Template talk:Full citation needed

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

Rationale[edit]

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.

Examples

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style[edit]

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)
 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.

Purpose[edit]

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)
Agree with Some1Redirects4You. This template serves a specific semantic purpose while, if anything, you have it backwards regarding necessity. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (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)

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

Does it go inside or outside a <ref></ref>?[edit]

The example provided in the documentation,

  • Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.{{Full|date=June 2017}}
    Result: Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.[full citation needed]

does not show where the template should go if there is an incomplete citation with reference tags. Should it be this way:

  • Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.<ref>''The New York Times''</ref>{{Full|date=June 2017}}
    Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.[1][full citation needed]
  1. ^ The New York Times

Or should it be this way:

  • Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.<ref>''The New York Times''{{Full|date=June 2017}}</ref>
    Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.[1]
  1. ^ The New York Times[full citation needed]

I believe that the template should be included outside the ref tags because a vague reference used multiple times might need a different repair each time it is used, as in my example where only the newspaper's name is given in the reference. Others may disagree. We need to decide and we need to say in the template documentation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Good question, and I'd like to know too, but I don't. It may depend on context. In your example, it's plausible that multiple references to one author or periodical would need to be replaced with multiple specific citations. In other contexts, it may be clear that one book or journal article is being referred to, and tagging one place rather than ten would be a lot less annoying for all participants. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)