Template talk:Full citation needed

Rationale
I've created this tag as an alternative to the tag, for the cases where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified sufficiently precisely to be located. The factuality may or may not be in question.
 * Examples
 * Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.
 * George W Bush claimed his "God is not neutral" comment was being taken out of context.
 * Pink elephants show a preference for Pepsi (Jackson 2001), where white elephants prefer Coke (Prince 1999).

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style
Why does this link to Citing_sources? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed this, too. (I am guessing that the section name(s) in "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" had changed.) I think it would be better to link to Citing sources (a.k.a. WP:CITEHOW). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ DoctorKubla (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories missing
Just used this and expected to find the article placed in some maintenance category but there weren't any. Should there be some maintenance categories added to this template so the articles can be tracked and problem dealt with? Keith D (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the template, per the discussion below. Double redirects fixed, please help with documentation if I missed anything. Dekimasu よ! 17:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Full → Template:Full citation needed – To match Citation needed, and because we've had a long-standing trend to move at least the more commonly used templates to descriptive names, and use shorthand monickers like full as shortcut redirects (e.g. cn and fact redir to citation needed). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move to have a name easier to understand. Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Purpose
I am not sure what purpose this serves. We already have Citation broken and multiple other templates to request specific citation details. --Chealer (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly Citation broken seems the pointless one. Between dead link and full both of which have clear meaning in my mind, it's not clear what else "citation broken" could flag. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Some1Redirects4You. This template serves a specific semantic purpose while, if anything, you have it backwards regarding necessity. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Big version of this?
In some cases people are so lazy with the citations that they just drop very incomplete citations all over the place. A prime example is Distributive_property which refers to who-knows-what books in most of its inline citations. So, is there a better way to flag these articles other than individually tagging every unclear citation? I suppose I could (and for now I will) add a cleanup tag with a custom message. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Date parameter
I didn't realise that there is a date parameter until seeing one on a bot edit. Perhaps the documentation could mention this (and any other parameters). Declangi (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please check. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Debresser, looks fine. Declangi (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it go inside or outside a ?
The example provided in the documentation, does not show where the template should go if there is an incomplete citation with reference tags. Should it be this way:
 * Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.
 * Result: Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.
 * Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.
 * Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

Or should it be this way:
 * Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.
 * Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

I believe that the template should be included outside the ref tags because a vague reference used multiple times might need a different repair each time it is used, as in my example where only the newspaper's name is given in the reference. Others may disagree. We need to decide and we need to say in the template documentation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I'd like to know too, but I don't. It may depend on context.  In your example, it's plausible that multiple references to one author or periodical would need to be replaced with multiple specific citations.  In other contexts, it may be clear that one book or journal article is being referred to, and tagging one place rather than ten would be a lot less annoying for all participants.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider this as relevant to the other citation maintenance templates (e.g. Citation needed&thinsp;). When there is a problem with the inline citation, the maintenance tags normally appear in the body of the article, so I would expect Full citation needed to follow suit. The Dead link template is different, as the cited reference may be perfectly valid, but has suffered link rot (which may be remedied by adding the archive parameters). At this present time, the template page demonstrates placing the template outside the tags, and my recommendation is that this is how it should appear. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2018
Please replace with sandbox. This requested edit changes the tool-tip from "A more detailed citation is required." to A complete citation is needed". It also changes the category from Category:Articles needing more detailed references to Category:Articles with incomplete citations and adds the same category as scheme for date-based categories.

Category:Articles needing more detailed references is currently populated by this template and Template:Specify which has a very different purpose. This template can be described as the in-line version of Template:Ref expand, which populates Category:Articles with incomplete citations, and therefore the latter is a better category for this template to populate. Bsherr (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't  redundant if you're specifying , or do you really want the page appearing in both parent & child categories? Cabayi (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, really good question. So this template transcludes fix. My reading of the documentation there was that you need both (i.e.  only works if   is null). This is consistent with the code currently in the widely-used Template:Citation needed, which uses both.
 * But I just dug through the code of fix and, if I'm seeing it correctly, you're absolutely right that you only need to fill in . Actually, leaving   empty will default to categorizing the page in Category:All pages needing cleanup, which would be desirable for this template. If you or anyone else can put a second set of eyes on this and confirm I have it correct now, that would be super appreciated.
 * Of course, none of this is in the documentation for fix. So that's my next project, I guess. Thanks for flagging this for me. --Bsherr (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, though I think your next project is creating a whole bunch of "Category:Articles with incomplete citations from [month] [year]" pages.  Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, where's that bot? --Bsherr (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, please replace with the sandbox one more time to add another "all" category: |cat2    =  --Bsherr (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, with  rather than   (checked with a preview of Alfred Hitchcock). It's weird that fix needs   to include the brackets, but not , though, now I look, it is documented. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, I actually need it to be . By leaving   null, fix places the page in Category:All pages needing cleanup, which we also want. --Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , Oops. Well, it proves tidiness is NOT a virtue. Done as requested. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Haha, yeah, this one's straight out of the best practices manual… --Bsherr (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Reason parameter?
There seems to be a hunger for a way to include a note / reason / details. Looking at the monthly parameter usage report there are 400+ uses of reason, 40+ where is set via free text and 20+ uses of other undefined parameters. Should we: just accept that editors will add extra text and document that as a valid or define reason or not worry about all this since we do not currently make use of the extra text? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Templated-protected edit request on 29 March 2021
Please change the following:

To:

Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)