`  :::::::If the source is fabricated, by which I take it you mean the information isn't actually supported by the source being cited rather than the source not actually existing, that's a whole other kettle of fish. In that case replace the cite with a , or simply remove both cite and cited information. But if the information is indeed in the source then I simply can't agree that a poor citation is worse than no citation. A poor citation is at least a step up from ``we have no idea if this was just dreamed up out of thin air.`` Frankly, I'm still convinced that the article's quality has been damaged by this and I can't really understand the position the rest of you guys are taking on the talk page - it seems to have shifted several times and none of them make sense. But I'm tired of this one little detail, so whatever. I've got lots of other things to work on instead. Just please bear in mind next time you encounter a citation that has a wikilink in it that it might actually be citing the named source itself rather than the Wikipedia article about that source.  `