This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates articles
Can you not use Template:Clarify to note issues with citation styles?
Firstly, that's not what the template is for. Secondly, this sort of thing does not need to be tagged. If you don't want to fix it yourself, leave it alone.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Clarifyref}} and {{Clarifyref2}}, which are subst'd to produce these cleanup requests, have been around for over four years without objection, and that is precisely what they are for. If you think they should use some base template other than {{Clarify}}, that's a discussion for Template talk:Clarify, not my talk page. To address your complaint anyway, there is certainly no consensus that improvement to sourcing (one of the most common types of cleanup request, in various forms from inline templates to huge warning banners at the top of the article) is suddenly exempt from cleanup requests. On the other hand, if you are one of the editors who keeps pasting in "drive-by" bare URLs as if they are actual source citations, please stop. You are doing nothing but creating more work for other editors and making the article's reliability more, not less, suspect, since such URL additions are indistinguishable from various violations of WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:VANDAL, etc., until someone actually goes and checks them out to see what they are, that they are presumptively reliable and not someone's blog or store, actually pertain to the article they're being cited in, etc., etc. When fully specified per WP:CITE, citations are very rarely fake (mostly just cases of WP:CIVILPOV if they are problematic), because it takes work to do them properly, and disruptive editors won't bother. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.22:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I wasn't available at the time to say so (and won't be again, for an indeterminate amount of time), but I support the idea at the end of the TfD[1] to repurpose Template:Full as a replacement for Template:Clarifyref and Clarifyref2, and then redir them to Template:Full. I think that the TfD didn't close with a consensus to do anything because of my absence, after I'd been the principal "KEEP" !voter. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Full}} now serves the function these templates were created to fulfill, and is widely adopted, so I've redirected {{Clarifyref}} and {{Clarifyref2}} to it. Going this route appears to have been the only progressive solution proposed at the first TfD, and I would have !voted in support of it had I been around. I've been the principal defender of these templates since I created them, anyway. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish