Template talk:Circular reference

Needed?
Why do we have this tag? If it's a circular reference, it should be deleted. If an editor is knowledgeable enough to tag it, wouldn't they also be knowledgeable enough to delete it? It takes as much, if not more effort to tag it than delete it. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes sense if the editor thinks that the tagged fact might be verifiable through other means, and is requesting for someone to find additional references. If that is possible, the fact should not be deleted. Diego (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Own tracking category
Currently this template categorizes pages in the generic "Articles lacking reliable references" categories. Any objection to giving it its own subcategory? It seems like this particular type of ref problem could easily be triaged, such as by verifying and importing a ref from the cited WP article, converting to a cn if the cited WP article does not support it, or converting to a bluelink of the text itself depending on the context. DMacks (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)