Talk:Citation needed/Archive 1

Attention 90% of people Template:Fact is what you're looking for That is all. ⁪frotht 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?
Rather than showing a "deleted" message for this page, why not redirect to the appropriate Wikipedia help page which tells how users can insert a "citation needed" tag? This is the page of interest Citing sources, and the fact tag (the word fact enclosed by double curly braces) is the one they're looking for. Robert K S 08:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As of today, it's finally happened. However, I believe the re-direct (to Citation) is still unhelpful.  As mentioned above, users who enter "citation needed" into Wikipedia are really looking for Citing sources.  If I am able, I will be bold and make the change myself. Robert K S 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)  Alas, I cannot, it is still protected.  Moreover, this talk page may be more difficult to get to now, so it is unlikely people will know what they're missing. Robert K S 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Definently, that's exactly where I was trying to go --Taboo Tongue 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely unhelpful to search for how to use "citation needed" and have a deleted page come up. I realize that Wikipedia shouldn't reference itself but that isn't what the redirect is doing. It is a helpful way to navigate the Style guides if you don't know how to find them. I think this page should be allowed to redirect to Citing sources or more specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material. User:mrtrey99 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The real question is why hasn't this been done yet! But I'm also curious as to who thought it was a good idea to protect the redirect in the first place. -- Randall00 Talk 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - a redirect would be good. ParticularlyEvil 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. It certainly didn't tell me what I wanted to know. --Mr impossible 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you all. I was so frustrated, trying to figure out how to make a citation, with no obvious help, so I just typed "citation needed" into the encyclopedia search. The deleted page didn't help matters. I clicked on this discussion just in case, and finally found the answer ..in here. Wikipedia really needs to do a better job explaining the very basics, such as how to make a citation. --Strawberry Pudding Wings

Agreed. I came here looking how to insert a citation needed tag. Methulah 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This page should redirect to the Help files, or there should at least be some kind of explanation! Bobo12345 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitly agree, I came looking for citation needed tag help too. Justin Time

I agree as well. If someone comes up with a non-wikipedia use of the term "citation needed", and would like to use this page, let them, but otherwise, it would help a lot if information like this could be gathered without having to type Wikipedia: before everything. -NorsemanII 02:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for redirection to the Citing sources page; I came to the article looking for the citation needed tag syntax, and found the help here in the discussion page instead. --Jbaio 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another vote for the redirect --Klynchk

I vote for the redirect too, I came here wanting to know how to add the "Citation needed" thingy. --mcld 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm here looking for the link too... Thanks for at least putting the link on the talk page - at least that's saved me some more time searching! Steevm 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm here looking for the link, had to find it through old versions of the page, clearly usability dictates this page must ne a redirect, only a jobsworth could make a prosaic rules-based anti-common-sense argument against it.

Request for comment: Reinstate redirect
This subsection relates to a RfC posted on Requests for comment/Style issues for comments re restoring this redirect. Created 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to everything said above. Suppressing knowledge of how the Fact tag works is pointless. Khaighle 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC response: Redirecting seems like a very good idea.  Durova  04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the most pointless use of redirect possible. Someone searching for "citation needed" is not looking for the article on citation or even the Wikipedia Policy on citation they are just unsure how to have inserted into a text. If we could find a way to tell to use fact encased in two curly brackets without having the unbearable situation of Wikipedia citing itself(horror of horrors) then that would be awesome cause then I wouldn't to pull my hair out everytime I go searching for to display citation needed without having to pull my hair out because of how ignorant some people can be about people who are ignorant about the minutiae of Wikipedia. User:Mrtry99 0:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Typing citation needed into the search should link to this page Citing sources because that's where the actual information on inserting that phrase into articles comes from.

I don't believe anyone who types "citation needed" cares about knowing what a citation is. Change the link to the one above or at least add the information on citing an article on Wikipedia into the article on citation. Richard Cane 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:Fact
Could this page be directed to Template:Fact as that template is very hard to find from the citation page or any of the citation pages it links to. A few times I've wanted to add a but have had to search pages which use the template due to the complete lack of (visible) information on the citation pages. - Diceman 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would make sense. Finding the correct way to type "citation needed" in an article is currently a real pain in the backside if you're not a sufficiently frequent editor to have committed the correct combination of brackets to memory 172.201.125.172 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence w/Administration re: Redirect
I took the original issue to the admin that originally protected this redirect, and this is what I came up with:

Hi - You deleted and locked the redirect at "Citation needed". I and a few others would like this reinstated, please - see Talk:Citation needed for comments in favour. I hope you don't mind doing this. Thanks. --mcld 10:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sorry if it is bad etiquette to ask you personally to do this. I've just found Deletion_review so I've added it to that list. --mcld 10:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Somehow, this still hasn't been done. Whether it's bad etiquette or not to ask administrators directly, I don't understand why it ever got protected in the first place. -- Randall00 Talk 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Citation needed isn't a deleted protected page anymore. 1ne 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you're talking about. That's to prevent people from linking it to Wikipedia:Citation needed. 1ne 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Citation needed has an overwhelming amount of rational support for a more appropriate redirect. That's fine if you protect it to prevent people from linking to nonexistent Wikipedia policies, but the current redirect should at least point to the right article. As several users pointed out, nobody who types "citation needed" into the Search box is looking for an article on citation. -- Randall00 Talk 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great; consensus on DRV agreed with my protection move. 1ne 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, "that's great"?? Are you actually not going to fix that? -- Randall00 Talk 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is against policy to create cross namespace redirects per Redirect:
 * You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
 * 5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD), which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespace". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects. -- ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

''So apparently Wikipedia policy overwrites logic, even in cases where it doesn't make any sense. For all the emphasis that the other policies seem to put on citing reliable sources, you'd think that they would take five seconds to change it and make it easier for everyone. If ever there was an exception to the rule, this is surely one of them. Oh well, I tried.

-- Randall00 Talk 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I too ran into the same problem and while it makes sense to keep main namespace articles out of other namespaces (at least in terms of redirect) however, there should be other options that should be explored. I have three ideas (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
 * Update Citation so that the disambiguation text links to Template:Fact. (easiest)
 * Update Citation (disambiguation) so that either one of its entries or the disambiguation text links to Template:Fact.
 * Add a disambiguation link to Citing sources so that it links to Template:Fact.
 * The third option requires administrator intervention. I think I may do option #1 in a few days. --Stux 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect? Why not an actual page
I searched for the phrase "citation needed" not because I was looking for something else (as suggested by the talk above) but because I was looking for something about the spread of the phrase itself. Something like this in fact: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/citation-needed  Jacob (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a draft at User:Andrew Gray/Citation needed. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)