Template talk:Full citation needed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Full)
Jump to: navigation, search


I've created this tag as an alternative to the {{fact}} tag, for the cases where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified sufficiently precisely to be located. The factuality may or may not be in question.



Why does this link to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this, too. (I am guessing that the section name(s) in "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" had changed.) I think it would be better to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include (a.k.a. WP:CITEHOW). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done DoctorKubla (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories missing[edit]

Just used this and expected to find the article placed in some maintenance category but there weren't any. Should there be some maintenance categories added to this template so the articles can be tracked and problem dealt with? Keith D (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the template, per the discussion below. Double redirects fixed, please help with documentation if I missed anything. Dekimasuよ! 17:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:FullTemplate:Full citation needed – To match {{Citation needed}}, and because we've had a long-standing trend to move at least the more commonly used templates to descriptive names, and use shorthand monickers like {{full}} as shortcut redirects (e.g. {{cn}} and {{fact}} redir to {{citation needed}}).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to have a name easier to understand. Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


I am not sure what purpose this serves. We already have {{Citation broken}} and multiple other templates to request specific citation details. --Chealer (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly {{Citation broken}} seems the pointless one. Between {{dead link}} and {{full}} both of which have clear meaning in my mind, it's not clear what else "citation broken" could flag. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Big version of this?[edit]

In some cases people are so lazy with the citations that they just drop very incomplete citations all over the place. A prime example is Distributive_property#Notes which refers to who-knows-what books in most of its inline citations. So, is there a better way to flag these articles other than individually tagging every unclear citation? I suppose I could (and for now I will) add a {{cleanup}} tag with a custom message. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Date parameter[edit]

I didn't realise that there is a date parameter until seeing one on a bot edit. Perhaps the documentation could mention this (and any other parameters). Declangi (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Please check. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Debresser, looks fine. Declangi (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)