Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

UK numbers usable

User:Mark83, noted your revert here: [[1]], hence WP:BRD (though the added information wasn't really that B). So:

1. Is the information encyclopedic? I think this is accepted.

2. Is the information correct? I don't know, but a RS says it is. Can another editor shed any light?

3. The removed material is from a standard WP:RS, but in this instance you believe the source is wrong. Can you prove it, or are you arguing that the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I assume that it is not that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?

With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Number usable is not really of any encyclopedic value all fleets will have some aircraft in maintenance, short term or long term storage, it is not something we normally include in these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns here. On 1. - agreed.

2 and 3 are related. As I put in the edit summary I find the Daily Telegraph to be a good source normally, and have used it many times for other defence related topics. It's fair to raise WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In answer I am happy to state I do not have strong feelings on this article overall, or this specific issue, nor do I have any conflict of interest (not asked, but just for the record). I do however have concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the cited article and therefore on the potential to mislead readers of this article. As well as the comments on Typhoons the article has some falsehoods and many many gross oversimplications. But to focus on the issue at hand:

The article states "The RAF, too, is pitiably run down. Its main ability to make war today resides in just one combat jet, the disastrous Eurofighter Typhoon. This plane is so expensive to operate that just 98 of the 160 purchased are potentially flyable." So let's leave aside the fact that the author's contempt is blatant here. But just on the facts this is a gross oversimplification. In contrast, read this analysis from the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies:

" "On serviceability rates, the RAF is well within the top cohort of air forces around the world," Bronk said. "Modern combat aircraft are complex and maintenance intensive to operate," ...adding that "a regular deep maintenance/upgrade cycle for each airframe" is a standard fleet-management practice around the world. Having 55 of the service's 156 Typhoons in sustainment is normal, Bronk added, "and actually better than most comparable fleets in NATO and elsewhere."[2]

So if you are keen on including this "sustainment" vs "active" ratio, then in the interests of providing the full context you'd need to find and include the comparable servicability rates of all the other operators of the Typhoon? Germany has been reported as having much worse serviceability, e.g. [3] It would also be necessary to provide the context that this active vs sustainment number is a common measure. The author misrepresents it as unique to the RAFs Typhoons because in his view its a "disastrous" aircraft. Mark83 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hardly unique to have aircraft on maintenance, modification programmes, short or long-term storage, it would be of note if they were all flyable, again not really noteworthy for inclusion. 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also note the total fleet figures are way out in the business insider source as well, the RAF has just over 130 Typhoons so that makes the percentages generated wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Mark83 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that no fleet will have 100% serviceability, but what is noteworthy is the number of aircraft which are "in active fleet management, which can include aircraft in storage (to preserve airframe hours)" but excluding aircraft which are in the process of being disposed of. That information is available, so I will have a look and update the article accordingly, if indeed it is not up to date. Springnuts (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). Springnuts (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? Springnuts (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

While we wait for reliable source, FYI some have been canaballised for parts, [4] Mark83 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cockpit of RAF Typhoon Fighter MOD 45152531.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Tranche 5?

Some news sources are calling the latest Tranche Germany are buying Tranche 5 not Tranche 4. Should we add Tranche 5 to the Production Summary Table? 2A00:23C5:CFAA:AC01:54E3:DB43:2137:9491 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Tranche 5 is being used to refer to aircraft which have received the Long Term Evolution upgrade or built with it as new. The German order for 20 (which hasn’t been formally placed yet) would follow on from their 38 Tranche 4 (Quadriga) and be delivered in the 2030’s. WatcherZero (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The term "Tranche 5" appears in the article once. Shouldn't this be explained in some way? What does the "Long Term Evolution upgrade" include? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Adjust internal fuel capacity.

The Eurofighter DA7 flight manual is available in NATO countries legally, I have this manual and I can link people to this manual and they can access it legally depending on where they live.

The stated useable internal fuel capacity is 4756kg. You can find this in section 1 page 118 of the flight manual. I checked the current reference for this number in wiki and it's just some random website. Baring some other reference or other important information, I intend to change this to the flight manual figure of 4756kg. I am not looking to change the range figure at this time, as that depends on so many things.

Any thoughts on this? Liger404 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)4996

See WP:V. References need to be verifiable. A manual in your personal possession is not verifiable, but if you can provide a link that can be verified then that's good. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true. Citing books is allowed on wiki. Many articles have it. This article has it. Anyway, here is one example of where you can get the flight manual. https://archive.org/details/da-7-flight-manual-2003 Liger404 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Archive.org isn't a publisher. All you have there is something somebody uploaded there. We have no way of knowing whether it was uploaded with permission, or without. We have no way of knowing if it is authentic. We have no way to determine the copyright status. If we cite a book (or anything else) we provide a proper citation to the publisher, not just an archive link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Its all over the web, you can buy it, it's for sale. The publisher is Eurofighter GmbH. I don't really see how the copyright status is important, I'm not looking to print copies of the book, I bought it, I own it, I can quote a number from it. No different to how I own some James books and am allowed to quote them. https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/eurofighter-typhoon/ Liger404 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would ask you to consider the validity of my document Vs the current source of the fuel capacity number, and random web page. Are you fairly applying the same standard to both? Liger404 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that something that can only be accessed legally in some countries would qualify as being 'published'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

There are countries where you can't read much of anything, like North Korea. It can be read in basically all western countries. In reality it can be read in all countries, but the classification level is "NATO nations only.". Liger404 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The document you link is clearly marked 'NATO RESTRICTED'. Which is a (low level) form of classification, for "information the unauthorized disclosure of which would be disadvantageous to the interests of NATO". Which clearly isn't a statement that it is freely distributable in NATO countries. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You can read this and other material in the national archives in the UK. Although this manual is for the Italian aircraft. I also have documents for the sustained turn rate ect. I don't see how this information is invalid, but a random website with no source, which is the current source, is? Liger404 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course it can be considered published. "For Wikipedia's purposes, published means any source that is made available to the public in some form." For example, "A sign, billboard or poster displayed in a public location" is published as far as WP is concerned. A book uploaded to the Internet Archive is published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that fuel capacity may well have changed during development. The specifications section of the article really needs to make it clear what version is being referred to, and only give specs for that version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the DA7 is a fairly mature model. But I have never seen a number as high as the current number listed. Liger404 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The DA7 was a single development aircraft. See Eurofighter Typhoon variants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was the last one. Once the air fram was already finalised. Whilst some changes may have occurred, we have no record of that. Ask yourself, what is the source for the current number and is it of higher reliability than a known value for a prototype model? Liger404 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Its also on Eurofighters official website. "The intelligent computer-controlled fuel system ensures long-range, flexibility and safety. The maximum fuel capacity amounts 7,600kg". The drop tanks are 1000kg each, up to 3 of them. So that's 3,600kg internal fuel. The current figure is too high. https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft/features#:~:text=The%20intelligent%20computer%2Dcontrolled%20fuel,fuel%20capacity%20amounts%207%2C600kg. Liger404 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry bad maths, 4,600kg internal fuel. Liger404 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The article says "Up to 3 × 1000L drop tanks". Litres, not kilogrammes. The Eurofighter almost certainly uses JP-8, which is 0.775 – 0.840 kg/L. Taking the mean, that would make 2,422 kg for 3 tanks. Subtract that from the 7,600 kg total above, and you'd get 5,177 kg of internal fuel. A lot closer to the 4,996 kg our article currently states than the 4,756kg you are proposing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Find a source for the current figure that meets any of your standards, or change it to 5,177kg then. Because the current figure is literally from nowhere. Liger404 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to change it to 5,177 kg - doing so would constitute WP:OR. I was merely pointing out that your calculation was quite obviously wrong. As for sourcing, I agree that the existing source cited is questionable. It appears to be the work of a single individual (see [6]) very likely not WP:RS, and is cited in several places. Unfortunately, poor sourcing has been an endemic problem with Wikipedia military aircraft coverage right from the start. The solution to this, however, isn't to replace one poor source with another. For now, I'm going to tag citations to airpower.at as unreliable sources. At a pinch we could cite the official website figure of 7,600 kg total, though that isn't really very satisfactory, since it clearly includes drop tanks, but doesn't say how many. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well made points. With you on all of it. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The interpretation of subtracting 3000 from 7600 as WPOR is overly strict and not actually the intention of the rule. The rule was not created to force people to form Wiki from newspaper clippings. Nor were the rules created to stop people referencing books. Indeed the WPRS rules show you how to reference a book and this article is chock full of book and newspaper references from the 1990s. There is 3 of us here, let's find a fuel figure that has some merit and is as close to guidelines as possible.

I think if we take the official figure of 7600kg fuel, which they say is the maximum, it is fair and reasonable to say that is with 3 drop tanks. Much more fair and reasonable than a website that has no links, no affiliation, no nothing. And to some extent we have few alternative figures that are reliable.

Other available numbers exist in Janes (5,700L) which using your specific gravity number is 4,560kg or a maximum of 4,788kg. At work we use 0.8 for the specific gravity of JetA1, and that fits within the JP-8 range, but it moves with temperature, so you can never be sure. https://janes.migavia.com/inter/eurofighter/typhoon.html

Janes expresses low confidence in their number.

You guys should have a look yourselves, we can see what we can get together and make a most dependable number possible. You will find, that most online sources, are copying the Wikipedia specifications section, so watch out for that. Liger404 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

'janes.migavia.com' is clearly not the copyright holder for Janes content. We can't cite it, and shouldn't even link it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy I am starting to think you just like to say no to things. Are you going to actually help? You yourself said the current number is poorly sourced. Liger404 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

WE CANNOT CITE COPYRIGHT-VIOLATING SOURCES. This is non-negotiable. Find legitimate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

User:10mmsocket, I need some help from you two on the new fuel number. We are in agreement the current number is poorly sourced. You are also both in agreement that you are unhappy with my source. I have reviewed other aircraft pages and the fuel capacity is always listed in KG, so reporting it in litres seems incongruent. My current thoughts are to change the fuel capacity to "Internal 4,600KG, total including external stores 7,600kg." citing the sources from Janes and Eurofighter, using an intermediate specific gavity for the fuel (I checked and the RAF use JetA1, SAF and JP-8 which have a similar SG range). I thought about adding "approx" after the internal capacity, but no other page does this despite equally vague sourcing. Putting approx would be more accurate in terms of this page, but would otherwise not fit with Wikipedia and make the Eurofighter number seem unusually vague despite the number havening similar accuracy to other aircraft. Liger404 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Rule for Wikipedia is no original research, if you have a figure from an official source or an authorative source (like Janes) but its in a different unit without the ability to easily convert then you should just use that instead rather than trying to do your own maths to calculate what you think the figure could be. You also have to accept that when it comes to contemporary military equipment you will just have a lot of approximate or rounded figures or quite commonly 'in excess of' rather than exact figures. WatcherZero (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well we can easily convert, you multiply the fuel quantity in litres by 0.8 for Jet fuel, or use an online tool that does the same. That's all I am looking to do. I can report it in litres, but every other aircraft article has converted to KG, so I thought it best to remain consistent with wikipedia standard practice. Otherwise the Eurofighter will be the only aircraft listed in litres.

So with the internal value indeed being approximate, you do you think I should word it? This is what I have right now, to match the other articles. "Internal 4,600KG, total including external stores 7,600kg.", but that 4600kg number is approx from Janes. Liger404 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been told several times that we do not base article content on original research. And I have already pointed out that 3 x 1,000 litre drop tanks cannot hold 3,000 kg of fuel, which makes nonsense of your numbers anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You haven't had to do it repeatedly, I was happy to apply the specific gravity conversion the moment you pointed it out. And I have been clear that I do not consider a unit conversion "original research" and that you misunderstand the rule. Would you insist that making a biography height 6 foot from article stating 182.9cm is "original research"?

From the wikipedia rules "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates."

Now are you going to help or just say every number that exists isn't good enough? Because right now according to you we should delete all the fuel numbers on the page. Liger404 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not make nonsense of my numbers. The source I have is 5700L internal or 4560kg. The stated maximum from the manufacturer page is 7600kg. Whilst 3 drop tanks would have 2400kg in them, for a total of 6960kg, these are the sources we have. Feel very free to contribute a source. At this rate it's going to be time to delete the fuel number entirely as per your requirements. Liger404 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You aren't simply converting Metric to Imperial where both are units of mass, you are attempting to apply a formula to convert volume to mass where you have incomplete information on the volume in the first place 0.8X=A+3B where B = Y volume and X=Z Mass. And the 0.8 is an average at specific altitude and temperature. Even for the same blend of aviation fuel the specific gravity can vary by up to 20%, Temperature extremes from minus 40 to +40 Celsius alone can vary the specific gravity of the fuel by 15%. WatcherZero (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the method used in aviation and I have provided a government source for that. For your interest things like altitude and temperature do not apply, as all aircraft figures and specific gravity calculations are done using the international standard atmosphere, 15c and a mean sea level pressure of 1013.2hpa. All aircraft performance metrics are normalized to ISA in this way. Actual performance varies on a day to day basis, but the reference performance and limitations remain the same. Regardless this has become a moot point as we are now looking at using the figures from Janes and the Eurofighter website which are in KG. Liger404 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have a source that give the fuel capacity in kg then list it in kg, not litres. Having been involved in aviation in the past I know that smaller aircraft tend to talk about fuel load and fuel burn in terms of volume, but for military and larger commercial aircraft it's weight. Weight of is important because it helps with weight/balance calculations for things like takeoff. Also fuel volume varies according to temperature - remember an aircraft can takeoff at 35C and at cruising height it'll be -50C. And finally whenever a pilot declares an emergency they'll report fuel remaining by weight not volume. What I'm leading to is that if we have sources that give fuel capacity in weight then we put that same weight value into the article and don't bother with calculations. If we don't have a source then we don't give any figure at all. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If I had a source in weight I would give it to you, but I don't. I fly DHC8s, we use weight as well. We get refueled in volume (That's how the airline is charged) and then convert that to an expected weight and check the fuel gauges, which actually measure capacitance but convert that to weight. And it does move about a bit, up to 100kg. The Maximum fuel capacity of my aircraft is stated to be 2500kg, but normally when its warm you can only get 2450 or so on, because the tanks run out of volume. The actual composition of the fuel isn't 100% consistent as well. I have KG in my EF2000, DA7 flight manual, but you guys don't like that source. I have a couple of other sources but in L not KG. I keep asking for help getting the new number, but all I get is criticism that my number is imperfect. Well the current number is unsupported garbage, so even if we can't be perfect we can be pretty good and reach consensus if I could get some help rather than roadblocks. The only number we have in KG is the total number with external stores of 7,600kg. Liger404 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No we cannot 'reach consensus' on a number not directly supported by a source. WP:OR is core Wikipedia policy. It isn't open to negotiation. You don't get to replace somebody else's 'unsupported garbage' with your own 'unsupported garbage', just because you prefer one number over another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I already linked you to the WP:OR rules Andy. You are wrong. Again for clarity " "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age" Liger404 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You don't have "consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct". And you won't get it. You have already demonstrated that different sources give different figures. You have linked a (copyright-violating) webpage that states "Internal fuel capacity classified". Your 'conversion' is based on an unsourced approximation of density. We don't cherry-pick amongst sources, pull approximations out of a hat, and then call it 'routine'. It isn't, it is BS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Here's an example why you're right, and why calculated figures can be OR. Repsol's page on JP-8 fuel says "Density within the range of 6.47-7.01 lb/U.S. gallon (0.775 – 0.840 kg/L)" so the above 7,600 kg could translate to any number between 9,806 L and 9,047 L. Choosing just one of those numbers or somewhere inbetween wouldn't be a simple calculation, it would be OR, so shouldn't be used. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Choosing the 0.8 number in-between is industry standard practice, I didn't invent it myself. The reality is the fuel mass of the aircraft is not a constant number. If multiplying by 0.8 is not a "routine calculation" then nothing is. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The approximation is not out of a hat, its industry standard practice, you now appear to be complaining about different things. Sticking to the facts of fuel volume to mass calculations are done every day by pilots and they ARE and approximation, because exact fuel density exists within a range. The official number to use is 0.8. For now we can agree that the maximum fuel capacity is 7,600KG and that you are unwilling to give an internal fuel capacity? https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

What source are you proposing to cite for the capacity/mass of fuel in the 'external stores'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

We can use the manufactures page under fuel system. It lists the total capacity in KG. I am not intending to give a capacity for internal and external stores, just a total capacity as that's all we have. You have previously recommended this yourself " At a pinch we could cite the official website figure of 7,600 kg total, though that isn't really very satisfactory, since it clearly includes drop tanks, but doesn't say how many" https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft/features Liger404 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

So how exactly does your 'routine calculation' come into it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't come into this option. Thus avoiding your objections. Although I think you should consider how you conducted yourself when saying I had "pulled approximations out of a hat, and that this was BS" which was both rude and untrue. Liger404 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

User:10mmsocket Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1995-1996 page 187 lists the Eurofighter internal fuel load as 4000kg. So we can use Janes for an internal load of 4000kg and the Eurofighter website for a total maximum of 7,600kg. Liger404 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The Janes article says "internal fuel classified". The 4000 kg figure is 'approx'. Which makes it a poor source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the only source we have Andy, we have two approved sources, so you can choose. We put Fuel capacity as 7,600KG including external stores sourced to Eurofighter. Or Fuel capacity, Internal 4000kg approx, actual number classified, maximum fuel with external stores 7,600kg. Sourced from Eurofighter and Janes 1995. Liger404 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems we can also use Janes 2008 page 339, which states the internal fuel load at 4,500kg. Which reduces the somewhat glaring gap we have between the two numbers and does follow the wikipedia guide for using the most recent information available. Liger404 (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are specific 'approved sources' for this topic. As for the later Janes figure, Assuming you mean Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 2007-2008, it still says "WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS (approx)". We'd have to make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved as in meet Wiki rules and standards including as per our discussion.

Yes I mean Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 2007-2008, not a knock off website. I don't have a more recent addition and they cost a fortune, so that's all I have.

Yes I agree the weights are approximate but this is probably the best source we are going to find.

Your thoughts on;

"Fuel Capacity, Internal 4,500kg (approx)(ref Janes xxx), total including external stores 7,600kg (Ref Eurofighter xxxx)."

And then I will try to add the references the new way I have learned from the video and hopefully 10mmsocket will be happier with them and not have to fix them. Liger404 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You really don't endear yourself to others when you use bare URLs in the references that you add. That just leaves work for the rest of us to clean up after you. It would be really appreciated if you used properly formatted references consistent with those in the rest of the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't link you to Janes books mate, you have to buy them or get a copy from the library ect. Andy was already very unhappy that I linked a website using Janes material. Or if you are talking about the Eurofighter page, that links directly to where the fuel number is, I can't see what else you want? Liger404 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

What I mean is you just add the website as a reference with no title, publisher, date, access-date etc. as other editors do, and as I have had to to do clean up what you have posted. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I have gone and watched a video in the "Referencing for beginners" and will try to do better work. Keep in mind not everyone has years of experience, I am doing the best I can. I appreciate you fixing my errors. Just to clarify, are you talking about clicking the cite tool and filling out the box's that brings up? Liger404 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Or just do it manually by copying the way other citations are done. Thanks for your consideration. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a citation include a URL. A citation to a book often won't. See 'books' in Wikipedia:Citing sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: Liger404 has opened a thread at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard concerning this issue: [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)