Template talk:Excessive citations inline

Plural

Added plural use of citations, as over use always involve several citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It was fine as it was; "excessive citation" was using "citation" in a verbal sense, not as a singular noun. It works okay in plural form, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

• Template:Overcite → Template:Excessive citations inline
• Template:ExcessiveCitations → Template:Excessive citations

– One is an inline template; the other is a standard maintenance tag. Both have the similar purpose: inform readers that a page or statement may have too many citations or references. However, the current names are very confusing. Also, the inline template is transcluded in 100+, while the other is transcluded in seven pages. If the suggested titles are not suitable names, I welcome alternatives. George Ho (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see how "Excessive Citations" is less confusing than "ExcessiveCitations". Esszet (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Esszet: {{Excessive citations}} redirects to {{Overcite}} instead of {{ExcessiveCitations}}, which is very confusing. Jarble (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, but couldn't you just change or get rid of the redirect instead? Esszet (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone actually just changed it a little while ago. Esszet (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And I undid that change. There are still uses that should point to {{overcite}} that were breaking things. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And the guy redid it and changed them all to {{Overcite}}. Does that sound good to everyone? Esszet (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. We should not have {{Excessive citations}} and {{ExcessiveCitations}} going to different places.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff). I have added the current template data from to the documentation page, where it can be filled in by non-template-editors (currently it included a blank array of parameters). I would have filled it in myself, but I'm not familiar with template data enough. The change would also remove a few unneeded blank lines. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Most appropriate link target

I changed the link target to its original WP:OVERCITE, but was reverted by Primefac.[1] I believe that, for an inline tag, the most appropriate link target is indeed OVERCITE, which describes the problem and various remedies. In contrast, the current link only suggests to group citations in a bundle, which is in most cases not what is needed. I've seen WP:REFBOMBS of 8 citations or more, all telling the same thing, so that the appropriate advice is to keep just the top two or three. There are indeed a few cases when all citations are useful and should be bundled for concision, but in that case the person noticing the issue would likely proceed with the bundling directly instead of splashing a tag in the text. When encountering a refbomb, I usually try to trim the citations myself, but it's often better to leave this to editors who are already knowledgeable with the subject matter and its RS coverage, so they can select the best sources to keep among all those cited. Therefore I reckon it's better to inform the "local experts" with this tag, and guide them to the most appropriate advice. — JFG ^talk 00:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that SMcCandlish changed the link back in 2017, but it sounds like it's the same general idea that I had - a guideline is a better link target than an essay. I will agree, however, that removing excessive citations is probably better than bundling them. Maybe modifying the guideline to include that as an option? Primefac (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, essays are not dispositive of whether a problem is a real problem and should be fixed, since anyone can write a counter-essay at any time to contradict it (while an essay contradicting a guideline or policy, in other than a "consider this what-if for a moment" manner, will generally get MfDed). There probably is enough agreement about the issue covered at OVERCITE that something about it could be added the guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly support updating the guideline along the lines of the very-well-crafted WP:OVERCITE essay. Start on talk page there? — JFG ^talk 23:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2024

Please remove the TfD tag since this has been snow kept. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 05:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)