Wikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Two changes

Hi all, made a couple changes to the page:

• First, with these edits, I invited viewers of the page to help with the backlog. This includes using an external tool that is very useful at making the 300, 000 article backlog more manageable.
• Second, with this edit, I made the section about using the template less bullying and incrimination for adding the template: editors frequently add cns to articles which they don't have the interest, time or skills to research properly. We don't want the help page to be accusatory and create guilt for people who are doing positive contributions elsewhere on the site.

Let me know if there are any questions, Sadads (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Really excellent changes - now a much more useful little guide. I cut one sentence however, that seemed out of place - raising a question that would only apply to editors between two sentences referring to issues applicable to the (much larger) body of users who are NOT editors - and presumably have no idea what the citation needed tag is about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

More recent changes

I added a policy shortcut template link to WP:CITENEED. It has since been changed to an information page template by Moxy, though he/she originally had it as a supplement template. Either change is obviously better, but I'm curious if the "policy" has enough consensus to be considered an actual guideline, as it currently states it "...describes a communal consensus...". It's certainly a de facto consensus, but I'm assuming there's a more formal process to be considered "communal consensus"?    DKqwerty    04:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I just looked at Moxy's user page, and clearly he/she would know far more about this than I. (As an aside, I'm sometimes surprised by the occasional lack of formality on Wikipedia, especially when other times I make what I assume is a simple change and then my head's taken off for it.) At any rate, is there a formal process here?    DKqwerty    04:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Essay explains alot. This has never been a policy/guideline page. I made the edit after I saw your above addition to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION with an edit-sum stating policy link.....edit was fine...but this pages status within the community was not. This page is simply a "layman's version" of the templates documentation both are a type of essay WP:Local consensus. As for what essay banner to use...thought this was best from those at Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace. As for promotion to a guideline...with a bit of work it could pass the WP:PROPOSAL process.--Moxy (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

citation not needed.

I wonder about having a {citation not needed} tag, which possibly wouldn't show anything, but would be a placeholder for a removed {citation needed} tag. There are enough {citation needed} tags that I felt like removing, but wasn't sure what to replace them with. Some things really are obvious to anyone who might care. Some things are likely not cited. One that I recently noticed is a negative statement, which are rarely cited. (No-one writes a journal article saying that they didn't do something!) Gah4 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Tweaks

Thanks Sadads for reading my text so closely and tweaking bits you found prolix or unclear. Generally I approve; I have been writing professionally for well over fifty years now, and long ago lost any sensitivity to having my deathless prose meddled with by a pesky editor or two. On the other hand I have reinstated just a couple of things that used to make sense and ceased to after your intervention - and I have also further tweaked both your work and mine to further reduce any "accusatory" tone. I only hope I have not been so diplomatic that I might be thought to be patronising! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being transparent. Not completely happy with those revisions, but lets keep going back and forth with small revisions, so that we can respond to eachother. At the moment I am traveling, so I will take a closer look/edit tomorrow or the next day when I am not in airports. Sadads (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, I don't like the "It is a paradox" paragraph you made with this edit. This is because I think it is pure opinion that the "most thoughtful, responsible tags are inserted by the very people best placed, by their background knowledge of the subject concerned, and their familiarity with the sources, to find a suitable citation." The vast majority of Wikipedia is written by non-experts, and so many tags are thoughtfully placed by editors with little or no knowledge of the subject at hand. And we should be encouraging editors to source the content, or otherwise fix it, if they can. This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Preserving a burden. WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As you see there, there is a difference of opinion on who should source what, though, and S Marshall understandably became frustrated by some of the sentiments expressed there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very disturbed indeed by an apparent implication that ANY of Wikipedia is written by people "with little or no knowledge of the subject at hand" or that people with little or no idea what they are talking about are the people who should be editing articles or tagging them. I would never edit or tag any article on a subject on which I did not have at least some background, and I hope you wouldn't either. The only exception I can think of off hand is "Herbert 4 Mabel" style graffiti or similar nonsense. But this is not the kind of matter that we (ought to) waste time (both ours and that of others) on a "citation needed" tag to anyway. Anyone who can comment to the effect "I am not an expert" would be better confining his/her attentions to topics where (s)he IS "something of an expert" at least - although not necessarily in the sense of holding formal qualifications or being engaged in professional research in the relevant field. In fact "presumption of good faith" implies, surely, that we assume our fellow editors are not totally ignorant of the subject in hand - "all else confusion"!

But I'm sure this is not what you mean. I must admit that I am by no means sure myself that the sentence you don't like is the best way of putting things - it strikes me as a bit patronising. On the other hand - assuming that someone who wants to add a "cn" tag is (ideally, anyway) doing so from a background of genuine informed doubt as to the factuality of a statement, and is therefore more, rather than less likely that most people viewing his tag, to find the missing citation, seems a simple assumtion of "good faith". In this context "good faith" and "total ignorance" are, if not totally incompatible, then rather contradictory. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding minor edits (like tweaks or reverting vandalism), I usually edit topics that I am very familiar with. But, like many others, I also WP:Patrol, and occasionally become involved in topics that I am less familiar with...whether it's due to curiosity, a WP:Dispute resolution matter, or a matter involving our policies or guidelines. While I don't add tags unless I'm occasionally replacing an old tag or am adding a proposed merge tag, many editors here stumble upon a topic that they are not very familiar with and start tagging things out of concern. If they do it right, it's a good application of WP:Preserve. The wording you added makes it seems like editors need to be experts on a topic before they edit a Wikipedia article, and that's just not true. Also, people are likely to take the expert wording to mean someone "holding formal qualifications or being engaged in professional research in the relevant field." Template:Expert needed rarely works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hope the last small change makes what I am driving at here a little clearer. On the whole, helpful edits (especially helpful citations) tend to come from people with at least a vague idea what they are talking about. For such people to engage in wholesale tagging, with no intention to (ever) make any effort whatever to replace their {own} tags with the required citation, seems at best an awful waste. Editing (and especially tagging) text about stuff you know little or nothing about can be justified now and then but as a general rule it is really fraught - I think you agree with me that it is not something an essay like this needs to encourage. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assumptions you are making here Soundofmusicals: the most important use of tags in editing is from people that know absolutely nothing about a topic, and having difficulty understanding what the author. A tag indicates that whatever the knowledgeable/intentional writer of the article did doesn't seem to fit or doesn't community to a "general audience" a clear to understand statement -- so that person needs to make it fit better. Also, following up on Flyer: I write and edit in topics that I know nothing about, because I know how Wikipedia works (and nearly 100,000 and 500+ articles significantly expanded later, I still interact on an average day when not communiting organizing at least 10-20 articles -- most of which I know nothing about). I tag because I know I can get the problems in front of people that know something about the article and can make it more useful for a general public, at some point in the future -- even if it takes years to go through the backlog. Sadads (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sadads - I'm afraid we have a very different idea of what a citation tag is for. My reading of standard Wiki policy is that it is for asking for a citation of statements of doubtful veracity, or that otherwise need to be verified by a reference to a reliable source. The idea that a citation tag might be inserted by someone totally ignorant of a subject to make it clearer is absolutely astounding. How would the tag (or for that matter a citation for the statement tagged) make something clearer. Isn't there a "clarity" tag for just this situation? Sorry, but this kind of logic is outseide MY experience and totally alien to any expertise I might have - I do really need some clarification here because you totally do not make sense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Sadads. Soundofmusicals, this edit you made doesn't really the resolve the issue I expressed above about the non-expert aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please Flyer - none of the versions of this paragraph have ever actually said that ALL useful tags are inserte4d by people with a bit of background in a subject (although that would be pretty close to what I think) - the point was initially, and remains, more that someone capable of inserting a proper citation might at least consider doing so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarity tags.

On looking, I found several of these - they could be what is needed when text actually need clarification rather than (or even as well as) citation. In any case we don't want to ask for a citation for something because we don't understand it! I've also cut or reworded some more text that somebody felt people might find "insulting". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I was just noticing in High speed rail some unneeded {clarify} tags. One is on 'usually', which could have some clarification, but not much. Another is on 'traditional' which, again, doesn't need much clarification. That is, both are fuzzy enough already that there isn't much to say about them. There is no physical reason for a sharp boundary between 'high' and 'not so high' speed rail, so there really isn't a way to clarify the whole discussion. (Compare to supersonic vs. subsonic air travel.) Gah4 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject of clarity tags and their "relatives" is relevant here only to point out that they are distinct from citation required tags, and not to be confused therewith, as one of the participants here appeared to be doing... Or was this just me being hyper-sensitive? Anyway... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I keep finding Citation Needed where I don't believe it is. Sometimes I can figure out what to do about them, sometimes not. I did fix some clarity tags, too. I suspect you might be just a little too sensitive. I try not to be too sensitive, to do the things I can do, and not worry about the ones I can't. Sometimes I know I am right, but lose anyway. Oh well. Gah4 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

https://books.google.com/books?id=f6kZAAAAYAAJ&dq=captain+bill+mcdonald&pg=PP9&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is a book about Texas Ranger Bill McDonald that explains the San Saba mob rule. It does not list any other mob killings during that time.

2602:306:8B4A:5030:950C:FA71:816C:D305 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

The citation needed for the polychromatic evidence of the Augustus Prima Porta is: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-17888/?no-ist True Colors, Archaeologist Vinzenz Brinkmann insists his eye-popping reproductions of ancient Greek sculptures are right on target (Title of article)

Antaramh2014 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: @Antaramh2014: Please place this info on the talk page for the article that needs the citation. RudolfRed (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

http://www.retirementboom.com/gold-ira-rollover/ Goldexpert22 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Image used

The image of a man on a stage speaking with someone in the audience holding a "citation needed" banner is from xkcd licenced under a creative commons attribution-noncommercial 2.5 licence doesn't that mean that xkcd should be given credit at some point on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @WikipediaUserCalledChris: the image was released under a free license by the creator, per the record at commons:File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png. We have a ticket System that allows content creators to verify if they want content otherwise licensed, to be licensed different: its now CC-BY-SA and if you click on the image, you will find the full attribution. Sadads (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes by Soundofmusicals

I have reverted the recent changes by Soundofmusicals: because it introduces bunch of very vague metaphors: "battery of" is a metaphor, I don't understand it. "Iterpolation" is an advanced SAT word -- clutter is vague and unspecific. Sadads (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Battery" is not a "metaphor" in this context - but a very ordinary English word - in fact what other word might you use? "Several similar tags in close proximity?" but then what does "proximity" mean - isn't that a "hard word" by the standards of this post? Perhaps "Several similar tags close together?" (OMG - as my grandchildren might post at this juncture). For someone with an interest in military history, you must have heard of a "battery" of guns (or anti-aircraft missiles?) as well as a "battery" of electric cells. Don't understand it? Don't believe you! If your understanding of the English language was really that limited you would have no business editing English language Wikipedia at all. "Interpolated" is again not an unusual word, and by far the simplest, neatest way of expressing the meaning. As for "clutter" - that is actually a word that features in the text you keep reverting to, but which is eliminated by my edit. If you genuinely feel text is unclear then editing it to be clearer is much more constructive than reverting it to something you apparently didn't understand either. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

While I would agree that battery is in and of itself a common term, I did a slight double-take upon seeing it there myself. I know the meaning you're referring to, but I needed to take a moment to recalibrate, as it were. I'm not sure we can assume readers whose knowledge of English may not be that strong will be aware of the meaning of battery that you're invoking.

"Large concentration" would seem to get the job done with more clarity for those less familiar with the language than we are?

I'm not a fan of "interpolation", but I'm not immediately coming up with a better option on that one.

Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits by Salads

On the whole - well done, and thanks. A few quibbles, but they ARE quibbles and not worth my fussing over. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes by Soundofmusicals

I have reverted the recent changes by Soundofmusicals: because it introduces bunch of very vague metaphors: "battery of" is a metaphor, I don't understand it. "Iterpolation" is an advanced SAT word -- clutter is vague and unspecific. Sadads (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Battery" is not a "metaphor" in this context - but a very ordinary English word - in fact what other word might you use? "Several similar tags in close proximity?" but then what does "proximity" mean - isn't that a "hard word" by the standards of this post? Perhaps "Several similar tags close together?" (OMG - as my grandchildren might post at this juncture). For someone with an interest in military history, you must have heard of a "battery" of guns (or anti-aircraft missiles?) as well as a "battery" of electric cells. Don't understand it? Don't believe you! If your understanding of the English language was really that limited you would have no business editing English language Wikipedia at all. "Interpolated" is again not an unusual word, and by far the simplest, neatest way of expressing the meaning. As for "clutter" - that is actually a word that features in the text you keep reverting to, but which is eliminated by my edit. If you genuinely feel text is unclear then editing it to be clearer is much more constructive than reverting it to something you apparently didn't understand either. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

While I would agree that battery is in and of itself a common term, I did a slight double-take upon seeing it there myself. I know the meaning you're referring to, but I needed to take a moment to recalibrate, as it were. I'm not sure we can assume readers whose knowledge of English may not be that strong will be aware of the meaning of battery that you're invoking.

"Large concentration" would seem to get the job done with more clarity for those less familiar with the language than we are?

I'm not a fan of "interpolation", but I'm not immediately coming up with a better option on that one.

Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits by Salads

On the whole - well done, and thanks. A few quibbles, but they ARE quibbles and not worth my fussing over. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed span

Surprisingly, the advice on what to do "[i]f a particular part of a sentence or paragraph seems to require a separate citation" does not mention the template {{Citation needed span}}, which was apparently designed specifically for this purpose. Should we add something like the following?

The template {{citation needed span}} can be used to indicate that a specific part of the sentence or paragraph requires a citation. This may be helpful, for instance, if another editor modified existing sourced text in a way that appears doubtful, but you do not have access to the cited source.

Example:

This text was originally sourced by a reference at the end of the paragraph, but someone recently added this unlikely sounding clause. They also added a separate sentence. The rest of the paragraph was added at the same time as the reference.

can be changed to

This text was originally sourced by a reference at the end of the paragraph, but someone recently added this unlikely sounding clause. They also added a separate sentence. The rest of the paragraph was added at the same time as the reference.

--Boson (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point - my attempt to cover this produced a revert, however. Does anyone else believe that my changes were "inexplicable" - my rather testly re-revert nothwithstanding? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sindhis are considered part of the Canary Islands culture where many people have migrated over the last 60 years and where tourism from all over Europe spend their holidays throughout the year because of excellent weather conditions. The Canarios and Sindhis have many values in common such as family unity. Dhiraj Manmohan Chhabria (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the Talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please address your comments to the Talk page for the appropriate article. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens far too often on this page to be a result of stupidity or unfamiliarity with Wikipedia protocol. In simple terms, there must be a reason why so many inappropriate posts (from the point of view of THIS page) get mistakenly added here. Could this be corrected, please. Quite apart from the disruption to this page - some erroneously added posts might be important, even vital, in their proper context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago and Soundofmusicals: We could modify the edit notice to include better advice about how to use this particular page. Sadads (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I honestly suspect half the problem is that people aren't reading the edit notice to begin with. Changing the wording would consequently have no effect. A pre-posting reminder about the purpose of this page might at least cause some reconsideration, but I don't know whether that's possible. Maybe we need to conduct "exit interviews" of editors who post here by accident to find out why they thought posting here was the proper course of action. DonIago (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea of the "exit interview" is interesting - although I'm sure many people would view that as a form of harassment. The two things that puzzle me is that few if any of the inappropriate posts are by the same editor, or have any connection (however indirect) with the subject of this page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If it could be phrased delicately and in the form of "Help us improve Wikipedia" that would probably go a long way...it would almost certainly have to be personalized though, to have the desired effect.

WT:V and others have the same issue, though. IP and other editors show up there to ask for assistance or question issues that have only a passing connection to the Talk page in question. How they're getting from whichever article to here or one of the other Talk pages is a bit of a mystery to me. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

same here. i just try to confirm "citation needed" thesis for the first time, register and it isnt all too streigtforward. hope ill be able to add at times.  :) Go69mopar (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

personal citation needed

I just had the idea for a personal citation needed tag. This could be used when an editor expects to be able to find a reference, but doesn't have time right at the moment. It would not be generally visible, but would add the page to a special list for that user, such that one could eventually get around to it. Maybe it could still be visible, but not so big as the usual version. Gah4 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gah4: I could imagine an additional variable added to the citation needed template: but I am less convinced that it should be by editor; there is only a limited number of editors in the Wikimedia community, who consistently come back to work on their own backlogs (after all there is a neverending possible pool of work). Instead, we should consider a variable for "by WikiProject/topic" backlogs or something like that (though we get that data from bambot: https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/ ). The more efficient way, and long-term useful way to create these backlogs, is to do cross-sections like Bambot. Sadads (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that works. There is a certain set of things that I know very well, and would like to get back to some day. But otherwise, the backlog list has way too many that I don't know about at all. Gah4 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

74.192.204.12 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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. You have not requested any changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

https://maxstrategy.org/

Citation needed to www.maxstrategy.org Tanzila Mehwish (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Citation needed.
I have no idea what relevance the company is to any particular article, but we are NOT here to promote websites or companies. - Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Source page states:

"During the First World War, Sappho and her sisters saw service off the British Isles as hastily converted minelayers"

Also in general characteristics it states:

"Converted in 1914 to a lightly armed minelayer."

Change required:

Remove main body paragraph and sentence in general characteristics panel giving factually incorrect information.

Citation source proving statement is spurious are primary source Official British Admiralty Publications "Armament of HM Ships" of April 1914 onwards issued tri-annually for the duration of the war, which are held in the UK Public Record Office (reference ADM186/864 and onwards) which lists Sappho (along with her sisters Brilliant and Sirius) with full light cruiser armament in the Cruiser section. Sappho was therefore never converted to a minelayer. The 7 sister ships of her class which were indeed converted to minelayers (not hastily during the war as the current source states, but as part of a planned conversion in 1910, four years prior to the war) are already listed in the Minelayer section with reduced armament in the 4/1914 edition. 91.125.161.224 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

MLB players awards

MLB alumni reveal heart and hustle winners. July 2017. https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-alumni-reveal-heart-and-hustle-winners/c-242842318 ShakeithaG (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Shakibul7x (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You haven't indicated what you want changed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

113.210.227.155 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 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. NiciVampireHeart 11:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"[Citation(breaking-space)needed]" suggestion at least for tables.

There is a table in List_of_designated_terrorist_groups#Organizations_currently_officially_designated_as_terrorist_by_various_governments where the header is composed of horisontally narrow entries such as:

AUS

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

^[1]

However, if there is no citation the presentation becomes:

^{[citation needed]}

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

^{[citation
needed]}

Could anything be done on this? GregKaye 07:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@GregKaye: As you can see, the better place to discuss this was probably on: Template talk:Citation needed or the parent Template talk:Fix which is the code that appears to be inserting the non-breaking space into the template. Sadads (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sadads: I did not see but thank you. I've added a topic at: Template_talk:Citation_needed#Proposal_for_something_like_a_"Template:Citation-word_wrap-needed"_for_potential_application_in_tables GregKaye 10:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is citation needed meant to be used in talk pages also?

I added "citation needed" in a talk page discussion but an editor removed it saying "this is a talk page". I thought it was proper to add this template because an editor is making an unverified statement. Is citation needed meant to be used in talk pages also? Thinker78 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In short - I don't think so. DonIago (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are to discuss the contents of a page. References are allowed on talk pages, which is why there is a {{reflist-talk}} template. References are useful for convincing other editors of the need for a change to a page, and then convenient for copying as a reference on the page. So, I believe under appropriate circumstances it should be useful, but unlike on article pages, not having a citation, isn't reason to remove something. If a statement is appropriate to transfer to the article page, it seems reasonable to ask for a citation before, instead of after. Gah4 (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Or to put it another way - by all means include a reference to a remark or suggested addition you add to a talk page BUT do NOT add this template to something someone else has said on a talk page. If you think something someone has said on a talk page would need a reference before it was added to the article then just say so - something like "I don't think this statement should be added to the article without a reference to a reliable source"! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a section about the use of this template on talk pages - not exactly forbidding it but pointing out that in the context of a talk page a template asking for a citation is less helpful that a proper comment of ones own! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but then in the remark you can add the {{reflist-talk}}. That will remind everyone, including yourself, about the need. I suppose I don't see anything against putting one just after the previous signing, and then I suppose signing yourself. Gah4 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A "reflist" template produces a list of references used on a page. Nothing to do with a "citation needed" template which asks for a reference to be added. Otherwise, I find your last post more than a little confusing. Sorry. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but {{reflist-talk}} is for reference listings on talk pages. It has a different format than for articles. If talk pages can have references, it doesn't seem so strange to suggest the need for one. But as noted, tradition is not to modify other people's talk page comments, so you need to put the {{citationneeded}} on your own comment. Gah4 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References (and therefore reference listings) on talk pages are one thing. REQUESTS for references ("suggestions for the need for one") may well be appropriate, but why use a "citation needed" tag to make that request? Surely it is much more helpful to make the request in plain language (say, "can you please cite this") rather than a tag? You couldn't do that on an article page because it would disrupt the text of the article - but it is just fine on a talk page, where the give and take of a discussion is the very nature of things! With us yet? A request for a reference on your own post is of course quite absurd, as I'm sure you'll realise on a moment's thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, adding "citation needed" to your own post is not a very bright idea if you are requesting refs from someone else's text, because the template is used inline immediately after the text where the citation is needed. I don't see the problem in adding the template in other editor's posts, as well as other inline templates. Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A reason why use cn to make the request is to save text, save other reader's time, and pinpoint the text that needs the ref so other editor's can see that immediately also in case they haven't noticed. Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, why exactly is not helpful to add cn to someone else's unreferenced claims? And why is much better to instead add one's own text? Thinker78 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am very confused why this is a conversation.... I commented out that paragraph, because it wouldn't make sense to anyone.... it doesn't actually provide any useful guidance. If a template gets used in a talk page as part of a conversation, it gets used in a talk page: there is nothing that we can "dictate" towards other folks about that action (and creative use of templates in conversations should get people a barnstar :P). I think the more important question might be whether or not we should be including those pages in the tracking category for maintenance (my answer would be no). I might ask for a template editor to remove talk pages from the tracking categories, since that is not something that will need to be addressed in the backlog. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears that the template already does that see this Petscan report. So why would using this template on a talk page affect other users if it's just used as part of a conversation and indicates something relevant to that conversation? Or provides an example copied from text elswhere? Sadads (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There are over 11360 uses of the Citation Needed teamplate on talk pages. And if you look at the usages, they are completely legitimate conversations about the use of CN in a specific space. It seems like a long-term practice is to talk about these templates, and that the template itself doesn't track those pages in the backlog. Sadads (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This whole conversation is absolutely mad. What part of any of these points is unclear to anyone?

• In an article - we just can't add an inline comment like "please cite this" because it would disrupt the flow of the article, quite apart from being totally confusing for readers. This why we have a "cn" tags in the first place - they are relatively unobtrusive and leave article text fairly intact.
• On a talk page discussion there is simply no reason to "tag" something doubtful - in fact normally we would mount a reasoned argument against anything we don't agree with (like I am trying to do here for instance). If (as is not the case here, but might be in some discussions) one wants to see a citation for something someone has said - why the [naughty word expunged] do so with a cryptic tag when the logical thing to do is to simply ask for a citation in plain "untemplated" language. What the [another naughty word] is wrong with just saying "please cite this". If one would say this much one would very probably have more to say - like why the citation is required - but this is the very thing you can't do (o.k. you actually can to some extent but no one ever does) in a bare tag.

Do we even need to mention this on this project page? I have my doubts, because on reflection it is such a daft suggestion. Anyway... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been having a look at the tags that currently appear on talk pages - none I have seen fall into this category anyway - they are indeed all "conversations about the use of CN in a specific space" - or literal copies of matter from articles - neither of which is what we are talking about here: and essentially nothing to do with the OP's original query! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes whole paragraphs will be copied from article to talk space. Not so long ago, I found something that should be in a different article, but didn't know where. I removed it from the original, and copied it to the talk page somewhere else. I don't remember if it had a {{cn}}, but likely it should have. There is a general rule against modifying others' entries on talk pages. We could relax that for this case, if it seemed worthwhile. That seems more obvious for article text that happens to be in a talk page. Some time ago, I asked about a user specific citation needed tag: sometimes there is something that I know I should be able to find a reference for, maybe a better one than others would find, but don't have time at the moment. I want to mark it so I can find it later. Gah4 (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

{{cn}} is stronger than just a note about citing something. For that matter, we shouldn't need {{cn}} in articles, as we could always just request the citation in talk space, but again {{cn}} is stronger. I suspect often enough, citations are requested in talk space, when that seems more appropriate. Now, should we specifically allow putting {{cn}} in other people's talk entries? That seems worth deciding. Gah4 (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this article a set of firm rules and prohibitions? That has most certainly never been the intent of any of the work I have ever done on it. There are many of these "guideline" pages, and few, if any, of them are set in stone (many, in fact, contain specific disclaimers!) BUT having said that, NOT moving, editing or (worst of all) adding to another's post (at least without their permission) in ANY online discussion (including the freest most open forum quite as much as Wikipedia talk pages) is such an obvious no-no that again I fail to see the point. But even that is not a "prohibition" - just common sense and good "web manners". How is a "cn" tag stronger for [yet another impolite word] sake? We are so saturated with the current plethora of the things I sincerely doubt most editors (as opposed to poor confused "users") take very much notice of them at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, the things that get chewed over on this project.

• You can use {cn} in your own posts to make a point.
• Don't add it to others' posts. Unlike article text, talk posts are not joint efforts or common property.

Discussion over. Some merciful person please close this. EEng 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC) End

Just look at the category for the template.....perhaps we should make a talk page tag so we don't have so many talk pages in the category. --Moxy (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: Per my petscan queries above there are: 11360 uses of the Citation Needed template and none of them are in the category. This means that the template keeps the talk pages out of the maintenance category. Sadads (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)