Wikipedia talk:Citation templates

Sfn neglected

The section "Use in footnotes" starts with the sentence "For a citation to appear in a footnote, it needs to be enclosed in 'ref' tags." This gives the impression that REF tags are the only way. That is how I understood it, now a year ago, when I first learned to cite sources in Wikipedia. Clearly this is not the case as the Sfn template also generates a citation in a footnote. It took me a long time to discover Sfn, which I then preferred over the quite heavy-going REF.../REF for many reasons. I think the Sfn template, which Charlie Gillingham wrote in 2009, has still not found its deserved place in the Wikipedia documentation. - I might be wrong; perhaps most Wikipedians regret that Sfn was ever accepted and would like us all to exclusively use REF.../REF? Whatever might be the case, I do not want to edit this text without consensus and probably a newby like me is not the right person to do it. What do you all think of this? Johannes Schade (talk)

Adding a section to this How-To Guide dealing with the quote parameter in citation templates

As per this discussion, we do not currently have any documentation on the appropriate use of the quote parameter in citation templates. There is presently a "consensus" (of two) that something should be introduced. To avoid the burden of peppering all of our many citation template documentations with this, I'd like to suggest the addition of some text at this page instead.

The quote parameter in citation templates may be used to include short, directly relevant excerpts from a source to support article content. It is not typically used, but can provide clarity for verification around specific facts sourced to a lengthy text; to eliminate ambiguity around controversial, disputed, or extraordinary claims; or in cases when a source is not available online.

To comply with fair use, material in the quote parameter must not reproduce significant portions of the source — generally less than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate. In addition, material must be directly relevant to the content it's being used to support and the quote parameter must not be used to introduce extraneous or supplemental facts.

An example of appropriate use of the quote parameter is seen in endnote 5 of version 1295435336 of the Blankspot article.

Any thoughts? Objections? Edits? Chetsford (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Mostly looks good, except I don't really agree with the statement "generally less than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate." As I'm sure that other copyright editors would agree, when it comes to dealing with non-free content and fair use, as is the case with quotes, context and personal discretion is more important than "hard" guidelines. While I get what you're trying to do, I don't think attempting to set guidelines is such a great idea. I think it's much more important to note that context is important in these cases and discretion should be used. The4lines |||| (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood, The4lines. Do you think we should strike that passage entirely, or better clarify it, e.g.:

• "... significant portions of the source — generally less more than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate is inappropriate, but context is important and discretion should be applied."
• ... significant portions of the source (in some cases, editors have found up to 150 words of text to be appropriate, but context is important and discretion should be applied).

Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford, IMO, we should just strike that passage. There's no need to make editors think they have to keep their quote under 150 words or 10 percent. The4lines |||| (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Works for me! Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to this in the last four days, I will introduce the below passage (which represents what I drafted with The4lines's suggested edits) on Friday in the absence of any further discussion.

The quote parameter in citation templates may be used to include short, directly relevant excerpts from a source to support article content. It is not typically used, but can provide clarity for verification around specific facts sourced to a lengthy text; to eliminate ambiguity around controversial, disputed, or extraordinary claims; or in cases when a source is not available online.

To comply with fair use, material in the quote parameter must not reproduce significant portions of the source. In addition, material must be directly relevant to the content it's being used to support and the quote parameter must not be used to introduce extraneous or supplemental facts.

An example of appropriate use of the quote parameter is seen in endnote 5 of version 1295435336 of the Blankspot article.

Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done done as of this datestamp Chetsford (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Suggested modification to text: I'd like to suggest the following amendment to the just-added text at WP:QPARA. Add, after "not available online" the following:

In addition, sources that are not readily available to readers because they are off-line or behind a paywall may meet the requirements of WP:DYKCITE by providing "a direct quotation from the source". If an article is a WP:DYK nominee, the quote parameter can be used to satisfy this requirement.

(Ping The4lines.) Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done (due to lack of objection) Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford, apologies for the late response, I’ve been out of town. I know you’ve already added it but, this modification seems fine to add to the text. The4lines |||| (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template

Just a note to draw people's attention to a template I created recently: Template:Wikipedia Library access (alias TM:Twlac). I created it as a way to avoid the hassle involved in manually checking whether or not TWL has access to a particular source.

The idea is that regular (non-TWL) URLs and DOIs should be used in citations, to ensure that readers who don't have access to TWL (ie. the vast majority of readers) can access the ordinary link; this new template could then be tagged on to the end of the citation to direct any future editors with TWL access to an accessible version of the source. The template can take a URL, a DOI, or a JSTOR ID, and converts the input into TWL link format.

Markup	Renders as
{{Wikipedia Library access|https://www.example.com}}	Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

(See the documentation for further examples.)

I have very little prior experience of making or editing templates, so I'm very open to feedback and contributions to any aspects of the template that need improvement/could be made more efficient/etc.

On a broader scale, I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the template's suitability for being included in mainspace articles, as opposed to just on talk/project pages for instance. Given that such a tiny proportion of readers could make use of the link, is it actually beneficial to add this template to mainspace citations, or would it just confuse/distract readers? Should a feature be added to the template so that it only displays for auto- or extended-confirmed users—ie. the users for whom the template is most likely to be relevant? Or should the template be limited to use in non-article namespaces such as talk pages?

If anyone has any thoughts on these issues, or on any other aspect of the template, please feel free to share them on the template's talk page; I'm really keen to get an idea of the community's views on this! Thank you in advance! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:CT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 22 § Wikipedia:CT until a consensus is reached. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)