Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 4

Deletion
I think we need to remove the mention of it being deleted from the template. Concensus is already very clear on the deletion page, and honestly its going to make a mess out of pages. As people subst this, they will have to go back and remove this from any page they subst it on until this is removed. Not to mention on articles that may require more than a couple citations, it begins to look messy. --Crossmr 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * not to mention it makes it look on the article like you're saying the information in the article may be deleted (which it may, but the fact template shouldn't be saying that)--Crossmr 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Overuse in a single article
In the recent deletion discussion, Dryguy made a good point: "Template:fact also tends to be over applied. Citing sources is good and necessary, but I think the ease of insertion of the template leads to overuse and cluttering of otherwise good articles. Often, a paragraph expressing many ideas needs only one reference, but the uninformed are likely to come along and litter every sentence with tags. A better approach is to bring it up on the talk page - that way, cooler, wiser heads prevail. Verifiability is a must, but that doesn’t mean that citations need to be applied with religious fervor to every last little detail." This is something I've seen myself -- a paragraph where litterally almost every sentence is tagged as needing a cite. There are better ways to approach things, the talk page being one of them. There are also other templates that deal with citations and verification that might be more appropriate. For example, Template:Unreferenced puts a textbox up that can be put before a section that is totally unsourced. Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean we have to treat everything as a nail. :-) --DragonHawk 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I try to do is if I find that I'm going to tag 2 or 3 sentences in a paragraph is instead put an unreferenced and then explain on the talk, but I don't just leave it blank. I want a tag there to indicate that something may be wrong with that bit of information. --Crossmr 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea
While I agree this template should not have been deleted, I think the obtrusiveness of the template is a problem that needs to be fixed. My idea is to change [ citation needed ] to [ ? ]: this would let editors know that something is not cited while only minimally interfering in the article. Thoughts? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Well, there you go - people thought of this before me, just needed to read the entire page above me. But this still needs to be discussed anew, I think. So - thoughts? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While experienced editors might know what that is, Joe Schmoe and new editors would not and it would lead to confusion, or them possibly ignoring that and not realizing there may be a potential problem with the information. --Crossmr 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Joe Schmoe and new editors aren't going to be looking up citations to replace the template; whoever really matters will know. If they don't know, they can click on the questionmark and find out. And a question mark automatically puts doubt into whatever it follows - enough doubt, I think. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Whoever really matters?" I would think that would be the average user, not editor. Anyway, I think that the question mark is way too small. (I couldn't even tell it was a question mark until you mentioned it.) — Mi r  a  08:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I may not have been clear. The average user matters in terms of two things: they need to be able to read the article, and they need to know that a statement might not be verified. The question mark does both of those things; the "citation needed," however, intrudes hugely on the former. As to removing the template, however - which is, after all, the goal, no? - the average reader doesn't matter, because he/she isn't going to be the one to do it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the question mark idea quite a bit but I honestly don't see it being clear enough relative to a potentially tagged passage of text. Netscott 16:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A question mark formatted as a regular citation would serve just fine, and its function should be obvious to most readers (and a mouseover tool-tip or single click would inform the rest, once and for all). Perhaps it would be more clear without the unnecessary italics, in one of the formats normally used for footnote references: at normal font size,&#91;?&#93; or as a normal superscript.&#91;?&#93; —Michael Z. 2006-07-02 17:00 Z 
 * Another idea: &#91;citations?&#93; . Netscott 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or: &#91;cites?&#93; . Netscott 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hrm what about &#91;authentic?&#93;


 * Please don't assume that this template is only used as an accusation of inaccuracy. —Michael Z. 2006-07-02 19:06 Z 
 * I never did. don't make assumptions about what I intended. We're asking for citations because we can't verify the information. What about &#91;verify&#93; --Crossmr 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that last. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well at least we have 2 people who do. Does anyone know if it would be possible to create a mouse-over or some other way to track when the fact template was put on the page, i.e. when you hover over the word it might pop up something like "June 12, 2006" so you know how long that material has been sitting there waiting for a fact? it might help the cleanup of some pages so you don't have to spend 15 minutes going throuhg history to find out how old it is.--Crossmr 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I inferred that [authentic?] was questioning the authenticity of a statement. [cites?] and [verify] are better than [citation needed].  How about [ref?]—is that too cryptic?  —Michael Z. 2006-07-06 23:12 Z 

I like plain [cite?] personally :) RN 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * &#91;cites?&#93; makes more sense in my mind because it is frequently the case that a passage of text needs more than one citation. (→ Netscott ) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Only problem with cites is that its a bit of slang. Cite is a verb, and cites is a past tense, not a plural. Cite as a noun is just a shortened form of citation, with the plural being citations not cites. I don't think we should be using slang in our template. Same with refs. While we may understand what it is, we need to make it plain to Joe User what this means.--Crossmr 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * &#91;citations?&#93; gets around such difficulties. (→ Netscott ) 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or &#91;citation?&#93; . It seems to me that consensus is that we need a change. Any objections to me (boldly) changing the template now? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm good with either citation? or verify.--Crossmr 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The word should be plural as "citations" to cover all possibilities. (→ Netscott ) 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay that makes sense.--Crossmr 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, though, [citations?] sounds a little awkward, because you might only need one. [verify] gets around the plural/not plural problem, though. How's that? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With all of this back and forth I'm beginning to think...don't touch the text and just leave it as it is... it's been that way for some time and really it is fine. (→ Netscott ) 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just try it and see what people's reactions are. In all likelihood, no more than a shrug. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To reduce pure shock from a significant change then I would recommend [citations?]... it's shorter but still has the ring of what is currently in place. (→ Netscott ) 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who's just discovered this recent change, I'd say the most jarring thing is the fact that [verify] links to Citing sources rather than the less surprising Verifiability. Yet WP:CITE is the correct page to link to; couldn't it say [source?] or something instead? User:Angr 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template does not show in printable version
Is this intentional or a bug? My initial thoughts are that the printable version should match the on-screen version. Thanks, GChriss 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is good, you can't do much with it elsewhere. I propose to add cleanup metadata for cases like this. Frank@217.251.173.14 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the {editprotected}, I don't have any idea what you are requesting. Add {editprotected} back with a clearer request.--Commander Keane 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you define your request a little more? My understanding is that this template doesn't do anything more than display [citation needed], and extensions would be a good thing.  I not quite sure how the language codes fit in.  Thanks, GChriss 12:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that question for me GChriss? Well if it is, the way I see it is that GChriss requested that this template be printed. 217.251.173.14 disagrees (or at least I disagree), so there is no consensus for the change at the moment. So I removed the {editprotected}. I am also confused about the language codes, but perhaps that is a suggestion about introducing an option to print meta data like this template.--Commander Keane 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the question was for 217.251.173.14, who also added the {editprotected}. But you did touch on my original question -- why do you think the template should not be printed?  Thanks, GChriss &lt;always listening&gt;  &lt;c&gt; 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat's creative combination of vandalism and the fact template
has, after realizing that his vandalism was futile, combined vandalism with the addition of some dozens of Fact templates. Now he claims that his vandalism cannot be reverted because he also added some dozens of these tags to the article in the same edits.

Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? I know it is obvious, but if this is not mentioned somewhere, there might always be users like Anwar who will do it.

The last time he did this was in the Babri Mosque and Hindu Rashtra articles:


 * After making large blankings of sections and references on Babri Mosque   which were reverted, he then adds the fact templates and in the same edit removes the reference (!!), deletes text and references, and adds strong POV to the article.


 * Anwar adds fact templates and in the same edit he deletes the references.
 * For example he deletes the reference: "(P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, quoted by Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p.153)" and adds the fact template in the same edit for the deleted reference.


 * Other examples, where this user adds the fact template and in the same edit deletes the reference, blanks text or references and adds strong pov are      and by possible sockpuppets.

Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? --Msiev 08:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need a special rule. Avoid instruction creep.  Vandalism isn't allowed, period.  Now, what you're describing isn't outright vandalism, but edit-waring, POV-pushing, etc.  But those aren't allowed, either.  We don't need to say "They aren't allowed with a template, either".  If a user is causing damage, revert the damage.  If a user continues to cause damage, follow the existing producers for handling that.  Using this template is just an attempt to distract others from the real issue, and given that we're having this discussion, that attempt appears to be suceeding.  :)  (Note: I haven't checked into the reported controvery, but I believe my statements apply regardless of how accurate Msiev's statements are.) --DragonHawk 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What to replace the old category with?
The old category that was used by this template to categorise articles with statements going against the official verfiability policy, ie, Articles with unsourced statements, was deleted in the main because people both think it is unuseful due to its size, and that it is inappropriate to categorise articles going against this particular policy as they distract readers from what is really important...

As such I am calling for someone to suggest a better mechanism, even though I totally disagree with the second argument, and it is just ignoring the problem and making it harder for editors to find articles which are unsourced... I would prefer that some system at all would be available to track these, other than "Whatlinkshere", which is both unordered and hard to track progress with. Ans e ll 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition to description?
I added the following statement to the description on the template page, which was instantly reverted by William Allen Simpson.

"especially in the case of biographies of living people.",

Not only does this addition do no harm to the description in any conceivable way, but it is also directly supported by a July 12 mailing list post made by Jimbo Wales, in which he stated.

"If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!

--Jimbo"

On reviewing the edit history, I notice that Simpson may have merely erred/been lazy in his attempted revert of User:Ta bu shi da yu's earlier edit, but I believe this may still be worth discussion. --tjstrf 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And the change isn't something I see as necessary.--Crossmr 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Could an admin please protect this article? It's becoming a yo-yo and the template is too widely used to be jerked around every day. There's a general rule about templates: the more widely used it is, the more often it is edited - which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. Protection is the solution, it's worked elsewhere. This template needs to be stable and reliable in function and appearance. -- Stbalbach 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose protection, since none of the changes made have lasted very long anyway, and were of minimal significance. Protection is for cases of vandalism, not just normal edits. --tjstrf 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tjstrf... there was a minor squabble... unless actual warring or vandalism commences there's not much need for protection. (→ Netscott ) 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All it takes is one vandalism on a popular template to cause major problems, this is not a normal page. Template:Main was protected for this reason. Also I'm not sure what the resource load issues are every time this template changes if that's a problem. Anyway, this template is popular, you can count on increasing churn from people trying to change it, hope your vigilant! (me dropping off watch list, just a suggestion from past experience and seeing it repeat here). -- Stbalbach 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For sure, it could cause problems, but no more than vandalizing templates like Template:POV or Template:merge might. And those aren't protected. At most, semi-protection might be in order, and only then after repeated vandalism has actually occurred. --tjstrf 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reworded summary of deletion vote
After reviewing the discussion at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1 I tried to reword the summary at the top of the discussion page. 66.167.252.79 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC).


 * I support the change in wording based on my interpretation of the discussion. It gives it more flavour instead of implying that the only reason was a technical glitch. The flavour was hugely in favour of keep and as such the withdrawn was a natural conclusion for the ultimate good of the deletion process if nothing else. Ans e ll  11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this template I started certainly has been a little controversial. However, it's a great tag, because it is so easily used and so handy to point out facts that haven't got a source in a relatively unobtrusive way! At least none of our critics can say that we don't make it clear what is and isn't sourced. Not only that, but as soon as I see the tag it makes me think "I wonder if this statement is supported by the facts", which means I question what is written. That's a good thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't tally the votes in the deletion summary and this was not a candidate for speedy keep due to the deletion votes. This discussion was had at the time of placing the tag. In the future leave them alone, there is no reason to change them. The fact of the matter was that the nom was withdrawn due to a procedural issue.--Crossmr 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, there's no prohibition on tallying the vote in the deletion summary; IMHO such a statement can been seen as a minor case of gaming the system. But more to the point, the current wording is very uninformative. It borders on (most likely unintentional) deception because it implies that some unspecified procedural technicality was all that prevented the template from being deleted.  The template deletion process really only provides for two decisions: Keep or Delete, and in this case the decision was to Keep'.  For all of these reasons, I'm in favor replacing the curent summary with either of the following:


 * User:66.167.139.6 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I think the second one ("The result of the discussion was keep") is a good choice. We don't need to interpret the result of the discussion; the discussion like is right there for people.  It's more "NPOV", if you will.  Another choice (for the nit-pickers (which I sometimes am)) would be just "The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn."  Per Dryguy, it was not just the technicality that caused him to withdraw the nomination ("Outcome is already clear anyway."). --DragonHawk 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After the vote being closed in under five hours, you cannot claim that there was any result or that it indicates any consensus. Most readers of this talk page didn't even know it was taking place before it closed.  You would be leaving yourself open to accusations of stacking or rushing a vote.  —Michael Z. 2006-07-19 14:08 Z 
 * That's correct. The AfD did not run its course, and in 5 hours regardless of the opinions there, a proper amount of time was not had to reach a concensus. The AfD was closed as was proper. This discuss was had at the time of the closing and I see no reason to bring it up or change the template now.--Crossmr 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You both make a good point. Indeed, now that you point it out, I think you're right -- calling it "Keep" would also be misleading.  That would be closing the polls early, so to speak, and we don't want that.  But, in the spirt of nit-picking (I did say I do that!), I think the current text is also potentially misleading.  Like I said, in Dryguy's own words, he withdrew the nomination not just on the technicality, but also because he felt the outcome was clear.  So perhaps a simple "Withdrawn" would be more accurate.  Looking for guidance, WP:DELPRO doesn't even mention the possability of withdrawing a nomination, so perhaps the fact that the TfD was closed early is itself a procedural violation.  Meh.  I don't really care that much.  Nevermind.  :) Cheers!  --DragonHawk 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think just a simple "request withdrawn" will do. If someone wants a detailed explanation, they can read the request page and draw their own conclusions.—Michael Z. 2006-07-19 19:11 Z 

Growth and appearance
Please don't feel offended, but I am sorry that the nomination had to be withdrawn in less than five hours without being announced on this page, before I or most other editors even had a chance to see it. I agree with dryguy's concerns about the appearance of this template—it is not well designed, and could fulfill its function without looking like an example of ill-informed typography. I'd rather see its appearance improved or the template removed.

The template's incidence has doubled in the last 67 days to over 18,000 articles, being added to about 150 articles every day. It's still growing at only a slightly lower rate than the total number of articles on English Wikipedia. Since it is coming soon to an article near you, why can't we make it look more professional? —Michael Z. 2006-07-18 16:46 Z 
 * We have an idea section up above. If you have some ideas on how it should look you could make some suggestions there.--Crossmr 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with how it looks now. It may be slightly ugly, but when people see enough of these in a single article, they do take notice. I would like to mention that I've seen 2 articles where they actually made a section entitled "unsourced statements" out of the tagged sentences, which is imo ridiculous. I deleted or relocated both of them, but it was still a rather surreal experience. Especially since it wasn't newbie editors doing it either. Our concern should be education about use more than appearence. --tjstrf 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it should stand out, rather than being a "good" professional thing. I think the banner tags that are placed at the top of articles look more ugly than these tags. Ans e ll  00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree they often do, but they stand outside the article text and don't make it harder to read by distracting the eye. "Professional" doesn't mean "hidden", and drawing an appropriate amount of of attention isn't synonymous with "ugly".  I think this label can still do the intended job of pointing out required citation references, without being an eyesore.


 * Many of the proponents seem to also assume that being an eyesore somehow makes editors find references and replace this template when they otherwise wouldn't, but this seems to be empty talk unsupported by evidence. The addition of this template to ±150 more articles every day seems to argue the opposite. —Michael Z. 2006-07-19 01:41 Z 


 * The 150+ extra page uses per day also says to me that people are not extremely worried by it being too ugly to use. Although I am not very good with aesthetics myself, at least on my skin, the tag looks okay and is noticeable, which is what I want, especially as the categorisation was removed recently. and I am left with no automatic way of seeing which of my favourite pages the tags are being used on. Ans e ll  01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's being used so fast because it's just a lot easier to write than it is to actually fix it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to a note

 * Hmm I'm getting a strange idea -- how about so that the "ugly, unprofessional, ... text" goes in the references&footnotes section instead of the main article text?
 * Do people see MediaWiki footnotes as synonymous with references, in which case footnotes shouldn't be used for the lack of references? -- Paddu 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be misleading. SOme people would see the footnote number and possibly just assume its cited.--Crossmr 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very much agree with crossmr. If I see the number, I assume the statement has a source, I only read the references afterwards. Others doubtless do the same. So, you would have to read the full article to realize that a statement was baseless. --tjstrf 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting idea. The reference could be simply a question mark, like this example.&#91;?&#93; It would look like any citation reference to someone who's only interested in reading, but will look odd to anyone who is paying attention to references.  And the note in the references or notes section could be made to stand out quite a bit, say with a full explanation in a bold font (example below).  This would grab the eye of anyone who clicks on the link, reads any other citation, or simply scrolls to the end of the article.  The note could also have standard cite.php-style backlinks, clearly indicating the number of needed citations and linking to them all. —Michael Z. 2006-07-19 05:34 Z 

Actually, that might not be a bad form for it. Why not make it into the template Fact2? Also, added the superscript tag to it, hope you don't mind. --tjstrf 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Superscript or not should match the other references in the article. The note would probably be best at the end of the list.  Automatically constructing back-links for multiple instances would probably require this to be integrated into cite.php—is there a reasonably simple and reliable way to do it manually?  I suppose we could use standardized anchor names, like #needcite-1, #needcite-2, etc, and #needcite-note. —Michael Z. 2006-07-19 07:02 Z 


 * I like the idea of using [?] instead of numbers. We could do just what we were doing with ref/note until cite added support within MediaWiki, and then start using cite to do the job (may be something like  on the lines of that adds a [?], and modify
 * It produces something like:
 * The average reader just sees a subtle question-mark citation reference, hinting that there is no citation—if they care, they will perceive that there is a citation lacking. If they're puzzled, they can click once and forever after remained clued-in.
 * Citation cops can add something like the following to their user style sheet, which will make it a bit easier for their overworked eyes to spot:

.uncited { color: pink; font-size: gigantic; text-decoration: convulsion-inducing-blink; }


 * Semantic web goodness: imagine a search engine which builds a list of uncited statements from a set of Wikipedia articles (doable today using AWB, I think)

Articles will remain uncluttered by typographic planters warts, but editors in the know [taps side of nose with a conspiratorial look] will be able to spot the varmints from a mile away.

This would also be compatible with existing usage, sans parameter. The reference mark will still be highlighted in whatever way an editor pleases, for visibility's sake.&#91;?&#93;

[Reminder: this template's explicit intent is to encourage editors to supply a reference and not to flag a statement for readers as dubious] —Michael Z. 2006-08-20 05:36 Z 
 * An excellent idea. It's frequently ambiguous what exactly is considered in need of reference.  Of course, you'd need to maintain reverse-compatibility. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. An excellent idea. This would have the added bonus of forcing the editor adding the template to clearly mark what they are asking to be cited. Sometimes sentences are tagged and it is not clear what exactly a citation is being requested for. Carcharoth 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be too busy in the near future to build a test version of this template. It might be a good idea to try it out under another name, then call for consensus to replace this one. I'm certain it can be made backwards-compatible. —Michael Z. 2006-08-22 01:30 Z 

citation requested?
The more I think about it, the more this seems a bit harsh. What about [citation requested]? RN 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Verifiability, it should be "needed". TimBentley (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What about articles contradicting themselves?
…Like right now when the article on Pablo Neruda says in one place that he died of heart failure and in another that he died of cancer? Do we have a more appropriate tag to put on such statements? If not, a new template is probably in order.

If someone comes up with something, may I ask the favor of letting me know on my user talk page? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contradict? --tjstrf 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)