Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 14

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017
It is completely irrelevant whether my grandad was married to my grandmother or not... I find this unnecessary.. please remove this comment. 86.169.172.117 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC) I find the bit about whether my grandad was married to my grandmother or not, completely irrelevant and not necessary.. please remove this part. Thank you. Jacqui Frank 86.169.172.117 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Requests for page protection. Izno (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

wikilink
Can you add the wikilink for Catalán ca:Plantilla:Citació necessària? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it's already there in the sidebar just below Brezhoneg and above Čeština; and in fact has been there since 08:12, 25 February 2013, which is when this edit was performed on Wikidata. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Instagram
FYI, your post has been removed. Feel free to repost, if you think you can provide more information. Perhaps contact the Help Desk first.

- Tossing out the last word, then deleting everything (with an invite to "go hunt through the history for my 'read only' last comment") is a cowardly act known as "ring and run". Further, I did not raise the issue of your stress levels, your own behaviour did that. If you wanted to see something more "constructive here", then how about having a little faith, not attacking a newcomer (or anyone else), and maybe even leaving things be for a day, like I asked, to see if anything more was forthcoming? Perhaps Ij.u was trying to report an issue about this template that somehow related to IG, but who's knows? Perhaps he'll never post again. But what's the worst thing that could've come from waiting that extra day? Other than a little good will of course. But, nope... things are much better now, so by all means, carry on... - the WOLF  child  02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted, then looked at it and said, "This really doesn't belong here, and took care of it while I was still looking at it rather than counting one someone else to do it. But look at you, using your imagination to attribute motives to me. Just like you've been entertaining yourself all this time by imagining that I'm "stressed" over all of this, a fantasy I've let you indulge in. And here you are again, posting off-topic stuff to this talk page. Couldn't you contain yourself enough not to resurrect this out-of-place conversation to this page a second time?
 * By the way, for future reference: If someone appropriately and in accordance with guidelines removes something from a page, but something about the situation sparks an interest in you in seeking to help the person who'd posted it, the ideal place to do that is on his talk page. Not by reposting the material that was properly removed.
 * Ok, it's your turn. You've now criticized me twice for removing this section, so you remove this off-topic conversation this time. But, since you're Mr. High Road, and since it won't cause you any stress to leave things alone at this point, since you can shed it like water off a duck's back, you should have no trouble removing it without further comment. (Oh, by the way, I also don't care to carry on this conversation on my talk page.)
 * There: aren't you so glad you reopened this? I'm sure it was well worth your while. Largoplazo (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, about "ring and run" ("ring"?): You mean, like your edit summary when you removed my original comment from your talk page, before taking it to mine? Largoplazo (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A comparison that is not even... remotely... close to being the same. I'd say "nice try", but actually, it wasn't. Now type out another giant wall of text for everyone to ignore. - the WOLF  child  21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 15 February 2018
A fully-cascade-protected redirect, Template:Proveit needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Citation needed


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Citation needed

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jo-Jo Eumerus!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  10:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noted that pages like this redirect that are fully protected by being on the Cascade-protected list, and yet are not doubly fully protected by an admin are not automatically sorted to the category. One of two things can be done to sort this redirect correctly.
 * 1) The first possibility would be to fully protect the page, which the Redirect category shell will automatically sense.
 * 2) If you don't want to fully protect the redirect, then the other thing we could do instead would be to add the R fully protected rcat to the redirect as follows:
 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Citation needed


 * If this is done, please add the R fully protected rcat as the first in the list just under " {{ Redirect category shell| ", so it will be the first one read by editors. I'm not really sure which option is better, so I will leave that decision up to you. Thanks again for your help and support!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not so certain that these redirects need all to be cascade protected. The target template, sure, but the redirects often are less commonly used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that would be a third option. Sounds like something to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items. In the meantime, what shall we do with the {{-r|Template:Proveit}} redirect?  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for something like a "Template:Citation-word wrap-needed" for potential application in tables
Can variants of the citation needed template be created to facilitate word wrap between the words? I had thought that an imposed addition of a newline between the words might also create an appropriate solution to the following:

I would imagine that similar issues are raised on other Wikipedia pages but in the main part of the page List_of_designated_terrorist_groups the cells in the table present with very unequal widths.

&emsp;&emsp;The table's header is composed of horisontally narrow entries such as:

AUS 🇦🇺

&emsp;&emsp; Cells within this table are then either empty or will typically contain nothing more than a symbol and citation/s:

[1]

&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;  However, if there's no citation, the presentation becomes:

[citation needed]

&emsp;&emsp;  I'd suggest that tables would be presented more neatly if the tag could be rendered (at least in tables) as:

[citationyellow needed]

By highlighted the potential breakable word space between the words it becomes apparent that there is limited overlap between this space and the end of the final square bracket. Up to the point of noting this overlap I had thought that a second option of something like of a "Template:Citation-newline-needed" might also be appropriate which might simply enforce a newline return but without need for the space and just mention this option in case it is more practical to reproduce.

Could something be done to produce a word wrap or newline facility between the words? GregKaye 10:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

inline tag suggestion
Hi,

Apologies if the wrong location, but this would seem the logical location for early consideration about an additional inline tag.

(short version )

The purpose of this would be to tag citations that indicate they take you to a specific article/page that provides the relevant sourcing information but the link terminates on the front page of that domain (e.g. instead of a BBC article it takes you to the BBC front page).

This is quite a common issue, but the closest tags or  both fail to actually cover it.

I wanted to see if there were some thoughts that agreed with me that there is both an issue and it would benefit from having this (or similar) as an additional inline tag Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tigraan has created and I've been doing some work on its early documentation, redirect etc. It's the first time I've created the documentation etc for a template so if you have any experience in the field please come help out :) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1. 138. 108.18.157.36 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for a Video timestamp needed template (8.1.2)
Hi, Would be useful for citations of videos that provide no point or timestamp within the video (like a page number in a document). I am going to try to create this, but haven't made a template before, so any advice welcome. Thanks very much.--Philologia (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does do what you want? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that! Was it there the whole time? If so, how embarassing. Thanks Michael.--Philologia (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Date filter needed
At present, if the date field is incorrectly populated e.g. with a citation as happened here, the template generates a spurious category.

This flaw was drawn to my attention by user:Liz and user:DexDor.

Please could an experienced template editor change this to generate e.g. "Articles with unsourced statements from uncertain date" if the date parameter is unrecognisable? – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Options may include (1) checking things like the length of the (supposed) date in the CN template (i.e. as suggested by FL), (2) checking whether the dated category exists (using ifexist) in the CN template, (3) using a bot (e.g. the bot that dates undated CN tags) to adjust CN tags with bad parameters, (4) referring to this in any process notes associated with WantedCategories. Presumably, there's a similar issue with other templates. DexDor(talk) 05:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) is already picked up by (as indeed it was with the Babytai Kamble example); (3) is one of the tasks of . I don't think there's anything to do here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If the template knows the date is invalid then, surely, it shouldn't attempt to categorize for that date. The incorrect tag wasn't fixed by the bot in the 10 day period (before the tag was fixed by FL). DexDor(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider the case of somebody in Australia editing early on 1 July 2019, going by local time; this could well be late on 30 June 2019 going by UTC. If they go by the local calendar and use, it should still be categorised by date and not left uncategorised. The monthly cleanup categories are created by AnomieBOT as required.
 * Then there is the case of an article which had some with dates well in the past, these are removed, or their dates altered to the current date with the effect that the monthly cat goes empty and is deleted under WP:CSD. Then the recent edits are judged to be detrimental, so the article is reverted to an older version for which there is general consensus. The cleanup cats should show once again, and not be suppressed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why if the template knows that the date parameter is incorrect (and hence it puts the article in ) it also (attempts to) put the article in the category for that (invalid) date - which shows as a redlink category and in WantedCategories. DexDor(talk) 11:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your example wasn't bot-fixed because AnomieBOT doesn't try to fix date parameters that are more than a reasonable number of characters long, to avoid deleting half the article if someone somehow screws up the  or something like that. Anomie⚔ 12:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 13 May 2019
A protected redirect, Template:Citation required needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Citation needed


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Citation needed

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Martin! Just curious as to why that redirect still populates ? As a template editor, I can edit it (and thanks for that as well), so it's not cascade-protected, and yet it is still in the fully-protected category? Just wondered.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  23:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I have no idea. I thought a null edit would fix it, but doesn't. Perhaps a bug with Template:Redirect category shell? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't found anything gnarly at the shell nor at R template-protected. The redirect was at some point cascade protected, but is not on that list anymore. It also hasn't landed in . I'll see what else I can find and also get another pair of eyes on it.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that there is something about the Redirect category shell template, or one of its meta-templates/magic words, that causes a redirect to populate the wrong protection category. In the Redirect category shell/sandbox, I narrowed it to the move-protection code, and unless there is something going on with the #switch function, I can't figure it out. It seems way above my pay grade, and yet it needs to be fixed.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  12:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is expecting to be used on a page move-protected at extendedconfirmed level. It's pretty rare used alone; it almost always occurs in conjunction with edit-protection to the same level. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not move-protected at extendedconfirmed though. it's protected at templateeditor. Not that it matters, the problem is that the protectionCategories in Module:Protection banner/config doesn't have entries that match for either level for move protection.
 * That table has a "key" made up of five components: duration ("indef" or "temp"), namespace, reason, level, and action. "all" is a wildcard. The key for pp-move on that redirect is "indef|template|all|templateeditor|move". Nothing matches that until it gets to the ultimate wildcard "all|all|all|all|all". Someone might add an entry for e.g. "all|all|all|all|move" to catch move protections that aren't sysop level, or "all|template|all|templateeditor|all" to catch templateeditor protections of templates for non-edit actions, or just change the value for "all|all|all|all|all" (plus a few others that have "all" in the fourth component) to something more generic like Category:Wikipedia protected pages (and also adding versions with "sysop" as the fourth component to maintain the Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages). Anomie⚔ 22:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this has been fixed in the Rcat shell. Just needed equal signs.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "fix" made it not apply pp-move at all for move protection at sysop and templateeditor levels (but it still will for extendedconfirmed level). I doubt that's what you intended. Anomie⚔ 19:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted . In a construct like  this means "if the move protection level is any one of {sysop, templateeditor or extendedconfirmed}, use the template ; otherwise do nothing"; whereas in a construct like   this means "if the move protection level is sysop, do nothing; if the move protection level is templateeditor, do nothing; if the move protection level is extendedconfirmed, use the template ; otherwise do nothing". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much and... interesting. That fix definitely removed redirects from, so I guess that puts it back to square one. I had isolated the problem to the move protection switch, and was surprised when the addition of the equal signs fixed the category sort, but I had no idea of the other problem it caused. So back to "Never give up, never surrender" mode. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  21:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much and... interesting. That fix definitely removed redirects from, so I guess that puts it back to square one. I had isolated the problem to the move protection switch, and was surprised when the addition of the equal signs fixed the category sort, but I had no idea of the other problem it caused. So back to "Never give up, never surrender" mode. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  21:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Template:CM" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:CM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Invalid OS (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 20
to ad inline words to improve the Voortrekker monument article on Wikipedia where it says citation is needed and I will use correct spelled words thank you Charl leonard (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DonIago (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

?
We have a large number of synonyms which redirect here.
 * citation needed and synonyms
 * fact – redirects to citation needed
 * dubious – a separate template
 * disputed inline – a stronger form of dubious

Should fact point here? Or should it point to dubious?

The function of citation needed is fairly obvious. It's for ostensibly true statements, which are not challenged in their truth, but do need sourcing per WP:V. disputed inline is for those which are challenged, to the point that a Talk: discussion is required (it's not specifically clear if this question relates to the statement or the citation. dubious is a milder form of this (and per the current wording, only if sourced) where the truth of the citation is doubted specifically, rather than the truth of the statement.

fact is unusable. Its purpose is unclear, it's 'bot-replaced to citation needed anyway. At present it seems more like a trap for the unwary than anything useful. We would be better without it. As it is, editors might fact-tag something, because the unsourced content is wrong, and that is then converted to a request for citation of the error. Which all too often simply encourages a sloppy Googling for that same incorrect fact, and we then use citogenesis or an equally dubious process to fix the error in place irrevocably. Many of these errors are subtle: it's easy to find bad sources which support them.

So, what should we do with fact? How should inline issues, particularly for the questioned truth of unsourced content, be noted? Must these be escalated (and always escalated) to disputed inline and the need for a Talk: post?

Or should we reinstate fact to the same level as citation needed? With separate resultant categorization, and without the 'bot replacement to citation needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed in table
In tables, such as those used in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland and other COVID-19 pandemic pages, the text appearing as a superscript, "citation needed", is very wide. For the purposes of not making tables to wide, I've created a variation on this template, which is identical, except that only "cn" appears in the subscript.

Here it is: Template:Citation needed in table. Boud (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's a check. The world is round.. It's probably not a good idea to make an abbreviation for this, at least until/if it becomes popular. Boud (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020
Hi, my name is Brandt Teale, a former motoring journalist. This paragraph is in Wikipedia has a Citation Needed tag: 'After the Plymouth Valiant turned out to be a success in the United States (starting with its 1959 introduction), Chrysler released Australia's first locally assembled Valiant, the RV1 (R-series). It was officially unveiled by South Australia's Premier, Sir Thomas Playford, in January 1962[citation needed] and was assembled at Chrysler's Mile End facility.[2]' It says a citation is needed for date of the car's unveiling. The National Register of R & S Valiants has vehicle number 31 selling on 20 January 1962 and states it as being 'two days after' the model's release. I hope this is a help. Cheers, Brandt 110.142.198.220 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DonIago (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to specify what the citation needed refers to?
I found the following construct in weasel inline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Weasel_inline

I need this to clarify the following line from a wiki in another language:

"Designed by Jack, IPv6 is destined to replace ipv4."

How can I clarify that the claim under dispute is its destiny, not its designer?

If I can't do this I'll probably solve this by rewording without changing the claim, or by reworing by changing the claim. But I'd like to learn how to clarify the citation needed without modifying the claim, for cases where such rewording might prove more difficult.

Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Or, use the reason parameter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
I want to add content to Nixon Korir pages 41.212.71.195 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC) he is a member of parliament in kenya.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights or suggest edits to another article. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please post your request on the talk page for the article in question. --  S. Hinakawa  (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Maint category
, can you restrict Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters to article space? Thanks. MB 05:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have admin rights to edit this template, but I have proposed a change in the sandbox. The proposed change would use the normal unknown parameter check that templates use, assigning to any articles using this template with parameters other than the supported date, name, and reason parameters. There is no good reason to check only for 1, a parameter that has been deprecated for many years, when it has only about 200 uses. As you can see in the monthly parameter report, there are hundreds of articles using dozens of unsupported parameters. This template is long overdue for this update.
 * This standard parameter check would also add a message for editors, viewable only in preview mode, warning that an unsupported parameter was in use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you going to ask and admin to make this change, or do you want me to? MB 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added an edit request template. Admin, please replace the template with the contents of the sandbox. I have tested the sandbox on the testcases page and at Special:ExpandTemplates. As far as I can tell, it works as intended. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What does the parameter name do? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * &rarr;
 * I'm not sure exactly. It appears to assign a tracking category, but I don't know beyond that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please look at articles that use the variant. These seem to be causing an error now - saying the "spanned text" is an invalid parameter. Maybe the change needs to be temporarily backed-out? Unless I am missing something, correct usage of  are causing error. MB 02:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, that's really bad. I used the usual script to add a parameter check to, and the script missed two parameters entirely. My mistake for not checking the script's output. I have corrected the problem and will purge the false positives from the error category. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and not freaking out! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , It seems like no one else noticed! Now there are a couple of hundred problems instead of several thousand. The old "deprecated" category is empty; I can request deletion, right? (or you can if you want). MB 22:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , It seems like no one else noticed! Now there are a couple of hundred problems instead of several thousand. The old "deprecated" category is empty; I can request deletion, right? (or you can if you want). MB 22:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Paste-ready example without reason parameter?
I have a simple request: can someone please add a paste-ready example without the reason parameter? (alongside the existing one, of course!) Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why bother? If you don't want to use the reason parameter, just leave it out. That said, see Template:Citation needed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested it because, like many (perhaps even the vast majority?), I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have found it necessary to supply a reason; the need for a citation is usually obvious. Like yourself, I simply want to make Wikipedia a better place and, with all due respect, I don't see how providing easier access to one more option goes against that principle. :) It doesn't clutter the page.


 * Furthermore, other templates do offer such an option. See Template:Unreferenced section for an example.


 * Cheers, and a happy new year!

1980fast (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:要出典" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:要出典. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alcremie (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Källa behövs" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Källa behövs. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alcremie (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Référence nécessaire" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Référence nécessaire. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alcremie (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Category bug
Starbase, Texas is in the category Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2,021 instead of Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2021. It looks like this happens only if the citation needed template is in the info box, otherwise it works normally. ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a quirk of Infobox settlement. Any citation needed tags have to be placed in a "footnotes" parameter, otherwise the template code will try to reformat the tag's output with extra commas. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , reasonable explanation. I will remember this.  Also, thanks for fixing that article. ~  Ase1este charge-paritytime 12:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: parameter
Hello,

I have implemented a parameter to change the wording of the text and tooltip to indicate that the tag applies to a whole paragraph. My edit is implemented on the template's sandbox and has a testcase on the testcases page: Template:Citation_needed/testcases. Can this be implemented? I don't know how to give the parameter multiple names, however, so if someone else wants to add some (such as, for instance), I'd be grateful. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The documentation is loaded with links, so it's hard to find, but Citation needed span or unreferenced section should work fine for marking a whole paragraph. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation needed span still says just "citation needed" though, as opposed to "citations needed", implying the span needs only one citation. Unreferenced section would only apply if the section in question had no references. The use case for this parameter would be a single paragraph that has no references. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That template has reason, which should suffice. Or you could ask for a plural option for that template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you not think it would be useful to have a plural option for both this template and the citation needed span template? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Citazione necessaria" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Citazione necessaria. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alcremie (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This template is used on roughly 1% of all pages.
By my calculations it should be changed to roughly 7%. MattSucci (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The figure is calculated by code within . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 May 2021
1969, ' 1979, '1989 '1999 '2009' 2019. citation needed

Correct date: 2020∆ ™#xxYxx¥X¥x#®©✓ 96.90.207.97 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you were aiming for, but I think you put it on the wrong Talk page in any case. DonIago (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is the talk page for Template:citation needed. Request your change at the talk page for the article in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Die vorherige Seite
Zitat erforderlich? Ernst (MT) (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When this template is placed in an article, it means that there is a statement in the article that may need an in-line reference to a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Date not displaying on hover-over on a page I tagged
Was thinking it must be a bug? Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aseptic_meningitis&diff=prev&oldid=1045595816 for reference.--Phil of rel (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You forgot to specify the date parameter. A bot will probably soon fix that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, whoops, thanks for the help.--Phil of rel (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Better translation needed"?
I don't know where to put this comment, it's not directly "citation needed". It may be of use to someone.

I've needed to say [Better translation needed]; there doesn't seem to be a template, and I wouldn't think it's worth one. I simply used. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Will Not English inline work for you? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful to know, but not applicable for my need, to attach to an existing, awful, Google-translated paragraph (see Flag of France, search for "translation").  (later) You've given me ideas; the Cleanup translation page has links to lots of variants, and the section version of Rough translation is what I mean, and also suggests adding the text to "pages needing translation". Pol098 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, Rough translation is probably what you want then, like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggestion, and for fixing the article. Pol098 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is verifiability important or just an option?
The text in this topic seems to indicate that maybe you shouldn't use the template, that overuse is a problem. I have a different opinion: that adding information to Wikipedia without sources is a problem of galactic proportions. Entire articles, thousands of words, often appear with 10 citations or less. How many articles is this true of? How reliable, then, is Wikipedia? Allreet (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not, that's the problem. Any website written by unpaid (often untrained) volunteers can never be 100% accurate. The best we can hope is that if text is referenced, the reader will then look up the reference in a library or somewhere, and read for themselves what the sources say. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Automatic insertion of comma into year
I was looking at the page Queens, and it has a tag in the infobox. For some reason, a comma in added automatically to the year, even though there is no such comma in the code. This is causing the tag to show up in the category Category:Articles with unsourced statements from August 2,022. There are several other articles with the same issue, as it can be seen from the category page, and they all have the tag in their infoboxes. How can this be fixed? Shuipzv3 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shuipzv3, In that article, cn was used in a parameter that is expected to be a population number and the infobox template is applying number (thousands digit) formatting to the date. I fixed it by moving it to the correct parameter (population_demonym) MB 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonesey95, hey this error went undetected because it was in this redlink category but NOT in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Can you look into that? Thanks. MB 18:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)