Template talk:Citation needed

Template:Inline cleanup tags
For some reason the template does not display on the mobile version of Wikipedia. That list of inline templates is quite valuable when editing and, when it was "hard-coded" into the documentation, could be consulted easily. Any ideas how to get that navbox to appear regardless of one's device or wikiskin? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not specific to Inline cleanup tags, it's because it's a navbox. Navboxes don't display on mobile, this is a controversial design feature that goes back years and apparently we're stuck with it. See T124168. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Link problem?
Under "when not to use" there is a link reading "list of inline templates" that goes nowhere when I click it. I spent many minutes looking for what I needed, and if this link had done what I expected, from its wording and context, I would have found my answers much more quickly. I assume some editors are thrown off a track of intended edits at the point at which I persisted, so if there's a fix to be done, I hope someone with the ability will do so. The page is locked for editing for me.

Specifically, I suggest that the link point to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Inline_Templates (and in particular to the List of Inline Templates subsection). Al Begamut (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That section was removed, but the in-page section link was left behind. I have adjusted the link. Thanks for the note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Use with Template:More citations needed
Should this template be used in articles or sections already marked with the Template:More citations needed? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do, especially for specific claims in biographical articles. If a small section contains no references, I usually just put unreferenced section at the top of it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks 83.168.137.1 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be, but it's not a requirement. When I'm reading an article that I think needs more citations, I'll tag individual statements if there's only a handful of them, use the template Jonesey referenced above if only a section or two have multiple issues, and use More citations needed if multiple sections have problems...calling out individual statements as well in such a case isn't the worst idea (especially if you feel there's statements that editors might try to defend as not requiring sourcing), but my view is that by calling out the article entire you've already called out any unsourced content within the article. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks 83.168.137.1 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Could a numerical YYYY-MM date format be allowed as an alternative?
And also, could the date be used as an ordered first parameter in addition to being explicitly specified using the name "date"?

Something like  is dramatically less visual clutter in markup source than.

The way the template works currently, readers should be forgiven for thinking that the primary goal is to cause as much of an eyesore as possible to interrupt reading of both the text and the markup source. –jacobolus (t) 02:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please give examples of other cleanup templates that operate in the way that you suggest, and if there are none, please show why this one should be different from all of the others. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be great if all of the inline superscript templates worked this way! All of the other similar templates also cause significant amounts of visual clutter to markup source, and anything that could be done to improve that would be awesome. I don't really care about top-of-section or top-of-article templates. Since those are not inserted in running text, they are much less of an impediment to reading even if they are unnecessarily verbose.
 * I'm bringing it up here because cn is the most common one and is found on a large proportion of Wikipedia articles, so fixing it would make the most significant improvement to Wikipedia authors' lives. But if you think there's a better venue for this type of suggestion, I'd be happy to also propose it elsewhere. –jacobolus (t) 09:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer the unambiguity of having the date spelled out to the potential ambiguity of just having it as numbers. Similarly, "citation needed" is plain English, while readers may not know what "cn" means. However, I don't feel strongly about this; if other editors believe a numerical format is a net improvement, I won't push back. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That date format is ambiguous and is not allowed by MOS:DATESNO ("2001-07" is the ambiguous example given in the table). Many discussions and an RFC have taken place about it over the years. Citation needed templates are only clutter in the sense that they draw attention to the need for something to be fixed. When a citation is provided, the template (clutter) can be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what is ambiguous about it? MOS:DATESNO is about the use of dates in the text of wiki articles (including tables, citations, etc.), and doesn't say anything about non-rendering template parameters as far as I can tell. I strongly agree with it that "2001-07" would be an unacceptable format for article text. You are certainly right that the extreme ugliness in both markup and rendered output is a very strong incentive for wiki editors to never use (and remove ASAP with or without providing citations) the citation needed template. –jacobolus (t) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors who remove CN tags without resolving the situation (unless a source isn't reasonably needed) are editing disruptively and should be told such. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can tell people whatever you like. I'm just telling you what incentive was created. –jacobolus (t) 22:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be an incentive, but in practice I've rarely witnessed such a thing, even among bad-faith or apparently new editors. If you're trying to argue that as a reason for making this change, I'd like to see some recent examples. DonIago (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well for example, I personally try really hard not to add these templates even to somewhat questionable claims because I know how illegible they render both the markup and the output. I might remove the claim, start a talk page conversation, or take the (often significant) trouble to go look up a source, but if I'm feeling lazy I'll just leave the questionable claim alone, figuring it can be someone else's problem.
 * If I come across examples with a template which don't seem solidly justified (e.g. a claim which widely known in the field, or is supported by a source provided by the end of the paragraph or sometimes in the general references, etc.), if I take any action at all I tend to err on the side of taking the template out. Sometimes I go to the trouble of finding explicit references to these points, but I certainly won't feel bad about it if I don't. I have seen plenty of similar behavior from other editors, and I always feel a tiny bit of joy when these templates are eliminated, whether or not a reference was added. In cases where the claim seems controversial and hard to source, I'm as likely to just remove the whole sentence just to get rid of the ugly Citation needed. If the template were less disruptive (in markup, or especially in rendered output), the incentives would be different and behavior might be different.
 * On net, I think these poke-a-stick-in-readers'-eyes templates are moderately harmful for Wikipedia as a project and for its readers. YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 03:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To remove the template because it doesn't seem solidly justified to you would seem to be assuming bad faith of the editor who initially placed it? If you can determine who placed it you can reach out to them, or you can start a discussion at the article's Talk page; simply removing it seems to be devaluing the opinion of the editor who placed it.
 * If I saw you (or anyone) removing a CN tag that seemed justified to me, I would issue a warning to them, especially if they did so without leaving an edit summary explaining their decision.
 * Obviously if a CN tag has been in place for a significant amount of time, removing the unsourced information is a reasonable course of action.
 * You're the first person I've seen claim that the CN tag is "disruptive". I'll be curious to see whether other editors come forward in agreement with that perspective.
 * Poking the reader in the eye is what these templates are supposed to do. The whole point is to make it clear that we're less than certain than usual about the information that's been tagged. By removing them in cases where they're placed appropriately, you're leading readers to believe we have a level of faith in the material that may not be warranted. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by "disruptive" here I mean "visually interrupt the flow of reading", not the Wikipedia jargon sense of "disrupt the work of the project". cases where they're placed appropriately – as I said, I remove these in places where I believe them to be inappropriate, but way the templates have been intentionally made to be eyesores to readers and editors often tilts the scale against them in marginal examples. All I'm saying is, people would use these in a different set of places if they were less annoying; the strong incentive is to avoid them wherever possible. –jacobolus (t) 14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying! You're the first editor who I've seen state that they find the CN tags so obtrusive that they make a point of avoiding using them. If other editors feel that way, they really need to lend their voices to this discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whilst "2001-07" might not be ambiguous, "2001-02" and "2006-07" certainly would be. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why this would be ambiguous? We are specifying a particular month (not a year, not a range of years, not a day). There's no other meaning 2001-02 could have than "February 2001" in that context. –jacobolus (t) 07:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you have a personal issue with things that aren't an issue. Per MOS:DATESNO and making life clearer for other editors, I oppose this request. Gonnym (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * aren't an issue – just because many editors are desensitized or indifferent to markup clutter doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Maybe this particular improvement is impossible, but trying to make the syntax more concise where we can is at least worth a shot, considering how many of these there are everywhere. –jacobolus (t) 07:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)