This template ( Template:Reference necessary) was considered for merging with Template:Citation needed on 28 August 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This template was considered for deletion on 28 February 2013. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Reliability | ||||
|
Wow, that was quick! What I think would be great is making one pale pink for NPOV or copyedit text, and maybe a pale cream or beige one for unreferenced (well, they are my choice of colours citation needed off the top of my head...) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
When you mouse over, for example, this [1] citation needed span tag, it flags This claim needs references to reliable sources from [month + year], which is misleading. Could it be reworded to read something like This claim needs references to reliable sources. Tagged from [month + year]? Writegeist ( talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot of hard work went into this, but honestly? It causes more confusion than it solves for. There's absolutely no cue, from a reader perspective, that the colour has anything to do with the lack of citations, because pretty much everyone is used to the "citation needed" tag representing that on its own. My suggestion would be either a mouseover for the text itself identifying what the colouration is all about, or far-less-preferably having the citation needed mouseover indicate it. "The claim highlighted in pink needs references to reliable sources". Ironholds ( talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So, the MfD closed, and a lot of suggestions were made about how to make it look nicer. I think it'd be fair to say that a lot of people agreed that the template's appearance needs work. My vote is for making the highlighting only appear when you mouse over the "citation needed" link. Can we all agree on that, or is there significant opposition to that idea? It would address most of my concerns with the template. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 05:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Rfc|style}}
or {{Rfc|tech}}
), and that is all there is to it. After all, what does it matter to attract a few more editors to the discussion?
Debresser (
talk) 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is the consensus at WP:TFD being ignored? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seems to be a bug in this template. In article space, when {{
citation needed span}}
encloses the end of a paragraph and the next paragraph begins with a wikilink, the normal break between paragraphs disappears – the two paragraphs are run-together without an intervening space.
Text before adding {{citation needed span}}
:
looks like this after adding {{citation needed span}}
:
The indenting, used here for clarity, will cause the template and paragraphs to render correctly in article space as will any text character that immediately follows the template's closing bracket. So, these paragraphs must begin at the left margin, the template's closing bracket must must be the last character on the line, and the first text of the next paragraph must be a wikilink (either red or blue). In fact, the two opening brackets of a wikilink is all that is needed to exhibit the problem.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
element. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Citation needed span|Paragraph 1}} [[Paragraph]] 2
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The consensus to change this template that was established at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 28#Template:Citation needed span has been ignored for long enough. The highlight on mouseover that was mentioned in that discussion should be implemented without further delay. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 03:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This template is VERY painstaking and difficult to deal with in the new Visual Editor. I suggest that it be phased out and re-designed so that it is easier to use in the new Visual Editor. Right now, if you want to delete the template without deleting all of the text, you have to open up the template, copy/cut the text out of the "text" field, close the template, delete it, and past the text back into the article.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The way the CSS of this span is currently marked (a very light pink background with pink border with 'darkslategray' textexample) draws people's attention to it, but maybe in a way that is counter productive. The intent is to point out that the line of text is questionable since it lacks a citation, but it seems the end result, instead, is to make it appear as highlighted important text. I would suggest that it might be better to distinguish the text by going the opposite of highlighting, and instead make the text a lighter shade of black (ie., a distinctly middle gray [#888888]example; avoid darker grays such as the current 'darkslategray' which may be hard to differentiate on some monitors from the normal black text) to avoid the psychological effect of making it appear the text in the span is important (ie., make it so that it seems less important, almost omitted). If we certainly should keep the border (to make sure the beginning and end of sequential [citation needed] spans are distinguished [even though, the words "citation needed" should be able to do that, anyway]) then I would suggest the border be a lighter shade of gray (#DDDDDD),example but keep the background white/not-assignedexample, this should still make it appear less like highlighted/important text.
—
al-Shimoni (
talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
|class=Template-Fact
style="background-color: #fff9f9; color: DarkSlateGray;"
This subject has cropped up again. To summarise, I can't see why the text needs to stand out, and as such am proposing to reduce the level of contrast. Your thoughts would be appreciated! — Smjg ( talk) 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just viewing an article where I noticed the update. This looks much better, and seems much clearer that the text is not to be emphasized (positively) in a person's mind, but that there are questions regarding it (ie., that it needs citation to back it up). — al-Shimoni ( talk) 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
fix-span}}
. The relevant change to the text colour there was made
18 months ago, see
Template talk:Fix-span#Why the pale colour? and also
Template talk:Citation needed span#Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2016 below. I note in those discussions that it was you who suggested a grey, specifically #555 which is only very slightly darker than the #595959 which we are presently using. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the appearance of the text highlighting for better visibility. Not sure how and where to do it, either here or in {{ Fix-span}}, I leave that to experienced template editors who are more technologically savvy than I am. My personal preference would be #888888 for the text, as suggested above by al-Shimoni. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
While I'm here, in the sandbox I've tweaked the spacing between the superscript and the gray border and slightly increased the spacing between the border and the starting and ending characters. Here is a comparison:
Without objection, I shall update the live version to use the new spacing.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current contrast ratio of #888 on #fff falls short of WCAG accessibility guidelines, and is therefore very difficult to read for people with certain eyesight conditions. Additionally, as a person with perfect colour vision, it is difficult for me to read too.
See /info/en/?search=Web_Content_Accessibility_Guidelines
I suggest #555 as an alternative, which would have a contrast ratio of 7.46:1, which falls within WCAG recommendations for text contrast. Example: Lorem ipsum doler sit amit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illspirit ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that this template's functionality should be incorporated into {{ Citation needed}}. Is there any fundamental incompatibility between the two templates? If not, we should start a TFD. Petr Matas 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The following demonstrates the problem: which marked the end of Catholic toleration of Jansenist doctrine. citation needed The link and formatting will extend past the end, until another link closes it or a new paragraph starts.
Somehow Jansenist becomes [[Jansenist</A> and breaks everything. I looked through the template code, and fix-span, but nothing stood out to me. SilverbackNet talk 06:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
:
[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title=[[Jansenist]]>Citation needed</span>]]
<a href="/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="[[Jansenist</a>">Citation needed</span>]]
[[
of the Jansenist link are translated into their html entity values and the closing ]]
of the Jansenist link sort of terminate the Wikipedia:Citation needed link. But, because the closing </a>
isn't where it's supposed to be (outside of the <span>...</span>
tags), browsers don't see it for what it is and link all text until they find the next </a>
tag.|reason=
parameter is placed into
a HTML title=
attribute, which may contain text only ("The value is text.") - no markup of any sort whatsoever. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 16:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)I would like to be able to read articles like PROMESA without the tedious interruptions of the citation-needed-span formatting. How can I turn this off - for myself - with custom CSS? -- The Cunctator ( talk) 01:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
span.citation-needed-content {
padding-left: unset !important;
padding-right: unset !important;
color: unset !important;
border: unset !important;
}
!important
but in this case it's necessary because the properties that you want to unset are set in a style=
attribute and not in a style sheet. Note that this assumes that your browser has been updated for
CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3 which being a W3C Candidate Recommendation isn't yet a formal standard, so browser vendors are not (yet) obliged to observe its provisions. If this rule has no effect, it might be because your browser observes
Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1 (which is a W3C Recommendation), so try altering the first two unset
to 0
(zero); the third to inherit
and the fourth to none
, preserving the !important
in each case. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
style=
attribute. Anyone know why it's set that way and not in a style sheet? --
The Cunctator (
talk) 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
!important
annotation, you've written it to use a
type selector - that is, it's written to match a HTML element like <citation-needed-content>...</citation-needed-content>
which of course doesn't exist. To select a class by name, you need to precede the class name with a full stop. This is covered at Selectors Level 3 section
6.4. Class selectors. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC){{ Cspan}} is a redirect to {{ Citation needed span}}, but may easily be confused with {{ C-SPAN}}. Please add a hatnote at the top of the page for ease in quickly locating the desired template. Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
While making this edit, it occurred to me that the highlighting functionality of this template could be useful in conjunction with the functionality of {{ anchor}} to highlight the anchor target and also, possibly, if paired with a companion template, to provide a linkback (that linkback functionality could get messy, though, with multiple links to the same anchor target). My template coding skills are very rusty so I'm not going to try to implement this; I'll leave it as just a suggestion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Reference necessary and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Reference necessary until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Refnec and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Refnec until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Référence souhaitée and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Référence souhaitée until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Cfact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Cfact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:CFact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:CFact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Reference required and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Reference required until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any suggestions for improvement, just saw it out in the wild and thought it looked very nice and was very effective in communication. Thanks to whoever made and improved this template. ❤️ Dialmayo ( talk) ( Contribs) she/her 12:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This template ( Template:Reference necessary) was considered for merging with Template:Citation needed on 28 August 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This template was considered for deletion on 28 February 2013. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Reliability | ||||
|
Wow, that was quick! What I think would be great is making one pale pink for NPOV or copyedit text, and maybe a pale cream or beige one for unreferenced (well, they are my choice of colours citation needed off the top of my head...) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
When you mouse over, for example, this [1] citation needed span tag, it flags This claim needs references to reliable sources from [month + year], which is misleading. Could it be reworded to read something like This claim needs references to reliable sources. Tagged from [month + year]? Writegeist ( talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot of hard work went into this, but honestly? It causes more confusion than it solves for. There's absolutely no cue, from a reader perspective, that the colour has anything to do with the lack of citations, because pretty much everyone is used to the "citation needed" tag representing that on its own. My suggestion would be either a mouseover for the text itself identifying what the colouration is all about, or far-less-preferably having the citation needed mouseover indicate it. "The claim highlighted in pink needs references to reliable sources". Ironholds ( talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So, the MfD closed, and a lot of suggestions were made about how to make it look nicer. I think it'd be fair to say that a lot of people agreed that the template's appearance needs work. My vote is for making the highlighting only appear when you mouse over the "citation needed" link. Can we all agree on that, or is there significant opposition to that idea? It would address most of my concerns with the template. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 05:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Rfc|style}}
or {{Rfc|tech}}
), and that is all there is to it. After all, what does it matter to attract a few more editors to the discussion?
Debresser (
talk) 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is the consensus at WP:TFD being ignored? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seems to be a bug in this template. In article space, when {{
citation needed span}}
encloses the end of a paragraph and the next paragraph begins with a wikilink, the normal break between paragraphs disappears – the two paragraphs are run-together without an intervening space.
Text before adding {{citation needed span}}
:
looks like this after adding {{citation needed span}}
:
The indenting, used here for clarity, will cause the template and paragraphs to render correctly in article space as will any text character that immediately follows the template's closing bracket. So, these paragraphs must begin at the left margin, the template's closing bracket must must be the last character on the line, and the first text of the next paragraph must be a wikilink (either red or blue). In fact, the two opening brackets of a wikilink is all that is needed to exhibit the problem.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
element. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Citation needed span|Paragraph 1}} [[Paragraph]] 2
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The consensus to change this template that was established at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 28#Template:Citation needed span has been ignored for long enough. The highlight on mouseover that was mentioned in that discussion should be implemented without further delay. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 03:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This template is VERY painstaking and difficult to deal with in the new Visual Editor. I suggest that it be phased out and re-designed so that it is easier to use in the new Visual Editor. Right now, if you want to delete the template without deleting all of the text, you have to open up the template, copy/cut the text out of the "text" field, close the template, delete it, and past the text back into the article.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The way the CSS of this span is currently marked (a very light pink background with pink border with 'darkslategray' textexample) draws people's attention to it, but maybe in a way that is counter productive. The intent is to point out that the line of text is questionable since it lacks a citation, but it seems the end result, instead, is to make it appear as highlighted important text. I would suggest that it might be better to distinguish the text by going the opposite of highlighting, and instead make the text a lighter shade of black (ie., a distinctly middle gray [#888888]example; avoid darker grays such as the current 'darkslategray' which may be hard to differentiate on some monitors from the normal black text) to avoid the psychological effect of making it appear the text in the span is important (ie., make it so that it seems less important, almost omitted). If we certainly should keep the border (to make sure the beginning and end of sequential [citation needed] spans are distinguished [even though, the words "citation needed" should be able to do that, anyway]) then I would suggest the border be a lighter shade of gray (#DDDDDD),example but keep the background white/not-assignedexample, this should still make it appear less like highlighted/important text.
—
al-Shimoni (
talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
|class=Template-Fact
style="background-color: #fff9f9; color: DarkSlateGray;"
This subject has cropped up again. To summarise, I can't see why the text needs to stand out, and as such am proposing to reduce the level of contrast. Your thoughts would be appreciated! — Smjg ( talk) 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just viewing an article where I noticed the update. This looks much better, and seems much clearer that the text is not to be emphasized (positively) in a person's mind, but that there are questions regarding it (ie., that it needs citation to back it up). — al-Shimoni ( talk) 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
fix-span}}
. The relevant change to the text colour there was made
18 months ago, see
Template talk:Fix-span#Why the pale colour? and also
Template talk:Citation needed span#Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2016 below. I note in those discussions that it was you who suggested a grey, specifically #555 which is only very slightly darker than the #595959 which we are presently using. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the appearance of the text highlighting for better visibility. Not sure how and where to do it, either here or in {{ Fix-span}}, I leave that to experienced template editors who are more technologically savvy than I am. My personal preference would be #888888 for the text, as suggested above by al-Shimoni. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
While I'm here, in the sandbox I've tweaked the spacing between the superscript and the gray border and slightly increased the spacing between the border and the starting and ending characters. Here is a comparison:
Without objection, I shall update the live version to use the new spacing.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current contrast ratio of #888 on #fff falls short of WCAG accessibility guidelines, and is therefore very difficult to read for people with certain eyesight conditions. Additionally, as a person with perfect colour vision, it is difficult for me to read too.
See /info/en/?search=Web_Content_Accessibility_Guidelines
I suggest #555 as an alternative, which would have a contrast ratio of 7.46:1, which falls within WCAG recommendations for text contrast. Example: Lorem ipsum doler sit amit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illspirit ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that this template's functionality should be incorporated into {{ Citation needed}}. Is there any fundamental incompatibility between the two templates? If not, we should start a TFD. Petr Matas 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The following demonstrates the problem: which marked the end of Catholic toleration of Jansenist doctrine. citation needed The link and formatting will extend past the end, until another link closes it or a new paragraph starts.
Somehow Jansenist becomes [[Jansenist</A> and breaks everything. I looked through the template code, and fix-span, but nothing stood out to me. SilverbackNet talk 06:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
:
[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title=[[Jansenist]]>Citation needed</span>]]
<a href="/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="[[Jansenist</a>">Citation needed</span>]]
[[
of the Jansenist link are translated into their html entity values and the closing ]]
of the Jansenist link sort of terminate the Wikipedia:Citation needed link. But, because the closing </a>
isn't where it's supposed to be (outside of the <span>...</span>
tags), browsers don't see it for what it is and link all text until they find the next </a>
tag.|reason=
parameter is placed into
a HTML title=
attribute, which may contain text only ("The value is text.") - no markup of any sort whatsoever. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 16:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)I would like to be able to read articles like PROMESA without the tedious interruptions of the citation-needed-span formatting. How can I turn this off - for myself - with custom CSS? -- The Cunctator ( talk) 01:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
span.citation-needed-content {
padding-left: unset !important;
padding-right: unset !important;
color: unset !important;
border: unset !important;
}
!important
but in this case it's necessary because the properties that you want to unset are set in a style=
attribute and not in a style sheet. Note that this assumes that your browser has been updated for
CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3 which being a W3C Candidate Recommendation isn't yet a formal standard, so browser vendors are not (yet) obliged to observe its provisions. If this rule has no effect, it might be because your browser observes
Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1 (which is a W3C Recommendation), so try altering the first two unset
to 0
(zero); the third to inherit
and the fourth to none
, preserving the !important
in each case. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
style=
attribute. Anyone know why it's set that way and not in a style sheet? --
The Cunctator (
talk) 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
!important
annotation, you've written it to use a
type selector - that is, it's written to match a HTML element like <citation-needed-content>...</citation-needed-content>
which of course doesn't exist. To select a class by name, you need to precede the class name with a full stop. This is covered at Selectors Level 3 section
6.4. Class selectors. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC){{ Cspan}} is a redirect to {{ Citation needed span}}, but may easily be confused with {{ C-SPAN}}. Please add a hatnote at the top of the page for ease in quickly locating the desired template. Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
While making this edit, it occurred to me that the highlighting functionality of this template could be useful in conjunction with the functionality of {{ anchor}} to highlight the anchor target and also, possibly, if paired with a companion template, to provide a linkback (that linkback functionality could get messy, though, with multiple links to the same anchor target). My template coding skills are very rusty so I'm not going to try to implement this; I'll leave it as just a suggestion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Reference necessary and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Reference necessary until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Refnec and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Refnec until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Référence souhaitée and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Référence souhaitée until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Cfact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Cfact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:CFact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:CFact until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Reference required and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Reference required until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any suggestions for improvement, just saw it out in the wild and thought it looked very nice and was very effective in communication. Thanks to whoever made and improved this template. ❤️ Dialmayo ( talk) ( Contribs) she/her 12:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)