User talk:Andrew Gray/Citation needed

This user page was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed.

Syntax

When I put "wikipedia: citation needed" into the searchbox, I landed here.

I was looking for the actual syntax people normally use to note there needs to be a citation for a given assertion. Could that be included here? Koyae (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: there should be at least a link for how to use the citation needed mechanism. JKeck (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the 1st line of the article show: "For the template itself, see Template:Citation needed." for you? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-link to Template:Citation needed must be. Many people (and I) do not start reading from the first line. So link to template page must be included in main article too. Vanquisher (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how do you think such a wikilink should be included? Disambiguation hatnotes are specifically aimed at people who were "looking for the actual" something else when they arrive at an article, like when someone arrives at the Bat article intending to learn about baseball bats - there's generally no need to repeat the link in the article for people who missed it the first time around. --McGeddon (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

something like that "that called "{{Citation needed}}", and is "... On the other hand, nobody reads page from first line and your example is the best argument because for first human seen on "Navigation table" or on first line with Roman style. Vanquisher (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace

I vote for this being moved to main namespace! --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your own head be it :-) Shimgray | talk | 20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be move protected. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Bizzare. I can't see anything in the page status or the logs... Shimgray | talk | 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further references

Hmm this might be useable as a source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23link.html?ref=business

Geni 01:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I've written the sentence well, but this is now included. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

I'm gonna move this into the mainspace. Is anyone ok with that? Jeremjay 24 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be taken live yet?

[1] New York Times blog Headline! - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this should be an article, right? Why not? I mean, the NY Times... Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that link to the page. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reflecting the redirect

{{fact}} was redirected to {{Citation needed}} on 3 July 2009. High time somebody fixed the text in the Wikipedia usage section, so I did. --Thnidu (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote?

In light of #Syntax above, shouldn't this article have a hatnote to Template:Citation needed and possibly to Wikipedia:Citation needed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first (and done), the second seems unneeded, as the first link within the article text goes there. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu name

Do we need or want to give Ta bu shi da yu's realname, in this article? (It does currently, I'm suggesting we remove it). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your call! He used it on the mailing lists, so I hadn't felt any problems with including it, but feel free to change if you think it ought not be there. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he's self-announced, that's good for me. :) (I started userpage/archive diving, but rapidly got lost...) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam reference

Anyone have that Highbeam access that was in announcements earlier? This http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15037358.html looks like it might be a suitable replacement for one of the challenged primary citations. (Or used to cite additional content). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citation for xkcd's "famous" claim

There is a broken citation on the "citation needed" page for a "citation needed" comic. It's [6] (pointing to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081023.wgtweb24/BNStory/Technology/home?cid=al_gam_mostview), which is a broken link. It's used to say that xkcd is "famous." While I believe it is, this article isn't a valid citation, and is simply ironic :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.91.81 (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German CN-Template vote

If you are a German WP User, feel free to join the vote and discussion about the possible-but-not-yet German version of ^{[citation needed]}.

Deutsch: Wenn Du Benutzer in de.wiki bist, schau doch mal bei dem Meinungsbild zur evtl. Einführung dieses Bausteins in de: vorbei. --Trofobi (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular citation on "has become used to refer to Wikipedia in wider popular culture"

http://boingboing.net/2013/05/13/citation-neededs-wikiped.html was quoting this article specifically, so it seems rather strange, in my opinion, to use it as a citation for what it quotes, even if Doctorow's reference of this article does somewhat establish that it's a relevant topic. Personally, I don't think it needs a citation at all: This fact is easily established by the rest of the article. That said, if we're gonna have a citation, it really shouldn't be one that quotes the text immediately preceding it. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support using a more apt citation or none at all (and concur that the rest of the article supports the fact anyhow). Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]