jesus, this is really picky. you're saying the article has sources, lists references, and so on, but because they're not linked to the exact places in the text that they're cited from that an entire nag template needs to be placed on the article? don't you think that's a little silly? as if people are going to magically understand earth penetrating weapons so much better if the article had footnotes in specific places rather than a list of sources. come on, really. ... aa: talk 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:So fix it - why do people just add this tag and expect other people to fix it? This tag spam should be banned. Smallbones ( talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've made some tweaks to the layout of the template (and fixed some problems such as improper transclusion of interwikis) in the new sandbox. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This template is quite noisy and visually assaulting. Both bolded and unbolded text run in and out of bluetext, there's an orange stripe at the left and a colour image. This mess could be alleviated by removing the bold attribute from the text – it is ineffective as used in any case as the rest of the text is so short. Thank you,
Skomorokh 15:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen this template used both places.
Where does it belong?
For what it's worth, most cleanup templates that aren't "-section" or "|section" belong at the top of an article. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) Over two years later, I still see no one but Road Wizard suggesting this should be used at the top of articles instead of in the refs section, so I'm updating the documentation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I for one think it belongs to the top on a case-by-case basis. Some articles have a huge amount of text, a trivial amount of inline citations, and a modest sources section. There is no indication whatsoever that the section match the text - it may well be problematic or obsolete itself. In those cases, it's good to warn the reader just like with {{ refimprove}}. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've just made a change in the Template:More footnotes/sandbox to make the "please" message a bit more compact, similar to the format of {{ refimprove}}. If there are no objections, we might as well incorporate the change into the live template. TheFeds 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the current wording of this template, it is not really appropriate on article pages. It is a maintenance template, requesting clean-up of format and layout but not directly challenging the authenticity of the content in the way that Template:Unreferenced does. That kind of commentary has always been held on the article Talk pages.
Infoboxes like this one are inherently disruptive to our readers. They distract from the content and reduce the professionalism of the presentation. Infoboxes on the page itself should be reserved for only the most serious maintenance concerns - ones that every reader will care about. Things like this are important but should be posted to the article's Talk page for resolution.
Unfortunately, the format of this box does not currently lend itself to posting on the Talk page. I would appreciate an alternative wording and layout that was better suited for Talk. Any suggestions? Rossami (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:template messages/Cleanup#Style tweaks to referencing templates for a discussion relating to the styling of {{ unreferenced}}, {{ refimprove}}, {{ no footnotes}} and {{ more footnotes}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Should it link to {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}#References}} or {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/#reflist}} - not another page. 'This article includes a list of references' - link to them? ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This talk page shows several years of low-level but unresolved disagreement about whether this template should:
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-section
and |section
templates. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 16:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link underneath the words "inline citation" should point to WP:INCITE, not to WP:CITEFOOT. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This tag doesn't help anything. It should be removed on sight. If you think that an article needs more footnotes, please just add them, see WP:So fix it. The only thing this does is sit on a page and look ugly. Stop tag spamming now! Smallbones ( talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If the tagger wants to remove uncited material, that's fine with me. Tags that sit on pages for years are not fine with me. I think the theory of tags is that if somebody puts a tag on the page, somebody else will come along and fix the problem, "but the reality is that it just doesn't work that way." Why doesn't it work that way? Often because the tag spammer doesn't explain what the perceived problem is. Often because the tagger is on some type of ego-trip, trying to say what he thinks is ideally acceptable in this encyclopedia, without doing the real work himself. If you don't want to clean up somebody else's mess (not mine!), please don't add to the mess. BTW nasty looking tags and warnings are one reason that editor retention is down. Please don't add to this problem - just fix the problems that you see! Smallbones ( talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with the premise. The point is to tell the readers that the article has a general references section but that it does not necessarily support the content of the article. This is very much a meaningful thing to do; lack of inline citations is a genuine problem on Wikipedia. The complaints above appear to be more general complaints against cleanup templates as such - please move them to a more general venue. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that one person has been manually adding the tag in a bot-type manner to thousands of pages. The tag will no doubt remain on the pages indefinitely as no one else will add the requested citations and I would therefore question whether this is desirable. Any thoughts? ( Ukgeofan) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the issue parameter of the template, where it says [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{{1|'''biographical article'''}}}]], "biographical article" should be changed to "biography of a living person" for clarity. I did check this in my sandbox to make sure it works properly. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just realized a problem with the edit request I made above, when you invoke both blp=yes and a suffix. It would make the suffix into the pipe used in the piped link to WP:BLP. So, I've messed with the template, and I now have a fix for it. Please replace
This {{#ifeq: {{{BLP|{{{blp|}}}}}} | yes | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{{1|'''biography of a living person'''}}}]] | {{{1|article}}} }}
with:
This {{#ifeq: {{{BLP|{{{blp|}}}}}} | yes | {{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''about a living person''']] | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biography of a living person''']]}} | {{{1|article}}} }}
You can check the results at User:Compassionate727/sandbox3. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 15:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a minor formatting adjustment for when a suffix has been defined and blp=yes. Please change
{{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' |
to
{{#if: {{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}} | '''{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' |
This also bolds the suffix, which looks nicer. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure there is consensus for that? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The parameter should be documented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Recently at
Template talk:BLP sources, I proposed that we remove the {{{suffix}}}
parameter. In short, I don't believe that anybody uses it, since when we checked there, we found literally nobody was. It had been there for more than six years, as opposed to a couple months here. Anyway, all of the suffix stuff crowds the template and makes it less readable. There's that, and the fact that |suffix=
doesn't work unless |blp=yes
, and it would be easier to scrap a useless parameter then to bother to fix it. All said, I'll go ahead and suggest that the template be updated with the tracking category that is seen at the end of the sandbox version. Since it'll take a couple days for the category to fill with any instances, I think that'll be sufficient time for anybody who does have any objections to speak up. –
Compassionate727 (
T·
C) 23:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
before the tracking category code is added will not serve its purpose. Just need a confirmation before anyone takes action. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
is now deprecated.
Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters remained empty. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |removalnotice = yes
inside the {{
ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.
Omni Flames (
talk) 06:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to have {{ main other}} added to the first line so that only articles are categorized.
Currently the first line reads:
{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{{suffix|π}}}|π||[[Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}}
Please change that to:
{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{{suffix|π}}}|π||{{main other|[[Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}} }}
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As with {{ no footnotes}}, could the {{ yesno-no}} template be added to the BLP parameter? Not hugely important, but might make things easier for those unaware of the {{ BLP more footnotes}} wrapper template. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The links in the sentence Please help to
improve this article by
introducing more precise citations
point to a WikiProject page that explains how to add tags, and an essay that explains unnecessary abbreviations. Just remove them; they help neither newcomers nor experienced editors to accomplish the requested task. If you need a suitable replacement, perhaps
Help:Referencing for beginners would be actually useful.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 02:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template is mostly often mistakenly used instead of
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
because (1) it's called {{ more footnotes needed}} and (2) the wording is not terribly clear. The first reason is an innocent mistake that most editors would correct as soon as they read the full verbiage, except that the verbiage is not clear either because many editors use "references" and "citations" interchangeably. I am proposing that it be reworded:
This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.
This would make it immediately clear to editors that this is the wrong template to use for article that simply need more references. It would also help editors like me be able to do the targeted work I'm doing more efficiently. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an IT person. The page is all Chinese to me. I need to place a hatnote with the content
"This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
WHAT IS THE FREAKING TEMPLATE? Just one line, to copy and paste, user-friendly and short. Thanks.
Arminden (
talk) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{More footnotes needed|date=February 2021}}
Thank you, solved. Arminden ( talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This template should not be making the claim that the article is "largely unverified". It is perfectly possible that the sources provided do indeed fully verify the material. We should AGF the editor who created the page unless specific claims have actually been found not to be in the sources. Spinning Spark 18:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Should this template start with "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links ...
" as {{
No footnotes}} does, to make the two consistent with one another?
Doing so would indicate that this template is also appropriate for pages that where many references are listed under "Further reading" sections (ie. "related reading"). Many articles do this because the heading of "References" is already taken by the section for {{ reflist}}, listing the few inline citations that are present. In these cases "Further reading" often includes literature that could be used to verify statement in the article, although no-one has gotten around to doing so. – Scyrme ( talk) 21:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
jesus, this is really picky. you're saying the article has sources, lists references, and so on, but because they're not linked to the exact places in the text that they're cited from that an entire nag template needs to be placed on the article? don't you think that's a little silly? as if people are going to magically understand earth penetrating weapons so much better if the article had footnotes in specific places rather than a list of sources. come on, really. ... aa: talk 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:So fix it - why do people just add this tag and expect other people to fix it? This tag spam should be banned. Smallbones ( talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've made some tweaks to the layout of the template (and fixed some problems such as improper transclusion of interwikis) in the new sandbox. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This template is quite noisy and visually assaulting. Both bolded and unbolded text run in and out of bluetext, there's an orange stripe at the left and a colour image. This mess could be alleviated by removing the bold attribute from the text – it is ineffective as used in any case as the rest of the text is so short. Thank you,
Skomorokh 15:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen this template used both places.
Where does it belong?
For what it's worth, most cleanup templates that aren't "-section" or "|section" belong at the top of an article. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) Over two years later, I still see no one but Road Wizard suggesting this should be used at the top of articles instead of in the refs section, so I'm updating the documentation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I for one think it belongs to the top on a case-by-case basis. Some articles have a huge amount of text, a trivial amount of inline citations, and a modest sources section. There is no indication whatsoever that the section match the text - it may well be problematic or obsolete itself. In those cases, it's good to warn the reader just like with {{ refimprove}}. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've just made a change in the Template:More footnotes/sandbox to make the "please" message a bit more compact, similar to the format of {{ refimprove}}. If there are no objections, we might as well incorporate the change into the live template. TheFeds 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the current wording of this template, it is not really appropriate on article pages. It is a maintenance template, requesting clean-up of format and layout but not directly challenging the authenticity of the content in the way that Template:Unreferenced does. That kind of commentary has always been held on the article Talk pages.
Infoboxes like this one are inherently disruptive to our readers. They distract from the content and reduce the professionalism of the presentation. Infoboxes on the page itself should be reserved for only the most serious maintenance concerns - ones that every reader will care about. Things like this are important but should be posted to the article's Talk page for resolution.
Unfortunately, the format of this box does not currently lend itself to posting on the Talk page. I would appreciate an alternative wording and layout that was better suited for Talk. Any suggestions? Rossami (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:template messages/Cleanup#Style tweaks to referencing templates for a discussion relating to the styling of {{ unreferenced}}, {{ refimprove}}, {{ no footnotes}} and {{ more footnotes}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Should it link to {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}#References}} or {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/#reflist}} - not another page. 'This article includes a list of references' - link to them? ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This talk page shows several years of low-level but unresolved disagreement about whether this template should:
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-section
and |section
templates. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 16:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link underneath the words "inline citation" should point to WP:INCITE, not to WP:CITEFOOT. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This tag doesn't help anything. It should be removed on sight. If you think that an article needs more footnotes, please just add them, see WP:So fix it. The only thing this does is sit on a page and look ugly. Stop tag spamming now! Smallbones ( talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If the tagger wants to remove uncited material, that's fine with me. Tags that sit on pages for years are not fine with me. I think the theory of tags is that if somebody puts a tag on the page, somebody else will come along and fix the problem, "but the reality is that it just doesn't work that way." Why doesn't it work that way? Often because the tag spammer doesn't explain what the perceived problem is. Often because the tagger is on some type of ego-trip, trying to say what he thinks is ideally acceptable in this encyclopedia, without doing the real work himself. If you don't want to clean up somebody else's mess (not mine!), please don't add to the mess. BTW nasty looking tags and warnings are one reason that editor retention is down. Please don't add to this problem - just fix the problems that you see! Smallbones ( talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with the premise. The point is to tell the readers that the article has a general references section but that it does not necessarily support the content of the article. This is very much a meaningful thing to do; lack of inline citations is a genuine problem on Wikipedia. The complaints above appear to be more general complaints against cleanup templates as such - please move them to a more general venue. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that one person has been manually adding the tag in a bot-type manner to thousands of pages. The tag will no doubt remain on the pages indefinitely as no one else will add the requested citations and I would therefore question whether this is desirable. Any thoughts? ( Ukgeofan) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the issue parameter of the template, where it says [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{{1|'''biographical article'''}}}]], "biographical article" should be changed to "biography of a living person" for clarity. I did check this in my sandbox to make sure it works properly. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just realized a problem with the edit request I made above, when you invoke both blp=yes and a suffix. It would make the suffix into the pipe used in the piped link to WP:BLP. So, I've messed with the template, and I now have a fix for it. Please replace
This {{#ifeq: {{{BLP|{{{blp|}}}}}} | yes | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{{1|'''biography of a living person'''}}}]] | {{{1|article}}} }}
with:
This {{#ifeq: {{{BLP|{{{blp|}}}}}} | yes | {{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''about a living person''']] | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biography of a living person''']]}} | {{{1|article}}} }}
You can check the results at User:Compassionate727/sandbox3. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 15:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a minor formatting adjustment for when a suffix has been defined and blp=yes. Please change
{{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' |
to
{{#if: {{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}} | '''{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' |
This also bolds the suffix, which looks nicer. -©2016 Compassionate727( Talk)( Contributions) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure there is consensus for that? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The parameter should be documented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Recently at
Template talk:BLP sources, I proposed that we remove the {{{suffix}}}
parameter. In short, I don't believe that anybody uses it, since when we checked there, we found literally nobody was. It had been there for more than six years, as opposed to a couple months here. Anyway, all of the suffix stuff crowds the template and makes it less readable. There's that, and the fact that |suffix=
doesn't work unless |blp=yes
, and it would be easier to scrap a useless parameter then to bother to fix it. All said, I'll go ahead and suggest that the template be updated with the tracking category that is seen at the end of the sandbox version. Since it'll take a couple days for the category to fill with any instances, I think that'll be sufficient time for anybody who does have any objections to speak up. –
Compassionate727 (
T·
C) 23:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
before the tracking category code is added will not serve its purpose. Just need a confirmation before anyone takes action. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix=
is now deprecated.
Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters remained empty. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |removalnotice = yes
inside the {{
ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.
Omni Flames (
talk) 06:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to have {{ main other}} added to the first line so that only articles are categorized.
Currently the first line reads:
{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{{suffix|π}}}|π||[[Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}}
Please change that to:
{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{{suffix|π}}}|π||{{main other|[[Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}} }}
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:More footnotes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As with {{ no footnotes}}, could the {{ yesno-no}} template be added to the BLP parameter? Not hugely important, but might make things easier for those unaware of the {{ BLP more footnotes}} wrapper template. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The links in the sentence Please help to
improve this article by
introducing more precise citations
point to a WikiProject page that explains how to add tags, and an essay that explains unnecessary abbreviations. Just remove them; they help neither newcomers nor experienced editors to accomplish the requested task. If you need a suitable replacement, perhaps
Help:Referencing for beginners would be actually useful.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 02:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template is mostly often mistakenly used instead of
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
because (1) it's called {{ more footnotes needed}} and (2) the wording is not terribly clear. The first reason is an innocent mistake that most editors would correct as soon as they read the full verbiage, except that the verbiage is not clear either because many editors use "references" and "citations" interchangeably. I am proposing that it be reworded:
This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.
This would make it immediately clear to editors that this is the wrong template to use for article that simply need more references. It would also help editors like me be able to do the targeted work I'm doing more efficiently. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an IT person. The page is all Chinese to me. I need to place a hatnote with the content
"This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
WHAT IS THE FREAKING TEMPLATE? Just one line, to copy and paste, user-friendly and short. Thanks.
Arminden (
talk) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{More footnotes needed|date=February 2021}}
Thank you, solved. Arminden ( talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This template should not be making the claim that the article is "largely unverified". It is perfectly possible that the sources provided do indeed fully verify the material. We should AGF the editor who created the page unless specific claims have actually been found not to be in the sources. Spinning Spark 18:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Should this template start with "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links ...
" as {{
No footnotes}} does, to make the two consistent with one another?
Doing so would indicate that this template is also appropriate for pages that where many references are listed under "Further reading" sections (ie. "related reading"). Many articles do this because the heading of "References" is already taken by the section for {{ reflist}}, listing the few inline citations that are present. In these cases "Further reading" often includes literature that could be used to verify statement in the article, although no-one has gotten around to doing so. – Scyrme ( talk) 21:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)