525:. One memorable case, deletionists ganged up on an article to discredit, I believe, 17 sources over an expanse of this subject's career, and used that failure to wipe out a section of a notability standards on the basis that the 17 sources weren't good enough to prove general notability. That failure, that precedent keeps coming back. Once they smell the blood in the water, the launch of an *fD, these editors behave as sharks on an irrational path of destruction. Logic and sources be damned. If this were truly a collegial process, I would expect them to relent when confronted with . . . facts. But they don't back off. I seriously think they are competing for a prize for deleting the most content. And this essay gives them more ammunition.
564:
relatively minor issue. I am not sure why GA class is singled out either; is it a response to a specific problem? In my experience this is not a major issue with overcites and doesn't really belong as the first section someone reads if it is worth keeping. The two biggest issues that I have come across regarding citation overkill are using multiple cites that say something to draw a general conclusion (i.e original research) or using a group of poor cites does to make a poorly sourced statement seem well sourced (i.e. reliability). Both of these are policy violations and are not mentioned here. There is also a spam aspect of just adding cites to get links to a website or source. I feel it could do with some reorganising.
435:
encyclopedia. That article it is going to take a massive amount of work to repair. All of those long citations need to go and proper third-party citations need to replace them. I am exhausted just talking about it! I stumbled across this when I was looking up a precedent for an over-citing problem. The article on Sacha Baron Cohen had four citations after a sentence saying he is Jewish and three citations to confirm that he speaks Hebrew. One citation that does the job properly is all that is required. Perhaps I will turn my attention to this article that you’ve mentioned when time permits. God bless and happy editing!
268:
22:
81:
53:
145:
67:
223:
181:
520:
if nothing else. I don't get involved if there aren't sources. Sometimes as a reaction to some idiot voting delete, saying there is no coverage of a significant event, I might give 5 sources covering it as a reaction. I'm saying 20 sources for the article as a whole over multiple sections. I also
457:
The mere existence of this essay does a disservice to wikipedia. Once an *fD is launched, the standards for sourcing change dramatically to ridiculous lengths. What sourcing is appropriate under normal circumstances bears no resemblance to the high bar standards must achieve when a subject is under
896:
appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people or organizations (including companies), given that they generally have to satisfy conditional notability standards based on achievement
342:
In the big scheme of things this is very low priority, but I was updating the Nice shooting article and realized after the fact that using citekill was potentially insensitive and inappropriate. What do you think about getting rid of citekill and citeoverkill as references and just using overcite
563:
This is an odd section. Sometimes someones obvious fact is not so obvious to others (on a tangential note the blue sky analogy is rather silly as the sky is more likely to be either black, white, grey or red than blue). Misuse is quite a strong term for what is pretty common practice and really a
434:
Looking over your complaint and looking at the article in question, you should be advised that the problem with that article is that the citations are improperly done. Whomever created the citations clearly had no idea what he or she was doing. It is done more like an academic project than an
961:
If not, if the heading is still relatively important, then I'd say it mustn't be chosen without much thought, especially when the heading sets up the section for violent metaphors (such as equivalently inappropriate shortcuts, distressing images with witty captions to fit the narrative,
462:
takes place, applying every imaginable excuse for why existing sources should be ignored, including this essay. It is a war, and those who want to delete the article have only one mission, and that is not to make a sensible decision. It is to destroy. What is a
343:
and the less violent variations? I know it will be a hard thing to unlearn for some people, but in the long run perhaps it will be more sensitive. As far as I can tell all that has to happen is the two variations have to be removed from this article. Thoughts?
497:
This essay opposes having a long string of citations at the end of the same sentence. If you feel a need for 20 sources in an article, is there any reason you wouldn't be able to write at least 10 sentences, and put (just) two sources after each sentence?
996:
and so on. Though, I believe, there's no reason why better words cannot be used for prose when there's an opportunity to do so. Doubly so, because
Knowledge (XXG) values neutrality and its community seeks to be inclusive.
821:
We should consider changing "Notability bomb" with a more neutral wording like "Superfluous" or "Hyper" or "Unwarranted"? And replace the image showing an aircraft dropping bombs, while we are it, too.
399:
itself and its overall message that we should really only include quotes when they're a) relevant or b) necessary. Neither of those are true on the article you link above, and I've restored your edits.
158:
958:) name and metaphor are acceptable if it can capture the "virtue of the text"? Something like, "Notability boost", "Notability pump", "Notability hoax", "Notability bluff", "Notability tax" etc.
1178:
125:
512:
On any article I have been involved with, there has never been that utter lack of substance and over sourcing. I don't take on random articles of insignificance. What I do is
1127:
word for a loud noise, from the same root as part of "bumble-bee", if that's any comfort. "Citation overkill" seems worse. And I'd quite like a less violent good metaphor for
906:(or may be just me, for that matter), but having personally lived through hell, I am fairly uncomfortable with casual use of military or rather violent metaphors and images.
416:
I agree that we should discourage including quotations as part of citations. They are often (although not always) a red flag that the quote has been taken out of context.
928:
I think the name of the section heading is less important the explanation in that section's text. And by virtue of that text, the metaphor and the image seem fine.
1188:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
981:) carpet-bombing (with far too many refs) your territory (Knowledge (XXG)). That may not be the case for many reading and/or contributing to Knowledge (XXG).
733:
Also, there are 19 footnotes after "Caucasus regions," (yes, after the comma) and over 20 after "long." (that is, after the full stop) in the same version.
479:
into setting the bar at astounding heights, 5 sources, 10 sources, 20 sources; sometimes still not enough. The only way to beat them is to overwhelm them.
88:
135:
539:
Deleting unnecessary sources is not the same as deleting content. However in most cases it is best to leave the citations to the content providers.--
251:
209:
494:
I'm sorry you're frustrated. Notability is sometimes an awkward point in
Knowledge (XXG)'s work, with different people holding different views.
1183:
586:
I looked around and couldn't find an example of that in fact occurring. I'm just wondering, have 15 footnotes ever occurred after 1 word?--
471:. Lesser known media, subject specialists or a mere paragraph in a long article or book are ignorable. The final defense of a subject is
97:
1128:
663:
1074:
870:
and an image of an airstrike), I don't think it is appropriate name for the section. Here's the opening paragraph (emphasis mine):
197:
58:
33:
609:
239:
66:
101:
327:
1155:; your feedback would be appreciated at this case of extreme overcitation. Or, just come and roll your eyes. Thanks,
711:
one word, or two, and also, they're not consecutive, but tree-structured, with three at the top of the pyramid. See
1106:
1002:
911:
830:
1090:
468:
459:
154:
966:
306:
386:
1094:
39:
988:
is oft used by native
English speakers to denote something as "in excess" or "unacceptable", like with terms
738:
503:
348:
1116:
1102:
1071:
998:
970:
933:
907:
826:
620:
382:
with more than half of the article being citations. Tried to reduce & combine but got reverted. —
954:
Then we can agree, given that the heading is relatively less important, changing it to an equivalent (
1152:
440:
379:
903:
766:
530:
484:
383:
363:
513:
254:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
212:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
93:
1160:
720:
694:
642:
603:
587:
476:
467:
morphs into a highly restricted list of sources, essentially only those defined, by name, at the
421:
405:
312:
1120:
517:
396:
358:
I'd support this. Use of both 'kill' and 'bomb' is needlessly militaristic and confrontational.
849:
814:
734:
573:
499:
344:
978:
310:
1066:
929:
806:
790:
698:
646:
636:
616:
591:
544:
308:
267:
1063:(that's a negative) engage in citation overkill. There is nothing wrong with the framing.
472:
436:
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1098:
880:
is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they actually support
464:
1164:
1140:
1110:
1079:
1006:
969:, then I'd point to the fact that "bomb", if you haven't been subject to a literal one,
937:
915:
853:
834:
742:
724:
675:
650:
624:
595:
576:
548:
534:
507:
488:
444:
425:
409:
389:
367:
352:
1136:
955:
758:
671:
526:
480:
359:
522:
1172:
1156:
716:
417:
401:
608:
I assume it means footnotes to support one word in a sentence. The first example at
1124:
866:
has negative connotations associated with it is (as illustrated by use of shortcut
845:
798:
782:
565:
1039:
774:
540:
144:
80:
52:
1132:
702:
667:
1119:, I agree that violent metaphors are overused. Etymologically, "bomb" is
582:"Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word,"
1089:
All: I see that I may be a bit over-sensitive to it than most others,
707:
How about 51, that's more than 15. Depends, though, if you consider
378:
Is there any page giving guidance on over-quote in citations? I saw
1101:
is warranted either. Thanks, really appreciate all your inputs.
965:
If you do not agree that the metaphor is violent, regardless of
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
897:
and sourceability, rather than mere verification of existence.
313:
261:
217:
175:
15:
143:
613:
247:
243:
234:
229:
205:
201:
192:
187:
712:
516:
and use those sources to construct a story, to avoid
1179:
High-impact WikiProject
Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
1013:
It's supposed to have a negative connotation. So do
844:
we should, instead of just asserting it as a given?
1093:, but I am also unable to convince anyone of that,
559:
Misuse to prove an obvious point and other sections
1059:, etc., etc. The entire point of this page is to
475:and even that numerically can turn this crowd of
666:suggests bundling and nesting them (own essay).
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1153:Talk:Éric Zemmour#OVERCITE problem in the lead
321:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
610:Knowledge (XXG):Citation overkill#Examples
246:on 01:33, 23 June 2019. The former page's
221:
179:
47:
1189:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
395:Nothing that I can think of, other than
228:Text and/or other creative content from
186:Text and/or other creative content from
116:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
49:
979:authors of a given non-notable article
967:how the context is shoe-horned into it
840:Can you provide some concrete reasons
331:when more than 6 sections are present.
892:the number of footnotes and create a
862:Setting aside the fact that the word
7:
984:That said, I am aware that the word
21:
19:
38:It is of interest to the following
888:content about the topic. This may
521:follow appropriate subsections of
198:Knowledge (XXG):Citation underkill
110:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
100:. For a listing of essays see the
89:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
14:
713:#Extreme overcite at Éric Zemmour
325:may be automatically archived by
240:Knowledge (XXG):Citation overkill
193:Knowledge (XXG):Citation overkill
86:This page is within the scope of
1147:Extreme overcite at Éric Zemmour
876:Another common form of citation
266:
79:
65:
51:
20:
1184:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
1151:Please join the discussion at
1:
1165:06:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
1141:22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
1064:
725:06:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
676:06:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
651:01:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
625:04:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
596:03:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
368:00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
577:04:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
549:03:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
535:02:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
508:06:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
489:03:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
130:This page has been rated as
743:10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
235:Knowledge (XXG):Bombardment
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
1205:
904:It may be just a few of us
353:02:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
1097:. I don't really think a
1080:06:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
1007:21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
938:17:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
916:17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
854:16:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
835:16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
612:has 18 after "Europe" at
445:16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
426:22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
410:19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
390:17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
238:was copied or moved into
196:was copied or moved into
151:
129:
74:
46:
1129:WP:Contort the citations
1111:19:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
1037:(in this sense, i.e. of
664:WP:Contort the citations
338:Changing kill reference
900:
477:three ignorant monkeys
374:Overquote in citations
328:Lowercase sigmabot III
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
94:Knowledge (XXG) essays
873:
153:The above rating was
147:
380:Miscanthus giganteus
204:. The former page's
956:better, non-violent
252:provide attribution
210:provide attribution
1099:dispute resolution
149:
34:content assessment
1131:than Procrustes.
1091:which is not okay
1047:(in this sense),
335:
334:
258:
257:
216:
215:
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
1196:
1117:Murtaza.aliakbar
1103:Murtaza.aliakbar
1078:
999:Murtaza.aliakbar
908:Murtaza.aliakbar
898:
827:Murtaza.aliakbar
818:
810:
802:
794:
786:
778:
770:
762:
706:
640:
607:
469:WP:RSNOTICEBOARD
460:WP:WIKILAWYERING
330:
314:
270:
262:
237:
225:
224:
218:
195:
183:
182:
176:
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1169:
1168:
1149:
977:of a militant (
875:
812:
804:
796:
788:
780:
772:
764:
756:
753:
692:
634:
601:
584:
561:
455:
376:
340:
326:
315:
309:
275:
233:
222:
191:
180:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1202:
1200:
1192:
1191:
1186:
1181:
1171:
1170:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1062:
1011:
1010:
1009:
982:
963:
959:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
921:
920:
919:
918:
901:
871:
868:WP:BOMBARDMENT
857:
856:
767:Flyer22 Frozen
752:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
656:
655:
654:
653:
628:
627:
583:
580:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
495:
454:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
429:
428:
413:
412:
384:Chris Capoccia
375:
372:
371:
370:
339:
336:
333:
332:
320:
317:
316:
311:
307:
305:
302:
301:
277:
276:
271:
265:
256:
255:
250:now serves to
226:
214:
213:
208:now serves to
184:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1201:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:which is okay
1092:
1081:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
976:
974:
968:
964:
960:
957:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
917:
913:
909:
905:
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
872:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
832:
828:
823:
819:
816:
808:
800:
792:
784:
776:
768:
760:
750:
744:
740:
736:
732:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
652:
648:
644:
638:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
622:
618:
614:
611:
605:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
581:
579:
578:
575:
572:
571:
570:
558:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
496:
493:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
452:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
381:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
337:
329:
324:
319:
318:
304:
303:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
274:
269:
264:
263:
260:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
231:
227:
220:
219:
211:
207:
203:
199:
194:
189:
185:
178:
177:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1150:
1125:onomatopoeic
1121:derived from
1088:
1067:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
993:
989:
985:
972:
971:evokes only
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
874:
867:
863:
841:
824:
820:
815:WhatamIdoing
754:
735:Alfa-ketosav
708:
585:
568:
567:
562:
500:WhatamIdoing
456:
377:
345:Timtempleton
341:
322:
280:
272:
259:
230:this version
188:this version
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
1068:SMcCandlish
1031:superficial
1027:unwarranted
1019:superfluous
930:Nightscream
894:superficial
882:substantive
807:Nightscream
791:SMcCandlish
699:PrimeHunter
637:PrimeHunter
617:PrimeHunter
132:High-impact
62:High‑impact
1173:Categories
1040:boosterism
886:noteworthy
825:Thoughts?
437:MarydaleEd
98:discussion
975:parallels
759:QuackGuru
709:far-right
641:thanks!--
527:Trackinfo
514:WP:BEFORE
481:Trackinfo
458:attack.
453:Standards
360:PaulT2022
244:this edit
202:this edit
1157:Mathglot
973:harmless
878:overkill
717:Mathglot
518:WP:BLP1E
418:Blueboar
402:Primefac
397:WP:QUOTE
323:365 days
273:Archives
846:Bearcat
799:Melecie
783:Bearcat
701:, and
248:history
206:history
134:on the
1023:hyper-
994:N-bomb
990:F-bomb
775:Ktr101
695:Disoff
643:Disoff
633:Woops
604:Disoff
588:Disoff
574:(talk)
541:Kmhkmh
473:WP:GNG
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
1053:bluff
1035:boost
1015:over-
962:etc).
890:boost
465:WP:RS
242:with
200:with
28:This
1161:talk
1137:talk
1133:HLHJ
1123:and
1107:talk
1049:hoax
1045:pump
1003:talk
986:bomb
934:talk
912:talk
864:Bomb
850:talk
831:talk
755:cc:
751:Bomb
739:talk
721:talk
703:HLHJ
672:talk
668:HLHJ
647:talk
621:talk
592:talk
569:corn
545:talk
531:talk
523:WP:N
504:talk
485:talk
441:talk
422:talk
406:talk
364:talk
349:talk
159:data
126:High
1077:😼
1061:not
1057:tax
1043:),
884:or
842:why
566:AIR
351:),
232:of
190:of
1175::
1163:)
1139:)
1109:)
1065:—
1055:,
1051:,
1033:,
1029:,
1025:,
1021:,
1017:,
1005:)
992:,
936:)
914:)
852:)
833:)
811:,
803:,
795:,
787:,
779:,
771:,
763:,
741:)
723:)
715:.
697:,
674:)
649:)
623:)
615:.
594:)
547:)
533:)
506:)
487:)
443:)
424:)
408:)
387:💬
366:)
296:,
292:,
288:,
284:,
1159:(
1135:(
1105:(
1075:¢
1072:☏
1001:(
932:(
910:(
848:(
829:(
817::
813:@
809::
805:@
801::
797:@
793::
789:@
785::
781:@
777::
773:@
769::
765:@
761::
757:@
737:(
719:(
705::
693:@
670:(
645:(
639::
635:@
619:(
606::
602:@
590:(
543:(
529:(
502:(
483:(
439:(
420:(
404:(
362:(
347:(
298:5
294:4
290:3
286:2
282:1
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
