This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In the move discussion a number of redirects were mentioned. I've seen three types
-- ospalh ( talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, shouldn't some admin add {{ R from other template}} to the new redirect Template:Fact?-- ospalh ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As a possible extension to the MediaWiki template system: Those adding the fact template to Wikipedia should be required to review citations submitted and correctly format them in-text. Failure to do so should be grounds for removal of the template in each case. The MediaWiki enhancement might take the following form:
Discussion: A lack of citations is perceived as a problem, but fact templates deface articles and encourage lazy editing -- why bother locating a source when you can simply tag? Further, the fact template creates pressure for contributors to furnish sources without balancing this with pressure that the sources be appropriate. Finally, creating citations in MediaWiki markup is a task that may discourage new editors from making contributions. The suggested change corrects these imbalances and naturally divides work between experienced and inexperienced editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefman ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
How much time should be given to an unreferenced content until it can be removed if it stayed unreferenced? -- 93.139.118.92 ( talk) 12:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is no possibility to add a date to the fact template. That could improve the template, because after half a year without any reference anyone could delete a sentence with fact template. The timestamp could help to judge whether authors had enought time to add a missing reference. Without the timestamp I usually would have a bad conscience to delete a sentence. 92.225.137.203 ( talk) 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This tag has all too often become shorthand for 'actually I rather doubt it'. It's too easy to tag articles while making no contribution. I understand it's needed by editors, but some sort of policy about tagging should be required.
Even a brief wander around Wikipedia will reveal huge differences in the degree of referencing in articles. Certain articles are well referenced but still poor overall and others have barely any references but are (otherwise) fine.
Naturally, references are good and necessary in any academic article, however some way needs to be found to prevent people from simply putting authors they object to through the hoops by scattering these tags around while not otherwise contributing to the articles in question. The context of its employment often amounts to a tacit violation of WP:NPOV. Dduff442 ( talk) 05:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ cite }} {{ cite | date=october 2009 }}
Someone, please, help to create a template redirect.
Thank You,
hopiakuta Please d o sign your communiqué . ~~ Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question on how to handle citation requests in overview pages. In general I feel that citations are mostly required at the lowest level and that they may actually be harmful on higher levels.
For example; in the Alphabet article I noticed the following CN:
Understanding of the phonetic alphabet of Mongolian [[Phagspa script]] aided the creation of a phonetic script suited to the spoken Korean language. {{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}
While it is a fully legitimate request for citation - especially since the fact is debated - I feel that this is better cited at the Hangul main page. Perhaps even better at the Origin of Hangul page that has a specific subsection on Ledyard's theory.
I doubt that most users who look up "alphabet" on Wikipedia would have any use for a reference to a thesis on such a specific topic. In this case a citation would establish the Phagspa-Hangul connection as the only theory - not the dominant theory.
Is there a way to delegate citations to the appropriate main page? What is the Wikipedia policy on this? moliate ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This article and several others are in this Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2,009 category, which is redlinked for obvious reasons. And it is showing up as a regular category instead of hidden. But I can't figure out where the error is being generated from. Aboutmovies ( talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Editprotected}}
Needs the noprint
class removed, as this is already provided by the {{
Fix}} meta-template that this template uses. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The above seems to be in error. The default value of the class
parameter of {{
fix}} is "noprint Inline-Template", but this gets overridden by the class=Template-Fact
in the current template. The documentation over at {{
fix}} says that the default classes shouldn't be removed, but additional ones added. Thus the correct value of the class parameter for {{
citation needed}} should be
class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact"
Dr pda ( talk) 11:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been re-proposed in a subtopic just below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Completely trivial merge, code-wise, for a very useful increase in functionality. Short version: Make it so that
{{fact|1=statement(s) to be sourced}}
works. Even the docs will be an easy merge. The versions in question:
template and
/doc.
There's no reason at all that
Sourced material. {{fact|1=Several sentences with a total of 4 unsourced claims}}. Lots more sourced material. Unsourced claim.{{fact}} More sourced material.
shouldn't work. Cf. {{ sic}} for very similar multi-functionality.
Pending the outcome of discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An issue returns: Underlining/highlighting as a cleanup signal the custom CSS styling (which faintly underlines the "offending" text) should probably be left out of the merge. (The highlighting at issue was the #1 problem raised at the TfD from which {{
Reference necessary}} barely emerged with a "no consensus").
PS: The template also had code in it that allowed anyone to repurpose the template to say anything and to link to anything (e.g. [
complete bollocks). I removed this.
Someone is already objecting, and may revert. [not anymore 08:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)] I am not proposing that this "functionality" be merged into this template, since that's not what this template (or that one) is for, and we already have legitimate customization of an inline cleanup/dispute template in the form of the very {{
fix}} that all of these templates are based on, making it redundant functionality to add here. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- -->
, only serving less purpose.I can support merging the two for now, waiting to see how the wrapper version of {{ fact}} is accepted by the community, and then deal with its appearance later. Again, I must reiterate, the work that SMcCandlish has done to the {{ Reference necessary}} template is marvellous! And the enhancement to {{ Citation needed}} that would arise from the merger, and the concomitant reduction in templates to be maintained, is equally marvellous. I imagine with his great coding skill that he could probably make the subtle underlining even more subtle and less intrusive to the reader or the reader cum editor. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The "wrapper" functionality of Template:Reference necessary should be merged to Template:Citation needed.
This will make it so that {{fact|1=statement(s) to be sourced}}
works - the template can easily very specifically identify exactly what fact(s) need to be sourced this way, and should reduce template clutter by obviating the need for multiple {{
fact}} (or {{
cn}}, as you prefer) tags in one block of text in a large number of cases in which this is presently being done.
There's no reason at all that
Sourced material. {{cn|1=Several sentences with a total of 4 unsourced claims}}. More sourced material. More sourced material. One unsourced claim.{{cn}} More sourced material.
shouldn't work. In this example, we'd have 2 {{ cn}} tags instead of either 5 of them or a big {{ Unreferenced section}} banner. Cf. {{ sic}} for very similar multi-functionality, where it can be used after something or as a wrapper for something.
This will be a completely trivial merge, code-wise, for a very useful increase in functionality. Even the docs will be an easy merge. The versions in question. All that has to be done is to enable the template to display |1=
(whether explicitly named or not).
It adds zero overhead of any kind to actual template usage - no such parameter existed before so nothing has to change, and the template's heretofore only operating mode, as a template placed after the "offending" content, is unaffected in any way.
The styling code needs to move to a site-wide CSS class, with a more generic name, so that it can also be used by {{ dubious}}, {{ attribution needed}}, {[tl|clarify}}, etc., etc. I will attempt to address this either today or tomorrow (so, I wouldn't do the merge right now :-). Whether the styling in question is satisfactory to everyone who cares is probably a matter for WT:MOS, as it would affect all such templates, not this one in particular. I.e., I would not want to hinder the merge with any back-and-forth about the CSS here.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
|1=
to its deployments as a template breakage preventative measure, but didn't entirely finish that. I think there are 30 or so left to add the parameter name to. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)as that is template specific and you want these templates to be more universal and thus easier to maintain across the board. I agree that we should merge first and deal with style later. But, is there not some rule that says that a merger discussion should run for x days before determining consensus, akin to XfDs? You only posted your merger proposition 16 hours ago. Would it be to soon to implement it? What is the recommended timeframe for a merger discussion? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
span class="referencenecessary"
class="inlinetagged"
or something? While we're at it, {{
Citation needed}} has its own class. Need to see what is in that, if anything. I have a suspicion that it only exist so that people can hide the div in their own user CSS. If that is the case, it also needs to be renamed, as it is too template-specific, it is being copied to other inline templates anwyay despite referring specifically to this one, many do not have it though (despite the fact that anyone trying to hide {{
fact}} surely also wants to hid {{
weasel-inline}}, etc., etc.), and so on. It's just messy. Short version: Need two classes, both generically named: 1) Class for the underlining effect ("inlinetagged"?). 2) Class to show/hide any inline cleanup/dispute templates ("inlinetag"?). —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Motivated by
current debate at
WP:V, I propose an optional |deadline=
parameter that allows the tagging editor to specify a time frame after which the statement should be deleted if no source is provided. I see mainly two benefits:
Paradoctor ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
|date=
parameter, indicating the date the tag was added. Reasons:
|deadline=
(or |expiry=
) parameter is a means for the tagger to state an intention. There is no policy determining what an appropriate time to wait is. IMHO, depending on the context, it could be anything from days to several months. This is a gap, and providing the opportunity to specify affords us the opportunity gather experience on what works and what doesn't.|date=
parameter! ^_^(outdent) what would be the criteria for establishing a "deadline", other than the opinion of the editor adding the tag? since they (or anyone else) are already free to go back and delete dubious unsourced stuff whenever they feel like enough time has passed, it doesn't seem like a "deadline parameter" would add anything of value. Sssoul ( talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
|date=
. Standard way to date cleanup/dispute tag issues. If someone wants to enforce some kind of deadline by which they will delete something they should do that on the talk page. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change this template so that when the template is clicked rather than linking to
Wikipedia:Citation needed the enclosed text was highlighted as happens with {{
Harvnb}}. If that could be done I would be in favour of merging this template
Template:Reference necessary into the {{
citation needed}}, because "citation" could link to the guideline and "needed" could highlight the text. --
PBS (
talk) 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
At present the reason parameter is documented but not used by the template. A thought for this that if the reason is present to make this the title and alt text for either the spanned text (if {{ Citation needed}} is used like {{ Reference required}}) and/or for the " citation needed" link. Both alt and title are needed as the browsers are not consistent.
If this is done then for IE, FireFox, and likely other browsers, will show the reason as hover text. Hover your mouse cursor over this paragraph to see what I mean. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about using the Citation needed template in Infobox weather, which already requires a source as a parameter. But dating it using the #time function would cause them all to have the current date, which is incorrect, it should be dated when the weather infobox got added to the article. I would have to keep the date parameter empty, my concern is that when the bot is alerted to an article using Citation needed without a date, but then can't find the Citation needed template, what will happen? 117Avenue ( talk) 00:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed new templates:
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 14:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we please add a parameter to switch the text from “citation needed” to “CN” to less mess up table display? — Christoph Päper 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
|text=citation needed
to |text={{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|cn|citation needed}}
. That should do the trick, if |small=yes is used. Tested and functional code can be copied from
Template:Citation needed/sandbox.
Debresser (
talk) 07:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
yesno}}
is used for this, as in |text={{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{small}}} }}|yes|cn|citation needed}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{#if{{{small|}}}|cn|citation needed}}
.
Rich
Farmbrough, 05:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC).It seems impossible to maintain a line break after a "Citation needed"-tag, even if it's followed by a new paragraph. Would someone know how to fix that, so you wouldn't need to resort to the <BR> tag. 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 09:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fact-span}} is a fork of this template that highlights the text in question. If this is a useful feature, then it should be added to this template; if not then {{ fact-span}} should be deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been seeing quite a few cases where [Citation needed] shows up disconnected at the beginning of a line, causing some cognitive dissonance while I mentally connect it back to the previous line. It looks like putting a ‍ (zero-width joiner) at the beginning of the template might prevent this without side effects, except that the preceding word will wrap with the note (which I consider a benefit, especially on a wide screen). Has this issue/solution been considered before? Maghnus ( talk) 01:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
happens to be on occupied the full width of the screen, or are you describing a bug where a line which has the {{
cn}}
at the end of it is displaying somewhat less than full-width, with a mysterious newline inserted before the citation needed? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In the move discussion a number of redirects were mentioned. I've seen three types
-- ospalh ( talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, shouldn't some admin add {{ R from other template}} to the new redirect Template:Fact?-- ospalh ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As a possible extension to the MediaWiki template system: Those adding the fact template to Wikipedia should be required to review citations submitted and correctly format them in-text. Failure to do so should be grounds for removal of the template in each case. The MediaWiki enhancement might take the following form:
Discussion: A lack of citations is perceived as a problem, but fact templates deface articles and encourage lazy editing -- why bother locating a source when you can simply tag? Further, the fact template creates pressure for contributors to furnish sources without balancing this with pressure that the sources be appropriate. Finally, creating citations in MediaWiki markup is a task that may discourage new editors from making contributions. The suggested change corrects these imbalances and naturally divides work between experienced and inexperienced editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefman ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
How much time should be given to an unreferenced content until it can be removed if it stayed unreferenced? -- 93.139.118.92 ( talk) 12:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is no possibility to add a date to the fact template. That could improve the template, because after half a year without any reference anyone could delete a sentence with fact template. The timestamp could help to judge whether authors had enought time to add a missing reference. Without the timestamp I usually would have a bad conscience to delete a sentence. 92.225.137.203 ( talk) 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This tag has all too often become shorthand for 'actually I rather doubt it'. It's too easy to tag articles while making no contribution. I understand it's needed by editors, but some sort of policy about tagging should be required.
Even a brief wander around Wikipedia will reveal huge differences in the degree of referencing in articles. Certain articles are well referenced but still poor overall and others have barely any references but are (otherwise) fine.
Naturally, references are good and necessary in any academic article, however some way needs to be found to prevent people from simply putting authors they object to through the hoops by scattering these tags around while not otherwise contributing to the articles in question. The context of its employment often amounts to a tacit violation of WP:NPOV. Dduff442 ( talk) 05:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ cite }} {{ cite | date=october 2009 }}
Someone, please, help to create a template redirect.
Thank You,
hopiakuta Please d o sign your communiqué . ~~ Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question on how to handle citation requests in overview pages. In general I feel that citations are mostly required at the lowest level and that they may actually be harmful on higher levels.
For example; in the Alphabet article I noticed the following CN:
Understanding of the phonetic alphabet of Mongolian [[Phagspa script]] aided the creation of a phonetic script suited to the spoken Korean language. {{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}
While it is a fully legitimate request for citation - especially since the fact is debated - I feel that this is better cited at the Hangul main page. Perhaps even better at the Origin of Hangul page that has a specific subsection on Ledyard's theory.
I doubt that most users who look up "alphabet" on Wikipedia would have any use for a reference to a thesis on such a specific topic. In this case a citation would establish the Phagspa-Hangul connection as the only theory - not the dominant theory.
Is there a way to delegate citations to the appropriate main page? What is the Wikipedia policy on this? moliate ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This article and several others are in this Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2,009 category, which is redlinked for obvious reasons. And it is showing up as a regular category instead of hidden. But I can't figure out where the error is being generated from. Aboutmovies ( talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Editprotected}}
Needs the noprint
class removed, as this is already provided by the {{
Fix}} meta-template that this template uses. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The above seems to be in error. The default value of the class
parameter of {{
fix}} is "noprint Inline-Template", but this gets overridden by the class=Template-Fact
in the current template. The documentation over at {{
fix}} says that the default classes shouldn't be removed, but additional ones added. Thus the correct value of the class parameter for {{
citation needed}} should be
class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact"
Dr pda ( talk) 11:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been re-proposed in a subtopic just below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Completely trivial merge, code-wise, for a very useful increase in functionality. Short version: Make it so that
{{fact|1=statement(s) to be sourced}}
works. Even the docs will be an easy merge. The versions in question:
template and
/doc.
There's no reason at all that
Sourced material. {{fact|1=Several sentences with a total of 4 unsourced claims}}. Lots more sourced material. Unsourced claim.{{fact}} More sourced material.
shouldn't work. Cf. {{ sic}} for very similar multi-functionality.
Pending the outcome of discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An issue returns: Underlining/highlighting as a cleanup signal the custom CSS styling (which faintly underlines the "offending" text) should probably be left out of the merge. (The highlighting at issue was the #1 problem raised at the TfD from which {{
Reference necessary}} barely emerged with a "no consensus").
PS: The template also had code in it that allowed anyone to repurpose the template to say anything and to link to anything (e.g. [
complete bollocks). I removed this.
Someone is already objecting, and may revert. [not anymore 08:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)] I am not proposing that this "functionality" be merged into this template, since that's not what this template (or that one) is for, and we already have legitimate customization of an inline cleanup/dispute template in the form of the very {{
fix}} that all of these templates are based on, making it redundant functionality to add here. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- -->
, only serving less purpose.I can support merging the two for now, waiting to see how the wrapper version of {{ fact}} is accepted by the community, and then deal with its appearance later. Again, I must reiterate, the work that SMcCandlish has done to the {{ Reference necessary}} template is marvellous! And the enhancement to {{ Citation needed}} that would arise from the merger, and the concomitant reduction in templates to be maintained, is equally marvellous. I imagine with his great coding skill that he could probably make the subtle underlining even more subtle and less intrusive to the reader or the reader cum editor. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The "wrapper" functionality of Template:Reference necessary should be merged to Template:Citation needed.
This will make it so that {{fact|1=statement(s) to be sourced}}
works - the template can easily very specifically identify exactly what fact(s) need to be sourced this way, and should reduce template clutter by obviating the need for multiple {{
fact}} (or {{
cn}}, as you prefer) tags in one block of text in a large number of cases in which this is presently being done.
There's no reason at all that
Sourced material. {{cn|1=Several sentences with a total of 4 unsourced claims}}. More sourced material. More sourced material. One unsourced claim.{{cn}} More sourced material.
shouldn't work. In this example, we'd have 2 {{ cn}} tags instead of either 5 of them or a big {{ Unreferenced section}} banner. Cf. {{ sic}} for very similar multi-functionality, where it can be used after something or as a wrapper for something.
This will be a completely trivial merge, code-wise, for a very useful increase in functionality. Even the docs will be an easy merge. The versions in question. All that has to be done is to enable the template to display |1=
(whether explicitly named or not).
It adds zero overhead of any kind to actual template usage - no such parameter existed before so nothing has to change, and the template's heretofore only operating mode, as a template placed after the "offending" content, is unaffected in any way.
The styling code needs to move to a site-wide CSS class, with a more generic name, so that it can also be used by {{ dubious}}, {{ attribution needed}}, {[tl|clarify}}, etc., etc. I will attempt to address this either today or tomorrow (so, I wouldn't do the merge right now :-). Whether the styling in question is satisfactory to everyone who cares is probably a matter for WT:MOS, as it would affect all such templates, not this one in particular. I.e., I would not want to hinder the merge with any back-and-forth about the CSS here.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
|1=
to its deployments as a template breakage preventative measure, but didn't entirely finish that. I think there are 30 or so left to add the parameter name to. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)as that is template specific and you want these templates to be more universal and thus easier to maintain across the board. I agree that we should merge first and deal with style later. But, is there not some rule that says that a merger discussion should run for x days before determining consensus, akin to XfDs? You only posted your merger proposition 16 hours ago. Would it be to soon to implement it? What is the recommended timeframe for a merger discussion? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
span class="referencenecessary"
class="inlinetagged"
or something? While we're at it, {{
Citation needed}} has its own class. Need to see what is in that, if anything. I have a suspicion that it only exist so that people can hide the div in their own user CSS. If that is the case, it also needs to be renamed, as it is too template-specific, it is being copied to other inline templates anwyay despite referring specifically to this one, many do not have it though (despite the fact that anyone trying to hide {{
fact}} surely also wants to hid {{
weasel-inline}}, etc., etc.), and so on. It's just messy. Short version: Need two classes, both generically named: 1) Class for the underlining effect ("inlinetagged"?). 2) Class to show/hide any inline cleanup/dispute templates ("inlinetag"?). —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Motivated by
current debate at
WP:V, I propose an optional |deadline=
parameter that allows the tagging editor to specify a time frame after which the statement should be deleted if no source is provided. I see mainly two benefits:
Paradoctor ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
|date=
parameter, indicating the date the tag was added. Reasons:
|deadline=
(or |expiry=
) parameter is a means for the tagger to state an intention. There is no policy determining what an appropriate time to wait is. IMHO, depending on the context, it could be anything from days to several months. This is a gap, and providing the opportunity to specify affords us the opportunity gather experience on what works and what doesn't.|date=
parameter! ^_^(outdent) what would be the criteria for establishing a "deadline", other than the opinion of the editor adding the tag? since they (or anyone else) are already free to go back and delete dubious unsourced stuff whenever they feel like enough time has passed, it doesn't seem like a "deadline parameter" would add anything of value. Sssoul ( talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
|date=
. Standard way to date cleanup/dispute tag issues. If someone wants to enforce some kind of deadline by which they will delete something they should do that on the talk page. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change this template so that when the template is clicked rather than linking to
Wikipedia:Citation needed the enclosed text was highlighted as happens with {{
Harvnb}}. If that could be done I would be in favour of merging this template
Template:Reference necessary into the {{
citation needed}}, because "citation" could link to the guideline and "needed" could highlight the text. --
PBS (
talk) 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
At present the reason parameter is documented but not used by the template. A thought for this that if the reason is present to make this the title and alt text for either the spanned text (if {{ Citation needed}} is used like {{ Reference required}}) and/or for the " citation needed" link. Both alt and title are needed as the browsers are not consistent.
If this is done then for IE, FireFox, and likely other browsers, will show the reason as hover text. Hover your mouse cursor over this paragraph to see what I mean. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about using the Citation needed template in Infobox weather, which already requires a source as a parameter. But dating it using the #time function would cause them all to have the current date, which is incorrect, it should be dated when the weather infobox got added to the article. I would have to keep the date parameter empty, my concern is that when the bot is alerted to an article using Citation needed without a date, but then can't find the Citation needed template, what will happen? 117Avenue ( talk) 00:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed new templates:
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 14:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we please add a parameter to switch the text from “citation needed” to “CN” to less mess up table display? — Christoph Päper 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
|text=citation needed
to |text={{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|cn|citation needed}}
. That should do the trick, if |small=yes is used. Tested and functional code can be copied from
Template:Citation needed/sandbox.
Debresser (
talk) 07:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
yesno}}
is used for this, as in |text={{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{small}}} }}|yes|cn|citation needed}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{#if{{{small|}}}|cn|citation needed}}
.
Rich
Farmbrough, 05:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC).It seems impossible to maintain a line break after a "Citation needed"-tag, even if it's followed by a new paragraph. Would someone know how to fix that, so you wouldn't need to resort to the <BR> tag. 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 09:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fact-span}} is a fork of this template that highlights the text in question. If this is a useful feature, then it should be added to this template; if not then {{ fact-span}} should be deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been seeing quite a few cases where [Citation needed] shows up disconnected at the beginning of a line, causing some cognitive dissonance while I mentally connect it back to the previous line. It looks like putting a ‍ (zero-width joiner) at the beginning of the template might prevent this without side effects, except that the preceding word will wrap with the note (which I consider a benefit, especially on a wide screen). Has this issue/solution been considered before? Maghnus ( talk) 01:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
happens to be on occupied the full width of the screen, or are you describing a bug where a line which has the {{
cn}}
at the end of it is displaying somewhat less than full-width, with a mysterious newline inserted before the citation needed? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)