Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New Category

Because this template is used to flag specific unsourced statements (as opposed to general ones that are much harder to fix) it should include a category other than Category:Articles with unsourced statements and the dated subcategories. I propose Articles with specific unsourced statements and the associated dated sub categories. Because the change can be made in the template, this will not affect the bots that currently add dates to it. --Selket ^Talk 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We already have a huge backlog of Category:Articles with unsourced statements and others populated by the {{unreferenced}} template and other templates anyway; there's no need to add to that. What little difference would there be, and what would we gain, from separating {{unreferenced}} from {{citation needed}} when they already have the same category and the same purpose? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't Unref uses Category:Articles lacking sources. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Because it's a lot easier to fix an article with one unsourced statement. Often times, if the statement has been there for more than a few months it should just be deleted. This would help the backlog at Category:Articles with unsourced statements since the simple ones can be cleaned up simply. Compare the following: Alan Turing Building needs a citation for "The Alan Turing Building was designed with substantial input from the mathematicians," but is otherwise a well sourced article. It would be very easy for someone with a few minutes to either locate a reference or conclude that one doesn't exist and delete the sentence. Compare that to Arnolt with the tag at the top. This article has more systematic problems and will take considerably more work to fix. --Selket ^Talk 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Refimprove}} is available - {{Citations missing}} is only used on about 4-5,000 articles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 82.31.4.115, 25 September 2010

{{edit protected}} ARGAN: Argan oil is, for example, used in soap such as that made in France by Maison du Savon of Marseille. The 'Artisanat de Provence' product 'Huile d'Argan', is a green coloured, sweet scented block hand soap.

82.31.4.115 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I believe you are looking for Argan oil. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.193.24.166, 30 September 2010

{{edit protected}} In place of the [citation needed] at the reference to the Orion Society in the Place-Based Education article, please substitute: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/education/item/3539/

69.193.24.166 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is the wrong place for requesting changes to articles; it is the page for discussing the {{Citation needed}} template. Please raise this matter on the discussion page of the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording changes

There's been a good discussion about this template at the verifiability talk page. Some questions have been raised about how we might reduce misuse of the cn template. I've worked up couple of suggestions, the first of which is to replace the sentence "Claims that you think are wrong may alternatively be tagged with {{Dubious}}" with a paragraph:

The {{cn}} template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. Other templates are available for other or more specific issues, see the list of inline templates. For example, claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with {{Dubious}}, and those which represent a non-neutral view should be tagged with {{POV-statement}}. Being specific about the nature of the problem will help other editors correct it.

Does this seem a reasonable change to others? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but incomplete... the {{cn}} tag is not limited to situations where there is a question of verifiability... it can also be used in situations where an editor thinks the unsourced information is verifiable, but also thinks it should be actually verified (ie where there is no real question as to the verifiability). The {{fact}} tag, on the other hand, is more appropriate when there is a question. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I've amended the text. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That works IMO, with the change Blueboar requested. The folks over at the WP:V discussion seem worried about cn tags being used to highlight POV. If a POV tag would be better in some case, I'm all for it. They also seem worried about plagerism, but no tag documentation will help that. Novaseminary (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are saying that the {{cn}} tag is not linked to a question of verifiability then sometimes it is being used where WP:BURDEN applies and sometimes it isn't. I think one would need to distinguish the cases and the only way of doing that is by providing a reason. Perhaps the template can be thought of as a general tag where the user can put in a reason to make it specific, but without a reason BURDEN is not automatically assumed. Currently the description says 'used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source', the 'questionable' means the original intention was that it only apply to cases where WP:BURDEN seems to apply.. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But WP:BURDEN is part of a policy (WP:V), so it always applies, whether a tag has been ADDED or not. BURDEN does not only apply when a fact is thought to be wrong, either, especially on BLPs, for example. We should immediately delete anything derogatory from a BLP without a good RS, even if we are nearly positive the information is correct. The tag merely gives somebody a chance to add a source before a deletion brought on by BURDEN in cases where the fact and timing are not such a big deal. I would just remove the word "questionable" or go with what was proposed above. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are saying on the one hand that you agree with the current description that 'citation needed' is properly described as being applicable when a statement is questionable and therefore falls under BURDEN as requiring an inline citation or risks being deleted. Yet on the other hand you support that it be applied to cases where the facts are not questionable but just somebody thinks some citation would improve the article and isn't questioning a statement. If a person isn't questioning a statement then surely they are wrong to apply something that is for questionable statements? For instance would you support that log(a)+log(b) = log(ab) being tagged with citation needed and no reason given and threatened with deletion under BURDEN because there wasn't a citation locally even though there were lots of general citations about the properties of logarithms in the article? Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does burden mention anything about "questionable" facts. It says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The rest of it addresses timing (when it is immediately appropriate to remove text and when it might be better to tag and wait). It applies to all facts. In one place this cn tag does mention questionable, which is why, if anything, I would remove "questionable" to make the tag consistent with burden. If you think it would clarify, I would change WP:CHALLENGE to indicate that for the purposes of V, asking for a source triggers the "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" language requiring an inline citation because the person is asking for the evidence to support the fact. Novaseminary (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a change in wording to the suggestion above? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. I like it. We also, instead or in addition, could remove "questionable" from the first sentence descrioption on the top of the template: "is a template used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source." I would also delete the phrase: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require reliable sources for common facts" since V does nto actually say that, and it raises all of the common knowledge problems discussed at V's talk. Novaseminary (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So instead of readjusting your stand on verifiability to conform with what's written here and at verifiability you want to rewrite this template so this template can be extended to all sorts of situations it wasn't meant for and you want to say that any use automatically invokes WP:BURDEN and requires an inline citation? Well that's a great addition to the army of people like the one about the logs going around following some style guide and tagging sentences in articles left right and centre even when there are general citations providing verifiability. They don't question the verifiability, they just stick in tags and that's what you say is okay. Verifiability says 'challenged or liable to be challenged' challenged means questioned - not that a tag was stuck on to try and conform with a style guide. Sentences should not be removed because someone has tagged a sentence that a citation for the particular article would make the style better. That should be a 'citation wanted' template if anything. Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I, and I think others, would like to conform this non-policy template explanation with the current policy at WP:V. Would you prefer text is just deleted immediately if an editor thinks it should have a source? One definition of "challenge" is "a demand to explain, justify, etc." By tagging a fact for a source, that is exactly what an editor is doing. Which of the definitions of challenge supports your view that challenge means to assert something is not true? Why must an editor think a fact is untrue to "challenge" it? V does not say “challenge the veracity of a fact” or anything like that. I see this tag as saying the following, but in the nice short words of "citation needed": An editor thinks this assertion of fact should have a citation. As always, per WP:BURDEN, this fact may be removed because it lacks such a citation. If it is removed, as always, it is the burden of the editor seeking to reinsert the text to add an inline citation to show that the claim meets WP:V. So, please view this as a helpful hint and a nice request to add an inline citation. Sourcing material is very important on Wikipedia. Thank you." I think "Citation needed" fits better. I don't see it as such a problem. Novaseminary (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So you think that asking for a citation for something when you have no trouble with the actual statement and there is a general citation is challenging a statement and approve of removing such statements if an inline citation is not provided for them. This obviously needs to be decided at WP:V. Dmcq (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I'm sorry, but I'm not quite following you. Do you have a problem with the suggested wording? And if so, could you suggest an alternative? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I would probably not ask for a citation about something I "have no trouble with", but I suspect I have a problem with far more unsoruced "facts" than you do. OR is a real problem, and I've seen too much stealth vandalism (innocuous looking, totally made up or inaccurate information). And I am not sure what you mean by "general citation". If the fact is covered by a "general citation", it isn't hard to turn that into an inline citation. And I don't want to have to argue about whether a "problem" is legitimate enough, when V requires inline citations. Novaseminary (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, are we talking about edits like this as "any material challenged" here? Anomie⚔ 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I addressed the exact issue with this edit to the V discussion. While I am sympathetic, I do not want to encourage discussion about what is common knowledge and what isn't. The encyclopedia would be (very slightly) better off if even that fact had a source. And rather than go through BRD to discuss it, why not add the source? Any change to head off those sorts of pedantic insertions is bound to lead to either many, many pointless discussions or to editors holding back from tagging things that we can agree should have a tag/source. If we have to error on one side, it should be on the side of sourcing facts "everyone knows" and not allowing facts that might seem ok, but in fact, are dead wrong. Novaseminary (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The more pedantic side of me can see why I might tag the five finger assertion as needing a citation. When I read that line, the use of the word "normally" stands out. I would have changed that to "typically", since, IIRC, some forms of polydactyly are due to dominant yet rare genes, and normally has felt like a weasel word of sorts to me for many years. However, if that were tagged for citation, I would have just provided a reference and worked from there. Not being familiar with that article, was there some protracted discussion regarding that sentence? It seems to me that the tagged was removed a few days later, and I don't see any discussion on the talk page about it. At first blush it appears that one editor thought is need a citation, another disagreed, and the community passively accepted the latter point of view. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying it is acceptable to go to revert discuss about even a fact tag when the policy says that the statement must be cited since it has been challenged? Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, faced with the tag, I would have found a source and cited it--I think that's what WP:BURDEN points to as the desired outcome. My point about what other editors did in this case is just that apparently it was not considered a big deal either way--I see no discussion about the issue in the history, much less any strife over it. I don't really think though that mere use of the cn template constitutes a challenge. Also, can you point me to the policy that says "the statement must be cited since it has been challenged" or one that says use of the cn template is a challenge? WP:BURDEN places responsibility for providing a source on the person wanting it to remain, but in this particular case the IP that tagged the statement did not return to restore it, nor to talk about it on the talk page, nor to delete the material. I think within strict policy they could have done any or all of those things, and clearly at that point WP:BURDEN would require a source be found and cited. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That all seems right to me. The more I think about it, the less I think it matters whether a cn tag is a "challenge" or not for the reasons I tried to articulate with this edit at the V discussion. It is not as if one meets BURDEN once text is deleted by arguing that something was not challenged properly by invoking dubious vs. cn. Somebody can take it however they want if I add a cn tag, but if a source is never provided and I delete the claim, they will have to provide one. And if I am fine with the fact remaining in, but think an inline citation is better, there is nothing wrong with a tag remaining there until I or somebody else gets a chance to insert one. Of course, to me, a dubious tag would indicate that somebody thinks that fact is wrong and is probably more likely to quickly remove it. Regardless, BURDEN applies once it is removed. Novaseminary (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the positions described by Novaseminary and Nuujinn. They more or less match my understanding of what I intend when I place a {{citation needed}} tag. If it helps here is how I use the various tags:

{{clarify}} - when I do not understand what is being claimed, or to point out an ambiguity; I sometimes add a "reason=cite would be useful" because, well, a cite might clear up the confusion.

{{citation needed}} - simply when I feel the claim needs a source for verifiability purposes; I am usually ignorant or indifferent as to whether the claim is true or not. I sometimes add this tag when I see an editor changing an unsourced date or other statistic: with no cite I have no way of knowing if that change was correct. Likewise I might add the tag if that change was reverted - because a cite might have avoided the edit.

{{dubious}} - when I have grounds for believing the claim is false; I sometimes give the reason in the tag and/or on the talk page. I probably could not find a reliable source for the claim. The claim might have been contrary to my original research, but again with no source.

Finally I read a little starting at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Trying to keep on subject here (but ignored the giant TLDR section above), but got confused with mentions of {{cn}}} and {{fact}} as if they were different: I thought they were both redirects to {{citation needed}}. -84user (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In regard to your last point, yes, they are the same. For what it's worth, I agree with your points, and I think you usage of the tag is a good outline of, shall we say, non-confrontation and appropriate usage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, too. I think the changes proposed in this section just make these views even more clear. I am probably for any change that is consistent with 84's summary and probably oppose any that would contradict it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the distinction between the {{fact}} tag and the {{cn}} tag... yes they both currently redirect to {{citation needed}} and thus are supposed to be identical... But I don't think this reflects how the two tags are actually used. Most editors use a {{cn}} tag when they think the unsourced statement is likely to be correct (ie to say: I think this is correct, but I think it needs to be sourced), they use {{fact}} tags when they are unsure if the statement is correct (ie to ask: "is this a fact?"), and {{dubious}} tags when they are sure the statement is incorrect (ie to say: "I don't think this is correct").

Or, to put it another way, I think most editors see a progression, and treat the {{fact}} as a midway point between a mild request for citation (the {{cn}} tag) and a strong demand for a citation (the {{dubious}} tag). Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the vast majority of the discussion on this has occurred at wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.141.152.14, 1 January 2011

{{edit protected}} Most of this article is about frictional and not structural unemployment - very misleading for academic use.

86.141.152.14 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This is the talk page for the citation needed template. Perhaps you are looking for Talk:Unemployment? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Reference necessary

It seems that discussion has recently died out regarding these two templates. Is there any more work to be done before merging them? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A more elaborate example please

Hi. Could someone please introduce a second example that demonstrates the use of both the date and the reason parameters (assuming that is possible). Thanks.  GFHandel.   20:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Siddharth9200 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Please add [[hy:Կաղապար:Փաստ]]. Thanks, --80.86.239.146 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected request by Windowsfan1219

{{edit protected}} fix the c in citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windowsfan1219 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be "fixed" about it? Anomie⚔ 14:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on "date" parameter

Is this supposed to be the date that the claim was added to the Wikipedia article, or the date that the "citation needed" itself was added? —Merc64 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The date that the "citation needed" itself was added. Anomie⚔ 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.206.158.39, 3 April 2011

{{edit protected}}

There are factual errors in the history page. Krispy Kreme history is available at http://www.krispykreme.com/about-us/history

71.206.158.39 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for your request. You probably want Talk:Krispy Kreme. If you can figure out how you wound up posting this request here instead of there, please let us know. Anomie⚔ 13:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.100.2.55, 17 April 2011

http://hs.forestlake.k12.mn.us/activities/athletics/ 70.100.2.55 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You probably want to use that link to reference a fact on a related article, not ask for this template to be changed. Killiondude (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Frank Harman, 7 May 2011

I noticed that there is a (citation needed) by Emerson Wilson name. I am not sure what is needed. As I stated he was named and played on the high school All American team in 1952. A picture and write up of the game was in the Memphis Tenn newspaper. He played football for the University of Colorado and was a High football coach for many years. There is an article in the Kansas City Star remembrances section October 30, 2010 which tells of his achievements. At Wyandotte he was All City, All Sunflower, All State and to my knowledge the only Wyandotte football player to be named to the High School All American Team. If you need any more information please contact me thank you Frank Harman Frank Harman (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not need an edit to the template. Please ask your question at the WP:Help desk, where other volunteers will help you with this issue.  Sandstein  18:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

eldeflowers aint pink innit

so when i go to tescos and get me some elderflower drink, its white/yellw or clear so elderflowers aint pink innit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.123.60 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Prevent substitution

I'd like to apply this sandbox change to the template. It prevents this template from being substituted, in that it substitutes to the template's transcluded form:
{{subst:Citation needed}} → {{Citation needed| date=June 2010}}
(the date is filled in automagically if omitted).
The same change was applied yesterday to {{dn}}.
Any objections?
Amalthea 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed reason in title parameter

If the title parameter of the generated link could be set then it could be used to show the reason when a mouse is hovered over it. Currently it is set to "Wikipedia:Citation needed" which is what it links to, this isn't terribly useful. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post here to that effect myself. Appending the reason= parameter to the template title would be great. If that's not acceptable for some reason, perhaps someone can come up with another one. In any case, opening the article for editing and searching for the template, while not exactly arduous, is enough trouble for someone who might otherwise tackle the problem to move on to something else. Rhsimard (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo of St Marys Church, Kothamangalamis wrongly tagged

Referring to Kothamangalam details, I have found that photo for Mariyam Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Cheengeri, Meenangadi, Malabar Diocese is wrongly named as "St Marys Church, Kothamangalam".

Since there is no link to edit the same and not sure how to go about it. Can some one take the initiative to correct the same?

Regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgethekkumpurath (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you're in the wrong place but that's fine. You didn't provide links to the image or the article, so it would be difficult for someone to help from this. The first thing to figure out is whether the text in question is from the article or from the image. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Battleship Potemkin Russia

Wikipedia says Potemkin was turned into scrap. I photographed ship allegedly the Potemkin in 2007 in St Petersburg harbor. I can attach photo, if requested Tony Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.84.77 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Vern Law

Vern Law did not attend Provo High School. He did help coach the baseball team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.52 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of the article itself is the place to discuss and you can always edit the page yourself. Please try and find a reference to your information ((see WP:CITE) and put that in too. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zambujeira do mar Face book page.

I dispute the comment in facebook that Amalia Rodriges the Fado singer Had a summer house in this vilage. "Zambujeira do mar" In fact the summer house was near Brejao and Azenha do mar fishing harbour on the coast overlooking a beach with the same name as the singer itself. "Praia da Amalia. I do certify this as a accurate information as I did know Amalia and her husband in person. And in case of doubt please do contact the authorities of Camara municipal the Odemira.

I did cite this info as i was browsing around and found this to be related to Wikipedia posting on show in Facebook.

Regards. Jose C

Jcarrao@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.12.146 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fork me, 5 September 2011

Please remove the various citation neede tags in the Personel section. Citations (to the clubs website) have been added. Thanks. Fork me (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fork me (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have no idea to which article you refer. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go back to the article in question, and raise the issue on its talk page. Anomie⚔ 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to anyone else watching this page, you may find WP:VPR#Add the ability to override the default "this page is protected" edit notice interesting. Anomie⚔ 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeline for Citations

Based on the information on the template page, except in certain cases information which requires citations have no specific deadline. I would like to inquire as to why this is the case; would it not make sense to delete any information regardless of the topic until it can be cited? I realise this means that many articles would be incomplete or possibly stubs all of a sudden, but would this not also help Wikipedia strengthen its focus on the need for citations? MatRockswell (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is due to a recognition that we will not be finished with WP anytime soon. Individual editors vary in how they approach this kind of issue. If information appears to be correct but simply lacks a citation, we can take some time to get that part done. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up, I appreciate the reasoning behind your answer. However, could it not prove problematic if citations are not provided within a timely manner? As this is an effort on Wikipedia's part to improve reliability, would uncited information left for a potentially indefinite amount of time not hinder said reliability? Would it not help editors to have a timeline for all citations, such thirty days? That way, other contributors who have access to sources the original contributor did not may be able to provide the necessary citations. Another option, timeline or not, may be to have a running list of articles requiring citations. This would allow people such as myself who are new to Wikipedia and want to contribute, but are not yet ready to write articles from scratch, provide valuable information while gaining experience. Just some food for thought. MatRockswell (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:PEREN#Require inline citations for everything, which could be equivalent to this proposal with the attitude of some drive-by taggers. A list of all articles tagged is at Category:All articles needing additional references, and subdivided by month and year tagged at Category:Articles needing additional references. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I will see what help I can contribute. However, I think you missed the point of my questions. I was not so much concerned about citing everything as I was the lack of a timeline nor did I suggest deleting an entire article but rather the offending sentence(s). However, the link you provided did link me to WP:There is no deadline which was a great read and while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand the rationale behind this now. Thank you both for your feedback on this. MatRockswell (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you were concerned about citing everything, but there are those who will do almost nothing but go around looking for statements to add {{cn}} to without themselves bothering to even look for a reference. Combining that with a time limit for adding references and IMO you have a very bad situation. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. That could definitely lead to a major problem with Wikipedia. Once again, thank you for helping me better understand this policy. MatRockswell (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish template

It has an optional argument where you put the text string that you want the notice to follow, while you add the actual template to the end of the sentence/paragraph/article so as not to clutter up the text with quibbling.
Interesting gimmick. Did we have it and reject it? Varlaam (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The DMSM precedence I believe according to DoD websites is immediately above the bronze star and not the air medal as indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.235.134 (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing flag

The flag: "This claim needs references to reliable sources from December 2011", is terribly confusing. I propose this be changed to "This claim, {{{date|}}}, needs references to reliable sources". How this is done is another matter maybe better discussed on Template:Fix's talk page if necessary. Otherwise if you don't see anything wrong with it explain to me why I can get the impression that the source must come from December 2011 out of my head? :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 07:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say, this needs to be fixed in {{fix}}. I've opened a discussion at template talk:fix#Date formatting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 05:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brackets in the 'citation needed' supertext

Reference links include the opening bracket, the number, and the closing bracket in the hyperlink, like so: ^[1]. In (and company), the brackets aren't included as part of the link. Is there a decent reason for this? BreachReach^talk 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably just the preference of whoever created the template. This and other templates use {{fix}}, which is where you really need to ask your question. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. BreachReach^talk 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed ??

9/11 tribute songs andrew john ayres

Andrew John Ayres is a UK based Singer/Songwriter from Staffordshire UK His poetic and moving Song Grey Skies in September has had numerous positive reviews though out the world The actual song was recorded in Weston, Staffordshire in 2003 .Although no percussion is used on the actual track, Ayres brings vocal and guitar and acoustic piano to this song to make what is widely accepted as a true heartfelt 9/11 tribute song.

Amazon.com lists as http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grey-Skies-In-September-Single/dp/B005DNVVFM

citation needed Dont know how to paste this guys .. help please ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionsuk (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

sexual dimorphism

Adult cockatiels are not sexually dimorphic, though several colorations (not all) indicate the likelihood of one sex or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.130.190 (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the tempolate 'ciutation needed', not cockatiels r anything like thgat. Click on the 'Talk' tab of whatever article you meant to put this comment on and add it there. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The citation needed at Sándor Gaál is: Teofil T. Vescan: Fizica teoretica, Bucuresti 1957, vol. I, page 270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miholcsa Gyula (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Person seems to have founbd the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading mouse-over text

The mouse-over text of this template, and of others either invoking it directly or having been developed from it, is: "This claim needs references to reliable sources from [month + year]". I suspect it is meant to be: "This claim needs references to reliable sources since [month + year]." Should this be changed in {{Fix}} or somewhere else? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion at Template talk:Citation needed span#Reword? although the proposed amendment differs slightly. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(citation needed) instead of the template

Quite a few pages have literally "(citation needed)" instead of the template.

I will see if an edit filter can check to see if new attempts can be stopped and if a bot can update the existing examples. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also variants on that, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed this to a large extent using AWB. It will still need constant vigilence, however. What is worse is occasionally people have been adding [[fact]] instead of {{fact}}, and although these can be found in the list of what links to fact, not many of these links are wrong... Mark Hurd (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am continuing to change these with AWB, but some of them (the ones of the form of [citation needed]) are signs of the text being copied from somewhere else. Because that "somewhere else" is likely to be Wikipedia (or some Wikimedia project) I have mostly not followed this up even though it can be slightly problematic. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the example is out of date?

As is mentioned in section 3 of this page:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it: immediately remove it.

which means a dubious claim about Humphrey Bogart would be deleted now, if he were alive, rather than having {{citation needed}} added. I don't have time at the moment to just change it myself, however I suggest an unlikely fact about an inanimate object that is true, but makes sense it needs a citation, like "The maximim number of moves needed to return a Rubik's Cube to its original position is 20 moves." (God's number) Mark Hurd (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tooltip

Is it possible to have the tooltip display the "reason=" parameter instead of the standard message? This would be far more useful. "reason=" would also be useful on {{dubious}}. SpinningSpark 17:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unverified information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed change of the banner wording from "citation needed" to "unverified information" -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The current wording ("citation needed") is a inter-editor maintenance message requesting a citation, and as such is a piece of Wikipedia jargon (internally efficient shorthand) borrowed from academia. "unverified information" would be a more meaningful warning to the general readership of Wikiepdia articles. My proposed change would only be to the banner displayed, the template could keep the same name, and the link can either remain the same or be changed to link to WP:INCITE (a distinct and separate issue). -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with the concerns by PBS, "unverified information" is more meaningful warning to readership of Wikipedia articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I think the idea is for {{cn}} to be something for editors only. Saying unverified info may be considered a disclaimer, which is a big no-no per WP:DISCLAIM. I don't dislike your idea at all actually, but I don't think it would go through... Cheers! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think the current language does a better job of indicating the issue (this data needs a cite). I'd also argue that it implies the other material in the article _is_ verified, which is not what we are going for. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's a bit late in the day for this. [citation needed] has entered the popular technical lexicon; the proposed wording isn't so much clearer as to present a definite advantage anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a work in progress so it is never too late in the day. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• The current language is a request for action, while the proposed language is a disclaimer. The word choice for the disclaimer would be understood to the experienced Wikipedian as a threat for removal per WP:V, which is already implied to the same audience with the current language. To the unexperienced reader/editor the current langauge "citation needed" is a call for action. Any encouragment to add references is a good thing. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "citation needed" is shorter and more descriptive and easier understood by others (and not just wikipedia editors). Changing the name would just confuse people more. WTF? (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It would not confuse the readership, editors make up only a fraction of the people who view many page, and most editors would quickly adapt to the new (to borrow an word used lower down the page "iconic" phrase. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as that means something completely different than "citation needed", which itself is very direct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Uh, no. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose current template makes it clear what is needed. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see your point, but I think most people understand what "citation needed" means. Plus, I think it encourages new editors to make their first edit and fix the lack of citations. (I think one of my first edits on WP was to fix such a problem). —JmaJeremy✆✎ 19:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry. The underlying idea seems good. Citation needed is a request and addresses editors. Unverified is a note to the reader. Unfortunately, readers may not know the difference between unverified, and verifiable but has not been verified.. There is an issue which PBS may be trying to address and that is while "citation needed" addresses the needs of an article, how do we alert the reader to information that may be inaccurate.(olive (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose - Keep it short and too the point. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: neither wording nor link proved to be problems previously. The current caption not only highlights the problem (as well as the proposed one), but also reveals the path to solving this problem without following the link. (I actually never saw the current target page before.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Without research such as A-B user testing, we can't know that the current wording has not been a problem previously. It could be that many readers, who might add a citation if the wording were clear, do not do so, because the meaning of the current wording is unclear to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite the opposite: in the lack of complaints we may safely assume lack of problems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, the proposed wording is particularly misleading for Wikipedia readers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's concepts: it implies, that other information is verified and known to be true, which is not necessarily so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support rewording but discuss optimal solution. The current wording is horrible jargon. Even "reference needed" would be better. We really need a call to action (which, contrary to the claim above, the current wording is not), to encourage new and timid editors; perhaps "please provide a reference", though that's a bit long. Perhaps "please cite"? Keeping the current wording because it's a meme within the Wikipedia community is a really bad reason to do so. Ask yourselves: if we were making this template for the first time, today, what would we say?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• "unverified information" fails for several reasons, mentioned above. I think "please cite" is much better. While at it, the balloon popup text ought to be changed; "This claim needs references to reliable sources from <month> <year>" is just to weird for words. This phrase seems to come from {{Fix}} which is presumably used by other templates, so it might be a bit tricky to modify. If a way to fix the template {{Fix}} can be found, I suggest that "This claim needs references to reliable sources since <month> <year>" would be better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It needs additional clarification and parentheses: "This claim needs references to reliable sources (noted since <month> <year>)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the simple fact that "citation needed" is deeply embedded into the culture. Everyone knows what it means, and it gets thrown around as a riposte for unsupported claims all the time, in many non-Wikipedia contexts. "Unverified information" would lead to confusion, with people thinking it was a different type of tag. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the current wording attracts citations better. That's what we want - people to edit and improve our content. --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Better than what? Based on which evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Citation needed" has cultural meaning and the presented alternative is not better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above, specifically Hobit, and per XKCD[1]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Citation needed" is a widely recognised term (eg: here, here, here, here, here and here), and has become colloquially synonymous with "I don't believe you" or "Yeah right". Even if there was concern about its suitability when it was introduced, that's now gone away by its familiarity. Renaming it would, in my view, confuse a wide selection of casual Wikipedia readers, many of whom have never edited the encyclopaedia. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If it's 'colloquially synonymous with "I don't believe you" or "Yeah right"', then it's certainly not appropriate for our intended use here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • More importantly, I think it's synonymous with "prove it". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming, therefore, you agree with everything else I've written though, yes? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • If you tell me that that's your view, I accept that that's your view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I've pushed an old userspace draft by Andrew Gray into mainspace "citation needed". This is notable jargon, and it is becoming well understood. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the current text is well understood, but what would be good is to have the unreferenced text underlined to show what information needs sourcing. It is done on the French Wikipedia. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That was proposed about two years back, but was abandoned (see Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 9#Revival of Merge Discussion down to the bottom of the archive). There are, however, {{Reference necessary}} which uses a dotted underline, and {{Citation needed span}} which uses a pink box rather than underlining. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, I used one of those once to highlight several pieces of text, and my edit was instantly reverted as pointy. The next edit (by the same user) placed {{refimprove}} as not so pointy template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Why not add it as an optional parameter here? Also, it doesn't seem pointy to a point where reverting should be done. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I was doing GA review, so it wasn't pointy at all — I just marked the work to be done while article is on hold. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposed change causes a subtle change in meaning, making a stronger statement about the information's potential accuracy. I do not see that change as desirable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - current phrasing more precise. Proposal raises potential spats over verifiability vs. "truth". Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Brrrr... where's my scarf? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Citation needed already has a specific understood meaning. Dan653 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but it does give the appearance that information has been vetted even when it hasn't and does seem like a disclaimer. While CN may seem to be the equivalent, it simply states that a source is needed here, not that it is unverified which carries the assumption other material IS verified. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per several comments above; leaving aside the subtly different implications of the phrase, "citation needed" is one of the few parts of the Wikipedia editorial mechanism that our readers really seem to understand! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed change would make the template a bit ambiguous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the new wording at least--the existing template is not used for all unverified information, but largely for contentious unverified information. Prefer something that's a call to action, and I'm more with Chris Cunningham here in believing that there is some cultural understanding of what the phrase WP means by this at this point, e.g., [2], [3], which would tip the balance for me in close cases. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Iconic, and suggest taking an action, thus inviting people to add the citation. Unverified info losses that "please edit" aspect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment it is interesting that the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are doing so from the perspective of Wikiepdia editors eg "citation needed" is deeply embedded into the culture -- "citation needed", which itself is very direct -- Iconic, and suggest taking an action, as three examples. It is only "deeply embedded", "very direct" and "iconic" to people familiar with editing Wikipedia (or have some tertiary education). We have a guideline that discourages self reference (WP:SELF) and the current wording is primarily an editor to editor message, when it ought to be primarily a message for the readership. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you feel this template should primarily be a message for readers rather than editors? Philosophically speaking, of course, all editors are readers and all readers are potential editors. It doesn't seem to me that "citation needed" is particularly difficult to understand whether or not one has any experience with editing, but perhaps I'm biased. In any case, the template strikes me as a maintenance template, given that in a best-case scenario the template is removed and replaced with a proper citation, and in a worst-case scenario the unsourced text itself is removed; either way, it's a request for action. Does a reader need to be told that no citation is available? I don't think so; the lack of a citation would, to my mind, convey that all by itself. Would a reader assume that text tagged for needing a citation was considered less reliable than text that merely had no citation? Again, I don't think so. Doniago (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - besides the reasons given above, wouldn't this just confuse new editors/readers, as what wikipedia means by "verify" e.g. Verifiability and an explanation of reliable sources? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. They can take away my Citation Needed when they pry my cold, dead hands from the trigger. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy. No, seriously. The suggested option is passive and dismissive, while {{citation needed}} is direct and encourages action. If it's not broke... Cindy(talk to me) 13:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - changing it now would confuse the reader, and not vice versa. Nowadays everyone knows its meaning, even casual readers who do not know about the existence of the "edit" button. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.