Template talk:Leadcite comment

Suggested change

I think the text of this tag doesn't conform with MOS:LEADCITE, which states, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Maybe the text of this template should be more like, "Usually, no citations are required in the article lead per [[MOS:LEADCITE]], as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like {{cn}} to the lead unless you have a reason to do so other than just wanting a citation as in the body of the article, for example if you think certain material is controversial. If necessary, the tag {{not verified in body}} can be used, the content discussed or removed." Thinker78 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about modifying text of leadcite template

Should the text of the leadcite template be modified? Thinker78 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Context: Please read the above thread (Suggested Change) for rationale in support of the modification and also read the discussion "Request to change template's text" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. But comment here to keep the discussion in one place, per WP:SEETALK and because it is the most relevant talk page. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Current text: "No citations are required in the article lead per [[MOS:LEADCITE]], as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like {{cn}} to the lead. If necessary, {{not verified in body}} can be used, or the content removed."

Suggested text: "Usually, no citations are required in the article lead per MOS:LEADCITE, as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like to the lead unless you have a reason to do so other than just wanting a citation as in the body of the article, for example if you think certain material is controversial. If necessary, the tag can be used, the content discussed or removed." Thinker78 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) @Thinker78: Could you post your suggested version and current version in the RFC? Will be easier to compare. That said, I think it can be modified slightly, since we do need to cite material in the lead sometimes (for example, for material that is likely to be controvertial). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this change. This comment should not be mass-added to every article, only those where there is an issue with people removing content from the lead or adding pointless {{cn}} tags. Making this more ambiguous will make it far less effective. No citations are required in the article lead per MOS:LEADCITE is referring to the particular article this is added to, not to every possible article. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elli the problem with your take is that the guideline states that there are times where citations are required in the lead and it also states that the lead has no exception to the reliable sources policy. In addition, articles change, so the version that may not require citation may be different later on, requiring citation. Besides, telling editors that no citations are required in the lead is misleading. Thinker78 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, this should not be added to every article. This is usually added to articles which have a dedicated maintainer or are otherwise somewhat well-watched and well-written. You can search for the text of this template using the insource: modifier to see this yourself. This template doesn't prevent someone from adding citations to the lead, and an editor with an understanding of these policies will likely know when this does and doesn't apply and won't act solely based off of it. Your concerns here are unfounded. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that this template is not added to every article. But it is a notice placed on articles to deter editors from adding a citation. The template's text ignore that challenged edits also need a citation per the guideline and that its placement is the subjective opinion of an editor (correctly or incorrectly) that the lead doesn't need citations. Leads are not exempt from the reliable sources policy. Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"Challenged edits" do not need a citation in the lead, nor does MOS:LEADCITE say this. It is recommended to have inline citations for challenged material in general, but MOS:LEADCITE explains why citations in the lead aren't necessary in most cases (and again, the guideline is written more in favor of having citations in the lead than what is actually done in practice, and could use an update). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural close (Summoned by bot) – This Rfc should be closed now, for two reasons:
  • Failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE;
  • Unwise use of editors' time; there is a grand total of... counting... hang on, still tallying the numbers.... a grand total of one article that uses this template.

There is no problem here that needs attention by Rfc; work it out between the two of you, and stop wasting valuable volunteer time. When there are a few hundred articles using the template, and an actual, intractable dispute requiring the attention of multiple editors, *then* start an Rfc. Please withdraw this Rfc and continue discussion below. (You can withdraw it by just removing the Rfc template at the top of the section; see WP:RFCCLOSE point #1.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this shouldn't be an RfC. But also, realize that this template is supposed to be subst'd, so the real way is to do an insource check. SWinxy (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I did check RFCBEFORE. I just didn't seek third opinion or use the noticeboard, but posted in this talk page and went to a wikiproject. Thinker78 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)