Wikipedia talk:Citation needed

Citation needed

I think this following sentence needs to have a citation as it includes the specific number so it is supposed to be credible````

In 1953 a hoard of 7,499 coins was discovered; virtually all of them came from the mint at Rome; the most recent dated to the beginning of AD 257. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Je1004 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Trolley was noted to wear “ hats” on the Match Game, when his “ Toupee had not been compiled in time for his appearances on Match Game. Artchem1 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reilley not Trolley! Artchem1 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Photo Booths are not used only for passport photography but it can be used in parties, corporate events, functions, weddings, etc. Just one need contact photo booth rental service and hire them. The benefit of hiring photo booth is, it is cost-effective, can save decoration expenses and much more. Youreventplace (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Reilly, Charles

Reilly citation not necessary, as it is stated later in his biography of Personal Life. Please excuse. Thank you Artchem1 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Artchem1: this is the talk page for the template {{citation needed}}, you can either edit the article you refer to directly or if you want to discuss it first at the article talk page. Nthep (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Scope

It seems to me to be a fundamental problem with {{cn}} that readers (and potential editors of the article) don't know if it applies to the preceding term, whole sentence, or whole paragraph. People are supposed to discuss in talk, but rarely do. I suspect it wouldn't help to have separate tags for term, sentence, and paragraph, though. Any thoughts on fixing this? Gah4 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I usually just assume it goes as far back as the last citation provided but doesn't exceed a paragraph (usually). DonIago (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The template Template:Citation needed span does allow for specific facts to be tagged, but its not widely adopted (320,000 or so CNS, while only 2458 transclusions of the span template). I think its because the use of templates in that way is kind of nuanced from a user experience perspective (you need to understand how to wrap text in that way) and its not intuitive in Visual Editor or other tools. Moreover, mediawiki doesn't supporting annotation well, except on files, so you can't really "build" conversations that are closely associated with specific text (though the Talk Page Consultation provides some nuance into that). Realistically, talk pages are rarely ever used on smaller articles and are kindof dead-spaces except on the most active/controversial pages. Sadads (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the articles I am thinking about have well used talk pages, but not for talking about {{cn}}. I suspect that the people who add them aren't interesting in discussing them. I now put a reason= into the one that caused me to start this discussion. I suppose I might get used to doing that more often. Gah4 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

so this means that

32% were Presbyterian, meaning belonged to the formal classes of eccelestial workers; and the remaining 64% were non-practicing? or it means, that 32% were active-duty Presbyterian and the remaining 64% were off-duty, ?? therefore, "Lutheran" because: that assertion of fact, is contrary, in the sense, that those differences, are not themselves statements of religious identity; they are statements of "socio-economic" identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:CC01:FA0:7D1D:DE54:FEBA:813 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)