparently, Firefox only?

Anothersignalman (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, while I do occassionally get line breaks between [text] and {{ref}}{{rp}}, I don't think I've ever seen the break between {{ref}} and {{rp}}. It could just be a coincidence, but maybe that's a clue to the different coding behind the two templates, and copying something from the latter to the former would permanently fix the issue? Anothersignalman (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I see line breaks between punctuation and ref all the time. Between a ref and an rp, not so much, but I don't often see or use rp. When it bothers me I use {{nowrap}} that surrounds both the text prior to the ref and the ref itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ahh sorry I thought the issue was about unintended line breaks between footnote numbers and {{rp}} but you're reporting unintended line breaks between the text and the footnote number. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Anothersignalman (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Pakistani films

Hi all. There is a debate open at User talk:~2026-19304-32#April 2026 regarding verifiability of publications and there usage on Wikipedia on the article for any Pakistani film. Anyone is welcome to participate, thank you! M. Billoo 03:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Citing an excerpt from a book

What's the proper way to cite an excerpt from a book that is published elsewhere? I scanned through the options parameters {{cite book}} and nothing jumped out at me but my eyes started to glaze over so I may have missed something… The source in question is this which is currently included as a citation at List of cryptids#cite note-62 (Special:Permalink/1348701337#cite_note-62) using the {{cite web}} template such that it appears as:

Naish, Darren. "De Loys' Ape and what to do with it". Scientific American. Retrieved 17 January 2026.

A notice near the top of the page clarifies that this was published as a blog post and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily Scientific American. The blog is Darren Naish's and consists of a preamble followed by an excerpt from a book, Cryptozoologicon: Volume I (2013), written by Naish and two other authors. Given the authorship and the fact that this is not truly a Scientific American article, it seems important to cite this differently. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would cite the book then " excerpted in " then cite the web. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I've just typed it out as free text and given up on the citation template. I was honestly surprised not to see excerpted-in= or appeared-in= or republished-in= or some other optional parameter. {{Cite book}} gives an example of something republished in another language as a .pdf; I tried using format= but it broke the template. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think two templates can work:

Naish, Darren (2013). Cryptozoologicon: Volume I. ‎ Lulu.com. ISBN 978-0-87951-724-3. Excerpted in Naish, Darren. "De Loys' Ape and what to do with it". Scientific American. Retrieved 2026-01-17.

I guess you figured out that this is a self published work. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware you could combine two templates along with free text inside the <ref>…</ref> tags. I ended up removing the list entry entirely because I found that De Loys's ape didn't warrant inclusion in the first place, without even getting as far as looking at the publication details. But I stumbled across an article in need of improvement and learned something new about citation tags along the way, so I'd call this a fruitful wiki-endeavor. Thanks so much for your help! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Request to remove the Author and Work parameters

I don't know which Reference-like template talk page to begin on, so I apologize for bringing the issue here. I request the removal of the author and numbered authors ("author-1", "author-2", etc.) as well as work. If we already have First/Last parameters, why should we use "author" as an alternative? What's the difference? I also don't know the difference between using "newspaper"/"website" and "work". ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, many many citations have group authors or authors without last names.

Because some sources aren't newspapers or websites? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ideally, first= and last= are split, but some editors are lazy and won't do that. In that cases, author= is a useful fallback. There are also cases where it's far from trivial to figure out what the family/last name is. In such cases it may be better to just fill the author= field rather than guessing. Gawaon (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We also have mononymic authors. That raises the number of cases to:

• group author: |author=Museum Preservation Sub-Committee
• uncertain name order: |author=Li An
• mononym: |author=Teller

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Isn't group author already written as website/publisher?
2. Regarding uncertain name order, "Li An" for example is a Chinese name. Li would be surname while An would be given name.
3. We also usually ignore mononyms.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Museum Preservation Sub-Committee (2026). "How to Preserve the Museum". Smallville City Council.
2. Or the other way around: because An (Chinese surname).
3. Some editors are irritated by |last=Mononym. It's of no practical importance and invisible to the reader, but they just think it's factually wrong.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

1. No.

2. Not always.

3. Why? We shouldn't be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

As for the question regarding "newspaper", "website" and "work": I don't think there's a meaningful difference, usually they end up being formatted the same. So just use whatever seems to work best in any specific case or, failing that, whatever you like. Gawaon (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Monthly total number of citations

Wouldn't it be nice to see the monthly total number of references of all English Wikipedia articles? For WP:Statistics and maybe also for the Wikipedia article and English Wikipedia article. In order to get an impression that Wikipedia has become more reliable.

Or monthly share of paragraphs with min. one citation.

Like this chart for the number of good and featured articles: Commons:Total_number_of_GAs_and_FAs.chart WikiPate (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Citing a US Trademark?

What's the best way to cite a US Trademark. Right now in Big Duck I've just got U.S. Trademark 71,318,066 but my reviewer asks if there's something more that should be included and I don't know if there is or not. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that certain external style guides would include more information (Maybe the registrant's name? Or a date?), but we don't have any rules like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Two sets of sources give different information. Much of what is going on is discussed here. I believe the newspaper reporters and those who wrote the headlines sincerely believed what they were saying was true. I may be asking in the wrong place, but what is the proper way to handle this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is conflicting information in equally reliable sources, then that should be discussed in the article. If news reporting is shown to be wrong by later reporting or printed works, then only use the latter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested I don't know if there were any corrections later, but is what I did in The Arras all right?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't very well throw out sources where the error is in the headline. Have I done enough to show what is going on in The Arras?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

For newspaper articles, headlines often aren't written by the article's author but by someone else, so it's best to disregard any information or errors in them. Look at the body of the article instead. Gawaon (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I would appreciate anyone looking to see if I have handled the situation correctly.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's true on Wikipedia that if no one objects, you've done it right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINES: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." If "the error is in the headline", then ignore the headline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Minor grammatical error in Variation in citation methods

The second paragraph under Variation in citation methods has the sentence:

An article where all or most of the citations fail to provide needed bibliographic data does not have a consistent citation style and can be changed freely to insert such data.

I almost moved the position of the "and" resulting in:

An article where all or most of the citations fail to provide needed bibliographic data and does not have a consistent citation style and can be changed freely to insert such data.

Should I just go ahead with this change or am I missing something? My Gussie (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It is correct as written. Parse it as two sentences: An article where all or most of the citations fail to provide needed bibliographic data does not have a consistent citation style. Such citations can be changed freely to insert such data. DrKay (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm therefore thinking that the only improvement would be to just add a comma just before the and. Does this significantly improve readability? My Gussie (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with adding the comma. My Gussie (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Content drift

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Content drift. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Alternative to "page number" for ebooks should be added

Maybe it is somewhere else? But this would be the place to find a short how-to answer to this. Quite urgently needed. Jp1008 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You can use chapter= or at= for a specific location. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added this to the WP:EBOOK section. @Jp1008, did you find the EBOOK section (under "Identifying parts of a source" > "Books and print articles" in this guideline). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If you need inspiration for the help page being more useful (I can experiment), adding some examples would be nice, in particular, what are the suggested best practices to follow the "at=". Should I put in in quotes? Paragraph number? Referencing is important and the easier we make it for newbies, the better. eBooks are now the most common way to read books.
Jp1008 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Amaze, amaze! Thank you Jp1008 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing newspaper pages without lettered sections

This is an issue when citing old newspapers.

Most newspapers I have seen split their sections up by letter, e.g. page A5, or B10, sometimes they will do A-5 or 10-B but the principle is the same. I have also seen sections numbered separately so it's like 1-5 or 3-2 or something.

However, some newspapers would do it where they would totally restart their numbering in every section, and then not indicate this in the page number. So there would be the main section, it goes say pages 1 to page 30, then it would get to the lifestyle section, it would be pages 1 to 20, but there would be no separate indication in the page number. When citing such papers I have always just written the page number in the page= parameter and not indicated the section at all. But this seems problematic to me, as if I was checking such a reference, I would not know what section it was in. Any ideas?

Sorry if this isn't clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest writing it as "p. 14 (lifestyle section)" or "lifestyle section, p. 14". Gawaon (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)