Template talk:Citation needed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Citation needed/doc)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Inline Templates
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.
This page has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Citation needed[edit]

Link to IDF/EFFCA inventory: Bulletin of the IDF No. 455/2012 - Safety Demonstration of Microbial Food Cultures (MFC) in Fermented Food Products http://www.fil-idf.org/Public/ListPage.php?ID=23107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Citation needed}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"[Secondary citation needed]" Template[edit]

I suggest that we make this template (which generates"[Secondary citation needed]") for primary sources which need secondary sources to avoid pulling in original research, but, before we do, I would like to hear your opinions about my idea for this "citation needed"-related template. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There's {{better source}} which can be used with |reason=. Is this an acceptable alternative? Jason Quinn (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I also found {{Primary source-inline}} which is very much the same idea as "Secondary citation needed" was. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Either the source supports the statement without our introducing our own analysis or interpretation, or it doesn't. "Primary" versus "secondary" has nothing to do with it. Anomie 23:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not at all the only consideration, though. See WP:NOR. The policy is very, very explicit that WP:AEIS (analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic) claims may only come from secondary sources, not primary ones, unless we're directly attributing them in "this source said that" form ("According to a 2015 paper by ..."). If you're inserting a fact as such into an article and just citing a source for it without specific in-text attribute, it required that it come from a secondary source.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's because of people being dumb and treating the heuristic as a requirement, then writing it into misguided policy. Anomie 23:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is already {{Additional citation needed}}, but I will note that it is transcluded less than 100 times wiki-wide, so... Dustin (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You've found a template more or less unknown to Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates. I'll have to think about what should be done with it, it's kind of a new class requesting additional refs. WikiProject Inline Templates really needs some more active "members". If you aren't already, please consider checking the project out. It's a very good project to help develop your own editing skills too. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I have happened to find this template. I am sorry for requesting that; I did not notice that template, so I assumed that there were not a template. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jason Quinn: I didn't realize anyone was doing anything at WP:ILT any more. Even though I co-founded that project, it seemed to go moribund after a year of cleanup work, so hadn't been notifying it of new templates. The Category:Inline templates is probably worth examining on a regular basis for new creations, some of which are useful and some of which are probably redundant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Individual date parameter[edit]

Could we make it more detailed to a specific day and not just a month ? Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iady391: No, because Category:Articles with unsourced statements has one cat per month, so breaking it down by day would mean that we would need to have thirty times as many of those categories as at present. Also, remember that the |date=Month year pattern isn't confined to {{citation needed}} but also such templates as {{clarify}}, {{failed verification}}, {{orphan}}, {{refimprove}}, {{unreferenced}} - several dozen would need to be changed. Have a look at the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to appreciate the scale of this. There's a related discussion at User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 7#Please don't do this if there's already a date there!. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


The template page states "Please do not delete information that you believe is correct solely because no one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit." Is that not supposed to say "information that you believe is incorrect"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. What I believe the thrust of the statement is, is that if you believe the information is true, but it has been tagged, you should not delete it solely on the basis of it having been tagged. If you believe the information is incorrect then removal may be the best course of action. DonIago (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion about when to remove information doesn't seem to have reached a consensus. Anyway, thanks for the reply. It raises the question, though: what happens when one editor believes the information without citation (not about a living person) may be correct and another editor doesn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's when the editor who believes the information to be correct should provide a source rather than arguing about whether the information is or isn't correct. DonIago (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And until a source is found? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Until a source is found an editor is within their rights to remove material they believe to be incorrect and that cannot be verified. If other editors feel that the material should be reinserted, the burden is then on them to provide a reference. DonIago (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but, surely that material can stay for some time until either a citation is found or not. Otherwise, this template becomes pointless. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're asking for a personal opinion on such, I'll usually allow tagged material to stay for at least a couple of months unless it's clearly controversial. Then, if it's a large amount of material (versus 1-2 sentences) I'll often move it to the article's Talk page rather than simply removing it. DonIago (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I understood it to work, as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cultural meme[edit]

Wikipedia's [citation needed] has now become a cultural meme. Perhaps a Wikipedia page on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)