Wikipedia talk:When to cite

reference when the statement in one article is linked to another article in wikipedia

My example: In the article "kunduz hospital air strike" I made a statement regarding the first Geneva Convention, I linked to the article "First Geneva Convention", and there are references to the needed documentation. Do I have to repeat this references in "kunduz hospital air strike" or can I trust on the link leading to the in detail coverage of the subject in the article I link to?Jochum (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The source of the material should always be clear

The essay includes the following suggestion:

When different sources are used within a paragraph, these can be bundled at the end if desired, so long as the footnote makes clear which source supports which point in the text.

Surely adopting this practice only makes more work for the reader - let alone the writer? Our first objective must be to write clearly, so that the reader may understand our articles without any more effort than the subject matter intrinsically demands. Adopting the suggestion given above would automatically fail this test. So, I'd rather offer the following suggestion instead:

When a paragraph uses different sources, each one should appear as near as possible to the point in the text that it supports.

This will help maintain the close connection between text and source that the essay recommends:

The source of the material should always be clear, and editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken.

yoyo (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yahya Abdal-Aziz, it looks like you didn't get an answer four years ago. Here's the answer: It depends. It depends a lot on what you're writing. If you're writing an article with a lot of severable details, and there's a separate source for each detail, then cite bundling can be a problem. But if you're writing a general summary of a large amount of information, then it can be helpful. For example, if you are writing that Joe Film appeared in Film in 2010, and Show in 2011, and Performance in 2012, and Another Film in 2013, and Theatre in 2014, and each of those needs a separate source, then it would make sense to list the citations separately. But, if you are instead writing that one paragraph that says World War II changed the relationship between Ruritania and Zahramay, and your paragraph is broadly summarizing several books that all mention every fact in your paragraph, then it might make more sense to end the paragraph with a bundle that indicates that the entire preceding paragraph comes from all of the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: - Thanks! I appreciate the distinction you make. May I summarise what I think you're saying?: When every factual point in your para has (the same) multiple sources, those sources can be cited together, at the end of the para; whereas if some points have different sources, those sources should be cited immediately after each point. Or briefly, "bundle cites only if they all support every point in the para". But:

1. Suggesting that we might ever write a paragraph that "broadly [summarizes] several books" would seem to imply that we'd be happy to violate the WP policy of {{WP:OR|No original research}}, wouldn't it? ;-)
2. The introduction of even just one extra point to the para would require the writer to verify that every bundled cite supported that point, which may well be infeasible, since one rarely has access to all the sources that other editors have used. Failing such verification, the hapless editor would need to duplicate the existing cite bundle for the whole para to follow each point. E.g. augmenting the following:

This is point one. This is point two. This is point three. This is point four.(1)(2)(3)

by adding "This is point five.(4)" would require the editor to produce the following;

This is point one.(1)(2)(3) This is point two.(1)(2)(3) This is point three.(1)(2)(3) This is point four.(1)(2)(3) This is point five.(4)

Surely it'd be simpler to always place the individual cites behind each point they support? yoyo (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Using your numbers for convenience:

1. No, it'd suggest that we wrote coherent summaries of background information, rather than dumping individual facts onto a page. If you think about it, it's pretty easy to summarize books. We could summarize most diet books as "Move more and eat less", and ones proposing unusual diets as "Eat this, not that". Biographies of various monarchs and politicians will all cover the same basic points: "Born in nnnn, got married, had kids, took office, known for major program, died in yyyy". None of that requires editors to make up their own ideas or putting content into Wikipedia articles that wasn't previously published.
2. Your complaint isn't about bundling. It's about editors not repeating citations at the end of every sentence, or even every part of every sentence. The same problem happens even when the original paragraph is all cited to a single source.

Back on the original text, a bundle can be used when specific citations support different parts. In that case, the bundle needs to include some sort of explanation, such as "Date from Smith 2010, quotation from Lee 2012, amounts of Martinez 2014".

I wonder whether this page isn't clear about what a bundle is. Putting ^[1][2][3] at the end is not a bundle. A bundle looks like just ^[1] at the end, and when you click on ^[1], you find that multiple sources are listed inside the single ref tag. A bundle can appear at the end of a paragraph, but it can also appear in the middle of a sentence, to support a single fact. It's all about how many little blue clicky numbers the reader encounters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, I'd meant to ping you. I really appreciate you pinging me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: - Thanks for the clarification of what a citation bundle actually is. Clearly, I misunderstood that. On my first point, you are, of course, right; summarising is a necessary part of writing encyclopaedia articles. yoyo (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yahya Abdal-Aziz, could you take a look at the edit I just made, and see if that's clearer? I figure that if someone who has made thousands of edits was a little confused by that sentence, then many others will be completely lost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: - Yes, that is certainly clearer; definitely better! Thanks for clarifying this. For consideration: would it be worthwhile offering a concrete example showing how to do what the essay suggests? (Personally, it seems like more work to write such an explanatory footnote, rather than to place each cite immediately after the point or points that it supports. But YMMV!) yoyo (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation bundling isn't my own favorite style, but a few editors like it. If people click through to the link, they'll see examples there. Maybe we'll wait to see whether this small adjustment is enough, before trying another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yahya Abdal-Aziz, I wrote an essay with cite-bundling examples. I think citation bundling is usually unnecessary, but sometimes it improves clarity. HLHJ (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

HLHJ, I've just read it; and I entirely agree with your "nutshell" summation. Your cases and examples clearly show the benefits of bundling citations when appropriate. Great job! yoyo (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sublead ref template

@HLHJ: Should a template be created for the text <ref>Sublede generalization supported by all the citations in this section</ref>? That would allow easier tracking and avoids copying and pasting across articles. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think literally writing <ref>Sublede generalization supported by all the citations in this section</ref> would probably work, but if you're using it a lot, that's a lot to type, and I wouldn't object to a template. It would be easy to overlook such a cite when adding more cites later in a long paragraph, but that seems unlikely to cause huge problems for that sort of generalization. A while ago, I made a template {{tnc}} for locations in which there wasn't a citation and no citation was needed, but I wanted to be clear that cites on later sentences didn't apply to this sentence, which I think would work for this application, but it got deleted. Is that why you pinged me? HLHJ (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In my [1], I found it weird that I wasn't typing {{cite xxx}}. I did it by opening this essay in another tab to copy-and-paste from (the text is too long to remember) and made sure to add WP:NOTCITE in the edit summary (I might forget, and a template can make this not required). This would be much more difficult on mobile.

I pinged after WikiBlame showed [2]. I didn't see the TfD before and I don't know what {{There's no citation}} contained.

I think the template should be specific to subleads and exclude WP:SKYBLUE. Instead of a ref, it could even be a hidden comment like {{Leadcite comment}}. Adding the template to this explanatory essay would avoid deletion for non-use. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I've completely forgotten that edit, and it was only 5 years ago. That would be why I was confused. Sorry.

Your use seems bang-on, and I see why you'd want a template; I hadn't thought of mobile editing. You could create it at a descriptive title, Template:Sublede notcite or Template:Sublede generalization or somewhere, and make a sane shortcut if you use it at all often; say, Template:slg or Template:slnc or somesuch. Agreed on specificity, it's more specialized than TNC. Now that Visual Editor can see comments, a comment would work, and be less clutter. One would have to switch into edit view to see it, and in the unlikely event that that really annoys anyone, a template means it could retrospectively be made a cite instead. I don't think the exact phrasing matters, but I can see that systematizing might be socially useful. HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)