Template talk:Retracted

Excellent!
Good idea! To be more informative, the template could include wikilinks to Retraction and Scientific misconduct. (See also Category:Scientific misconduct). To make it more noticeable, I suggest it be italicized. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Link note
Sandbox version now uses link note, which is now the standard meta-template for citation add-ons such as subscription required. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except it doesn't have the same behaviour as the current version, and the message isn't exactly what it should be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is different? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's what's different. Additionally, the sandbox version adds the category when the retracted paper is marked as intentional, and it should be the opposite behaviour. The category should be there when it's not marked as intentional. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 08:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How to handle "partially retracted"
How should items that are "partially retracted" be handled? (e.g. PMID11565755, cited in (HNRPAB)). Just a flat "retracted" seems possibly misleading. May be desirable to indicate that partially retracted, so treat with caution, but not totally retracted. Zodon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's an erratum/corrigendum, which is different than a retraction. But it would be good to have a bot seek those out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , see the newly created Erratum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion/use of this template
I had tagged this template as part of WPMED, but I see that was reverted. The main reason for tagging was to provide context for editors stumbling on this tag who wanted to know where it came from, why it was used, etc.  The same purpose may be served by providing a link to the background discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Zodon (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of "intentional" parameter
It seems like the only valid use-cases all have yes, with it being an error to omit that parameter but the value of the parameter actually having no meaning. Why do we have this parameter? DMacks (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * To mark the retracted article as intentionally cited, obviously. That the current use of the template is all about intentional use is good, it means no marked retracted article are accidentally cited. This would be rather different if say a retraction bot was around to flag articles as retracted and in need of review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems there are plenty of Category:Articles citing retracted publications that need to be reviewed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Unusual name (more like "verified" or "checked"), but a reasonable feature to have (and its default mode). DMacks (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Should use templates directly
This template calls pmid instead of PMID. That adds and extra layer. There are probably other redirects. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 16:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)