Template talk:Cite check

Wrong category?
Can this template place articles in Category:Articles needing additional references instead of Category:Articles lacking sources. Category:Articles lacking sources is for no references at all. Mattg82 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll change it myself in a week if no one objects. Mattg82 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help, talk, get involved!
This template ends with a trio of links "(help, talk, get involved!)". It's been like that since 2006 - I don't know if this was a template ending that used to be standard and has since been dropped almost everywhere, but it looks strikingly out of place because no other template ends like this.

Looks like someone removed it in 2012 and got reverted; I removed it earlier today and User:Debresser put it back because "Removal was not discussed", so here we go. What do people think? Is it worth dropping, rewriting as sentences, or leaving intact? --McGeddon (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I also don't remember such an ending in templates, and think they best be removed. Looks like textual pollution to me. The template has links to WP:CITE and WP:V. The link to WP:Fact and Reference Check called "get involved" might be useful, but is more appropriate on the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2016
Change "may contain" to the less ambiguous "possibly contains" much like this template. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)