Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

:Perhaps… however, our MOS on citations says the citation style should be ''consistent'' throughout any given article. So (to play WIKILAWYER) if the ''other'' citations in the article all have blue clicky numbers, and the book citation doesn’t - that book citation needs to be amended to make it consistent with the others. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:Perhaps… however, our MOS on citations says the citation style should be ''consistent'' throughout any given article. So (to play WIKILAWYER) if the ''other'' citations in the article all have blue clicky numbers, and the book citation doesn’t - that book citation needs to be amended to make it consistent with the others. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

::And, they probably should—but it also talks about "challenged or likely to be challenged". If you're writing a plot summary, then one normally presumes that the work itself is the source, and it's unlikely, as long as it sticks to a simple description of the plot, that anyone would challenge it. On the other hand, interpretations of the plot, such as what Ahab and Moby Dick are supposed to represent or be metaphors for, are likely to be challenged and do require sourcing. And in some cases, if a particular work is well known to have a plot that's complex or difficult to follow, there probably should be more sourcing for the summary than just "I watched/read it and this is what it looked like to me", as in that case a particular interpretation probably ''is'' likely to be challenged. But for an episode of ''My Little Pony'', the work itself is probably plenty good enough. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]} 20:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)